Given that the auto makers are, in a sense, the oil industry’s biggest customers, I bet the Cheney administration would have been willing to comp them.
Back to Main
September 27, 2005
WB: General Morons
Comments
CHRONOLOGY – General Motors credit ratings history
The following is a chronology of past ratings actions on
General Motors by Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s Investors
Service and Fitch Ratings:
..
Fitch Ratings rating actions on General Motors:
Date Action Rating
May 1980 — AAA
June 1980 Lowered AAA to AA
Nov 1986 Lowered AA to AA-
Dec 1987 Lowered AA- to A+
…
Oct 2004 Lowered BBB+/F2 to BBB/F2
March 2005 Lowered BBB/F2 to BBB-/F3
May 2005 Lowered BBB-/F3 to BB+
Sept 2005 Lowered BB+ to BB-
Well, the taxpayer will bail the shareholders out – just like the airlines. The management will get their options payment and the workers will lose their defined benefits. Customers – WTF are customers?
Business as usual.
got one of these shiny mailings from gm last week. advertised all the new full size guzzlers at employee cost. even the hummer. straight into the trash. what a joke.
Posted by: b real | Sep 27 2005 20:23 utc | 2
As stupid as the plan to continue to upsize their lines sounds there is actually no alternative. That is because they can’t make money on cars, large or small. So the plan should be seen as the only hope they have. No matter how slim the chance that gasoline prices will behave and consumers will continue to demand mega vehicles it’s the only chance they have to survive.
They can’t plan for high energy prices because they know the economic nation including themselves cannot survive in its present form with them.
In fact Ford and GM have no chance to survive anyway. At least not without bankruptsy which will allow them to abondon pensions and probably union contracts. They are dead men walking.
We will nuke Iran and take all of the Saudi oil and drive the rest of the world into depression in order to finalize our hegemony. There will be a cost of course, a gigantic economic dislocation. Most debt will have to be negated for a fresh start.
Posted by: rapier | Sep 27 2005 20:42 utc | 3
I don’t buy the argument that the union contracts and pension plans are what is killing GM, Ford and other American companies. There is a simple rebuttal. The Japanese car manufacturers have higher wage costs per person than the American companies (wages are higher in Japan), yet they are able to produce quality vehicles at lower prices. And they are profitable. Compare Toyota and GM and its obvious.
The fact that American car manufacturers are unable to compete with higher wage countries in their own domestic market (people outside the US do not buy cars manufactured in America by American companies) shows you that the problem is not high wages. Its my belief that the problem is managerial competence. For some reason GM, Ford and, I believe, American companies in other industries as well are managed by people who are not up to the job. I don’t know exactly why, but I am sure it is due to some sort of systemic failure to appoint quality people to senior management by the stockmarket.
Posted by: still working it out | Sep 27 2005 21:50 utc | 4
if current lifestyle trends continue, we’ll soon be naming our SUVs after continents instead of states.
New for 2015, the Chevy Antarctica!
As big and bad as the tropical paradise it’s named after! (snorkel optional)
Posted by: Night Owl | Sep 27 2005 22:10 utc | 5
Antarctica, has a nice ring to it, no? 1st thing that popped into my noggin too.
Posted by: gmac | Sep 27 2005 22:17 utc | 7
Billmon says:
The Big Three naturally hate this, since it means that if they want to sell more of their most monstrous, most profitable, but lowest-mileage vehicles, they also have to sell more small cars and “compact” SUVs. And since GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler can’t even begin to compete with the Japanese (much less the Koreans) in those size categories, they have to sell them at a loss — or forego some of their badly needed land barge profits.
But all three sell smaller cars in Europe, and Americans would probably regard most European cars as ‘smaller’. It’s just the US divisions that can’t compete with the Japanese.
Posted by: Gag Halfrunt | Sep 27 2005 22:47 utc | 8
I worked closely with an engineer who had senior experience at both GM/Saturn and Honda R&D. You remember Saturn, the bright shining hope of GM?
Honda R&D has a lot of control over its designs, although it has to negotiate with the factory guys. Saturn, on the other hand, seemed to have been run by the marketing department, who then negotiated with R&D and the factory. The Honda engineers are supersmart, and superproud of out-competing the other guys.
Saturn has smart people too, but how good do you think the morale could be in an R&D group that has to beg Marketing to implement their ideas?
I’ll bet GM engineers spend almost all their time on cost cutting changes and marketing driven changes whenever they do design reviews. And, yes, the parts suppliers that have served Japanese makers have higher reliability standards, much higher. It’s a tough life when you have to work for picky engineers instead of the “concept” guys.
It’s not the pensions.
Posted by: citizen | Sep 27 2005 22:47 utc | 9
It takes a special kind of stupid to think the future lies in larger vehicles. I could understand if GM was just clueless but they actually build appealing cars in China for the Chinese market. From the NYT:
LIUZHOU, China – In this obscure corner of southern China, General Motors seems to have hit on a hot new formula: $5,000 minivans that get 43 miles to the gallon in city driving. That combination of advantages has captivated Chinese buyers, propelling G.M. into the leading spot in this nascent car market.
Compact and utilitarian, these vehicles, called Wuling Sunshine minivans, hardly fit the big-is-better image of G.M., known in the United States for producing some of the largest gas guzzlers on the market, like Hummers.
Their development was led by an American, Philip F. Murtaugh, a native of Ohio and a maverick executive who was willing to zig while the rest of G.M. was zagging. Mr. Murtaugh was able to create in China the kind of innovative environment that G.M. has struggled for decades to achieve in its American operations. But whether G.M. can duplicate elsewhere its achievements in China or even keep its pace here is unclear.
In what may be a telling sign of the corporate culture at G.M., Mr. Murtaugh’s success in China led not to promotion but to his departure from the company. G.M. declined to discuss personnel matters, but both it and Mr. Murtaugh said he resigned and was not dismissed.
I want one of these $5000 minivans, not a Denali.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Sep 27 2005 22:49 utc | 10
Oh, I forgot to mention. Honda R&D hires from Purdue. Guess where the top GM guys come from.
Posted by: citizen | Sep 27 2005 22:50 utc | 11
Antartica does have nice ring. What about Chevy Americana – big bloated, wasteful, obsolete, arrogant, and utterly useless heap o’ junk that no one wants anything to do w/?
See the USA in your Chevrolet – while you go bankrupt and destroy the planet.
Posted by: jj | Sep 27 2005 22:51 utc | 12
I give up Citizen – where do they come from – the War Dept & it’s myriad sub-contractors?
Speaking of which Seymour Melman wrote decades ago how the cronyism & corporate welfare practiced by said dept. was doing horrible things to every industry it touched. The cost plus contracts were creating seriously dysfunctional orgs. that produced garbage ‘cuz no one cared – they’d be paid anyhow…Russian style.
Posted by: jj | Sep 27 2005 22:55 utc | 13
The Oildrum (oildrum.com) compiled a list of offsets for Katrina spending the Republicans are proposing that affect energy conservation:
$2.5 billion cut from Amtrak
$2.5 billion to Eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$479 million to Eliminate State and Community Grants for Energy Conservation
$220 million Eliminate the Next Generation of High-Speed Rail
$6.7 billion to Scale Back the Conservation Security Program
$5.285 billion to Limit Future Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program
$835 million to Eliminate the Energy Star Program
$25 billion in earmarked items from the Transportation bill, which includes many good programs to promote biking, ease traffic congestion and in general give people some other options than using their car.
From the Republican Study Committee’s “Operation Offset,” September 21, 2005
“Give us a quiet room, copies of the spending bills, a box of red pencils, and watch what happens.” —Constituent from New Mexico
http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/
Posted by: Trilby | Sep 27 2005 23:29 utc | 14
I have a friend who was top economist for GM about 20 years ago. He had a staff of perhaps 20 professionals. They followed economic trends closely. The idea was to provide some guidance to the management, which I imagine would mean some estimates of future gasoline prices. At one point GM drastically cut back the division to save money. My friend left to go back to consulting in Washington.
As to GM’s problem (and Ford’s), they are caught between a rock and a very fat place. Americans are overweight. They are exceptionally overweight in the midwest and south, where American cars tend to dominate. This is the main market for GM cars. If they were all to go small, everything would be o.k; but they are forbidden to collude, and no firm can afford to be the first, because it loses all those corpulent customers.
The best solution is bankruptcy, and start over. Like the airlines. Tough on retired workers, but America is a capitalist nation. It’s tough on all workers.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell | Sep 28 2005 1:09 utc | 15
Another great post Billmon. While hay prices 100 years ago was not the downfall of the buggy and carriage, the oil and environment situation are awakening more Americans to the uselessness of the automobile in the 21st century. Sometime in the next few years Americans will also realize that wasting 3 hours per day in a car is unacceptable, regardless of gas mileage, hybrid fuel, or bells and whistles. It’s no fluke that $67 billion worth of light rail construction is going on right now in the USA. Welcome trains and light rail!
‘still working it out’: Happened after Reagan took office,
a groundswell of young MBA’s who looked at their BA degrees
and went, Oh, s–t! So they stayed for another year, took on
a s–tload of debt, but boy, did it pay off when Reagan came
to power. All the engineers in management (that I know) were
gradually replaced by MBA’s, who reserved the former chiefs
as their go-to boys when they needed tech-speak. Otherwise,
it was TQM, bean-count, slash-and-burn. You may recall Ivan
Boeski, or Michael Milken or Maxxam Group?
I could tell you such stories of catastrophic MBA decisions!
Six-sigma black belts? I could make you puke from laughing!
Today there’s hardly an engineer left in management, and
that’s both public and private. All the Michael Brown’s in
the world have pushed all the ‘can-do’s’ out the door, so
they can set up their corner offices, their prize orchids,
their Amerindian pottery, their twin-screen spreadsheets,
and then pencil-neck their company right into the ground.
We had one once, who pushed in over the chief engineer
at some politico’s behest, and spent the next ten years
in his maxi-office, reading WSJ, playing with templates,
issuing process-and-procedures make-work, and generally
bending a blue-collar bunch of engineers into a failure.
When Higher finally called him on the carpet and gave
him his walking papers, his politico stepped in, and
gave him another six months to “turn the place around”.
The confirmed rumor? Pink slips went out in six months.
Hence the term, Night of the Living Dead. Brain-eaters.
People you step across the street to avoid smelling.
Someone, rarely, wins briefly, before getting hammered.
Google. minimsft.blogspot.com Linux, maybe. Sun, maybe.
But there’s a hundred H-P’s or IBM’s for every Google.
In US government, there’s a hundred-thousand Michael
Browns for every Vice Admiral Thad Allen. A hundred-
thousand dips–t pencil necks => $2,5000,000,000,000.
Welcome to the gulag, comrade. Would you like turnips
with your cabbage soup? The Politburo are now US(A).
Posted by: Trini Lopez | Sep 28 2005 1:17 utc | 17
still working it out: Although GM competes with companies that pay higher wages, no other industrial country has (a) stuck the employer with health care and (b) allowed employers to piss away pension funds during good years so they can sink in bad years. But the real problem is GM top management keep losing to Toyota, Honda, and even the Moldavian Scrap Metal Yard and Auto Works, without getting fired. Also it’s enchanting to see a company that claims medical costs are sinking it, put its political contributions on the side of the party that won’t help. Where were the GM adds during the Hilliary Health Horror screaming that “Insurance companies don’t care about the US losing manufacturing jobs, so they lie about our need to reform health care”. ?
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 2:07 utc | 18
Billmon asked: What would a rational U.S. energy/transportation policy look like?
Sorry to quibble, but you guys really need to consider a free market solution before you propound another bunch of govt distortions. Gas tax should fund highways. If certain states need highway funds, while other don´t, state fuel taxes should vary accordingly. Federal interstate highways were historically beyond the competence of Congress (e.g., Cumberland Road vetoed by Andrew Jackson) and are a legacy of Cold War military plans (Eisenhower) – which means, about as senseless as fallout shelters and Mutally Assured Destruction. GM and Ford are imploding more recently, but I´m sure everyone remembers the Chrysler bail-out, right? Contemporaneous with the Continental Illnois collapse and Texas S&L crisis, the free market has been in and out of Congressional cardiac care as long as I´ve been an adult.
We need to let GM fail, folks. It´s the grown up thing to do.
Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Sep 28 2005 2:17 utc | 19
So instead of giving people what they want, the new corp — ocracy gives the people what they want (them to want). Stalin did this when he purged all the artists, along with the spirit of the revolution.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 28 2005 2:26 utc | 20
Trini Lopez: Ah, Trini, don’t be so retrograde. Making stuff, efficiency, smart engineering, all that crap is past tense. The Army is run by Power Point Rangers, the Press Corp by Stenographers, and the Corporations by Spreadsheet Engineers. A business world where Costco makes great profits and gets criticized by Wall Street for treating employees and customers too well matches a Press world where Geraldo’s complaints about the NYTimes lying about him is an excuse for them not to retract, and a Military where an officer reporting torture is told to shut up to protect the honor of the unit. Sell on the sizzle, dude, and stop worrying about the bomb.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 2:45 utc | 21
Wolf DeVoon:
Non-essential recreational travel on the US Interstate system is an accident of history unrelated to their original purpose. The US Interstate system carries over 70% of the volume and about 80% of the value of the all goods in the US. The Intersate system of the United States is a huge economic advantage over countries of a similar size (Russia, China).
Posted by: joejoejoe | Sep 28 2005 2:49 utc | 22
Wolf DeVoon: Here’s my communist theory. GM’s feckless common stock holders who have failed to exercise any governance as the company slid into the toilet and their bondholders who have lost the bet should frame their worthless papers as souvenirs. The company cannot meet its contractual obligations to employees and retire-ees who should be given ownership of the debt free remnant and told to either sell it for what they can get or run it at their own risk.
One thing that really pisses me off is how banks and institutional investors who have the leverage to influence corporate behavior and the resources to pay for quality analysis keep getting first shot at extracting assets from the companies they bled dry.
We need an Argentina solution. Want to lend money to a corporation with a sliding rating and poor prospects so you can get higher payments? Great, but the risk is default.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 2:57 utc | 23
It’s interesting to see a post like this about General Motors.
You have no clue what you are talking about regarding GM’s recent behind-the-scene moves on hybrids or fuel savings via other initiatives. Absolutely no clue.
GM full size SUVs are a minor part of the story. But even with the full size line and the 5300 series engine, the next models roll out in Jan or Feb 2006. And the cylinder on demand engines will be available.
GM just sealed a couple of very interesting huge deals on the hybrid front. Bigger than any announced elsewhere. And Toyota is pissed off.
You will change your tune within a couple of years. GM will be one of the principal leaders for hybrid vehicles, along with BMW and to a smaller extent, Daimler-Chrysler.
It’s obvious that you have no inside senior level contacts within General Motors at this time.
Posted by: Movie Guy | Sep 28 2005 3:01 utc | 24
movie guy: Deals are not execution. I’d have to see some indication that GM was ready willing and able to execute – the firing of their China VP is an indication that they are still disfunctional.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 3:04 utc | 25
GM introduces the new double decker, 6 wheeled SUV: The Chevy Nero
Posted by: steve expat | Sep 28 2005 3:26 utc | 26
Who’s gonna buy American built hydrids from GM? Its great that they wanna make hybrids but it don’t help much if they put them in cars that break down and have a crappy design. I am amazed at the cars Americans drive. You don’t get car’s that crap in Europe or Asia.
Australia is an even playing field as far as car markets go and American manufactured cars from GM and Ford cannot compete. We get a few American cars imported over here to Australia and they sell in miniscule number’s because they are not in the same league as the Asians or Europeans on quality, design or price.
“cylinder on demand” ? That’s ancient technology available all over the place already. Toyota is pissed off? Unlike GM, they actually have money and effective R&D departments so they don’t need to sign deals to get other people’s technology.
If GM are about to turn things around by leading the change to hydrids then I say I’ll believe it when I see them produce at least one hybrid that can compete with the Japanese.
Posted by: still working it out | Sep 28 2005 3:36 utc | 27
@Steve:
The Chevy Caligula sounds better.
Nero ought to be a Nissan Model.
Posted by: Groucho | Sep 28 2005 3:36 utc | 28
@SWIO:
Looks like you don’t have a lot of Volkswagens down there.
Too bad. You’d sing another tune about European engineering.
Posted by: Groucho | Sep 28 2005 3:41 utc | 29
SWIO: You ozfellas can take Murdoch back and then we can talk. Right now, as I see it, you’ve launched an unprovoked attack on the rest of the world. Face up to your responsibilities. Put the bastard in some secure facility. And rejoin the community of nations. Otherwise, your outcast status is well earned.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 3:48 utc | 30
Making stuff, efficiency, smart engineering, all that crap is past tense. The Army is run by Power Point Rangers, the Press Corp by Stenographers, and the Corporations by Spreadsheet Engineers.
Which just points out that they are already doomed. The corporate structures they wander around, mumbling to themselves will be swept away and forgotten. All of it, all the polititians, all the souless middle managers.
People will look back in wonder. “They actually worked like that? How did they ever get anything done?” Yeah, tell me about it, but there were no alternatives, now there is. The endless controversies and managment schisms will be studied by some future historian the way we study medieval catholicism. Or not, maybe their work will just lay in some corner and rot.
This world is a river and if you just sit there and do nothing, create nothing, contribute nothing, it will simply flow around you and leave you behind.
Ever work on a collaborative project with one team member in India, one in Malayasia and the other in Czechoslovakia? How did we ever get anything done before?
Posted by: Brenda | Sep 28 2005 3:51 utc | 31
Groucho,
I think you misinterpreted my comments. I think European cars are great, and so do Australian car buyers. The VW Golf and Peugeot 206’s are all over the place. Not quite the same value for money as the Asian car’s but overall they are very good cars. Have to say though, I still think Japanese car’s are better.
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 28 2005 4:05 utc | 32
Re: Murdoch
I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.
But I will say this in our defense.
1) Murdoch is now a US citizen.
2) The News empire is in for some tough times as the Murdoch children leave the family.
3) We didn’t inflict Kerry Packer on you as well. We have two Rupert Murdoch’s in a country of only 20 million people.
Posted by: still working it out | Sep 28 2005 4:19 utc | 33
@SWIO:
Don’t think I misunderstood at all. I’m just amused at VW’s engineering, is all.
Posted by: Groucho | Sep 28 2005 4:27 utc | 34
GM this. Top news stories today on CNN:
1. Video: Mother cat nurses baby squirrel
2. Playmate appeals to Supreme Court
3. Older women, younger men
Oh beautiful, for spacious Ameri-heads.
Everywhere you look, everyone you talk
to, looks like Hillary Clinton at some
schmooze-fest, eyes bugged out on crack.
Everyone knows the apple cart tipped over.
Pencils 5c, anyone? Argentinian, the best!
Posted by: Telli Savalis | Sep 28 2005 4:29 utc | 35
Manuel is so proud of his new General Motors Uniform as he steps out of his hut with no electricity or running/flush water toilets.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 28 2005 4:32 utc | 36
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have the esteemed COO of Ford, Mr. Jim Padilla, whining because Toyota and Honda have corralled all of the Hybrid Car Parts! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9426006/
Can you imagine? The nerve. We used to be a country that made things. Car parts and stuff like that. Think stuff up. Design it and then…what the f**k, build it. But now we’re reduced to sucking hind tit and bitching that Honda, (that started out selling that little bitty car with the little bitty wheels/tires) and Toyota, (that started out selling Corollas?, Tercels? I think), are now kicking our ass and hogging all the Hybrid Car Parts. They-Are-Hogging-All-The-Hybrid-Car-Parts!!! Awwwwwww. That’s a cryin, f**kin’ shame. Jim Padilla and Ford and General Motors are American embarrassments. These companies are being run by corporate dolts in airtight bubbles. They haven’t got a clue.
Posted by: burro | Sep 28 2005 4:44 utc | 37
Iraqi oil? How passe..how unimaginative..
Price of gasoline got you down? If you’re driving a diesel vehicle in the South Pacific, you may be in luck. Vanuatan entrepreneur Tony Deamer has adapted his fleet of rental cars to run on coconut oil, a plentiful local commodity. Unlike with many biofuels, coconut oil doens’t need to be transesterized – mixed with sodium hydroxide and alcohol to change its chemical composition – to run in a diesel engine. Filtered and warmed to temperatures about 25C, coconut oil is a better than satisfactory substitute for “mineral diesel” – it burns more slowly, which produces more even pressure on engine pistons, reducing engine wear, and lubricates the engine more effectively. Deamer runs most of his vehicles on a mixture of 85% coconut oil and 15% kerosene, but has demonstrated that modified diesel engines run filtered coconut oil quite happily.
Even before recent price increases, diesel fuel was extremely expensive in the South Pacific due to the cost of shipping fuel from refineries. Coconut oil, on the other hand, is comparatively cheap – produced locally by boiling copra (dried coconut flesh) in water, it retails on the world market for $0.55 a liter, as compared to significantly higher prices for mineral diesel.
Coconut Crude
Posted by: jj | Sep 28 2005 5:09 utc | 39
If GM are about to turn things around by leading the change to hydrids then I say I’ll believe it when I see them produce at least one hybrid that can compete with the Japanese.
Maybe GM can sell’em if they put lotsa cup holders in them… ones big enough to fit those super-size cups.
Posted by: dry fly | Sep 28 2005 5:47 utc | 40
The problem is not with GM, per se it’s with America.
Ooo the lovely hurt in store down the line.
Posted by: Lupin | Sep 28 2005 5:50 utc | 41
This just in:
The Democratic Party is rolling out it’s “make or break” 2006 models just in time for mid-term Congressional elections.
Having seen the party’s market share sink for two decades in the face of tough competition…the DNC is rolling out a new model meant to appeal to America’s increasingly Exurban middle: the Mega-Moderate is an eight-door mini-van, with passenger air-bags, AM/FM radio, and radical new features like a sun roof and “sport” package option to appeal to NASCAR dads.
Party CEO H. Dean claims the Mega-Moderate’s ad slogan: “it’s just like you…you just didn’t know that yet” will win over buyers who haven’t yet caught on to the Democrats middle-of-the road appeal. Dual sliding side doors will allow passengers to exit any way they choose.
Model colors will be: Beige, White, Mauve, Gray, Taupe, Tan and Cream.
The sport package adds the option of: Eggplant, Mustard and Salsa Red.
Critics report that lack of “pep” in freeway driving may hamper the Mega-Mod in its quest for market share. Lack of a passing gear is also said to impair vehicle performance on rural two-lane highways.
“More of the same” is the general consensus of industry reviews.
Perhaps the addition of a military chevron’s in the model’s interior design will provide some much needed spark to this line. It is said that a last minute design change may even put a large chrome hawk on the hood.
Rumors swirl in D.C. that a last minute name change could be in the works: The Mega-Moderate Hawk. Watch this space closely for updates.
Posted by: kid oakland | Sep 28 2005 6:07 utc | 42
But all three sell smaller cars in Europe, and Americans would probably regard most European cars as ‘smaller’. It’s just the US divisions that can’t compete with the Japanese.
That’s the bizarre thing, isn’t it? The Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, the Ford Ka, etc: all small and efficent, from American-owned companies, and not sold in the mother country. (And the big Aussie Holden Monaro gives GM’s American muscle cars a run for their money.)
One reason is the lengthy and expensive process of getting EPA and NTSB approval, which discriminates against chassis and body styles that aren’t already on the market. But Knut’s right: it really is a vicious cycle for Ford and GM, not least because all of its dealers desperately need to sell those corpulent SUVs and pickups, since that’s where the markup (and the cheap financing deals for gullible buyers) are to be found.
It’s quite a wake-up call to watch ‘Top Gear’, the British petrolhead show. The edited-for-Americans version doesn’t include many of the rude comments about Yank Tanks on the BBC original: for instance, Clarkson reviewed a Ford F150 in the last show of the summer season, and described it as the ‘worst thing I have ever driven’.
Posted by: ahem | Sep 28 2005 7:04 utc | 43
Cars that are cheap, wastefull, obsolete, and have no export potential? Maybe GM should just change the name of the new model to the “Trabi” and just be done with it.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 28 2005 7:11 utc | 44
Today’s WaPo: Smaller Cars Enjoy New Chic
“We are seeing people who are driving $40,000 Suburbans trading them in on $15,000 Corollas,” said Mathews, who manages a dealership in a state where big trucks and sport-utility vehicles rule the roads. “The last 30 days have been unlike anything I’ve ever seen in the automotive industry.”
…
Harold Wesley, a salesman, in the midst of fielding calls last week, said he can’t keep Civics on the lot — new or used. “As soon as the new ones get here, they are sold.” Wesley said the manufacturer is allocating dealers a few at a time to be fair. Treadwell’s last shipment of 12 sold in three days, he said.
…
Paul Ballew, GM’s chief market analyst, said the level of consumer interest in small cars is being overplayed. He said Japanese automakers are benefiting most because of their experience in the segment, particularly in their home market. Meanwhile, Ballew said GM was having a “solid” small-car month, and he said GM will continue running its Lordstown, Ohio, plant where the Cobalt is assembled at a “very aggressive clip.”
Ballew said GM will continue to watch the car market before making additional plans to bring out more small cars for American buyers. Honda and Toyota are moving forward. This month Honda launched the latest Civic that includes a remodeled hybrid and high-performance models. In recent years, Toyota launched the Scion brand — a line of small cars that Toyota is marketing to younger buyers. Scion has a tight 7.2 days’ supply.
Groucho,
I’d love the Chevy Caligula. I believe it would have a large spa in the back, wine, women and song and run on human blood.
Posted by: steve expat | Sep 28 2005 8:47 utc | 46
GM full size SUVs are a minor part of the story. But even with the full size line and the 5300 series engine, the next models roll out in Jan or Feb 2006. And the cylinder on demand engines will be available.
Cylinder-on-demand is nice, but it’s no real substitute for ideas like hybrids.
C-O-D pushes an awful lot of metal around, and has an awful lot of moving parts that generate friction. Even when the C-O-D engines are running “lean” with two or four cylinders shut down, those pistons are still moving; simply easing the gas pedal down just a tad causes the entire C-O-D valvetrain and other parts to move, causing additional wear and friction. Plus, all that extra equipment weighs more.
It might save 10-20% mileage for steady Interstate driving, but around town or the increasingly busy Interstate corridors (been on I-5 between Seattle and L.A. lately?) C-O-D will be of little use and it’s extra weight and moving parts will be an added burden on drivers for years to come.
Posted by: F’in Librul | Sep 28 2005 8:51 utc | 47
I love Billmon’s words about the sexual marketing of SUVs, but keep in mind that for most SUVs (all but the yellow ones), the prime market is middle-aged women, not men. It’s not about penis size, but about “safe” children (who then get run over by the “safe” vehicle).
So far as a rational energy and transportation policy? About 90% of oil goes to transportation; about 40% of primary energy in the U.S. So the two are largely one and the same. For both, start with land use. It’s the huge, easy-to-pick fruit that is just hanging there, waiting for hands to pluck it.
That is: We need dense, walkable neighborhoods in every city and town. New development should be in the form of walkable neighborhoods clustered around existing intersections and roads. We should cease all road expansion and put all dediated transportation funds into reviving or creating a rail and bus infrastructure. But mostly, our transportation problems are not the result of too little transportation, but too much. We need to create communities where people can live without cars, or with fewer cars, and where they can choose to drive but can also choose not to drive.
The example of the Rita and Katrina “evacuations” — compared to the smooth, successful NYC evacuation on 9/11/01 — should show that this is not just about efficiency, but also about safety.
Everyone is missing the point.
The private car is what is dooming this planet.
Now, if Ford and GM started building TRAINS, with the government paying for the new cars, and STREETCARS, ditto, that would make a hell of a lot of sense.
But a hell of a lot of sense is not what we can expect from either government or auto manufacturer.
Posted by: hopping madbunny | Sep 28 2005 10:06 utc | 49
Just saw my first two Shanghai-made Cadillac SUVs tooling around Beijing yesterday (or rather attempting to do so in the grid-locked traffic). Evidently Murtaugh’s successor has nipped any attempt by Shanghai GM to become too much like the European divisions by actually getting into producing smaller cars.
Posted by: drylake | Sep 28 2005 10:42 utc | 50
I’ll be brutally honest in answering Billmon’s question: how high?
As long as cars can be afforded by a majority of people and aren’t considered a luxury, then prices have to go higher.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 28 2005 10:46 utc | 51
I have never been able to understand how labor costs – which constitute about 10% of the modern automobile – could account for the large differences in profitability of the foreign auto makers versus GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. All of the other elements for an automobile cost the same for every auto maker. The only real difference is the perceived compensation due the top executive staff and the rate of profit due the shareholders, no matter what the financial condition of the firm.
The Japanese and German firms have historically managed much better for the long term than Detroit. Just look at the last twenty five years. Detroit got two reprieves and pissed them both away. Management that bad deserves to get pitched in the dustbin of history.
BTW, Detroit’s current bitching about high health insurance costs for its retirees and employees cuts no ice with me. Those bastards had signed up with Hillary Clinton’s health insurance proposal and then played turncoat when they thought they could cut a better deal with the HMOs for a short term profit. Also, they didn’t mind trying to use the national health insurance effort as a ruse to gain some competitive advantage on small business. These dinosaurs need to be put out of their misery. The new generation awaits in the wings and they won’t be missed. And, for all you blue staters out there, just remember this – tons of auto management retirees headed for the west coast of Florida to bask in the sun and enjoy golf. Let’s see how well they do when their health insurance gets dumped and they have to pick up their $2000 per month medical expenses. Those red counties might start to turn a lot more purple in the blink of an eye.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Sep 28 2005 10:54 utc | 52
US corporations won’t be efficient until they have to be and it certainly isn’t the workers fault. The workers in any company are made up of people who like to be able to take pride in what they do well.
The real problem is management who learned a long time ago that as their prime concern is to keep their corporation profitable the best guaranteed way of doing that is hiring good lobbyists to ensure that they get a share of taxpayers largesse.
Defense is the quick and easy way so thats what they do and they won’t become efficient again until the tap is turned.
Most of us overseas will have seen this phenomenon occur in our own countries up to a generation ago and I guess that US citizens will have seen it that long ago with regional and state based corporations that took their eye off the ball relied too heavily on state and local govt assistance and got eaten up by those same large corporations which are now struggling.
Why would GM take a gamble on whether big or small cars are going to be profitable when they can get a guaranteed income by paying off politicians getting defense contracts and loss leading garbage to keep enough people in their political contacts’ districts to keep the merry-go reound spinning.
It won’t end until the poor mugs paying for it make it end. At the moment it seems that US taxpayers are sacrificing health, education and housing to keep it spinning but as the tiger eats it’s tail, everything will be gobbled up until they stop pushing the tail in the mouth.
I would say things are getting tight now. I saw a story the other day about Revell the model making corporation. They are being sued by defense contractors who want a piece of the pie when Revell puts out a model of a ‘weapons platform’ they manufacture. Revell is trying to argue that they like everyone else in the US has already paid the design costs through taxes and that this information belongs to the public.
Although most could probably see Revell’s point I betcha the politicians won’t.
If these corporations are risking extremely bad press to get a few million off of modellers things must be getting tight.
As someone pointed out upthread that the irony is Amerikans have ended up in this situation by not having properly public funded healthcare and now they’ll lose the private care yet still have to keep paying the corporations.
The only difference will be that the corporations will use bankruptcy as an excuse to not pay what they owe, but when the people go bankrupt from hospital charges and/or broke pension funds they will still have to pay bills to the corporations who ripped them.
US corporations will be efficient where they have to be as in outside US markets but they will never get that domestic efficiency back until the taxpayers pull the trough away.
What Cheney and Co are doing is no different to Breznev propping up his cliques inefficiencies until the sort of spiritual sickness that bludging breeds cause the organisations to fall under the weight of their self indulgence
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 28 2005 13:00 utc | 53
An attempt at a serious energy policy, if you did not see it two weeks ago.
Lots more on eurotrib – or my daily diary on dKos.
Posted by: Jérôme à Paris | Sep 28 2005 15:58 utc | 54
still working it out:
You may be right that labor costs are not the killer, but Toyota/Nissan/Honda do have lower labor costs in their US plants since they’re non-union and they don’t have legions of retirees. DaimlerChrylster manufactures the Merecdes M class here due to the lower labor costs (plus lower shipping costs).
hopping madbunny:
GM just sold off their train business, ElectroMotive (http://www.gmemd.com, they haven’t updated the domain name).
The joke (mostly true) about GM is that it’s a bank that happens to make cars. GMAC is the only division that actually makes any money. Pretty much the same for Ford. It’s kind of like how HP is an ink company that has a side business in printers.
Posted by: Jeff R. | Sep 28 2005 16:15 utc | 55
People have circled about this but not addressed it directly. does anyone know anything about what profitability is demanded of Toyota & Honda? In many sectors of xUS 25-30% is demanded – this is true in newspapers & is another reason they are so awful – they’ve been gutted/hollowed out.
Posted by: jj | Sep 28 2005 16:44 utc | 56
Everyone is missing the point.
The private car is what is dooming this planet.
just out of curiosity, when was the last time you walked an urban mile? not inside a walmart or one of those massive grocery stores popping up, doesn’t include driving to some destination to take a hike.
if i had a dollar for everytime i jumped in my car to drive 4 blocks to the corner store, it’s embarrasing. i decided to start walking more about a month ago.it changes one’s perception of time.
Posted by: annie | Sep 28 2005 16:51 utc | 57
I work for a large health insurance company. In a recent internal talk about the future of health insurance and health care costs in this country, it was mentioned that GM spends more on health insurance for its employees then it does on steel.
If this is a true statistic, it adds to the already strong economic argument for some kind of solution to the health-care crisis in this country. It is a truly staggering statistic. I wish I could verify it. Anyone have access and the time to read the annual report?
Truth
Posted by: Truth Be Told | Sep 28 2005 16:57 utc | 58
GM, Ford and DC just refuse to think ahead.
Honda & Toyota work on efficiency even during market epochs where it doesn’t matter. Why? because the economy is unstable. It can matter overnight. You can’t arrive at 2005 with hybrids and fuel efficiency if you didn’t get started 20 years earlier.
The question we should be asking is: Why do Honda and Toyota think like this and American cos don’t?
It has to do with corporate governance. Japan has company unions (CU), and wide scale tennure (WST) but little job mobility: Employees sink or swim with their company, so does the company union. While both U.S. and Japanese cos run on corporate governance rules that stress shareholder primacy – In Japan, because of WST and CU companies are managed by an informal “worker primacy” rule of corporate governance, while in the U.S. Cos are managed by an informal “Executive/ Primacy” rule of corporate governance.
In the U.S. the board is supposed to be a proxy for shareholders, but in reality they are proxies for Corporate Officers/Executives: see Executive compensation as exhibit A. In the Japan the bias is towards accountability to workers. You would think that this was some kind of socialist hell, but in fact the Workers are better proxies for Shareholders than Board of Directors. Both long term investors and workers want to ensure the long term survival of the Company and plan strategically for the long term.
Honda has its engineers designing an new ultrasmall private jet aircraft with no interest in building the jet, just an interest in engineering. They don’t know if this will help them build better cars, or enter jet aircraft business, but if suddenly this technology becomes important, they have a presence already established. The same goes for hybrid.
Anyone that buys a domestic branded and made car is asking for trouble.
If America wants to become a manufacturing country again it needs widespread used of Company Unions to empower workers, but not overly so, and wides scale tennure ship for Employees. It doesn’t have to be 80% tennure as in Japan, but 30% tennure would probably do the trick forcing a new level of accountability onto management without loss of flexibility of labor force.
Oh, and by the way, Japan has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world – up there with socialist paradises of Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
We are just the dumbest, stupidest, meanest people on earth.
Poverty is our destiny.
Posted by: Timka | Sep 28 2005 16:57 utc | 59
The GMC Gowandaland has a nice ring to it. Let’s run it up the flagpole and see if the cat laps it up.
Once again, two easy immediate solutions: SUVs are trucks- enforce the no trucks in the left lane laws on many freeways. Enforce local ordinances of vehicle weight limits on residential streets.
Posted by: biklett | Sep 28 2005 17:05 utc | 60
@ MovieGuy – sorry, but you’re clueless when it comes to GM.
I have had the frustrating misfortune of seeing that carmaker demolish brands, up close, as I dealt with them at managerial level. I have also had the delight of seeing Toyota/Lexus up close, and how they dedicate themselves to creating value. Light years apart, my friend.
GM first lobbied against hybrids and then they spent a lot of money on advertising, trying to tell people they should wait for GM’s hydrogen solution, hybrid would be a flash in the pan… Enough said, isn’t it?
GM top managers would rotate among the brands, with a time limit of two years at each, before going on to the next. The result? They would have just enough time to manage to undo whatever their predecessor had started, and start something of their own, before moving along. Meanwhile, they didn’t pick up an iota of what the brand was about, and only obsessed about cross-platform-synergies all day long. These synergies led to each brand being diluted, with parts and platforms that covered 3-4 different makes, while any hint of history immersed in the brand was thrown out the window, as the Spread-Sheet Johnnies went for the cheapest buck in the block.
As one of the designers said, before quitting: It’s impossible to take another quarter out of the cost of that interior, and GM will pay the price for that when customers turn their backs to the make.
He was right.
GM is a lousy corporation. They sold 8.9 million cars last year. The car division returned a (manipulated) profit of 0,67% on all that metal moved. The car financing division made more money, but now GM is reduced to giving the cars away, in order to reduce inventories. And they have bet the farm on the lousiest cars on the planet …
It’s hugely embarrassing, and quite unnecessarily so. Just bad management and bad planning, all around.
Posted by: SteinL | Sep 28 2005 17:16 utc | 61
The rapid cycle through units has been popular in both the US military and corporations for some decades now. It’s a very weird way to run an organization.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 28 2005 17:22 utc | 62
FANTASTIC THREAD, ALL. Thank you. It also runs well in parallel to the political/social decline discussed on the Open Thread.
SteinL – so do the crack designers…car people try to hook on w/Toyota?
SteinL & Citizen, any thought why this happened & why they stuck w/it even though it’s producing such disastrous results?
Posted by: jj | Sep 28 2005 17:34 utc | 63
How about the new CHEVY U.S. SUBCONTRACTOR, it doesn’t run but costs scads of money. As for walking, it will happen when the cost of gas cost more than the time saving thing. People still aren’t recycling and the prices are way up. It’s easy and patriotic and saves tons of electricity and you can make enough money to fill up half a tank of my very old Toyota p/u.
Posted by: 11 dogs | Sep 28 2005 17:41 utc | 64
Something I’m curious about, haven’t seen discussed here or elsewhere: I was touristing in Bay area and the van company we used for a wine tour ran on vegetable oil. The company would actually go around to greasy spoons and pick up their leftover french fry oil and filter it to use in the car. It used a diesel engine (ironically, California banned diesel engines, maybe it should rethink)…this seems like a great idea. I haven’t done any research on it, but wonder why we haven’t seen more talk about such engines…
Posted by: lou | Sep 28 2005 18:45 utc | 65
Lou said:
It used a diesel engine (ironically, California banned diesel engines, maybe it should rethink)…this seems like a great idea. I haven’t done any research on it, but wonder why we haven’t seen more talk about such engines…
California has done no such thing. Diesel engines are perfectly legal for sale in new and used passenger cars and trucks, light trucks, trucks, and locomotives.
The fuel you are talking about is called biodiesel. It’s easily made from vegetable oils, and you can read more about it here:
http://www.aboutbiodiesel.com/
Posted by: F’in Librul | Sep 28 2005 20:11 utc | 66
To add to what SteinL said,
Another reason GM sucks is because their engineering management sucks. Everything–and I mean everything–is done on rework. Last minute. Not a good way to build quality.
Partly as a result (there are a lot of reasons) it takes GM (and Ford) 5 years to design a new model–these big tanks were designed in 2000, back before Osama woke us up to our limitations. The Japanese can do a car in 3 years. Makes it a lot easier to respond to changing realities.
Posted by: emptywheel | Sep 28 2005 20:29 utc | 67
Thanks, F’In. Our tour guide gave us the spiel about diesel engines being banned in Calif, describing how his girlfriend bought a diesel car in Colorado.
But still, why aren’t more car companies pursuing this? I hadn’t really heard of it before this tour. It’s too much to ask of our gov’t, I suppose.
Posted by: lou | Sep 28 2005 21:31 utc | 68
Lou, problem w/biofuels – not enough used stuff to power many vehicles, though there’s a certain charm in driving next to a donut factory, for example, as I once did – ie. they acquire the smell of whatever was cooked in the oil.
But to accomodate large numbers of cars, it would require land & Most Urgently Water. The last thing we need to do is start putting water in our tanks!! But for niche markets see my post upthread (~1:00am) on Pacific Islanders who just discovered they can run on coconut diesel – just boil up the meat from the endless coconuts lying about. There are so many islands in Philipp.& Indonesia – assuming they aren’t lost in the rising waters – that it might be sensible for those islands to cultivate that type of fuel.
For a lot of us who mostly drive <=~100mi/day, another good way to go is to put up solar rigs on our houses & use that solar electric energy to power air cars. link (~50% of Am. pop. drives <=30mi/day, so it's very doable.)
Posted by: jj | Sep 28 2005 21:47 utc | 69
Lou, here’s to you – and anyone else interested:
How to Brew Your Own Biodiesel
Posted by: jj | Sep 29 2005 1:07 utc | 70
Oh, this is just the 70s all over again. I’ve never for a second trusted GM, or any other American car manufacturer, after that fiasco. And let’s not go into the many many pieces of crap disguised as vehicles these guys have attempted to shove down our throats over the years as they vainly attempted to keep up with the Japanese (although now the Koreans are catching up too!) And this SUV craze is such a great metaphor for our supersized lifestyle. Here’s why it’ll take an extended period of time of high gas prices to have an actual effect on the masses behavior…http://www.slate.com/id/2126981/
Posted by: Stfish7 | Sep 29 2005 1:57 utc | 71
jj: But it works great if you are a senior manager and your objective is to preserve your benefits and promote people like yourself or if you are an “analyst” or investment banker. It only sucks if your objective is to benefit workers, community, or longer term interests of the company. Similarly, for the perfumed princes that the late lamented Col. used to talk about. Imagine if you were some dimwitted Roger Smith clone and smart people who worked hard and had ideas were allowed to compete with you. That would be some ugly.
Posted by: citizen k | Sep 29 2005 2:39 utc | 72
@ jj
You’ll always have a trade-off between the designer’s ideal and what’s economically doable. The crunch comes down to which ethic drives the company.
At GM, it was cost-cutting in manufacture, as they sought to win profits through economies of scale that involved supervolume production, with benefits gained from creating parts to be used across the brands, thus increasing the economy-of-scale advantage.
However, in order to achieve their targets, GM also made it a rule that suppliers should be squeezed to the max, in order to achieve the lowest cost per unit possible. GM and their suppliers aren’t partners as much as they are hostile combatants. And the designers at GM are (were) instructed to accept cant and go for the economy-of-scale benefits, and damn the brand essence of the model they were working on.
At Toyota, and quite a few other more enlightened manufacturers, the ethic was to build as great a car as was possible, to a cost that would allow the model to be competitive within its category. Huge difference already to the GM ethos.
Then Toyota fostered collaboration with their upstream suppliers, making them understand that the carmaker wanted a true partnership, where the chief goal was to achieve the best quality control possible, within parameters. Downstream, Toyota worked just as much to achieve interior quality superiority, while also advancing work force policies that are probably second to none in supporting collaboration.
Then Toyota took it one step farther, in saying that once a customer has placed their trust in their product, that customer is literally part of the family – they see the customer as an extension of their activity (while GM tends to unload on theirs). Which is why you have the amazing Toyota service. (And no, I’m not working for Toyota now, and I am not shilling for them – it’s just that what they are doing is exemplary). For instance, all Toyota employees are instructed to immediately assist, if they see a Toyota car owner (regardless of age or condition of the car) in trouble on or alongside the road.
So – you have to different ethics, both competitive in their own way. But GM’s solution is to screw their suppliers, screw their workforce and screw their customers; Toyota’s is the obverse of that – which is why Toyota’s margins per car sold are so much higher than GM’s. Ridiculously higher, actually.
GM’s solution, as Billmon writes, has been to pursue the Hummer Galactica – but things change, perceptions change, conditions change. And GM has been remarkably unreceptive to change – its size probably luring it into thinking it could engineer or force change itself (which it tries to do by lobbying and adjusting legislation to help “hide” their irrelevancy).
GM is in terrible, terrible trouble. The sad thing is that there are fantastic resources, smarts, talent and know-how, in the company, but it’s not allowed to express itself intelligently.
Sure, they are making noises now about abandoning their cross-platform-synergies and fostering the strengths of each particular brand, without resorting to the dilution they’ve been pursuing the last 15 years. But they will have to pay the price for those years for a long time, while their strongest competitors have been pursuing better paths towards customers’ needs.
I was in Japan in December 2003, where I was allowed to drive the prototype Lexus 400h hybrid SUV at the Toyota test-track at Mount Fuji. (It’s just as excellent an experience as it sounds).
Later, I spoke with the chief engineer, and asked him to describe, in his words, what he had sought to achieve with the VDM traction control in the car. He closed his eyes, smiled, and said: “I wanted to recreate the sensation of control you get when you are a good downhill skier.”
That answer could never come from a GM designer/engineer – they don’t get the latitude to think down such paths, there it’s a question of “how little we can get away with” not “how much we can add” to the experience of driving, and still be competitive.
Posted by: SteinL | Sep 29 2005 3:14 utc | 73
SteinL, thanks. Interesting to hear inside stuff. It Certainly conforms to my experience as owner.
I’ve gone from VW – back when – to Peugeot’s to Toyota. Would Never Drive Anything But a Toyota – except the air car. Fantastic. I’ve even converted upper middle class folks I know from BMW’s to Toyotas. They thght. for awhile that Toyota’s were something to abandon when they could afford it. After a decade of BMW’s breaking down repeatedly, I told them their car should simplify their life. It’s there to serve you, not the reverse.
Here’s my experience w/2 toyotas: change timing belt; 130k new water pump, 140k new radiator; 150k new clutch. (Have mechanic check under the hood every year ~15k miles ~$200/yr.) that’s it – same pattern for both. Fine til 200k. Don’t know after that.
My mechanic said this about Toyota v. Honda. Every operation on T- is simplified – takes fewer steps – ‘cuz toyota’s came 2nd & learned from Honda’s “mistakes”, simplified the design. Having designed software, that’s something I readily appreciate. I’ve heard reliable lifespan of Honda isn’t much above 130k; whereas Toyota barely hitting middle age by then. Tho it makes me worry how long Toyota’s hybrid designs will hold up. Won’t whoever comes after do a far better job & will Toyota be locked in.
Posted by: jj | Sep 29 2005 3:43 utc | 74
And the [GM] cylinder on demand engines will be available.
Oh, lordy, everything old *is* new again.
They’ve done that before, in, if memory serves, the late ’70s to early ’80s. It was called, at that time, the “V8-6-4” design.
It was a relatively standard V8 with a rather cackhanded mechanism to disable either two or four cylinders depending on load. Eight to accelerate, declining to six once off the line, then down to four at cruising speed.
You can imagine what happened when some archetypical American upscale suburban father swung his Cadillac out on an uphill and punched it to pass a semi, and the engine continued to run on only four cylinders. Fun for the whole family!
As for me? I’ve never bought a GM car. Never will. I’ve seen enough other people buy GM cars to have been able to learn from their experience.
Posted by: marquer | Sep 29 2005 6:17 utc | 75
But all three sell smaller cars in Europe, and Americans would probably regard most European cars as ‘smaller’. It’s just the US divisions that can’t compete with the Japanese.
Because the establishment in the US cannot do anything that goes against the ‘consume till you burst’ value. They can’t because their brains are not wired that way – at heart, they cannot imagine being traitors.
If the Americans had listened to Carter – I seem to recall he spoke about “the moral equivalence of a war” (to reduce / change energy use) the world would be an entirely diffferent place today.
Posted by: Noisette | Sep 29 2005 15:43 utc | 76
Brilliant comments, minimal snark, great humor. My compliments to all.
My first car was a 1972 Chevy Vega. Mustard yellow. Need I say more? It was a stunningly bad POS. I have never owned a domestic auto since then. I am tempted by the Ford Escape hybrid, but only because Ford apparently licensed the hybrid technology from Toyota and then made some upgrades to it. We can compete internationally, but not within our economic system, which seems to reward the Mike Browns of the world.
Posted by: a_retrogrouch | Sep 29 2005 17:18 utc | 77
SteinL — “MovieGuy – sorry, but you’re clueless when it comes to GM.”
Nothing I stated was inaccurate. My information is current as of two weeks ago. And it comes from sources that appear to be stronger players than you have current contact with or whatever the reasons are that you didn’t acknowledge such developments. And I only scratched the surface.
I read your posts. Some of your experiences with GM appear to be on a level with mine with a few possible exceptions. Similarly, I am familiar with key activities within other auto companies, foreign and domestic. In terms of sheer recovery, I would have to tip my hat to Nissan.
If I wanted to do so, I could have posted a blistering commentary regarding General Motors. Far more factually based and more critical than most of the junk that has been posted, including the remarks of SteinL. There is far more to the Brand stories and all of the nightmares that preceded and followed those decisions.
Instead, I simply pointed out just a few of the initiatives that I am aware of regarding GM’s future moves. Moves that bring their public sales hybrids to market in 2006. It’s not a bad design for first or second generation. And the first hydrogen drivetrains are in public environment testing, but that’s no guarantee that this drivetrain will succeed later on. Perhaps.
There is no question that GM, Ford, and Chrysler, operated under DaimlierChrysler, are all in trouble. GM is the strongest of the three firms, and continues to lead global sales. But GM is far from out of the hole on its current problems.
I’m not a typical basher and little league screamer over SUVs, pickups, and mid-sized trucks. If people prefer to rip around in thin skin rollerskates, fine. Others do not. And this allows for the sales of mid-sized and full sized autos/SUVs. For anyone over 45, the likelihood is that you once rode around in autos that were about the rough equivalent of full sized SUVs. Change a few styling cues and you would have a late 60s vehicle in terms of storage and seating space. And, yes, I like the GM SUVs better than their autos with the exception of the Cadillac CTS/STS/DTS lineup. The CTS, of course, began life as an Opel platform. And the Australian-based GTO holds some promise for being a good hot rod, though I believe the body styling is boring.
The issue isn’t so much the physical size of the vehicles, but rather the power to weight ratios that the drivetrains provide in conjunction with fuel economy and emissions. In this regard, some of the small autos presently sold aren’t particularly impressive. Others are ok, though not exceptional.
I am not fully sold on the hybrid designs that I am familiar with, but they represent a start. None are particularly attractive vehicles, nor should there be any expectation that most will do very well in crashes. If you need proof, visit some junkyards or holding yards and carefully study the results of the impacts. Now ask yourself what happened to the battery packs. And so on.
Can GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Merk (MBZ), and Nissan produce quality hybrids or alternate fuel source vehicles? Sure. Will they? We’ll see.
GM is further along than most posters probably understand. I agree that GM has done a lousy job of promoting or acknowledging some of their achievments whether related to public transporation hybrids, previous train locomotive developments (a division that GM has sold recently), current prototype tests including public fleet usage, and so on. This point of contention is being raised within senior second tier circles at this time. I raised such issues two weeks ago, as I have previously. Similarly, in a discussion the head of one division’s (brand) efforts, we discussed the global platforms and developments that seldom are addressed in most GM communications. Good info, but it nevers sees the light of day.
Which firm builds the best autos? That depends on what you are talking about. Is Toyota the dominant leader? No, not in all categories. Not even close. Good products on the whole, but they do have some shortcomings both in production and end user.
There are some small and large vehicles that I wouldn’t own because I know that their drivetrains are throwaway junk after so many miles, or the vehicles are simply ugly. But someone likes them or they wouldn’t sell.
Here’s a minor observation that most may not know. The next time you see and curse a new 2006 model GM Corvette (which you will probably pass…rollerskates love to do that), ask yourself what gas mileage it is getting. Would you believe 30-33 mpg? Stock.
I know of a Chevy Tahoe being driven on the street that is getting 28-29 mpg with a 5300 series engine (roughly 327 cu in). Very minor mods applied to that truck. It may end up getting 30-36 mpg once a modified transmission is installed. And if a 2.73 rear end is applied against the six speed automatic, it could gain more mpg.
Anyway, I agree that GM is in trouble. No question.
Be happy. Drive what you enjoy.
Posted by: Movie Guy | Sep 29 2005 23:27 utc | 78
The CTS uses the Sigma platform, which is not an Opel product. Saab tried to get this platform for their 97x, but Cadillac said no, and they ended up with the Buick Rainier, Chevrolet Trailblazer, GMC Envoy platform. (GMT 360 platform) because they were so eager to get an SUV out to the market, in spite of it not being Saabish at all.
Could be MovieGuy is thinking of the Vectra platform that underlies both the Saab 93 and the Cadillac intended for Europe that will be built at the Saab Trollhättan plant in Sweden. This is the platform that GM terms GM-2900 and which has been popping up in various brands, Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Chevrolet, etc.
Posted by: SteinL | Sep 30 2005 14:39 utc | 80
See this
http://www.williambowles.info/guests/2005/gm.html
“GM makes you sick” 16/10/04
Posted by: Edward Teague | Sep 30 2005 14:44 utc | 81
Movie Guy — “The CTS, of course, began life as an Opel platform.”
Gag Halfrunt — “MovieGuy, which Opel is the basis for the CTS?”
SteinL — “The CTS uses the Sigma platform, which is not an Opel product.” “Could be MovieGuy is thinking of the Vectra platform…”
Well, let’s straighten this out. My original remark that the CTS began life as an Opel platform is correct. I am referring to the German-sourced Catera.
Yes, I can see the heads shaking now, but my statement is accurate.
GM and Cadillac go through the normal process of rebadging its vehicles to various degrees and shifting to new platforms over the years, but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that Cadillac’s 3-Series entry-level vehicle began life as an Opel platform vehicle.
The CTS is Cadillac’s renamed entry-level 3-Series vehicle, previously known as the Catera. Cadillac replaced the Catera name by calling the 3-Series vehicle the CTS or Cadillac Touring Sedan. The Catera nameplate died when the 3-Series vehicle was revamped and production was shifted to the Lansing Grand River (LGR) plant in Lansing, Michigan from Germany. Seville and Deville nameplates or designations are now gone, too. Deville vanished with the 2006 model lineup.
The game plan for the future which has since been fully implemented for the car lineup with the 2006 models was to follow through and rebadge the auto fleet, as explained by Mark LaNeve and others at the time.
The final names: CTS is Cadillac’s entry-level 3-Series vehicle. The STS is the 5-Series. And the DTS is the 7-Series. Plus the other vehicle designations for the SUVs, truck, and roadster.
Yes, the revised 3-Series Cadillac vehicle, the CTS (Cadillac Touring Sedan), is based on the “Sigma” platform shared with other GM divisions/brands and Cadillac vehicles. Nothing unusual about that.
For those who may be disputing my 3-Series statement, let’s look a bit closer.
The Catera was relaunched with a makeover for the 2000 model. That effort included the quietly introduced Catera Sport model. The upgrade package for the Sport included 17-inch alloy wheels wrapped with 235/45-17 rubber. The revamped 2003 CTS sport package offered 17 inch wheels and rubber.
The Catera’s engine was the 54 degree 3.0-liter V6 producing 200 hp. English-built. The 2003 CTS engine was a reengineered version of the 3.0-liter engine which became a 3.2-liter 220 hp powerplant. The stronger 3.6-liter V6 VVT engine didn’t come on line until the 2004 CTS appeared. And a smaller version of that 3.6-liter engine served as the base engine in 2005. So, the CTS used a reengineered version of the Catera’s engine when the new platform and vehicle model was originally launched. The manual five-speed was a German Getrag unit. And the automatic is the one that GM supplies to BMW.
The new 3-Series CTS is a serious improvement over the Catera Sport, but its roots rest with the Catera as Cadillac’s 3-Series entry vehicle. The Catera Sport could have been supplied with a supercharged version of the 3.0-liter engine, but that never happened though the engine was prototyped and tested. All upgrades and revised platforms should result in significant improvements, and the renamed Catera is no exception.
So, today we have the CTS, STS, and DTS. Easily forgotten will be the names Catera, Seville, and Deville. But those are the names that each of the models used to bear for Cadillac’s 3-Series, 5-Series, and 7-Series automobiles.
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 1 2005 21:47 utc | 82
Hey, MovieGuy, if you want, I’ll give you Jim Taylor’s phone number, he was development executive on the exclusively created Sigma platform. You try telling him the above – he’s a big guy.
Posted by: SteinL | Oct 2 2005 21:47 utc | 83
SteinL,
Again, everything I stated in my last post is factual. Including the information about the engines. All of which either came directly from GM execs or was confirmed by them in direct conversations. Besides, this is just basic info.
You miss the whole point. The latest 3-Series enty-level model that Cadillac is currently marketing isn’t Caddy’s first 3-Series platform or nameplate. Anyone inside or outside of General Motors who tries to make that claim is misstating the facts, including Taylor and you.
You’re hung up on platforms, not models or when given models were introduced into the fleet. “Sigma” or Sigma architecture as originally conceived isn’t the issue. Sigma is a platform, not a model. And this latest platform has many applications, meaning that it is supporting a number of models.
Cadillac’s original entry-level 3-Series model was a German-sourced platform that GM called the Catera. That is a simple fact.
Go ahead and throw Taylor’s number on this blog. Why not just send him a copy of my three posts. Or get him to publicly come on this thread, using his GM email address, and deny anything I stated.
I have the company and private home numbers and email addresses of plenty of GM heavies (many higher up the food chain that John Taylor), but I would never throw them out here to solve an argument that I have already explained factually.
We’re going to go through the same phony argument when the GTO production becomes known once again as American-sourced production. Many will try to act as though the Australian platform wasn’t used to reestablish the GTO in the Pontiac lineup. We’ve seen these types of inside proprietary moves before. We’ll see them again. Similarly, the Olds 442 began life as an F-85. But a lot of people cringed when that was brought up years later. Same story for the origins of the GTO model and platform.
Why don’t you use GM’s blog and throw any challenge to what I have stated over to Lutz? He occasionally takes the time to make update posts. Of course, he is rather busy these days. So, it might be a staffer in his group that responses publicly or privately.
Next you will be telling me that we never built Camaro or Firebird vehicles in Canada…
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 2 2005 23:24 utc | 84
You’ve still not managed to convince me, Movie Guy. I’d recommend you reread your first post.
Posted by: SteinL | Oct 11 2005 5:04 utc | 85
My first post has more to do with the following situation.
Current Hybrid Models:
Ford Escape
Ford Mercury Mariner
General Motors Chevrolet Silverado
General Motors GMC Sierra
Honda Accord Hybrid
Honda Civic Hybrid – new goal of 28,000 production per year
Honda Insight
Mazda Tribute Hybrid
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Lexus RX400h
Toyota Prius
Future Hybrid Models:
2007 General Motors Saturn VUE Greenline (2006 entry)
2007 General Motots Chevrolet Malibu
2007 General Motors Chevrolet Tahoe (full two mode hybrid)
2007 General Motors Chevrolet Yukon (full two mode hybrid)
2007 Nissan Altima hybrid
2007 Toyota Camry hybrid – 48,000 production per year capacity
2008 General Motors – 15 hybrid vehicles/models projected
2008 Ford Fusion
2008 Ford Mercury Milan
Date Unk – Toyota Lexus GS 450h
Date Unk – Toyota Lexus LS 600h
General Motors Displacement on Demand initiative (potential 8-10% fuel economy savings):
2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer
2005 GMC Envoy XL
2005 GMC Envoy XUV
2005 Pontiac Grand Prix (3.4 liter)
2007 Pontiac G6
2007 Chevrolet Cobalt
2006 Chevrolet Impala
2006 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
2007 Chevrolet Tahoe (2006 entry)
2007 GMC Yukon / Denali (2006 entry)
2007 Cadillac Escalade (2006 entry; 5.3 liter and 6.2 liter engines
*2005/2006/2007 – variable value timing and fuel improvements on 3.5 liter and 6.2 liter engines
General Motors E85 vehicles:
Chevrolet Avalanche
Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevrolet Tahoe
GMC Yukon
GMC Yukon XL
GMC Sierra 1500
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 12 2005 18:14 utc | 86
Publicly available General Motors information:
GM Global Technology Strategy
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/04/400_products/410_our_ove.html
Fuel Cells – Power Systems
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/04/400_products/422_alt_fue.html
Fuel Cell Vehicles – Overview
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html
Fuel Cell Vehicles – Milestones
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/fc_milestones.html
* A primary source for the blog post timeline
Fuel Cell Vehicles – News
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index_fc.html
* note the list of news releases for specific developments
Fuel Cell Vehicles – Fact Sheets
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/fact_sheets.html
EV1: Lessons Learned
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/hyb_ev1.html
Hybrids – Power Systems
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/04/400_products/421_alt_hyb.html
Hybrids – Overview and Index
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/index.html
Hybrids – Timeline
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/hyb_timeline.html
* Stated on the Timeline page: 2006 – GM will introduce the Belt Alternator Starter hybrid system in the Saturn VUE Greenline (2007 model year). 2007 – GM will introduce the Belt Alternator Starter hybrid system in the Chevrolet Malibu. GM will introduce the world’s first two-mode full hybrid in full-size SUVs (Tahoe and Yukon). Provides at least a 25 percent improved fuel economy.
Hybrids – Fact Sheets
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/fact_sheets.html
GM’s NEW HYBRID Provides Additional Options for Consumers
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_082505.html
Saturn VUE – Belt Alternator Starter Hybrid System
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/saturn_vue_bas.html
GM Hybrid Truck – Flywheel Alternator Starter Hybrid System
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/gmc_sierra_pht.html
Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT – Displacement on Demand
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/chev_trail_ext.gif
GMC Yukon Hybrid – Two Mode Full Hybrid (TMFH)
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/gmc_yukon.html
* 25-percent composite improved fuel economy over single mode systems
Chevrolet Hybrid – Two Mode Full Hybrid (TMFH)
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/chevy_tahoe.html
* 25-percent composite improved fuel economy over single mode systems
GM Alternate Fuel Vehicles
http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/
GM and E85
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/e85/index.html
Opel Zafira CNG
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/images/fact_sheets/zafira.html
GM Advanced Technology
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/
* Open up sublinks for E85 vehicles
Advanced Internal Combustion Engines
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/200_ice/index.html
Advance Engines – Fact Sheets
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/200_ice/fact_sheets.html
GM Advance Technology Recent News
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/index.html
GM 2005 Advance Technology news releases:
Global Alliance for Hybrid Drive Development: Cooperation between BMW, DaimlerChrysler and GM
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_090805.html
GM’s NEW HYBRID Provides Additional Options for Consumers
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=17540
* Saturn will be the first to debut the belt alternator starter hybrid system in mid-2006, when it introduces the 2007 Vue Green Line.
GM Announces Additional Vehicles will Feature Displacement On Demand
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/200_ice/dod_050803.html
GM Demonstrates Future Technologies to Improve Future Powertrain Efficiency
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=17541
GM, Bosch Team with Stanford on Technologies to Make Gas Engines 20 Percent More Efficient, with Near-Zero Emissions
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=17292
New Hydra-Matic 6T70 Six-Speed Automatic Delivers Performance and Fuel Economy
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=17537
New Allison 1000 Transmission Offers Six-Speed Performance and Range Selection Mode
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=16956
GM 3.9 V-6 Breakthrough Technology
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/pop_mechanics_award_093005.html
GM Delivers First Fuel Cell Truck to U.S. Army
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/fc_army_040105.html
Survey Finds Americans Support Energy Independence, Hydrogen-Based Economy
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hydrogendependence_062905.html
Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid Concept Demonstrates Easy Scalability of Innovative Two-Mode Full Hybrid System
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/astra_011005.html
GMC Graphyte’s Two-Mode Full Hybrid Points To The Future Of SUVs
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/graphyte_011005.html
GM Sequel: Reinvented Automobile No Longer Just a Dream
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/sequel_011005.html
GM 2004 Advanced Technology news
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/index_2004.html
GM and DaimlerChrysler Join Forces to Develop Two-Mode Full Hybrid Propulsion System
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_121304.html
GM, SAIC to Pursue Joint Development of Clean Vehicles in China
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/china_110104.html
GM Announces Plans for 50 New Powertrain Variants By The End of The Decade
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_092004.html
GM, U.S. Postal Service Agree To Move Mail With Fuel Cells
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/postal_061504.html
GM Delivers The World’s First Full-Size Hybrid
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_050304.html
GM 2003 Advanced Technology news
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/index_2003.html
GM Adds Full-Size SUVs and Pick-up Trucks to Advanced Technology Portfolio
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/suv_110603.html
GM Announces Additional Vehicles will Feature Displacement On Demand
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/200_ice/dod_050803.html
GM Hybrid Technology To Achieve Massive Fuel Economy Gains, Emissions Reductions in Mass Transit
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/seattle_102003.html
FedEx Express and GM move fuel cell technology another step toward commercialization
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/gm_fedex_delivery_070903.html
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 13 2005 0:04 utc | 87
* Information sources listed in the post above.
The General Motors Fuel Cell and Hybrid Development Technologies Timeline
1968 – GM produced auto industry’s first operational fuel cell-powered vehicle.
1996 – The EV1 was an all-electric vehicle conceived, developed and built by GM, and offered for lease through Saturn retailers in California and Arizona beginning in December 1996 and through August 2004. At its time, the EV1 was a stretch well beyond existing technological boundaries. EV1 owners were a proud, loyal group. Unfortunately, there were not enough of them. GM was able to lease only about 800 EV1s in four years– not enough to establish commercial viability.
1997 – GM unveiled Opel experimental fuel cell vehicle at Geneva International Motor Show.
1998 – GM introduced first driveable fuel cell concept (Opel Zafira minivan) at Paris Motor Show.
1999 – GM signed five-year technical agreement with Toyota to develop advanced vehicle technologies, including fuel cells.
2000 – January – GM unveiled Precept FCEV, fuel cell electric vehicle and PNGV demonstrator, at North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan, USA. (Designed to achieve 108 m.p.g. gasoline equivalent.)
2000 – March – GM created Giner Electrochemical Systems (GES) with Giner, Inc. to perform fuel cell research and development. (Giner is the leader in PEM-based technologies.)
2000 – August – GM announced development of highly-efficient gasoline fuel processor for fuel cell vehicles with ExxonMobil.
2000 – November – GM showcased HydroGen1 at fuel cell technology seminar in China. (HydroGen1 achieved full power nearly 12 times faster in freezing conditions than same design unveiled in 1999.)
2001 – March – GM released comprehensive Well-to-Wheel study by GM, Argonne National Laboratory, BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell showing that hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles offer the cleanest and most efficient combination of fuel and propulsion system in long-term.
2001 – May – GM set 15 international endurance records for fuel cell-powered vehicles by HydroGen1 at GM’s Mesa, Arizona Proving Grounds. HydroGen1 completed 862 miles in 24-hour endurance run.
2001 – June – GM announced 25-year collaboration with General Hydrogen to accelerate the spread of a hydrogen infrastructure and to speed introduction of fuel cell vehicles into North America, Europe, Asia and emerging markets.
2001 – September – GM showcased HydroGen3 at Frankfurt Auto Show. Announced that GM’s latest fuel cell stack sets new world standard for power density that packs 60% more power than any competitor.
2001 – October – GM announced agreement with Suzuki Motor Corporation to collaborate on fuel cell vehicle development, focused on small cars.
2001 – October – GM announced multi-year collaborative research agreement with ChevronTexaco to advance fuel cell technology and gasoline processing for fuel cell vehicles. Agreement will accelerate GM’s efforts to offer a gasoline-fed fuel cell vehicle to retail customers.
2001 – October – GM participated in Michelin’s Bibendum Challenge showcasing the HydroGen1 fuel celled-vehicle and QUANTUM’s TriShield hydrogen storage cylinder. Announced HydroGen1 was the only fuel cell-powered vehicle to finish Bibendum’s 350-kilometer course from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
2002 – January – GM unveiled AUTOnomy concept which is the first vehicle designed from the ground up around a fuel cell propulsion system and the first to combine fuel cells with x-by-wire technology.
2002 – April – GM exhibited Phoenix at an Earth Day exhibit in Beijing with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans in attendance. The Phoenix is a fuel cell wagon developed jointly by the Pan Asia Automotive Technology Center (PATAC), a joint venture of GM and the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC).
2002 – April – GM demonstrated Chevrolet S-10 Gasoline-Fed Fuel Cell Vehicle, the world’s first drivable fuel cell vehicle that extracts hydrogen from gasoline to produce electricity.
2002 – August – GM provided a public preview of the Hy-wire, the world’s first drivable vehicle that combines a hydrogen fuel cell with by-wire technology, at the GM Product Seminar in Santa Barbara, Calif.
2002 – December – GM announced a joint program with Federal Express to advance fuel cell technology by conducting the first commercial test of a fuel cell vehicle in Japan.
2003 – GM’s Opel Zafira CNG (compressed natural gas) model is made available. The Zafira has a 14-liter gasoline reserve tank. This enables the driver to switch to gasoline when the CNG tanks are nearing empty and there are no natural gas filling stations in the area.
2003 – GM introduced the GM Allison hybrid electric diesel propulsion system for transit buses.
2003 – January – GM revealed, with the U.S. Army, a diesel hybrid military pickup truck equipped with a fuel cell auxiliary power unit that could become the model for the Army’s new fleet of 30,000 light tactical vehicles by the end of the decade.
2003 – February – GM announced world’s first successful vehicle test of a 10,000 PSI (700 bar) hydrogen storage system. The new 20,000 PSI tank technology extends the range of the HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle by 60-70 percent compared to an equivalent-sized 5,000 PSI system.
2003 – March – GM announced a partnership with Shell Hydrogen which includes a demonstration of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling infrastructure technology in the Washington, D.C area. The demo features the nation’s first hydrogen pump at a Shell retail gas station to support a GM demo fleet of fuel cell vehicles.
2003 – March – Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) granted GM the first-ever approval to drive a liquid hydrogen-fueled vehicle on public roads in Japan. With a driving range of 400 kilometer (250 miles), HydroGen3 has the highest driving range of any fuel cell vehicle approved for public roads in Japan.
2003 – April – GM announced an agreement with the BMW Group to jointly develop refueling devices for liquid hydrogen vehicles and invited other carmakers and suppliers to join this initiative.
2003 – July – GM and Federal Express announced a partnership where the HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle will be used by Federal Express in the first commercial use of a fuel cell vehicle in Japan.
2003 – August – GM demonstrates wheel hub motor technology that can provide a 60 percent increase in torque at the launch in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
2004 – GM introduced the world’s first full-size hybrid pickup in the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra. The hybrid pickup uses GM’s flywheel alternator starter (FAS) hybrid system, delivers 10 percent improved fuel economy and the highest city fuel economy of any full-size truck.
2004 – October 14 – GM took top honors in several categories with it’s HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle at the 2004 Michelin Bibendum competition in Shanghai. The competition pitted 74 hybrid, diesel and fuel cell vehicles, measuring everything from acceleration to fuel efficiency to CO2 emissions.
2004 – November 10 – A retail hydrogen fueling station opened in Washington DC as the centerpiece in a partnership announced between Shell and GM to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles on a commercial scale. The station is the first at a retail gas station to service. It will service six GM fuel cell vehicles. Both compressed and liquid hydrogen refueling are available.
2005 – GM’s engine Displacement on Demand technology is introduced in some vehicles; program will expand in 2006 model lineup and beyond. General Motors announced that the 2005 Grand Prix and the 2006 Monte Carlo and Impala will join the GMC Envoy XL, Envoy XUV and Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT in providing Displacement on Demand fuel-saving technology. Enabled by GM’s powerful electronic powertrain controls, Displacement on Demand saves fuel by using only half of the engine’s cylinders during most normal driving conditions. When loads are light, the control system automatically closes both intake and exhaust valves for half of the cylinders, cutting off their air and fuel supply. The fuel supply resumes and the valves are reopened to provide all-cylinder operation when the driver needs it for quick acceleration or for hauling heavy loads. Up to 8 percent better fuel economy than the traditional engine.
2005 – GM continues its E85 flexible fuel vehicles program, expanding its usage. FFVs can use either gasoline or E85 alternative fuel. Some of GM’s most popular full-size pickup trucks and SUVs are E85 capable. More than 1 million vehicles on the road today are E85 capable, and cars will soon join the E85 lineup. GM is one of the largest producers of E85 FFVs in the U.S. E85, a renewable, domestically produced alternative fuel composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, is a clean alternative to petroleum based fuels that substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. GM was the first automaker to approve the use of 10 percent ethanol-gasoline blends in all of its vehicles more than 20 years ago. E85 is available in the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, and Chevrolet Avalanche, and Monte Carlo.
2005 – January 6 – GM joined with Sandia National Lab in a partnership to design and test an advanced method for storing hydrogen. The 4-year, $10 million program is intended to develop and test tanks that store hydrogen in sodium aluminum hydride. The goal is to be able to store more hydrogen onboard that other hydrogen storage methods currently in use.
2005 – January 10 – GM’s Sequel was unveiled in Detroit.
2005 – January 27 – GM announced that it will be providing 13 fuel cell-powered vehicles and that Shell Hydrogen LLC intends to establish New York State’s first hydrogen service station in the New York City metropolitan area in 2006. GM and Shell will be the only team bringing fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen refueling to the New York City metropolitan area under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation project.
2005 – September 7 – The BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler AG and General Motors Corporation today signed a “memorandum of understanding” governing the formation of an alliance of equals for the joint development of hybrid drive systems. The three global automakers are cooperating in order to pool their expertise for the accelerated and efficient development of hybrid drive systems. In Troy, Michigan, the new “GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW Hybrid Development Center” will develop the overall modular system and the individual components: electric motors, high-performance electronics, wiring, safety systems, energy management, and hybrid system control units. In addition, the Hybrid Development Center will be responsible for system integration and project management.
GM’s two-mode full hybrid system has been established as the starting point for the GM-DaimlerChrysler collaboration. Variants planned include rear-, front- and all-wheel drive versions for cars, trucks and other vehicles. The first mode provides fuel-saving capability in low-speed, stop-and-go driving, the kind of driving typical of urban commuting, with a combination of full electric propulsion and engine power. The second mode is used primarily at high speeds to optimize fuel economy, while providing full engine power when conditions demand it, such as trailer towing or climbing steep grades. It works synergistically with other technologies such as Displacement on Demand to reduce fuel consumption at highway speeds. GM feels it is best to employ hybrid technology first on large vehicles, such as buses and SUVs, because they generally are the largest consumers of fuel.
2006 – The 2006 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, and Chevrolet Impala will offer Displacement on Demand engine technology.
2006 – GM will introduce the Belt Alternator Starter hybrid system in the Saturn VUE Greenline (2007 model year). This hybrid system will offer good fuel economy savings over the conventional vehicle and will be one of the most affordable hybrids for consumers. The GM belt alternator starter hybrid is one of three innovative hybrid systems that GM plans to introduce on up to 12 models, providing consumers a broad portfolio of hybrid systems that will vary in fuel savings and cost.
2006 – Jan/Feb/Mar – GM will offer the Displacement on Demand engine technology on the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and other truck models. Displacement on Demand will be a standard feature of the vehicles’ optional 5.3-liter V-8 engine. The more efficient engine will boost the fuel efficiency of these vehicles by about 8 percent (based on an EPA testing procedure). Displacement on Demand will enhance fuel economy without compromising performance or the ability to carry heavy loads. Displacement on Demand saves fuel by using only half of the engine’s cylinders during most normal driving conditions. When loads are light, the control system automatically closes both intake and exhaust valves for half of the cylinders, cutting off their air and fuel supply. The fuel supply resumes and the valves are reopened to provide all-cylinder operation when the driver needs it for quick acceleration or for hauling heavy loads. The V-8 engine always starts on eight cylinders, and in the case of the V-6 engine, six cylinders. But once the vehicle has accelerated to speed, the engine control module activates Displacement on Demand, providing improved fuel economy through a relatively inexpensive change in displacement to meet the vehicle load requirements.
2007 – GM will introduce the Belt Alternator Starter hybrid system in the Chevrolet Malibu.
2007 – GM will introduce the world’s first two-mode full hybrid in full-size SUVs (Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon). Provides at least a 25 percent improved fuel economy. The vehicles use a two-mode full hybrid combined with a Vortec 5300 V-8 with Displacement on Demand (DoD) technology. The two-mode full hybrid system is based on GM’s successful diesel-electric hybrid propulsion system for transit buses, 364 of which are in service in 25 cities in the U.S. and Canada .
2008 – GM estimates that up to 2 million GM vehicles with V6 and V8 engines will feature Displacement on Demand technology by 2008.
2010 – GM may have a number of hydrogen fuel cell models on the market. And other additions may supplement GM’s three hybrid systems employed in a number of models.
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 13 2005 0:06 utc | 88
Correction: “variable value timing and fuel improvements on 3.5 liter and 6.2 liter engines” in the Oct 12, 2005 2:14:26 PM post should read:
variable valve timing…
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 13 2005 2:30 utc | 89