Two climate control systems, one inside and the other at the tailpipe.

2007 Camry Hybrid (in service June 2006)
FE: 6.67L/100km or 35.3 mpg (6.11L/100km or 38.5 mpg in summer)

Once again, it seems like the more hybrids the car manufacturer has, the better they've done.

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

Careful! This is not what the Gearheads and "experts" in the media are saying.

GM says that last year's discounts are why sales were so much better, but is that a positive spin? They need to recover.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

I get no joy from this news but sometimes things have to get bad, real bad, before they can get better. We'll see.

I remember Chrysler had a "come to Jesus" moment back in the 80's and they worked themselves out of the hole.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

While hybrids certainly *help*, there are many other factors involved here too. Toyota and Honda have a well-earned reputation for long-lasting quality at a decent price. GM has a well-earned reputation for making low-quality guzzlers. Toyota and Honda adjust the look/style/engineering of their cars every 2-3 years. GM freshens their models every 4-5 years, which means their products often look stale. Toyota/Honda basically OWN the small and subcompact car market (sure, they're not as profitable on a per-unit basis, but if you sell a zillion of them, who cares?) GM's focus has been heavy-duty work trucks and large SUVs (the people who really NEED big trucks still buy them, but many who don't are going for station wagons, midsize SUVs, and CUVs). Finally, Toyota and Honda take risks (like making hybrids), and GM just plain doesn't.

GM's and the Big 3's problem in this country is labor costs-pension costs-retirement costs.Honda ,Toyota,Nissan built there plants in low wage non union states. GM can't (by contract) build vehicles in this country with non union labor. Big , high profit margin vehicles are/were the only vehicles GM could build with the $60/hr labor they use.
GMs big vehicles are very good, but they just aren't going to be selling as many with gas at $3 and up. GM didn't put much effort into building small cars in this country, since they made almost no profit; why would they? They can and do build good small cars in Europe, Asia, SA, but they can't build them here for a profit.
Toyota and Nissan have a $20 hr labor/retirement/healthcare cost advantage in this country. There is no way to overcome that kind of advantage.
Everyone at GM is going to agree to make a lot less $$ and the retirees are going to have to take smaller pensions/higher healthcare costs.If they don't GM will be out of business in the USA and most folks-retirees- will get 10-20 cents on the $$.
Luck,Charlie

I would certainly not want GM to fail either. I work/live near a GM assembly plant and my best friend assemblies GM trucks for a living, so it would affect the local economy for sure. I was a loyal GM buyer for years, but I just got tired of calling the tow truck to haul that stuff back to the dealer (3 of 4 new GM vehicles I had needed to be towed back to the dealer while under warranty). I finally switched in 2003 by choosing a Sienna over a Silouette even though the Silouette had more options and was cheaper (with all the discounts). I just couldn't go GM anymore. This time around to replace my aging Cavalier I wanted the 3 "C"s, cool/comfy/clean. I suppose instead of my TCH I could have opted for a flex fuel Impala designed and built in this area, but I'd have to drive several hours to find E85 to put into it. Sometimes I kind of feel disloyal in my TCH when I get caught in a convoy of shiny new GM trucks right off the assembly line moving to the rail transit area which is right behind where I work, but I gotta go my own way on this one...

Two climate control systems, one inside and the other at the tailpipe.

2007 Camry Hybrid (in service June 2006)
FE: 6.67L/100km or 35.3 mpg (6.11L/100km or 38.5 mpg in summer)

If I recall correctly, that's what Ralph Nader told us during the 2000 election.


Chrysler came to Jesus after they came to the US Government with their hand out.

I don't have a problem with a federal bailout of the auto industry, but it galls me when they say "We want your money, but you can't tell us what to do." Who do they think they are, Kim Jong-Il?

Would-be hypermiler

Oh, I know that, for some reason (I'm guessing a site error) I never put a smiley face there. As I've said before, it's specious logic, but it's still fun to point out.

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

Of course, the other problem GM has is that they treat the E85 vs Hybrid as an "either/or" issue. There's no reason that they couldn't hybridize a powertrain that burns ethanol (or diesel, or hydrogen, or CNG).

Ford figured it out. Isn't the latest incarnation of the Escape an E85/hybrid?

GM's lack of innovation and lack of automotive know-how is probably the biggest source of their sales shortfall. After all, if they were still commanding a 25% market share (as opposed to the 17% they have now), you wouldn't hear the bloated CEO/Executives *****ing about having to pay for their employees' health insurance and pensions.