So judging from all the hypermilng you've seen on greenhybrid Martin, do you think the VUE Green Line will have good hypermiling potenial? Thank you!

Phil

i got around 20 km a liter when i drove a civic 5 spd using advanced hypermiler techniques
and now I drive a salvage nwh20 prius that gets almost to 25 km/l with 192,000 km to date.

I have to disagree. It is not a "fine line". Actually I don't think is $2,500 I believe is closer to $1,000. In Canada the offer is presented as buy any 2006 Pontiac and GM will pay part of your gas expenses upto 2,500 litres during the first year. This encourages people to use more gas during the first year so they don't loose their incentive. It also benefits GM by increasing the visits to the dealerships and repairs.

The actual amount and the additional repairs and earlier need for service is irelevant. The incentive to use more gas is relevant.

Mr. Bush had finally acknowledged what the world knew all along, "Americans are addicted to Oil". That was a positive step, then GM says we will help you pay for your addiction if you buy our product.

pass it on...

Katz.

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

Some folks want/need full sized vehicles that can do more than haul 5-8 people.I have a Pilot, it is a great trip vehicle.It can carry 3 adults+ big dog=4 cats+ misc 'stuff".We can also sleep in the back of it.Same story with any of the minivans-carry lots of people,animals,"stuff". They have a of limitation:
They can't tow/aren't suitable for towing anything over 3500 lbs(and that really means you had better stay under 2500 lbs tow wt ).This means it can tow light utility trailers,motorcycles,and very small boats.
There will always be a market for a vehicle that can tow "big" meaning~6500 lbs, and still carry 5 people in relative comfort.This means a big SUV with a variation of body on frame frame, or a 4 door pickup.If GM has done their homework correctly, then they"know' how big that market will be with $3 gas, or $4 gas.Their vehicles are perfect for this dual use/haul lots of people while hauling something heavy-frequently something "fun"-boat,ATVs,motorcycles,camper etc.
Folks here-S Louisiana-love their boats.In some parts there is a boat in every other driveway,side of house-plenty of MCs also.
Does anyone out there have a boat-offroad MC,atv etc? I don't care much for boats, but a lotta folks love boating.
GM isn't targeting folks from this forum for their large vehicle; that doesn't mean that there isn't a big (PUN) market for them.
Fun counts!! Some people spend their $$ on boats others want a 2500+ sq ft house.No family of 5 needs 2500 sq ft(in Europe and Japan families probably live in 1000 sq ft).Big houses cost energy-lots of energy.I would bet that most folks spend a little more on "house energy" than on vehicle energy.
Luck,Charlie

This will not make economic sense in the short term for GM.

General Motors needs to do better PR on fuel economy. The perception goes beyond people on forums like this that GM is dismissive of gas mizers.

What if Waggoner, Lutz, York, said GM put too many of their eggs in the SUV/Truck market? What if they said they regret snubbing the hybrid, and tried to educate the public about the two-mode system? What if they said they wanted to get serious about taking back the sedan market from the Accords and Camerys?

I know martinjlm has pointed out that GM has vehicles that have good FE in their class.

While GM wrestles over the next five years to get labor costs in line and weather the storm, a good PR campaign in concert with new products that will offer good FE will change minds over time. The perception won't happen overnight, but at least make the effort.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

This justification always comes up. Sure this is America and you can buy whatever you want, but many of these folks base their decisions on 1% of their driving..... i.e. I 'need' a big SUV because I go camping once a year or tow a boat to and from the lake twice a year. My wife and I drive a CR-V and a HCH. If I need to build a deck or tow something once a year I will rent or borrow the appropriate vehicle. I certainly don't see many huge SUV's towing boats or carrying more than one person on my morning commute.

Sorry to rant off topic..........

I should've been clearer....You can take the fuel subsidy with GM, which depending on what, how, and how much you drive could result in refunds to the customer of $65 - a couple hundred dollars per month, or you can accept the $2,000 - 2,500 that Toyota, Ford and DCX are putting on the hoods of their SUVs. That's the $2,500 I was referring to. At the end of the day, the customer who buys any of those SUVs is going to spend the same amount of money on gas as they would have without the incentive. There are just different schemes as to how to subsidize the customer's overall out of pocket experience. On average, Toyota, Ford, and DCX are giving the customer MORE money to spend on gas. The customer just has the flexibility to spend the money on other things as well.

In order to use more gas, people would have to drive more kilometers. I can't imagine that people intentionally driving more kilometers just to get "more money back". That's sorta like buying a $200 pair of shoes I don't need only because they are marked down to $75 and I can save $125. I only save $125 if I was already willing to spend $200 for that pair of shoes. If I don't need the sshoes, then I'm signing up to spend $75 that I didn't need to spend. Same thing here. People are going to drive the number of kilometers they typically drive, and their savings will be comensurate. The exception may be that maybe I drive to my annual vacation instead fo fly there, because now my gas purchase is subsidized.

I would interpret the message a little differently. It's sorta....

If you're gonna buy an SUV, buy the one that's most fuel efficient and we'll help you on your gas purchase. If you're going to walk away from your SUV and buy a mid-size sedan, buy the ones that are most fuel efficient in their class and we'll help ya with that gas purchase, too."

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am soooo not the right person to answer this.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

Delta Flyer,

I'm with you 100% on the perception thing. That's what landed me here on this newsgroup in the first place. I see and hear the misperceptions and feel compelled to dispute some of them with data. GM does have to do a much better job of managing a consistent PR message. That's starting, but there's still a long way to go. I could tell you about how much time, brainpower, and energy went into the "Live Yellow, Go Green" campaign, but I'd get in a lot of trouble . Suffice it to say, it was not an ad agency that came up with the idea, the campaign, or the slogan. It was a group of some of our most forward thinking, ambitious, young newcomers who were asked by leadership to come up with an idea to correctly position the E85 story.

Perception is a big reason why you are able to maintain the opinion that GM is snubbing the hybrid market. If you look in our showrooms, you could easily come to that conclusion. On the other hand, I've been in several meetings on hybrids with Mr. Lutz and Mr. Wagoner and heard their opinions on where we should be with hybrids and by when. It's different than what's portrayed in public via selective sound bites. I also know more than a handfull of people who have been working on hybrid technologies for years.

Keep in mind that most vehicles that are hitting the ground today were basically finalized for powertrain content two and a half to three years ago. Since the Green Line is launching in about a month, that means that commitment to do it had to have been solidified in 2003. Work would have had to start on it significantly before that. Likewise, the commitment to significantly improve the fuel economy on SUVs that were already leading their segment in fuel economy had to be committed to years ago, not just as a result of Katrina.

If Wagoner and Lutz were as against hybrid technology as some people perceive them to be, the Green Line would never have seen the light of day. What Mr. Lutz has said on ocassion to raise the ire of hybrid afficionados is that in his opinion, clean diesel technology is a more efficient and effective alternative. I doubt he's the only one with that opinion. He has also said that GM will be very judicious in where and how we deploy hybrid technology because the economics of the technology don't support free expression deployment. That's just common sense. Don't set yourself up to lose money on every product. As you have noted, the PR machine has to be and is being kicked into gear. Excellent product is flowing through the pipeline. To the extent that perception is changed and supported by product, we think we can get there.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

???
When gas prices are high people drive less. When gas prices are low people drive more.

Gas price even becomes part of the criteria for buying a home. If gas prices are high people try to live close to work.

You are involved in GM's planning of hybrid vehicles, you should know that high gas prices are the best incentive for people to buy the vehicles you are "planning".

Also you should be the first one to protest when GM lowers the Gas prices, this works against the vehicles you're planning.

C'mon. GM wants to sell the SUVs and not the small/medium vehicles. When you walk into your showrooms the message is clear. GM makes more money selling SUVs than small vehicles, you know it ! we know it !

If you as the person planning GM's Hybrid Vehicles doesn't see what the rest of us, outsiders, easily see... there is no hope !

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

I think that's a little on the harsh side. Even with a 33% price break on $3 gasoline, it would still be cheaper to drive a 30mpg GreenLine vehicle than a 15-18mpg truck-based SUV, especially considering that the fuel savings are permanent and the price break is not. That said, this price break does not make the big SUV competitive with the smaller BAS-equipped vehicle. Even moderately thoughtful consumers will see this and shop accordingly.

We have to look at this from the perspective of GM's management. Like Martin keeps saying, new technology takes years to put on the road. We all want to see that, but GM needs to stay alive so that they can fund this development. This means drawing consumers by whatever means necessary and financially viable to vehicles on which they can make money.

Like it or not, GM's management is not out to save the world. They are out to stay in business. It's not that they don't "get it," it's that they have other things to worry about that preclude the ability to be as rapidly adaptable as we would like. They will move with the market at the quickest pace that they can manage.