[color=black] ....What would be especially interesting if these hybrid-drive systems started showing up in urban delivery trucks. It might even make an interested variation of the Stryker if GM and General Dynamics could collaborate.
Bob Wilson
I personally think that urban delivery vehicles and taxi-cabs make the best functional applications for hybrids. Problem is, both of these populations tend to buy on a fleet basis and are very price sensitive. As the technology matures and slides down the cost curve I'm sure we'll see these types of applications increase.
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'm wondering if GM uses the same PR firm as 3d-Realms? Surely some of the same people who run the GM hybrid division are moonlighting on the Duke Nukem Forever project in their spare time....
I think I'm one of the few people here who got that
Toyota and Honda have strengths in developing and producing small and mid-size cars. They have developed hybrids to protect their market share in those areas and are gradually scaling the systems up to apply to larger vehicles.
GM and Ford have strengths in developing full-size pickups and SUVs. They have developed hybrids to protect their market share in those areas and are gradually scaling the systems to apply to smaller vehicles.
yes, precisely. i think you have made our point here. gm has historically not cared about fuel efficiency or the environment. they are addicted to the higher profits of their huge gas guzzling suvs and trucks.
all this talk about gm playing to their strengths is hard to swallow and looks like desperate pr at best. gm fought and fought california's zero emission mandate (hence the reason we caved and have pzev and at-pzev). even with pzev, gm drags its feet. this quote from a gm engineer is indicative of their thinking and the reason why they're in the trouble they're in:
"We're fairly certain our customers would be unwilling to pay it (pzev)," says Kevin Cullen, staff development engineer at General Motors' Milford, Mich., proving grounds and technical adviser for GM environmental programs. "If the sticker price reflects the difference in costs, we don't think there'll be a whole lot of PZEVs sold in the open market."
wow. talk about being wrong, wrong wrong. while gm slept toyota, honda and even ford plowed ahead with pzev and at-pzev vehciles and went nationwide to help spread the costs and prepare for the future.
we're nearing the tipping point with gas prices when the big car/suv mentality in america will change. gm is not prepared for the consequences. "playing to their strengths" will only hasten their demise unfortunately.
A 3mpg increase in a vehice that gets 15 to begin with is actually saving more fuel than a 10mpg increase in something that gets 30mpg. This is why I think gpc (gallons/100mi) would be a more straightforward measurement system in terms of calculating cost.
I think percentage is a bad way to rate the adequacy of "hybridizing" a vehicle. Take a 5 MPG vehicle to 10 and you get 100% "improvement", but look at where you started. I've said before, if my son improves an F to a D- in school, sure he made an improvement, but he's still getting a D-, and shouldn't have had an F in the first place. The whole category of power-hybrids are not in the game for fuel economy - it's there for cheap HP. The real change we need to make is to get folks to drive 30-40 MPG vechcles in the first place, not drive hybrid versions of already-wasteful vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Trinity
GM basically sees those large inefficient vehicles as an easier opportunity to save fuel in terms of total dollars, and realize cost-effectiveness, than putting similarly expensive hybrid equipment into a smaller, already more efficient vehicle. I suspect they will migrate their system down to smaller vehicles in subsequent model years.
I don't think any power-hybrid (GM or otherwise) does so for saving gas. Those vehicles want power, FE comes along for the ride. GM is just focusing on where their bread and butter is. We can fault them all we like for being slow in this area (and I have), but knowing what your core-competency is the way to stay in business - even if we don't agree with what that competency is or what it represents. I hope they get a chance to build a good economy hybrid - would probably do them a bit of good.
I was *so* disappointed when I heard that GM had decided to table their planned Saturn VUE hybrid in favor of "hybridizing" their larger, more expensive vehicles - their logic being that customers buying in that price-range would be more willing to spend the extra dollars for the technology. I emailed Saturn to confirm this, & they responded with the news that they would be offering a hybrid VUE starting sometime this year, but it turned out to be only as a "mild" hybrid - apparently the battery will only be used to keep the accessories running, but not to power the vehicle.
So, in spite of the fact that I married into a GM family, I decided to forgo the discounted price I could have gotten on a GM vehicle, & bought my FEH. My husband was initially a little wary about my decision, but now he brags about my mpg as much as I do!
I did email Saturn, telling them that I thought it was a mistake not to offer a full-hybrid VUE, as I'm sure I'm not the only "little person" who would have been willing to pay more for it than for a straight ICE VUE. No response to that one.
yes, precisely. i think you have made our point here. gm has historically not cared about fuel efficiency or the environment. they are addicted to the higher profits of their huge gas guzzling suvs and trucks.
all this talk about gm playing to their strengths is hard to swallow and looks like desperate pr at best. gm fought and fought california's zero emission mandate (hence the reason we caved and have pzev and at-pzev).
So did Toyota and Honda. Check the dockets. There was/is an automotive consortium. GM and DCX were the ones most vocal about it, but most of the makers we all know and love (or not) were in it. By the way, if we both agree that both groups of companies are playing to their strengths, how do you follow up with "all this talk about gm playing to their strengths is hard to swallow and looks like desperate pr at best." ? Seems contradictory. At the same time, GM has vehicles with segment leading fuel economy in the segments where they compete the best. Do we have a 50 mpg vehicle? No. Do we have vehicles that get better fuel economy than Toyota vehicles in the same segment (Impala v Camry, Tahoe v Sequioa) Yes. Likewise, Toyota has models in the smaller car segments that are more fuel efficient than GM small cars. A company that doesn't care about fuel economy wouldn't work too hard to accomplish that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbalthaser
even with pzev, gm drags its feet. this quote from a gm engineer is indicative of their thinking and the reason why they're in the trouble they're in:
"We're fairly certain our customers would be unwilling to pay it (pzev)," says Kevin Cullen, staff development engineer at General Motors' Milford, Mich., proving grounds and technical adviser for GM environmental programs. "If the sticker price reflects the difference in costs,we don't think there'll be a whole lot of PZEVs sold in the open market."
wow. talk about being wrong, wrong wrong.
Actually, I know Kevin very well and can say that you are doing him a gross dis-service by mis-representing the point he is making. You focus on the part in RED while ignoring the part in BLUE. Kevin's point is that if the true cost of making a vahicle PZEV were passed on to the consumer, the consumer would not pay for it. You cannot say that Kevin is wrong unless you know the true cost of making a vehicle PZEV and have done the research on whether or not customers would willingly pay that additional cost. Kevin is one of the few people in the company that can put a real pricetag on what it takes to get specific vehicles certified to PZEV and AT-PZEV status. Fact of the matter is, car companies eat most of the cost of achieving PZEV. By virtue of having significantly more volume, GM would have to eat significantly more cost than other automakers. As a result, PZEV models are rolled out more judisciously with focus on developing technologies to further reduce the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbalthaser
while gm slept toyota, honda and even ford plowed ahead with pzev and at-pzev vehciles and went nationwide to help spread the costs and prepare for the future.
I understand what you are trying to say here, and it makes sense. Unfortunately, things are really not that simple. This isn't just a "make more and the price will come down" type of an issue. It would take me volumes to clearly define why that is, so hopefully you can just take my word for it.
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 was *so* disappointed when I heard that GM had decided to table their planned Saturn VUE hybrid in favor of "hybridizing" their larger, more expensive vehicles - their logic being that customers buying in that price-range would be more willing to spend the extra dollars for the technology. ...
DebbieKatz,
The VUE Greenline Hybrid is the ONLY Saturn VUE hybrid that has been publicly discussed and it is being released this summer as planned. There was some delay in the readiness of the vehicle, primarily due to a need to outfit the vehicle with a more traditional step-gear transmission instead of a CVT, but the vehicle that has been talked about in the press is the same vehicle that is being released.
Anyone who is telling you that any planned Saturn VUE Hybrid program has been shelved in favor of a larger hybrid vehicle is very very mis-informed.
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 don't think any power-hybrid (GM or otherwise) does so for saving gas. Those vehicles want power, FE comes along for the ride. GM is just focusing on where their bread and butter is. We can fault them all we like for being slow in this area (and I have), but knowing what your core-competency is the way to stay in business - even if we don't agree with what that competency is or what it represents. I hope they get a chance to build a good economy hybrid - would probably do them a bit of good.
Tim,
The stuff I highlight in BLUE......You appear to be making an assumption that the reason for hybridizing VUE, Tahoe, Yukon, and any other products GM has planned is motivated by the desire to increase power. Let me assure you that there are so many other less costly ways to get significantly more power with no degradation in fuel economy available to GM that if this truly were the motivation, you'd never see a GM hybrid. The purpose of hybridizing those vehicles is to give the customer base for those type of vehicles a better fuel economy option. Period. Nothing else. Nobody's pretending that a Tahoe 2-Mode will compete in fuel economy with a Prius. It will, however, carry 7 or 8 people and tow a boat, if that's what the owner wants to do with it, and get better fuel economy than their neighbor's non-hybrid Tahoe which already gets better fuel economy than the other neighbor's Sequioa. That's the motivation. Nothing hidden between the lines.
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
...You appear to be making an assumption that the reason for hybridizing VUE, Tahoe, Yukon, and any other products GM has planned is motivated by the desire to increase power.
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to pick on GM. I feel the same way about the Accord hybrid, Highlander, Lexus...I won't dispute your point about why GM is adding hybrids to large vehicles. Although I think GM, along with Honda, Toyota and Ford, want to ride the wave of good press that comes along them.
Last point is that any vehicle, SUV or otherwise, regardless of maker and country of origin, that uses a hybrid to go from 15 to 18 MPG in the name of saving fuel is just OK in my eyes. Better than the alternative, yes. I think it just lulls folks into thinking they've done their good deed for the planet when other options are out there. Yes people will need to cart 9 people around and pull boats. No issue there. If they elect to do it in a hybrid, great. For the folks that don't need all that, they (and the planet) would be better off if they used a 30 MPG anything compared to a hybrid SUV they don't need. But it's America - far be it for anyone to tell anyone else what they need.
Suburban-a Natural for Hybridizing.-20 mpg Surburban
The Suburban would be perfect for Hybridizing. If GM doesn't make too "lite" a hybrid, it could be a good seller. A 20 MPG Suburban(EPA city) would be a winner.This would require a 33% increase-about what Honda gets with the Civic, I think, but less than what Toyota get with the Prius.
If GM is correct that there will always be a core market of several hundred thousand big SUV's then the Suburban should be #1 to be hybridized.
If they want to go with a car then the MAXX would be my choice. I wouldn't use the V6, but would use whatever 4 cyl they use in the regular Malibu( it matches the Accord 4 cyl auto in CR mpg reports-this makes it their "best" mpg vehicle in my book since). The Maxx is a pretty functional car-a 50% increase in mpg would set it apart.
I still have some hope for GM, but I don't know if they will be able to overcome their labor cost problem. The Japanese built their plants in low wage, non union states . GM plants are in high wage union states.The Japanese aren't "better' because they are "smarter" or have a better "corporate culture". They are better because they pay their USA employees $1000 less per car! This advantage is almost impossible to overcome.It is one reason GM stayed with the big SUVs so long, and ignored small profit small cars. Luck,Charlie
Re: GM hyrids
my FEH 
