GM Shouldve coined the "mild hybrids" in a different way

I kinda got to thinking about this after reading something another poster said on the Saturn Aura Hybrid thread:

Johnncat 26: Toyota is like the slick salesman who makes you feel good about what you bought, without realizing that they're really selling stolen goods off the back dock of the warehouse. GM is the salesman with a stutter.

While I dont think that Toyota is by any means selling stolen goods, I do wholeheartedly agree that GM is the salesman with a stutter. This is evident in their marketing and description of these so-called mild-hybrid vehicles.

The problem is that people see the word 'hybrid' and then they see the gas mileage and think, "thats not a very efficent hybrid". But what if they didnt call it - because it isnt - a hybrid. What if they were to coin some sort of corporate lingo (e-flex, synergy drive, etc. etc.) to highlight these as some type of highly optomized ICE engine? Shuts off when stopped, cuts the cylinders used in half when cruising, electric assit under hard accleration; all of these things work to cut waste and smooth the operation of the engine. Furthermore, they would most certainly help to lengthen the life of the engine as it would be under less strain.

Why not 'milk' this? Its kind of like an athlete deciding if they want to red-shirt and bench-ride a D1 team or be an active, important member of a team at a D2 school? Theres nothing wrong with D2, the majority of Universities in the nation ARENT D1, just like the majority of cars on the road ARENT hybrids. They wouldve done better to show that they had the best non-hybrid ICE system, and then bring out their real two-mode hybrids.

Furthermore, the 'mild hybrids' greatly hurt the credibility of the fourthcoming two-mode hybrids.

The 'highly optomized' ICE (or whatever they decide to call it), could provide an almost no-cost option for a buyer to get a vehicle that has improved gas mileage and emissions over its competitors. Please take a look at this hypothetical situation:

The Chevy Malibu gets 24/34 MPG. This is pretty much equal to its competitors, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord at 24/33 and 24/34 respectively.

If GM were to apply the 'mild hybrid' system, but not call it that, to the Malibu, what would it do? The best way to predict how doing this would affect mileage and price is with the Vue. The GL Vue gets 17% gas mileage in the city and 10% better on the highway. This would put the Malibus gas mileage up to 28/37. In other words, the Malibu, a midsize, would now rival the Corolla, a highly efficent compact.

But how will that affect costs? Again we can look to the Vue. When equally equipped (if you want to check for yourself, make sure you compare the Vue GL to the Vue with Auto, 4 wheel ABS, and the Sport/appearance package) the green line costs only 1,100 dollars more. Therefore, we can expect the price of the Malibu to raise 1,100 dollars.

BEFORE
Chevy Malibu - 17,215 - 24/34
Toyota Camry - 19,520 - 24/33
Honda Accord - 19,425 - 24/34

Now look:

AFTER
Chevy Malibu - 18,315 - 28/37
Toyota Camry - 19,520 - 24/33
Honda Accord - 19,425 - 24/34

WOW! Still 1,000 dollars cheaper and it kills em in MPG! GM's system is too mild to be called a hybrid, but that dosen't mean it is useless. It just needs to be intelligently applied and marketed. It could easily be applied to its regular vehicles with little extra work, and in most cases, would not bridge the gap in costs between its Japanese competitors.

Heres a few more examples really quick of how this would change GM vehicles in certain segments:

Compacts
Chevy Cobalt - 14,275 - 30/37
Toyota Corolla - 14,305 - 32/41
Nissan Sentra - 14,750 - 28/34

While not yet on top, we see the Cobalt move up to no longer be the least efficent compact. More could be gained when GM's next generation I4's come out. The Honda Civic was omitted because of its higher cost, I consider it somewhat a premium compact, such as the VW Jetta.

Full-Size
Chevy Impala - 22,150 - 25/34
Toyota Camry V6 - 23,450 - 22/31 **Used Camry V6 because Avalon is quasi-luxury and 10k more expensive
Ford Taurus - 23,035 - 21/29 **Also known as the 500, but the Taurus name is back for 08'

The Impala moves far out in front on MPG, yet still lacking slightly in the horsepower catagory compared to the Camry.

Mid-Size Trucks
Chevy Colorado - 14,010 - 23/29
Ford Ranger - 14,975 - 24/29
Toyota Tacoma - 14,180 - 23/28

It is important to note that in this case the Colorodo outpowers its competitors by about 42/36 HP respectivley.


What do you see? Chevys that still cost less, but give you gas mileage that is now on par in segments we were losing, or far exceeding in segments where we tied the competition.

I think it would be a good idea to do this. Perhaps the Saturn brand would be a better choice, as I think it is likely the least damaged GM brand. Imagine the reputation Saturn would get if every last vehicle had this system applied to it. Thoughts?

edit: its late and im not going to spell check.

Ok, I had just laid down when I realized something else, but I couldnt find a place to put it in my above post.

I think that: People who want to buy hybrids buy hybrids. People who want to buy normal cars buy normal cars. I would wager that cross-shopping is very rare. Sure it happens, but its kinda like trying to decide between a CRV and a Expedition; very apples to oranges.

That being said, when hybrid shoppers see the GM mild hybrids, they realize they are the bottom of the barrel and dont buy them, as the hybrid buyer is far more concerned with MPG than initial cost.

When a normal car shopper sees the hypothetically improved GM normal cars, they will realize they are at or near the top of the MPG spectrum, as well as being slightly less expensive. This is important as this shopper is likely more concerned with BOTH initial cost and MPG.

More assumptions, yes. Still logical to make, I think so.

Why should they do that?

Using "hybrid" allows them to ride the hybrid popularity wave and appear to be green.

The fact that the mileage sucks blackens the reputation of hybrids in the eyes of the public. Yet another plus for them.

Why should they do anything different as long as they make money?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 30 2007, 12:37 AM) [snapback]432383[/snapback]</div>

Because as a result of calling those vehicles hybrids they cause people like you and many others on this board to be so overcome with... whatever.. that you hate them. Thats why.

And since when has GM been riding the hybrid popularity wave? Can anyone find any published review touting GM for hybrid excellence in its endeavours thus far? Everybody lambasts the hell out of them, and rightfully so.

did i spell lambasts right??

My hatred of GM has nothing to do with their tacking the "hybrid" name on cars that do nothing more than shut off at a stoplight. My hatred of them has to do with the way they dismantled public transportation in the 1950s, the way they stole all the EV1s from the drivers and crushed them, for no apparent reason other than so people would not see them on the street, and the way they have generally acted like a corporate robber baron in the entire time in between.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 30 2007, 12:32 AM) [snapback]432378[/snapback]</div>

I think it would be logical for GM to play up their greenness compared to Toyota.

GM has 8 PZEV models. Toyota has 3, including their hybrids. GM has 4 and 6 cylinder PZEV cars, and Toyota only produces 4 cylinder PZEV models.

The fact is, given all of GM's PZEV models and sales, GM likely sells more (in terms of units sold) partial zero emissions vehicles than Toyota.

http://www.greenercars.com/12green.html

Help me out here...where are the American car makers?

And the PZEV thing...some PZEV cars are only available in the most stict emissions states (CA, NY, etc., like 7 or 8 states). how does that help the rest of the US? I know, I know, one could order one and have it delivered or even drive to a state that sells one then drive back...but why make it so hard for the uneducated 'joe' (I'm in that category only becuse it's a nightmare to figure out emissions standards!!) to actually know and buy a PZEV? Why not make the PZEV for ALL states? Is it $$$?

Any links for these PZEV cars/price/availability? I've done some interent searching and found the above link...would love to know some sold numbers from the ALL car makers and learn more about why PZEV is just not available to all.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?c...d=4024642#quick

found another link for any interested. No sales numbers, but it does mention the limited availability of PZEVs. Why? Ahhh...fuel quality is the limiting factor....hmmmm....then why can't we all use a cleaner gasoline...oh, probably $$$ again.

Well, when the pollution costs less to produce than clean up, then there goes the good intentions of reducing pollution...gotta make the $$$ add up or we just continue with poisoning our air, not even thinking of the costs of bad health, etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Apr 30 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]432654[/snapback]</div>

http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/vsearch...ehicletypeid=16

Available in all CARB states...

Where is Toyota? Why can't Toyota at least try to make some non-hybrid PZEV vehicles? Why just the Camry and not the Corolla or Avalon?

Thanks, Johnnycat. I think I 'm getting closer to figuring the PZEV thing...no answers to your questions though.

So, here's the scenario: Two PZEV cars, one sold in CA and one sold in a non-CARB state (lets use SD, my home state). Can the SD car be considered PZEV? I don't know the quality of fuel in SD, but apparently the CARB states have 'cleaner' gasolines. Any easy way to make sense of this? Am I close?

Okay...Prius...sold to me in SD, now being driven in PA and other eastern CARB states (not sure if PA is a 'CARB' state...see it's sooo difficult!). Is my Prius NOT PZEV in SD, but now IS in PA... or NY, I know they are using CARB mandates? Or does this PZEV designation apply at the time of manufacture?

How in the world does it help the consumer to make it this hard to be 'greener'? Must be a car maker conspiracy (not just GM...seems others are "in" on it).

I know I'm asking many questions that can be answered with google...just want the short version if others already know!

Finman, when you car crossed the Delaware River and arrived in NJ your Prius was sprinkled with magic pixie dust that turned it into a PZEV. I won't go so far to say that the gas formulations you regularly buy are the same as I buy but the gas doesn't make the difference. Either the vehicle meets the standard or it doesn't. When sales are restricted to the CARB states it is probably due to production bottlenecks. Toyota made the Prius available everywhere and couldn't meet the demand. If they had restricted delivery to CARB states we may not have been paying MSRP last year or waiting as long to take delivery.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 30 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]432553[/snapback]</div>

I don't think this is correct, or revealing the entire picture. It's generally agreed that Toyota's overall new car mix is greener than GM's. In fact, only Ford's fleet is worse than GM's for the environment.

Frankly, I think that GM is afraid of being too green, lest they alienate the folks who don't like hybrids in the first place (and all that other pantywaist stuff which threaten our rights as Americans, including the right to waste as much energy as we see fit).

Perhaps they should have called it the OffAtLight system. :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 30 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]432714[/snapback]</div>

While you may have point in that some consumers flock to the " right to waste as much energy as we see fit" side of the spectrum, I think you would have to agree that these people are also the ones who would jump at the chance to 'stick it to OPEC'.. as it were.

My thread has been soooo hijacked. I worked really hard on those numbers too. =(

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 30 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]432743[/snapback]</div>

Sorry about hijacking your thread...but as you know, numbers often don't tell the whole story.

I think that these same folks, since we're wildly generalizing, don't see it as an opportunity to 'stick it to OPEC.'

They see any attempts to encourage increased efficiency/the modification of their behaviour as a direct affront to their freedom as Americans...to drive and buy what they want.

I personally have tried to play the 'efficiency is patriotic' angle here on PC and --even in this fertile environment-- have met with only modest success.

I can't imagine certain of the general public buying into this idea. After all, our very own President, shortly after 9/11, encouraged "America: Business as Usual."

In America, the way we stick it to someone else is by NOT doing anything different (proclaiming the 'rightness' of our way of life in the process), and bringing the threat of violence to their (often culturally inferior) homeland.

A kind of cultural manifest destiny, if you will.

The point: like it or not, these ideas will play strongly against your suggestions. In my opinion, GM is actually (in a perverse way) smart to avoid any real mileage ploy...until it's sure to not alienate its core customer base in the process.

Besides, most car buying decisions are not based upon logic. Look at the cars around you in traffic, or in the parking lot, if you don't believe me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 30 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]432553[/snapback]</div>

Interesting how you continue to be feed assumptions, rather than just posting the actual sales numbers.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Apr 30 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]432692[/snapback]</div>

Not anymore. The "cleaner" references are now all outdated.

As of January 1, 2006 all grades of gas nationwide were mandated to be low-sulfur.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Apr 30 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]432825[/snapback]</div>

Well, given the sheer number of vehicles that GM sells that are PZEV vs. the number of Priuses and PZEV camrys sold... I'm sure that's pretty easy to figure out. Care to disprove it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 30 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]432829[/snapback]</div>

It is generally incumbent on the claimant to provide proof, rather than demanding people 'disprove' your claims.

Otherwise people would say things like: Jonny, given your posts it's pretty easy to figure out you're a Dweeb. Care to disprove it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Apr 30 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]432841[/snapback]</div>

I never claimed to be otherwise.

However, logic suggests that with that many cars, 2 of them in the top 10 selling cars (Lumina and Cobalt) at various points... well, you figure it out. And you're pretty dweebish yourself, but then again... you knew that I'm sure.

EDIT: Also, just pointing out I never claimed anything... I just said it was likely. I know John doesn't read for context, but surely other people must. Sigh.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 30 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]432666[/snapback]</div>

Probably because their plan is to have all their cars hybrid in the middle-term future. Why spend research dollars developing non-hybrid technology that their plan would have them discarding soon?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 30 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]432743[/snapback]</div>

It's the nature of the internet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 30 2007, 08:02 PM) [snapback]432857[/snapback]</div>

This is true.. just never thought it would be two blasted kitty cats.