Official: GM Quietly Drops Hybrid Pickups; Are SUVs Next?

Hybrid=Voodoo

 

eassist hybrids, mild hybrids, then full hybrids, but only 29 mpg combined for eassists compared to regular gas cars. Compare Side-by-Side

 

Right from the start, Prius irritated GM. Having a multi-display presenting efficiency real-time data empowered owners and created a desire for something that automaker couldn't compete with.

Greenwashing now by making vague references to Highway MPG simply confirms how bad the situation has grown. And that's without even considering the growing shift to eAssist, a hybrid system that can't even compete with traditional vehicles.

Back when Two-Mode was being developed, there was lots of bragging about size & power. When Volt entered the scene, interest shifted to speed & capacity. In both cases, want blinded reason. Enthusiasts simply dismissed the importance of addressing need, making excuses about supply & demand instead.

What a mess.

 

Toyota does it too. This ad shows the TCH blowing past sportbikes on the hwy (LMAO) will touting 43mpg which is, of course, city.

 

2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid Full Test

 

The is also the big 53 with Prius c material.

It's a Cadillac.
How many LS hybrids does Toyota sell at close to 120k?

 

Awesome.

I wonder if GM will do a version of that ad with the Volt touting its European 196 mpg combined and weighted estimate?

It would be more accurate.

 

Apparently, the good city mileage is because the Avalon is "a full two-mode hybrid".

 

No disagreement about other automakers playing the game too; however, there isn't type misleading also included.

Notice how many times the ECO model was touted, even though very few people actually purchased it and only transmission available was manual? Knowing that people weren't actually getting the MPG being advertised, since they'd overwhelming choose the less efficient model instead, what does that say about the advertising approach?

Seeing GM actually phase out traditional offerings for specific mainstream vehicles, offering eAssist exclusively, would be an interesting twist. But then again, since when is even 36 MPG highway helpful to our dependence on oil?

Similar situation with Two-Mode... how was 22 MPG for a vehicle used almost entirely as a people mover helpful?

There is a happy medium, where cost & efficiency balance with what will actually help the masses. Unforunately, the middle is not what GM likes to sell.

 

Starting in 2013, the Buick La Crosse dropped the standard 4 cylinder engine and now comes standard with eAssist with a 2.4L 4 cylinder engine. The eAssist engine gets about 20% better mileage across the board on city/highway/combined so it does more than just start/stop engine shutoff.

You can pay extra for an optional non-eAssist 3.6L V6.

Baby steps are better than nothing...

 

That was not the agreement in the bankruptcy recovery plan.

Remember the "too little, too slowly" concern?

You don't push, they don't bother.

 

The history of Two-Mode was loaded with direction changes. Every time you checked, it was a different story.

That appears to be the case with eAssist now too. The news has already changed to Equniox & Terrain not getting it.

Ugh.

 

Did you actually look at the bankruptcy and government bailout?

Assist was not a condition. It was about stopping the bleeding of money and keeping jobs.

The court was concerned about gm staying to big and too thin.

Canceling 2-mode, the topic here, is about not wasting resources. I think your only concern on the thread, is to repeat strange lines and bring nothing to the conversation.

My biggest concern about GM going back to bankruptcy is the bleeding in Europe.

 

20% better mileage from the last generation Malibu? Compare Side-by-Side

 

Yes and there are comments about it in my blog. Regardless of whatever quibbling about detail some may want to bring up, reality is the standards across the board about being raised for all automakers.

The tax-credits will expire.

The CAFE requirements will be raised.

The CARB/EPA levels will advance.

Competition will grow.

Profit still needs to be made... as more and more guzzler factory shutdown or need significant retooling.

 

Well if you can't explain it here, I certainly will not be going to your blog.

CAFE standards are going up. Yes. The bankruptcy and bail out had nothing to do with that. You make it sound like you are a hard right republican blogger, that thinks the bail out was bad, and you want to unemployee all of the gm workers, because you don't like gm's moves towards efficiency.

???
We are on a thread about two-mode going away. Tax credits are gone. Your comment was about eco-assist, which is start stop technology. There are no tax breaks for that.

yes, the new standards are already in place. Again what does this have to do with your comment?

I hope not. Do you think the EPA wants to repeal its own rules for 2025, and try to kill automakers?

I'm not sure what that even means. You think there will be more car companies in the future?

So you want to kill the toyota truck factory. I'm against that. You want to call the malibu eco-assist a guzzler, I disagree. Stop being cryptic. What are you against? Is it the USA? Apple pie? Tundra? Venza? cruize? Please at least try to make a little sense. You may have some points we agree with, but when you confuse eco-assist with a guzzer, and the bankrupcy court with the tea party, you seem likely you are loosing it.

 

You probably should compare apples with apples
Compare Side-by-Side

29 mpg e-assist versus 26 for the malibu without it, I get 11%. Accord does 30 mpg though, and camry 28 mpg. What does that say? E-assist definitely improves fuel economy, but other companies can do as well without it. The technology has promise, but gm is far behind in their mid size sedan, and e-assist is not enough to get them caught up. GM does much better in their new smaller cars - cruize, sonic, spark.

 

GM does what they know best: spinning wheels and going no where.

DBCassidy

 

Obviously. There are so many misunderstandings about so many of those previous comments, I'm choosing only one to reply to, with a restatement of purpose:

For each automaker to replace their own traditional vehicle production.

GM is competing with itself.