GM gets on the hybrid highway

Double production when they can't sell 900 units in a quarter. What's the point? Do the dealers need different lawn ornaments?

 

ound:

Yah - good one.

 

Double production? How about double MPG? The Malibu hybrid looks like a gas guzzler compared to the Altima hybrid.

 

'By the late 1990s, when Honda and Toyota were introducing their first hybrids in the U.S., GM executives had already considered the idea and given it a pass. "We had looked at those and thought the benefit to the consumer wasn't commensurate with the cost," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson.'

This is a realistic appraisal when GM"S cars are only getting 2 MPG more than non-hybrids of the same model. But when you get nearly twice the MPG, as the Prius does, your cars become Consumer reports "cheapest car to own and operate". Which is why I have one.

I really wish that GM would get it's head out of it's whatever and produce a car that would whup the Prius in terms of MPG and reliability. As an American, they embarrass me.

~Buttster

 

"GM blames battery problems for low production of those vehicles so far this year. The hybrid batteries in many first-generation Vue Green Line SUVs quickly lost their ability to hold a charge, said GM's Wilkinson, prompting a recall to replace the batteries.
The recall lasted into the early part of this year, Wilkinson said, putting a crimp on production and sales while GM worked out the problem. Now that battery problems have been solved, GM will produce more of these vehicles, he said."

Great. Now that BS will filter into the anti-Prius crowd and they'll claim the batteries don't last! When, in fact, it's GMs batteries that have had issues.

And to fix it, did they just visit the EV-1 crushing site, rip out the upgraded 10-year old NiMH batteries and use them?

Damn GM, you want to fail, don't you, so we as taxpayers will give you more money to close plants and give out more management bounuses for "reducing" costs and producing NOTHING that can compete with the Prius or the Cam-hybrid...cars that are SELLING.

 

Hammer......meet head of nail.

The market isn't looking for a 2 mpg increase with a hybrid. Why bother. Think 40-50% fuel economy increase......

22/30 = avg 26. Increase that average to 35 mpg (minimum) and shoot for 40 mpg. Malibu hybrid sales will do very very well if you do that. Otherwise, destined for failure (like the Accord Hybrid).

 

Guys bashing the GM "hybrid" - Think of the GM mild hybrids as something that should be installed on every single car on the road. This includes mild battery assist, auto start/stop technology and electrical accessories so that the engine does not need to be running to power your power steering pump, air conditioning, etc. Just think of how much fuel would be saved if every vehicle on the road had this!

GM's 2-mode hybrids are the real thing - if they would combine that system with a downsized engine you would see some significant economy gains. Already on their 2-mode SUVs and trucks you see impressive fuel economy gains in the city rivaling that of your average midsize sedan.

 

You mean like when GM single-handedly ruined the US Diesel Passenger Car Market for Decades?

The Worst Automobile Engines of All Time - Features- Popular Hot Rodding Magazine

 

Good intentions. Bad results. It simply does not make any sense implementing an incomplete solution on the widescale like that. Remember, there are two goals from hybrids...

EFFICIENCY is only one.

SMOG-EMISSION reduction is the other.

Those mild hybrids do absolutely nothing to reduce the emissions that contribute to smog. That's why SULEV and PZEV from the better hybrids is so important.

.

 

So you are saying that reducing fuel consumption without reducing emissions is pointless?

I think that many people would disagree. Take it to an extreme - what if their mild hybrid cut fuel consumption in half but still had the same level of HC and NOx emissions? I think the vast majority of people would still find the advance worth while since it still cuts CO2 emissions in half and reduces our dependency on foreign oil.

If you use your logic, all the new "clean" diesels are also pointless since they will (if they ever make it to market here in the USA) typically have higher NOx emissions than the gas car they replace but will burn significantly less fuel overall.

Saying something is worthless because it is not perfect does not get us anywhere - any improvement in either fuel consumption or smog emissions is worthwhile.

 

I think everyone needs to give GM a break. Just the other day I was talking to a friend of mine. I said I need a car to get back and forth to work. I realize the planet is getting in bad shape, we have a horrible situation in the middle east and are dependant on their oil, and gas prices are going through the roof. So I told him I wanted a 2 ton vehicle that averaged 19 miles to the gallon. I would also like it to be horribly unreliable. As I was passing a chevy dealer I saw the lights shining from heaven on a brand new 2008 Chevy Tahoe. Yaaaa hoooo.
:whoo:

 

For some reason you seem to like GM. However you need to have some words translated from GM lingo into english.

GM said the Prius synergy drive is too complicated, GM wanted to create a simpler "mild hybrid" ===>> translation ===>>> ..... GM wanted to make a lot of money building SUVs and trucks, so they threw the research they did on hybrids in the 90s into the trash. Since they are a knee jerk type of company and they like to make money on whatever is hot NOW.... They said to the engineers... what can we slap together in a few months, drop it into our existing cars, and throw a hybrid sticker on the back? Answer.... "mild hybrid"

 

Gee, the way CNW declared the Hummer was more green than the Prius (mine's getting 60 mpg on this tank)... I wonder how their new report will find the Malibu Hybrid and it's fantastic increased mpg vs the Hummer? :lol:
Yeah right.

 

I don't give a crap about GM. I have never bought or owned a GM car. The only GM vehicle I have had extended experience with was a Pontiac Phoenix - seriously the most unreliable car ever and had the nickname "The Brown Bomb" - yeah, it was a PoS.

Instead of throwing and spewing "GM hatred" around, I am simply trying to argue the technical merits of a mild hybrid system. Meanwhile others are hell-bent on discrediting anything GM made simply because it is GM - which is no better than all the Prius bashers out there bashing the Prius because it is a Prius.

A mild hybrid system has it's benefits. It provides a ~10% reduction in fuel consumption with a slight increase in cost. GM is not the only one working on mild-hybrid technology, BMW and other European manufactures are also working on similar functionality, too (Look at the BMW "Efficient Dynamics" tech).

 

I think to compete, GMs GOT to do one better than the Prius. My opinion, and, yes, some will consider auto-stop to be all they need...yet, in the "free" market, bring the best to market or go home in 2nd place. Why would GM "settle" for that? Is that, too, an American tradition now?

And recent GM history has proven they don't want to succeed in efficient AND clean cars. Why can Toyota do it, and GM can't (won't)?

The whole buy American thing is in favor of the home team, yet GM is not producing wins. Time for a manager change...you know Steinbrenner wouldn't wait this long.

 

A car does not have to be a hybrid to achieve SULEV or PZEV. The technology for cleaner emmissions is independent of hybrid technology. I agree that you should improve emmissions when you can, but a hybrid isn't pointless when they aren't improved.
Now calling an auto-stop system a hybrid is a seperate issue that GM should be called on. Now it can be a big improvement if it was applied across more models and numbers.
The two-mode system is an important developement. It may have started in an SUV, but it's going into a truck soon. There are people and businesses that truly need to use of a truck. It's better for all of us if they have an clean efficient option. YEs, the hybrid doesn't improve emmissions, but GM's competitors have so far only announced diesels for the segemnt if NA.

 

Less than if people drove 55 MPH on the interstate instead of 65 MPH. not like anyone actually sticks to that either. And then there are the states with 70 MPH or 75 MPH limits.

You are right, 10% is a step in the right direction but given the existing technology, it seems like much too small a step. It won't get them close to the future 35 MPG CAFE standards.

 

Frankly, I will bash GM :smash:

What GM is calling a hybrid and people's expectation of a hybrid are very different. <Insert something about perception and reality here>

If all their "hybrid" is doing is performing an autostop at a stop sign, that's great! But don't call it a hybrid (even if it "technically" is correct, which I'm not sure it is) because that isn't what the public's perception of what a hybrid is. It is something that should just "come with the car", much like power steering now just "comes with the car". To call it a hybrid and to see +2 mpg is underwhelming from a consumer point of view. If it is sold as a fuel efficiency improvement (with no trumpets blaring) then it is a nicety. Save the trumpets for something truly remarkable. :horn:

I have no issue if all automakers want to employ autostop technology, it is a great first step. But it is only a "first step", a lot more needs to be done.

I'd love for GM to come out with 3 vehicles that really go after the hybrid market. One car, one full sized pick-up truck, and a minivan. Get a minivan that gets 30+ mpg and get people out of their SUV's (money makers for the automakers) and into a better set up. Get a full sized pick up that gets good mileage, so that folks who do handyman or construction or any other type of work that requires a truck bed can do their part. Finally, get a family type of car (ala the Camry) with mpg's around 35, and give fleet vehicles and families another viable option in the hybrid sedan world.

Frankly, the Malibu doesn't cut it, and I predict its sales won't cut it either.

 

Good thing I didn't actually say that then. It's always been the grading system...

Any technology that only delivers a minor efficiency improvement and no smog-related emission improvement whatsoever earns a "D".

The "A" grade comes from a technology that delivers a substantial improvement to *BOTH* emissions & efficiency.

Which makes more sense to deliver on the large scale, remembering that these vehicles will be in service about a decade?

.