GM sharpens focus on small cars; Bringing overseas models to the U.S. key to success

[44 mpg by 2010]

It is good to see that GM may be changing some of it "old habits" and is now considering "smaller" vehicles for the sake of fuel economy!

This does raise a question: Does a machine have to be small to achieve significantly lower fuel consumption?

Isn't the REAL source of fuel economy found in the power train?

Ford and GM/Vauxhall, alone, are already selling 70 or more machines in Europe rated between 42/51 and 58/69 mpg(US/Imperial) combined cycle by VCA. By the way, a number of those are "midsized" machines. And some are even gasoline.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

From what I can see ... we generally need smaller engines! And we might have to give up a few seconds on 0-60 mph times. But, those smaller engines coupled with the more efficient dual-clutch 6~8 speed transmissions should go a long way toward resolving the issues of fuel economy for those that NEED/WANT it! Whether the vehicle is midsize OR compact (and just maybe even large)!

AND ... OF COURSE ... the "new" refined SMALL "Euro style" turbo diesels ... NOT THE US "TRUCK" DIESELS ... offer a path to maximum reduction in engine size while still delivering the needed torque and reduced fuel consumption rate. There is a MAJOR difference between the Euro and US diesels you know.

Case at point: Do you know of any current production US automotive diesels that REDLINE above 3k RPM? Well, apparently many of these small refined "Euro" turbo diesels REDLINE above 4k RPM.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...AndPrices.aspx

Based on the above and what GM seems to be saying, I believe GM management has not figured it out yet! And there will be at least 3 more years without product for the average automotive consumer and what ever that absence does to sales.


Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

One thing I'll say about small cars being fun....

A large V8 (or powerful v6) powered mid sized car or large car or SUV (over 3400 lbs) may be quicker/faster than a lot of small cars....but as I have grown older I am a little afraid (due to safety or the fear of getting a ticket) of using that power to acheive very high speeds or quick acceleration runs. However, the small cars I have had (Cavalier, Celica GT, even an older Accord) that weren't that fast...they still were a blast to drive around turns because of their better handling feel. If I'm not goign to try to get from 0-60 in 5 seconds between stop lights....taking that highway off ramp at 40 mph sometimes feels just as good (esp in a small car where you can't feel 2 tons of weight being pushed to the outside of the curve.)

When I was a whippersnapper near the typical age of many GMI posters, I satisfied my need for speed with a bike.
A small car like a VW Beetle or Honda etc. could be run almost WFO almost all the time, and I could still remain ticketless. Well, except for the bike.

Our vehicles are a combination of fantasy fulfillment, emotional support, basic transportation, thrill machines, symbols and statements, and numerous things other than price, MPG, and 0-60 and 1/4 times.

Prior to my current 2900-pounder, I drove medium cars (3300-3500 LB) in the Regal/ Accord/ Impala/ LHS class and I must say the Spectra is a lot more fun and tossable than any of the above. (It is also, surprisingly, the equal of any of them as a highway cruiser.) It reminds me of when I sold my SHO some 14 years ago and bought a Protege.
While the SHO could stomp the Mazda ten ways from Christmas in any performance parameter, the heavy feel was gone and the utilitarian, flingable, speed-and-not-get-noticed (the SHO was bright red) Protege was actually more fun to drive more of the time.

AND I wasn't getting challenged at every light by every numbnuts within five miles who thought his ________ (fill in blank) could hole-shot me.

[paul8488]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

And we might have to give up a few seconds on 0-60 mph times. But, those smaller engines coupled with the more efficient dual-clutch 6~8 speed transmissions should go a long way toward resolving the issues of fuel economy for those that NEED/WANT it!

Very good points! I'm willing (heck, I have) to give up some speed for economy. Doesn't mean your car can't be any fun... just means it won't win the stoplight drag-race.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

It is good to see that GM may be changing some of it "old habits" and is now considering "smaller" vehicles for the sake of fuel economy!

This does raise a question: Does a machine have to be small to achieve significantly lower fuel consumption?

Isn't the REAL source of fuel economy found in the power train?

Ford and GM/Vauxhall, alone, are already selling 70 or more machines in Europe rated between 42/51 and 58/69 mpg(US/Imperial) combined cycle by VCA. By the way, a number of those are "midsized" machines. And some are even gasoline.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

From what I can see ... we generally need smaller engines! And we might have to give up a few seconds on 0-60 mph times. But, those smaller engines coupled with the more efficient dual-clutch 6~8 speed transmissions should go a long way toward resolving the issues of fuel economy for those that NEED/WANT it! Whether the vehicle is midsize OR compact (and just maybe even large)!

AND ... OF COURSE ... the "new" refined SMALL "Euro style" turbo diesels ... NOT THE US "TRUCK" DIESELS ... offer a path to maximum reduction in engine size while still delivering the needed torque and reduced fuel consumption rate. There is a MAJOR difference between the Euro and US diesels you know.

Case at point: Do you know of any current production US automotive diesels that REDLINE above 3k RPM? Well, apparently many of these small refined "Euro" turbo diesels REDLINE above 4k RPM.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...AndPrices.aspx

Based on the above and what GM seems to be saying, I believe GM management has not figured it out yet! And there will be at least 3 more years without product for the average automotive consumer and what ever that absence does to sales.


Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

nope - you cannot have a large car with a small engine and expect good mileage.

the engine has to match the WEIGHT of the car.

- you can only get good mileage with a small engine peared with a small car.

big engine in small car (aka Cobra = poor mileage)

small engine in big car (VW van= poor mileage)

small car with small engine = good mileage.

Example:

Geo Metro with 1-liter (wieghts 1800 lbs) and gets 45 combined.

Toyota Yaris base Euro model with 1-liter (wieghts 2300 lbs) and get 39-40 combined. Same engine size, but 500 lbs more.

Other Yaris models are the 1.3 and 1.5 liter versions. The 1.5 is sold here (this is what I drive and I get 36-37 combined - I lose 3 mpg over the 1-liter version. not much for a 50-percent bigger engine), south africa and australia.

Not sure which version Jpaan and Thailand/Indonesia get

Europeans can choose between the 1-liter and the 1.3 liter.

I personally think my 1.5 is a little too missmatched the other way - engine bigger than needed and I lose a couple of mpg due to that.


I think 1.3 would be the proper match of power and effiency.

afterall I got a speedig ticket going 90 in an 80, and the she'll go up to 120 - but why do I need a car taht goes 120 in the first place. The speed limitn in my state is 75. A car with a top speed of 75 would be fine by me.

I'd love to drive a car 1/2 the size and wieght of my Yaris - geing single that is all I need to commute to work and I'd get 50 mpg combined.

millions of americans are single - the divorce rate in my state is 57-percent, we got kids not married yet, old widows and widowers. a whole massive population that has no use for 4-seats.

but nope - such cars are not sold in america ;-/.

[gaffo]

one more thing - fors such small cars for maximum power and effiency you MUST have it be a standard.

Americans hate shifting (many don't know how and don't wish to learn).

fact remains - you'll get 25-percnt more power from the same engine if the car is a standard. mileage gain will be a little less - maybe 5 or 10-percent better.

but its good to have reserve power - AND you could get by with a small engine in a standard and thus automatically reep the mileage benefits.

as an example: my car (Yarsi 1.5) gets a 0-60 in 9.2 seconds with the 5-sp.

the same car in automatic form gets a 0-60 of 10.5 seconds.

might not sound like alot, but its definately noticable.

................

one can also downshift for extra power if needed - whereas one cannot in an automatic.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

I'm both puzzled and dismayed to read that Toyota designed the iQ right from the start to meet US standards even though their original intention was NOT to sell it here...but that foresight has allowed them to change their mind and offer it to Americans now clamoring for small, comfortable, gas misers. Why did GM not do that with the Beat since they asked us to vote on the Triplets? Now GM says no Beat for the US until the next-gen comes out? Couldn't that easily be four years away? Way to anticipate market changes Wagoner, way to give further market share advances for Toyota! How much does Wagoner make annually again to make stellar decisions like these?

that ws smart of Toytota - but I fear they are as dumb as GM and I really do doubt that will offer the IQ here anytime soon.

my personal experience trying to buy a Yaris last year was an utter nightmare - and this was before gas got expensive. I went to serveral lots and only one had any Hatch Yaris's (all had the stodgy Sedan) - all were Automatics.

long story short - due to Toyota's insanely uncostomer friendly policy of regional options packaging (only some options offered in some states - only others in other states) a 5-sp with any decent options (i.e. power windows/mirrors/good stereo/sliding rear seats/split folding seats) litterally were not imported to the Gulf State's region (one of 7 states - I live in one). From the internet I did inventory searches and found the options i wanted in car located in the far NW (seatle/portland) far NE (Boston) and far SW (miami)....all places were there is a small demand ofr manual transmissions. I went back to the dealers and none would "trade out of region" (which they can do - but will not do over a cheap car like the Yaris). They offered to trade "in region" and I informed them that our region did not offer one single Yaris with 5-sp and power windows. (I know more about the Yaris from trying to get one than the folks selling them! - they had no idea that Gulf State Distributing did not offer the Power Package with the 5-sp in the 7-state region). I told them that Miami had several (3 actually) 5-speeds with Power Package. You know what they said to me? "well then why don't you just go down there and get it!"

great customer service there.

After nearly a year of trying (almost just said %^^it) and was going buy another beater until a small car from another maker showed itself, i found one in Missouri (they are in the "mid-west" regional distrubution network) - called a guy in Wichita (KS is also Mid-west region - not Gulf states where I am (oklahoma)). talked the guy into doing his "in-region" swap - I drove up there 180 miles each way. and got the damn thing.

So Toyota managed to sell a car in spite of their best efforts to prevent a sale.

great job Toyota! I gotta say I'd suprised the Yaris is selling so well - none of the dealers put any energy into promoting it in the least.

So i'm not impressed with Toyo's management skills. I'm sure they will not offer the IQ especially if it is the smart thing to do. (or they will do the dumb thing and refuse to offer a 5-sp version).

Incompetent management and sorry arse customer service - machanically this car is fabulous - I've put almost 30k on it since October (drove 7000 miles in two weeks over vacation last fall) and not one problem........yet anyway. she's a good interstate cruiser in spite of her size.


well that story was not so short afterall ;-/.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

.taking that highway off ramp at 40 mph sometimes feels just as good (esp in a small car where you can't feel 2 tons of weight being pushed to the outside of the curve.)

amen!

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by 1487

the article is garbage and it should be treated as such. yet another piece written with half truths to paint a picture of GM being inept and Toyota/Honda being right on top of trends. The article says Toyota is well positioned for these times because of the Yaris but doesnt mention Yaris sales at all. Same for the Fit. These cars arent even moving 10k units a month consistently and the press says they are flying off the lots. .

Yaris sales are up 87 percent (that was the figure last March - its probably higher now).

Yaris hatch is the one selling now (which initially only made up 20-percent of those imported - the other 80-pecent were the Sedans). Toyo incorrectly assumed Americans would not buy the Hatch version. They's been scrambling ever since to import more Hatch's.

You have to understand the Yaris has been here for almost three years now - since Nov. 2005 - and it really did not sell all that well until maybe about a year ago. Toyo's has bungled the marketing of this car from day one.

1. initially they did an ad blits (dumb ads) that was suppose to appeal to the young 20's somethings (the Scion folks). ok fine - then why not badge it as a Scion!!??

2. They consistantly promoted the Sedan version over the Hatch version - more on the lots, more options offered/ etc.

3. they refused to offer the higher end options for the Hatch (or Sedan - though the Sedan Yaris is an American construction and is called something else over in Japan and is not even offered in Europe) here in America - which everyone else had (Australia/Europe - stuff like leather seats/ stablility control/ side airbags/ foglights/ anit lock brakes).

4. they consistently promoted the Scion Xa over the Yaris until the Xa was retired.

5. They consistently promoted the Corolla over BOTH the Yaris Hatch and the Yaris Sedan.

6. Badging the Yaris as a Toyota instead of a Scion religated it to an "economy car" instead of a sport hatch, in peoples minds. so the demographic that buys the Yaris is around 40-ish. Some are 20's and some are 60's. I've seen all types. - hardly the target of the Scion brand.

7. No 4-dr Hatch offering in America (even though it is offered everywhere else for the last 3 years). this has now been addressed and in 2009 will be offered in America too.




those mistakes above have cost the adoption of the Yaris by a year or so.

fact: in spite of the auto media trumpeting the Fit and never mentioning the Yaris, the Yaris is outselling the Fit by 3 to 1. As been for the last two years. Yet all you ever hear is "Fit this and Fit that".

They have sold roughly 20,000 Yaris (I can't seem to find a solid number online) in America. So yes in total numbers this is not alot - but the increase in sales is now 87+ percent, and make it the fastest selling car not just of Toyota's car line but in America.

Toyota sales outside America are 10+ times that in America. This is why you never see them on the Lots - but due to lack of demand but due to lack of cars shipped here. Toyo still has the worldwide demand of this car to address. France produces 270,000 Yaris Hatch's a year - that means unlike here were they are probably 20,000 Yaris Hatchs on the road right now, there are around 350,000 in Europe. Toyo make very little profit on this car, so their priority is to sell it in volume to everyone else outside of America first.

We will not see large numbers of this car (and folks who wnat one will have to be put on a waiting list) until it is actually being made here.

Also with the doller in the crapper - Toyota does not see much advantage to ship to America in huge volumes the Yaris.


But you are wrong: these cars ARE flying off the lots - when you see them.

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

Ahh, very refreshing.

From my perspective, GM has brought back the Camaro, and we have the G8 GT as another very strong RWD product. So as far as performance RWD, I am happy. Although I would like to see the Riv come over to fill the RWD gap within Buick.

Now the next step, to "kick it up a notch" as Emeril would say, let's now focus on well-styled, well-equipped small cars with near 40 mpg. The Beat, Groove and the other one are fine examples of this.

GM has gotten the rest of it's lineup cleaned up these past 10 years. Interiors are vastly improved, quality is on par, or superior to the competition, and exteriors are more sexy than GM products of the past. Now GM needs to establish a reputation in desirable small cars.

[SierraGS]

GM should offer the Matz, "Triplets" and GAMMA vehicles like the Corsa (Aveo replacement), Tigra, Combo, Meriva and Montana as Saturn models to simplify marketing and build an "image" that at least on GM brand is efficient.

GM can then focus on marketing the Cruze, Skylark and 9-1 line as desirable cars that happen to be small instead of high MPG "entry" vehicles and can offer different styles for each brand.

Chevy gets a 2D Sedan and 4D Sedan Cruze models in LS, LT and SS trim.

Buick gets a 2D Hardtop and Hardtop Convertible (Astra Twin-Top) to go with a luxury 4D Sedan and Wagon.

SAAB sells 3D and 5D Hatches along with an AWD 4D sedan (Mitsubishi EVO).

Yes, all 3 get 4D models but that is the most popular and they can focus on different parts of the market/price range.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by gaffo

one more thing - fors such small cars for maximum power and effiency you MUST have it be a standard.

Americans hate shifting (many don't know how and don't wish to learn).

fact remains - you'll get 25-percnt more power from the same engine if the car is a standard. mileage gain will be a little less - maybe 5 or 10-percent better.

but its good to have reserve power - AND you could get by with a small engine in a standard and thus automatically reep the mileage benefits.

as an example: my car (Yarsi 1.5) gets a 0-60 in 9.2 seconds with the 5-sp.

the same car in automatic form gets a 0-60 of 10.5 seconds.

might not sound like alot, but its definately noticable.

................

one can also downshift for extra power if needed - whereas one cannot in an automatic.

???

Your sentence structure, spelling and grammar make your posts a bit much to decipher.

Small car must be a stick: NO. The automatic versions today--not yesterday, but today--typically will get 1-3 MPG better on the highway cycle.

I don't know the source of your 25% power difference between a stick and an automatic, but almost all automatic vs. stick models use the same engines with the same power output. If you're referring to power losses through the torque converter, show me some dyno numbers.

BTW, automatics kick down when you floor it. One cannot downshift for extra power?

I don't know that Americans hate shifting. They do buy 90%+ automatic trannies. The second statement does not necessarily validate the first.

[wildgoosechase]

The one thing that really bugs me is how these articles tend to slam on GM for not bringing small cars to market today. These production decisions were made 3-5 years ago, it's going to take that long at least to turn over the current fleet. Financially this also means throwing away billions of dollars of R&D for project all-ready being worked on in order to change gears. A battleship can't stop on a dime.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

???

Your sentence structure, spelling and grammar make your posts a bit much to decipher.

yes, i know. I have dylexia and it is more work for me to reference an online dictionary or trying google to help with a word than to just type it wrong and move on with the post.

as for grammar - you are right there as well. my grammar is better if i can write it out in longhand. i learned to write with pen/pencil and typing i've never really mastered - both in my mind and my fingers.

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

Small car must be a stick: NO. The automatic versions today--not yesterday, but today--typically will get 1-3 MPG better on the highway cycle.

we been here before - a month ago. yes the Corolla auto gets better highway miles than the standard. solely due to the final gear ratio.

all things being equal (yes that means same gear ratio) the standard will get better mileage.

this just means do some research on the car's gear ratios before you buy.

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

I don't know the source of your 25% power difference between a stick and an automatic,

honestly? - i pulled it out of my arse.

all i know is i have alot more onhand power in my car than i would if it were an automatic.

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

but almost all automatic vs. stick models use the same engines with the same power output. If you're referring to power losses through the torque converter, show me some dyno numbers.

you'll have to find the #s yourself. i don't have them and i don't need them. common driving experience is enough for me.

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

BTW, automatics kick down when you floor it. One cannot downshift for extra power?

when you floor it - exactly. I had an auto for 13 long long years (integra). here is what happens.

stop on gas...........wait.........wait................... ....wait...........auto downshifts. took around 1 sec of flooring to get it to downshift.

with a manual, one does not have to floor it to downshift. you downshift first!then 1/4th second later you floor it. you can also downshift to a lower gear and entirely skip a gear if you have to.

alot faster and alot more personal control over your vehicle downshifting with a manual.

one more thing so far we are talking about downshifting in order to pass another vehicle. Their is also the whole world of downshifting to intersections using the tranny for braking instead of the brake rotors which an automatic basically cannot do.

again downshifting to intersections is a choice left to the driver. another example of the superior control a driver has with a manual over an automatic.

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

I don't know that Americans hate shifting. They do buy 90%+ automatic trannies. The second statement does not necessarily validate the first.

I know they hate it - it is veiwed as "work". anyone under 40 basically never even learned how and now have no desire to.

Americans have become soft - we like gadgets to do things for us. if a car can shift for us all the better.

just like the movie WALL-E and that geat classic song 2525.

i didn't see the truth of it in the 70's and 80's - but today with the current culture of "luxury" (auto toilets/ auto towel dispensors/ remotes for ACs/ remotes of TV etc....................) lazy is now a virtue.

still waiting for the auto butt wipers to be installed with our auto flush toilets at work. i can't wait.

[gaffo]

are you a gunsmoke fan?

if so you might like this:

http://www.archive.org/details/OTRR_Certified_Gunsmoke

best OTR western ever.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

...Some organizations continue down their familiar, comfortable, well-worn trail.

Sacrilege to suggest that this is GM's modus operandi, LAMRONH, but it's an accurate description, nonetheless.

Are Chairman Rick Wagoner and his crew finally moving fast enough to adapt to the changing times?

No, and this article does a nice job of supporting that conclusion by placing GM's decisions in their proper perspective. While GM talks, other automakers are doing what needs to be done today.

The GM braintrust knows this, reminding investors during the otherwise gloomy assessment of its financial condition on Tuesday that 11 of its last 13 products and 18 of its next 19 will be cars or crossovers. See full story.

"We are conserving our capital for those things that we know will move the mark," GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said on his blog. "We will continue to cut costs and adjust to changing market demands. We will adjust our portfolio to meet the market where it is headed."

Rather than forever informing the press of GM's minute-to-minute plans, Lutz, perhaps you could endeavor to move management to make all that you talk about a reality? In fact, if you ran a tight operation, you would find that the press wouldn't constantly be preocciped with trying to write GM's epitaph.