GM's Hybrids, Hydrogen and Plug-ins are Great but...

[Ming]

The GM Hybrids, Hydrogen and Plug-ins are Great but...
What GM Really Needs is A Highly Fuel-Efficient 4-Cylinder Engine For the North American Market
Commentary by Ming
www.gminsidenews.com
1/14/2007

On Autoline Detroit this morning while discussing the new GM Volt concept, one of the panel members pointed out a glaring flaw in the potentially revolutionary 100+ mile per gallon "plug-in hybrid" car. To paraphrase: "The Detroit Automakers have a tendency to respond to social concerns and trends with non-functioning (or prohibitively expensive) concept cars that wow the public, but then go back to pushing muscle cars (and SUVs)."

Sadly, if you're someone in the market for a GM car, and not willing to pay the price for a hybrid (or some similarly expensive fuel-saving technology), you'd probably come to the same conclusion. Affordable hydrogen technology always seems pushed out to "10 years away", and the Volt depends on battery technology that may or may not be here in an affordable package within that time-frame.

Let me praise GM first for their Saturn Green Line efforts of bringing hybrid technology to the market for a good price. And the "mild hybrid" products like the upcoming Malibu Hybrid and the "Two-Mode" truck/SUV hybrids from GM will surely please a segment of the buying public.

But what GM in the U.S. really lacks is far more simple than that, and when a buyer goes out to Yahoo! Autos, Edmunds, or TrueDelta.com to compare what are normally considered "fuel efficient" vehicles, GM more often than not will lose out. The current Toyota Corolla gets 32/41 MPG. The Cobalt base model? Only 25/34 mpg. That's a significant difference, one that even Domestic loyalists might find hard to dismiss.

Yes, GM has relatively fuel-efficient vehicles in the large car and truck segments. Their SUVs are among the most fuel efficient at the large end of the scale, and the Impala is deceptively fuel efficient given its large displacement and respectably powerful 3.5L OHV V6. Competitors of GM (especially the "2nd tier" automakers) often lag here, but the problem is that people who buy these sorts of larger vehicles aren't usually looking at fuel economy as their first priority.

And in the end, hybrids, even so-called mild hybrids either price themselves out of the "affordable" market, or appeal to those who love the technology and will want something more robust and techy than "mild" will deliver. Either that or they'll want something that looks like a hybrid so they can wear their environmentalism or tech-savvy on their sleeves, not a car that looks like a regular Malibu. The unassuming Accord hybrid's lackluster sales seem to prove this.

When you get down to it, the buying public in search of "fuel efficient" cars is going to look to the small cars in an automaker's lineup, and look at the MPG numbers on the sticker first. Horsepower is a great bonus, as is interior space. But the sticker price and fuel economy have to come first.

If, like in the case of the Hyundais, KIAs, or Suzuki Forenza, the sticker price is low enough and a long list of standard features are packed-in to that low price, fuel efficiency can be pushed down to second on the list of priorities.

But if the "equipped" sticker price is mid-pack and not remarkably low for its class (think Cobalt/G5), then fuel economy will raise in importance. If you can't save on the sticker, OR on the fuel economy, then all you have left is styling or other gimmicks to lure in the customer (think HHR).

As of now, GM does not have a 4-cylinder in the U.S. market that delivers superb fuel economy for a compact or subcompact car. The Ecotec 2.2L engine lags behind the competition in most regards, and while the 2.4LVVT engine is a great performance 4-banger, predictably, it does not deliver eye-popping MPG numbers.

The Chevrolet Aveo, often touted by GM for being a fuel efficient car, is not particularly fuel efficient in its class. Running with GM Daewoo's E-TEC Family 1 engine , the Aveo delivers unimpressive MPG (27/37 MPG) compared to cars like the 34/40 MPG Toyota Yaris - a car that does not cost much more than the Aveo that does not have to deal with the stigma in some markets (California, for instance) of being either a Korean car or a Chevy.

The thing that concerns me the most about this situation is that while we hear a lot from GM about the aforementioned concept cars, future plans, and SUV and other mild-hybrids, there is precious little news about GM or talk from the bold "Americans still want SUVs" Mr. Bob Lutz concerning introducing a class-leading fuel efficient 4-cylinder engine much needed in the base Cobalt and even the Aveo if GMDAT can make that happen.

On a more personal note, while car shopping for myself, I noted that the HHR, while a well-styled car if you like retro, and something close to the wagon I want, has very similar fuel economy, even with the base 2.2L engine, to the 3.5L OHV V6 powered Malibu Maxx!

So what can GM do to change this reality of having less fuel efficient small cars than its top competitors? If you're wondering if this is a pointless rant session of mine, I hate to disappoint you, because I'm going to suggest something that GM may or may not already have in the works behind the scenes.

If GM has made plans to broadly introduce this engine in all of its small cars, I am unaware of it at this time. But what I think needs to happen is for GM USA (and GM Daewoo) to get another injection of Opel technology. Diesels might be a great solution for saving fuel if they weren't so expensive to build to U.S. regulatory specifications. So let me push aside that idea for something that still falls under the category of "affordable".

In March of 2005, GM Opel introduced a new variant of the 1.8L Family 1 Engine often referred to as the "DCVCP" (Double Continuous Variable Cam Phasing) Ecotec. While the fuel economy only improved 4% from its predecessor, the power jumped 14%, and the engine was rather fuel efficient to begin with. It would seem to be the perfect replacement for the 2.2L Ecotec that while introduced only a few years ago, already seems almost obsolete in the face of relentless competition.

What I'd like to see is this new Opel engine replace the 2.2L Ecotec across the board wherever the 2.2L has been used. While I can't say what kind of fuel economy it would have when put into U.S. applications, I'm relatively certain that it could do better than the current Ecotec base model.

If not, and if the MPG gains would be only minimal, then there are other options out there in the GM world. GM do Brazil offers the C18XE 1.8 L SOHC FlexPower engine that can also run on Ethanol.

(Update 4/07) GM Daewoo recently introduced 2-liter Diesel engines that are Euro-IV compliant and to be used for a minimal cost upcharge in the European Chevrolet Lacetti & Lacetti wagon models, as well as the Captiva crossover in Australia. If we can import the outdated China-built 3400 V6, why not these Daewoo diesels? Euro-IV emissions compliant isn't good enough?

Perhaps GM could even take the supercharger off of its 2.0L Ecotec and engage in some tweaking for a positive effect.

Regardless of how GM accomplishes it, GM North America needs small engines that deliver impressive fuel economy in its compact and subcompact cars far more than it needs more PR spin, Vaporware, or promises of a bold future with Hydrogen and Plug-In Hybrids. And while they're at it, GM should do what it can to bring GM Daewoo - its chief small-car player - closer into the GM global fold, and offer them access to improved and recent engines, or the R&D cash to make their own low-cost fuel efficient powertrains.

Until GM makes a bold move to make this happen globally, buyers in the U.S. will continue to see the General's small cars as lagging in technology and fuel efficiency.

Do it, Detroit, work with Opel and GMDAT and change that perception. Introducing better 4-cylinder engines is not a huge step forward technologically like introducing Hydrogen-powered cars or fancy battery powered cars, but it doesn't depend on other factors to get off of the ground. Its something that CAN be done, and done right now, and I can only hope that you are already working on getting those new engines here as quickly as possible.

[4gm]

I agree. GM does need small, high mpg engines. I think they don't do it for NA because up until recently they haven't made money on small cars so there wasn't a monetary justification for it. I really hope that changes. What I'd really like to see is a small displacement Ecotec with VVT or DI or VVT or DI with a turbo/supercharger that TOPS OUT in the 130-150 hp range. Something like that could get really great mpgs.

[jon21]

Yeah...There is nothing in the GM current line up or near future that can compete with the Toyota Yaris and Toyota Corolla or the Scion xA and Scion xB.

[mjd1001]

I agree 100%. I mentioned it a few months ago when this topic was brought up, but I'll say it again, this is hurting GM sales.

I have a co-worker who buys a new car every 2 years, and she always looks at compacts/subcompacts (cobalt, Corolla, Yaris, Echo, Focus, Civic, etc). She looked at the new Aveo a couple months ago and liked it, she said it was very "cute". However she ended up getting an echo. Why? the fuel economy numbers.

I even explained to her that the difference in the fuel economy is only going to be $80-$100 a year for how much she drives...but she didn't care that much. The dollars and cents thing of the fuel economy didn't matter...she just figured she was getting a small car, so she wanted to know she got one that was close to being the best at fuel economy. She liked the Aveo..and admitted the fuel economy costs weren't a big deal in the grand scheme of buying a car, but she also said it seemed kinda embarassing that the fuel economy was so bad compared to the other cars she was looking at.

GM may think the total cost isn't a big deal and they may even make up for the difference by offering the car for less money....for example a $1000 rebate will make up for MORE than the difference in the actual cost of gas...so GM may not think it matters. But it does matter..it matters to a lot of consumers in the market for these cars.

[Grizzlor]

I think that by and large, American cars are selling fine with people who want a car that looks good, with options, features, room, comfort, etc. However, they are light years behind Honda and Toyota when it comes to people who just buy the cheapest, no frills car available. I think some of Chevy and Saturn's offerings are closing that gap, while Ford and Chrysler don't even bother with that market. I think the only way to beat the competition in that realm is fuel efficiency, and so far, Detroit is way behind, thanks to the Oil companies sway.

[ColoradoZQ8]

Why all the 2.2 hating?

I disagree -- I bought my Cobalt because of the 2.2's performance.... and the EPA numbers are understated on the Cobalt. I average 37-38 mpg on the Highway with the 5 speed manual. If you want a 1.8 Liter Aveo, fine. But please GM -- don't ruin the Cobalt by axing the wonderful 2.2. Anyone who has driven the torqueless wonders that are known as Civic and Corolla would most likely rather have the Cobalt's 2.2 under the hood

Powertrains have never been a Cobalt weak spot -- its interior plastics, bland styling, etc. that the car needs improvement.

The 2.2 is far more powerful than the base Honda or Toyota junk. The Cobalt's mission ain't an economy car -- its a premium compact. Leave the fuel misers to the Aveo.

[petervegas]

Great article and great analysis! Case in point;

The Solstice is rated 20/28 while the the Solstice GXP is rated 22/31 - IIRC

The technology (DI) is available. GM just does not seem to "want" to make it available across the line.

I am very curious to see what the mpg figures will be for the new CTS. I suspect the upgraded engine will get better fuel economy in addition to the 50 or so more hp?

DI is available and clearly gives significantly improved fuel economy. Why is GM holding back?

All you need to know that GM is falling behind on engine technology is to look at the performance and fuel economy numbers for the new Tundra's 5.7 engine. I am a GM fan and would never buy a Toyota, but this Toyota engine seems to blow the 6.0 away.

[BigRedSpecial]

I've been saying for some time that GM need the 1.8 over here, or at the very least a new base engine - the 2.0 and 2.4 are both gen 2 designs; time to update the 2.2.

I think another critical element, at least in the near future, will be DI. Even if it didn't make a difference, I think it's rapidly becoming a buzzword; something that most people don't even know what it means, but their new car simply has to have it. This is especially prevalent among the large percentage of people who think they know all about cars, but in reality don't know the first thing about them... You know the kind of people I mean

[Butz]

GM should just bring the Asta and Corsa to the US (from Europe, Mexico or S. America).

[Slack]

Originally Posted by Butz

GM should just bring the Asta and Corsa to the US (from Europe, Mexico or S. America).

Amen. I like the astra hatch. I like wagons, but all GMNA really has to offer is the Vibe (sorta), 9-3 Combisport, and 9-5 Combisport. Even the Maxx is gone.

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by ColoradoZQ8

Why all the 2.2 hating?

I disagree -- I bought my Cobalt because of the 2.2's performance.... and the EPA numbers are understated on the Cobalt. I average 37-38 mpg on the Highway with the 5 speed manual. If you want a 1.8 Liter Aveo, fine. But please GM -- don't ruin the Cobalt by axing the wonderful 2.2. Anyone who has driven the torqueless wonders that are known as Civic and Corolla would most likely rather have the Cobalt's 2.2 under the hood

Powertrains have never been a Cobalt weak spot -- its interior plastics, bland styling, etc. that the car needs improvement.

The 2.2 is far more powerful than the base Honda or Toyota junk. The Cobalt's mission ain't an economy car -- its a premium compact. Leave the fuel misers to the Aveo.

Your last line is GM's problem...it needs to drastically upgrade the 'fuel miser' aveo. The aveo gets considerbly worse mileage than the Civic and Corolla, two bigger cars....it gets totally blown away by it's direct competitors..the Fit and Yaris.

[stevecmh]

Originally Posted by jon21

Yeah...There is nothing in the GM current line up or near future that can compete with the Toyota Yaris and Toyota Corolla or the Scion xA and Scion xB.

the aveo just needs better MPGs.. its really not that impressive for a small car

[Ming]

Of course there is one more way to do it that the UAW wouldn't like. Import the next gen Daewoo Lacetti and Matiz in addition to the Aveo, and go with what I hinted at in the 8th paragraph of my initial post. Value-pack inexpensive cars with long warranties. The success of the Korean brands in the U.S. market seems to back up that formula.

You can't have mediocre features standard, a mediocre sticker price, and mediocre fuel economy. One (preferably 2) of those 3 really needs to stand out.

[BigRedSpecial]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

Your last line is GM's problem...it needs to drastically upgrade the 'fuel miser' aveo. The aveo gets considerbly worse mileage than the Civic and Corolla, two bigger cars....it gets totally blown away by it's direct competitors..the Fit and Yaris.

Although I agree with what you're saying, keep in mind that the corolla itself gets better mileage than the yaris(corolla gets 41 highway, yaris gets 40), so the aveo doesn't exactly get blown away there.

[chevydlrmn]

Originally Posted by ColoradoZQ8

Why all the 2.2 hating?

I disagree -- I bought my Cobalt because of the 2.2's performance.... and the EPA numbers are understated on the Cobalt. I average 37-38 mpg on the Highway with the 5 speed manual. If you want a 1.8 Liter Aveo, fine. But please GM -- don't ruin the Cobalt by axing the wonderful 2.2. Anyone who has driven the torqueless wonders that are known as Civic and Corolla would most likely rather have the Cobalt's 2.2 under the hood

Powertrains have never been a Cobalt weak spot -- its interior plastics, bland styling, etc. that the car needs improvement.

The 2.2 is far more powerful than the base Honda or Toyota junk. The Cobalt's mission ain't an economy car -- its a premium compact. Leave the fuel misers to the Aveo.

this is true. I as well have recorded mpg's with a 2.2 manual. Between 60 and 80 mph too. Most corolla/civic owners won't admit that there car is not completely ideal. If you can get them to admith there are some downsides, being underpowered will likely be one of them.