AdioSS

I think I see a catch. How many brands does GM consider to be "global"??

DAKMOR

Chevy, Buick, Caddilac.

Two-mode Camaro, maybe? Please?

TA76

R377 =

routesixtysixer

FWIW, compared to a standard version, a hybrid Tahoe will save approximately 2,000 gallons of gas over 100,000 miles. A subcompact car that gets 50 mpg only saves about 850 gallons of gas compared to a 35 mpg subcompact over that same 100,000 miles.

STOCK1SC

The *** kissing in any thread involving Scott is over the top, people on here line up to suck up to him, he's probably a little sick of it, they've probably all emailed and PM'd him to death. I appreciate everything he's done but some people on here just can't be in the same thread as him without sucking up in every response.

graham

Howz'a'bout some more American jobs, Bobby?

Evilfrog

Well hopefully better cars leads to more sells leads to more US jobs.

JakeRobb

Scott, I can tell you were never in a fraternity.

I got nine people in a 2-door Achieva, with nobody in the trunk.

Silverado C-10

A little less talk and a lot more action?

It's great to see things progressing, but GM has bitten many of us at one time or another and there's still a bitterness there. There have been cars that were supposed to come, but haven't. The RWD fullsize sedans from what I understand are still up in the air, or a couple may be dropped and the Impala is still a go? Cars that were promised to be great improvements over the last generation were only "so so" in their respective markets. The Cobalt and Colorado come to mind. The six speeds in the trucks are coming almost a full 2 years later than "promised". The V8 Colorado is being delayed. This list goes on. Not trying to be a pessimist, but "I'll believe it when I see it."

I too would LOVE to see more of the mfg moving back to the US.

jg95z28

Personally I'm glad to see Chevrolet leading the way for GM on the green movement. While there are many who buy hybrids and use alternative fuel sources because they believe they are doing their part to save the environment, the majority who do so do it to save a buck. As GM's bargain brand, Chevrolet makes the most sense. While Saturn may have a "greener" image to some, it doesn't have Chevrolet's vast global recognition and distribution.

One thing that does bother me is the fact that while pushing E-85 vehicles does place GM on the cutting edge, they are missing out on possibly the "greenest" market in the country here in California because we simply do not have any gas stations that sell E-85. (Save for one in San Diego.) I'd like to see GM help the State push the fuel industry into bringing E-85 to California in mass. I'd think you'd see a huge number of Californian's trading in their cars for more efficient E-85 capable vehicles, especially with the continuing rise of gas prices and the fact that with the exception of Hawaii, we pay more for fuel here that anywhere else in the country.

mastrdrver

Who says to have to be in a fraternity? I got 7 into a '89 Beretta with nobody in the trunk.

Gripenfelter

I'm looking forward to when a used Hybrid Yukon will be in my price range.

JoeliusZ28

very good news. i cant wait for some of these alternative fuel vehicles to start hitting the market in mass quantities.

jrp4uc

Good. I like this direction Chevy's going.

R377

To be honest I don’t know why any automaker would brag about producing tons of ethanol vehicles, aside from the perceived green image and the CAFE credits they get. It’s not exactly rocket science to beef up the fuel delivery system to accept E85. And if the driver chooses to actually fill up with E85 (which few do), they are stuck paying about the same price per gallon while travelling a third fewer miles.

Regarding the "renewable fuel" aspect of corn ethanol, that’s pretty much been debunked. Simply put there’s very little 'new' energy in a gallon of ethanol, so it can’t be a solution to an energy problem when there’s little net energy to be gained. Then there’s the problem of growing enough corn to make substantial quantities of ethanol: if we used every kernel of corn the US grows to just make ethanol, we would have enough ethanol to replace about 20 days’ worth of oil every year, not even taking into account the fact that there’s very little new energy in corn ethanol. And then we’d have no corn to eat or feed to livestock. We’ve already seen corn prices almost double in the last few years because of the ethanol boom; how much more do you want your food to cost because of this political boondoggle? And with the 51 cent/gallon federal subsidy for ethanol plus the massive crop subsidies given to corn growers, how much more of your tax dollars do you want to see wasted on this?

So surely the benefits of ethanol must be enormous to justify all the money and attention being thrown at it, right? Well, if we use all of our corn to make ethanol we have the potential to reduce our oil consumption by as little as 2.4%. That's right, 2.4% I can't see how anyone can justify pursuing corn ethanol as a realistic means of energy independence given that cost/benefit ratio. (More stats on corn ethanol, including some of the facts cited above, here: http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanolprimer.pdf) As to using other ethanol feedstocks like cellulose, none has yet to meet even corn’s questionable level of commercial viability in the US.

Convenient to mention the city fuel economy of the Tahoe but not the highway fuel economy. But regardless, the Tahoe finally gets GM into the big league hybrid game, which is definitely more than can be said for most automakers (even Ford and Nissan ended up buying their technology from Toyota). However it still only gets them to where Toyota was about 3 years ago.

And while I agree that it’s best to start on vehicles that consume the most fuel, it’s disappointing to see GM even bother to offer the lacklustre BAS system on its passenger cars. You may promote it as an economical first step into hybrids, but all it does it make GM seem like a technological laggard in the inevitable comparisons against Toyota’s Synergy drive. People aren’t comparing Tahoes to Camrys, they’re comparing Auras to Camrys, and the Aura’s BAS simply isn’t as good as the Camry’s Synergy. As Lutz noted, hybrids are as much about good PR as they are about tangible benefits, and the BAS is not scoring many points in the PR game.

The CAFE figures I quoted are separated into cars and trucks. Toyota may not be as full-line as GM in trucks, but they’re pretty close in cars, and they enjoy a substantial lead there-- import cars: 38.5 vs. 32; domestic cars: 31.7 vs. 29.6. Even on a model by model basis Toyota’s cars generally do better than Chevy:
- Aveo (27/37) vs. Yaris (34/39)
- Cobalt (25/34) vs. Corolla (32/41)
- Malibu (24/34) vs. Camry (24/34)
- Impala (21/31) vs. Avalon (22/31)
(quoting the most efficient model from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf)

On the topic of bragging about fuel economy, saying things like "we offer more cars that get 30 mpg than any other automaker" is intentionally misleading IMO. To the extent that it’s true, it’s because GM has more nameplates affixed to similar cars across many divisions, and is more a testament to GM's product overlap. A more relevant statement would be something like
- "we sell more 30 mpg cars than anyone else"; or
- "a higher percentage of the cars we sell get 30 mpg than anyone else"; or
- "our cars lead their segments in fuel economy"
… but none of those is true for GM. So the press release words it in a way to make it appear GM’s cars are more economical than their competitors' when that's just not true.

I’ll admit I often come across as being hard on GM on here, but I think that’s mostly in comparison to the strong pro-GM bias that this site (naturally) has. Go to a Toyota site and check out the opinions on GM vs. Toyota and you’ll see they’re even more biased towards ‘their’ brand. The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle. I always try to be honest and objective with my opinions here; it’s just that in trying to correct the natural GM bias, I find myself having to mostly point out the negative things. For the record, GM has always been my chosen automaker ever since I was a kid, and as long as GM offers a car to fit my needs there will always be a GM car in my driveway. So it's not like I hate GM or enjoy pointing out their shortcomings. I want them to get better, but I want them to get truly better not just empty-claims better.

>over 2.5 million E85 vehicles on the road TODAY.... as noted above, basically PR
>7 different vehicle lines at Chevy alone that have Active Fuel Management to get you class leading fuel economy without sacrificing towing capability or power......I am a proponent of DOD and VVT, and I think it's good that GM is getting them on as many vehicles as possible
>plans for over 100 Fuel Cell vehicles on the road in the next three months -- a notable first step, but this is still just an R&D project at this point
>Full size SUV that gets 20mpg city and 22 Highway -- GM definitely leads in trucks
>committment to build a mainstream electric vehicle by 2010 -- let’s talk about this when 2010 gets here; the history of electric vehicles is filled with broken promises
>First two-mode Hybrid truck within a year........