Theme
An Introduction to the Eco Initiative 
By Therese Tant
I was on the Chevy Volt design team, and felt compelled to “get” this type of customer, and understand them better. Sustainability just seemed hugely important to so many people and we needed to know who these green-minded people were.
What is the true motivation to buy a sustainable or efficient product anyway, really?
We needed to “get” these people if we ever wanted to go beyond great green Powertrain solutions and design holistically green vehicles. I pulled together a project proposal to explore green-minded people.
I prepared to plead our case to leadership, but didn’t need to; it was obvious to them as well, and so it began… We started by absorbing everything that we could about the green movement: books, the web, magazines. Then we began to reach out.
I had an open-invite out to anyone in Design who was passionate about sustainability /green living, and we created a network of “friends-of-friends” to gather insight. Our little team decided to ge out thereand talk to people face-to-face. That’s when we discovered the range of people at extreme spectrums in terms of their approach to sustainable living.
For example, we met residents of L.A.’s Eco Village , people who want to live an extremely simple life, one that means real sacrifice so that our environment can flourish. On the other end of the spectrum, we met Linda Loudermilk , an eco-lux designer who believes that a beautifully executed sustainable designs can be offered without the customer ever having to sacrifice anything.
By this time we’d identified five customer mindsets. One of them — “Smart” — was about a customer looking for a low-cost, pragmatic solution, a design that reflects their simple life. Personally, I loved the idea — who needs so much crap on their car anyway, not me! I’m in! But one man’s crap is another’s essential, so how would we resolve this?
Next, in the design studio we created 5 “design atmospheres” — unique approaches to designing a vehicle based on these various customer motivations/mindsets.
One of these atmospheres — “Bare Necessity” — focused on the “smart” mindset – it’s a back-to basics approach, less is more, less cost, less complexity = efficiency.
But were we on the right track? I luvved it, but would the people?
I thought so, but again I felt like we needed get these ideas in front of them and get dialogue going.
And so we did, with an overwhelming positive response to the idea of Bare Necessity.
220 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:10 am juanbarnett said:
I applaud your efforts to do what GM has failed to do in years – create a car that is just that; a simple car. Chevrolet Aveo? Come on GM, did we really think that would compete? In the words small, simple and economical where do you see the word ugly?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:39 pm Gereon said:
After all, you can’t deny that the Aveo is the least expensive car in overall costs of ownership, according to a survey by Edmunds. So, what’s wrong with it…?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:30 am mlloyd2 said:
Great Comment!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:55 am jimmybsilva said:
Small simple…
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:27 pm jeremykhn said:
I would not say the Aveo is ugly, but I also wouldn’t say its nice looking either. I honestly say is that what went wrong was the style of the vehicle. The car looked cheap. Yeah, its suppose to be a cheap car, but people want a car that looks nice and a car that is still affordable.Just look at the upcoming VW Up!, it supposed to be priced at $8,995. Or so I was told.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm Gereon said:
My wife is driving a 2006 Chevy Aveo, running on LPG. Its interior plastic surfaces look vastly more upscale than in the New Beetle of her colleague, as you are already mentioning VW. At least the surface of the door-handle inside does not peel off in contrast to the New Beetle. Running on LPG, the Aveo over here is even cheaper to operate than a Smart! When will the US ever recognize, that LPG is an outstanding fuel, at least for the transition until non-fossil energies emerge for automotive propulsion. Best regards from Germany.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm Jkujo said:
I think that the problem with the Aveo and the G3 Wave was that it had worse MPG than any of its competitors in their segment (Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc). If the Aveo earned mid 30s in the city and almost 40 on the highway it would have done better in the market. Another problem with the Aveo was that the car was rarely advertised or marketed to the public. I can only recall one commercial for the 1st Generation of the Aveo. The second generation was a vastly improved vehicle but no one knew about it that didn’t follow GM closely.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm Therese Tant said:
So do you think that a simple car is a mainstream need or a niche?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:41 pm juanbarnett said:
I think the world is divided into two different types of people; those who drive in life and those that live to drive.
The first of the two, get into a car regardless of its appeal or performance. They read basic reviews and do nominal research. They care not what others think of their car, nor do they concern themselves with the group their choice of transportation will put them in. For these people minimal is key and are the irritation of their counterparts; the automobile enthusiast.
The enthusiast is the NOT the voice of the market and compose only a small market group.
Take this lab project for example. Reaching out to the consumer for input on concept vehicles; incredibly un-GM like approach and cutting-edge; bravo! I’m sure it will pay high dividends. GM will gain valuable advice from auto aficionados around from coast to coast. The problem with a forum such as this is you may get a room full of people that live and breathe cars – i.e. your enthusiast (who else is going to join the lab to give their input?) Downside to this is you may never learn what Joe thinks of cars as he gets in his completely stock Civic and heads to work.
Does this minimal car have a future? Sure does.
The marketing attitude around the car HAS to be fun and exciting
Make it “custom order only” dealers will be allocated demos w/ a NO SALE clause
Completely base (no power windows, no AC, etc) – Make it FULLY customizable
Options – Keep them simple, yet don’t stack. If I want sat radio – don’t force a nav system
Potato Head like dash – Love the idea of a Mix-N-Match Dash
Carpet – optional
Interior – make it neat.
Selling points – high MPG, affordable, easy to maneuver, no blind spots, frame strength, completely customizable.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:37 pm Therese Tant said:
Ahhh – I luv ur ‘potatohead dash’, it’s something that we’d explored, never gave it such a great name. Ur breakdown of the two types of people is really insightful as well, AND well written and fun to read -so good. Ur obviously- aficionado. Ur advice is indeed valuable, thanks so much. Anything else? I look forward to reading!
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:37 am thebrassmonkey said:
I think a simple car is a need. In an ideal world we would all have access to Maserati style with Lexus quality, but that simply is not reality. Who says that people shopping the lower end of the market do not want the attributes of the cars they dream of at a price they can afford. I believe GM has been missing the mark for years with not only unengaging, bland cars (Aveo, Cavalier, Cobalt), but also with poor quality. Whatever vehicles GM produces from now on should ultimately be about the product. That having been said I eagerly await the launch of vehicles like the Chevy Cruze. It’s quite a looker and I hope it is all it needs to be to be a top competitor. Why should the Civic crowd have all the “fun”.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm mnmavrik said:
i think a really important part to living a more environmentally aware and conscious life is the idea that living simpler frees you up to experience things that a cluttered life misses. i love being able to appreciate the scenery around me when i’m driving in the country so maybe a vehicle with the ability to see the world around it more would be a great idea. it would make me feel more connected to the beautiful creation we often take for granted.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for sharing, this is great input. During the project exploration the driver’s perspective in terms of how they would see and interact with the world was the subject of discussion quite a bit. How can we help design a car so that it makes you feel more connected to the world outside? Is it about having a large ‘field of view’ or is it more than that?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm mnmavrik said:
hmmm… i think that you are right that it is more than just seeing the environment around you. i am one of those people that love to have my windows down with my hand running through the air as i drive down those country roads. maybe a car that could target several sensory experiences while driving would appeal more. i know that materials could really help support a visually stimulating experience. i’m not that knowledgeable with interior materials that are currently being used besides leather and various plastics, but something that could feel very natural might be nice. also, what about an option to allow a more free airflow through the cabin for those country roads when you want to smell the world around you as well. that might be too much, but i’m trying here.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm conecrusher said:
“Connected to the world”?
To me that means class leading handling, steering and brakes- that’s how I connect to the world!!!!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm sunshine said:
hey – i think this is an awesome idea!! Personally, as a customer i appreciate the opportunity to seee the creativity and thought that goes into these ideas pre-production. I think it does inspire and encourage us to think beyond some of the blander products that have plagued the automotive industry in the past and renews excitement. What i wish could happen (and i know is every designers dream and engineers nightmare).. is that the final products we see are truer to the original designs that inspire. I hope that as these dialogues continue, we can commit to the original concepts that inspired passion around them. Thanks for doing this – this is a great example of ReInvention..
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:01 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for commenting! I hope that as the LAB develops we’ll get the real designer-to-customer connection that sometimes is lacking in the industry. Having feedback at our fingertips will be great. So far there has been a real rush of information coming in (to this site as well as other sites that have posted this content).
I appreciate that you’ve seen the “big picture” in terms of the value of the LAB.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:53 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for the positive feedback! We are really trying to be better listeners and think this can initiate great dialogue. We look forward to your continued participation.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm Street Life Auto Club » Blog Archive » GM Launches “The Lab” to Gauge Consumer Reactions to New Vehicle Concepts said:
[...] a video on the site, design strategist Wade Bryant explains that building eco-friendly cars means getting into the [...]
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:49 pm william jenkins said:
why not install a solar panel in the roof of the volt to charge the batteries when the volt isnt being used? .
like when it is parked while a person is working and when its not being used.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 9:50 am Dave Clark said:
In response to William’s comment, “why not install a solar panel in the roof of the volt to charge the batteries when the volt isnt being used? like when it is parked while a person is working and when its not being used.”
If you calculate the solar flux of the sun on the surface area of the car, the energy captured would be insignificant when compared to the loads needed to drive. Case-in-point, solar panels are offered on the Prius as an expensive option — they run a small cabin fan that ventilates the interior to keep the temperature down when you are parked in the hot sun. Considering the extra cost / weight / complexity added to the car, personally I would rather spend that money on solar panels to put on my roof at home.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:27 pm smbourg said:
Although you are correct…solar tech is always getting better so I believe we have to continue to look at that. I can understand someone in like Washington state won’t get much benefit. I live in central Florida and park in an open lot all day. How about a solar panel sun-shade like the ones people stick in their front windshield during the day? So in this scenario the roof has a built-in panel, the windshield has a portable panel in it, and maybe even the back wind can have one as well. The key is that the car would need to be able to accommodate these for battery re-charge.
There is also the wind. Maybe the car comes with an external mount that a vertical helix wind turbine can be attached. This way the footprint is small and the batteries can get some recharge. I not saying that the car gets fully recharged but perhaps every little bit counts. I need my car to do something while it sits in the Florida sun for 8-10 hours a day.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm David Martin said:
As a Brit, this just looks rather like a Vauxhall Corsa (GM) with some rather flash allow wheels on. Bare Necessities? I don’t think so.
The Tata is a real Bare Necessities car, no alloys, and even only 3 wheel nuts to save money!
Good design does what it says on the tin.
For instance the Mini was just that, a basic, cheap, radically redesigned car, with a consistent design philosophy throughout.
The Fiat 500 is also a fine design, inexpensive without ever looking cheap.
I would be shooting for something on the lines of the Fiat, only with more eco-credentials and far better mileage, and would try to get clever about materials, so you get some of the tactile feel of the baby Audi’s, but using far cheaper modern materials.
Perhaps this is about the point where basalt fibre might be ready for prime time, as in the marvellous design exercise the EDAG, as it is a lot cheaper than carbon fibre but a lot lighter strength for strength than steel.
For me the sweet spot is in a car that gives up nothing in the sensual and tactile pleasure of use, but keeps costs low.
Bare Necessities? No.
Elegant Simplicity? Yes.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm Therese Tant said:
Ur completely right – the name needs a bit of explanation as well. We had used ‘Bare Necessity’ internally with the caveat that it was US west coast Bare Necessity and not an emerging market sort of bare-bones vehicle. Your point about being inexpensive without looking cheap is so true, thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:31 am David Martin said:
I get your point, Therese – that’s why I would suggest positioning the car as being ‘Elegant Simplicity’!
Particularly when times are tough, few people other than Warren Buffet want to feel or seem cheap, but they want to keep the quality feel whilst keeping things inexpensive and in some respects simple.
Here in the UK if you go to Notting Hill, you will find that right alongside the Porches and Aston Martin’s, there are whole fleets of Fiat 500’s.
That way even those for whom money is a lot tighter and so go for the base model and drive it as a main car will still feel rather chic!
Check out the videos of the robbery in London on the high class jeweller – there are a few little NEV’s there, in a high class area.
The Kangoo BeBop ZE is also well worth having a look at, as although the design is so French that it would have no chance in the US they have some great ideas such as vacuum panels to keep heat in and cold out.
I don’t know if that idea will make it into the production version as it sounds expensive to make, but if you want radical thinking, translating French films or engineering is often a good idea!
Think ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, and make sure you get John Malkovich, as the man has STYLE!
Whatever you do don’t end up making ‘Cruel Intentions!’
Best of luck with your design, I look forward to seeing what comes out.
BTW, the reversible bulkhead on the truck is awesome!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm Road and Driver » Blog Archive » GM Launches “The Lab” to Gauge Consumer Reactions to New Vehicle Concepts said:
[...] a video on the site, design strategist Wade Bryant explains that building eco-friendly cars means getting into the [...]
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm Andrew L said:
I love GMs products but all they have to do apparently to get the public to embrace a car is make it last 20 years without major malfunctions. At least in terms of a economy car.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm msheekhah said:
I created a message board thread on chevy voltage website about creating a Voltage Solar.
I think this is a good idea because:
States like Texas have an abundance of sunshine.
You drive to work, and your car soaks up rays for 8 hours.
Putting that sun to work while you’re working could double the usable electric energy in a day. This would reduce gas usage beyond the 230 metric.
In addition to solar cells on the hood, roof, and trunk, there is another key place. In texas, we use windshield screens because otherwise the inside of your car gets really really hot. Now, what if there were retractable windshield screens with solar cells for both the front and back windows… you could keep the inside of the car cool, as well as generate electricity.
While this would significantly add to the cost of the car, it would greatly improve car efficiency. Can you imagine a 430 rating? Just don’t go with 420 or you’ll get the pothead crowd lol…
And, by mass producing a solar powered car, you would eventually lead to cheap solar cells for everyone.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:33 pm AlexD said:
I think an important thing to avoid while designing a “bare-necessities” vehicle is not making it just an appliance to get from point A to point B. Don’t get me wrong, it definitely needs to be extremely clever and useful, but it also needs to have some emotion to it – something that makes the driver smile every time he/she looks at it and drives it. Character is something that is lacking from many new vehicles in the marketplace. Sure, too much character for a new car can be a bad thing, but a little character and emotion executed in the right way can work wonders. This site is really great, and I look forward to more exciting things to come here.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:46 pm Therese Tant said:
So important!
Ur right. People need to be drawn to it, even if they don’t know why. Styled exterior character is one thing, but maybe there are other, unexplored elements…though not shown here- while working on this project we’d discussed ways to build a relationship between the driver and the vehicle. Some of the ideas were potentially intangible to the driver, unexpected, little details for the driver to discover and invoke a smile. What type of character do you think is lacking in vehicles today?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:22 pm AlexD said:
I think in many vehicles (*cough* Toyota), the soul of the vehicle and passion in the design is absent. Take the Toyota Corolla for example. It may be a decent little car, but it doesn’t evoke feelings that you “must have” the car. I haven’t driven one recently, but the driving experience I’m sure doesn’t make you smile. I think what can give a car character is innovative, yet interesting features (such as the reversible bulkhead). I think that character can sometimes be found in a stunning design, or maybe even an extremely ugly vehicle (not that we should be focusing on those
) Many old vehicles have tremendous character, and usually receive a name from their owners – perhaps some of the character comes with age.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 3:14 am thebrassmonkey said:
Character to me is a relative concept. The halcyon days of a new look every model year are gone. The norm now is platform engineering and global platform sharing. What is commonly referred to as character is more difficult to acheive. To some a “pretty” car has character. To others the fact that their dashboard doesn’t creak along with the beat of their music is charcter. I’ve recently had the opportunity of living with a 2009 “Toyota” Vibe. The engine was smooth and quiet and revved effortlessly. The transmission was sluggish though, and wind noise quite prevalent. Frankly the entire driving experience was not all it was cracked up to be. I loved the styling both inside and out. The seat fabric seemed to be made out of some kind of plastic derivative (even though it may not have been), which I thought was genius due to it’s resistance to wear and tear. When inadvertantly christened with a cigarette cherry it seemed to melt rather than burn. That’s where the love ended. When I sat behind the wheel it was obvious that this car was not designed for my american frame. The seat was narrow and and the lumbar support not in the right place. It was a chore driving it on long highway stints. For some reason asian car companies seem to think that everyone is five feet tall and that we all like sitting with our heads glued to the roof of the car. The passenger seat was waaay too high and even more uncomfortable on the back. I’ve experienced this in Hyundais and Hondas as well. The feel was distinctly unamerican. I guess what I’m trying to say is that character, to me, is American swagger with Japanese quality. Now that’s an animal no one would want to tangle with.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:11 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Couldn’t agree more about the importance of emotion! My favorite cars “just made me feel good”- I couldn’t always put my finger on it, but it was the little things that made me feel like the designer must have designed the car just for me.
Honestly, whether or not you are or aren’t into American cars, I think we have always been successful with the ones that contain more defined passion and emotion; performance cars, trucks, etc. Sometimes we struggle finding the right emotion for mid-size and small cars…maybe because the audience is broader and the reason for ownership is so diverse. We definitely don’t lack passion around here- I think this site will better help us hone in on the right customer wants and needs.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm juanbarnett said:
Can you explain what type of passion went into the Aveo?
Small CAN be sexy [that could be taken a million wrong ways].
*****(coughing…..Ford Fiesta)****
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:15 am juanbarnett said:
Green – a color, a lifestyle, a movement, a way of living for some, but for others the simple facts are this. Green isn’t cheap! The median family income in the United States was $45,000 +/- in 2008, which was before our economic engine drank a bit of the cash-for-clunker brew. Rumors of the Chevy Volt price tag have people that were once eager to buy American and buy green – well, saddened. They just won’t be able to afford it. This is where your naked little charming, affordable and economical Chevrolet MTO –Made to Order (“Mmm-Toe”) comes in.
Here are the facts; some feel happy gallivanting down the freeway knowing their right foot isn’t bringing about the destruction of life on earth, some smile knowing point A to point B no longer requires a donation to an unstable kingdom or a silly tyrant, some just are happy they can drive BY the gas station all week without stopping . The problem you face from a marketing and design perspective is developing a product that leverages the three motives people would buy a green.
Too often advocacy groups, politicians and companies push one or the other. Well in my mind you can have all three.
Picture a large nature filled background – birds chirping, water flowing, you can almost smell the clean air, then flash to an urban city scene – neon lights, classy graffiti, sounds of horns, small parking spots in sight..Now jump to a small town rural area – apple pie, small town center, local barber shop, local ma and pa bank. A rough looking blue collar man gets out of a Chevy Diy Truck – a sticker adorns the rear that says “Less Oil for National Security”. His MTO truck has custom side boxes for tools and the interior is bare floors with a lunch pail in the passenger seat. Next to him at the light sits a MTO car. The driver tapping the steering wheel and nodding his head slightly to the sounds from the latest Black Eyed Pea album, custom exterior accessories ornament his car all compliments of GM’s new snap on technology, the interior filled with an array of fully customized geek dash gadgets. At the light across sits a bare bone stock MTO car –two women and two men sitting comfortably inside, dressed in business attire, each enjoying their coffee from their easy to reach coffee holder add on.
Green, Affordable, Fun.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm Carrie Crawley said:
I totally agree! The story you tell and the visual you paint are intriguing, so what would your self-described DIY vehicle look like? What are your day2day vehicle needs and desires?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm juanbarnett said:
“What would your self-described DIY vehicle look like?” No games or foreplay – just right to it, I could get use to this.”
My MTO would have four seamlessly integrated suicide doors. Instead of opening out, they would openly slightly and glide forward and backward along a small track masquerading as classic pinstripe. Running boards would glow as two LED hearts pumped light through fiber optic within the car, like a river of light warming the interior to life. I’ve chosen the Sports Chair a more aggressive seat, at equal cost. The seat is lined in a soft cotton cover that is connected via Velcro, is fully machine washable and comes in a variety of colors. Sitting in the seat I’m held slightly as if the car is holding me in its protective arms. The dash is covered in non-reflective material to keep mirrored images from dancing across the windshield while driving into the sunset on weekends. Where an ignition would typically be held, sits instead a pulsating button with the letters “GO” stamped on it, encouraging me to start my journey. I slide my MP3 player and cell phone into the integrated model specific charging holsters mounted on the inside edge of the front seats. The radio controls are simple and contained within 2-3 buttons. I push the GO button and the car comes to life with a nice welcoming message across the LCD dash “We are GO”. The hum of the electric motor is drowned out by the semi-loud music as I make my way down the road, safe in my home away from home, wondering how much solar power my dash will pick up today?
“What are your day2day vehicle needs and desires?”
Interior satisfaction and comfort.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 3:24 am thebrassmonkey said:
What are your thoughts on diesel engines? Personally the fact that diesel powertrains have not fully permeated every aspect of american life equals opportunity. I realize that diesels not only have an image problem to overcome in this country, but our refineries are also biased toward gasoline production rather than diesel. However, the fact that a Jetta TDI can go roughly 700 miles on a tank of gas in day-to-day driving is not insignificant. Do you think diesel hybrids will take hold here or is it all turbo combustion ignition for us. I’d also be interested in knowing what GM is planning, if anything, with the HCCI (Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition) engine.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:11 pm Therese Tant said:
Ha – a well-painted picture! Inspiring scenarios setting the stage for amazing products. U have great vision – illustrated by ur chromatic storytelling. Ur ‘facts’ section depicts quite well some customer motivations we’d been focused on. I like ur optimism that these ideas, if executed correctly could be universally embraced! Thanks Juan.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:48 pm juanbarnett said:
“like ur optimism that these ideas, if executed correctly could be universally embraced! Thanks Juan”
It is more the demographic targeting of the concept. Selling a $40,000 Volt to a family with a household income of $35,000 based on the idea it will save Mother Nature won’t work. Explain the tax credit, HOV potential and fuel savings of $X, 000 a year – now you have his attention.
It’s funny I wrote to Bob Lutz a year or two ago, asking for an opportunity to be a part of a company that headed not for disaster, but for an evolution of necessity. Now that day is here – Do great things team. Maybe one day I’ll be a part of the General Motors dream as well, until then – Happy Motoring (or designing in this case)!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:36 am Jim Walker said:
Eco is great, but why is the design so futuristic (melted) on every eco concept. Make vehicles more economical, but keep their unique capabilities intact. Make trucks that can be economical but still have best in class towing/payload. Make eco suvs that have everything needed for off-road duty/hauling (in a right sized package with good suv styling). Create eco crossovers that can transport 7 in comfort. Create eco midsized cars that are sporty yet economical, small cars that excel in mileage but can transport 4 (maybe 5) in comfort but do not sacrifice in style. Concepts such as these are great, they bring about innovative ideas that can be used on other products as well. Make sleek, tasteful cars (sporty like g8, classy like cts and new regal/lacross/enclave, mainstream like malibu) but do not blur these characteristics into one ugly blob. Eco initiative is a good thing to interweave into all products, just as long as it provides the driver with a rewarding driving experience, and the utility they need.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:27 am sergeklapwijk said:
Low amount of parts sounds good. I found a bare chassis of a Smart Forfour on my university’s campus and I was amazed how detailed it was. So many modifications to the metal that I had a brainstorm. When did we stop making chassis out of tubes curved in a shape and build around that, just plain and simple? Even further, why aren’t the current mainstream cars using aircraft chassis technology as in monocoques? Only hyper- and supercars of today have that made out of carbon fiber, why couldn’t you do that with a mass-production viable material? Think turbochargers, first hit in aviation then slowly progressed to automobiles, now also mainstream turbo petrol cars are in the marketplace.
What many manufacturers have tried to do in recent years is make a customisable car. It is not possible in the truest form and also not very efficient for the manufacturer. No manufacturer likes to make 200 versions of a interior panel part, also the consumer will get fed up with their past design preferences as time passes. It is much much much more viable to make a radical design and have people falling in love with the timeless character of the car. Simple and flush would also add to the aerodynamics of the vehicle
Start off with a blank piece of paper instead of redesigning current layouts of interior, exterior and engineering. Why do we need button-filled center consoles? Why aren’t the wheelarches closed? Why do we still use a box filled with gears for transmission when we have CVT’s in snowmobiles?
Simple, reliable, sustainable (in production and usage) and viable.
Many here are touting a solar panel. Silicon based panels on the roof have a too low efficiency rating to sacrifice the higher mass (that is placed high up so the car’s center of gravity suffers), complexity and formost cost. Printed solar panels might have lower efficiency, but are far more cost effective and low mass. Combined with smartglass only a very small heat pump would suffice for the climate control needs.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:41 pm ericeaton said:
Hello good people of GM.
This is the first time I am commenting on any article, so please be easy on me if I step on anyone’s toes.
First, from what I understand, pure electric is the way to go. Looking at Tesla Motors claimed performance (244 miles to the charge!), it seems totally within the realm of possible to create an ultra low emissions vehicle practical enough for everyday use. Of course price is always a major factor to consider when designing anything. However, it sure seems doable.
Secondly, on the electric car front, how about incorporating some form of a safety noise generator? If you have ever been a pedestrian or cyclist and have been passed by an electric bus or car, you would understand my perspective here. I have three thoughts on the subject: 1) Something loud enough to warn people of an approaching vehicle, 2) Something not distracting nor annoying to the vehicle’s occupants, balanced against thought 1, 3) Perhaps in addition or in concert with a ultrasonic animal audio deterrent (These are available OTC at auto parts stores. If these can be incorporated into the design of the car then styling would not be affected.
Thirdly, as long as you asked, what ever happened to rain gutters? Sure, I comprehend the concept of streamlining automobiles for less frictional drag and thereby better fuel economy (like competitive swimmers shaving their legs). Also, I am sympathetic to the appear of marketing a futurist-looking car even if it means compromising on practicality ala fashion trumps function. But, for crying out loud, can’t we design a car where the windows could be cracked for added ventilation during a rainstorm? (Holy smokes, but do I miss my 1969 Volvo!).
Hey, how about a hydrogen powered car? I know, I know. Your first thought is a new crater made by a gigantic fireball that was once your newly designed car. BUT, what about the concept of Hydrogen on demand? Water could be carried as fuel and then converted to hydrogen/oxygen as needed through either an electrical or controlled chemical reaction. Once you had your hydrogen, then it could run through a fuel cell or even a combustion engine directly – which ever would be more efficient. Talk about ZERO emissions, I mean, we’d probably end up with just water and some heat.
OK, I have to go, as you do too. Sorry so long winded, but I get pretty jazzed about this topic.
PEACE
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:24 pm Therese Tant said:
Eric, first nothing is too long-winded, I assure u. I speak for the whole team when I say this project consumed us while we worked on it, we’re passionate about it and we can’t read enough. Ur input is fascinating, trust me!
Those are great thoughts regarding the incorporation of audible safety systems for electric vehicles. I can’t get into it, but I do know that the issues surrounding safety and the absence of sound related to electric vehicles is on GM’s radar.
I like vent-windows too, get more airflow minus the weight of complicated window mechanisms.
Hydrogen-on-demand sounds dreamy…I am definitely not able to speak to the viability of such an awesome thought though, I’d need some engineering support there ☹ Hydrogen fuel cells themselves are definitely one path that GM is focused on. So would a hydrogen bare necessity type car or truck suit u?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:03 pm Ken Palmer said:
My ideal Bare Necessity vehicle? Take a look back at GM’s own “Lean Machine” concept from the ’80s. Then take a good look at the new Aptera. Now combine the best features of both into an inexpensive, safe, high-mileage SINGLE-person vehicle (think enclosed 3-wheeled motorcycle) that isn’t intended to REPLACE the family car, but is used as an alternative to it for those quick trips to the store, or as a daily commuter vehicle. People buy motorcycles for similar purposes, but they are less practical for your average driver because of separate licensing, weather (rain), and safety issues.
Certainly a vehicle such as this, mass-produced by GM, with high-mileage (and a unique fun factor) would be quite successful in these economic (and eco-conscious) times. I, for one, would love to own such a car as long as GM could keep the price below $10K.
So come on, GM! Create a NEW vehicle category… call it “personal eco transport” (your PET project?) and create the future!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:48 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for the input! The Aptera site is pretty interesting. You will have to check out the P.U.M.A. concept we worked on with Segway and let me know what you think…this is just a start!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/segway-gm-puma-vehicle-un_n_183908.html
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 8:26 pm ed38la said:
A good combination would be for a household to own a smaller mostly electric commuter car along with a decent size conventional car. The average mpg would be so much higher than what most people drive today. And pollution in urban and sprawling suburbia would be greatly reduced. But both must be safe. Even on local streets, your contending with trucks and buses, That was a big factor in the SUV craze in the first place… people equate bigger with safer. Prove to them that small can be just as safe.
Ed
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:15 pm mnmavrik said:
in response to serge, many of the materials and technologies that aviation and other industries use are very high cost. however, cvt transmissions are becoming increasingly popular (even Subaru is using them) and Direct injection that has been used in the marine industry for years is now making widespread uses throughout IC engines.
I love the talk of emotion that was going on above. i think the one type of car that still evokes true emotion is the convertible. there is just something about having less separating you and the world you are a part of. i am part of a team that is building a three-wheeled hybrid at my school and i am really trying to push for a more open passenger compartment with no roof and bars for doors like the wrangler has. i also own a classic MG-B and have driven multiple Miatas. i think GM had a great try with the Solstice/Sky, but for a more environmentally aware crowd i think a more open convertible that doesn’t feel so cacooned would do wonders. convertibles can get away with having less more easily because the driving experience makes up for it. thoughts?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:25 pm Wade Bryant said:
I like the suggestions about an open-air green vehicle. The idea of helping people relax and enjoy nature IS a relevant “eco” topic. We did discuss the idea, we just never considered it in the context of the two Bare Neccessity vehicles.
Someone on this blog (was it you?) also commented that they wanted fewer visual distractions from within the vehicle so they could enjoy the view more while driving.
This is an interesting train of thought.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm David Yopp said:
As far as pickup’s go I would like to see something like the Cheyenne concept for the next design. There are a lot of us that don’t need the full capability of today’s pickups but still want the versatility they offer. I am not looking for a dimensionally smaller size truck but one that is lighter maybe unibody construction with much improved fuel economy.
Dave
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for the input. David – what sort of capability would u need in ur truck? Towing capacity, passenger capacity, fuel economy, etc?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:55 am David Yopp said:
The Cheyenne had a lot of neat features like four wheel indepenant suspension, four wheel steering etc. But still was a crew cab which I like and need. Towing 5-6k would work for me, with fuel economy between 25-35 mpg. I think this is possible by keeping the weight of the vehicle down.
Dave
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm barmarielvi said:
Please Make It a Global Car!!!!!!
The GM EV1 was an electric car produced and leased by the General Motors Corporation from 1996 to 1999.[1] It was the first mass-produced electric vehicle of the modern era from a major automaker. It was the first GM car designed to be an electric vehicle from the outset. Born as the GM Impact concept car of 1990, a production version came about as a result of a California Air Resources Board mandate that made the production and sale of zero-emission vehicles a requirement for the U.S.’s seven major automakers to sell cars in that state. The EV1 was initially available in the U.S. cities of Los Angeles, California and Phoenix and Tucson, in Arizona, under a limited lease-only agreement.[2] EV1 lessees were officially participants in a “real-world engineering evaluation” undertaken by GM’s Advanced Technology Vehicles group, as well as a market analysis and study into the feasibility of producing and marketing a commuter electric vehicle in select U.S. markets.[3][4] The cars were not available for purchase, and could be serviced only at designated Saturn dealerships. Within a year of the car’s release, leasing programs were also launched in San Francisco and Sacramento, California, along with a limited program in Georgia.
While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM viewed the program as evidence that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market, evidenced by their ability to lease only 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years.[5] An alliance of the major automakers fought the CARB regulation in court, resulting in a slackening of the ZEV stipulation, permitting the companies to produce super-low-emissions vehicles, natural gas vehicles, and hybrid cars in place of pure electrics. The EV1 program was subsequently discontinued in 2002, and all cars on the road were repossessed. Lessees were not given the option to purchase their cars from GM, which cited parts, service, and liability regulations.[1] All repossessed EV1s were crushed, save for a select few examples which were delivered to museums and educational institutes with their electric powertrains deactivated, and under the agreement that the cars were not to be reactivated and driven on the road. The car’s discontinuation remains controversial, with electric car enthusiasts and environmental interest groups accusing GM of self-sabotaging its electric car program due to its negative profitability, while also blaming the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road.[1]
In 2008, amidst an automotive industry crisis due to rising fuel prices and the global financial crisis, GM’s Chevrolet division presented the production version of a new electric vehicle, the Volt plug-in hybrid, with the promise that it would be available for sale beginning in 2010.[6] The Volt, a four-seat compact car (in contrast to the EV1’s two seats) will be capable of driving under fully electric power for 40 miles before its range-extending gasoline-powered generator is activated, about a third of the range that the final generation of EV1s were capable of driving under optimal conditions.
Please Make It a Global Car!!!!!!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:44 pm Harry said:
Hi there,
Awhile ago, GM was doing research on HCCI engine, wonder how that coming along?
Btw, thank you GM for creating “The Lab” an open dialogue between designer and consumer…is a brilliant idea!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 2:53 pm BrianCastillo said:
Harry
You’re correct in stating that GM (along with pretty much all major manufacturers) has seen the potential that HCCI technology presents. Like any other technology, though, working through the actual implementation is tougher than the underlying theory – there are a lot of technical challenges to work out! That being said, GM is *definitely* looking at a range of technological improvements to the internal combustion engine to increase efficiency, power, and reduced emissions.
If you look at the performance (both in terms of power and efficiency) of our SIDI V6 engines, or the turbo-SIDI four-cylinders, and compare them to similar engines made as recently as five years ago, I think you can see how much improvement has been made already, and I expect we can continue to see improvement in the future.
Thanks for your comments and your enthusiasm!
(Disclaimer / Truth-in-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but I’m speaking only on my own behalf. -BC)
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:03 am sergeklapwijk said:
@ Ken Palmer:
Here in The Netherlands we had the Carver but the manufacturer went Chapter 11 couple of weeks ago. For the trip to the store, I know the perfect solution and it’s called: a bicycle with two shopping bags on the sides. It does zero emissions, unlimited range (depending on your physical state), makes you fitter. Build a small lightweight safety cell around it and you’ll solve all problems. Not to offend you, but seriously people need to think what a car is for.
@ mnmavrik:
While that might be a rule of thumb if you think about turbines and turbochargers (complex mechanical systems and materials), monocoque structure (or unibody) is nothing really expensive. Now that someone dropped the name of Aptera, it’s a perfect example of the viability.
CVT’s used in cars of today simulate gears, though they can actually maintain the engine at the engine speed of maximum efficiency which is very significant to economy. While Direct Injection might be good for economy and performance, it also adds to complexity.
Now that we’re talking preferences, my perfect commuter would be a Ford Focus type of vehicle. +/- 350 Liters of space, 5 persons could be carried, compact dimensions, real low mass (what about lower than 1000kg?), good aerodynamics (what about Cd*A rating of 6ft²?). Flush interior, scarcely add buttons and dails on my behalf, just the things I really REALLY need.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:45 am dfschim said:
I probably fit into one of your other four customer mindsets. I would start with basic size requirements for people like 40″ of headroom and 42″ of legroom for the driver. Then I would move on to cargo requirements like a 20 cubic foot trunk with a hatchback for easy accessibility. Then safety requires a structure that can earn 5 stars on all the NHTSA tests and a pick from the IIHS. Then a car needs performance, I would like to go 0-60 in 8 seconds, pull .80 g, and brake from 60-0 in less than 130 ft. Price is my next concern, the car needs to be under $25K. Finally comes fuel economy. Build me the most fuel efficient vehicle you can that doesn’t cause me to compromise on my other requirements.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:54 am dbomb89 said:
just to let y’all know, we already have a “eco friendly” car. its the chevy colbalt, toyota corola, or all the hybrids out there, that get 32+ mpg. cant you guys improve those vehicles into getting better performance. I am one of those car enthusiasts that doesn’t care about the mpg, i would not sacrifice mpg over sportiness. i like the luxury options, heated seats and cooled seat. where i live its nice to have the cooled seats. i like to drive, when i get in a car to go some where i enjoy the drive. i look forward to driving. i don’t want to get into a car that was made with only the thought of being “eco friendly” in mind. there are a lot of other people that like sportiness performance in a car.
We are a people that take inventions and make them better. we have made the car fun to drive, comfortable to sit in, and have some entertainment in it, like a DVD player. so why would you guys want to travel back to make a car that sucks just to save the environment? we already have the technology to make a hydrogen fuel cell yes it would take at least 20+ years to get them onto the market. i do not want to see cars become something that is used to get to point a and b. i like them to get me to point a and b with some fun.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:30 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for sharing your wants & necessities! We know there are lots of customers out there like you, but there are also many who are embracing simplification without negating technology. There are also many who feel it is our duty to protect the environment. The goal is to make all of you happy and make sure you all have a fun car/truck that you love to drive- that’s a pretty tall challenge, but this is why we are asking you for your thoughts.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:12 am ericspecullaas said:
I think GM is going in the right direction with the new volt it makes a great testing ground for there whole line. I feel that there performance section was cut and left for dead(Pontiac). It great to have really good MPG but if you have no power to back it up than what good is it? my 91 sunbird hardly has balls on the freeway. My 2 biggest bitches about it are engine noise and power. Give me a car that when im running it at CA Freeway speeds i can hear my music. The long and short of it is i wonder how much power will this new volt will have i love how it looks and its MPG makes me happy(i do deliveries all day).
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:32 am bYprOdUctof said:
I’d like to start by saying I really like this forum of allowing designers to get direct feedback from end users in real time.
For me the “Bare Essentials” concept makes a lot of sense and the modular ideas near the top of this post are things that I always thought should be available. Almost like a company manufactured power & safety pod with different after market body panels or utility beds available, but that’s more of a long term solution. I would equate it to how years ago nikeID started with one shoe that a consumer could customize and today they have hundreds & now so does adidas. They built the base, offer a few options and the consumer does the rest.
In the short term, the video above made me concerned by the “over mention” of how limiting parts, or making things smaller is inherently more efficient. While this may be true, I feel that we -as Americans- have grown up in a society where sacrifice -by and large- is a choice. I chose to volunteer, I chose to recycle, change my lightbulbs, offset the carbon of my apartment, flights and my auto, but I drive a Jeep. I’m one of two guys at work who temp [the brick wall of] management towards sustainability, yet I only get 14mpg in a 2007 vehicle. On paper, it’s a little hypocritical, but my bare essentials were, 4×4, 4 doors [for friends], keyless entry, A/C, a sub-woofer and a masculine stance. Knowing that if I burned ANY gasoline I would be hurting the planet. I figured it would be the same if I offset a Jeep or a Prius, but the prius wouldn’t allow me to be rough with it or be the guy that can carry things for those who can’t. 3 years later and now I’m preparing to sacrifice a little fun factor and ‘haulability’ for much better millage, Though as I write this, I realized I will most likely need to transport bigger items in the future, so I take back the ‘haulability’ sacrifice.
I want to end my comment with a note on design. I have great admiration for trans designers, as they’re usually the students at the top of the class, but I have a concern that we all [as designers] tend to over design. This new concept doesn’t need a tricky low rear window or a podular overall graphic. In my mind you’ve already sold the car based on it’s basic concept, now your job is to put it in a understandable context with familiar proportions. I think the winning idea out of your studio will best balance your sustainable approach with what europeans appreciate in Americans… our swagger.
thanks for your time and l really appreciate the opportunity to be a part of theLab.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 5:03 pm Therese Tant said:
Thank you for your candid input. I’m so happy to have this exchange with all of you. I think that your thoughts about what people are actually willing to sacrifice are interesting, your needs are your needs. People must make purchases based on just that – what they need.
During this project as we researched and talked to “green-minded” people we noted an interesting pattern…gas-guzzler-owners seemed to be more actively green in other areas of their lives than hybrid owners. At first it seemed odd, but it actually makes sense. If you are someone interested in living environmentally responsibly but you need a truck to haul things, than perhaps in general you try a bit harder in other areas to compensate.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 6:53 am ZHDesign said:
First of all, I’m so glad GM made this site. I feel it’s extremely important to listen to what the customer needs and thinks. Thank you so much, GM.
I love the ideas shown here for these “Bare Necessities” vehicles. I feel there are a lot of people out there, who just want a bare bones car, that looks good, is reliable, and easy to pay for. I think this is why Kia has done so well here in the U.S. in the past several years. While their cars don’t stir my soul, I’ve seen people buy them as graduation presents for their kids, a car just get to work in, an SUV just to have more space to put stuff in, or just something with better fuel economy at a great price… When people see that a type of “bare necessities” car, with cool design, is easy to pay for, I think a lot of people will go for it.
I love the Chevrolet concept, I definitely see great potential there. Only thing is, will it fulfill a customer’s needs and do that at “cheap price”? (Below $10K) I saw a bunch of people flocking back to the Geo/Chevy Metro once gas got over $4 a gallon. The way I see it, This car would definitely sell in those conditions, main points: Price, MPG, Comfortable, Reliable, Cool Design (I think this is where the Aveo has lacked…)
The truck looks great, love everything about it. Especially the reversible bed. That would be an awesome addition to the GMC lineup. I love seeing green technology making it’s way into GMC, this is important to change the perception of trucks as “gas guzzlers”.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:04 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks! It feels great to get such positive feedback;)
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 9:42 am Viggen said:
Dear GM management and especially MR Henderson
Right,the GM must produce small cars,which do not need to be refueled each 100 km.Of course,there are Chevrolet Aveo,Chevy Cruze (this car must replace today’s Cobalt,it looks much better,it should also have a coupe version to attract the young people who do not have own family).Chevy Malibu is qite nice ride,but it must be equipped with 6-sped transmission only,the 5-speed automatic one must be dropped.Chevy Impala needs to be improved because the design is neither good nor bad.It’s coward!If we look at Impalas from 1959 till 1973,we will admire the revolutionary look of these cars and the today’s Impala must be such attractive and original like the yesterday’s Impalas.Otherwise,the name must be changed from “Impala” to “Hippo” or “Duckbill”,because this design isn’t worth of having such a legendary name.
Actually,the new Camaro has no other way except to be popular.The car has everything for the star popularity:low price,modern design,which makes us remember the famous Camaro ‘69 and strong engines.But the US market isn’t enough for this car.It must be sold everywhere:in Europe(of course,if GM will keep the low price,otherwise the greedy Europeans won’t buy Camaro,in the countries of the former Soviet Union,where the cars with big engines are very popular and,of course,in Australia,the only place in the world where the muscle cars survived inspite of the fuel crysis in 1973,1979 and 2008.
The Corvette will always be popular-it was,is and (I hope,at least) will be world’s best supercar.Give to the next generation the look of 1963 Corvette Stingray,save 6-speed manual and automatic gearboxes and never put inside the double clutch gearbox-Corvette is not a German BMW or Volkswagen.Improve what you have today,it is easier,chaper and better than loosing the American spirit.Save the American traditions,don’t let the heartbeat of America,the Chevrolet cars,stop!
The SUVs like Tahoe or Suburban do not need to be elliminated,or the quite profitable sector of the car market will be occupied by the Japanese Brands.Just give the 6-speed automatic gearbox to the Tahoe and other fullsize SUVs,make the engine eat not so much fuel,add extra horsepowers and improve the quality of interior materials(the last was the weakest point of American cars) and you will always have success!
While creating the exterior of the new GM models,get inspired by the GM cars of 1950-1960-s.The desigm must cause the feeling of yesterday’s expression and today’s quality and technology.Only then the GM cars will be popular not for the seniors(Buick is best-built car in the world,but has a very sad and tired look) but also by the young generation(most Chevy and Pontiac cars have wonderful design,but the interior materials leave much to be desired).
When you start selling the Volt,don not leave the traditional gasoline cars without attention.Each GM car must be powerful and have good fule economy at the same time.
While making the car advertisement,do not hesitate to punish gently the main concurents-Toyota and Nissan.The best solution is to create such vehicle which would be cheaper and better than Camry,the car with the exterior of drunk fat samurai and the cheap interior filled with blue plastic and cheap siver door hands made form silver substance,which looks like cheap Chinese toys.
And please,don not elliminate the Pontiac brand!!!Many GM fans will never forgive you.Save the native GM brand,don’t let it down.Pontiac is not the brand to be dropped.It has the potential left,just find and use it.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:23 am mnmavrik said:
i think dbomb is missing what this forum is about. that’s great that you like to have a car with some sport to it (i own an MG-B and 240z), but there is a lot of people out there that want to help leave less of an impact on the world around us.
here’s an idea that i just thought about. what if we got rid of some of the features that we’ve kind of forgotten about. what if we did away with power steering. if you made a car light enough the steering will not be that difficult. i really love driving my little B around because you feel the road so much more. also, what about putting in a bench seat instead of two buckets. i know that bench seats dont quite work as well at keeping you in one place as buckets do, but maybe a contoured bench with selectable gears on the center counsel.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm Wade Bryant said:
You are spot-on. As soon as a vehicle gets heavy, we have to “beef up” all the components to support the vehicle.
Bench seats and manual steering both help this cause. (fewer parts, less weight, less cost, less waste)
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm powerfreak said:
I’m glad I found this site…this is a great idea, I look forward to checking it out in the future.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm Yosemite38 said:
I only have a first few impressions… First, I feel that GM is designing this vehicle as if no one is doing the same thing. In the video, it speaks of “we had no preconceived notions…” While that sounds like the right direction. I think that a better place to start would be to look at the current offerings of “green” vehicles, particularly the ones that are selling the best, and find out why people like them.
My personal opinion is that people don’t just want to buy a “green” car, that is bare bones.. They really want to love their car and have extras that make their car stand out. While the days are past that power and performance are major criteria, I do believe that a small car CAN be impressive with new technologies that make the driver feel that they are driving a cutting edge vehicle. Voice activation and control of functions of their car, along with voice interaction, could really appeal to the younger driver when making that choice between this car and a Toyota Prius.
So bottom like, don’t focus so much on just stripping down a car, but more on making a “green” car feel more like a car of the future when driving and not just filling it up.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:12 am Carrie Crawley said:
Great feedback! We had the same question about give & take and that is why we started this conversation. Based on our initial research it did seem as though there was a growing population of those who wanted a “bare necessity” vehicle- we don’t think the design needs to suffer. These are just a few concepts around a theme to start the discussion.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 11:27 am Wade Bryant said:
I’m not certain of this BUT…
I’m guessing we didn’t arrange to have this site moderated on the weekend (I have to be responsible for my own content, so I’m able to blab all weekend)
Keep writing and posting, We’ll likely be swamped on Monday!
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm sergeklapwijk said:
Some more suggestions:
- Dependent suspension like transverse leaf spring on the drive axle could lower costs and complexity significantly.
- On the non drive (rear) axle, instead of using a solid axle to connect the right and left wheel, make small axles connected with vertically mounted universal joints to the chassis (this tiny axle has vertical degree of motion). These can be fitted with springs for suspension, but they do not need a differential because they are already independent. The space otherwise filled with the axle can be used for interior space. As a sidenote, this would require the bearings to be mounted in the rear wheels.
- Small electric aircon paired with SPD Smartglass. Smartglass enhances privacy, blocks the sun’s rays so your car will heat up minimally.
- Glass windows are heavy, what about laminated glass or polycarbonate with a scratch-proof coating?
One experimental suggestion:
- Supercapacitor hybrid (using the slightly bigger alternator as a motor) paired with rev maintaining CVT. Small supercaps capture from regen braking and use this energy for the acceleration. Acceleration is the only true powerhogging type of situation, this is where the torque and efficiency characteristics of electric drive come in very handy! It will assist the ICE engine. CVT keeps the engine at the most efficient engine speed as speed progresses.
Love the benchseat idea! Manual steering is also good choice. If there are any remarks or questions, feel free to post (GM crew, I’d also appreciate views on these suggestions
!)
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 5:33 pm Therese Tant said:
I love the thought about smart glass, it’s only flaw would be that it is currently quite expensive. Perhaps on a vehicle that would be marketed as efficient AND premium? That works with the added privacy perk.
Polycarbonates exist that can be extremely lightweight and with scratch resistant coating- these are great considerations for side glass on vehicles like this. The cost is still a bit high and the optics won’t work for a windshield, but side-glass – good thought.
Supercapacitor hybrid…? Sorry I’m not equipped to comment, I would need an engineer to assist – but your input is fantastic, thanks!
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm Aadil Shah said:
Give me a ‘South African’ hybrid car with integrated solar panels for under ZAR30.000,00 and I’m in. w00t!
and while you’re about it, make a fifteen seater ‘minibus’ taxi with a similar design. Let’s clear the air, reduce our ‘carbon footprint’ are make the world a better place, one vehicle at a time!!! :yes:
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 1:33 pm DM3 said:
I really like this idea. A simple, basic, lightweight, inexpensive and nice looking car. When you think about it, who really needs all of the added complexity that many modern cars have for daily road use? Why, for example, do I need an engine that will redline at 8,000rpm when I normally don’t go above the posted 40mph speed limit? Even if this car is more like a Maytag than a Corvette, GM stylists can still make the car far more interesting than the other appliance-like cars out there. As for feeling more connected to the environment. I’d say a nice clear view out would be nice. Bigger windows, and thinner pillars will make it much easier to see out.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:15 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for your feedback! Keep your input coming.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 10:22 pm GARRETT said:
Above all else, something that GM has to do and has never cared about is KEEP THE WEIGHT DOWN!
How come every other carmakers cars are lighter than GMs, in that respective category? There are no excuses for this.
Also, I love the idea of that truck. Everything about it, excluding design. WE NEED MORE SMALL DIESELS! Small and SCIONish would be awesome. GMC desperately needs a Canyon replacement, and something as versatile as this could bring some youth to your dealerships.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm GARRETT said:
Also, more LEDs more LEDs more LEDs.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 2:48 am urbansuburban said:
GM’s Guide for success:
1) Less products allow more time and energy for creating a handful of outstanding products.
2)No more rebadging! A Buick Cruze? I thought Buick was trying to compete with Lexus.
Cruze does not equal IS. NO EXCUSES!
3) Each brand needs to be completely distinct and share no similar models.
4)Chevy should be the fundamental brand, competing with Toyota and Honda. So the volt is a Prius fighter and then some. Great. The Malibu is suppose to be a Camry fighter. I give GM a B for effort but, the design is a mess. In order to create a respectable car brand, there has to be instantly recognizable design elements that DO NOT change over the years. Does BMW change their grills on their offerings? Every model shares a twin kidney shaped grill and has forever. I think that Chevy should incorporate a simple grill into their designs that looks like a large, wide, squashed, blacked out “v” in rememberance of the old logo that dominated the hood of the Bel Air. It’s would be instantly recognizable as a Chevy and once it’s incorporated, leave it alone! With respect, they could continue to use this grill esentially for eternity because it originated from a classic and would always be recognized as a Chevy. Chevy has to do this in order to ground itself. It needs to stop changing it’s identity and focus so consumers can recognize any new offering whether or not they follow the car industry thoroughly. Why not even build a modern day, ultra futuristic looking 50’s style car with safer fins and two tone paint? The Cruze will not be a hit GM. I’m sorry. In order to be an outstanding brand, you must develope a product that is two steps ahead of the competition. The Cruze is a response to the Honda Civic, not competition. Develope a small car on one platform that can be a basic four door sedan, a coupe, and a mini crossover. This will save money. Also incorporate something Honda doesn’t have with the Civic line, a convertible. This platform should be flexible in the sense that it could be shortened in order to develope a B segment(?) car such as the Aveo and other niche vehicles. Maybe possibly a roadster like a Mazda Miata (Saturn Skye). Offer this model range in luxury versions and sport versions (SS) as a Chevy and do not allow in to be offered by any other brand. Similarly, the mid-size offering (malibu) should have a coupe, convertible, cross-over variant all on the same platform. The Camaro could even be built off this platform. Also, one large platform should be developed for an Impala replacement. Bring back the old days of American dominance in the auto industry and offer a coupe and convertible version of this large sedan offering (Impala) and this platform can be used to develope a large cross over as well. If Chevy did this, they would have three core platforms that would support three diverse model ranges. Chevy should continue to improve on these platforms over time instead of switching and starting over and lossing focus and money. The platforms would be the foundation of Buick and Cadillac’s models as well. Three platforms to support a diverse portfolio of automotive offerings. So Chevy would have cars covered. Trucks are covered. GMC should produce only ultra high end trucks that are more than rebadged Chevys. As high end as Cadillac and nothing less otherwise, GMC will compete with Chevy. Buick needs to be phased in as a replacement for Cadillac meaning, Buick need to become more and more luxurious. The new La Cross is a good start but, Buicks should be developed to compete with Lexus and Mercedes and nothing less. Cadillac should be phased into Bently, Rolls Royce ultra luxury territory. Not as exclusive as these brands but, Cadillac is known as American luxury and should be the definition of it. Cars like the Cadillac Sixteen should be on Cadillac’s show room floors instead of the CTS. Let Buick develope a CTS. Design Cadillacs so that their presence trickles down to the other brands and people will want Buicks because they could only dream of owning a Cadillac.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 7:09 am TogetherinParis said:
You can build a car that will keep people dry driving it that weighs 100 lbs. I own a small electric car made from bicycle components that weighs less than 50 lbs and will go 30 miles per charge. Look at my thumbnail photograph, that’s my car!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm Wade Bryant said:
Cool transportation you have!
We posed ideas like 2-wheeled vehicles at the early stage of this project and didn’t get a serious reaction to them. I think there is a place for all types and sizes of efficient transportation.
Bare Necessity Car and Truck are two of the vehicles that sprouted from our Eco Initiative. We worked on several other proposals to vaying degrees but frankly didn’t stray as far from traditional cars and trucks as you have suggested in some of your posts.
Regarding aerodynamics (as you wrote about in another post) it is an area of focus for us. The benefits are clear and we do have experience in the field. Another blogger mentioned the EV-1.
Bare Necessity Car and truck will need to make some aero tradeoffs to contend with the low cost, minimal parts approaches. We have another Eco Initiative project up our sleeves that you would appreciate.
Thanks for tipping the conversation toward more ultra-efficient transportation solutions.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 4:29 pm BillyBeauBob said:
Why continue to spend (waste) more $ on developing hybrid vehicles when there is Clean Diesel to invest in. Hybrids are not worth the additional cost of ownership, and that’s not including the battery replacement when that is to occur.
Simply drop a clean diesel motor in some of GMs current vehicles… I’d buy one. Europe has been doing it for years! Wake up America! !
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:19 pm BrianCastillo said:
BillyBeauBob, you raise a really good question. There is a fundamental difference between the diesel as an approach to fuel economy versus the hybrid-electric powertrain. You are also correct in stating that diesels are *much* more popular in Europe than they are in the US, while hybrids are much more popular in the US than they are in Europe.
People have different opinions why diesels have lower market share in the US – some say Americans dislike the smell of diesel fuel, or associate diesels with loud commercial trucks, or fear they won’t be able to buy diesel fuel at their local gas station – but I think the biggest issue is the different emissions standards between the US an Europe. Europe currently allows for *much* greater emissions of oxides-of-nitrogen than US law permits, so to sell diesels in the US, you need to add quite a bit of additional (expensive) hardware to “clean up” the exhaust, which reduces the appeal of the vehicle.
This is not to say diesels don’t have a place (I personally think diesel engines are great), but it does raise a trade-off question that I’d invite the whole group to comment on:
Given the choice between
1) a “clean” diesel, which adds cost and complexity to the vehicle in the form of the engine and exhaust-treatment components and still burns fossil-fuel,
-or-
2) a hybrid-electric, which adds complex batteries and motors, and may someday require the replacement of the large, expensive battery
Which do you view as more desireable? Which do you perceive as more eco-friendly?
Thanks again to everybody for all the great feedback!
(Disclaimer / Truth-In-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but I’m speaking only on my own behalf. -BC)
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:34 pm smbourg said:
Neither…we need to be much more forward thinking than what we have in today’s market. I don’t want to use oil based fuel at all. Tesla is on the right track so I believe that is the real future. I know there are all kinds of arguments but come on…do we want to go to the gas or diesel station for the rest of our lives? I know I don’t.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 6:27 pm GM’s Bare Necessity: Minimalist approach to ensure greener transportation : Green Resouces said:
[...] General Motors, after passing through a rough patch of the recession, has finally realized the mantra to glide against the winds. They call it “Bare Necessities”! The whole doctrine revolves around stripping future autos of everything superfluous. Sticking to the idea of hybrids, GM gears itself up for improved efficiency with low-cost alternatives. Accordingly, minimal mechanics, low-cost commuting and sustainable conveyance are there to reign supreme in the newly introduced Eco Initiative. [...]
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 9:55 am Jkujo said:
Dear Powers at be,
I wanted to know if you have heard of “Self-Healing Paint” technology? There was an article about it on one of the news sites a few months ago. Apparently the technology allows for scratches and such to “heal” themselves permanently by just sitting in the sunlight for a few hours. They say that the paint could be used for anything from cell phones to automobiles. Is this something that could be done? I know that I would really be interested in a car that had that capability. Especially for those minor dings you get from pebbles and road salt hitting your car, or if a person accidentaly scratching your car.
Here the URL to the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29663741/
What do you think?
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm Therese Tant said:
Thank you for the link…I’ve absolutely heard of and seen this paint technology, I’m quite certain that it’s already in the automotive market on a couple production vehicles. Unfortunately I can’t comment on it’s function or it’s future at GM.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:31 am Jkujo said:
So would you say that this is a “Stay Tuned” situation?
Also, can you please comment on why the color pallete’s of your mid-sized cars are so completely bland? Look at the Malibu, fine car, but out side of an old person’s red and blue, there’s no color! No bright red (used to be a standard), no orange, or lighter blue. Basically no choice of something with sizzle, just neutrals. Can’t there be more choices than 8 shades of silver?
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 11:58 am ed said:
I like Tata’s “Frugal Engineering” of their Nano,
http://wot.motortrend.com/6544132/we-hear/report-gm-planning-asian-built-4000-tata-nano-fighter/photo_01.html
but I especially like their Ace electric pickup
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric2-490.jpg
. . . with the roomy cap-over, and
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric-490.jpg
I like “Better Place’s” idea of using renewable energy.
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/better-place-battery-swap-station_1.jpg
. . . (NOT having to worry about buying, charging, swapping, or disposing of batteries and NO polution)
Economy, Simplicity, Flexibility . . . an Electric Pickup.
When China and India put the two idea’s together, they will make them by the millions.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm 2EricC said:
I own a 2005 Prius. I love it. I will by another hybrid. What we really really want is a multi-talented vehicle roughly of the Prius format, but with these essential features (being that we drive in the north): Must be a convertible. Must be four-wheel drive. I’ve been begging Subaru to make one, but no.
Here’s the rational:
1. Convertible owners are northerners! (It’s too hot to put the top down in the south, so southerners don’t own them.)
2. Northerners need traction in the winter, thus: 4WD.
3. Green fans (and all who enjoy fresh, wholesome air) need a sustainable ride.
VERY BASIC.
~eric.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:12 am Carrie Crawley said:
Eric, thanks for the rational. Question; when you buy your next hybrid will you consider buying American? Will you consider the Volt? If not, can you share some of your rational for your decision making process? Thanks for letting me pick your brain;)
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:28 pm ed said:
Here comes India’s Pickup truck.
India’s Mahindra & Mahindra will debut in the US in February-March 2010 with a
. . . US-specific pick-up truck and will follow up with the American version of Scorpio a year later.
The company has tied up with Global Vehicles, which will be its US distributor.
“Of course, any future products in India will keep a US launch in mind, hence forth,”
. . . Pawan Goenka, president of M&M’s automobile division said,
. . . adding that the new models in India will be tweaked for an export roll-out.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/MM-looks-to-drive-into-US-market/articleshow/4908284.cms
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm sdbulldog said:
I will be brief.
Convertable option definitely.
hydraulic propulsion ??? I’ve heard great things about it.
regenerative braking??
Enough room for baby seat in the back, of course as much leg room as possible.
Groceries in trunk. I can see using the Volt for everything except long trips.
Thanks for you efforts.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm LeeW said:
What GM calls the Volt is a concept that we used in our senior seminar at the U of A in 1959 just before I got my BS. We had to size the components of a schematic based on using a typical 3500 lb car using a 12VDC motor mounted on and directly driving the rear differential. We also had to modify its single gear ratio to accomodate a rear wheel speed range from 0 to 80 MPH. We also had to size an independant generator and battery set and an internal combustion engine, running at the most fuel efficient constant speed, that could supply the electrical power to allow brief peak current for starting acceleration from both generator and batteries, and average electrical power at 80 MPH to drive the car and top off the batteries. We were also asked to search for DC motor controls that might possibly allow the DC drive motor to be switched to a generator for regenerative braking. Our professor anticipated that this design study would fully occupy our class of 14 students for two semesters a 5 credit hours per semester. About 2/3 through the first semester we completed the paper study which invisioned a 11 HP DC servo motor and a 13 HP conventionally fueled combustion engine. Not knowing what to do with usfor the remaining 1 and 1/3 semester our professor responded to our request to build it.
We wound up buying a near cherry 1953 Cevy Belair with a blown engine, a 12 HP DC servo motor, existing electro-mechanical switching controls used for motor-generators of that ime and we could not find a gasoline engine in that size range but bought a Peter 15 HP diesel used to drive small farm tractors.
After stripping out the blown engineand engine mounted accessories, transmision, exhaust system and drive shaft, machining a new gear set and an adaptor plate fo mounting the DC motor to the differential, installing the motor generator and 4 conventional lead acid batteries in the extremely oversized engine compartment, we spent less than $800 for the whole mess and when we ran it we got about 140 MPG driving it conservatively, and really burnt rubber when we drove it for sport and never went below 125 MPG. When we graduated, we left the car with our professor (a retired Army Corps. of Engineers officer). I immediately joined General Dynamics when I graduated in June of 1960, and several yers later, when I inquired, I got anecdotal information that he died and the car was acquired by GM and disappeared.
The MPG data above would be consistant with 250 MPG for a duty cyle where the car was driven for 30 miles on battary and 10 miles on motor generator daily and then plugged in.
What is not consistant is a production run of 10,000 vehicles at $40,000 per recurring sale price. Toyota makes money selling 100,000 Prius’ at $22,000 per copy and I think the cost to build a Volt in production quantities could be consistantly less than a Prius! It looks like an event for the media only!
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 8:51 am BrianCastillo said:
This is very interesting – I think that this further validates the basic idea that the Volt-style powertrain is fundamentally sound. I would like to comment just a bit on the price issue – right now, the Volt contains a lot of new technology, and (like any new technology), there is an expectation that prices will come down significantly as the technology matures. The Prius does have an advantage right now, in that the technology in use in the Prius has been in application long enough to have become very price-competitive, but as volumes of extended-range-electric-vehicles increase, I would (personally) be very surprised if the price of Volt-style powertrains doesn’t come down significantly. In a way, it’s kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: costs won’t come down until you build in volume, but no one wants to build in volume until costs come down. This is why I am proud that GM, in the case of the Volt, has stepped up to the plate and committed to the technology of the Volt, even though (at present) the technology is still in its infancy.
I also found it very interesting that your vehicle used such a small engine/generator/motor set. Of of the things that I’ve found it that it’s very possible to do a *lot* of your driving using comparitively small power levels, like those you’ve described. The problems arise during the “infrequent” events – things like driving up a steep grade, while loaded up to maximum vehicle weight. The might only happen once in a blue moon, but if the vehicle isn’t capable of accommodating it, then it’s not commercially saleable. (Imagine what would happen if you suddenly found yourself stalled on a hill in San Francisco, with traffic stacking up behind you….not good.) One of the things that I think is great about the new powertrains is the ability of the electric motors to operate well below their peak output levels during normal driving conditions, while still maintaining high efficiencies.
Thanks again for your input!
(Disclaimer / Truth-in-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but I am speaking only on my own behalf. -BC)
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:19 pm chrismaag said:
I absolutely agree with Yosemite38. The Smart car is the perfect example of a car that succeeds because it meets the specific needs of a defined demographic. It has major failings — no storage, and rather poor in-city gas mileage for a car that weighs just 1700 pounds. But the people who like it love it because it fits their needs: Urban drivers who want something stylish yet small enough to park.
GM is still stuck in the old way of thinking about the “World Car,” the one chassis that will serve as the basis for many different cars across many brands. When it works, this is a good strategy because it creates production efficiencies. When it fails, GM simply cannibalizes itself, a lá 1995 – 2006 Saturns. This approach fails to recognize that just as media has splintered, so have consumers’ tastes for sneakers, jeans, cars. It also leads to this ponderous wait time where market moments pass GM by. (Witness the agonizingly slow rollout of the Camaro.)
How to fix this? Here’s how:
- Figure out what demographic you want to reach. Cool 20-somethings? Middle-income truck buyers?
- Give yourself two weeks to design it, from start to finish. (That’s what Kia did with the Soul. They spent more time building their viral marketing campaign than they did designing the car, which is smart.)
- Build it.
- Move on to the next target demo.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 10:41 pm ed said:
Door Engineering Tests. Lighter Doors That Protect You Better.
http://www.myxpcar.com/images/stories/compare2.jpg
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:40 am GARRETT said:
When are we going to get a glimpse at the Cadillac ATS and XTS?
thanks GARRETT
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:45 am Wade Bryant said:
We are working on upcoming LAB content.
Keep watching the site for new posts.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:07 am Ezequiel said:
I have been reading about the different ways that ford and other manufacturers are trying to charge their battery-powered cars. I am not an engineer or anything close to that but couldn’t you divide the battery pack in 2 or 3 and connect the car t o2 or 3 different outlets in your house? Wouldn’t this expedite the process of charging the car since the batteries are smaller and they can each get power from the wall?
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 4:37 pm Therese Tant said:
This is a great question. Unfortunately I’m not qualified to answer it although it does seem to make simple sense. I suppose it would just come down to the logistics of the electrical wiring itself. It would certainly expedite the recharge.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:40 am ed said:
“DIESEL” . . . could this vehicle’s be what’s generating peoples interest in diesels?
If the “chicken tax” gets dropped, look for a lot of small pickups entering the USA market.
India’s Mahindra & Mahindra compact pickup trucks, featuring clean DIESEL engines and around 30 miles per gallon, without the 25% tariff.
According to John Perez, CEO of Global Vehicles U.S.A. Inc., “We’re seeking an exemption from Washington, based on the environmental benefits of what we’re bringing in.” Mahindra’s new truck is scheduled to go on sale in the U.S. in October or November of this year for $22,000 to $25,000, meaning the tax would amount to over $4,000 on each of these vehicles.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/03/09/global-vehicles-lobbying-to-end-chicken-tax-for-mahindra-pickups/
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 10:09 am shopa said:
I hope the Chevy Volt is a great success.
In order to improve the battery only range of electric vehicles, the vehicle weight must be reduced.
However, the more steel that is removed, the less safe the car will be in collisions.
I have invented a way to make small cars safer in collisions.
Please look at my website
http://www.safersmallcars.com
and tell me what you think of my idea.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’m not qualified to comment on safety-engineering solutions, but I’m glad you’re putting effort in this direction.
Thanks.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 11:01 am ed said:
[url=http://fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/2991/Electric_car_boost_for_UK.html][color=#0000FF]Electric car boost for UK[/color][/url]
UK prime minister tips north-east region to become electric car production hub
. . . in wake of Nissan investment in the area.
Japanese car-makers Nissan and Toyota are to focus their electric car manufacturing in the UK,
. . . which is aiming to become Europe’s electric car production capital.
[color=#0000FF]Toyota[/color] has confirmed plans to build its first
. . . European hybrid petrol-electric version of its Auris hatchback in
. . . Burnaston, Derbyshire, from the middle of next year. And
[color=#0000FF]Nissan[/color] is to build a lithium-ion battery plant for electric vehicles
. . . close to its existing car plant in Sunderland. Indian car giant
[color=#0000FF]Tata Motors[/color] is also considering making electric cars in the UK.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 11:45 am ed said:
According to this article:
. . . your goal should be designing for the Asian market,
. . . or
. . . adapting Asian vehicles for the US market.
“General Motors has the model range to compete in the United States.
However, GM is doing much better in China,
. . . thanks largely to its joint venture with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp.,
. . . which expects to sell 1.4 million vehicles in 2009.
Since GM is also selling Opel, its European operation,
. . . GM will find itself driven primarily by the demands of the Chinese market.
. . . Given the growth of that market,
. . . it will probably make the most economic sense for
GM to become Chinese-owned.
. . . Politics may delay this, but probably only for a few years.”
http://jutiagroup.com/2009/08/19/will-asia-unseat-detroit-as-global-center-of-the-auto-industry/
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:37 pm Kenz300 said:
Every vehicle that GM builds needs to have quality design and quality interior components. For too long GM equated small cars with cheap quality. ALL cars and trucks need to have the look and feel of quality. Cheap looking plastic interiors and poor quality components are no way to compete in todays market. Every component needs to be looked at for quality, comfort and beauty.
GM needs to compare each of its vehicles to the best in class for that model. What is superior about those vehicles and why do they outsell GM? Market share has been declining for years and all we hear is that we are working on it. I do not think GM is going to get another chance to get it right.
Those people that have presided over the decline of GM the last 30 years need to retire. Their old ideas and old business model did not work (bankruptcy).
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for giving us a chance by coming to this site and giving your honest input.
As difficult as the reality of bankruptcy is, it is also an incredible opportunity for us to become an inspirational company that makes extraordinary vehicles. From the inside I am beginning to see hope – this website would have never happened before bankruptcy. Stay tuned…please.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm Artur Urban said:
I am looking for a very fuel efficient minivan on the market because I need a larger vehicle. Nothing like that exists on the market. The best minivans reach maybe 25 highway mpg.
That’s why I dream about an electric minivan. I think market for it would be huge. All the suburban people who usually drive in stop/go traffic, who need to shuttle children to activities. The same people usually can afford a minivan whose price if offered at $40,000, and would essentially eliminate your gas expenses, would in real terms be maybe around $20,000 (assuming 10 years of lifespan, and the lack of gasoline expenses whatsoever). The suburbanites usually owns houses, and that is why it would be easier for them to charge the EV minivans (at home) as compared to inner city dwellers.
The same minivan would have solar panels on the roof, utilizing the large surface minivans’ roofs offer. The solar panels would charge the batteries of the minivan and would run air conditioning even with the engine turned off (pretty much the same way the newest version of Toyota Prius has it). Cool temperatures in minivans are quite important as many moms use minivans to drive kids around. And as we know, especially younger kids have lower tolerance for heat. Personally, I would be very thankfull for a vehicle in which temperatures are always moderate.
Also, electric vehicles offer the biggest potential of efficiency because the drivetrain can be so simplified. The most ideally, the electric engines should be placed directly in the wheels which would eliminate the need of transmission and other complicated systems. This would also make the vehicle AWD. As you eliminate many complicated systems the weight of the vehicle goes down which further improves efficiency.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for the input!
I definitely think that the time has come to completely reinvent the minivan…I mean turn it on its head, and I don’t mean a cross-over type vehicle either. If mass could be kept extremely low, electric’s plausible.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 2:50 pm ed said:
Tata Nano cut costs by replacing two Windshield Wipers with only one.
But do you “NEED” an automatic wiper?
The WW2 Jeep had a manual Windshield Wiper,
. . . mounted on the top of the fold-down windshield and
. . . worked great and a child could use it.
http://www.film.queensu.ca/cJ3B/Tech/WiperManual.html
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:09 pm ed said:
There was a plan to “import a Tata Ace mini-truck glider from India.
The glider consists of a frame, finished cab, axles, and wheels in one unit.
. . . The glider–so called because it can be rolled much like a dolly or scooter
. . . does not include the normal critical components
. . . of an internal-combustion vehicle such as
. . . an engine, transmission, drive shaft, exhaust system,
. . . fuel system, or rear axle differential.
It also does not have the critical components of an electric vehicle
. . . including the motor, battery pack, differential,
. . . or electronics necessary to control the electric vehicle.
The brake assembly included with the glider would be removed and
. . . replaced with another after importation.
The truck bed would be imported separate from the glider and
. . . installed after importation and upfitting as an electric vehicle.
The glider was claimed to be non-functional and
. . . not intended for sale to retail motor vehicle purchasers in its imported state.
Once in the United States, they would manufacture
. . . an electric mini-truck from the glider and
. . . various other assemblies.
They would fit the complete mini-truck with an electric motor
. . . to create an energy efficient, zero emissions mini-truck
. . . for sale to certain U.S. government agencies.”
“The truck bed would be imported separate from the glider and
. . . installed after importation and upfitting as an electric vehicle.”
The Tata Ace glider
. . . would be combined with modular parts, on a U.S. assembly,
. . . requiring only 8 work stations!
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm ed said:
Do you “NEED” 4 wheels? 3 wheels cost less!
Market Surveys:
Girish Wagh, a 34-year-old divisional manager, designed Tata Ace pickup truck.
. . . During his market survey, Wagh had got many hints.
. . . A farmer in Andhra Pradesh told him that
. . . “he preferred four-wheelers as they meant better social status in his village.
. . . If he had one, he would even get a bride easily.”
But the low cost of a three-wheeler still worried Wagh.
http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/Tata-Motors-Ace.html
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm Therese Tant said:
I guess that the question should be posed back to you? Does it? 3-wheels essentially means that we as an automotive manufacturer would not need to meet all of the federal motor vehicle safety requirements of a 4-wheeler. As Aptera Motors has learned, 3-wheels equals amazing efficiency, 3-wheels allows a car to be low drag and lightweight simply because it does not have 4 wheels and the added mass and plan-view. However, the drawback is that that safety is compromised. A 3-wheeler could potentially be designed to meet the same safety requirements as a 4-wheeler, however it would add a lot of weight, thus negating the benefits. Would you be willing to accept less than ideal safety?
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm Steve Westcott said:
The possibility of having a hybrid with multi-fuel choices or a pure plug-in that has been holistically developed with a modular ” mix and match” interior / exterior system could be very exciting. Clean diesel, gasoline, ethanol, 2wd, awd, different body and interior configurations to change when you want to change. I think GM was on the correct path with the “skateboard” platform that was promoted with the Sequel concept.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm Therese Tant said:
It seems like the very best thing that can be done for the sake of energy independence and sustainability would be for automotive companies to develop diverse fuel/powertrain systems. I know that GM is going forward with this. Having a multitude of propulsion options would be fantastic for all consumers – infrastructure would eventually build, prices would level-off, it’s certainly time to put an end to the erratic shifts in fuel costs!
I’m not the right person to comment about the thought of multi-fuel choices in one system and how close to feasibility that is – although I’m pretty sure it’s a possibility.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm vlad_smn said:
Smart and functional, economical, practical.
To your list I’d also add that the vehicle must have at least one “spark”
this means it must have at least one very appealing detail, like very interesting instrument panel (like in the new F Fusion) or nice interior design ( like Honda Accord) or some fancy headlight – something to spark peoples attention, something other than a simple eco-friendliness.
I would also prefer that it would look more close to the regular car. How many futuristic concepts we have seen at the autoshow and how many of them actually made it to the market?
I mean when you see something very unusually-looking, you think “Wow, interesting looking thing!” but you don’t see yourself driving it. If it looks more like a regular car (I like Volt!) than people actually see themselves driving one.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm Therese Tant said:
I like the one “spark” comment, any successful car has at least one trait that really sets it apart. For a vehicle to evoke an emotional response from people, to have them really desiring it – it needs to be distinctive it must have something that no other car has. It would be especially nice if it was something that made it unique on the street, and in the cabin, both interior and exterior.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 10:03 am coolstang said:
I am new to this blog site and I just wanted to give my suggestion on what would be the real ideal fuel MPG estimate for the new Volt I think that the Volt should be driven on the EPA test cycle without being charged prior to test. This will give the real consumption of the car assuming someone does not charge the car at all or very often. This will also make it easier for marketing without having a disclaimer saying that actual mileage may be less unless fully charged. There will be a lot of people that will find it inconveinient to have to plug in their car and in return will complain that the car was not designed as thoughfully.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 10:26 am ed said:
To save on “COST”
. . . “Simplify Construction”
. . . “Free Up Space” and
. . . “Lower Weight” of a vehicle
. . . replace the air conditioner with:
. . . “Wing Vent Windows.”
http://www.panamoffroad.com/wing_vent.jpg
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm Therese Tant said:
I agree – it totally time for vent windows to remerge – simple, low cost, great function!
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 10:52 am ed said:
Improving Battery Efficiency and Durability with UltraCapacitors
Energy storage devices called ultracapacitors could lower the cost of the battery packs.
. . . Among the many benefits of marrying ultracaps and batteries is longer cycle life.
Ultracapacitors offer a way to extend the life of a vehicle’s power source,
. . . reducing the need to oversize its battery packs.
Unlike batteries,
. . . ultracapacitors don’t rely on chemical reactions to store energy, and
. . . they don’t degrade significantly over the life of a car,
. . . even when they are charged and discharged in very intense bursts
. . . that can damage batteries.
The drawback is that they store much less energy than batteries
. . . typically, an order of magnitude less.
If, however, ultracapacitors were paired with batteries,
. . . they could protect batteries from intense bursts of power,
. . . such as those needed for acceleration,
. . . thereby extending the life of the batteries.
Ultracapacitors could also ensure that the car can accelerate
. . . just as well at the end of its life
. . . as at the beginning.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23289/?nlid=2288
“A swappable “pancake style” battery pack
. . . located underneath the vehicle between the axles,
. . . away from crash zones and
. . . designed to not interfere with passenger accommodations
. . . or storage volumes,”
http://earth2tech.com/2009/04/21/shai-agassi-first-battery-swap-station-lands-in-japan-but-skeptics-remain/
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm ed said:
Tata Ace re-designed for the USA Market? Comfortable load in/out hight? Fold down back and sides?
http://www.pakwheels.com/images/forums/2008/4/17/a_OGE_PakWheels(com).jpg
Comfortable step in/out hight? Good visibility? Roomy? Small turning radius?
http://www.pakwheels.com/images/forums/2008/4/17/b_A8K_PakWheels(com).jpg
Jag/LR dealer network may be used to sell Tata pickup in the USA?
http://www.pakwheels.com/forumreply_az_TopicID!73970~ForumID!14~pw.html
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm ed said:
India Market:
Commercial vehicles (CV) Bad News
The CV segment, which has been the worst-hit among the auto segments
. . . due to the economic slowdown and
. . . lack of credit availability,
. . . has been on a downward trajectory since August 2008.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/auto-sector-ready-to-roll/366405/
Light Commercial vehicles (LCV) Good News
The Tata LCV was impressive as it registered a . . . 44.5% growth
. . . due to a strong demand for goods carrier Ace and
. . . Ace passenger vehicles, Winger and Magic.
http://www.vicky.in/straightfrmtheheart/tatas-magic-and-winger/
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm Gereon said:
This sounds interesting:
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6572556/green/next-generation-gm-hybrids-four-mode/index.html
Any information about that available yet? Thanks.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:30 pm DM3 said:
In regards to the Volt, I have to agree with what LeeW said. GM should be bracing itself to make as many Volts as it can sell. Set a more realistic target of 50,000 Volts a year. That might be enough to move the price to something a bit more reasonable than $40,000. The who long term plan should be that the Volt or it’s successor would replace the Cruze, and to bring the Voltec system completely mainstream within the next 10 years by putting it in other vehicles such as the next Malibu as the standard powertrain.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:47 pm Kenz300 said:
I hope GM succeeds.
Every auto maker is coming out with an electric car or small truck/van. What makes you think that your offerings will be better than the competition?
GM needs to strive for each vehicle it produces to be best in class. Compare your vehicles to the best and strive for excellence. The overall package needs to stand out in the market place. A beautiful design with a cheap interior turns buyers off. For too long GM has made interior design an after thought. The whole vehicle from top to bottom needs to be stylish, comfortable and efficient. If you sacrifice style and comfort for efficient you will just be another small car in the pack of small cars. Think APPLE
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm Therese Tant said:
First I would say that we haven’t settled on electric, we need it to make sense first. During the project we had studied several powertrain/propulsion set-ups to balance purchase cost, weight, efficiency, running cost, etc. We’re trying to fully understand priorities for people, the front-runner would depend on the feedback that we’re getting.
I agree with your comments about package needing to stand out – exterior proportion and interior comfort are sometimes conflicting, but a balance needs to be struck. Sometimes comfy interior packaging leads to interesting exterior proportion and gives the vehicle character.
It seems universally agreed that Apple is the benchmark for smart simplicity and style.
Thanks for your optimism and your input!
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm Kenz300 said:
What is up with the overpriced GM hybrid’s. Think less about performance and more about fuel economy and overall price of the vehicle. The unit cost needs to be driven down by putting hybrid’s in more vehicles. The prius sells because it is priced right.
Why does GM limit the number of E85 capable cars? I guess only truck owners want to buy E85????
Even small car owners want to have a choice at the pump. Just because a small car if fuel efficient does not preclude the owner from buying E85.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 9:53 am fdxeng said:
I read in the WSJ that the new approach to business (i.e. listening to customers) is generating dividends. What are you doing to prevent the pendulum swinging to far in the opposite direction (i.e. listening to much to customers)?
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 11:51 am BrianCastillo said:
This is a great question – clearly, like any other value-added endeavor, it could be possible to take “listening to customers” too far. I recall an episode of “The Simpsons” where Homes designs a “perfect car”, and it turns out horribly – this is clearly not the type of result that anyone wants.
Speaking for myself, I think the real value of this dialog is that it provides directional guidance and input, direct from you, the customers. I think that the other non-customer voices that drive the design of an automobile (voices like government regulations, Consumer Reports evaluations, insurance-industry safety tests, and manufacturing requirements) will provide the necessary counterpoint to prevent the “pendulum from swinging too far” (to use your term). I believe that, historically, we’ve had more of a problem with listening to the “other voices” too much, and the customer voices too little!
Thanks for your continued valuable input.
(Disclaimer / Truth-in-Posting Statement: I’m a GM engineer, but I’m speaking on my own behalf. -BC)
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’ll have to check out the WSJ news. – THANKS.
We’ve been criticized for not paying enough attention to customer wants and needs. It never hurts to gain more knowlege about the customer. The LAB just lets a new flow of information in, and it gets to us quickly.
Customer insight is just one piece of the puzzle. We just have to balance what we hear from customers with all our other insight and make smart decisions.
- this isn’t complicated, just common sense.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 10:22 am ed said:
Define “Bare Necessity” for me?
A) http://www.lifeitsownself.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/3833221489_a73cee3e39.jpg
B) http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/photos/jeepmoreimportantplacesposter_sm.jpg
C) http://www.levintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/indian-family-on-bike0103-mz-tata-thumb.jpg
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm ed said:
Here are 3 ways to control the cost of a “Bare Necessity” vehicle:
1) “Economy of Scale,” by manufacturing a large number of vehicles,
2) “Reduce Transportation Cost,” by reducing the size of your vehicle and
3) “Build to Order” the vehicle and options the customer wants.
The goal that’s envisaged,
. . . is where the company intends to sell the vehicle
. . . across a scattered geography.
1) “Economy of Scale,”say GM plans to manufacture one million vehicle kits (unassembled) a year.
2) “Reduce Transportation Cost,”ship vehicle kits (unassembled) from its main plant to strategic locations.
3) “Build to Order” Where satellite plants
. . . would make it cost effective to assemble and
. . . sell the car in the shortest time possible.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 2:55 pm conaliesknisk said:
That’s Ok.
—————————————
signature: adalat online
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 1:20 am DM3 said:
Well, I’d like to thank you GM people for not drowning us in corporate buzzwords and just speaking plainly. Communicating is far more effective when people talk about an issue rather than talking around it in my opinion. A door handle should be a door handle, and not a “door opening solution.”
That said, The pictures of this car I’ve seen on this site all have a rather odd two tone paint job going. Personally I’m all for the return of two tone paint. I just prefer a more classic use of it. Otherwise, I’d say just keep the weight and complexity down, and no options. Make air conditioning, AM/FM/XM/CD stereo and the like standard. Disallow power seats, any kind of heavy stereo equipment such as amps and sub woofers. No power sunroofs either. To much weight and they add to much to the price of the car.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm Therese Tant said:
Speaking plainly comes hard when you’re in an industry full of people trying working within specific processes and constantly talking-cars. The same way that what a car designer thinks is attractive is not what a non-car designer might think is attractive. People sometimes ask how would you design a car for women? Certainly I can use my intuition as a woman, but I also know that the way that I think about cars as a woman has changed a bit since I became a car designer. Thanks for being honest.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm DM3 said:
“The same way that what a car designer thinks is attractive is not what a non-car designer might think is attractive.”
You’re not referring to the Aztek are you?
“People sometimes ask how would you design a car for women? Certainly I can use my intuition as a woman, but I also know that the way that I think about cars as a woman has changed a bit since I became a car designer.”
This is something I’ve never really understood. Considering that a lot of women will go for “guy cars” like Camaros and big SUV’s and pickups. There was one lady I worked with a few years ago that wouldn’t drive anything but a 6 speed manual Corvette. She took that car everywhere. So it really seems more like it’s the type of personality you’re attracting with specific vehicles rather than groups divided by gender or other physical characteristics.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm Therese Tant said:
Yep – yep, and many women like agressive vehicles – vehicles considered masculine -I do. You can design around a person’s mindset and needs, its helpful if you design for most statures, but to design for a gender results in cliche’s…oversized buttons and handles for long fingernails, eeks…etc : (
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:01 pm smbourg said:
This is a great site and I want to say thanks for taking a proactive customer focus approach. My perspective is as a daily commuter that drives 80-100 miles per day getting to and from work. I’ve always been a car enthusiast and especially with cars such as the corvette, camaro, tesla, mustang, saturns, and vw. As a current 2003 Mustang GT driver I know what it is like to have an exciting but inefficient vehicle.
My desire is for my next vehicle to be an eco friendly vehicle and requires no traditional fuel sources. I can understand that technology is still catching up and the Chevy Volt is a great example of what I call a transitional technology car. My criteria is probably 5 years away from being doable or is it? The recent news of the Leaf has got my attention because it is a pure electric vehicle as opposed to an hybrid.
So here is what I want in my next car:
1. pure electric vehicle with 120-mile range at normal highway speed (75 mph)
2. leverage of solar/wind on-board for recharging while my car sits in a parking lot for 8-10 hours a day
3. LED technology (headlights, tail-lights, and OLED dashboard)
4. Auto-tint glass like the transition eye-glasses
5. small size is fine but not Smart car small
6. Camaro-like styling
7. Streamlined interior controls; cars have way too many knobs, handles, switches, buttons, etc…
8. Wi-Fi & USB connectivity so the car can connect to the internet and update on-board systems such as the GPS maps, music library, dashboard customizations, new future features, etc…
9. Intelligent cabin temperature management; why should the driver need so many A/C settings? all I should do is set the temp and the system should take care of everything else
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 9:59 am Viggen said:
Right,it’s time to stop rebadging.For example,many of the potential Buick Rainier or Saab 9-7X buyers refused to buy these cars because of sharing with Chevy Trailblazer (rest in peace,dear Chevy,you were delicious at the broken outback roads!) not only platform and engines,but also the design.The difference was only in front grille decoration and the bagde,of course.That’s why the Saab and the Buick had annual sales comnsisting only 4-5k cars comparing with Trailblazer”s 150-250k.For the Buick or Saab owners it would be just unbearable to drive in rebadged Chevrolet.
In 1950s and 1960s nobody would ever think aboutbuying a Buick or Cadillac if they were similiar to Chevys or Pontiac (let the Pontiac division live!!!).
I sincerely hope that GM’s management will never repeat the mistakes of the past.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 4:30 pm Wade Bryant said:
I don’t think you’ll see much rebadging anymore. Since we’re reducing our focus to four core brands, the urge to leverage good projects to other brands is greatly reduced.
Did you read the news about our latest executive product decision to cancel a Buick SUV? We are listening!!
I do take personal offense to your Saab 9-7x example
(read my profile- I’m a 9-7x owner whose always been drawn to controversial vehicles)
Note: the 9-7x shares barely any bodywork with the Trailblazer, so I wouldn’t use that example to make your point.
My 9-7x defense is only to be contrary. I completely agree with your premise that badge engineering is a bad thing and I think we’ve learned our lessons.
Thanks for the comments.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm SierraGS said:
GM should consider bringing the Opel Agila to the U.S. market as a Buick to attract younger buyers with this great looking, efficient small car with interior room for 5 along with their cargo. There are some interesting ads for this car in Europe that seem to target young women buyers and was wondering how these would be recieved in the U.S.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1155044/opel_agila/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklpus-e3WI&feature=related
Any thoughts?
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 5:34 am Gereon said:
Sierra GS,
bringing the Agila to the USA as a Buick would be just unthinkable. I personally have been in sitting in an Agila (BTW, it’s identical to the Suzuki Splash). Whereas there’s surprisingly much room inside, considering the exterior dimensions, the Agila never ever would fit to a brand like Buick, which is supposed to compete with Lexus and others. Theoretically I could imagine the Agila as a Chevrolet. However, I’d say the upcoming Chevy Agile, reportedly designed for South America, would make more sense:
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6546388/news/first-photos-of-production-2010-chevrolet-agile/index.html
Viggen,
the average age of Buick customers already has declined since the introduction of the Enclave and probably will further decline with the sale of the 2010 LaCrosse. That Buick is a brand, offering models, which only appeal to elderly Ladies and Gentlemen is a preconception, which increasingly proves as obsolete.
Best regards from Germany.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm Roy said:
Bare Necessity to me means:
High Quality; Good fit, finish, reliability. Can’t sacrifice these important points.
Low Cost; Mostly by keeping weight down, no fancy trim or fancy wheels.
Good Highway performance; I found the Geo Metro to be too small, seemed to work too hard for sustained highway driving and lacked some resistance to side winds. Wouldn’t feel safe in a SmartCar with too minimal front and rear crash zones. Ultra short has no appeal for me.
Good Economy; Keep frontal area down, streamlined low CD design. I see a trend to higher cars with more upright seating, and I suppose many people like the better visibility, but I prefer to sit lower if it increases economy.
Good Looks; Conservative tasteful streamlined. Doesn’t have to be distinctive.
Seating for 4.
Good Handling; GM has been pretty good at this.
Electric; Yes, I mean all electric. The Volt is nice, but two power sources means extra complexity and service. There are many breakthrough battery designs on the horizon, in a few years I think this will be a pratical, low cost option. 150 mile range. Do NOT go with Aggasi’s replacable battery system as it dramatically increases overall ownership costs.
Competive Examples; Tata IndicaEV, Nissan Leaf (although I am not too keen on the Leaf styling something close to its overall shape would be ok as I think it probably has a low CD).
Power Options; I’m ok with wind up windows and manual seat adjustment, but would like power outside rear-view mirrors. De-foggers for front side windows, and rear window as well as windshield.
Head rests for all seats.
Front Wheel Drive.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm SierraGS said:
As a participant of the Product Technology Event on Aug. 10, one vehicle GM can help it’s image with would be to offer a “Off Road” capable trim package on the GMC Terrain with larger more aggressive tires, a one to two inch higher stance with a more off road capable differential with hill decent assist, similar to the one Jeep has for the Patriot. A model like this fits the Terrain’s styling and would be attractive to buyers in the Northeast looking for a vehicle that can go through snow covered roads, and the modest lift will maintain the Terrain’s excellent on road handling capabilities. It would also be popular in California for camping and taking to the desert where you need a little ground clearance to get through the ruts in the washes. The Terrrain’s aggressive styling allows GM to offer Off Road accessories like a front brush guard and GM should provide the suspension, skid plates and drivetrain upgrades to permit some real Off-Road capability. This would fit GMC’s “Professional Grade” image with a small crossover with class leading (Professional) capabilities and broaden GMC’s customer base with buyers who want more capability but may not want a Jeep.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:24 am Viggen said:
New Opel Astra as Buick?That’s just impossible!How can Astra be sold in the USA under the Buick brand if the average age of the Buick buyer is 63 years?Buick is not a car for young generation,teenagers or students.Buick owners are rich people who prefer tranquility and of course they need the cars with “calm” design.They are not the today’s rebels like the young generation is.
The new Opel Astra will not be suitable to the Buick’s conservative image and design.That’s why it must be sold under other GM brands.Sure,Chevrolet has Aveo and Cruze.But what about selling the new Astra under the Pontiac brand?Just drop the unpopular G5 (same as Chevy Cobalt) and introduce the new model,which wiil be the rebadged Opel Astra.Of course,Astra needs rebranding because Opel left the US market in the 1970s after the ellimination of the Opel GT (1965-1973).
If we dig the Pontiac’s history,we will find the similiar example.In the 1980s Pontiac had the Le Mans model-it was the rebadged Opel Kadett(Astra’s predecessor).So why don’t we introduce the 2009″s Astra under the Pontiac name and save this legendary brand from the ellimination?
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 4:36 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’m easily drawn into engaging conversations about cars, brands and other GM topics but please keep your comments on topic with the blog post.
We need to re-focus on the Eco Initiative here.
Thanks,
Wade
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 6:35 pm chiefpontiac said:
There is a cost and payback of being green that is not always so in the long run. Avhieving 230 mpg city EPA rating but costing a consumer over $40,000 to do so, and even wit ha long life battery pack eventually they have a disposal issue -be it simply cost or environmental affect. Minimal new raw material input and low weight will help . Weight of under a ton, alternative fuel – I’m a fan of small turbo-diesel, coupled to CVT or 6-speed AT and manual.
But my conceptual electric vehicle is something else completely from what is in the Volt pipeline. Small, steady state engine, gas, diesel, fuel cell – choices abound – coupled to a generator of sufficient capacity to power vehicle at all timesx, rarely calling on battery reserve except for acceleration duty cycle. Result is smaller, lighter battery pack. Elimination of most moving parts in drivetrain by use of electric wheel motors. Braking is built into them by design. Could easily be optionally AWD. Since engine droives generator which drives motors through wires even the transmission can be deleted. I have not run any numbers but would venture to guess that such a vehicle , with a design 0-60 of less than 10 seconds could still return very high mpg numbers.
Now here is where it gets interesting. Many households have spent or are considering spending $5,000 and up for standy power generation. The vehicle I described would have an on-board generator of sufficient size (5 Kw and up) that during a power outage said vehicle could be parked outside, plugged into the house, and used for backup el;ectricity. And if the vehicle were LPG powered conceivably it could even be plugged into teh natural gas line from the house while in stationary mode.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 7:43 pm Galen388 said:
I dont think many people seem to get the “Bare Necessity” part…as in the minimum i need in a car. If i want a showy flashy ride .. well you have those; camaro , vette, etc or a solid ride you have those too Equinox , CTS etc.
The minimum i need to consider a “Bare Necessity” is:
Get my from point A to point B comfortably not necessarily over stylish you have that already…
Get better than avg MPG. ( if i wanted average i can any number of less expensive cars)
Not look or handle like a brick on wheels.
Not cost 40K$ or above.
Hopefully be interesting enough to draw interest from others when i drive it or recharge/refuel whatever it.
Not cost more than the downpayment for my house ( this is my bare needs car , for small trips to work , store etc).
A bare needs car is one that well, customers go buy from a used car lot , thats the true competition here. Lets face it a geewhiz technological wonder such as a death star on wheels isnt going to be inexpensive or even a bare needs car, it’s going to be the main car in the household and you have alot of that already to choose from with GM. Stay attached to the “bare” part in the description. Its ok to put wow stuff in it , but too much wow stuff and you just have another sedan to contend against in an already overloaded sedan market.
Anyways thats my two cents.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 12:04 am KenZ300 said:
Will GM start building flex fuel small vehicles? All I see a big engine trucks and SUV’s.
People that buy small vehicles want a choice at the pump too.
For the small incremental cost to make vehicles flex fuel capable from the factory this gives consumers a choice
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 11:20 am Wade Bryant said:
We have the Chevy HHR flex-fuel.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 6:31 pm Kenz300 said:
Yes you do — but there is a large market of small vehicle buyers out there that want choice at the pump.
The HHR is a start. Does it end there? For the small price to make vehicles flex fuel capable there needs to be more small vehicles that offer the consumer a choice at the pump. If gasoline runs up in price or if there is a shortage for some reason (war, supply disruption, …..) having an alternative would be nice.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm Carchitect said:
Check out what Audi is doing:
http://mashable.com/2009/08/27/audi-facebook/
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 9:29 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for sharing the Audi / Facebook link.
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 12:58 pm spacie said:
Wow there’s a lot of comments. I skimmed, but apologies if anything’s re-hash.
First, just wanted to make sure a bare-minimum vehicle would still have standard stability control. This will be required feature very soon in the US, correct? I ask because as a young female, I’m still trying to sell the idea of smaller cars on my Dad, who lives in the big truck, big highway state of Texas (even though I don’t any longer). It’s super important that these cars are as light weight as possible, but without compromising safety- for my Dad’s piece of mind as well as my own!
Second, in terms of non-negotiables…I can’t say I have many. Need A/C as I travel back and forth between moderate and hellish climates. Need safety. Don’t need power windows et al. Mutli-functionality would be great. Sometimes I want to toss friends and family in the back, sometimes I just want to throw gear back there. So fold down seats like on the Honda Fit would be great. I think a build-your own sound system approach is the best way to look at sounds, because everyone has a different take on how high-quality their system should be. Let people who want to pay more pay more.
Finally two more bits-
Americans aren’t European, we aren’t Indian. Fact of the matter is the US developed differently. I’m still waiting for widespread high speed rail stateside, but we may not get there anytime soon. So, somewhat unfairly, we’re asking you to produce cars that fit more into our existing lifestyles while incrementally challenging us. I’d love a Smart car or Vespa (or bicycle) in Copenhagen, but here I’m not going to go smaller than a Civic. Because if I live in a NY or a DC and I’m trying to live the “basic life”, I’m not going to have my own car (I do, and I don’t). But when I’m elsewhere in the US, I need something that better fits my environment.
On a similar note, don’t talk down to us. Simple can be refined. Stylized can be minimal. Look at Apple’s success. They may cost a bit more, but people buy them. People buy Hondas too. Think Target or Ikea vs. Walmart or Kmart.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 9:38 am Wade Bryant said:
Actually, you managed to share quite a bit without rehashing.
The safety topic has come up quite a bit. There is no clear consensus around how to cope with the struggle between “as safe as possible” vs. “as light/minimal as possible”.
Your situation with trying to balance your transportation needs in the US is increasingly common. I’m always anxious to hear how people cope with the dilemma.
I lived in China for a short period last year and was fine with a folding Dahon bike and the metro rail system, but surviving Shanghai taxi rides was unacceptable (amazingly dangerous).
What would be your ideal transportation given the unlikelyhood of expanded rail systems near-term?
One personal vehicle? Car-sharing?
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 10:21 am Betty said:
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Betty
http://dogfurniture.info
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 11:05 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for following along. We will be adding content soon.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 6:35 pm An Introduction to the Eco Initiative « The Lab | Fresh Green World said:
[...] Read more from the original source: An Introduction to the Eco Initiative « The Lab [...]
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm Jeffrey in San Francisco said:
Is the Autonomy platform dead? That seems to have a bare minimum quality to it, at least in terms of the “Skate” engineering. I am loving the looks of this direction.
Here’s hoping I don’t have to wait to long to but. My 15 year old VW is about to die. So, hurry hurry.
to this comment On September 14, 2009 at 9:56 am Ralph Panhuyzen said:
A lot of times ‘eco cars’ seems a synonym for tiny ‘geeky automobiles’. There is one type of vehicle that can overcome this predicament, even signify a best of both worlds (between automobile and motorcycle): the Narrow Track Vehicle (NTV) It has long been overlooked despite companies like Volvo, Volkswagen and BMW building prototypes. If properly ‘formatted’, the NTV is able to combine energy-efficiency and distinctive looks, a clever package and safety, comfort and handling. The Space-Efficient Vehicle (SEV) of which drawings were put on display at the Detroit Auto Show, is by far the smartest of them all. It doesn’t even need to be expensive or costly built to have a premium aura about it. Let people decide for themselves how luxurious they want their SEV to be.
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 10:28 pm chev99 said:
With the recent increased investments in bio-diesel and this being a better environmental option than ethonal. Is GM going to release a diesel option for existing models such as the Acadia or Traverse especially since the majority of the foreign manufactures either have products currently on the market or will be releasing that option soon?
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm Alex Steele said:
The eco transition is long overdue. Therefore the conversion from consumer like (need) for full-size and performance vehicles will be a very gradual process. Flex-fuel powertrains seem to be a stepping-stone towards practical fuel cell technology.
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm Second CTS said:
When I think of the eco initiative, one thing that seems lost in the dialogue is the total environmental cost of a vehicle. It is one place that the American car manufacturers have a distinct advantage, yet fail to capitalize on. I’m talking specifically about the environmental impact of overseas transportation: Cargo ships are among the most polluting forms of transportation on the planet, so every Prius that shows up on our shores already has a monstrous carbon debt compared with, say, a Cobalt. How many miles does a Prius have to go before it finally reduces its overall transportation carbon load with a similar mileage Cobalt?
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm Kenz300 said:
Is GM going to LEAD ???? Follow……… or get out of the way…..
From the article below it sounds like GM is a day late and a dollar short………
Sound like Nissan is leading the Eco initiative in the USA.
Here is an article about Nissan.
Electric Transportation Engineering Corp. this week finalized a deal with the U.S. Department of Energy to begin developing and installing a charging network for electric vehicles across five states, including Oregon.
The Phoenix company, a subsidiary of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based ECOtality Inc., is rolling out more than 11,000 charging stations in five states — Oregon, Arizona, Tennessee, Washington and California — using $99.8 million in federal funds.
The project is in partnership with Nissan North America, which will deploy 4,700 of its all-electric Leaf vehicles which are scheduled for release in fall 2010.
As part of the project, Oregon expects to receive just under 1,000 of the Nissan vehicles and around 2,000 charging stations, centered around Portland, Eugene, Salem and Corvallis.
Pacific Business News
to this comment On October 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm Kenz300 said:
Japan’s automakers know a threat when they see one, and based on their words, it sure isn’t in Michigan. Motown is fleeting image in the Japanese carmakers’ rearview mirrors, which they’re now nervously checking for a budding South Korean juggernaut. Honda CEO Takanobu Ito minced no words when he told the Associated Press, “Hyundai is awesome. They are undoubtedly a threat because their products are cheap, and the quality is improving.” The numbers seem to bear that out, as Hyundai and its corporate sibling, Kia, continue to show substantial sales chart improvements in key markets like the Europe and the US, where it continues to show strong growth while many other automakers look at double-digit shortfalls year-over-year. Nissan’s Shiro Nakamura echoes Honda’s Ito when it comes to identifying Japan’s new boogeyman, “Hyundai is the biggest threat for the Japanese automakers. They have the technology, but they seem to have cheaper labour.”
Hyundai, once basically a joke (we all remember such legendary products as the Excel, pictured above), is catching the Japanese by beating them at their own game — offering a mix of value and quality that’s hard for shoppers to ignore. Japan knows it needs to defend itself, too. After all, once upon a time, they were what Hyundai is now. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t too long ago that one could chuckle at Honda’s initial foray into the States. We know how that turned out. Now you have to wonder how long it’ll be until we see quotes from Hyundai’s leadership talking about the Chinese the way Nissan and Japan talk about Hyundai.
[Source: The Canadian Press via TTAC)
What can GM learn from Hyundai’s turn around???
Can GM duplicate their success in increasing market share???
Quality and Value may be the answer.
to this comment On October 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm KenZ300 said:
Nissan rushes to put electric car charging stations across Tennessee
By G. Chambers Williams III • THE TENNESSEAN • October 11, 2009
Read Comments(14) • Recommend(1) • Print • ShareThis
With the rollout of Nissan’s first electric vehicles just over a year away in Tennessee, the race is on to figure out how to set up a network of charging stations swiftly enough to get ready.
It won’t be easy.
Thousands of chargers will be needed to satisfy Nissan’s ambitious plans to sell thousands of the clean-running cars in the first year as it strives to be the first automaker in the world to successfully mass market an all-electric vehicle.
Unlike the popular hybrids on the market today, Nissan’s new Leaf, a five-passenger compact hatchback, won’t have an internal-combustion engine onboard to back up the electric power. When the battery runs down, the car stops and drivers walk.
Getting the charging infrastructure in place may be a herculean task, said Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America Inc., but the automaker vows to be ready when the first cars come to market in December 2010.
Phoenix-based ECOtality Inc. has partnered with Nissan to set up the charging systems in consumers’ homes, as well as to create public networks in Nashville, Chattanooga and Knoxville and on the interstate highways between those cities.
Charging stations also will be set up in Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington, all of which are included in the first phase of Nissan’s rollout of the Leaf.
ECOtality has a $100 million loan from the U.S. Energy Department to help pay for the system, which will consist of “two layers of infrastructure,” said Colin Read, the firm’s vice president for corporate development.
Read said the first 1,000 buyers in Tennessee will get free home chargers installed, which could run up to about $1,500 each for the equipment and installation combined. Without that help, the biggest expense for some Leaf buyers might be getting their home garage wired for the 240-volt chargers, which themselves could cost about $500 each.
to this comment On October 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm ed said:
New Electric motor is 50% smaller,
. . . but has 2X more Torque,
. . . uses a new topology with a segmented armature,
. . . is claimed to offer operating efficiencies of up to 97%.
It is aimed at high-torque,
. . . low-weight applications,
. . . such as electric vehicles.
http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=2681
http://kron1.eng.ox.ac.uk/media/papers/Woolmer_paper_2007a.pdf
to this comment On October 18, 2009 at 11:30 am Kenz300 said:
Fuel Economy Leaders: 2010 Model Year
Where are the GM vehicles?
Where are the GM vehicles in the top 10???????
Eco Initiative ?????
2010 Fuel Economy
Information Now Available
Fuel Economy Leaders
Lowest Models Overall
Highest Models within Class
Lowest Models within Class
Rank Manufacturer/Model MPG
city/highway
1 Toyota Prius (hybrid) 51/48
2 Ford Fusion Hybrid FWD
Mercury Milan Hybrid FWD 41/36
3 Honda Civic Hybrid 40/45
4 Honda Insight (hybrid) 40/43
5 Lexus HS250h (hybrid) 35/34
6 Nissan Altima Hybrid 35/33
7 Ford Escape Hybrid FWD
Mazda Tribute Hybrid 2WD
Mercury Mariner Hybrid FWD 34/31
8 Smart fortwo Cabriolet (automatic)
Smart fortwo Coupe (automatic) 33/41
9 Toyota Camry Hybrid 33/34
10 Lexus RX450h (hybrid, 2WD) 32/28
For more information, contact us at omscfeis@epa.gov.
to this comment On October 18, 2009 at 2:19 pm Kenz300 said:
Where are the GM vehicles in this list???
market share… market share… market share….
Top-selling vehicles through Cash for Clunkers
By The Associated Press (AP) – Sep 21, 2009
The government posted new data late Friday on the government’s Cash for Clunkers rebate program. Here’s a look at the top-selling new vehicles through the program when multiple engine options, flexible-fuel vehicles and hybrid versions are taken into account.
TOP SELLERS
1. Toyota Corolla 29,488
2. Honda Civic 28,456
3. Toyota Camry 27,137
4. Ford Focus 22,388
5. Ford Escape 21,894
6. Honda CR-V 20,106
7. Hyundai Elantra 19,797
8. Chevrolet Silverado 16,330
9. Nissan Versa 16,300
10. Ford F150 16,263
11. Honda Accord 15,922
12. Nissan Altima 15,426
13. Toyota RAV4 15,255
14. Toyota Prius 15,013
15. Ford Fusion 13,415
to this comment On October 25, 2009 at 1:08 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
With respect to the “Bare Necessity” vehicle concepts:
While I do appreciate the work that’s gone into the concepts, I don’t reallt think the “Bare Necessity”concept can be represented by a single “Bare Necessity” vehicle of any type- rather,I think this could be a marketing concept that encompasses all sizes, shapes, and styles of vehicles.
Take, for example, the standard, full-size pickup truck. For some, a heavy suspension and a torque monster V8 engine are the minimum acceptable, while for many others a more modest 6 cylinder engine is more than enough, but the full-size bed is essential. Traditionally, the smaller engine version with few amenities has been called a “stripped-down” version, and I think that’s unfortunate. “Right-Sized” has a better ring, and it could apply not to just a handful of specially-designed “minimalist” vehicles, but the entire range of brands and models.
My idea of a “Bare Necessity Truck” is a passenger minivan with seats that fold flush with the floor to make a cargo-hauler van, and a removable roof to make it a pickup truck.
On the other hand, my idea of a “Bare Necessity Car” wouldn’t need more than 2 seats, nor a lot of luggage space- it could weigh under 1500 lbs, have a less than 1000cc engine, and doesn’t even need 4 wheels. I’m thinking something like a van der Brink Carver, but priced under $15,000. Make it with an automatic transmission, keep the mpgs over 50, and you couldn’t make them fast enough.
It’s unfortunate is that most car sales people are paid by commission, by selling the most expensive vehicle the customer can be persuaded to buy, rather than being paid for “Right-Sizing” the customer’s purchase to fit their actual needs- and that’s exactly the policy that has to be dealt with if any “Bare Necessity” project is going to succeed. Why bother to design a minimalist vehicle if the dealers are simply going to load them up with extra-cost features the customers really don’t need; or, worse, steer the customer away from what they ask for and selling them something more expensive that they don’t need.
I think the biggest challenge is going to be overcoming the perception that a product with few “extras” is somehow a lesser value than something that has only the right ones. This is going to require a radical change at the dealership level, probably needs a sales/business model like Saturn’s, with salaried sales staff who get bonuses from results of customer satisfaction surveys, not the dollar amount of the sale.
Somehow, I don’t think a de-contented Cadillac would be a hit as a “Bare Necessity” vehicle, but if it was “Right-Sized” it just might.
to this comment On October 29, 2009 at 8:19 pm ed said:
Better Place Kicks Off Global Student Design Competition
Invites top 60 global design schools
. . . to design hands-free electric car charging solution.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12918&p=87828#p87828
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 2:57 am ed said:
Research Report
Impact of Vehicle Weight Reduction on Fuel Economy for Various Vehicle Architectures
http://www.autoaluminum.org/downloads/AluminumNow/Ricardo%20Study_with%20cover.pdf
to this comment On November 1, 2009 at 12:03 am ed said:
Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute professor Illah Nourbakhsh
. . . presents the CREATE Lab project ChargeCar,
. . . a community approach to electric cars.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12918#p88063
to this comment On November 1, 2009 at 10:56 am Kenz300 said:
How does GM respond to the QUALITY RATINGS just released by Consumer Reports?
Asian automakers are still building the most reliable cars and trucks. Eight of the top ten are from Japanese and Korean companies.
Asian automakers scored well. General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, didn’t.
ONLY SIX models from GM were recommended. 21 of 48 models scored average or better in reliability.
Not much to brag about here. That means 27 were BELOW AVERAGE. Below average!
Quality and Value sell…… GM — This does not make the case for an increase in market share.
You just came out of bankruptcy….. how many chances are you going to get to get it right?
The LAB needs to be part of the solution! What are you doing to focus on this quality problem?
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 11:27 am Wade Bryant said:
It’s the TOP area of focus for us. The LAB isn’t really a tool to directly address the quality issue, though we can discuss vehicle attributes that can contribute to quality. We’re well aware of customer demands for QRD. I do appreciate your constant messages to keep us on our toes.
to this comment On November 2, 2009 at 11:45 am ed said:
Nissan to build Tata Nano-like cheap car, for the USA, in 2011
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13020&p=88215#p88215
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 11:30 am Wade Bryant said:
How do you think it would sell here? Would it displace used car sales? I’m interested in this topic..
to this comment On November 7, 2009 at 1:46 pm ed said:
“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Would it sell here?
. . . GM was built on selling, more “Basic” transportation than anyone.
Would it displace used car sales?
. . . Let’s see, I could buy a “NEW CAR” for less money than, your “NEW CAR,”
. . . it has less parts to break down, so less maintenance cost,
. . . weighs less, so less MPG cost,
. . . it’s small enough to scoot thru traffic,
. . . parks anywhere,
. . . and it cost less than your “USED CAR.”
What do you think?
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That FORM EVER FOLLOWS FUNCTION. This is the law.”
. . . 1896 Louis Sullivan, American architect
Louis Sullivan would roll over in his grave,
. . . if he saw todays cup-holding, air-conditioned, remote-locking, accessorized, gas-guzzling,
. . . over-weight vehicles, with only one cell-phoning person, in them.
to this comment On November 7, 2009 at 7:29 pm ed said:
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.
. . . 1896 Louis Sullivan, American architect
to this comment On November 7, 2009 at 10:34 pm ed said:
http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5231344&fSectionId=928&fSetId=381
Nissan expects a to sell a staggering ONE-MILLION (Tata Nano competitors) by 2013.
The first details of the ambitious little auto reveal a game plan lifted from the Tata Nano: fewer – and cheaper -parts. The V will have 20% less than the average Nissan and the cars will be made almost totally in their intended markets.
The V will have a three-cylinder diesel or petrol engine, a 11 gallon (41-litre) fuel tank, get 47 MPG and highly-engineered plastic in place of more expensive and heavier steel and aluminium.
The hatchback will be released in 2010 with a sedan and CUV in 2011. It will also be sold in Europe and the US in 2011, then on to nearly 150 countries.
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00257/535_20091001125_8f0_257990t.jpg
to this comment On November 8, 2009 at 11:29 am ed said:
Comparison between the Smart Fortwo and the Nano.
Length: . . . . . . . .106.1 inches . . . . . . . . . 122.0 inches
Width: . . . . . . . . 61.38 inches . . . . . . . . . 50.05 inches
Height: . . . . . . . .60.71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.99 inches
Weight: . . . . . . . 1,808 lbs. . .. . . . . . . . . . 1,300 lbs
Passengers: . . . . 2door/2passengers . . . . . 4door/5passengers
Maximum Speed: .90/0-60/12.8 seconds . . 65/0-45/14 seconds
Fuel Economy: . . 33city/41highway . . . . . . .50city/60highway
Price: . . . . . . . . $11,990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,500
Would it displace used car sales?
. . . Let’s see, I could buy a “Nano” for
. . . . . . less than a 1/4 of a new (Bare Necessity) “SMART FORTWO,” or
. . . . . . less than 1/10th of a new (fully loaded) “SMART FORTWO,”
. . . it has less parts to break down, so less maintenance cost,
. . . weighs less, gets better MPG,
. . . it’s small enough to scoot thru traffic,
. . . parks anywhere,
. . . has more than twice the room inside,
. . . and it cost less than a “USED CAR.”
I think the kids that grew up with skateboards are going to have FUN with it,
. . . just like the VW BUG generation did but
. . . that the BabyBoomers who are retiring are going to have FUN with it also.
to this comment On November 9, 2009 at 11:28 am ed said:
What car would you buy? (if you could afford any car in the world)
Leonardo DiCaprio buying a Prius…
. . . He could have bought any car in the world, and
. . . I remember seeing that on television and thinking to myself,
. . . you know, when you’ve got a guy who could buy
. . . any Ferrari or Rolls Royce and he’s buying a Prius,
. . . you know something is changing dramatically.
http://www.luxist.com/2009/11/08/henrik-fisker-leonardo-dicaprios-prius-inspired-karma-phev/
to this comment On November 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm ed said:
“When you move from
. . . 2 million cars a year to
. . . 6 million cars a year,
this is very appealing to global carmakers.”
. . . said Renault/Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105&p=88804#p88804
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm ed said:
Nissan to Build “World’s Cheapest Car”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105#p89095
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm ed said:
“World’s cheapest car” is starting to enrich India’s Tata Motors
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105#p89098
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 8:10 pm ed said:
What Will it Take for Renault/Nissan to Beat the Tata Nano on Price?
http://www.spendmatters.com/index.cfm/2009/11/12/What-Will-it-Take-for-RenaultNissan-to-Beat-the-Tata-Nano-on-Price
to this comment On November 13, 2009 at 9:18 pm ed said:
“8% of Americans say they want their next car to be an EV.”
. . . “a million plug-ins by 2015 is an easy goal,”
. . . “we’re looking at about 10 million electric cars by 2016.”
. . . “The cars will also be cheaper than cars are now”
“Unlike gas, batteries follow Moore’s Law,
. . . which means by 2020, it’ll be 2 cents a mile.
. . . Oil can’t compete with that.”
“In Denmark they aim to power all cars
. . . from windmill generated energy.”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105&p=89181#p89181
to this comment On November 7, 2009 at 12:11 pm ed said:
GM Europe head Forster, may join Tata Motors
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13020#p88683
to this comment On November 8, 2009 at 2:41 pm Kenz300 said:
11/8/09 In todays New York TImes – Automobile section – A Hybrid stakes out high ground in the Behind the wheel column some interesting comments were made.
“For every smartly realized hybrid like the Toyota Prius or Ford Fusion, there has been one whose combination of price, economy and practicality doesn’t quite add up”
“nothing deserved more eye rolling than “mild hybrids” like the now defunct Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, whose on-the-cheap hybrid system also produced insignificant mileage gains. These neither-nor hybrids have been spurned by savy consumers who seemed to send a clear message: if your not bringing big mileage to the party, don’t bother coming at all.”
Mercedes has done something new. Its 144 volt lithium battery is barely larger than a regular 12 volt car battery. It fits under the hood so it does not take up cabin space or trunk space.
It also has done something new. PRICE —- the S400 costs $3650 less than the S500 model.
All the competition to GM is moving fast on REAL HYBRID technology. IS GM up to the challenge?
So far GM’s efforts have been uninspiring.
to this comment On November 9, 2009 at 11:44 am ed said:
“DUMB QUESTION?”
How much does “FUN & HAPPINESS” cost?
Can you have more “FUN & HAPPINESS” in a $40,000.- car
OR
Can you have more “FUN & HAPPINESS” in a $2,500.- car? ? ?
Is there a point where “FUN & HAPPINESS” disappears?
Like $2,500.- cars typically carry a family of 5 and
. . $40,000.- cars typically carry one person?
to this comment On November 9, 2009 at 4:08 pm ed said:
Should “Electric Cars” be FREE?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105&p=88813#p88813
to this comment On November 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm ed said:
Renault Targets U.S. Electric-Car Partner for France
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105&p=89004#p89004
to this comment On November 14, 2009 at 2:02 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Some representative examples I can think of in each of the “Lab” categories:
“Bare Necessity Car” could be the 1985 Nissan Sentra 2-door sedan I drove for a few years. 1300cc 4 cylinder engine, FWD, 5-speed manual, 38 mpg in my daily (mostly freeway) commute. Rust was its demise, as well as a cheap deal on a very used ‘87 Chevy Cavalier. The Sentra was actually roomier but had fewer amenities than the base Cavalier, but I didn’t need most of them (the Cav’s aftermarket CD stereo was a nice touch). If I could find a new 1985 Sentra I’d buy it over a new ‘87 Cavalier, a hatchback or wagon with fold-down rear seat for hauling would be even better. Give the wagon a sliding roof option, and I’d be a very happy camper, but for the “Bare Necessity Car” mission, the base 2-door sedan would do- just make it rustproof.
“Bare Necessity Truck” is harder. I had a mid-70s Ford shortbed crewcab F-150 that was pretty basic (300 inline 6, 4-speed manual), and later a first-gen Dodge Dakota (’86 or ‘87, I think) that could also have been considered “Bare Necessity.” The Ford had enough low-end grunt to haul anything I needed and got adequate mileage for what it was; the Dakota was comfortable enough for 2 people, which was 1 more than it usually hauled, the bed was big enough to haul 4′x8′ sheets of material (the bed included clever pockets for inserting 2″x4″ braces to hold the sheets over the wheel wells), the V6 engine made sufficient power, but IMHO could have been replaced with a turbo-4 for better efficiency; the AT was convenient but I thought unnecessary, considering my work vehicle at the time (Freightliner) had a 15-speed transmission.
I don’t think “Bare Necessity Truck” has a single answer, but I’d tend to think the full-size crewcab Ford with the big 6 and 4-speed is closer to the idea; give it a 3.4- 4.2L V6 and a 4-speed (with overdrive for economy and underdrive for power) transmission.
As I’ve stated before, my ideal do-everything vehicle would be the “minivan that converts to pickup.” For now I have three 4-wheel vehicles in my driveway, 2 bought well-used, 1 bought just over a year old, total investment for all 3 less than most spend on a new Aveo.
My ideas about “Small Premium” aren’t even as well-defined as my “Bare Necessity Truck” idea, but I can give some examples of what (IMHO) are and what aren’t “Small Premium.”
The G8 was close.
Obviously, the Cimarron isn’t.
The Fiat 124 Spyder is, the (’70s) 124 sedan isn’t.
The BMW 3 and 5 series are, the 7-series, while it’s definitely “Premium,” is too big to be “Small Premium.”
Most 2-seat roadsters are, but I don’t think they have to be; when I lived in Cincinatti for 2 years, my sole transportation was a Triumph TR4, so it was “Bare Necessity.”
The 1956 Mercedes 300 “Gullwing” coupe is absolutely “Small Premium.” They really aren’t very large.
Alfa Romeos- any Alfa- could be, but they break too easily.
The Cosworth Vega had a premium engine, but the shoddy workmanship of the rest of the car makes it unsuitable for inclusion.
The original VW Jetta probably fits the category.
I think a Citroen SM might fit the “Small Premium” category.
In all these “Eco Lab” endeavors, I think the basic structure has to begin with a devotion to chassis stiffness. “Small Premium” vehicles shouldn’t ever develop rattles or squeaks due to body or chassis flex, but then “Bare Necessity” vehicles shouldn’t either.
to this comment On November 15, 2009 at 7:07 pm ed said:
Taiwan, China poised to join hands in electric car development
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105#p89308
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 11:09 am ed said:
11/17/2009, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao announced
. . . the launch of a U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13202#p89569
to this comment On November 19, 2009 at 2:03 pm ed said:
“Our aim is for electric and low carbon cars
. . . to be an everyday feature of life on UK’s roads
. . . in less than 5 years.”
Funding will be made available to consortia in
. . . . . . England,
. . . . . . Scotland,
. . . . . . Wales and
. . . . . . Northern Ireland
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13202#p89760
to this comment On November 19, 2009 at 9:05 pm ed said:
“Pay down their debt”
. . . or “Buy a new vehicle”
. . . or a little bit of both,
. . . what will USA consumers do? What will they do?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Personally, I won’t part with a dime,
. . . until I can buy an electric mini-truck and
. . . from what I can see in the market place,
. . . it will have to come from another country.
to this comment On November 21, 2009 at 1:14 pm ed said:
The “Bare Necessity” vehicle . . . why it is so important . . . that you get it right!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13202&start=15#p89988
to this comment On November 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm ed said:
India’s top car makers, Tata Motors and Maruti Suzuki, along with Hyundai Motors
. . . are hunting for talent in the US Motown – Detroit,
. . . hiring at least 500 engineers and 200 technicians in the current financial year.
. . . It also plans to hire 500 personnel in managerial capacity.
http://www.cartradeindia.com/car-bike-news/tata-motors-and-maruti-suzuki-scouting-for-auto-talent-in-detroit-111775.html
to this comment On November 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm ed said:
What does China and India’s Emerging middle class,
. . . have to do with the price of gas in the USA?
. . . and the design of a “Bare Necessity” vehicle?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13305#p90757
to this comment On November 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm ed said:
Battery doubles Electric car range
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380
to this comment On November 30, 2009 at 10:26 am ed said:
The “Electric Car’s” Natural Range Extender: High-speed Trains!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380#p90996
to this comment On December 1, 2009 at 12:34 pm ed said:
Tata Motors November sales jump 65%
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380#p91105
What is the key to the future of U.S. auto industry?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380#p91088
to this comment On December 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm ed said:
Drive an Electric Car, Save $40,000.-
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380#p91314
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 2:52 pm ed said:
Utopian dream of Green, ECONOMY, SIMPLICITY, FLEXIBILITY
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=15#p91454
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 4:24 pm ed said:
Which is bigger “Green Anxiety” & “Economic Anxiety?” or “Range Anxiety?”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13493#p91813
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 11:28 pm scartooth11 said:
I truly believe a vehicle can be made to function virtually on its own power. Adaptations to Solar,and the implementation of devices such as when you open your door it engages an alternating current to closing doors and trunks as well as the alternator breaking system. Most people only drive approximately 100 miles or less a day with 8 work hopurs of sitting time in which these vehicles could charge by sloar power. Whats the holdup, I believe it is if you apply all of these factors then who is to profit? Currently its the oil companies. I dont think the great minds have figured out how to milk the common man for free power yet.
to this comment On December 8, 2009 at 7:53 pm ed said:
Sanyo debuts solar and lithium ion-powered electric vehicle
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13493&p=91973#p91952
to this comment On January 5, 2010 at 12:02 am ed said:
Is your lifestyle built on petroleum?
. . . then what happens if gas goes to $20. Gal. ?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13784
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 6:34 pm Brian said:
Are you aware that there is enough oil underground in the world to meet increased demand for at least the next 250 years?
The reason for oil price spikes (at least in the US) is because there has been very little investment or development of new refineries in the US in the past thirty years. Supply and demand. Demand was exceeding companies ability to keep up, therefore the prices went up. Want gas prices to stay down? Write to your local reps and tell them to make oil companies increase their ability to refine oil. Prices are also affected by OPEC and Wall Street. It has very little to do with the amount of oil on earth. It’s just business.
to this comment On January 10, 2010 at 6:36 am ed said:
More cars sold in China than in the USA
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13685&start=30#p95056
to this comment On January 20, 2010 at 11:37 am ed said:
Consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
Report Says NYC Will be Home to 70,000 EVs by 2015
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960#p96231
to this comment On January 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm ed said:
Auto industry may be heading towards excess capacity by 2012
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/01/21/stories/2010012152582000.htm
to this comment On January 20, 2010 at 7:03 pm ed said:
“That don’t impress me much!”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13996
to this comment On January 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm kenz300 said:
If PEAK OIL theory is true, then the US consumer will see much higher gasoline prices going forward.
With our suburban life style we commute long distances. Will American family budgets allow a larger percentage of family income to go to pay for transportation costs ?
If resources are not limitless than we need to look for alternatives.
Should all new gasoline powered vehicles be flex fuel capable? If oil becomes more of an issue than ethanol may help provide fuel we are unable to get elsewhere.
Should more vehicles be hybrid to increase mileage? Toyota is moving to make its fleet hybrid.
Are we moving toward electric? Nissan is making a big push with the Leaf and others are also producing first generation electrics to be in production soon.
GM has not made much of a push into flex fuel for small and mid size vehicles.
GM has not made much of a push into REAL hybrids for small and mid size vehicles.
GM has made a splash with the Volt. Will the price point of theVolt keep it from becoming a success?
Is the LAB moving GM forward fast enough?
The competition is moving very fast.
Hyundai offers the most fuel efficient vehicles. Their market share has shot up.
Ford is taking Market Share? Think eco boost.
Toyota is moving to expand the Prius line to multiple vehicles.
Is the LAB pushing GM to change fast enough to keep up with the competition or is GM falling farther behind?
Is market share for GM increasing or decreasing and who is gaining market share? Why?
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm Brian said:
Combine great STYLE and Economy, and you will get these customers. 13 inch wheels or plastic hubcaps do not fit under into the former.
Personally, I’ve looked at the KIA soul, if I was able to take out a loan and make the payments right now, that is where my money would go. However, I’d prefer to see it with a suspension lift, 4WD or at the least AWD and off road wheels/ tires. As I mentioned under your basic truck section, you guys can have a home run if you do it right. People just can’t afford what they used to, incomes and jobs are shrinking or disappearing. The fact that you guys are even looking in this direction gives me hope.
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 8:40 pm sculptor said:
I suspect that “peak oil” is an industry ploy to keep prices high…they’ve been sporadically claiming this since the 1970s, while more reserves have been “proven”, and with drilling 7 mile wells becoming more common, there is more available than ever before.
Meanwhile:
Is there any hope of getting a diesel electric in a heavy duty pickup truck within my lifetime?
sculptor, rod
to this comment On February 6, 2010 at 9:35 pm ed said:
Simplifying, Doesn’t Necessarily Make vehicles Simple
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14246