Theme
LAB Report 
By Wade Bryant
Our next project will be appearing online shortly. You’ll get a glimpse of another advanced project that we’re working on and will get to meet a few more GM designers, too.
The project is called Small Premium. We’re going to start the discussion with a post about the idea of Small Premium vehicles. We’d like to get some feedback on the overall concept before you’ve had a chance to see any of our design proposals. We’ll show you two vehicle concepts a couple days later, so we can have more dialogue around the specific designs.
I’ll be interested to see how the conversation revolves around this new topic. I expect some of you who’ve been discussing the Eco Initiative project will have some opinions, and I anticipate we will draw in some new commenters too.
Stay tuned and tell us what you think.
56 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 September 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm GARRETT said:
I just commented with this on the bare necessity blog, but it fits better here.
I applaud your effort on the Volts info center, but still think its kinda crappy. I love the fact that it looks Apple esq, but an Apple design from four years ago?
Why don’t yall actually get Apple to design an info center for you. Everybody who owns an Apple knows how user friendly they are; not to mention how popular they are. Maybe they could even get their app store to connect to the car. That is if it didn’t interfere with On-star too much, and Im sure you could find a way to work together instead of against.
Or maybe make the whole car an “Apple Edition”, similar to what Ford does with Eddie Bauer and Harley.
Also, more exterior LEDs. You can never, NEVER, add enough. When you’re at the limit to which you think you have enough LED; thats when you’re half way there.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 11:37 am Wade Bryant said:
I read this yesterday. It does fit better here. Apple gets studied a lot in the design industry. What are the attributes of Apple products that make them so appealing to you? You mention the intuitive interface, other elements?
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm GARRETT said:
I guess (comparing it to the Volt) the fact that their designs are more up to date. Also, the app store is second to none.
Secondly, comparing it to the Harley edition F-150, can Ford build a sport truck without the badge? Yes, but having a special edition like that draws more attention.
GARRETT
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm Unni said:
Try using an imac , Iphone and a mac book for some time. You will find whatz the difference. look all aspects , not just only the software interface. ( to be true apple didnt invent mobile phones but it clearly made an impact to make people say before iPhone era and after iPhone era in mobile phones ).
to this comment On September 14, 2009 at 11:54 am Unni said:
On tech side of mac :
imac and ipohne runs the same OS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) )
Apple uses very trusted components on the non core areas ( ex: mach kernel – 10 yr + old , very stable , very good in thread processing etc apple do only incremental updates/bug fixes to the system , file system – freeBSD file system which is very stable and great ). I was using mac and processed aroiund 20+GB files in minutes and sytem never hung and linux or others didnt do that job that nicely.
apple takes the best with a vision. apply their core – desktop,innovative user centric design on a very stable platform and sells. You will never see a crashing apple ( translates to burn engine or gone transmission or less safe car or a failed component in a car (even a sensor ). Apple uses cutting edge hardware also to make the machines and they are also premium quality.
For apple style you need perfectionist men in work and a very perfectionist boss.
Basically What i was supposed to say is “what makes apple distinctive has more to do than just design ” mostly they visualize eco systems and apply distinctive touch with perfectionlism and quality.
simpel examples are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=multi-touch&s2=multitouch&OS=multi-touch+AND+multitouch&RS=multi-touch+AND+multitouch
the multi-touch gesture
even just unlocking phone ,
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm nlm017 said:
I just hope that in your new designs that you will put better products in and on the Cars and Trucks your. I hope that you will improve on such things as Tires placed on your Cars and Trucks. Currently I have a Truck that the Tires began to heavily wear at 17000 miles and GM would not do anything to fix the issue. It is pretty bad when GM’s own service department agrees that this is not normal for a tire to wear out this fast, but the upper management from Detroit still does nothing to solve the issue. My suggestion to GM is to not only look at there design process, but the support of there products after the product has been released. It may be too late for a loyal buyer turned away by poor product service, but maybe you can keep some of the other customers who have not had to deal with your service departments and support.
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm JimM said:
I agree that this is a very worthwhile effort. I personally think this is GM’s best chance and best idea in years.
If you want an excellent example of “small premium” just look to today’s announcement from Frankfurt in the form of Mini’s new coupe and roadster. These vehicles are going to production and by next year! How is that BMW manages to go from concept to production and overseas at that in a one year cycle?
Additionally look at the quality of the vehicle, excellent performance, build quality, fuel efficiency, design and jsut pain fun. Want a model for small premium? These vehicles embody it!
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 6:36 pm GARRETT said:
No more chrome. Brushed aluminum looks sooooooooooo much better.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 6:04 pm amitche7 said:
I agree brushed aluminum gives you that edge type look and is easier to maintain
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 6:42 pm GARRETT said:
Just saw the new commercial. Honestly, its the best GM commercial ever, but I guess that because Im a car nerd.
Saw the front end from the ATS. Its OK, but the long skinny headlights on the 16, or Converj are stunning. They look soooooooooo much better. Why cant versions of those be the new standard Cadillac headlight.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 9:16 pm ed said:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/01/beatlalive_opt.jpg
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/11/gm-considering-small-premium-mini-fighter/
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 10:58 pm jo frank said:
cant wait to see what u have for us!
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 10:59 pm throwback said:
If small cars are going to be more widely accepted and profitable in the US, they will have to be have premium features. Until very recently, when you bought a small car you got a penalty box with power windows. A small car needs to be a hatch back in order to be functional which presents several design challenges. Can a hatch back “look” premium enough? Can the car not look like every other hatch back, i.e. a Golf? I think the SAAB 900 got the look and feel right back in the ’80’s, although it was not a small car. If you want to add high end features and keep the price reasonable, go with a B segment vehicle. My personal favorite small premium car is the current Mercedes A class.
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 9:42 am Wade Bryant said:
The hatchback discussions will be valuable. Once we post the Small Premium discussion topic, some of the designers on this project might wnt to discuss this more. We already did some customer research around this subject and many people have opposite opinions on hatchbacks.
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 5:55 pm ed said:
Apple starts out with a “Basic Necessity” like Music (Ipod) in a “user-friendly” package,
. . . low cost and convenient downloading of Music, generates volume “Impulse” buying.
, , , adding a screen and Movies increases sales,
, , , adding a Video camera and radio adds value thru multifunction,
. . . adding Games, touch-sensitive screen and Personal pocket Computer
. . . adding Cellphone with all the above capability in one convenient pocket size product,
. . . allows multi-functioning on a personnel level, never before possible,
. . . for the price of a competitors single products.
and Apple lets developers get a piece of the pie, by developing applications for it.
Apples world wide market, grows even in a recession,
. . . not because they are the “BEST” at any one thing,
. . . but because they are “Just Good Enough” at everything.
I’ve often thought that the life-cycle of Apples products are measured in months,
. . . while to design, engineer, manufacture and bring to market a vehicle is measured in years,
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 11:08 pm Phil Racicot said:
A small premium RWD Buick would be nice! If small means compact, and if premium means high performance, nice features and luxurious materials.
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm BigDave said:
Your timing on the “small premium” concept is uncanny. I had never given the idea much thought until I recently traded an old Chevy Tahoe for a 2010 Mazda 3 hatchback (yes, it was a cash-for-clunkers trade). Given the feature content in my new Mazda (Grand Touring package with no other options) and it’s “fun to drive” factor, I can’t help but feel that I pulled a “fast one” on Mazda. I can easily see a car like this with slightly upgraded interior materials, a more distinctive design, and a carefully executed marketing campaign selling for $10k more (i.e. the low $30k range). Add RWD and you can add $5k to the MSRP as well.
This segways to my overall thoughts on the “small premium” segment. At the present, there are only two small cars that I can think of that have been successful among premium buyers: the Mini Cooper and the Toyota Prius. You probably don’t need me to tell you the secret to their success: unique design and clever marketing. I don’t think the typical premium car buyer in the US wants to buy (or be seen in) what is simply an up-contented compact car (compare the sales numbers of the Prius to the Civic Hybrid). Distinctive design is a MUST – without it you shouldn’t even bother. Hence, the pressure is on you designers to come up with something that generates an instant emotional response (preferably a positive one – think Converj, not Aztek) and incorporates the efficient packaging that is inherent in the small car segment.
Second, and just as important as design, is marketing. Any small premium car released into the US market will need to have a carefully planned and flawlessly executed “lifestyle” marketing campaign. With a small premium car, you’re not looking to tap into the mass market (i.e Accord/Camry/Malibu buyers) – you’re looking for a piece of the smaller, though still sizeable, piece of the market that purchases a vehicle because it conveys an image of who its driver is (or thinks they are). Choose a specific image that you want your small premium car to convey and then create a marketing campaign to engrave that image onto the brains of the American public. I’m no marketing expert, but I can guarantee you that value propositions and cash-back deals are not the way to achieve this goal.
By the way – even though my most recent purchase was a Mazda, I also own a 2007 Corvette and a 2009 Enclave, so I’m definitely cheering for a strong revival at GM. Best of luck and I hope some of this has been useful to you…
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 1:04 pm Dimitri Douaire said:
I think the cars that best embody the idea of “small premium vehicule” in my mind would be the Audi A3 and the Mini Cooper with the Volvo C30 not too far behind.
The common aspects of these cars that make me think of them as “small premium” would be the following.
- sub 4,5m in length
- seating 4
- sub 3200lbs in curb weight (so that the car is agile provided that the suspension is calibrated properly and decent tires are fitted)
- ideally less than 7lbs per (so that the driver shouldn’t be scared at a red light next to a 15yr-old Civic)
- great paint/finish quality
- cost under $30,000 (above that, it is clearly luxury territory)
Whilst the chassis and component are not exclusive, I also like the fact that interior trim and parts do not seem to have been borrowed from entry level models.
In decreasing order of importance the most important accessories for me would be
- Seats
- Stereo quality
- Air con/heating efficiency
18” wheel, heated seats, heats mirrors, 7th and 8th airbag and beyond are secondary to me.
Even though 2 of the three models I have highlighted are hatchbacks, it is only due to the fact that the newer generation of small premium cars (Acura TSX for instance whose previous generation also fit perfectly the description) keep getting larger to the point where they are almost intermediairies.
If GM (or “New GM”) was to propose something in this market segment and that it emanated either from Buick or Cadillac, I would definitely want to at least try it. That is of course if I don’t get the impression that the car is simply a re-badged Chevy Cobalt because I think that was one lesson learned in trying to turn a Chevrolet Cavalier into a Cadillac Cimarron is that customers will not be fooled.
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm Jay S said:
The reason the Mini-Cooper is so successful is it has heritage, with Olde England and the Beatles stamped on its DNA. The same car without that would be and is a Suzuki SX-4.
For GM to replicate that success, it has to come from Cadillac and it has to be positioned as an “urban Cadillac”, designed for the congestion, cut and thrust of city traffic without losing the leather glove luxury of a bigger car… a smart slap in the face at all those limo boats circling the block looking for a parking spot.
But before an urban Cad can gain street cred, Cadillac itself has to regain it. The brand has great cars now, but its image is still one of playing catchup with Benz, Beemer and Lexus. Cadillac design has to leapfrog these rivals with something so stunning it just blows the brat(wurst) pack and rice eater three back on the boat.
Production version of the Sixteen concept, anyone?
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm SteveW said:
How do you design a small package without the tight interior feel. Thin the door panels, push the IP panel forward, add move window surfaces, maybe a roll way roof panel. Materials, surface finishes/ textures and form details will build the premium feel. Is there a material more luxurious than leather for the seating. Small Premium does not always mean entry level. A bamboo skinned IP and doors might produce a premium aesthetic.
The performance options could be endless, Stronger brakes, horse power increases, track set up suspension, lighter weight materials for doors, hood, trunk panels, different transmission ratios, wheel and tire packages, light packages.
However without the marketing message about what the small/ premium is and why people want it the program might stall. I think people in the US also believe small cars are less safe than large cars. This may also need to be addressed.
to this comment On September 12, 2009 at 3:45 am GARRETT said:
I counted 3 future Cadillacs in the new money back guarantee commercial. Two of which are small premium.
The ATS which Cadillac needs.
The Converj which most of the websites are saying is the production version, but i doubt because I dont see side mirrors. This is a car that I beg you to make, and God help you if you change an inch of it from the concept. (Except for mirrors of course)
The 3rd is the one Im least sure of. Its the XTS. Its in the background of the second scene, half painted half clay. Its behind what I think is the next gen Malibu’s front end (which Im a bit disappointed with if it is the Malibu). Cant wait to see a better pick of the XTS. The front end looked like it had the Converj’s shape, and not the 16’s like everyone though.
Two out of three of Cadillac’s next models being compact cars is a good thing (not counting the cts coup because its almost out anyways).
My biggest concerns are that you keep the Converj as close to the concept as possible, and that the ATS can compete with the 3 series on the road.
Id love to hear your feed back on these thing but Im guessing you still cant confirm or deny anything yet.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 12, 2009 at 7:01 am thomjac1402 said:
During this economic crisis period, we require cars which are less polluting & more in fuel efficiancy. Even though, GM India is having different cars in its stable, some models are less attractive to public. In case of AVEO, this model is not at all competitive in that segment. Now a days, cars with FIAT multijet engine are really attractive as this gives more milage without compromising on power.
to this comment On September 13, 2009 at 12:46 am cire_1wb said:
I’m going to approach this subject from a “Buick” standpoint, because it is the brand in which I have the most interest.
Buick “small premium” would be:
* Distinctive, yet well balanced exterior design with finely executed details. The curvaceousness of the exterior design would be offset by some shape defining angular elements. The Enclave and 2010 LaCrosse serve as fine examples of this design philosophy on a larger scale; it just needs to be applied to the brand’s compact class offerings.
* An upscale, yet interesting interior design that features classy, premium materials. I would like to see a departure from wood treatments. I tend to favor metallic and piano black interior treatments if they are well executed. Ambient lighting throughout the cabin is desirable also. A padded cloth headliner would be preferable to the commonly used “mouse fur” type of headliner. Soft touch areas should be present on all surfaces where the occupants would frequently come in contact with the interior. I would expect Buick’s renowned “Quiet Tuning” methods to be applied to all of the brand’s “small premium” vehicles.
* Engines that strike a nice balance between fuel efficiency and power. I don’t want to fully sacrifice power for the sake of great fuel efficiency numbers. I do expect an engine/transmission combo that provides a significant degree of fuel efficiency that would be greater than one would experience with a larger, heavier vehicle, but also provides more spirited performance than a less expensive mainstream compact vehicle. I would probably prefer GM’s 2.4L DI 4-cylinder/6-speed automatic transmission combo in a “small premium” Buick.
* Handling would be a nice balance between sportiness and comfort. A “small premium” Buick should provide a comfortable ride without the floaty, disconnected feeling that has become synonymous with the brand in the past. The handling should also have a degree of sportiness without being jarring or overly intrusive to the comfort of the vehicle’s occupants. I don’t have a problem with a FWD compact Buick, as long as it can properly achieve the balance between comfort and sporty handling that I would expect of a “small premium” Buick product.
* As far as desirable features, I would draw inspiration from a comprehensively equipped 2010 Mazda3. I think the S Grand Touring model would be a good benchmark for the level of equipment required on a “small premium” Buick. That should place the MSRP of a “small premium” Buick in the mid 20K price range.
* I would definitely like to see sedan, 5-door hatchback, and coupe (either notchback or 3-door) versions of a “small premium” Buick. It would give the brand something to appeal to different preferences and lifestyles. I would probably personally prefer the 5-door hatchback version because it offers the proper degree of utility without the extra height and weight of a traditional CUV. On the other hand, I know many people who would actually prefer the sedan or coupe versions. I think the needs and preferences of the compact class customer base vary more than some other vehicle segments. I believe Buick would be wise to cater to the diversity of this particular segment.
to this comment On September 16, 2009 at 9:06 am Wade Bryant said:
I think you’ve spelled out your preferences very precisely. I now understand exactly what you’d like.
What makes Buick the right brand for you?
Have you onmed Buicks in the past?
to this comment On September 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm TerryB. said:
Seems GM already has the beginnings of ’small premium’ cars on the shelf.
Take the Malibu LTZ, 4-cyl, 6-speed auto. Give it an interior that doesn’t scream of plastic (or plastic wood). Real aluminum would be nice, carbon fiber better. Buick quality of the fit and finish. Use some of the styling from the concept car, but don’t go overboard. Call it the Invicta as planned. Think of the early 60s Invictas for inspiration.
Then there is the Roadmaster:
http://www.autospies.com/news/2009-Buick-Roadmaster-2010-Roadmaster-Coupe-6662/
I’d really like to see it with a tall top gear so it will get 30+ mpg at Interstate speeds. A true Roadmaster. Coupe, sedan, Estate Wagon version. Possibly a 2-door wagon, only available under the Chevy Nomad badge. Loose the non-functional fender vents, or make them functional. AWD?
The best of fit and finish or the Premium mark will be a joke. Swipe the best of the upgrades from other GM cars, like the HUD, etc. Decent base sound system with MP3 since not all of us listen to talk radio all the time. A quality ‘driver’s car’ for those of us boomers who aren’t ready to join the blue-hair set blocking the fast lane in their Caddys. Don’t be afraid to put in an adjustable suspension with a real ’sport’ setting. Maybe a little exhaust note with some authority. Give us a way to choose from Econo, Touring, and Sport engine and transmission tuning on the fly. Something to compete straight across with the Eurocars, made mostly in the USA, designed for American roads and not European. Price it the same or a little less than the Eurocar. Make it QUALITY.
to this comment On September 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm Ralph L said:
If you want to sell it to people over 45 (and we have most of the money), it needs to ride softly without sloppy handling, especially when loaded, so an adjustable suspension should be standard, not only on the highest model. Low doors and seats are also hard on our knees.
Cooled seats are a necessity for anyone who’s had them. And not everyone prefers leather. If you pay more money, you should have more choices, not fewer.
More color in the interior would be nice–enough with all gray, biege, or black. No wood or chrome that isn’t real.
Since every new sedan and coupe has a sloped roof for aerodynamics, a formal, notched roofline would be unique and distinctive. It’s been a long time since the 80’s.
to this comment On September 14, 2009 at 11:30 am GaryC said:
GM has been selling small premium cars in Europe for years. It’s really the same formula here.
- Design a small car (or adapt an existing platform) that doesn’t feel like a penalty box
- Provide ride, handling and appointments that needn’t make any “excuses”
- Use quality materials and design it with exceptional ergonomics
- Provide powertrain choices for both the power hungry and frugal customers
- Provide a car in this segment that represents an excellent “value”
This approach has worked well for many companies, such as Opel.
to this comment On September 18, 2009 at 11:00 am PeterW said:
Just because Buick is postioned as the “premium” brand, does that necessarily mean that anything “small premium” has to be a Buick? Lexus is Buick’s prime competition now with the new LaCrosse, and Lexus doesn’t sell anything in the United State resembling a “small premium.” I envision this new car much more as a Chevrolet.
Nobody on this board has mentioned the new Ford Fiesta at all. I’m a 25-year old living in Manhattan, and I’m actually excited about the opportunity to own one. I see it as a “small premium” car, even though it’s not a Mercury. The design both inside and out is a hit, and the “premium-ness” of it comes from it’s European roots. I think Ford hit the mark with this one, and is expanding peoples’ thoughts on what a Ford can be.
If you try to create a “small premium” by slapping a Buick badge on the front, you’re committing the same mistakes that bankrupted GM. To move forward, and be representative of the new GM, this car needs to be a Chevrolet. And needs to be something completely different, something that isn’t just a rebadged Daewoo.
to this comment On September 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm Jason Zebersky said:
Here’s a chance to do with the next Cadillac platform what BMW was trying to do with the 1 series.
Use all the Kapa goodness, 260+ hp, under 3000lbs curb weight, ecc. do’nt worry if the back seat is too small with an NBA star in the front seat, Keep it light and tight, the intended audience will understand and apriciate, untill 16 cylinders become fashionable againe, or the Converge sees the light of day, this will be the new halo for the brand.
Jason
to this comment On September 18, 2009 at 9:50 pm jeremykhn said:
I say build a vehicle with BMW options, for a chevrolet price. It’s kinda like with the Suzuki Kizashi. You are offered luxury options for a Suzuki price.
Make the vehicle feel family friendly, but for when the owner drives alone, make it where the driver feels like they are driving a Corvette.
Put in guages in the center console like on the Camaro, I LOVE THAT!!
BMW options, Corvette and Malibu combination feelings, and Camaro style guages.
Oh and don’t forget a Chevrolet price.
to this comment On September 20, 2009 at 7:56 pm Ephraim Gerstein said:
I am in my early 30’s and live in Manhattan, NYC with my wife; baby on the way. I don’t currently own a vehicle but I do love cars. I just wanted to respond to Wade’s question about what made Apple products so appealing. As an owner of several Apple products, including two Macs, an ipod and an Apple TV unit, I have given this question a good deal of thought; so I thought you might benefit from my comments.
For me, the biggest draw with Apple is the design quality and the build quality. Apple products invariably have appealing designs. It’s not just that they are designed well, it’s that they have elements no one had previously thought of, and so have personality. Examples I can think of off the top of my head: 1) I love how my wife’s imac is just one slim piece with cpu and screen combined. You just put it on top of the desk, plug it in turn it on, and it works immediately. FedEx delivered it at 8:00pm last week, and we had it up on the internet at 8:15. 2) I really like my little ipod shuffle’s minimalist design (hardly a button or screen in sight). I know many people don’t like the remote controls in the headphones, but I find them very convenient when I’m walking around and in the gym. 3) My MacBook Pro laptop’s brushed metal casing with silvery accents is great looking and kind of soft to the touch. As to the build quality, everything looks like it’s built to last. I’ve had my laptop since 2006, and it still looks pretty sharp. Same with the imac, it just feels really solid, and I can count on the OS. By contrast before we got the imac, we had a Dell that we bought only about 15 months ago in 2006, and a few weeks ago, it just stopped responding to key commands. We thought about getting it fixed, but it was so expensive to do it that it just didn’t make sense. The Dell felt disposable, whereas my Apple products all feel permanent.
Unfortunately, as things stand now, I think of GM more like Dell. Mostly I drive your cars as rentals when I travel on business and I find them capable, but nondescript. I’m very happy that you are asking these questions, though because I’d be very proud to see GM succeed.
As a side note, one thing that you ought to consider is that you may have potential customers in people like me. Although I don’t own a car, I have Zipcar, a car sharing service in which I pay a monthly fee and get to drive cars I reserve on the internet. I don’t need a car living in Manhattan, but I love using Zipcar for longer trips. Most of their cars are Minis, BMW’s, Mazdas; in other words, the very sort of “small premium” cars you are considering doing. Zipcar doesn’t choose these cars at random; they do it because that is what their customers, mostly young professionals living in big citie,s want to drive. We may not want to pay to garage and insure a BMW, for example, but we love having access to it. If you could make this sort of vehicle, services like Zipcar could not only be a great customer for you, but might reintroduce you to a fairly sophisticated and brand-savvy group of people who might someday want to buy a car.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:42 pm B Lines said:
Small premium to me does not have to be a cramped little car with a leather interior… Its about elegance. This is why Buick is perfect for it. The rounded lines of a Buick design are a great basis for pulling together a proper small car that is elegant, proportioned, has the proper stance and flows well while being small. I cannot fathom this with a Cadillac design – might be possible, just hard to stay out of “angry toaster” with all those chisled lines on a small car.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:50 pm Mang213 said:
If you want the truth about the appeal of Apple’s design and interface, then just look at the iPhone as an example. The design is low profile, sleek, elegant, and very minimalist. There are just enough hard buttons on it to do the basic functions, yet they are separate from the main interface (the touchscreen), which gives a sense of something tangible to fall back on when the electronics don’t do as they’re told. When you hold the phone in your hand, it feels like something substantial. When you touch one of the actual hard buttons, you don’t feel like one may fall off at any moment. The damn thing is just saturated in quality. This is not the same as having something that is of commendable quality and will last forever. No, the iPhone is all that, and much more.
The appeal of the interface is an even easier subject to discuss. Just read the above paragraph and switch a few words around. Sleek, elegant, minimalist (unless you want a million apps), and simply the most well executed touchscreen of any electronic device I’ve ever seen. And don’t think I’m one of the Mac snobs who preach the virtues of an Apple universe. I’m actually a PC guy, but this phone is just simply better than all the others. Period.
Anyhow,If you begin to make your cars with the same philosophy as Apple does,regarding it’s products, I promise you GM will become everything that we all want it to be. Therefore, I’m begging you guys, as a Chevrolet loyalist, please make your second chance count, because I don’t think you’ll get another one.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 9:00 pm Kenz300 said:
GM needs to bite the bullet and make all new vehicles use advanced fuels.
This gradual shift to 50% E85 capable vehicles is too slow. You need to speed it up.
Start converting all new vehicles to advanced fuels. Give consumers a choice at the fueling station.
Make all new vehicles either flex fuel E85 capable, electric, hybrid, CNG, bio diesel or hydrogen fueled.
Start a marketing campaign saying you are giving customers a choice at the pump and reducing America’s dependency on foreign sources of fuel.
The Volt is a start but don’t get too full of it. Every auto manufacturer is coming out with high mileage electric vehicles, hybrids or flex fuel vehicles.
The market is changing fast. Like they say LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.
For too long GM did not LEAD and market share continued to decline.
You almost GOT OUT OF THE WAY by going bankrupt.
Please LEAD by bringing out quality vehicles that offer value for the price and compete with the best.
The next time we have a spike in oil price consumers will be bragging about the fact that they have a choice in fuels.
Will they be bragging about GM vehicles?
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 7:46 am mtuzmen said:
Whenever the word “small” appears in describing a project/concept car it instantly triggers the context of how safe it will be to drive it… There is a certain perception in our minds that smaller the car less safe its going to be on the roads. With such a project there is a need, i believe , to hi-lite the safety features in a much bolder fashion although the Buick brand foretells us that it will never FAIL.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 10:30 am ed said:
“See You in Copenhagen” is a campaign of short films and ads,
. . . to raise public awareness and
. . . support civic engagement in advance of
. . . the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen, Denmark.
http://www.betterplace.com/company/video-detail/see-you-in-copenhagen/
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 11:05 am ed said:
Electric car’s “Natural Range Extender”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12410&p=84126#p84126
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 10:55 pm lmalchodi said:
I know that many people are looking for smaller cars because of better gas mileage. But I must be honest, I want my car to stay big and my gas mileage to get better. Or, I would be willing to buy an electric car. I’m willing to sacrifice some size, but I’m older, and my baby-boomer peers are getting older, and we want to be comfortable and avoid inconvenience.
Having said that, I applaud GM’s efforts to build more fuel efficient cars but please don’t forget about those of us who like big cars.
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 10:47 am Aaron said:
I would like a simple car with a lot of options. Engine choices- diesel, new 2-stroke, or direct inject gas. Dont make cheap material look like something else, use titanium, aluminum, carbon and plastic that looks like plastic (choices). Transmissions – CVT is lightweight and works, manual transmission (I have to shift?). These will help with power & economy.
We all dont need a car to drive for us, ABS brakes, cameras, traction control, air bags & other crap.
I want to be able to drive & not have a car tell me or control what happens, IMAGINE THE WEIGHT SAVINGS. We might drive different if we new we have to think when we drive! Give us options!
Aaron
to this comment On October 1, 2009 at 8:28 pm jeremykhn said:
I WOULD LIKE DESIGNERS TO LOOK AND CONSIDER THIS.
My dad has been looking into a new truck. He wants good mpg’s, good cargo bed space, but he wants the feel of being able to haul us around. He also will sometimes haul around seven people but has to use his girlfriend’s suv which is very expensive on gas.
Here is my idea.
Take the Impala platform, and use the engines found in it. Create a whole new style of vehicle. The combination of SUV,Truck,Sedan,Wagon, and Hatchback.
An affordable family car. By creating a 7 passenger vehicle with the size of a sedan in mind. Create this as an alternative to a minivan. rotating second row seats with a removeable table for kids, Put in a standard navigation system. Put in a panoramic sunroof and also put in ambient lighting.
Up front for the driver and the front passenger, put in the same center console guages found on the Camaro. Give this vehicle the styling found in Cadillac, but for a Chevrolet price.
Thanks for listening.
to this comment On November 16, 2009 at 2:18 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
That would be a Minivan without the sliding door?
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 10:50 am frogfire said:
I think GM should reconsider the Sky Soltice platform and create a small preamium Buick To compete with the BMW two seater. and a verson for Chevrolet to compete with Mazda Miata. You do need to address the platforms shortcoming such as too much weight no usable trunk space and any other problems that made it less competative. While you are at it make a version of the upcoming police Chevy available as the new Impala and another version as a large premium Buick.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm Kenz300 said:
For too long GM has ignored criticism and continued to loose market share each year.
You need to learn from the criticism and not be defensive.
When GM’s market share is growing again then you will be able to say you got it right.
Until then go back to the drawing board and continue to fix whatever complaints come your way.
Ignoring or brushing off complaints is what drove GM down the slow road to bankruptcy.
Do not make excuses.
There is a reason why Hyundai’s market share is increasing and GM’s is decreasing.
There is a reason why Toyota and Lexus have their reputation for quality and GM does not.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 11:00 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Whatever badge is put on it, a premium vehicle should be made from the best parts and materials available,not the cheapest; the design and manufacturing should also reflect a higher level of quality, paying particular attention to metrics that (for example) BMW gets right and GM does not, like chassis stiffness. Quality control should be appropriately tighter, with more oversight and more accountability, to a fanatic degree of compliance. In short, the price should reflect the extra expense in making it “Premium.” Otherwise, it’s just going to be GM’s old trick of putting a “Premium” badge on a mundane product, and wondering why the premium customers drive other brands.
to this comment On October 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm Kenz300 said:
Toyota showed the Toyota FT-EV II this week.
The concept has a 90 kilometer range, a top speed of 100 km/h and runs entirely on lithium-ion batteries.
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 8:02 am ffiguere said:
Stay true to your roots in Muscle and performance, regardless of what you are building/creating. Anyone can do weak – that’s easy. Doing electric muscle, now that is a challenge.
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 3:39 pm hammershipdown said:
Cadillac is not a small premium and should never be considered as such. Chevrolet, as an example, has the Aveo & the Cobalt. These 2 cars are your small premiums. The compact and the sub compact. I wonder if these 2 designs could really be just one? I ask because I have often thought a simple solution for many car manufacturers is simply sticking to the strong models – or instead, creating body options in one model. Either of these cars could have a Notchback, Squareback, Fastback, hatchback option, creating 4 different looks and feels with one model. I’ve noted on another page my strong feelings for options & technology that should be married into single models instead of stretching out over several cars.
Here is a premium idea – from one blog to the next a common complaint amoungst many different manufacturers is where to put the cup holders – silly, yes, but also serious – it’s been tough to find a car that has found the right spot. So here is a simple solution – give the consumer options – make the cupholders strong & durable, but also make the removeable – give every car the option of moving cupholders around to find the right spot – kinda like the modern day ashtray – it was taken out of the design by making it removeable and giving it places to sit.
to this comment On October 31, 2009 at 3:24 pm carl semkiw said:
The Insignia wagon would work here. I don’t want SUVs.
to this comment On November 16, 2009 at 12:49 pm ed said:
There seems to be a “Disconnect” between
. . . what people say . . . and what they do!
The $3 billion Cash for Clunkers, in U.S. taxpayer funds,
helped Japanese car makers, more than Detroit
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13202
Where are all the people that say they want “REAL” cars and trucks?
. . . why aren’t they stepping up to the plate and buying Detroit’s?
Maybe Japan, India and China are making vehicles that people want?
All Terrain Mini Trucks are powerful workhorses that go virtually anywhere.
That’s what I’ll buy . . . (but make mine electric)
http://www.streetlegalatv.ca/
to this comment On November 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I see there was no October “Lab Report,” apparently there won’t be a November report. Is this blog dead already? What’s going on, anything?
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 6:35 pm Wade Bryant said:
We’re still absorbing comments on our initial content (Eco, Small Premium). I’m glad you are anxious to see more content. We don’t have any planned cadence for posting new topics. We post topics when we need feedback and opinions on projects that we’re working on. We also work on projects that are confidential and can’t be shared here, so there will be times that the LAB goes kind of quiet. I’m still monitoring the comments posted here and I appreciate the additional suggestions on the topics we’ve posted. We are discussing a list of potential LAB discussion topics but we don’t have anything ready to post yet.
Thanks for staying tuned in.
to this comment On November 16, 2009 at 9:22 pm Kenz300 said:
How about GM buying the best selling vehicle in each class and making it available for it’s executives to drive home for a week on a rotating car basis. Maybe they would get an idea of what makes those vehicles number one in their respective class. Then come back and make something that is far superior because the competition is already building a better upgraded model.
to this comment On November 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I had a similar idea: procure a dozen vehicles, some from each category- “Small Premium,” Bare Necessity Car,” Bare Necessity Truck,” etc.
A good mix would be a pair of base-level pickup trucks and a pair of bare-bones vans, representing the “Bare Necessity Truck;” base model cars in coupe/hatchback, sedan, convertible, and wagon versions, representing “Bare Necessity Car,” and four “Small Premium” cars, presumably a mix of coupes and sedans, maybe a roadster.
Assign 9 drivers to use them for routine, daily use on an on-demand basis (with 3 always left unused), log the miles used, after a month or three see which ones have been used the most and which the least. With 3 always left behind, the results should skew toward the most popular models and away from the least popular.
Just be sure the drivers are ordinary consumers who actually use their vehicles regularly. After you determine which are used the most you’ll have a realistic idea of what users actually need, not just what they say they need.
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm Wade Bryant said:
We do buy/rent competitive vehicles to drive and this is an important way that we benchmark vehicles. JPG’s idea is a bit more involved than what we do but it is a clever approach. I agree that we need to use them to address a “real-life” situation to gain the most insight.
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
This is an idea I first read about in the late ’60s, early ’70s: the modular car concept.
The idea is based on a removable “power” module, housing engine and FWD transmission in a very compact package. It attaches to interchangeable “body” or “purpose” modules, each designed for a certain range of functions- the “hatchback” module, the “sport coupe” module, the “sedan”module, the “pickup” module, the “wagon” or “minivan” module: the “body” modules are monocoque or unibody structures that are equipped with the appropriate seats or storage bins, and are supported by the rear suspension- the sedan,hatchback, coupe and roadster modules might have some kind of IRS, the wagon, minivan and pickup versions would have beam axles.
Consumers would own the body modules, lease or own the power modules; when the engine dies, simply replace the power module, if the family is growing out of the coupe or hatchback trade the body module in for a larger one, like a sedan or wagon or minivan module.
I’ve already mentioned the approach in which interchangeable body part modules. Interchangeable modular body parts could be configured to make 2-door 2-seat coupe, 2-seat roadster, 2-seat “Ranchero” or “El Camino” style pickup, 4-seat sedan, 4-seat phaeton, and 4-seat wagon.
A variation of this idea is the “chassis-cab” approach familiar with truck fleet operators, in which the 90% completed cab-on-chassis is delivered to the customer (or to a custom builder) and cargo body installed.
My idea involves a cab with an open back, permanently mounted on a more or less conventional chassis; various interchangeable/replaceable modules, such as SUV/CUV, panel truck and pickup modules are installed. A further variation involves the rear suspension mounted on a subframe that can be slid forward and back, locked in place to vary the wheelbase, lending even more flexibility.
(Good luck changing the Ackerman to suit the varying wheelbases).
Another variation on the “Modular” approach is the rolling chassis, with interchangeable complete bodies built by independent coachbuilders; not a new or original idea, kit car companies have been doing this for decades, companies like Duesenberg did nothing else. At the time available only to the wealthy, this idea may have come full circle, with today’s more efficient manufacturing making such “custom” bodywork available to middle-class consumers.
to this comment On February 3, 2010 at 3:00 pmJohn Ttrick said:
BMW no question, as I have gotten more acquainted with my 330i, I am slowly finding that BMW seemingly under-rates the numbers on these things, plus it takes to my beatings well, is a hoot to drive, and I have had but one single problem with it so far. Also the base 330 comes with alot of nice options right from the start. The M3 hovers around 55k and is absolute gem,despite only having an I6. I really think that with BMW, the 3 series best defines the whole brand, where with Mercedes, only the top drawer models are most rewarding. Dont get me wrong, they definitely have their downfalls, SIZE being a BIG ONE, but overall they are good cars.
5 series is not worth mentioning, between the CTS-V and M5 FOR THE MONEY the CTS-V is a total blast and MUCH more worth it.
————
snuggies