Theme
LAB Report 
The enthusiasm around this site is encouraging to say the least. The comments you’ve provided are great. They’ve helped us quickly gauge reaction to our concepts and have made it clear what your priorities are.
Bare Necessity Car-
You want a super-efficient vehicle as the foundation, customizable for individual needs. Most of you feel that the idea of minimizing the vehicle is a refreshing approach that should produce a vehicle with strong character. This car needs to evoke emotion through its mission and its design. We still need to push ourselves harder to keep the weight down without major tradeoffs.
Bare Necessity Truck-
There is a huge demand for an efficient truck that gets 30-40 MPG. The flexible “do-it-all” Bare Necessity Truck has great appeal for many truck and non-truck customers. There is also an opportunity for an efficient, ultra low-cost, traditional small truck. Diesel engines were requested by many of you.
We understand, based on your comments that we need to nail down the size and package of both vehicles and the powerplant options are still up for debate.
Many of your written comments make it clear this community is knowledgeable about cars and trucks. This isn’t surprising, and we’re happy that the discussions have been so detailed.
We’d like to follow-up on this conversation with an online survey, linked to this site, that will sum up the input we’re getting here and understand your specific vehicle needs. (For those of you who created a profile, there was an option to volunteer for this research.) We’ll ask questions to clarify what you said here and ask some additional questions too. Because we need to understand how your opinions fit in with the broader market, we’re also going to survey people who haven’t been in the LAB discussion. Then, we’ll share our results with you here on the LAB.
These conversations are making an impact at GM. We’re quickly gauging initial reaction to our ideas, which we love. It also highlights the tradeoffs that have to be made when we develop new vehicles. Looking at the LAB comments and survey results together with previous research and knowledge, we’ll have a better understanding of where to take Bare Necessity Car and Truck next. You’d better believe that the responses we’ve gotten from you have added energy behind these concepts!
The Eco Initiative is just one of the things we’re working on, and as we get more specific on the details, we’ll have to take it offline and back in the studio. Stay tuned for an entirely different topic to discuss soon.
Thanks for participating,
Wade
63 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 21, 2009 at 5:12 pm sps said:
Great work on the truck. Still worried that the reconfig bed/back seat is too complex & heavy to fit the bare ness. idea
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 11:50 pm ed said:
You focused on
. . . “cars” and
. . . “pickup trucks” that are sometimes used as cars,
but what about “Thinking outside the Box,” For example:
. . . “cars” that are sometimes used as pickup trucks?
My 1996 Saturn gets 35 mpg city and 40 mpg highway.
, , , a simple, open, honest, easy to maintain, no frills design and
. . . while it can NOT tow a large heavy trailer,
. . . it easily pulls a light utility trailer,
. . . for those times, when you wish you had a pickup.
My small trailer, is light enough to move around the yard,
. . . by hand like a wheelbarrow,
. . . it’s cleaned up downed tree branches, after Ice storms,
. . . transported lawnmowers, snowblowers, etc.
. . . 4′ X 8′ sheets of plywood, drywall and 2″ X 4″s,
. . . makes weekly runs to the dump.
Dismountable plywood sides fold up,
. . . to store with the trailer, out of the way easily and
. . . the trailer cost only a couple of hundred dollars.
http://search.harborfreight.com/cpisearch/web/search.do?keyword=trailer&Submit=Go
But, it’s getting along in years and I’m ready to buy my next vehicle
. . . It will be electric, (Period)
. . . Running off of renewable energy. (Period)
. . . I don’t want to own the battery. (Period)
. . . It will be a tough, rugged “Bare Bones” and hardworking vehicle. (Period)
. . . It will look clean, simple, honest, open, Honorable and reliable like it’s owner. (Period)
. . . It will show that I expect to get and give”Value,” deserve and give “Respect.” (Period)
. . . It will be affordable by anyone and there will be nothing to envy or worth stealing on or in it. (Period)
. . . My wife and kids, will feel safe and comfortable in it. (Period)
. . . It will be able to tow my light trailer. (Period)
Someone will build it . . . I will buy it . . . This is my report.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 9:42 pm webidiot2k4 said:
I believe it would be a great idea to buy a few if not a lot of japanese vehicles engines and tear them apart. Compare everything between your product and theirs. See what can be improved on yours and the competitors and go from there. Don’t end ties with NUMMI, Toyota has great vehicle reliability and you GM have benefited from it. Try to work with Toyota more. Make yourself familiar with all your major competitors and always try to learn more as you go. One more thing, if you see a problem arise with one of your vehicles, fix it immediately, and don’t wait around to fix the problem.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 11:56 pm jcrew1047 said:
GM has and does do all of the items you mention. NUMMI is done. GM has caught Toyota in reliability and quality, but public perception in this regard is sorely lacking. Just my two pennies.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 8:25 am John said:
I would think this sort of competitor’s product analysis and evaluation is already an SOP (standard operating procedure) at GM. The NUMMI collaboration unquestionably improved GM’s reliability with the Vibe.
Don’t forget the simplified NUMMI labor agreement and it’s positive impact on manufacturing. GM has made tremendous strides in labor relations in the last ten years and needs to continuously build on that situation.
Teamwork is one of the keys to GM’s future success.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 11:09 am ed said:
My little utility trailer does come in handy,
. . . but most of the time, it just sits around doing nothing.
. . . so I’ve been thinking about doing something like this.
http://www.conservtech.com/Products/images/Solar-Trailer.jpg
In 2004 Conservation Technologies designed and
. . . built a 1.33 kW solar array on a trailer.
This array can be folded up, raised and lowered
. . . for transporting it to events
. . . for use as an educational piece
. . . as well as a mobile power plant
. . . that can be plugged into the grid anywhere.
A box near the back of the trailer holds an inverter, DC Disconnect, and
. . . all other necessary equipment for the system
. . . to feed power from the panels into the power grid
. . . by simply plugging it in.
The solar trailer provides renewable energy for many festivals and events, including the
.. . Two Harbors Kayak Festival,
.. . Duluth Harvest Festival,
. . . Duluth Blues Festival,
. . . Duluth Greenman Festival,
. . . the Morrison County Windy River Renewable Energy Fair and
. . . many more.
http://www.conservtech.com/Products/images/Solar-Trailer-Folded.jpg
It might come in handy.
, , , Would that generate enough power to recharge a “Bare Necessity” vehicle?
What do you think?
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm Ralph01 said:
One thing that GM should think about as well, when reading these blogs, is that alot of people “want, want, want” but when it comes time to put their money where there mouth is, they dont do it. Previous examples are cars like the GTO and G8, people were screaming for GM to bring these cars over from down under, and when they did, they stayed away in droves. Be careful before you invest resources.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 5:56 pm HurstGN said:
But how much did the economy contribute to low sales? I’d have bought a G8, but finances just aren’t there to do so. Since the concept Riviera doesn’t look like it will ever see the light of day, an incredible concept cast away like the Blackhawk, I’ll just settle for wanting a new Camaro. At least that one made it to the showroom.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm AlexD said:
When will the survey be available?
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 8:20 am Wade Bryant said:
PERFECT comment on this post! I’m not sure how quickly we can get the survey up. We’re still working on the list of questions based on all the comments on BN Car and BN Truck. There are also some logistics involved.
I’ll keep everyone posted when I understand the timing.
Thanks for keeping the “heat on”.
Wade
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 9:27 am CurrentVolvoformerGMowner said:
How would this compare with the SCION?
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:59 am ed said:
Question: Is the “Bare Necessity” vehicle,
. . . meant to be an “Appreciable Asset,”
. . . or a “Display of high-consumption lifestyle?”
Here is a couple of Quote’s from the book called . . . “the millionaire next door?”
“Meet the Millionaire Next Door:
These people cannot be millionaires! They don’t look like millionaires, they don’t dress like millionaires, they don’t eat like millionaires, they don’t act like millionaires–they don’t even have millionaire names. Where are the millionaires who look like millionaires?
The person who said this was a vice president of a trust department. He made these comments following a focus group interview and dinner that we hosted for ten first-generation millionaires. His view of millionaires is shared by most people who are not wealthy. They think millionaires own expensive clothes, watches, and other status artifacts. We have found this is not the case.”
“WEALTHY DEFINED:
Ask the average American to define the term wealthy. Most would give the same definition found in Webster’s. Wealthy to them refers to people who have an abundance of material possessions.
We define wealthy differently. We do not define wealthy, affluent, or rich in terms of material possessions. Many people who display a high-consumption lifestyle have little or no investments, appreciable assets, income-producing assets, common stocks, bonds, private businesses, oil/gas rights, or timber land. Conversely, those people whom we define as being wealthy get much more pleasure from owning substantial amounts of appreciable assets than from displaying a high-consumption lifestyle.”
I ask you again,
Question: Is the “Bare Necessity” vehicle,
. . . meant to be an “Appreciable Asset,”
. . . or a “Display of high-consumption lifestyle?”
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 9:04 am Urs Haltinner said:
Great idea but not likely a market success. While the rhetoric suggests that the market would support such products we need to remember that we (consumers) have lots of suggestions that are good (but for others). We often say one thing and respond quite differently when we are asked to vote with our pocket books. Here is a thought–can the consumer see beyond their own perceptions or are they paradigm paralyzed. I would argue that we (the consumer or consumer focus groups) can simply tweak but not see beyond that which we know. I actually think there is something to be said for listening less to the so called consumer expert and listening more to forces and events that shape the world we live in.
Take a peak at Apple–innovation comes from really understanding. The ipod and the itunes store evolved because someone really understood that there was an opportunity to think different and to serve up experiences differently. Perhaps we should be looking at other consumer products and tools to get inspired about the rides that we bring to the market place. Honestly, there are companies (Fiat, Citroen, Skoda) that do minimalist transportation well. However–the response to their products is not great. I recently rented a Fiat Punto–a great cheap and efficient ride–but uninspiring. By all means stop listening to those that want to see another Toyota wannabe–start honoring, living each brand’s spirit. Start letting me have a CHevy experience no matter which orf its products I buy. By that I mean–the feel, the operation, the overall experience is very Chevy right down to the feel of the turn signal, steering wheel, seating position, (more than the badge on the hood).
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Great post! I think we know the product has to be infused with a brand experience and our newer products do focus more on that emotional connection- the question is how much of it is a brand experience and how much of it relates to offering a the customer a personal & customizable experience?
More and more vehicles are becoming lifestyle devices as many customer’s seem eager to simplify or demand that their vehicle be an extension of them. Personally, I would love to see us partner with a company like Apple and really explore the future of transportation.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm Carchitect said:
I agree, but I wonder if Apple is too cool for GM with it’s bankrupt reputation. No offense. But it will take seeing some real innovative products actually produced to believe GM has changed. It is easy to give that appearance by embracing social media. Right now I am believing it. Still, andy of the products are five years away if they go with the current rate of development. I have been seeing the Chevy Cruze running around for like three years it seems and it is still not out til next year. It is not a great design and already dated. It is kind of opposite of what we are talking about on this site – I hope!
Look at what Audi is doing:
http://mashable.com/2009/08/27/audi-facebook/
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 9:16 am ed said:
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11923&p=81260#p81260
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 12:13 am Unni said:
What about adding a bare nessestity Minivan/MPV ?
Sliding doors
aerodynamic
spacaious
ecnomic
fuel miser/sipper
family oriented
can transport
lawnmowers, snowblowers, etc.
4′ X 8′ sheets of plywood, drywall and 2″ X 4″s
ladder and other tools
BBq grill
Can used for a family vacation
Can be used in snow ad well as summer
can carry the sports kit and hokey sticks
Take me and family for a movie
Can take to camping etc
Light , enough Big ( not to big )
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm Carrie Crawley said:
I like where you are going with this and even though I am not a car designer I am pretty sure I have heard conversation around this theme. It make so much sense! Personally, I would love to drive a small car, but it just isn’t possible with my lifestyle and family needs. I want a holitstic-minded car that relates to the way I live.
There has to be more of us out there.
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 8:29 am Wade Bryant said:
I’d like to hear more on this idea around Bare Necessity Van.
What would be more “bare necessity” about this compared to other minivans?
If it hauls the items you mention, current minivan size might be required.
What might we be able to reduce from a standard minivan?
Would you pay extra for a hybrid or diesel powertrain to get great MPG?
Therese proposed this idea early on in the Eco Initiative, but we didn’t pursue it. (I don’t recall why).
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm ed said:
http://www.vicky.in/straightfrmtheheart/tata-magic-picotorial-review/
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm Unni said:
Q :Would you pay extra for a hybrid or diesel powertrain to get great MPG?
To get a hybrid/diesel power train do i need to pay extra ? Lets check again.
Do i need a 3.9 ltr engine on a minivan ? no i need only max a 2.4 ltr engine ( even some times i wondered do we need only a 1.5 ltr engine as the new technologies able to give more power than the old days engine and takes only less fuel – if you put it a 2 mode system with 5 cylinders its going to be 3 cylender ,900 cc on optimal and push needed times, 900 cc + electic motors or all 1500cc or 1500cc + electric motors can delever the needed power ) . Lets replace engine with say a 2.5 ltr 5 cylinder engine or a 1.5 ltr 5 cylinder engine. Now by putting cylinder deactivation i may be getting good mpg. If you can put a two mode transmission with this engine , them lets add a cost of 5000 extra for all the power train changes, an uplander in Canada is now sold for 19k cad, so 19 +5 = 24 still less than other players in the market.
No money needed items :
Second : Some studies showed that a aerodynamic design can gain 3-5 mpg. means by just doing the design in an aero fashion, you gain more miles ( do a wind tunnel and come to basic shape , take shapes from fishes etc ) last day i took a tuna picture (Tunas are very fast swimmers. ) and just tried to derive a minivan shape from the tuna picture.
Look at : http://yankandpaste.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-common.html
It should be aerodynamic because it has to go against the water resistance.
Three : making it bit for light ( less weight ). – than adding more steel and iron/weight look how simple structures can react for a force and make designs based on those so that force is diverted in a way that it wont harm the passengers than adding steel and standing against it. ( check tai chi etc for inspirations : receiving an opponent’s force and using it for defeating him )
Do adding proper curves and making cdA less needs a lot money ? Dont you see a lot area where design can optimize ?
On size – I think it needs the current size ( i have friend who has a kia rondo but when i asked he never had 7 people same time on that one).
To be true , Its very easy to add a lot small improvements and make a big impact than looking for big improvement and not getting any thing. If you look at products from GM – there is no minivan/mpv at all (in US – Canada still sells uplander).
Second : adding drama, strong look etc is great but that should not cost me in daily driving ( example: boxy from look and big grill on front Lot times i imagined they moving through air and ,the air resistance will make my fuel burn more ). Its a nice idea to add looks/themes to the basic shape and enhance the purpose or atleast keep the purpose.
Three : Look for new ways of improvements even its a .0005% improvement, add it.
I would love to hear why this was not part of Eco Initiative.
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 9:07 pm Unni said:
Adding : have a look on
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/08/report-honda-hybrid-freed-minivan-coming-in-two-years-pure-ele/
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 11:08 am ed said:
Bare necessity Micro-van
. . . can hold 6 shopping cart loads of groceries.
http://www.gizmag.com/gordon-murray-t25-city-car-interior/12721/
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Actually, the “Bare Necessity Car” and the “Bare Necessity Truck” and the “Bare Necessity SUV/Crossover” could also be the “Bare Necessity Minivan.”
Begin with a FWD chassis, like Lambda, with a “crossover” (optional conventional doors) or “minivan” (optional sliding doors) body style- with passenger seats that fold flush with the floor, and removable cargo-area roof and windows to convert to “pickup” mode. The behind-the-front-seats bulkhead could be fixed in place, with an electric window to seal off the cargo area when in “pickup” mode. Rear beam axle, of course, with leaf springs should be sufficient.
Add automatic load-leveling air bag rear suspension as an option, otherwise conventional leaf “overload springs” in the rear.
Just make sure it can haul 4′x8′ construction materials in the cargo area when in “pickup” mode- this suggests a vehicle about the size of the (original) Dodge Dakota.
Of course, if you really want to recover market share, you’ll offer all this with a 5-year 60,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, and a 10-year 120,000 mile “major components” warranty.
If you adopt the appropriate (crucially needed) QC improvement programs, the warranty program should be cheap.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 8:34 pm Adguy7 said:
Hi Bob (Lutz) This is of the beaten path (sorry folks) but I just watched an ad Dinah Shore did for Chevy in 1952. Chevy’s theme song at the time. That was a long time ago but boy did the message hit! Dinah was Chevrolet and Chevrolet was America. I think it still holds true today. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we brought her back as a tribute to her, Chevrolet, AND America? Granted, many young people don’t know who she was and that’s a major market. But nostalgia sells if you do it right. The ad shows Dinah singing then breaks off to the new cars for that year driving the roads of America. Then breaks back for her finale and a huge kiss to all….WOW.. it broght tears to my eyes. Anyway here’s what I envision for a new ad that I think would knock a homerun. Run first part in black and white then show new models in color driving the roads of America. Cut back in black and white for her finale. End with red, white and blue (or our flag) as background and print something like this: We have not forgotten you Dinah. You were America. For our new generation and ones past we say “Thank you” Just an idea. Would be great for the Superbowl…ha. She was a great lady. For those who would like to see the ad go to YouTube videos and type in “See the USA in your Chevrolet-Dinah Shore 1952……..
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 1:49 am getalifeagain said:
Where are the bigger cars we can comment on in this “Lab?”
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 10:50 am SteveW said:
I am looking forward to seeing the survey. The people who have participated in the LAB all appear to be end users, the customer. Seeing their “must haves” vs ” needs” vs the “wants” should prove to be interesting.
Does a Bare Necessity Truck need:
power seats
heated seats
power windows
power cargo gates
power roof panel
how much road/wind/drivetrain noise is acceptable
GM and other us auto companies have produced small, bare bones trucks/cars in the past. These were unique and were not mainline products, however the timing may now be right for this type of product to be considered. I believe this opportunity with allow for some very exciting designs and engineering.
Please keep pushing forward.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 8:41 am Wade Bryant said:
RE: the survey.
We’re working on it!
Brian Castillo and I have created a simple, interactive “vehicle configurator” for the truck. It lets you roughly spec. a truck to your requirements and gives you the results (efficiency, size, performance, cost).
Our engineers are looking over the survey tool to make sure the estimated figures are realistic enough to be useful.
We also have compiled lists of questions for BN Car and Truck.
Sorry this is taking us so long. Everything about the LAB is brand new to us and we have to figure a lot of this stuff out on the fly.
to this comment On August 30, 2009 at 4:54 pm ed said:
The “Barest Necessity” Vehicle
http://esharkdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/apple-imo-03.jpg
Economical, Simple, Fun Design . . . But, would it sell?
http://web.mac.com/experienz/iMo-site/iMo.html
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 8:44 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for sharing these. Based on your awareness, I assume you’ve seen GM’s Puma project.
to this comment On August 30, 2009 at 10:53 pm autofreak said:
THIS IS WHAT RUINED GM CHEAP CARS THAT GAVE ALOT UP FOR FUEL ECONOMY EXAMPLE 1- GEO METRO
mAKE STYLISH CARS THAT THE IDEAL CUNSUMER WANTS
I AM 13 DONT UNDER ESTIMATE ME
U SHOULD MAKE CROSSOVERS AND FAMILY SEDANS MORE THAN HATCHS
THE TRUCK IS A GOOD IDEA THOUGH
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 10:25 am ed said:
Segway
http://www.cars-and-trees.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/segway-puma.jpg
GM’s Puma project
http://www.cars-and-trees.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/puma-segway.jpg
Yes, I’ve seen “GM’s Puma project” and
. . . the “Bare Necessity Project,”
. . . both have things in common with
“The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine”
Good Enough tech. Cheap, fast, simple tools are suddenly everywhere.
. . . We get our breaking news from blogs,
. . . we make spotty long-distance calls on Skype,
. . . we watch video on small computer screens rather than TVs, and
. . . more and more of us are carrying around dinky, low-power netbook computers
. . . that are just good enough to meet our surfing and emailing needs.
Customers found that the Flip was the perfect way
. . . to get homebrew videos onto the suddenly flourishing YouTube, and
. . . the camera became a megahit, selling more than 1 million units in its first year.
. . . Sony and Canon are now scrambling to catch up.
The low end has never been riding higher.
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough
(Avatar: Electric mini-truck, towing 4 wheel trailer load of lumber)
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 12:55 pm ed said:
What if you could drive off-road safely and comfortably, in any weather… doing chores, hunting or playing?
What if you could do this cheaper than with other ATVs, farm vehicles or trucks?
http://www.roadrunnerminitrucks.com/index.html
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 9:59 pm g-wizzelWHAT said:
Ok a few months ago i figured out that i need to grow up and get a vehicle that could maake it through the south dakota snow and that would be useful for projects aroun the house so i looked around for a couple of weeks and figured out that for the money i could not go wrong with a Chevy Silverado. Well i bought the truck and took it home. I looked it over more and more the first coupl of week that i had it because i knew that i would find somthing mojor that i just did not like…..I am still looking now saying all that i will tell you that i traded in a 2008 Honda civic Si that got great gas milage…Well i convinced my wife that we should get a four door car so when we start a family we would have it to put kids in and all that we looked at a few diffrent brand and again gm had the best deal… We traded her 2dr 2007 honda civic for a Pontiac G8 Gt…Now that, that has been said i would really like to see gm come out with a rear wheel drive car that is as much fun as the g8 is to drive and can do all the things that it can do like haul a massive amount of stuff in the trunk and still go fast with decent gas milage just saying take the idea and maybe play with it
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 12:09 pm jsprcsw said:
My comment pertains to Safety of small multiuse vehicle platforms. I love how all of you intelligent so called Human beings forgo Safety. Show me in documentation how economy/multiuse platforms holdup in vehicle accidents versus larger light/medium/commercial use vehicles which are in abundance in the United States.What happens when a 3/4 ton or 1ton HD crew cab diesel pickup from Gm, Dodge or Ford runs into a small economy or muitiuse platform. Immediate bodily harm or even death to the economy/multiuse driver. Let’s not touch Semi tractor/ trailer accidents involving economy multiuse platforms. You won’t have a chance to blog!!!! But you “bloggers” are so intelligent “Keep drinking the Kool-Aid”.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 11:52 pm jsprcsw said:
Does management ever wonder why ” Ford” is #1 in 3/4 and 1 ton truck sales”. Simply put, because ford put’s a straight axle on there four wheel drive trucks. IFS on a HD platform cannot stand up to the abuse of a straight axle. Please don’t reply with the H1 Humvee garbage that it has IFS. I have replaced enough suspension and chasis parts on those as well because of durability issue’s. Have you heard the slogan “If you build it they will come”. Straight axle up front preferably the AAM 9.25. They(aam) are all ready one of your largest suppliers. Oh it might add 1.2 hrs more on assembly maybe setting up a straight axle with unit bearings. Wake Up Stephens and Lutz and put bean counter “Fritz to Pasture”. Bean Counters caused Lackluster performance at the General along with inept managerial AK’’s.
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 9:18 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for your impassioned comments. We haven’t posted any topic on the LAB that addresses HD full size trucks so the team that’s responding to comments will not be able to address your concerns. I have seen the aftermarket business for front solid axle conversions (a good indication that there’s a large customer need).
Your safety concerns are shared by some of the commenters here. Look through the Bare Necessity Car blog for some of the comments. The vehicle size, weight, height disparities on the roads have always been an issue. Some of the new vehicle-to-vehicle crash avoidance systems might solve the issue in the future. I’m not sure I understand what you’re suggesting we should do regarding small vehicles.
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm Blamefulgecko said:
You visited just a brilliant idea
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 10:28 am Mike Burgess said:
Will your new Eco vehicles have sunroofs (or moonroofs, whatever you prefer to call them)? Whatever you finally come up with, it needs to be comfortable, efficient, and attractive, both on the outside and inside, not to mention reliable. All those little extras like outside temperature and compass readouts, air conditioning, tinted glass, extra padding in the seats, power windows, etc., etc., etc., are things that we have had and gotten used to in our past and present GM vehicles. Many of us are close to retirement and won’t have the money we once had, so these things should be included not just on the top-of-the-line models (trim levels), but on all of the models (trim levels).
Mike
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 8:41 pm ed said:
Listen to the song, your kids are singing? (Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAv6M1Bai0c
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 8:46 am Carrie Crawley said:
Love it! Thanks for sharing. Reminds me of something Yo Gabba Gabba would do.
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 9:02 pm jsprcsw said:
Mr. Bryant, The “Lab was established for any Comment that pertains to Gm’s current and future product portfolio. “Daddy Fritz” explained that on 07/10/09. I have enough Tax dollars out of my pocket invested in Gm. So Mr. Bryant I am a Shareholder sir. I expect an Answer to anything automotive related that I ask about Gm’s divisions. Because I expect Profability as a Shareholder. Where is the Transparency that your “Daddy Fritz” and “Fritz’s Daddy Barry O’shama” promised us that Gm would have. Sincerely a Shareholder, Jason
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 12:42 pm AlexD said:
This is not the place to ask a question like that. Go to the Ask Fritz section on GM’s Reinvention website. And when you do ask a question, be respectful and mature.
to this comment On September 4, 2009 at 3:49 pm ed said:
http://www.electriccarnews.co.uk/21-million-electric-cars-produced-china/
to this comment On September 6, 2009 at 11:48 am ed said:
A product which will sell just as well in a recession
. . . as in a buoyant economy,
. . . including both developing and
. . . developed markets?
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/iStream.php
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/iStream-advantages.php
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/iStream-factory.php
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/iStream-istabalised.php
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/iStream-opportunities.php
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 11:04 am David said:
Hi,
everything is fine but I don’t see any concept about CARGO VAN! I’m satellite technician and I’m driving a lot! I have Mercury Villager which is good car but it takes 20 miles per gallon or even less depends where you drive:)! so I would like to have very economical CARGO VAN or PASSENGER VAN which I can use as cargo van! in my opinion it should be built on CHEVROLET VOLT concept and with option to chose 2 engines for generator it could be gasoline or diesel! so the fuel economy should be at least 100MPG or even greater! then I will spend 5 time less for fuel:)! there is nothing on the market right now economical for cargo or passenger van! I don’t understand why in Europe there is many small cargo vans like FIAT,PEUGOT,RENAULT,FORD,IVECO with small economical turbo diesel engines (2.5L) but why here in US we don’t have any of those:)? instead we have huge gas suckers like CHEVROLET EXPRESS, SAVANA ,DODGE SPRINTER,FORD F35O and there is new FORD TRANSIT CONNECT which looks great but again only 22MPG city! guys that is not enough:)! America runs on vans there is millions cargo vans on the roads but nothing economical at least with small diesel engine 2.5L
! if US car factorys can’t make them then import from Europe I would buy one:)! I don’t need huge cargo van for me will be best van like FORD TRANSIT CONNECT but very economical! In my opinion GM should take steps to make small cargo vans on the CHEVY VOLT concept or at least HYBRID or DIESEL,DIESEL HYBRID,NATURAL GAS-GASOLINE and etc…! we have to make ALL CARS very economical and cheap!
Thanks
David
South Florida
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 12:15 pm DM3 said:
What if Chevrolet and GMC were to essentially build a new Astro and Safari off on their new small pickup platform whenever they replace the Colorado and Canyon? The vans and pickups could be made as extended range EV’s as well as having more traditional powertrains available. Given the various advances, I think GM might do pretty well making another “mid size” van in both cargo and passenger configurations.
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 11:41 am Loron Cook said:
I’d like to know why GM and Ford dropped their minivans, the population is getting older and suv’s and crossovers
just don’t have the ease of getting in or out. The minivans are great for wheel chairs and walkers. I worked for GM and am now retired, I had to have a minivan so guess what i bought a Chrysler. Look at the market a little closer.
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm Wade Bryant said:
We’ve only shared two concepts around one topic so don’t assume that we aren’t focussed on other markets.
That being said, I see that we are getting quite a few suggestions to look into other markets (vans for instance).
As we continue to share more of our projects, I’ll try to suggest topics that cover the full sprctrum of the market as much as possible to get people with all types of transportation needs engaged in the discussions.
to this comment On September 14, 2009 at 12:59 pm Kenz300 said:
This format of customers (or former disgruntled customers) commenting needs to be expanded
There needs to be a way to comment on each and every GM vehicle and brand.
Those comments need to be read by management from the GM board of directors on down.
GM for too long has been an inbred insular culture that has seen it’s market share decline each year for many many years.
This blog is a start but it needs to go farther. Fritz needs to start his day reading the 10 most meaningful comments from the previous day.
Each department needs to have a site. Where can customers go to comment on product interiors. They have been inferior to your competitors for years.
Every new model or upgrade needs to be superior in quality, style, performance and value. Putting out second best will not do.
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 10:11 am ed said:
Wouldn’t it be great, if you had a “Basic Necessity” vehicle,
. . . that was SO POPULAR,
. . . that you HAD to sell it on the internet,
. . . to avoid crowds at your dealerships?
“Tata Motors retailed the Nano on the net.
. . . In that case, the idea was
. . . . . . to avoid crowds at Tata Motors dealers.
. . . It was NOT driven by the need to
. . . . . . manage overhead selling and
. . . . . . distribution costs.”
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/skoda-online-move/372258/
to this comment On October 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm ed said:
The electric car, General Motors gave to his university, left a lasting impression on this Engineer.
. . . “I realized that the 600+ million cars on the roads
. . . were more complex than they needed to be, and
. . . I became agitated by the fact that
. . . we were living in a 100-year-old transportation paradigm
. . . that was evolving at a snail’s pace.”
http://blog.betterplace.com/2009/10/evs-sweet-products-coming-down-the-road/
to this comment On October 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm John Wosoba said:
Cadilac sales have plummeted compared to Lincoln and of course other luxury brands. I see that a new Ad Agency is being considered to try and reverse this trend. Personally I do not believe its a quality or certainly a performance issue but rather a design and logo issue. In chatting with friends and neighbors who also have not purchased Cadilacs of recent all concur that the design, while potentially futuristic, is too far off the norm from the German and Japaneese brands. An example of this is the new Buick which looks great and is in the mainstream of styling of most of your competitors. Lastly its that damn Cadilac logo that turns all of us off!!!! If it must be used play it down and certainly down size it!! Perhaps another way of muting the logo is to develope a tasteful logo for the particular model Cadilac and use it descretly on perhaps the front grill and steering wheel but not make a bill board out of the thing as you have with the Olive branches and Cadilac emblem.
to this comment On October 10, 2009 at 11:48 am ed said:
Have you counted the number of times
. . . that comments have referenced “Apple?”
The Apple store announced today, that
. . . “Two BILLION App’s have been downloaded!”
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/09/28appstore.html
“The App Store has reinvented what you can do
. . . with a mobile handheld device, and
. . . OUR USERS ARE CLEARLY LOVING IT!”
. . . said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.
——————————————————-
What your commenters would like to hear is:
“GM has reinvented what you can do
. . . with a vehicle, and
. . . OUR USERS ARE CLEARLY LOVING IT!”
Now you won’t reinvent with
. . . cup-holders, air conditioners, diesel’s or SUV’s.
. . . that’s already available.
What we are talking about is
. . . EXTREME “Frugal design and engineering”
. . . married to “Thin Accounting and Manufacturing”
. . . with “Flat pack” distribution and “Local assembly.”
in other words . . . K.I.S.S. & Cheap,
(Keep It Simple Stupid, 3rd-world-Affordable, Go-anywhere, Do-It-All vehicle)
Those vehicles already exist.
BUT NOT IN THE USA & not Green.
No Problem,
. . . just make one All Electric . . . All-Wheel-Drive-By-Wire,
. . . rechargeable any where in the world by
. . . . . . . renewable sun, wind, water power or grid.
You want Premium?
No Problem,
. . . Kick one up a level with
. . . Computer/Communication compatibility
. . . (simple add Apple Interface)
Keep it 3rd-world-Affordable, and A CEO will say:
“(Insert company name here) has reinvented what you can do
. . . with a vehicle, and
. . . OUR USERS ARE CLEARLY LOVING IT!”
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 9:36 am ed said:
GM . . . would consider selling Gliders?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12718&p=85557#p85557
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 12:31 am Polprav said:
Hello from Russia)
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 2:05 am ed said:
” today’s car industry is brainwashed by its own car culture,
. . . with its obsession for speed, styling and fantasy.
The car business has become one of repackaging,
. . . steering people’s focus towards style and
. . . a narrow definition of performance,
not on our true needs.
Speed and performance have been the driving factors for
. . . car design, styling, and engineering for a century.
. . . Most cars on the road today can go 120 mph. Why?
The reality is that cars are mostly used at moderate speeds and
. . . for sitting in traffic.”
“A shift must take place
. . . from styling cars to redefining them.”
http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/the_end_of_driving_mike_and_maaike_introduce_the_autonomobile_13908.asp
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 5:52 pm ed said:
. . . “I would put every cent into electric cars”
. . . He’s said that electric vehicles are inevitable.
Energy Secretary Chu:
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/13/report-energy-secretary-chu-i-would-put-every-cent-into-elect/
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 3:48 pm Max Parrk said:
Is it possible to get a 2010 Equinox with the fuel fill door on the left side of the vehicle with a special order and how much would it be extra. The rightside is the wrong side and our 2010 goes down the highway darting from side to side it must be the ESC on the vehicle.
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 10:03 am 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 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm Earnhard3 said:
Hi Carrie I hope you still read these comments. I mentioned a car along these principles with Mr. Lutz on a few occasions and have left my comments here ( a few weeks ago), although I don’t see them. I was just watching Discovery CH (Canadian version) and saw Mercedes has the F-cell roadster, similar to what I have in mind. We can still do something like that, but better. Please see Mr. Lutz to learn more ( he knows how to contact me ) and to expand on this. At the very least this could be a mind expanding exercise for our design department.
WF
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm Bernard Nadel said:
I have the solution to global warming and the key to extricate GM from no or low profitability. The problem has been one of communication, to emerge from the volume of mostly useless comments to reach someone that can implement the cure. Also, If you wont listen without my surrendering all of my rights, what can I do? Since you have a new C.E.O. I shall try one more time.
I have a working prototype of a patented device, that which placed upon a floating object at sea uses the rocking motion of sea waves to generate DC current and hence electrolizes the sea water into hydrogen to power the fuel cells in your Equinoxes at almost zero cost with a kiss of oxygen as the only other efluvium.Suggestion: Since hydrogen has more latent energy than gasoline, I would strive to attain 800 miles between fueling since refueling stations for sometime will be scarce. It can be done.
Bernard Nadel
to this comment On November 8, 2009 at 1:18 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
“Bare Necessity Car” has been done before- the Ford Model T, the original VW “Beetle,” Citroen 2CV, etc etc.
In today’s market, it would likely be a 2-door Kammback hatchback that seats four 6′ adults comfortably, with rear seat that folds flat for hauling. Other body styles on the same platform could be the “Bare Necessity Nomad Wagon” and the “Bare Necessity El Camino,” and let’s not forget the “Bare Necessity 2-seat Coupe” and the “Bare Necessity Roadster.”
Base engine should be a 1200cc OHV liquid-cooled “boxer” 4 (with shared-component 1800cc “boxer” 6 optional), base transmission a 5 or 6-speed manual (5-speed auto or CVT optional, a lot of people today can’t drive a stick), and for safety, power-assist steering and power-assist disc brakes should be standard; ABS and/or traction control should be standard safety items on all cars and light trucks, as well.
With “Cab Over Engine” design, the same “Bare Necessity” platform could be shared by the “Bare Necessity (light half-ton) Pickup Truck” and the “Bare Necessity Minivan,” and could be the basis for the “Bare Necessity Minivan-That-Converts-To-Pickup” multipurpose vehicle (which could, by itself, replace 3 of my present vehicles).