« US EIA Expects Summer Gasoline Prices 11% Higher than Last Year | Main | Axion Picks Up Another Patent for its Lead-Acid Battery-Supercapacitor Hybrid Cell »
GM Announces First Production Passenger-Car Hybrid: Saturn Aura Green Line
11 April 2006
 |
| The 2007 Saturn Aura |
At the New York Auto Show, GM is unveiling the all-new 2007 Saturn Aura mid-size sedan, based on last year’s concept car of the same name. Uplevel models of the Aura will feature GM’s first application of a new six-speed automatic transmission mated with the 3.6L DOHC V6.
Later in the 2007 model year, Saturn will offer the Aura Green Line, a 2.4L Ecotec-based hybrid that will use a powertrain system similar to the Vue Green Line. (Earlier post.) It marks the first application of a hybrid powertrain in a production GM passenger car.
The non-hybrid Aura goes on sale late this summer in two trim levels: entry and uplevel. Saturn will offer two powertrains at launch: a standard entry-level 3.5L V6 with variable valve timing (VVT), and the uplevel 3.6L DOHC V6 with VVT.
The entry-level 3.5-liter engine generates 224 hp (167 kW) and 298 Nm of torque. The higher-end 3.6-liter engine is rated at 252 hp (188 kW) and 340 Nm of torque.
This latter engine is mated with the all new Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed automatic transmission, the first application of this in the GM Powertrain portfolio. The transmission allows for strong performance combined with strong fuel efficiency.
The Green Line hybrid system, as applied in the VUE, is based on a Belt Alternator Starter system—essentially what underlies a Start-Stop system—albeit one with some modifications that provide a small degree of traction assistance.
This system is GM’s third production hybrid system, the others being the high end two-mode hybrid system that GM will apply first in the Tahoe and Yukon full-size SUVs and the low end micro-hybrid applied in the Silverado Sierra.
Combined with other vehicle modifications to decrease fuel consumption, the Saturn VUE Green Line hybrid delivers an estimated 20% improvement in fuel economy.
GM has not yet announced the level of fuel savings to be delivered by the Aura Green Line hybrid implementation—but the automaker’s choice of a 2.4-liter Ecotec rather than the standard 3.5-liter V6 is an indication that GM may be trying to optimize fuel economy in the model over performance.
April 11, 2006 in Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (69) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4645302
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Announces First Production Passenger-Car Hybrid: Saturn Aura Green Line:
Comments
I hope I'm wrong, but it sounds like a hybrid for the namesake. A marginal 10% economy gain (like the VUE?) could undermine the public's perception of hybrid technology and its benefit/cost ratio. A 94 mpg Prius does just the opposite.
Posted by: craig | Apr 11, 2006 8:24:21 AM
Not to worry -- the process of "Natural Selection" will take care of GM and others that continue to live in denial.
Posted by: JJ | Apr 11, 2006 8:38:00 AM
It is an improvement over a non-hybrid and if it can be classified as a PZEV and can be sold in CA as such then it serves its purpose.
This mod may make sense cost benefit wise where a several thousand dolar premium for a prius can't be recovered in gas savings over the life of the vehicle at current fuel prices.
This could also be applied to most any vehicle in the GM fleet without a major redesign.
with any hybrid system the main gains come in a stop and go driving cycle.
Unless you have an all electric drive that is more efficent than a mechanical coupling (transmission) that allows the engine to run at its most efficent operating point .... a hybrid will have zero advantage over a non in a "normal" for USA high speed long distance interstate driving.
In town the hybrid may have an advantage with the ability to recover energy that would normaly be lost in braking, ideling, and reduce the energy required (from the engine) to accelerate.
Posted by: rj | Apr 11, 2006 9:04:55 AM
10%? The article said 20%. Nice try on GM's part but unless they ramp up to full hybrids they will get left in the dust as "fuel shocks" pile up and consumers start shopping MPG bigtime.
OK in GM's favor this is a good steping stone however because this system is much cheaper and can be adapted to many of their vehicles that use the Ecotec. It uses a 36volt battery pack and many of the accessories are electric rather than belt driven. The R&D that went into the accessories and the start/stop can be carried over to full hybrids. We better be seeing them soon because the cheap gas party is over.
Posted by: T | Apr 11, 2006 9:15:08 AM
I gave someone a lift to Saturn (for service on their Vue). It was interesting to walk around the lot and see 24/32 mpg stickers on all the windows. For what used to be an economy brand, that doesn't seem that high to me.
(did they have more efficient models, sold out?)
Posted by: odograph | Apr 11, 2006 9:23:35 AM
Here are some things to realize about hybrids:
Usually (other than the micro hybrids with 14V starter/alternators) they utilize higher voltage motors & generators. A higher voltage system enables the use of electric air conditioning and power steering units. Electric a/c and p/s are more efficient then mechanical units PERIOD. That gives an additional reduction in fuel consumption (although very small in the overall scheme of fuel consumption for an engine). This does help more than simply the start/stop function of hybrids.
Additionally, this helps to usher in the age of 42V (36V battery) automotive electrical systems. A greater range of power hungry safety/telematics/ and automation systems can be employed with a higher voltage system. I'm not saying cars should drive themselves, but nearly all (sorry, I don't have the stats) accidents are caused by DRIVER error and such additional "guardian" systems could help reduce the chance for error (whether passive or active is a discussion for elsewhere).
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 11, 2006 9:29:22 AM
Anybody care to give odds on GM going bancrupt before these hybrids go to market?
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 11, 2006 9:50:33 AM
The Aura is GM's attempt to reintroduce their Opel cars that are popular with the rest of the world but they claim that "Americans don't want". I'm not hearing much excitement in this forum anyway. I guess we'll see if that's true or not.
I think its a great platform for introducing their BAs hybrid on passenger cars, but I'm not in the market.
Posted by: Lance Funston | Apr 11, 2006 9:52:43 AM
I'd like to see some numbers on the power consumption of electric vs mechanical air conditioners. That electric a/cs should use less energy seems non-intuitive to me, considering that an air conditioner is mechanical -- it works on the compression/decompression/moving around of some coolant. In a car, to make an air conditioner electric you need an electric motor to run the compressor, whereas if you make it mechanical you're basically running the compressor off of a belt from the engine, aren't you? So an electrical system has the weight of an electric motor and beefier alternator vs the weight of a belt.
Posted by: Bryant | Apr 11, 2006 9:56:58 AM
"a several thousand dolar premium for a prius can't be recovered in gas savings over the life of the vehicle at current fuel prices."
I'm amazed at how persistent this myth is, no matter how many times it's disproven.
At current gas prices, assuming a $4,000 premium without tax breaks, the simple breakeven mileage is roughly 123,000 miles -- well below the useful life of a Toyota sedan.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Apr 11, 2006 10:23:42 AM
in terms of which Opels we "want" ... I some smaller ones on the German Opel website. This 6cyl, 252 hp, choice isn't exactly "green." Maybe they think it is a Camry competetor?
It certainly does not position well against the Civic or Corolla, which would make it more of a serious answer to higher prices and global warming in my book.
(The little Opel Agila is more like what we see on GCC ;-)
Posted by: odograph | Apr 11, 2006 10:24:53 AM
odograph: Saturn was once GM's innovative small/cheap car division. It had originally quite a devoted following. It along with Saab could have been GM's high-tech innovative divisions, Saturn at the low end, Saab at the high. It along with Saab were in the event ignored and underinvested for years and as a result completely wasted as forward-looking resources, and the reputations of both have plummeted. (You can add the EV1 and the PNGV Precept as more wasted efforts) GM is perhaps finally realizing this, and I hope they can turn the corner. They have some first rate engineers, significant technical resources, but completely incompetent management.
Posted by: d | Apr 11, 2006 10:30:34 AM
Actauly the hybrid system they are using combined with the new transmission will in fact get it very close to many full hybrids at far less cost and with the ability to ramp it into the millions of units.
The transmission itself trims about 5% off and the new hybrid setup is partway between a micro hybrid and a full hrbid and will get middle ground fuel eff percentages..
Together they are solid. Oh and combined with a fuel eff tuned engine they likely will bring a MUCH higher milage set then the normal version.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 11, 2006 10:40:06 AM
Does it accept E85?
To Bryant,
I think the electric a/c is more efficient because:
1) when the a/c isn't in use the belt is still a drag on the engine.
2) the a/c can run with the engine off. (only important for a hybrid)
Posted by: LochDhu | Apr 11, 2006 12:12:11 PM
Wintermane, for what it's worth my prius mpg seems very closely related to the "engine off" time I can manage. That is more than at stop. It is also in mild acceleration, and at steady speed cruising (esp. given a slight downgrade). Do you really thinkthe Greenline can manage that much time "engine off?"
I mean, in order for it to get to Prius or Civic Hybrid territory?
Posted by: odograph | Apr 11, 2006 12:20:50 PM
All,
I don't think anyone really knows how good the baseline vehicle is. It's based off the epsilon platform that the G6 uses, and the G6 may not be getting rave reviews, but it is getting generally positive feedback. Assume the Aura is a decent vehicle to begin with, I think this hybrid can work. If the Aura hybid gets about 160 Hp (seems reasonable) and gets mixed mode driving in the mid to upper 30's, that would still be fairly powerful, and more efficient then almost any other midsize on the road. Assume a hybrid price less then $2000 over the standard, consumers really may save some cash relative other vehicles in it's class.
Anyway, GM and Ford should really be putting hybrid systems on their SUV's. More bang for the buck really. You need less then half the efficiency gain on a SUV to save the same amount of gas that a Prius does over a Matrix/Vibe.
Peace,
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Apr 11, 2006 1:46:26 PM
Gas milage will become a more significant factor in the years to come. Just remember the basic rule. Per 100,000 miles, 25mpg means 4,000 gallons, 50mpg means 2,000 gallons. For gas costing $3, $4, $5, and $6 per gallon, this means that costs of fuel will correspond to a fuel savings of $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 and $12,000 for the 50 mpg vehicle as compared to the one at 25mpg.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | Apr 11, 2006 3:16:00 PM
This is a good start for GM, I welcome it... some on this form would boo anything that's not a Bio-Diesel PHEV Vespa or simular :)
As for efficiency of electric A/C:
The reason an electric A/C *CAN* (but isn't neccesarily) be more efficient than a purely mechanically driven one is quite simple.. mechanically driven A/Cs use a variable RPM design which wastes a lot of the power given to it (an A/C compressor nees to run at a constant RPM(except some newer digital systems that vary rpm by load but that's a different subject), where as an engine's RPMs vary.
So the efficiency of the mechanism that alters this RPM is directly responsible for how less/more efficient a belt driven one would be.
However I paticularly like Honda's approach on the newer civic hybrids, a hybrid A/C comrpessor... it runs off the belt when it can, but when at idle stop, orlow A/C load, or when rnning in learn burn, it switches to electric.
Posted by: Ash | Apr 11, 2006 4:30:05 PM
GM is again practicing "Planned Obsolescence", to insure future sales of equally obsolete automobiles.
The 'start/stop' feature should not be considered "hybrid", but will qualify for tax credit or rebate.
GM's grand vision is a future of jam-packed freeways and a miniscule reduction of air pollution when these psuedo-hybrid cars stop in bumper to bumper traffic.
It's some kind of country club joke, like when George Bush was overturning furniture in the Oval Office looking for WMDs; remember that little joke? Well, he was looking for his stock portfolio. Get it? Ahee hee, ahee hee. "Oh Georgie, we do so love your little wittisisms", members of George's country club chortle.
GM's corporate charter should be revoked, it's executive board of directors charged with crimes against humanity.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 11, 2006 5:23:42 PM
Why is everyone being so hard on GM? A 20% reduction in fuel consumption without downsizing and/or making it severly underpowered is pretty damn good, in my opinion. Are they better off doing nothing?
There are far too many extremists out there who think we can just shift to a transit structure similar to those made popular on The Jetsons, virtually overnight! We need some realistic steps in the right right direction, and here we have one, and people still complain. If you want people to EMBRACE hybrid technology, you do something like this - start with something reasonable, that costs about as much as a relatively unnecessary navigation option, but has tangible benefits.
As long as GM can keep up with demand, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect up to a quarter of these cars being sold as hybrids.
Posted by: Angelo | Apr 11, 2006 5:51:41 PM
GM is evil!
GM is the next Hitler!!
GM is going to kill us all!!!
GM doesn't give a shit about humanity!!!!!
GM does however paint their cars pretty colors.
So that makes them OK. Pretty...cars...Mmmm.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 11, 2006 6:07:00 PM
Is there anyone on this board who is going to go out and buy a Saturn?
Alternatively, are there any Prius or HCH owners here and will there be anyone who will buy the 94mpg Prius, if it happens.
No doubt this Saturn Hybrid will be a great innovation, for others. But no one here, I expect. We've already gone way beyond what GM is offering here. Are we now supposed to get enthused about going backwards.
People are hard on GM because they missed the boat and aren't even really playing catchup. If boring sells, this should work.
Posted by: t | Apr 11, 2006 6:14:28 PM
It's pretty pathetic how some people always feel the need to bring up President Bush when it has zero relevance to the topic.
Good for GM, it's progress. I'm not a pessimist that whines and cries because at things that aren't a huge technological jump. Nevermind the fact that this is only one type of hybrid system GM is coming out with. They have FULL hybrid system, one that are supposedly better than Toyota's HSD (GM says their "two mode" full hybrid increases hwy milage where as Toyota's HSD doesn't really).
Posted by: Fargo | Apr 11, 2006 6:16:05 PM
"They have FULL hybrid system, one that are supposedly better than Toyota's HSD (GM says their "two mode" full hybrid increases hwy milage where as Toyota's HSD doesn't really)."
That's total vaporware for now, though.
By the time it comes out, Toyota will be on it's 3rd or 4th hybrid generation, have almost its whole lineup available with a hybrid drivetrain, and probably be the #1 automaker in the world. GM will be lucky if it's not bankrupt...
Don't get me wrong, I'd be the first to applaud if GM (or any other automaker) could pull off something really cool in the green transportation area, but I'll believe it when I see it. It's too easy to talk about what's on the drawing boards of the R&D department (I'm sure Toyota has some really cool unreleased stuff too...).
At least if GM hadn't scrapped their EV cars, maybe they could get some kind of halo effect out of it..
Posted by: Mike GR | Apr 11, 2006 6:29:48 PM
"No doubt this Saturn Hybrid will be a great innovation, for others. But no one here, I expect. We've already gone way beyond what GM is offering here. Are we now supposed to get enthused about going backwards."
As with most GM cars, their most convincing selling point will be price. Because in the mid-size segment, it's going to be fighting against the Camry hybrid, the Altima hybrid (using Toyota tech) and the Accord hybrid.
Posted by: Mike GR | Apr 11, 2006 6:32:47 PM
compared to the one at 25mpg
wrong comparison for people making a new purchase on economics, try a Yaris at 34/40 city/highway and $10K less than a Prius. A Civic at 30/40 at $7K less. An Accent at 32/35 and $9K less. A Rio at 32/38 at $10K less.
Posted by: duh | Apr 11, 2006 7:37:02 PM
"People are hard on GM because they missed the boat and aren't even really playing catchup." (posted by "t")
t is right on this one. But there is more than that. What really burns me about GM is the way they laughed at the whole idea of hybrids when they were first brought up and the first companies went out on a limb with them (Honda & Toyota). And they scoffed at plug-in hybrids, giving the impression they would continue building "real" cars while the tree-huggers like many of us, I suppose, chased our hybrid fairy-tales down dead-ends.
It was only when they realized from a financial point of view that they were getting their lazy (managerial) butts handed back to them by hybrid makers that they had to start at least talking right. Hence they suddenly put on the big glossy corporate smile for the cameras and almost over-night suddenly said how they are committed to the environment, gas mileage advertising campaigns sprung up recently, yada yada. It makes me sick!!!! It's that kind of corporate two-facedness that is so disgusting to many, and one reason out of others as well why I will never buy from them.
However, having gotten that off my chest, I am still *very* pleased to see this development over none at all by GM. 20% improvement is good!
Posted by: John W. | Apr 11, 2006 8:40:38 PM
"People are hard on GM because they missed the boat and aren't even really playing catchup." (posted by "t")
t is right on this one. But there is more than that. What really burns me about GM is the way they laughed at the whole idea of hybrids when they were first brought up and the first companies went out on a limb with them (Honda & Toyota). And they scoffed at plug-in hybrids, giving the impression they would continue building "real" cars while the tree-huggers like many of us, I suppose, chased our hybrid fairy-tales down dead-ends.
It was only when they realized from a financial point of view that they were getting their lazy (managerial) butts handed back to them by hybrid makers that they had to start at least talking right. Hence they suddenly put on the big glossy corporate smile for the cameras and almost over-night suddenly said how they are committed to the environment, gas mileage advertising campaigns sprung up recently, yada yada. It makes me sick!!!! It's that kind of corporate two-facedness that is so disgusting to many, and one reason out of others as well why I will never buy from them.
However, having gotten that off my chest, I am still *very* pleased to see this development over none at all by GM. 20% improvement is good!
Posted by: John W. | Apr 11, 2006 8:43:02 PM
GM's two mode full hybrid system will be in the new Tahoe Hybrid, which will be out for the 2008 model year line up (so I've been told)...Toyota won't have all of their vehicles hybridized by then.
Posted by: Fargo | Apr 11, 2006 8:44:15 PM
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, because I see transportation as more than some better car, as if. Urban/suburban transportation is fundamenatally multi-modal - walking, bicycling and mass transit as well as personal automobiles.
As things are now, there is no choice but to drive, for most people. And, this is exactly the transportation monopoly frickin' GM intends to maintain with their psuedo-hybrids, laughing all the way to the bank.
With the Plug-in Hybrid, a decentralized power source creates the incentive to drive shorter distances, patronizing and directing the growth of local economies. In time, more destinations can be accessed without having to drive. This, GM does not wish to happen. No money in it.
So, figure it out. Does GM care? NO! Fuck NO! Those here who wish to remain clueless about GM, GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY! GM IS GOING DOWN!! We don't need that monstrous corporation plotting destruction for power and profit.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 11, 2006 9:02:09 PM
"GM's two mode full hybrid system will be in the new Tahoe Hybrid, which will be out for the 2008 model year line up (so I've been told)...Toyota won't have all of their vehicles hybridized by then."
"have almost its whole lineup available with a hybrid drivetrain"
Posted by: Mike GR | Apr 11, 2006 9:48:00 PM
GM does not build a single true hybrid.
What GM builds is a "psuedo-hybrid", a ruse hybrid, just as they build a ruse with their preposterous fuel cell prototypes; drive-by-wire my ass.
The Toyota Prius, on the other hand, can evolve into the Plug-in Hybrid, which can achieve 500+ mpg.
Fuckin' GM! GM knows it's going bankrupt. But do they care? No. GM is building manufacturing plants in China, Mexico and who knows where, to build their shitty, over-powered cars, using slave labor, and ship them back to the USA captive market of American automatons, driving everywhere, with no choice but to drive. Does GM care? No.
Hello? Is this Northstah? Can yew hep me find a place to park? My leg hurts and my son is locked inside and he's only 15 and hasn't learned how to unlock the door yet. And, I've lost my keys. Oh Northstah, would yew pleese hep me? Pleeeese?
Posted by: Wells | Apr 11, 2006 10:42:45 PM
This is all so familiar. It reminds me of the article posted here at GCC about toyota selling more powerful pickups and I chimed in to say if GM or Ford had done this people would be whining about the big three and it would go from there to big oil, halliburtin and then finish somewhere around GWB and D. Cheney. I had people claiming I was making this tendency up and it doesn't really happen. Of course then he ended up telling me I was flaming a group he claimed didn't exist. How are you JW?
Anyway, maybe the car isn't cutting edge. So what? I think the only people who should be allowed to be as smug as all the hybrid owners are people who ride bicycles. If you aren't doing that, maybe you should understand not everyone is willing to roll the insight.
Cheers.
JRod.
Posted by: JRod. | Apr 11, 2006 10:58:57 PM
Hybrid or not, I am damn sure Aura still will have leaking oil pan gasket.
Posted by: Andrey | Apr 11, 2006 11:35:37 PM
I'm pleased to see GM coming around. I don't believe they are about to dissapear and they need to do something. Believe it or not, many folk are intimidated by the technology of hybrids. (Some folk won't fly or take an elevator either.) By this GM is signalling to the world that hybrids aren't scarry. As such they do a service to the hybrid cause. If they can crank out enough of them we will actually save some fuel too, and what's wrong with that? The more companies get into the race, the faster battery technology will advance and that leads to price reductions and plug in hybrids. So lets cut them a little slack and give them a little credit. Hybrids are not a trivial design job. Besides, the improvements they make on their hybrids will likely also spill over into the rest of their non-hybrid vehicles
Electric air conditioning is not normally done on an automobile because at 12 volts an efficient electric motor for a compressor would be very bulky and heavy.
Other great ideas becoming popular because of the hybrid design work are; electric assist power steering, streamlining, cylinder deactivation, low drag disk brakes, Iridium plugs, and rolling bearing rocker arms.
Because the high torque of an electric engine compliments the low torque of advanced cycle engines, the hybrid engine does actually get better mileage for the same power on the highway.
For what it's worth, I drive an Insight, a 1990s design that has averaged over 70 miles to the US gallon for three years now. I love it. :D
Posted by: Kip | Apr 12, 2006 1:25:21 AM
If they hadn't killed the EV1, would we be of the same opinion (about GM)?
Posted by: cs1992 | Apr 12, 2006 3:11:14 AM
"So, figure it out. Does GM care? NO! Fuck NO! Those here who wish to remain clueless about GM, GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY! GM IS GOING DOWN!! We don't need that monstrous corporation plotting destruction for power and profit."
Seriously, all of you GM-Haters out there are just oblivious. What major corporation do you think has your own best interests in mind? All this talk about GM "scoffing" at hybrids. How the hell does anyone know what GM's plans were? Perhaps they were being a little careful with their precarious financial position. Hybrids are NOT at huge money maker at this point. Should GM be judged by different standards than any other public company?
Has Daimler-Chrysler done more? BMW? Nissan? Those of you who think Toyota is getting into hybrids out of the kindness of their hearts are kidding themselves. They are capitalizing on a growing fear of fuel shortages.
GM is an important part of the American economy, as well as our culture. GM is tring to turn it around, and it's not going to happen overnight. They take a step in the right direction like this, and everyone that has some bitterness towards GM comes out of the woodwork.
Hoping GM goes out of business? Real smart. We'll all be riding Chinese-made bicycles to work.
Posted by: Angelo | Apr 12, 2006 3:47:23 AM
>http://ev1-club.power.net/archive/nimhtest/nimhtest.htm
So what was wrong with this car? With the advent of
nano tech LiIon this seems like the car for me even back in 1999 with Nimh batteries.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 12, 2006 4:13:39 AM
This website is full of idiots.
Do people realy believe that GM=bad and Toyota=good?
Do they not realise that Toyota also makes gass guzzling SUVs and trucks?
Do they not realise that Toyota only started off the hybrid thing after basicaly being told to buy the Japanese government?
Do they realy think that Toyota puts saving the planet anywhere near maximising profit on their list of priorities?
Why can't they see it as a good think that GM is bringing out a car that gets better fuel economy?
Posted by: James | Apr 12, 2006 4:13:48 AM
Gm is in trouble and slow on hybrids. Ok
GM is not the antichrist. GM is not the only car company late on hybrids. What about Chrysler? Mercedes? Mazda? Nissan? Two of those companies have actually stated publicly they are anti-hybrid.
GM makes a few market leading cars that if I was buying in that segment it would be a no brainer...
The Pontiac Solstice - A great small speeder
The Chevrolet Colorado - Basically the only choice in a small pickup knowing that even Toyota has upsised thier offerings and the Ford Ranger is a 20 year old design.
Saturn Vue - Best mpg in non hybrid suv and soon to have hybrid option with best suv mpg
By just 2007 I think GM will surpass Ford and be #3 in hybrids. Ahead of Chrysler, Mercedes, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, BWM etc etc
Posted by: hampden wireless | Apr 12, 2006 6:45:54 AM
It will all come down to market forces, primarily as a result of the lack of government leadership.
We will have the blowhard with tiny peters buying Hummers, and other such trash, and others who are wiling to pay any price to save a few mpg.
Then the treehuggers will totally convert to China made bicycles.
As for me - I'm in the market for a modern Horse and Buggy.
Posted by: Lucas | Apr 12, 2006 7:07:32 AM
The hybrid tax credit is a huge government signal about which direction is needed.
They would not be giving $3K credits indirectly to Japan if things were not serious.
Posted by: odograph | Apr 12, 2006 7:54:57 AM
Once again, GM is NOT building hybrids. GM is keeping its product line obsolete in order to protect future sales and profits. This action delays progress toward fuel efficiency, emission reduction and vehicular safety. GM, other automobile-related or dependent industries and financial institutions have built a transportation monopoly, whereby no other means of travel may function and no local economy may survive globalization.
GM is conducting an American Revolution bent on destroying America. We have the right to spit on GM's corporate executives and call them what they are: traitors!
Posted by: Wells | Apr 12, 2006 10:34:02 AM
GM's corporate executives - TRAITORS!
PATOO!
Posted by: Lucas | Apr 12, 2006 10:45:01 AM
Never argue with a fool ... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It is so much fun to see the hippies whine and get shotdown by thouse that know better.
What a great site.
What would be the point of a vheicle that produced zero emmissions if it cost 10 billion?
Last I heard a PEM fuel cell powerful enough to run a car would cost $20,000 and have a useful life of 500 hrs. Considering a normal IC engine can be had for unker 2K and has an expected service life of 5000 hrs ... it is little wonder why that is the route most take.
The people that are going to be hurt the most by rising fuel prices are the ones least able to go out and buy a new car.
Making improvements to vehicles that don't add to the cost is a good move. They may not even increase the price as now you don't have to have a starter and an alternator.
To thouse bashing GM or any other company.
You are just mad because GM is still doing more to "save the earth" than you are.
Posted by: non hippy | Apr 12, 2006 12:16:50 PM
Interesting how my 1999 Saturn SL1 still gets 41 mpg on the highway! It's been a continuous slow slide in fuel economy for Saturn ever since the 2001 model year across their entire fleet. It's become a little ritual for me to write Saturn nasty emails once every few months to inform them of this shameful fact. Until John Q. Public decides that 0-60 mph times and raw horsepower are not important, I doubt any US automaker is going to seriously pursue creating an efficient, lightweight and sensible vehicle. I personally would LOVE a small 50 horsepower sedan that gets 100 mpg.
Posted by: Tim | Apr 12, 2006 2:58:03 PM
LOL
James, if you had to spend your own money what would you drive. A toyota or a GM? Nuff said.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 12, 2006 4:55:03 PM
I'm no hippy. And I'm not as foolish as "non-hippy", who would save a penny and lose a dollar. The cost of progress will not be cheap. Those who believe otherwise, like 'non-hippy', (does describing oneself as a 'non-hippy' presume the alternate moniker of 'redneck'), have been led astray by bigotrous propaganda.
And how about the latest Chrysler commercials? Those who don't drive a Chrysler must be a sissy, non-hippies non-grudgingly submit. Do as you're told, non-hippy. Follow the rules commanded on TV.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 12, 2006 7:04:12 PM
if GM gets this saturn Aura right. it can be a true hypermiler's car. I just hope you can regen while the engine is off, otherwise I have no hope in this thing!
Posted by: philmcneal | Apr 13, 2006 1:42:20 AM
Why am I mad at GM? Because of their managements shear stupidity. The VP of R&D laughed at hybrid calling it a waste and now they have metal rusting on car lots and have to lay middle class people off. Then you hear GM crying to the American people that they dont know how they will come up with enough MONEY to pay what they promised in benifits. SHOCKING..
Their management makes mistakes and they want to be able to break the law or have me pay for them. Its no different than Chrysler and Ford. Stupid is as Stupid does.
GM has great engineers and manufacturing but they dont let it loose. You think they cant make a EV1 with Li Ion today?? They just dont want too.
Fat over stuffed CEO's like to control the market. I think of GM's board as a fat pig ready to take decent hard working people with them.
Toyota cant build enough Prius and is moving forward making them better ALL the time though the current trial and error. GM?
Gee wonder why when Gas is at about 3.00 a gallon SUV's are not selling. A few months ago Bob Lutz was saying how everyone was worng the SUV is great for GM..
I am mad at GM because I want them to suceede because they have great people working there. Instead what is obvious to a consumer like me they are being led into failure. There goes another bunch of good paying jobs from shear arogance and stupidity.
Bob
Posted by: Robert | Apr 13, 2006 4:15:06 AM
I have been hammering GM for six months so far to allow us to set up Middle Atlantic dealerships for their Vauxhall and/or Opel cars again. NO RESPONSE! They prefer their corporate deathwish -- to crash & burn GM -- rather than allowing us to import & sell the Opel Astra hybrid diesel (70+ MPG) and the Vauxhall pure diesel (64.2MPG -- probably the same power train minus the electric components). Any one with connections to a GM executive desiring to salvage that once-great company please forward his email or phone # to us at hac@exectech-va.com.
Posted by: Hugh | Apr 13, 2006 12:06:33 PM
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003301.html
Quote below from above url
The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid provide a savings of about $400 and $300, respectively, when compared with their all-gas counterparts - as long as federal tax credits apply. But extra ownership costs during the first five years and 75,000 miles for the other four hybrids ranged from an estimated $1,900 to $5,500, compared to similar all-gas models.
Previously, Consumer Reports had reported that its analysis showed that none of the six hybrids it had tested recovered its price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership.
The error does not affect the main message of the story, which is that most hybrids do not save their owners money in the first few years, and that the benefits and costs of hybrids vary significantly, depending on the model. Because of the wide range of hybrid vehicles available, it's especially important for consumers to look carefully at all aspects of a vehicle before buying.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/06/toyota_no_finan.html
Kazuo Okamoto head of research and development at Toyota
“When you just use the argument of fuel efficiency, the purchase of a hybrid car is not justified. But this car has other interests, for instance environmental protection.”
Posted by: rj | Apr 13, 2006 12:09:44 PM
toyota can't build the present prius fast enough, from that you would conclude that people are happy with it. but look at what toyota do, they are now working on an even better car 90mpg, GM had a car that people loved and was in demand(EV1) and instead of looking at ways to make it even bettey they killed it i have a prius now and will def buy the new one in 2008 i will never buy GM again the next oil shock is not far away Bush will have to attack iran, oil will then cost 150$+ when that happens bye bye GM i will laugh my ass off
Posted by: anti gravity | Apr 13, 2006 12:18:15 PM
You wrote:
The error does not affect the main message of the story, which is that most hybrids do not save their owners money in the first few years...
--------
Well actually it does. The Honda Civic and Prius hybrids ARE the majority and therefore the majority of hybrid owners ARE saving.
Posted by: Hampden Wireless | Apr 13, 2006 6:10:21 PM
Please read again carefuly.
"...$400 and $300, respectively, when compared with their all-gas counterparts -
as long as federal tax credits apply."
That 2nd part is killer.
Hybrids need high gas prices to ofset the higher purchase price and maintainence costs ie the $2000+ battery.
That is more than the price of a gasoline engine, which has a much longer life expectancey than a battery not to mention an engine can be rebuilt several times, where a battery must be replaced.
For example the civic hybrid uses 132 D size 5.5Ah cells
$19 each $9.71 if you buy 4800+
http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=46994&Row=483365&Site=US
I'm not making this up.
For a hybrid to make echonomic sense the price premium is going to have to come down (what this GM system does) and/or the improvement in MPG must go up.
I would like to see car manufactures publish BSFC curves for their engines so consumers could compair how efficent an engine. MPG is NOT the same thing as two vehicles will not have the same mass, rolling resistance, drag etc.
Posted by: rj | Apr 14, 2006 7:22:30 AM
I bought a hybrid used with warranty for $10k; gas prices in my area stay over $2.50, and wll be well over $3/gal this summer. I get 60mpg city and 73mpg highway typically.
My maintinance cost is lower due to longer brake pad life, sparkplug life and higher change interval of the synthetic oil in the car.
Many people I've talked to paid $15k or less for the same car band new... at least this hybrid makes total economic sense... especially when you drive 30,000mi/year like I do. Barring an accident, by the time this car has outlived it's usefulness it will have saved me enough money to pay for it's own cost.
The battery pack isn't $2000, its $800-$900. Also, these battery cost estimates assume that the battery packs will wear out in short order, Insights have been on US roads for 6 years now, they very seldom have had any battery pack problems. Even many with over 300,000 miles So that assumption is flawed. Several people have had to rebuild/replace the ICE and NOT the battery pack or electric motor components.
The Insight is definately economically viable(especially used) I can't speak for the Prius.
This Aura is a great step. ANYTHING that imrpoves gas milage by 20% is welcome in my book, especially if it's inexspensive.
Posted by: Ash | Apr 14, 2006 8:41:49 AM
The $2000 price estimate was based on the price of buying the cells online and rebuilding the pack yourself. Hence the link to digikey
A quick search returns the following.
http://hybridcars.about.com/od/hybridcarfaq/f/batterycost.htm
"To purchase a brand new hybrid battery from a dealer, the price for a Honda Insight Hybrid battery is around $3600.
In November of 2005, when asked about the price of a new Prius battery, Toyota spokeswoman Mona Richard said, "The service parts price for a new battery is $3000, but we have not had to sell a battery yet." "
They do not mention which prius.
Posted by: rj | Apr 14, 2006 10:36:26 AM
In the end the article says the Civic and Prius owners DO save $. You cannot ignore the federal tax credit just because you dont like it. Most people can get it.
Second ever hear of Ebay?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2004-Toyota-Prius-Hybrid-High-Voltage-Battery_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33574QQitemZ8054637962QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Toyota-Prius-Hybrid-Battery-pack-assembly-G9280-47050_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33574QQitemZ8040854961QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWD1V
Scrappers have been supplying more batteries then the # of batteries that have died.
The cost is $1000 on average, yes you can find them for more but a quick search of ebay COMPLETED listings shows a quite low price.
Finally when this batteries die in reality most of the cells are good. Enterprising companies will probobly start rebuilding them by testing cell strings and replacing the bad cells.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Apr 14, 2006 6:06:05 PM
GM has the potential to creat very efficient cars. Look at the technology behind the EV1; California forced them to make an efficient electric car. When they put them on the market, People loved them so much that they protested when GM took them back and DESTROYED THEM. Can you belive that?! I think-- just my opinion, but I think they made an electric car that was to good that they had to destroy them befor Lithium Ion batteries or newer tech batteries commining out would break the 300 mile range and create a love for electric cars amoung the population. Just think, no gasoline. That sure would piss off the OIL COMPANIES. So in saying that, I think GM has had a long standing relationship with the Oil companies. In the end, this may be GM's demise, IF they don't get their ACT together.
Posted by: Chem | Apr 16, 2006 4:20:54 PM
http://www.hybridcars.com/tax-deductions-credits.html
text below from url above
Again, these are estimates. We will need to wait for official announcements from the I.R.S. to determine exact hybrid tax credit amounts. The basic rules:
* Purchase and take delivery of a qualifying vehicle on or after Jan. 1, 2006.
* Purchase the vehicle new, not used.
* Purchase the vehicle with the intention of using it, not re-selling it.
These rules are relatively straight-forward. But there's more that's a bit foggy:
* The new tax credit sets a limit of 60,000 hybrids per carmaker. After hitting that mark (apparently based on the quantity of hybrid vehicles manufactured and delivered to dealerships, rather than hybrids actually sold), the credits for those hybrids will phase out over a 15-month period. Exactly when those limits are hit, and the resulting amounts of the credits during the phase-out period, is unclear. According to Toyota, "the reductions may begin to apply as early as deliveries after either June 30, 2006 or September 30, 2006." The reductions may begin to apply for Honda hybrids later in 2006 or early 2007.
Tax credits are only temporary and only apply to new vehicles.
These tax credits exist to spur development of hybrids which would otherwise not be cost effictive.
Hybrids are still a developing technology.
Electric cars.
we had electric cars 100 yrs ago but they suffered from the same limitations that electric cars do today.
Battery tech has gotten better but still does not match the energy density and ease of refuling as gasoline.
(this is why we have hybrids not electric cars)
2) we do not have the electric generating capacity to switch over to electric cars tomorrow.
No we can't charge all our cars off solar, wind, and hydro ... such sources are renewable but not unlimited.
If they were unlimited we would not be running coal plants.
Posted by: rj | Apr 17, 2006 8:18:27 AM
Quote below from above url
The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid provide a savings of about $400 and $300, respectively, when compared with their all-gas counterparts - as long as federal tax credits apply. But extra ownership costs during the first five years and 75,000 miles for the other four hybrids ranged from an estimated $1,900 to $5,500, compared to similar all-gas models.
Previously, Consumer Reports had reported that its analysis showed that none of the six hybrids it had tested recovered its price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership.
The error does not affect the main message of the story, which is that most hybrids do not save their owners money in the first few years, and that the benefits and costs of hybrids vary significantly, depending on the model. Because of the wide range of hybrid vehicles available, it's especially important for consumers to look carefully at all aspects of a vehicle before buying.
this is so flawed i can't believe it.
what are these savings? over the life of the vehicle? who are you kidding?
let's go over this again, and slowly: the prius has no all-gas counterpart. none. never did. never will.
we have gone over this price difference before.
most interesting is this "extra ownership costs during the first five years and 75,000 miles for the other four hybrids ranged from an estimated $1,900 to $5,500, compared to similar all-gas models."
what?
where are they getting these numbers? what the hell are they talking about? if anything, the prius has been our most low-maintenance car ever.
lastly, remember that the savings are dependent not so much on the tax breaks (which, to be honest, i still don't see why people go so crazy about), but on the price of gas. we keep talking about $5/gallon, etc, and that's actually not that crazy. in LA we've already got prices of $3/gallon. In the past year, it's probably gone up nearly a dollar. and as these prices go up, those driving hybrids won't really notice it that much, because, well, we won't be using it that much.
i am completely sick and tired of this argument, i really am.
regular civic - 30/40 - $19260 (auto trans)
hybrid - 49/51 - $22150 (CVT)
let's take the highway numbers so that the gas version has an advantage.
and let's say we drive 12k miles/year (conservative). regular civic uses 400 gallons = $1200, assuming prices stay flat, which they won't. hybrid uses 244 gallons = $734. that's a difference of $465 in a year, assuming non-rising prices. initial vehicle cost difference was $2890. By the end of the 6th year (or after precisely 74,580.645161291 miles), you will have covered the "difference" in cost. oh wait, you forgot to add in the difference in emissions that you have made for every asthmatic person in your commute, as well as the decreased maintenance costs of owning a hybrid. don't forget that i assumed highway-only driving, which is the case for ... no one.
sorry consumer reports, but you've just been owned.
Posted by: lensovet | Apr 18, 2006 10:30:31 PM
Edmunds "true cost to own" estimated values.
YMMV
I looked into getting a jetta tdi but the high maintence costs offset the gains in MPG.
Don't shoot the messenger.
focus $.39/mi
neon $.36
cavalier $.37
tj $.48
prius $.43
jetta tdi $.45
civic $.40
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/ford/focus/100402042/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/honda/civic/100474709/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/chevrolet/cavalier/100393212/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/volkswagen/jetta/100477735/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/toyota/prius/100454051/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/dodge/neon/100454730/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/jeep/wrangler/100460934/cto.html
Posted by: rj | Apr 20, 2006 11:49:23 AM
oh tough, i just realized that i used the city figures for my calculations...;)
well then let's redo, the gas civic will use 300 gallons = $900; hybrid uses 230 gal = $700. so the savings are actually just $200/year, and it will take twice as long for you to recover the cost. well, no one drives exclusively on the highway and we all know that.
maybe, consumer reports has something. but regardless, to consider the purchase of a hybrid vehicle to be just a monetary savings is ridiculous. the difference in emissions cannot be understated.
Posted by: lensovet | Apr 21, 2006 12:49:09 AM
There is noting wrong with buying a car just to be green.
Keep in mind not every one has the income to do so.
This does not make them evil people, no one I have ever met wants to destroy the environment or wants more pollution. All things being equal if you give folks the option they would choose the more environmentally responsible choice ... unless it is too much work, or costs too much more.
If on the other hand the choice is I can get a new car that has lower emissions or I can feed my kids ... then it isn't really a choice.
"...to consider the purchase of a hybrid vehicle to be just a monetary savings is ridiculous."
I disagree, money talks and for many people it is not a choice between buying a hybrid or buying a big screen tv, it is about basic living expenses.
There are a number of prerequisites that must be met before people will buy a vehicle.
1) can they afford it?
2) does it fit their needs?
Other things are secondary.
Do you think the guy in the wheel chair drives a full size conversion van because he likes getting 12 mpg? What option does he have? Can't bike, can't use public transportation...
Do you think folks in the Midwest have 4x4's to look cool?
The world may shutdown in Florida or CA for 1/8" of snow but places that actually have winter do not have the luxury wimp at the 1st sign of things being other than perfect.
The GM mini hybrid start stop system can be applied to a wide range of vehicles that could satisfy 1 and 2 above where current hybrids may fail.
And yet people bitch if hybrid technology is applied to anything other than a civic or vespa.
They seem to have the attitude that only people driving small cars should be allowed to save gas.
There is nothing to stop folks from building their own fuel cell vehicle and running off hydrogen generated by their own wind / solar set up ... how many could afford to do so?
"..the difference in emissions cannot be understated."
Likewise you could purchase emission credits to take NOx, S, or other pollutants off the market, depending on market prices this could provide more emissions reduction per $ than buying a hybrid.
How many people do this?
http://www.evomarkets.com/ghg/
"..so the savings are actually just $200/year, and it will take twice as long for you to recover the cost."
About 150k / 13 yrs then to break even at 2 times math above, that could be near the end of the useful life of the vehicle ... the time more so than the miles ... depending on driving style maintenance etc.
which was my point to start with.
That is not to say that there is not situation where a hybrid can pay off $ wise.
Hybrids are a developing technology and the benefits are obvious but they will have to improve and reduce costs if they are to be accepted.
This is no different that the change over from carburetors to fuel injection, in the 80's
though fuel injection is "better" some of the early systems were poorly implemented.
Posted by: rj | Apr 21, 2006 6:41:22 AM
"the difference in emissions cannot be understated."
"oh wait, you forgot to add in the difference in emissions that you have made for every asthmatic person in your commute"
That's great. Now we just need to figure out a way to get every asthmatic person to cut me a check for driving a hybrid. Until then, I don't see how you can consider this a benefit of owning a hybrid
Posted by: ja | Apr 29, 2006 10:28:36 AM
At what cruising speed does the electric motor functions. We're looking at purchasing some hybrid SUVs, but the speed limit on the job site is 25 mph.
Posted by: Trevor | May 3, 2006 7:06:45 AM
Basicaly people are saying this:
Toyota makes the Prius, and loses money on every one of them, so GM should too. GM should have kept building the EV1, even though it cost about $80,000 to build each one (R&D included)
Maybe GM should have kept building them, but charged the true cost of the car to show the world that enviros only want EV1's and Prius's if someone else will foot the bill for the actualy cost of the car.
Show of hands, who would have bought an EV1 for $80,000?
Posted by: The other Bob | Jun 26, 2006 2:05:47 PM
To answer Tevor's question.
The only hybrids that run on electric only are the Ford Escape and this generation Prius. Even the newest Civic can only run electric-only for a second or two and in the right conditions.
The Escape would seem to fit the bill for your work, but there is a catch. Even if you keep below the gas engine kick-in speed, and accelerate slow enough to keep it off, the gas engine will stil come on once your battery drops. In other words, the high city mileage numbers are misleading in hybrids because you need enough cruising time at higher speed to recharge the batteries for the time when you return to the city.
If there is an Escape Hybrid owner here, they may be able to pin down the speed for you.
Posted by: The other Bob | Jun 26, 2006 2:13:54 PM
syfovr rnwcyjqhl jmcwidyfk pzbhut stwiekdr drlsichw uswtbmyzf
Posted by: uibnld nslir | Mar 17, 2008 2:30:22 AM
