andrey: I seam to remember a similar number ... it's sooo embarasing. Some provinces do have a large percentage of rednecks.

Whats with all these political rants, and what do they have to do with Chevy's offer of letting us vote for a prefered vehicle?????? Back on topic please!!

Whether you believe or dont believe Chevy will take your vote into consideration is your opinion, and yours alone. Keep it simple. Something will happen, and it might be good. The bottom line is each and every one of us can vote with our wallets when the time comes. Obviously Chevy, and GM, must be winning a few votes somewhere as they returned to the black last year, and are expected to again this year. Lets see what this is all about!

Wells:
Did a big, bad GM SUV tease you as a child, or where does this loathing come from? I guess your point is: GM all bad, other automakers all good. I don't think we live in a black and white world. To address your first paragraph: If you are accusing GM of heavily pursuing sales of gas guzzlers, well, that is no different than any other automaker in my eyes. Even Toyota, everyone's green poster child, loves to sell lots of big Tundras, Sequoias, Land Cruisers, and 4 Runners. Now you'll say: But they gave us the wonderful Prius. To which I will say, "Yes, but what vehicle are they pushing the most and spending millions of dollars to advertise? Not the little Prius...It's the Massive Tundra! I like Toyota and their products, but I have to say, you have to take the rose colored glasses off, because they are no different.

Referring to the last part, I've said before on this site that I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. I suppose they make for interesting fiction, but I don't spend my time on them.

Mark:
Good post, and thanks for pointing out the political detour this thread has taken. I appreciate that you mentioned the bottom line as well, in that people vote with their wallets--so true by the way.

A number of posters have sighted their opinions that GM is only a gas guzzler company. Well, in this article, they are revealing proposals for small fuel efficient vehicles--and we still get the posts that GM is big, and bad, and hates humanity, and probably kicks puppies on their way to work, etc. I guess if you need someone or something to blame for all the ills of the world, a company like GM is good enough. I mean, they are big, therefore, they have to be bad, right?

As for me, I find it hard to be critical and cynical in regards to GM when I see they are genuinely trying to do good. I see evidence of that in this car, the Chevy Volt concept, the Saturn hybrids, the 2-mode hybrid systems they are coming out with, the fuel cell vehicles they are working on, the cylinder deactivation features on their pick-up truck engines, numerous vehicles in their regular fleet that see 30 mpg ratings or better, and all of the E85 capable vehicles they offer. Yes, there's room to be even better, but they definitely are making a lot of the right choices these days as found in the evidence I listed above. Let's criticize where criticism is due, and give credit where credit is due.

The only car we all really need is the one we don't have to drive. The car which most leads toward that end is the electric motor driven via storage battery (augmented with an internal combustion engine) that can be plugged into household utility. All cars and trucks that do not conform to this ideal are obsolete.

Schmeltzy. You completely missed my point, but I won't waste my time trying to further explain the sad truth to you. Don't put words in my mouth. You either misunderstand or purposefully distort what I'm saying about GM, one of the most nefariously criminal corporations. All automobile manufacturers have conspired, consciously or otherwise, to create a transportation monopoly.

The vote idea is good marketing. It is another indicator of preference. But marketing types need to be much more skeptical of the results that they get and how they are interpreted. Lots of people loved the Volt, but how many actually buy something like it when a variation comes to market remains to be seen. The difference between a concept and production car can be vast. The potential customer saying that they have an "interest" in something and then actually buying it can be a vast difference also.

I'm waiting for the Chevy VOLT - that is , without doubt, the smartest design anyone has come up with, since there isn't yet available a practical battery
that could power an electric and no infrastructure exists for recharging on the road. The great thing about the VOLT is that it is eminently flexible - should biodiesel come to market, it has an optional recharging motor that can handle that, or one for gasoline, or E85 ethanol. Or, should practical batteries become available, it can easily be transformed into a battery powered all-electric, complete with a backup range extender should you travel beyond the limits of recharging stations. This design
is what one could call inspired practical flexibility.
Regardless of which fuel source wins, the car can handle it with only minor changes required. That's because the operation of the vehicle's systems has become independent of the power source provider. In computer programming history, this is equivalent to their concept of modular design technology : build system components so that a change in one doesn't require changes in all the other components. The VOLT
profits greatly by following this design model. The VOLT WILL BE my next car. I estimate its ability to reduce crude oil usage to be over 90% as effective as an all electric fleet.

I agree that the GM EFlex idea has merit. You generate electricity with the most efficient prime move mode of operation. You could use a rotary engine, if that proved more efficient. It occurred to me that the Volt is an on/off design. The engine runs were it can run most efficiently and come on and off depending on the state of charge for the batteries. If the engine comes on for 10 minutes every 20 minutes while cruising at 70 mpg, then so be it. That requires batteries that can take that kind of charge/discharge profile. The newest designs indicate that they might be able to handle this, we will see.

Unfortunately they ask you to make a choice entirely based on style, without telling you any of the technical merits. Such as what the coefficient of drag is for each model (makes a lot of difference at minicar scale). Same as how they sell (promote) their cars. This is why they don't engineer for environmental and hidden-cost factors very well overall. They don't communicate with the customer base on such stuff. Once you've pegged yourself as a company that doesn't stack up very well, you don't want to talk about it very much; then you're stuck in a rut.

Huge points for effort. And that they are all three interesting and oddly appealing scores a triple Yahtzee. Much better than the Aveo...let's see what the other two are like... Though I already know its fancy names such as Trax, Beat, and Groove... I also heard that this three has great cute GM headers that free its engine from exhaust gases and make it breathe better that improved this minis performances and at the same time helping the environment minimize pollution... Green cars indeed!!!