backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by Nfarce.. on Nov 16 at 11:40 PM

Buick to launch its next generation BAS hybrid system

It's no doubt impressive when today's compact sedans -- which are loaded down with hundreds of pounds of safety gear and chassis reinforcements not found on vehicles from decades past -- top the 40 mpg mark. However, it's even more impressive when midsize sedans approach that mark as well.

You know about the compact 2011 Chevrolet Cruze and 2011 Hyundai Elantra which can hit 40+ mpg on the highway. Hyundai's 2011 Sonata midsize sedan can achieve 35 mpg on the highway in its base configuration. GM is now flaunting its 2012 LaCrosse which will come standard with eAssist technology (which will provide up to 37 mpg on the highway) and will be priced at roughly $30,000.

“It’s a very integrated powertrain system, with no compromises in driving performance, shift quality or ride and handling,” said Daryl Wilson, LaCrosse lead development engineer. “We believe this combination points to the future of vehicles powered primarily by an internal combustion engine.”

The LaCrosse will be powered by a traditional 2.4-liter direct injection four-cylinder engine which generates 180 hp. The engine is mated to a 6-speed automatic transmission. However, GM also includes its next generation "mild hybrid" system which it calls eAssist. On the LaCrosse, the eAssist electric motor provides an additional 15 hp and 79 pound-feet of torque during acceleration. Other features to improve fuel economy include an engine start/stop function and regenerative braking.

A 115V lithium-ion battery mounted in the trunk powers the electric motor, but it encroaches on cargo-hauling capabilities. Maximum cargo capacity drops from an already lackluster 13.3 cu ft to just 10.9 cu ft.

However, the benefits in fuel economy are huge. EPA ratings jump from 19/30 mpg (city/highway) to an impressive 25/37 mpg. The city rating falls short of Lincoln's MKZ Hybrid which pulls in an impressive 41 mpg, but that vehicle is priced higher at $35,180.

“The eAssist system is more than just the next-generation BAS system. The ability to integrate regenerative braking with the latest lithium-ion battery technology creates a system that delivers significant fuel-efficiency gains that customers will enjoy,” said Steve Poulos, global chief engineer of the eAssist system. “Being able to provide electric boost to the powertrain system during heavy acceleration and grade driving enables the LaCrosse transmission to operate more efficiently, while the added functionality of engine start-stop and fuel shut-off during deceleration provides added fuel savings.” 

Official pricing and availability of the Buick LaCrosse with eAssist should be available closer to its launch later next year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

But it's a GM....
By torpor on 11/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/15/2010 12:38:36 PM , Rating: 5
If Gm represents everything wrong with business today, then you must be blind to all of the corporate crooks in this country. Other companies are outsourcing everything to other countries, hiding funds in offshore accounts, paying CEOs outrageous sums of money, while being given government incentives to do so. If GM is the worst that you can think of, you need to think a little harder.

I get so sick of evey damn story on DT being turned into a politcal discussion bashing American companies and workers.


RE: But it's a GM....
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 12:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
1) Many "foreign" cars are more domestically built than "domestics". So the outsourcing argument is out.

2) GM has business units in other parts of the world whose profits are not "brought home".

3) GM's CEO is also paid an "outrageous" sum of money.

At least these other companies you speak of for the most part aren't government and union owned. The very things that cause many of GMs problems to begin with.

Companies are doing many of those things though precisely because of politics. Why pay taxes on money here when they don't have to? Why pay more for labor here when there's an ample supply elsewhere. Until our politicians get it in their head that punishing businesses for doing business harms business and results in lower tax revenues, things will continue to get worse.

Here's to our hopefully more sane next Congress.


RE: But it's a GM....
By jaydee on 11/15/2010 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 3
Toyota, Honda, etc may be assembling some vehicles in the US, their percentage of parts that are American content tells a different story. Like the new Hyundai Elantra "assembled in the US" has a whopping 3% US/Canadian content.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 3
You need to see this 2009 link which breaks down the foreign vehicles made in each state and % of parts that are North American made (US-Canada). Spot checking the site I don't see a single one under 50% other than BMW (30%) and most average around 65% US-Canadian content. Compare that with, say, the Corvette which is 70% or the Jeep Wrangler which is 56%. We need to look in our own backyards before flinging around percentages of foreign cars.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/is-your-car-a...


RE: But it's a GM....
By rvd2008 on 11/15/2010 4:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why "US- Canadian " content I wonder? Where is US only which is what relevant to this discussion? Jobs going either to China or Canada are the same to me - they are lost.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 4:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
Good question actually. The US and Canada have had tight partnerships in the automotive industry for decades. It's nothing new. The US automotive industry has referenced "North America" produced and included Canada as long as I can remember.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/80...

In any event, I'd rather be in a partnership wit Canada over China or Mexico any day.


RE: But it's a GM....
By knutjb on 11/15/2010 10:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Have you read the Act itself? What constitutes a domestic part is clear as mud. The labeling act is quite easy for the manufacturers to manipulate, its pathetic at best.

As to Canada and the US they have been cooperating on cars for almost a hundred years.

As to GM they appear to be a yes man for the the current administration and that is enough of a standard for me to say they jump on command when told to do so. Appearances of an act, regardless of the facts, is enough to get military members punished. Congress wrote that law BTW. So that is where I get my standard.

To mix Government and private sector like that leads to all kinds of wonderful, unaccountable to the people, organizations like Fanny, Freddy, Amtrak... What a great track record. Look back in history at any Gov/Private business marriages and see all the wonderful outcomes.


RE: But it's a GM....
By rvd2008 on 11/15/2010 4:14:57 PM , Rating: 1
"Here's to our hopefully more sane next Congress."
---
Reinstating 2-4 year old hoard of GOPs will not make congress "more sane". People have short memories. They forgot what GOP stands for.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 7:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
Did you watch a different election than I did? From local to state to federal government, those that ran on GOP platforms (even if running on the back of the Tea Party movement) ran against an out of control government run by pure Democrat rule at the federal level.

Finally, there were a lot of women and minorities that won their elections as GOP members. Maybe you need to get out more?


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/15/2010 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Herein lies the problem with this country as it stands.

The fact that many foreign models are built here has nothing to do with the argument. I'm speaking of jobs being shipped overseas.

Also, in those other countries they actually tax their rich people, those employers then in turn, invest in their employees. I can't name other countries where the more money you make, the percentage you pay in taxes actually goes down.

I know GM CEOs make outrageous sums of money. I was not specific to any company. I think they're all paid too much, and that is passed on to consumers.

What is it with union bashing lately? Unions are an American institution and guarantees YOUR right to organize if you wish. It's part of the constitution so many of you claim to believe in. Do we really want Americans to be paid the same wages as foreign labor? You think the economy is in tough shape now, just wait till that happens.

You asked the question "Why pay taxes on money here when they don't have to?" I don't want to pay for war. I don't want to pay for many of the other things in this country that my money gets used for, but I have to do it. The difference is I'm not a corporation able to line the pockets of politcians to stack the deck.

I'm different with regard to labor. I guess I could never make it in business because though I know the goal is to make money....how much is enough? How much wealth does one person need to accumulate before it's enough that others cannot compete with him/her? FedEx recently showed profits double of what they made last year. What did they do? They cut jobs anyway. How much money is enough?

You've have republican-controlled congress before. Were they any more sane than the outgoing one?


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 7:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is it with union bashing lately? Unions are an American institution and guarantees YOUR right to organize if you wish. It's part of the constitution so many of you claim to believe in.


And yet so many union thugs try to bully their way into private enterprise and intimidate people into voting for union membership.

Sorry pal - I don't believe in bullying. And unions today do a LOT of bullying.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/15/2010 7:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? Prove your assertion that unions "do a lot of bullying of private enterprise", pal.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 9:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I knew you were going to come back and ask for proof, so here ya go pal!

My personal favorite is the old "card trick" ploy by unions where employees are intimidated to vote for union representation because they know their vote will be publicly exposed. Three examples of that:

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/...

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/0...

http://theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress.com/2009/04/1...


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 9:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
More:

Just one local Fort Wayne, Indiana example in private enterprise:

http://fortwaynepolitics.com/2008/11/questionable-...

One of my other personal favorite union thug groups, teachers unions:

http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/06/union-tactics-...

More:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-14/bay-area/188...

Give me some real time and I'll come up with a lot more examples of union thuggery and intimidation. Why does exposing this and talking of unions like this upset you so much?


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 2:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
NFarce, you've got to be kidding me. These working people protest in order to keep from being paid slave wages, and you call that "thuggish". From your own link:

They spied the group entering a building. Rushing in, they squeezed past the stunned financiers and marched around a meeting room chanting, "Dick Blum, you can't hide! We can see your greedy side!"

Blum, the company's chairman and a UC regent, is one of several high-profile university leaders to encounter the dramatic, in-your-face tactics of UC's lowest-paid workers.
That's the worst you have and what you call "thugs". LOL

So the lowest paid workers should take what they get, and STFU? Furthermore, they, at least, aren't trying to hide what they're doing. If you don't make noise, as poor people, you often don't get heard. they don't get the luxury of rubbing elbows with the higher ups to have their voices heard. Many peopl thought the same about the civil right movement, that those people should have just been queit and let time "work its magic". I have no problem whatsoever with their tactic, and nothing they did was thuggery or hidden. As a matter of fact, I couldn't find ANY instance of "thuggery" as you put it. And if you're going to point me to an article, don't point to one where the autors first sentence is I tend to be somewhat anti-union.

In my opinion, you've "exposed" nothing. These guys did everything in front of cameras, and didn't try to hide ANYTHING. What upsets me is the bashing of everything american while hypocritically claiming patriotism. Nothing you've posted rises to the level of "thugs". I thought I was going to read articles detailing baseball bat beating forcing people to join unions or the like. What you've posted is simply people shouting to have their voices heard.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/16/2010 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my opinion, you've "exposed" nothing. These guys did everything in front of cameras, and didn't try to hide ANYTHING.
He didn't mention anything about them hiding. His point is that some of these unions are thugs and he backed it up with proof.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 7:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
There was no proof.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/16/2010 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wow what a rant! You asked for proof of bullying and thuggery and intimidation, and I gave it to you.

Unions today are the anchor around America's neck. We aren't living in the 1920s anymore where people are paid pennies and risk their lives in dangerous jobs. We have federal laws these days that protect the workers.

If you b!tch about your wage at Wal Mart or wherever, then pack your bags and haul ass to a better job. If you don't have the skills to do get a better job, then get off your ass and spend time developing them instead of b!tching about how "unfair" life is. I'll bet you believe in income redistribution too. Is it "unfair" that I have a private pension retirement plan? Obama & Co. sure want to get their hands on it and redistribute it for "fairness."

Oh, and here's a physical beating by a thug union since you wanted one:

http://cbs13.com/local/hamidi.seiu.beating.2.12978...


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 7:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you b!tch about your wage at Wal Mart or wherever, then pack your bags and haul ass to a better job. If you don't have the skills to do get a better job, then get off your ass and spend time developing them instead of b!tching about how "unfair" life is. I'll bet you believe in income redistribution too. Is it "unfair" that I have a private pension retirement plan? Obama & Co. sure want to get their hands on it and redistribute it for "fairness."

Oh, and here's a physical beating by a thug union since you wanted one:

http://cbs13.com/local/hamidi.seiu.beating.2.12978...


Why the assumption that everyone who is unionized works at Walmart or is poor? That's clearly your elitist attitude taking over. Somehow, you have this weird idea that people who are not educated or have low-paying jobs have no right to speak up for themselves. Where does that come from? This whole me, me, me attitude is NOT what this country was founded upon.

Furthermore, if your "private pension retirement plan goes bust", don't look to help from anybody but yourself. Of course you'll claim that you don't need help from anyone else, but all of the people who claim to be so "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" say the same thing.

You want me to post tons of situations of private corporations taking advantage of non-unionized workers? There are many. You had to search for that bogus one you posted (I saw that one on Fox News too. Notice, no charges were ever filed against ANYONE and that guy Hamidi has quite a history. Not exactly the poster child for the victime of union thuggishness. LOL


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/16/2010 11:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Geeze Room, you want some more. Okay....

quote:
Why the assumption that everyone who is unionized works at Walmart or is poor? That's clearly your elitist attitude taking over.


Because unions have been after Wal Mart for YEARS. As for the second point, show me where I stated that Wal Mart employees are "poor." I worked low wage retail jobs for YEARS while in high school and college.

quote:
Somehow, you have this weird idea that people who are not educated or have low-paying jobs have no right to speak up for themselves.


On the contrary. My grandfather had nothing but a 6th grade education and wound up a successful businessman in the plumbing industry. He didn't b!tch about it and what he was dealt with in life.

quote:
This whole me, me, me attitude is NOT what this country was founded upon.


Actually you are wrong there. This nation WAS founded on ME ME ME - as in ME get the hell away from the Crown and chained freedom - at government control.

quote:
Furthermore, if your "private pension retirement plan goes bust", don't look to help from anybody but yourself.


The beauty (and fallacy) of American freedom is that we have CHOICES to make. I chose to work and better myself. People like you recoil like a snake as if it's a sin or something.

quote:
You want me to post tons of situations of private corporations taking advantage of non-unionized workers? There are many.


I know. I left several jobs in my career that were underpaid after I found a BETTER job. It's the American way. Maybe you like the Eastern European way better where everyone has the same amount of income. Well, you'll reap what you sow then.

quote:
You had to search for that bogus one you posted (I saw that one on Fox News too.


My link was a CBS affiliate link. See exhibit A and dude laid up in the hospital? Maybe you are confusing that with a Tea Party member who was allegedly beat up by some union goons.

Listen. It's apparent you aren't educated. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Some of the most productive and best people on this planet do not have college degrees. But sitting around whining about what life has dealt you, for whatever reason, is not going to man you up. Nor is blindly party voting for so-called caring politicians in Washington.

I'm done here Room. Good luck and man up, man. And I mean that.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 7:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, in those other countries they actually tax their rich people, those employers then in turn, invest in their employees. I can't name other countries where the more money you make, the percentage you pay in taxes actually goes down.

We don't tax rich people in the US? Also, since when do rich people pay less taxes? And who do they pay less than? Since the IRS keeps statistics on this, I'll be expecting a link from them supporting this assertion.

quote:
Unions are an American institution and guarantees YOUR right to organize if you wish. It's part of the constitution so many of you claim to believe in.
Which part of the US Constitution mentions unions?

quote:
I'm different with regard to labor. I guess I could never make it in business because though I know the goal is to make money....how much is enough? How much wealth does one person need to accumulate before it's enough that others cannot compete with him/her?
Publicly traded companies must make an earnest effort to turn a profit by law. Reason? They're using "our" money (investors). Privately owned companies can do as they wish. You can start a private business and do as you wish. If you want to just make enough to make ends meet, you are free to do so. That's your decision. Just don't ask for public investors, ever. That will subject you to a whole different set of rules. And, quite frankly, I agree with those rules.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/16/2010 2:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 7:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like I have a secret fan that goes and rates me down regardless of whether I'm wrong or right. How about you post why I'm wrong? There's people in here that do just that and I respect them for it. But I have no respect for the cowards. Continue your rate downs coward, I will simply repost what I said.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Reclaimer77 on 11/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 1:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Then you should say the same about the crooks in Washington in Congress: they lie to the American people, cook the books, fail to pay their own taxes (John Kerry, Tim Geithner, and "Mr. Ethics" himself Charlie Rangel for starters), and take over companies like GM in a psuedo "bail out" to turn over controlling power to fellow cronies in union special interests.

No, the federal government is the worst I can think of. If it were run like a US corporation, it would have been bankrupt long ago and just about every powerful person in Congress in jail. But nobody seems to have any problems with the federal government out of control spending, fraud, and waste.

It must just feel a hell of a lot better to whine about CEO and executive pay (as if its anyone's damn business - if you don't own stocks or bonds in the company, keep your mouth SHUT) than look at where trillions of our tax dollars are wasted in a bloated, inefficient, red tape, bureaucratic nightmare known as the federal government.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/15/2010 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
I would "keep my mouth shut" if those companies didn't receive tons of government handouts to keep businesses here only to outsource ANYWAY.

That outrageous CEO pay is then passed on YOU and myself in the form of higher costs. You wanna see how much of the CEO pay is none anyone's business? Just have one of those "well-run", too big to fail corporations starts to go belly up. They'll be the first in line to ask for a handout.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 7:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
And you don't think those outrageous UNION costs aren't passed on to us?

Finally, the Obama administration all but forced GM into the so-called bailout, which as I stated did nothing but hand power over to Obama union cronies.

Them's the facts whether you want to admit it or not.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have no problem whatsoever paying higher costs for the goods and services I want if it means paying people a decent, living wage, in THIS country.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 7:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just have one of those "well-run", too big to fail corporations starts to go belly up. They'll be the first in line to ask for a handout.
Stop voting for the status quo and there will be no hand outs. Status quo = Republitards and Democraps. When Obama was running for President, it cracked me the f#$k up when he mentioned eliminating the status quo. HE IS THE STATUS QUO!!!! LOL!


RE: But it's a GM....
By Reclaimer77 on 11/15/2010 8:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That outrageous CEO pay is then passed on YOU and myself in the form of higher costs. You wanna see how much of the CEO pay is none anyone's business?


Yeah I don't think you understand how business and CEO pay works at all. Nobody has ever paid "higher costs" because a CEO was paid "too much". Sorry things don't work that way.

There's often an air of mystery surrounding the head of a company, especially in a large corporation with thousands of employees. To some, the actual duties and responsibilities of a CEO may seem elusive. The truth is that a CEO is responsible for the entire business, from operations and financing to sales and marketing. Of course, other employees take on most of the tasks involved in actually running a business. But, if anything goes wrong within a company, the CEO will always take some heat.

Truth is CEO's have done more to keep costs down than otherwise. Why take all the risk if there is no reward? And no company is going to pay a CEO more than they can afford. Certainly not to the point that they would raise prices because of ONE MANS pay. Honestly, does that make sense to you? Out of all the factors out there that DIRECTLY impact consumer pricing, you pick CEO pay??

Years ago there was NEVER this vitriol about CEO pay. It's nobody's business. Then Obama and the Dummycrats came along and needed a scapegoat to cover up their economic failings. Ah ha!! After over a century of this thriving business model, we've figured it out, the CEO's are to blame!! BURN THEM!!!

I don't know what's worse, actually using that tactic or there being people stupid enough to go along with it.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 2:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, if anything goes wrong within a company, the CEO will always take some heat.


Really? guys like you always praise the business model that's "worked for decades" talking about how this wouldn't happen in business or that wouldn't happen. Then we see all these stories of people at the top making outrageous sums of money EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY IS LOSING MONEY.

From Fortune magazine: "Executive compensation was out of control to start with, and now it's way out of control," one boss admitted.

Said another: "The problem is, we're living in a world where .220 hitters make $10 million, so look at what you have to pay when you finally find a .300 hitter."

Added a third: "It's not an excuse to say, 'Hey, the board gave it to me.' CEOs should be responsible too. That's leadership!"


By the way. That quote is from 2006, before most of you had heard of Barack Obama.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 2:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
RE: But it's a GM....
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2010 2:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? guys like you always praise the business model that's "worked for decades" talking about how this wouldn't happen in business or that wouldn't happen.


And guys like you play the same class warfare games. I'm sorry there are people out there who get rich and you don't, even though they don't "deserve" it. But what's your point?

Don't you feel even a little embarrassed that you are THIS emotional about what someone else is making? How is it your business? And how would YOU feel if some CEO commented on your salary?

quote:
By the way. That quote is from 2006


Good for him. He has the right to an opinion, the same as anyone else. But it's only his opinion. If a company losing money gave a CEO "outrageous" sums of money, it was probably because they believed he could turn the company around. Or because they signed a contract when the times were good. Or because any number of reasons that's neither here nor there.

For every public story about CEO's and doomed companies, there are ten times as many unreported stories about CEO's making solid decisions and keeping their employers above water.

Enjoy living in your fantasy world where you can remove the incentive for doing something, and yet it still gets done.


RE: But it's a GM....
By room200 on 11/16/2010 7:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
And guys like you play the same class warfare games. I'm sorry there are people out there who get rich and you don't, even though they don't "deserve" it. But what's your point?

Actually, I live quite well, and I'm not a union member (thank you very much). I have no need to be "rich".

Don't you feel even a little embarrassed that you are THIS emotional about what someone else is making? How is it your business? And how would YOU feel if some CEO commented on your salary?

People comment on my salary all the time.

Enjoy living in your fantasy world where you can remove the incentive for doing something, and yet it still gets done.

You continue to walk around with this total me, me, me, selfish attitude. Unlike you, I pay my taxes and I'm happy to do so. You don't catch me whining like a little girl about it. I realize that this is a country that i love and I happily work to help my fellow American. Your posts are proof positive that greed and selfishness have taken over.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2010 9:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're too pretentious and judgmental to even discuss this with. What are you shoveling pal? Unless you're a social worker or a missionary or something, don't hand me this "working for others crap".

I've often found the people crying wolf about "greed", are usually those who are the most greedy.

quote:
Your posts are proof positive that greed and selfishness have taken over.


Lol how?? Because I'm defending another mans right to earn a living, the best living he can achieve? Something is wrong with that now?

You're scum, you know that? Anyone who thinks it's their place to hold another man down has bad Karma coming to him.


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/16/2010 3:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then we see all these stories of people at the top making outrageous sums of money EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY IS LOSING MONEY.
I think any company is stupid for agreeing to pay someone a bonus for not performing. The rest of us have to perform for our paychecks, why should the board ignore that when they hire a CEO? But they made that decision! Not much we can do about it except not invest in those companies or not buy their products/services. And since these are contracts, you can't break them (at least not without penalty).


RE: But it's a GM....
By Tabinium on 11/15/2010 1:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
I would hardly call going from 19/30 to 28/37 a "handful of MPGs". It's an increase of 47%/23%, or 9/7 for $30k. Those of us who are aware of the hybrid market know that this is a respectable improvement for a somewhat simple system.

I'm not going to bite on the other point you're attempting to make.


RE: But it's a GM....
By torpor on 11/15/2010 3:20:13 PM , Rating: 1
I would.

Think of it this way: do you recall the MPG number that was published for the Chevy Volt?

Do you think that number has anything to do with real fuel usage?

These cars are both great examples of engineering for the test. In reality, an electric booster like in the LaCrosse will have little effect on highway efficiency; that should be obvious by how they claim the electric motor will be used.

The Volt suffers the same problem: if going only by the federal MPG test, it seems incredible. Do you think the 40-mile range on the Volt is because GM did careful market research to find the appropriate range of the bell curve of commute distance, handed that data off to engineers, who then used it to create a best-possible tradeoff of cost and technical capability to come up with the system they created?

Or did they just study the test and find a way to blow the curve?

If real efficiency was the thing, GM would do a turbo diesel. Or a full-time electric motor with a dedicated generator, like trains have used for years in an industry obsessed with fuel efficiency. Or some other HOLISITC answer that addresses the question of efficency as a full statement, rather than some odd bolt-on.

In the end, there's a good reason that car commercials don't talk about Miles Per Gallon, but rather Em Pee Gees. So people like you think that 7 more of them is really, really good. It's just building to the test; also known as marketing-driven engineering.

And, for all the political BS in the replies to my original post above, this is what I think the biggest problem with American companies is today. They think marketing is enough to make up for uncompetetive, marketing-feature-list driven products. All other problems stem from this one, because truly great products will make up for a lot of organizational failures. But the self-deception required to pull this sort of nonsense will create more problems than the biggest bailout can cure.

I will say that the posters' assumptions on my problems with GM are a great view into their own personal issues with industry....


RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 4:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So people like you think that 7 more of them is really, really good.
I average 27 mpg. I put an average of 11.8 gallons on each fill. That's a range of 318.6 miles. If I got 7 more mpg, that would put me at 34 mpg and 401.2 miles. That's an extra two days without filling at the same price point on commutes. Pretty significant to me.


RE: But it's a GM....
By torpor on 11/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: But it's a GM....
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 5:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are exactly the person I called out with the phrase "Em Pee Gee". Thank you for so clearly proving my point.
I'm not familiar at all with the "MPG" test. I only know mpg in the popular use. Where exactly am I being fooled again? If a carmaker advertises 7 more mpg. How is that NOT 7 more mpg? And if I get 7 more mpg, how is that not better? There's no slight of hand here. 7 more mpg is 7 more mpg. My car is rated 19/28 from the EPA. I average 27. 28 is not difficult to do. 29 is not difficult. I've gotten 33 mpg but that takes some effort. If I got 7 more as I said before, that would be better.

Instead of sitting on the elitist mountain with what you know, clue us in. Otherwise, what you know is irrelevant because it serves no purpose other than to overinflate your ego.


RE: But it's a GM....
By torpor on 11/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: But it's a GM....
By theapparition on 11/15/2010 6:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
That tinfoil hat on securely?

The manufacturers don't have to spy. The EPA divulges the conditions of the test directly to them. They use that data to optimize thier designs.

Well whooptie-frickn-doo.

You have your panties in a bunch over this? Get a life and worry about more signifigant problems.

While not perfect, would you prefer the wild west of every manufacturer rating things to thier own internal cycle? That used to happen (on both power and fuel economy) and it was regulated. All for the better.

Take a look at unregulated markets such as LCD panels. Apparently, 10ns GTG times and 1bazillion:1 contrast ratios are commonplace.

Standardized testing is a good thing. Can't believe you are that daft.


RE: But it's a GM....
By theapparition on 11/15/2010 6:03:23 PM , Rating: 3
LOL,
Yeah, since when was MPG not MPG?

I understand what this guy was attempting to get out. That the EPA cycle used to calculate the advertised MPG rating doesn't correlate to real life MPG. But he fails miserably.

Driving style, conditions, going uphill both ways all affect real life MPG. If he knew anything about scientific testing, you have to have a control. A standard to measure against.

While an individuals real life MPG may vary from tested (and the tests are not perfect), it's only a common baseline to compare vehicles against each other. That's all. Depending on driving style and use, you can get better or worse than the rating, but it doesn't change the fact that if a model is 50% more efficient than another, there is a good chance that you'll get 50% better fuel economy.

But instead, everything is a conspiracy to manipulate the populace into deception.


RE: But it's a GM....
By rvd2008 on 11/15/2010 4:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM would do ... a full-time electric motor with a dedicated generator

Hm, sounds like Volt to me . Not that I like it - IMHO overkill for some a small car. Totally "HOLISTIC" and overpriced approach.
Why not diesel? Dunno, probably not easy/cheap/rewarding?


RE: But it's a GM....
By torpor on 11/15/2010 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
I see you only needed about a month to forget...

http://www.dailytech.com/GMs+Chevy+Volt+Bait+and+S...

It's no such thing.

It's not even close.


RE: But it's a GM....
By DanNeely on 11/15/2010 1:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I bought my 06 LaCrosse because it was the only midsized car that offered as much front seat legroom as a full size sedan. As someone with long legs who can't comfortably drive folded up this was the main selling feature. All the competition would've made me pay several grand more for a larger full size that as a single I have no real need for.


RE: But it's a GM....
By EddyKilowatt on 11/15/2010 4:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
You are kidding, right? Those are HUGE increases in fuel economy, in an industry that quibbles about the fuel economy hit from daytime headlights, or driving with the windows open.

To get an equivalent City-MPG increase you'd have to make the car radically lighter... Highway-MPG you'd have to make it 25% smaller (drag area). Or, you'd have to give the car a laughable (by North American standards) 1000cc powerplant.

Not only that, but the Belt-Alternator-Starter system is built from stuff that's already in the car, namely, the alternator and starter (combined into one unit) and battery. It adds very little 'complexity', just upsizes a few components and puts them under control of the ECU that's already there, too. What's not to like?


The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 1:37:12 PM , Rating: 1
But why has it only been recently that GM (and Ford for that matter) have come out with great looking cars and jumped on the hybrid wagon? They should have started the Euro-Japanese good looks over a decade ago instead of giving us ho-hum front wheel drive sedans fit for nothing more than a vanilla rental fleet.

With that said, Buick is still missing the mark with the normal gas-powered version of both this and the LeSabre. Maximum 255hp from a turbo 4? I don't care how much power you can crank out of a blown 4-banger: it will not come close to the smoothness and refinement of a V6 with equivalent power.

Finally, you start optioning out the LaCrosse with packages and its 280hp V6 (yawn... so mid-late '00s) in CXS trim and it (and the Taurus SHO) will quickly blow through the $40k barrier, solid Infinity G and BMW 3-series territory which I've been buying for the last 10 years running. Gonna have to do better than this.




RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By jaydee on 11/15/2010 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
What exactly is your point? I can option a BMW 328i with a whopping 230hp past $56,000. To boot, it's a significantly smaller vehicle inside and out (178 inches long compared to 197 inches).

If you're all about a BMW 3-series competitor, you're looking at the wrong GM brand. Try the Cadillac CTS. RWD? Check. 270hp base engine? Check. 550hp V8 option? Check. Coupe, wagon options? Check. What more do you want?

Why would GM make Buick a Cadillac competitor? Buick is more value-oriented brand, but still upscale of Chevy. Hence smaller engines, FWD but loaded with technology, better interior and now pushing higher fuel economy with this eAssist. No, I think Buick with the new LaCrosse in particular is right where it needs to be.


By Spuke on 11/15/2010 4:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try the Cadillac CTS. RWD?
The CTS is really good. Shockingly good. Definitely a competitor. I'd rather have a turbo engine though but that's not a negative against the Caddy. Most people won't care about that.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 5:19:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What exactly is your point?...Buick is more value-oriented"


Uhm, that is precisely my point. A 280hp LaCrosse optioned the same as a 328hp Infinity G is going to be within price striking range (mid to upper $30k). Further, my point is that GM is going to have to do a lot better than this to woo younger drivers like me into the show rooms. But then again, maybe you are right afterall when stating Buick is right where it needs to be with the LaCrosse: for middle aged and old fuddies.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 5:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But then again, maybe you are right afterall when stating Buick is right where it needs to be with the LaCrosse: for middle aged and old fuddies.
So if we don't agree, we're old? LOL! Like I stated, not everyone wants more sport than luxury. Some like luxury more than sport. BMW and Inifinti are sport then luxury. Buick is the reverse. That's not worse, just different.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 6:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Point taken. I'll worry about it in 10-15 years when my back gives out and I want a "softer" riding and easier driving car. But who knows - maybe by then we'll all be driving ecoboxes and the point will be moot.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 10:42:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But who knows - maybe by then we'll all be driving ecoboxes and the point will be moot.

1. I hope not.
2. I'll be the old f#$ker driving the equivalent of a 1982 Chevy Caprice claiming that "they don't make them like they used to".


By Alexvrb on 11/16/2010 12:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
I like B-Body cars. They're solid.

Anyway, this thing gets pretty decent numbers for a mid-sized mild hybrid. That's striking distance of a full-on hybrid of the same class. Also the electric motors should help give it a lil more on-tap push. If they move this drivetrain downrange to the Malibu, that would be a decent affordable mid-sized mild hybrid. Much better than the previous gen mild hybrid 'Bu.


By Sazabi19 on 11/16/2010 8:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm 21 and I want a LaCrosse. I'm not an idiot that needs to rev my engine and impress my friends. I love luxury and it is in a great price range. I like my cars luxurious and my women sporty ;)


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By room200 on 11/15/2010 6:37:04 PM , Rating: 3
GM is never going to "woo" you into their showrooms. You've bought into this whole bash America thing, so there's no way you'd buy an American car. I used to be the same way. I'm now happy in my new Buick Enclave. I get compliments every other day, it's smooth, it's beautiful, and it's American. 8^P


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By jaydee on 11/15/2010 7:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd seriously consider the bad-ass CTS-V over the M5 if ever in that high level sedan market. Unfortunately, my current pricing range for sedans is in the $35-$40 range, not $60k + range. Nothing GM has in that price range tickles my fancy.

But the CTS sedan is that vehicle. The $35-40k RWD performance sedan. It's price, it's engine, it's platform, everything is comparable to the stated BMW 3-series and Infiniti G37. If for some reason, the CTS isn't good enough for you (styling, headlamps, whatever), that's perfectly valid. But don't blame Buick for not putting a 400hp V8, that's not Buick's function, it's Cadillac's. Just because someone prices a sedan at $35-40k, doesn't mean it has to be performance oriented.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/15/2010 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 1
The base CTS is comparably priced at the base G37 sedan level. The base CTS has a 270hp V6, 58 less than the G. You have to shell out more for a 304hp variant of the same engine in the CTS, still 24hp shy of what Infinity (only) offers in the G.

I'm not overly fond of Cadillac's styling either, but I could definitely live with the CTS-V if I had the money and wanted one of the fastest cars on the planet.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 11:02:05 PM , Rating: 1
As good as the CTS is, I'd pick the G37 over it any day. I even think it's a better car than the 3 series. Nfarce, have you driven a G37 with the 7 speed auto? How does it compare with the 3 series 6 speed auto? I drove a 335i with an auto for the first time and I was REALLY impressed.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Runiteshark on 11/16/2010 12:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
Have fun with overheating problems with that VQ37HR in there. As far as I know, they still won't acknowledge they have a problem, nor will they fit oil coolers to your car.

I wouldn't buy a g37 or 370z at all, but then again I think its asinine to spend that much cash (35k+) when you can just get a c6 z06 for the same money used.


By Spuke on 11/16/2010 11:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wouldn't buy a g37 or 370z at all, but then again I think its asinine to spend that much cash (35k+) when you can just get a c6 z06 for the same money used.
I don't buy new cars anyways so if I did get a G37, it would be used and they're in the $25k range. I only mentioned a preference for the G37 over the CTS. The Corvette is a sports car, the G37, CTS, and 3 series are not. Let's keep this apples to apples here. Quite frankly, my pick for THIS class is the 3 series, primarily the 335i with DCT. I like turbo's.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By Nfarce on 11/16/2010 3:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
The only late model 335i I've driven was a 6-speed manual (2009 coupe model). Yeah it's that good of a driver. I haven't driven any of the new G's yet, but am currently shopping for a new car and will be trading in my current G before the end of the year.


By Spuke on 11/16/2010 6:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only late model 335i I've driven was a 6-speed manual (2009 coupe model). Yeah it's that good of a driver.
I've driven a few manual 335i's. Reminded me of a straight six, it was that smooth. I've read about how some prefer the auto but really didn't know why until after I drove one. I'd opt for a 135i with DCT if it was my money though. A little lighter and less expensive used.


RE: The LaCrosse is one fine looking car...
By jaydee on 11/16/2010 9:30:06 AM , Rating: 3
My main intestest is understanding why you expect Buick to compete in this market segment as well.


By Nfarce on 11/16/2010 3:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
My point is just the opposite actually. Buick has priced itself in that market whether that car is really worthy of being in it or not.


By Spuke on 11/15/2010 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maximum 255hp from a turbo 4? I don't care how much power you can crank out of a blown 4-banger: it will not come close to the smoothness and refinement of a V6 with equivalent power.
I agree but most people won't notice or care. The newer 4 cyls are pretty smooth though. It's not even nasty at idle which is where I notice most of the 4 cyl harshness. 255hp equals a really small turbo. I have the same engine (LNF) in my car. You're good for maybe 300whp on the stock turbo but the benefit is super quick boost and nice low and midrange torque.

Luxury car customers will be more interested in the torque. IMO, BMW and Infiniti are a different market than the LaCrosse. The Buick is aimed at customers that are looking for more luxury than sport. FWD is not going to be all that sporty. At least not like BMW or Infiniti.

quote:
Gonna have to do better than this.
IMO, they're right on target. It will bring in some conquest sales. Like I said, customers interested in more luxury than sport. I like sport so it won't be for me but it is nice.


Not bad
By Pessimism on 11/15/2010 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
This sort of idea actually appeals to me more than a full hybrid car. A minimal electric boost that just helps with heavy load situations where mileage is at its worst, and isn't so radically complex as to make the car hard to service.




RE: Not bad
By tat tvam asi on 11/15/2010 12:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
If acceleration is the criterion, Ultracapacitor should do the job better and may end up being cheaper. Better still, an ultracap coupled with a smaller battery.


RE: Not bad
By DanNeely on 11/15/2010 1:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
The last I've heard rechargeable lithium batteries have about 10x the base energy density of ultracaps. Even with hybrids only using a fraction of the total capacity in order to stretch the batteries lifetime over the lifetime of the car they'd still need to gain about 2.5x the capacity to be competitive in size and weight.


Very nice
By jaydee on 11/15/2010 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
This really took me by suprise, I don't think anyone expected BAS+, renamed eAssist on a Buick first. Big improvement over the first mild hybrid system at lower cost to the consumer. Can't wait to see this technology trickle down to the next-gen Malibu. Now if only the could have made the Regal GS right with the Haldex AWD, Buick would be in real good shape.




RE: Very nice
By mindless1 on 11/15/2010 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm really excited at all cars costing more too. Let's hope it is at least 30 years before mainstream cars like the Malibu get stuck with this green *tax*.


RE: Very nice
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I'm really excited at all cars costing more too.
Hey, this is what the government (via us) wants, right? Oh I forgot, there are still idiots that think this all can be done for free. It kills me that I read about how DTers think cars are soooo expensive but at the same time ask for things that make cars more expensive. LOL!!! Soon it will be like the early days of the automobile where only the wealthy will be able to afford them.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki