Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

If my information is correct, fuel economy is 18/21 for the 2.7 and 16/20 for the 5.3 in the Silverado. The 2.7's power is amazing for its size but it doesn't seem to have a significant advantage in terms of fuel economy over the 5.3. It has fewer horses than the 5.3 but more torque (430 lb-ft) which is very respectable.

I'd be curious to know how the 2.7 sells relative to the 5.3 and if that 2mpg bump for city and 1mpg bump for highway really helps GM achieve its CAFE goals. I appreciate the 2.7 for what it is, but if I'm buying a Silverado and the 5.3 is still available, I'm going with that. large displacement, pushrod, no turbo. Just IMHO.

5.3L is the biggest seller by a lot. Then 6.2L, 3.0D, then 2.7T. As for the fuel economy difference, it's really not as simple as comparing the label to a number and my explanation would be even more complicated. And it's not a matter of does this configuration meet the regs or not. CAFE is portfolio based. All vehicles within a classification (Car / Truck) and computing the volume weighted fuel economy.

Instead of diving into a deep explanation I will show one of the dreaded shadow area or footprint charts that I keep referencing. No worries if it reads like hieroglyphics. It's super complicated. For the sake of this discussion, above the red line meets the targets. Below the red line doesn't meet the targets. The blue circle is the entire US Light Duty Truck portfolio sold or forecast to be sold in 2024. All brands, all models, combined. That would include everything from a Raptor or TRX down to a Trailblazer or similar sized CUV. Hopefully that helps explain why GM, Ford and Stellantis push CUVs. Those are the ones that would be above the red line. Colorado, Canyon, Silverado, et cetera are all below the red line. The fuel economy numbers on the left axis are NOT the numbers on the Monroney labels. There's a much more intense calculation to get to those numbers. So what looks like a 1 or 2 mpg difference on the sticker is not necessarily a 1 or 2 mpg difference on these curves.

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

If my information is correct, fuel economy is 18/21 for the 2.7 and 16/20 for the 5.3 in the Silverado. The 2.7's power is amazing for its size but it doesn't seem to have a significant advantage in terms of fuel economy over the 5.3. It has fewer horses than the 5.3 but more torque (430 lb-ft) which is very respectable.

I'd be curious to know how the 2.7 sells relative to the 5.3 and if that 2mpg bump for city and 1mpg bump for highway really helps GM achieve its CAFE goals. I appreciate the 2.7 for what it is, but if I'm buying a Silverado and the 5.3 is still available, I'm going with that. large displacement, pushrod, no turbo. Just IMHO.

I agree with you. I am also in the market for a Silverado and its 6.2. At the same time, I do not want to discourage others that want a truck but not necessarily a v8 or a thirsty engine. IMO the Silverado product is excellent. My hats off to Chevrolet and GM, as it seems that they really put a lot of design work into the pickup truck. It shows, as it is Chevrolet's single best selling product, and the pick up trucks are GM's best sellers. In fact, Ford is quiet to the fact that GM actually outsold their F150s for more than a single year.

However, I am wary of the possible fact that GM may just rely on the pickups and not put enough emphasis on their other car lines. This IMO would be a cardinal mistake. I am also a dissenter in that I feel that it was a mistake for Chevrolet to totally abandon its car lines. Cars and sedans in general have declined in sales; However, look at the plentitude of cars by Honda and Toyota. That says to me that somewhere down the line poor business choices were made. Cars by these two Japanese makers are still selling. It still amazes me as to why the domestic makers stumbled in this market. We have had the disadvantage of poor quality and reputation; However, GM and the other domestic companies had more than enough time to work on and improve their products.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

5.3L is the biggest seller by a lot. Then 6.2L, 3.0D, then 2.7T. As for the fuel economy difference, it's really not as simple as comparing the label to a number and my explanation would be even more complicated. And it's not a matter of does this configuration meet the regs or not. CAFE is portfolio based. All vehicles within a classification (Car / Truck) and computing the volume weighted fuel economy.

Instead of diving into a deep explanation I will show one of the dreaded shadow area or footprint charts that I keep referencing. No worries if it reads like hieroglyphics. It's super complicated. For the sake of this discussion, above the red line meets the targets. Below the red line doesn't meet the targets. The blue circle is the entire US Light Duty Truck portfolio sold or forecast to be sold in 2024. All brands, all models, combined. That would include everything from a Raptor or TRX down to a Trailblazer or similar sized CUV. Hopefully that helps explain why GM, Ford and Stellantis push CUVs. Those are the ones that would be above the red line. Colorado, Canyon, Silverado, et cetera are all below the red line. The fuel economy numbers on the left axis are NOT the numbers on the Monroney labels. There's a much more intense calculation to get to those numbers. So what looks like a 1 or 2 mpg difference on the sticker is not necessarily a 1 or 2 mpg difference on these curves.

That's great information, thanks for sharing, and I can't say I fully understand it all but it is interesting to me. But based on the graph, I think? it's good news that most of the circle is above the "meets" red line.

Originally Posted by lbls1

I agree with you. I am also in the market for a Silverado and its 6.2. At the same time, I do not want to discourage others that want a truck but not necessarily a v8 or a thirsty engine. IMO the Silverado product is excellent. My hats off to Chevrolet and GM, as it seems that they really put a lot of design work into the pickup truck. It shows, as it is Chevrolet's single best selling product, and the pick up trucks are GM's best sellers. In fact, Ford is quiet to the fact that GM actually outsold their F150s for more than a single year.

However, I am wary of the possible fact that GM may just rely on the pickups and not put enough emphasis on their other car lines. This IMO would be a cardinal mistake. I am also a dissenter in that I feel that it was a mistake for Chevrolet to totally abandon its car lines. Cars and sedans in general have declined in sales; However, look at the plentitude of cars by Honda and Toyota. That says to me that somewhere down the line poor business choices were made. Cars by these two Japanese makers are still selling. It still amazes me as to why the domestic makers stumbled in this market. We have had the disadvantage of poor quality and reputation; However, GM and the other domestic companies had more than enough time to work on and improve their products.

I think that might also speak to niche. Toyota and Honda are good at sedans. Not that GM isn't or can't be good at sedans, but T/H captured a lot of the market in the 80's and have held on to it. Meanwhile, GM and Ford have held on to the truck market and they do trucks really, really well. It may be a good business decision that GM isn't trying to compete in a saturated, lower-margin sedan market where people have largely moved away in favor of more utilitarian vehicles.

I miss GM of the 80's and early 90's. That's when I fell in love with their stuff. The S10, S10 Blazer, full size Blazer. Beretta GTZ/GTU/Indy/GT/Z26. Cavalier Z24, Sunbird GT. Lumina Z34 coupe, Euro sedans and coupes. Camaro IROC, Buick GNX, Firebird Formulas, Turbo Trans Ams. Pontiac Grand AM GT's, Pontiac Grand Prix, Bonneville SSEI, Impala SS. Olds Cutlass convertible. 454 SS pickup, Syclone, Typhoon. Some of these cars made the Corvette feel a little boring and stodgy!

GM used to sell really ordinary cars that could be had in really cool trims in a way that made people feel special, like they owned an enthusiast vehicle, something truly fun and a notch above the rest.

I can't even get a half-chub over anything labeled "RS" from Chevrolet anymore. GM makes boring cars. I don't want some Trax imported from South Korea. I feel like a dork when I'm driving one, and like we as a nation have sold part of our soul, auto manufacturing, to a balance sheet. The Equinox is useful, but no matter how it's configured, it's still a boring crossover and it feels like it's more at home in some single 57 year old woman's garage, full of feral cats. I can't tell you what Buick makes; I just don't care. And I'm not going to spend 60-80k on a Tahoe, sorry GM, it's the same stuff you use in your trucks for 30 grand cheaper, always has been.

So that's kind of why I just don't care that GM finally put the Malibu out to pasture. What a tortured name. TO say GM abandoned sedans is a true statement - but in reality, that happened 30 years ago.

The last glimmer of light seems to be in ZR2 pickups. I have a hard time wanting a Silverado other than for comfort, otherwise it looks like a truck on antidepressants that's gained a lot of weight. Something more at home in Grandpa's garage than your cool uncle's garage.

But I get distracted. GM lost its way a long time ago and I stuck around for cars like the Camaro, and a couple of trucks, and that's....it. The C8 is amazing, but Corvette has never been in my sights. Can't see myself owning one now.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

That's great information, thanks for sharing, and I can't say I fully understand it all but it is interesting to me. But based on the graph, I think? it's good news that most of the circle is above the "meets" red line.

I can assure you that nothing called Silverado, Sierra, Tahoe, Yukon, or Escalade is above the red line. That’s why Trailblazer, Equinox, Terrain, Encore GX are important. They are the ones above the red line that make it possible to sell the stuff that’s below the red line.

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

I think that might also speak to niche. Toyota and Honda are good at sedans. Not that GM isn't or can't be good at sedans, but T/H captured a lot of the market in the 80's and have held on to it. Meanwhile, GM and Ford have held on to the truck market and they do trucks really, really well. It may be a good business decision that GM isn't trying to compete in a saturated, lower-margin sedan market where people have largely moved away in favor of more utilitarian vehicles.

Reflecting on what I wrote above, since GM (and Ford and Stellantis) have limitations on how many vehicles they can invest in and bring to market at any particular time, they tend to lean more towards those that help balance the CAFE for the money makers in the portfolio. So, given the choice of keeping an Impala in the portfolio or bringing in a Traverse, Traverse wins every time. Cruze or Trailblazer? Trailblazer wins because it helps balance the Truck CAFE.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

So, given the choice of keeping an Impala in the portfolio or bringing in a Traverse, Traverse wins every time. Cruze or Trailblazer? Trailblazer wins because it helps balance the Truck CAFE.

Arbitrary categorization of vehicles for OEMs to game EPA averages dictating what choices consumers get. What a great system!

*Not shooting the messenger, thanks for the graph and explanation.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can assure you that nothing called Silverado, Sierra, Tahoe, Yukon, or Escalade is above the red line. That’s why Trailblazer, Equinox, Terrain, Encore GX are important. They are the ones above the red line that make it possible to sell the stuff that’s below the red line.





Reflecting on what I wrote above, since GM (and Ford and Stellantis) have limitations on how many vehicles they can invest in and bring to market at any particular time, they tend to lean more towards those that help balance the CAFE for the money makers in the portfolio. So, given the choice of keeping an Impala in the portfolio or bringing in a Traverse, Traverse wins every time. Cruze or Trailblazer? Trailblazer wins because it helps balance the Truck CAFE.

That all makes sense.

Part of what I'm saying, even with GM's relatively few models it offers these days, and the ones it offers above the line, because of reasons, it seems to have lots its youthful, athletic edge which seemed to appeal to a very wide range of buyers. So much of GM design language just screams frumpy--and I don't think it has to be. That's been a disappointing headwind with GM for a long time now, and it wasn't always that way.

I hope GM does well with the new Equinox because I think the refresh is stunning. It's still a boring car underneath, but so was a Beretta GT, or a Cavalier Z24.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Arbitrary categorization of vehicles for OEMs to game EPA averages dictating what choices consumers get. What a great system!

*Not shooting the messenger, thanks for the graph and explanation.

All these formulas and requirements determining what can and can't be built seem to make any so-called consumer preferences having any influence a non-issue and irrelevant.

Yet we are still lectured about how what is for sale and the push to EVs is "free market driven." It doesn't look that way at all.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Arbitrary categorization of vehicles for OEMs to game EPA averages dictating what choices consumers get. What a great system!

Exactly. How stupid all of this is.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by 90503

All these formulas and requirements determining what can and can't be built seem to make any so-called consumer preferences having any influence a non-issue and irrelevant.

Yet we are still lectured about how what is for sale and the push to EVs is "free market driven." It doesn't look that way at all.

At some point I think GM felt it safe to just ignore the sedan crowd because those customers weren't adding that much to the bottom line. As such in real life, cut the losses and move on.

This would be a very different conversation if someone told GM they can't build full-size trucks any longer and have to halt production on 850,000 vehicles.

That isn't the case here.