General Motors will stay the course with fuel-efficient vehicles and technology despite seriously low oil prices. Oil hit a 13-year low this past Tuesday, when prices checked in at just shy of $30 at $29.93. And analysts think it’s going to go lower in 2016.
With that news, Automotive News had a few questions for GM powertrain boss, Dan Nicholson. According to him, GM will not drop fuel-efficient vehicles and their technology despite low oil prices keeping gas very cheap.
Though, he did say it has the automaker rethinking if customers will be willing to pay the price for future fuel-efficiency technologies.
“We were hopeful when oil was $100 and even $60 per barrel. The customer will do the math and see their way through if there is a payback,” Nicholson said.
The oil plummet couldn’t come at a worse time. The 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV will go into production later this year as the brand’s first purely electric vehicle. Though, a ballpark $30,000 price tag may sway more than a few consumers into the EV.
GM is expected to roll out its upcoming nine-speed automatic transmission for front-wheel drive vehicles, and a ten-speed auto for rear-wheel drive trucks and SUVs it has co-developed with Ford later this year, the latest in powertrain efficiency.
Moving opposite to market trends.
With four model years recommended for purchase.
This example is a former NCRS award winner.
Many automakers oppose right-to-repair laws citing cybersecurity concerns.
Breaking out the spec sheets for a comparison.
View Comments
Nice, GM needs to stick to the plan.
As Gino remarked ... stick to the plan. Something to remember, the cheap oil prices aren't going to last. The unrest in the middle east could raise oil prices over night to where we'd see $3.00+ per gallon again. The only thing I'd throw out there is "if" the 100% plug in cars will be successful in the marketplace. Sure, Tesla is selling, but the buyer of those has a stable of other cars to drive, the Tesla isn't a daily driver . The daily driver depending on a 100% plug in might lose favor after forgetting to re-charge over night, getting half way to work/destination an having a dead battery to deal with. To me the mating of a small gas generator that'd fit under the hood with say a 5 gallon fuel tank to act as a fall-back in case the forgetting to recharge should happen makes sense. As a hybrid driver I'd be open to one set up that way.
Um, didn't you just describe a Volt? :)
Who said a Tesla is not a daily driver?!
Do your homework please - before making such silly statements. How is 280-300 miles of range - in even their entry-level cars and CUV not practicable for daily and weekly use?
The only shortcoming of a Tesla is purchase price. Cadillac is inching up on the price of a Tesla, and some Escalades easily reach Tesla money with a few options tossed in.
Maybe you're not aware of Tesla's nationwide and worldwide Supercharger network. At over 100kw, and up to 130kw, a Tesla fast charges to over 80% of it's range in 30 minutes. So drive 290 miles, stop by a Supercharger - which have been conveniently located near food/shopping and rest stop opportunities. So grab a coffee, use the facility and you're off... This is for cross-country driving - as 90+% of Tesla owners charge at home on level 2 chargers overnight. Besides the range and charging issue, the Tesla is quicker than 95% of the vehicles GM produces - even it's niche sports models! Add to this, a the Model S has five doors, seats 5 adults and 2 children ( 7 total - with optional jump seats in back ) AND....has a front trunk, or "frunk" deep and spacious enough for carry-on bags or groceries!
So how is this a car not used for daily use?
When are the New 9 and 10 Speed "due out later this year" going to be coming in? They coming in across the board or certain model at first?
If a 1 Penny tax were put on all gasoline right now -- based upon daily averages of gas consumed in America -- you could take $10,000 more off the Bolt bringing it to $20K. And discount 136,780 Bolts.
Per day.
Anybody following the electrification of automobiles issue knows primarily every single legacy car company making any electrified product is doing so - making low volumes of expensive-to-build-due-to-battery-cost EVs and PHEVs to meet present and future government mandates.
This isn't going to change. The race for the White House has mainly one politician who is the front-runner for the job, and as a Democrat, she will not go for reducing or eliminating the C.A.F.E. and C.A.R.B. requirements in place to ramp up fleet MPG and C02 efficiency. Same goes for tightening ecological zones in European and Asian cities. GM has a lead in the extended-range field ( Chevy Volt - Voltec ), and is finally getting around to putting Volt parts into hybrid versions of it's fleet. This is sound strategy moving forward and a hedge against said mandates and the ever-present possibility of political upheaval sending oil prices skyrocketing. The Democratic Party is hard at work pushing a green, clean energy agenda. Some states are even truly contemplating the first gasoline tax hikes in 25 years! Some of this taxation is to go towards rebuilding our nations infrastructure, and some to pad the pockets of politicians. GM and all major auto corporations that build ICE vehicles need to consider pouring more resources towards electrification , AND MAKING STRANGE BEDFELLOWS too - like partnerships with direct competitors ( see the 5 major auto companies that developed the light hybrid " 2-Mode " system that found it's way into Tahoes and Silverados for a time, or research the Hybrid Synergy Drive story of Toyota and Ford ).
Many believe GM had a PR problem ( crushing the EV-1 resulted in a documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car" , that tarnished GM amongst a large sector of potential auto buyers ). This resulted in funding for a small Phantom Works, a group of engineers at GM who kept working on battery and electric technology. It was upstart Tesla and Bob Lutz and Ted Laukner's desire to also show Toyota that they could do a better Prius that lead to the inception of the Volt Concept and production car.
Add all this time and resources up - and then include the theory that GM was facing extinction before Congress during it's banliterkruptcy - and using Volt as a carrot to prove to Washington D.C. that GM was developing viable technology that should be saved...And perhaps the Volt saved GM. Think about that. Selling Volts and Bolts bleeds money at GM but the projects are a safeguard, a green halo and a sign GM can still innovate. For all these reasons, GM needs to stay ahead of the pack in electrification. Novel and ingenious cars like Volt - and pure EVs like Bolt need to stay in the lineup. And, they need to keep their lead over the rest of the competition - from Audi and BMW down to Hyundai - all are behind Voltec technology with PHEVs with ridiculous 11 and 19 mile electric ranges.... Pathetic next to Volt's 53 miles range and 43 MPG thereafter. GM's partnership with LG is golden. A 200 mile BEV ( B - olt with a B ) literally doubles the capability of BMW's i3 and basically gives them a big black eye.
Surely, GM needs to keep crafting New Energy vehicles - and also reaping the many unseen rewards such research and development brings - such as "electric boost" for performance cars - something quickly replacing tired traditional forms of performance enhancement like turbo and supercharging.
Tesla will show the way to affordable electric cars and trucks with an established quick-refueling infrastructure. That's not GM's thing. They will have to keep pace to protect the shareholders and market share. So if you hate electrification - you better look into it closer and learn to love it - it may be the best thing GM has going.