1970 Chevelle Ss 454 Big Block on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM posts $4 billion third-quarter profit thanks to trucks and SUVs

DETROIT — General Motors is posting huge third quarter numbers, pulling in $4 billion in profit over three months after losing money due to the virus outbreak. GM's adjusted earnings were $2.83 per share, easily outpacing Wall Street's per-share projections of $1.43, according to a survey by FactSet. Revenue of $35.5 billion also edged out most expectations. Shares jumped almost 6% before the opening bell Thursday. The company swung back from a $806 million loss in the second quarter, when it was restarting factories shuttered for safety during the early stages of the pandemic. The Detroit automaker joined most global automakers in reporting better-than-expected earnings from July through September as sales across the globe started to rebound from coronavirus lockdowns, especially in China. GM sales in China jumped 12% in the third quarter, with sales of its Buick and Cadillac brands both rising more than 25%. In the U.S., GMÂ’s most profitable market, sales fell 9.9% in the third quarter compared with a year ago, but were a dramatic improvement over the 34% drop in the second quarter. Sales improved sequentially each month, the automaker said, an encouraging trend. GMÂ’s profit was boosted by higher-priced pickup trucks and large SUVs, which have seen strong sales in the U.S. through the pandemic. It was the best quarter on record for GM's Chevrolet Blazer. Sales of the Cadillac XT6 spiked 45% in the U.S. over last year. Large pickups also sold well. GM also said it was pumping $2 billion into its Spring Hill, Tennessee manufacturing plant to push its transition to produce electric vehicles. Last week, crosstown rivals Fiat Chrysler and Ford reported strong third-quarter net income. FCA said it made $1.4 billion for the period, while Ford earned $2.39 billion. Related Video: Earnings/Financials Buick Cadillac Chevrolet GM GMC

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.

Question of the Day: Worst year of the Malaise Era?

The Malaise Era for cars in the United States spanned the 1973 through 1983 model years, and featured such abominations as a Corvette with just 205 horsepower (from the optional engine!) and MGBs with suspensions jacked way up to meet new headlight-height requirements. There were many low points throughout this gloomy period, of course. The horrifyingly low power and fuel-economy numbers for big V8s during the middle years of the Malaise Era make a strong case for 1974 or 1975— the years of Nixon's resignation and the Fall of Saigon, respectively— as the most Malaisey years. But then the GM-pummeling debacles of the Chevy Citation and Cadillac Cimarron could make an early-1980s year the low point. 1979, the year of the ignominious Chrysler bailout? You choose! Related Video: