1983 Ford Mustang Gt Hatchback 2-door 5.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM says EVs are the future — but trucks are going to take it there

In the PowerPoint deck for the General Motors Capital Markets Day presentation, one of the more disturbing things comes early on, during GM President Mark Reuss' initial remarks, in an area where he is discussing the company's overall strength in trucks. The point being made is that GM has a truck for all and sundry. And there it is, a phrase on a slide that should send chills up the spines of those who still pine for the old Bob Seger "Like a Rock" Silverado ads: "Little bit country. Little bit rock 'n' roll." That's right. Donny and Marie. Somehow the Denis Leary snark in the F-150 ads is all the more appealing. The Capital Markets Day presentation was chock full of observations about electrification and automation (Reuss and CEO Mary Barra both noted that the corporation's vision is one of "Zero Crashes. Zero Emissions. Zero Congestion." Dan Ammann talked about the progress being made at Cruise Automation; Reuss rolled out the plan for an array of electrified vehicles, with a luxury EV and a compact SUV being the "Centroid Entries" for the modular bases of many others). But it is worth noting that there is no getting away from the power of pickups in the U.S. market, as that was the central topic in Chief Financial Officer Dhivya Suryadevara's comments, with "Truck Franchise" being flanked by "Key Financial Priorities" and "Financial Outlook." Clearly, to gloss the old phrase, the truck segment is where the money is. Suryadevra enumerated how the truck segment is significantly different than other types of light vehicles. Among her points: GM, Ford and FCA have more than 90% of market share. The truck parc has been growing and aging over the past 10 years. Customers are fiercely loyal to the segment—as in 70% of truck buyers are truck buyers. A good number of the vehicles are for commercial use (40 percent). Trucks are "less prone to. . .mobility disruption." Trucks offer high margins. Translaton: The segment is one that they're solidly positioned in. There are lots of old trucks on the road that will need to be replaced by new ones. Perhaps buyers may switch from a Sierra to a Canyon, but it will be a truck. If your livelihood depends on that type of vehicle, even if gas prices go up or the economy begins to go south, you're going to stick with it. Most of the country isn't San Francisco, so trucks will continue to be essential. And, well, they're profitable in the extreme.

Chevy says not to look at the 2019 Silverado's fuel economy rating

The 2019 Chevy Silverado is hitting dealerships soon, and one of the most notable changes for the new full-size pickup is the addition of a 2.7-liter turbocharged inline-four. The engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in volume consumer models like the Silverado LT and promises more power, less weight and — most importantly — better fuel economy. The thing is, the gains in efficiency haven't been as dramatic as some might have hoped, especially when stacked up against competitors from Ford and Ram. As Automotive News reports, GM's response is a little murky. First, let's talk numbers. We're pulling all figures from FuelEconomy.gov, the official U.S. government source for fuel ratings. Fuel economy numbers on trucks vary greatly based on a number of factors. Bed and cab configuration play a part, but so does a four-wheel-drive system. You also have to factor in tires, transmissions, rear-axle gearing, hybrid systems and cylinder deactivation. Things like that can make the difference between best- and worst-in-class. The EPA's website doesn't give enough information a lot of the time, so there's really no easy way to compare apples-to-apples. First, take a look at the ratings for the 2019 Silverado. A 2.7-liter model with two-wheel drive is rated 20 city, 23 highway and 21 combined. That's both better and worse than a two-wheel drive 2018 Silverado with the 4.3-liter V6 (18 city, 24 highway and 20 combined). The updated 2019 Silverado with a 4.3-liter V6 has yet to be rated. With less weight and a smaller engine, many hoped Chevy would make bigger gains. It's unusual to see any decrease in a fuel economy metric these days. GM says that it's not done tuning the new 2.7-liter engine, so fuel economy could theoretically increase. Expanding further, a V8-powered 2019 Silverado (17 city, 24 highway and 19 combined) actually gets better highway fuel economy than a turbocharged four-cylinder powered truck in certain configurations, even if the latter has a better overall average. But that's only with two-wheel drive, the 8-speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. A Silverado with the 5.3-liter V8 and a 6-speed automatic is rated at 15 city, 22 highway and 17 combined. The biggest issue with the Silverado 2.7-liter doesn't come from within GM itself but from Ford and Ram. GM cites the Ford F-150 with the 3.3-liter V6 and the Ram 1500 with the 3.6-liter V6 as the closest competitors to its new 2.7-liter inline-four.

China's rise, global restructuring wither GM's Korea division

An article in the Daily Kanban suggests the sun is setting on GM Korea, and it could already be well into dusk. GM Korea came about when General Motors, along with co-investors SAIC and Suzuki, bought Daewoo Motors from parent company Daewoo Group in 2001; it had a previous tie-up with GM, a joint venture that ended in 1992, although Daewoo cars were based on GM cars until 1996. Over the decade following the purchase, it became such an important part of operations that it was renamed GM Korea in 2011, "to reflect its heightened status in [the] global operations of GM." Just two years later, the printed rumors were that the subsidiary responsible for a fifth of Chevrolet's global production could be shutting down. The division's sales were down almost 21 percent through November of last year, counting domestic South Korean sales, exports, and CKD – Complete Knock Down – products. That makes the labor strife, already an issue for four years, even more acute, reports say the subsidiary will lose $36 million a year if it can't get the job and wage cuts it wants, and government concessions can't make up for the losses. And it gets worse, so head over to Daily Kanban to read the rest of the story.