Chevy Sabbatical 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's latest Silverado videos assume we're idiots

UPDATE: This article has been revised to reflect that any mention of materials used in a future Chevrolet Silverado is speculation. Can we have a sound, rational debate about the merits of aluminum versus steel? According to Chevrolet's latest marketing videos pitting the Silverado against the Ford F-150, the answer is no. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of course, this will all be a hilarious joke when an aluminum-bodied Silverado comes in 2018. That's an if, as a member of the General Motor public relations team has reminded me that any articles regarding future product are pure speculation. Until then Chevy needs to sell the current Silverado, with its body comprised chiefly of steel, against the Ford F-150's lightweight aluminum panels. Instead of touting the merits of the "most-dependable, longest lasting pickup," the strategy seems to center around negative propaganda towards the 13th element. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of the three videos, the most fair is Silverado vs. F-150 Repair Costs and Time: Howie Long Head to Head. Basically: aluminum costs more than steel, it's more difficult to repair, and requires special equipment for body shops. In terms of Chevy versus Ford, the blue oval truck costs more and takes longer to repair - an average of $1,755 more and 34 more days in the shop, according to the ad. But why stop there when you can have pitchman Howie Long raising an eyebrow at random facts? When Silverado Chief Engineer Eric Stanczak says of the Ford, "It's manufactured in a way that combines aluminum, rivets, and adhesive in a process that's different than Silverado." Long responds, "Huh. Interesting." At the end of the video, Long says "I'd be interested to know what happens to insurance costs." Note he's not saying anything substantive. If Chevy's legal team could sign off on some facts about insurance rates, it would be in this ad. On our Autoblog Cost to Own calculator, there is no significant difference in projected insurance costs between the two trucks. But at least that ad has facts. The other two videos are pure hype. In Cages: High Stength Steel, real people are asked what they think of aluminum and steel in a room with two cages. Then a bear is released into the room, and the subjects scurry to the safety of the steel cage.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.