We catch some flack around here for [allegedly] taking the fight to Detroit a little harder than patriotism demands. But compared to the latest spleen-venting by Chicago Tribune scribe Paul Mack, we're about as critical as a golden retriever puppy on benzodiazepines. Mack's thesis: "GM has traded in its navy blue suits and wingtip shoes for tie-dyed shirts and sandals, and is betting its future on the eco-trifecta of fuel efficiency, flex-fuel capability and electric motors. It is unclear whether the makeover is more than skin-deep, but history provides ample room for skepticism." So we're all on the same page right? Er, no. Because when you're criticizing GM, the very least you can do is stick to the facts re: its doomedness. After all, there are so many. So when Mack pooh-poohs the Volt program because critics have "argued" that the EV1 was DOA to "prove CARB wrong," he's trotting out the worst possible argument when so many better ones exist. And rather than criticizing GM's dependence on ethanol based on the fuel's inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is "devoid of an ethanol infrastructure." And adding insults to weak criticism, Mack fills logic gaps with ad hominem put-downs. Calling GM's 30mpg mileage claims "the stuff of dreams for men like George Jetson," Mack says the Japanese automakers achieved the 30mpg goal in the 1970s. Which must mean he'd rather drive a Mk. 1 Accord than "the 2009 Chevy Malibu-now with Betamax!" By feeding his readers invective and insults rather than the truth, Mack has passed on a "teachable moment." Like Walter from the Big Lebowski, he's not wrong… he's just an asshole.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
And here I thought the enemy of my enemy was my friend.
I think I’d rather drive a first-gen Accord than a 2009 Chevy Malibu.
TTAC gets +1 on the awesomeness scale for the Big Lebowski reference. Donny, you’re out of your element! ^_^
Mack is identified as a “free lance writer.” Evidently the Trib has now laid off 100% of its reporters and is so desperate for content it will print whatever comes in over the transom.
And rather than criticizing GM’s dependence on ethanol based on the fuel’s inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is “devoid of an ethanol infrastructure.”
Yup. We have an ‘ethanol infrastructure’. It’s diesel trucks for factory supply and distribution…
I feel it incumbent upon me to once again be the one voice of defense. The problem with ethanol is not its inherent inefficiencies, but that we do not have engines currently capable of taking advantage of ethanol’s rather high compression tolerance to allow for better mileage out of it – basically, we can burn it more efficiently to make up for lower power content, but our engines don’t support it.
However, both Ford and GM’s upcoming turbocharged engines are expected to provide a solution. Some of the prototypes for Ford’s ecoboost engines produce much more power on ethanol than on gas without a larger than normal ethanol penalty because of the compression they can put on ethanol before ignition (leading to better torque, which converts to better power at higher rpms). A little tuning and control of the injection, and you can get similar mileage and horsepower out of the engine on ethanol or gas by taking advantage of the engine’s ability to “vary” compression.
Ethanol is a great long term solution, especially with the birth of ethanol from waste and algae, if we stop letting automakers just consider it a CAFE break without really taking advantage of what ethanol CAN provide.
faster_than_rabbit:
Why?
HOOSIER RED, I may have an answer until rabbit speaks (writes) up…
I think the answer is obvious to many of us and the point is not why and old Accord is so great but why the Malibu is so bad. Old, stale, ugly, cheap…hell the only think I give that car credit for is having a 4 door hatch back (AKA saab 9000) but there is a reasons that the market (and GM) told Saab to quit doing that…and yet here they did it on the Malibu…so that styling point had me scratching my head.
bottom line, who really wants a Malibu, your grandmother maybe?
Everything is wrong with GM styling…
rsfeller,
WTH are you talking about? The Malibu is not a hatchback. My grandmothers are all dead so none of them will likely be in the market. However, I’d have to disagree on the styling side. I’d say that’s actually one of the areas GM is getting right now – and many critics in the press actually would agree with me. I’ll admit I have a GM bias having grown up in Indiana as the son of a factory worker, but I have admired Honda in the past for it’s simple and conservative exterior design in the 80’s and 90’s. I would have agreed that for a bread and butter sedan, those offerings looked better to my eye than anything GM was offering. However, the new non-hatchback Malibu, the Saturn Aura, and the Cadillac CTS all strike me as superior in styling than their competition. The new Accord is just atrocious and the Camry, while improved, still has some very strange elements – like that bulbous nose. However, if someone wants to drive a rusty old Accord over a brand new Malibu – I’ll admire their frugality even if they’re willing to sacrifice their own safety.
faster_than_rabbit:
I would much rather drive a 1973 Ford Torino than a first generation Accord. Something about an early 70’s Torino that really ties the garage together.
Hooiser Red,
You have lost your credibility on this discussion based on your bias toward GM and the fact you have no idea what you are talking about on the Malibu hatchback comment:
http://tinyurl.com/5m795q
Try google before you make such a confident statement.
GMs styling has always been about appealing to the lowest common denominator (it’s about volume and the generic masses) and when they do try to stick their styling nose out they fail when even the most skeptical of us are rooting for them.
rsfeller:
Oh my goodness! Are you serious????? At least some of us are willing to admit our biases. You’ve lost all credibility by showing us pictures of the last generation Malibu. The original poster that started this discussion clearly stated a 2009 Malibu was the reference point. I’ll save you the embarrassment and let you Google “2009 Malibu” for yourself.
rsfeller, GM doesn’t make Malibu Maxx anymore. As for who would possibly take a hatchback over a sedan – I would, in an eyeblink, and so would many others. A lot of people want one practical vehicle, not a sedan and a separate truck.
Oh didn’t know we had to be year 100% specific in our conversation at all time consider the last Dr. Tangent was talking about 1973 Torinos!
Let’s face it Chevy (and other bloated American metal) has had little originality (once again) of late. If they did they would take their so called modern designs and give them original names to start a new generation of classics on. Instead they are so worried about the let’s stick the name of a old car on a new design in hopes that it sells on a past name.
Why the rest of the world has been looking to the future of what car buyers have wanted GM has still been selling the wrong product. Detroit is hurting and the tax payers will most likly bail it out in some capacity because they were selling Hummers and other crap when Europe and Asia have been thinking ahead.
My father worked for a (non car) American namesake for 30 years to (Hoover) and I tried for 10 years to keep buying their recent crap, but I had to throw in the towel and and buy a better product for a few dollars more made somewhere else.
Cash in the GM stocks now why you still can…and if you must buy American try out Ford for a while…atleast they try.
@RobertSD,
Thanks. I prefer E85 for its characteristics in turbocharged vehicles (I used to autocross my WRX with fairly stiff mixes of the stuff) and I also feel that engines are simply not tuned for it.
I hate the BTU argument because it’s flawed. Yes, according to classic techniques you will get fewer BTUs, such as:
E85 < Gasoline < Diesel
However, the techniques used with these fuels are themselves quite inefficient, and with gasoline you are limited in how you can use it. Typically, to increase efficiency you simply increase compression; yet gasoline requires a great deal of octane “massaging” to work with it. E85, on the other hand, is already at that level (I’ve read 100 and 105 octane levels, so we’ll just go with 100 as the US measures it). So, if you decreased displacement and increased compression (beyond what you can get away with using “premium” gas) I bet you can get back a good deal of that mileage. In fact, I bet you can exceed it.
I hope that Saleen’s supercar makes it using E85 alone, as the octane would permit a great deal of compression. So, as long as they can flow enough air and fuel into it, you can get a great deal of power from a small(-ish) displacement.
hwyhobo:
You are preaching to the choir considering I’ve owned two Saab 9000 and two 900. I was very sad when GM bought Saab and made sure the hatchback was out of the line up. Market research showed that American buyers were not interested in 4 door hatchbacks, so I found it fascinating when GM brought the Malibu back. Car matches nothing of the name (so that was a waste) and I gave the car a fair look but could not believe how poorly executed it was.
Yes I understand practical. I have a Vw Tdi, a Saab 9-5 wagon (and others cars not to be named) but I can tell you for a fact most Americans dont’ want 4 door hatchbacks and its’ been a long road trying to get them back in to wagons. Thanks to Volvo, Subaru and others we are almost there.
rsfeller wrote:
I can tell you for a fact most Americans dont’ want 4 door hatchbacks
With rising gasoline prices, that may be changing. Fewer and fewer people can afford to keep trucks for occasional light cargo duties. Wagons and hatchbacks used to take care of it nicely. They could be coming back.
rsfeller:
We’d probably never completely agree on why GM (or any of the domestics for that matter) are in the shape they’re in, but I will agree with you on the hatch/wagon issue. I’d take a wagon or hatch over a sedan every day of the week. The family car is currently a Ford Freestyle for that very reason. We just completed a 3 week 5,000 mile cross country trip with three kids and an Australian Shepherd in that car. Great trip in a very practical package. I don’t know why Americans have such disdain for the style. I’ve read that CAFE doomed the wagon to some degree because of the way trucks and SUV’s were exempted from the calculations. I don’t know the technicalities of it, but I hope the time is coming for a renaissance of the wagon.
I like hatchback COUPES but I’d never own a wagon or hatchback sedan. Ugh.
What’s the problem with a nice sedan? G35, 3 series, etc.
RobertSD:
So theoretically, would ethanol burn and provide better efficiency in a motorcycle engine due to their higher compression? Is it that simple, or is there more to it than that? Just curious as I’m ICE ethanol ignorant.
Sincerely,
Dr. Tangent
“I will not abide another toe.”
One thing I have always noticed. Americans say ‘asshole’ different than Canadians. Americans say ‘ASS-hole’. Canadians say ‘ass-HOLE’. Why is that?
NickR – I’m Canadian, and I’ve never heard anyone say ass-HOLE in my life. Same as I’ve never heard anyone pronounce about “aboot” and yet it is another Canuck stereotype south of the line.
tony-e30: while sport motorcycles run at higher comp ratios, they are still designed for commonly available octane ratings, so you wouldn’t expect to see any additional benefit. I suppose if you stroked the motor…
“I think I’d rather drive a first-gen Accord than a 2009 Chevy Malibu.”
I’d rather drive a 1(or 2,or 3rd) Gen Accord over the New Accord or Malibu.
My co-worker drives a new Malibu as a company car. He gets 22mpg on a good day (90% HW). Yep, I’ll take that 1st Gen Accord now please.
@tony
It’s more complex than just having higher compression. There are things like fuel mix and timing that help it react more efficiently in high compression (and other tweaks for all engines that run ethanol). So, I would not recommend just putting it in your motorcycle if it is not built for it.
To those of you who said they’d rather drive a first-gen Accord than a 2009 Malibu — really? The first gen Accord was the size of today’s Civic, with a 1.6L, 68-HP engine and manual transmission; it burned leaded fuel and had almost no emissions equipment.
I’m a GM employee and admit I am biased. But really, go test drive a new Malibu before you continue to badmouth my company. I drive a Malibu and get 27 MPG all-around; 33 on the highway. Things have changed at GM — we are a progressive, innovative company delivering great new products. Outside of the US, we’re enjoying record sales, solid financial results and a proven track record of quality.
Help me out here: how do we get Americans to give us a fair shake?
Several of the current GM sedans ARE really nice. Take this from a repeat Honda and VW customer. I’d ding them though on their bulkiness. I’m sure that the focus groups advised GM to build a bulky vehicle – they prob think these cars look brawny or strong. I think they just look fat.
Dunno what it is about GM vehicles but even the small vehicles look bulky. I prefer the leaner looks of the import compacts.
All of this is moot b/c since gas dropped 20 cents here in the last week, the SUVs and trucks will be back on the road in droves… VBG!
I hope America takes the recent $4 gas to be a warning shot from the global economy. I don’t expect America to really change though.
Thing smight improve for the short term and we’ll forget it all and be right back in the hot seat the next time.
One thing is for sure – China and India are not sleeping giants – they are all fired up. We’ll be competiting with them for fuel and raw materials forever.