Tanstaaf (Dave):

Yeah, I've been burned by Pontiac too. They were garbage cars that spent more time in the shop than on the road. They have all sucked. None of them ever passed 70,000 miles before being consigned to the junkyard. And the trade-in value? About 5 cents on the dollar.

You're right about the "self-destruct" command. They basically start falling apart at 37k and quickly disintigrate from there on.

 

Hey, thats not true I got at least 6 cents on the dollar on my Fiero.

Seriously, that was the one GM I could not complain about. Got it cheap, as a leftover, put 68,000 miles on it in less then a year and got rid of for about 1/2 of what I paid as a trade in. I put no money into it other then gas and oil changes.

Other then that I have had nothing good to sat about GM.

-Dave

 

In the abstract, smaller usually IS more efficient, in the following way... basic physics equation--- kinetic energy of a moving object = 1/2 * the mass * the velocity squared [KE= 1/2 mv^2 ]. Bigger mass means it takes more energy to move it. So if you want to save energy, you won't waste so much of it moving heavy masses of vehicle around for no particular reason.

But, in reality, of course, it isn't always that simple. More massive things can move around with less energy if they are aerodynamic, or if the energy conversion (from actual fuel to the kinetic energy of movement) is more efficient, or if the object is going to be moved anyway and the alternative way to move it is much less efficient, etc. Like having six people in one car (more mass, takes more kinetic energy) when the alternative is six people in separate cars (you have to add in the masses of all the other cars, too, so you don't actually 'save' anything by decreasing the mass in the carpooling car)

So when I say that small SUVs are more wasteful than larger ones, I am talking about things like use, the way it is used and what it is used for, and not just the actual vehicle itself. Car manufacturers can control the efficiency of the vehicle itself, but they cannot control what people use it for (well, the way they market it may have some impact, particularly by shaping people's expectations of what it CAN be used for) and that is why these things are not entirely the fault of the manufacturers. The buyers have to share the blame, of course.

 

Ahhhh.....Being an engineer by training and in product development and/or manufacture most of my career, I assumed your point around efficiency was product related. The information you provided above really spells out your point very clearly. And you make a very good point.

Peace,

Martin

 

Although you have never told us exactly what you do at GM, I had always suspected you to be an engineer. Being one myself, I recognize another by the way they answer questions, in an analytical way. Rather than, say, the argumentative prose favored by lawyers.

I would bet that a large portion of GH posters here are technically trained, fascinated by the technology itself. If the majority here were economist or financial types, we would not have bought a hybrid in the first place.

 

I had an '87 Pontiac Firenza and was really a good car. I always beat my cars to death.

AC went out at 116K miles and up to that point was really very happy with the car and liked the way it looked/drove. Then a deer hit & crunched the front clip at 122K miles.
At that point I really didn't care anymore: Skipped oil changes and most other maintenance. At 138K miles Dodge gave us $1,500 trade-in tward our new Spirit which I thought was pretty good for that old junk.

My 3rd all-time favorite car was a 1965 Pontiac Catalina.
(2nd place was my 1959 Oldsmobile 98, 1st place my current car)

-Steve