Jump to content

CEO Mary Barra Discusses GM's Short & Long Term Priorities - Here's What She Said About Trucks

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

RyanbabZ71 Senior Enthusiast

RyanbabZ71

Posted
Posted

People want smaller trucks??? I’d take a full size over a mini any day of the week.

 

 

Ryan B.

 

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hatzie New Member

hatzie

Posted
Posted

Chilling view of what's coming via the "leaders" of the well indoctrinated millennial generation.

Lower mobility populations are easier for a central authority to control...  Even just "connected" vehicles allow for ease of central control as well. 

No money is being allocated for security of seriously hackable onboard systems.  Why not?  Maybe for ease of central control...
Maybe I'm just wearing a tin foil hat but it's certainly food for thought.

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted

In this political correct world we live in today,  where everything is nice and everyone loves each other, men are now women and women are men, everyone has a high paying office job in the city, where autonomous electric cars will solve all the world's problems, where our V8's are taking years off our grandchildren's lives and the ice caps are melting and killing bears because of Corvettes, where women need equality and pay rights because they don't have it, where due process is pointless and men's careers are destroyed by the accusation of one person, in a world where everything that is right is actually wrong, does it honestly surprise any of you that GM's female CEO doesn't give a damn about trucks or what we need? 

 

If you want people to care about the future of trucks, we need to knock back the extremists liberalized society back a few pegs, let them know how the world and work force actually works.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:44 PM, Nargg said:

You are obviously not an average consumer of vehicles.  The items that have no use for you have a lot of use for most others.  In other words, the World does not revolve around you.

No it doesn't revolve around Mopac, it revolves around me. What's the matter with you Nargg? :lol: 

Wait! Are you wearing yoga pants and a man bun? :rolleyes:

Loco Diablo Enthusiast

Loco Diablo

Posted
Posted
When your electric cars get 400 to 500 miles per charge, then you will have my attention.

 

Stick with what you know, build us a mini-truck for the masses, listen to your customers, and tell the EPA to drop dead. So simple maybe I should apply to become President of GM. I'll even work for half your salary.

 

This will be sooner than you think. Tesla S is over 300, with the roadster approaching 400.

 

Mini truck? Tell the EPA to drop dead?

 

Lol!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Joey Roth Enthusiast

Joey Roth

Posted
Posted

Yea, we're talking about GM here, not Tesla. They should have perfected the electric cars years ago. They had a head start. Everybody likes mini-trucks here in California. Around the dimensions of the old S-10, no bigger. Standard four cylinder with optional six cylinder, available in regular cab or extended cab. Keep the price under $22,000 and it will sell. It would also help GM meet their CAFE requirements because it would be good on gas. The current Colorado is too big and too close in price to the Silverado. Not the 2019, of course. EPA. Yes, when they say jump, Gm says how high? They are the ones offering incentives to auto makers for this start/stop garbage. If the automakers would just stand up to the EPA and tell them progress doesn't come over night they wouldn't be forced into a corner.

pronstar Enthusiast

pronstar

Posted
Posted

She’s not an idiot.

 

GM knows how it’s bread is currently, and for the foreseeable future, is buttered.

 

She said what she said to appease Wall Street. The more carmakers become tech companies, the stronger the stock price.

 

Look at automaker stock valuations. They’re in the dumpster despite strong sales, profitability and dividends.

 

Then a company like Tesla comes along and has a higher market cap while selling 1% as many vehicles.

 

And besides, when 2/3 of your global profits come from one particular vehicle in one particular market, the Street wants to see your plan for diversification moving forward...they already know what you’re doing now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Likarok Senior Enthusiast

Likarok

Posted
Posted

Well all I can say is that I am glad that I will be not driving anymore when this shit happens. I will just be sitting around being happy to remember my name. hahahaha

 

A sad commentary in my view anyways. But then again we heard all this shit in the 1970's as well.

 

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

She's delusional. They can't even build internal combustion engines right, even having OVER a century of manufacturing knowledge to tap into. So now we're going to kick 100+ years of knowledge to the curb and try something new. Fantastic idea ... :rolleyes:

 

Electric trucks ought to be a real hoot. :lol:

 

I guess the bottom line is ... and we've been hearing this not directly through speech, but through the globalist's actions ... that the internal combustion engine offers too much freedom. They need the world driving unreliable vehicles that can be disabled at the flick of a switch. Why, I have no idea. Guess it's part of their fantasy of going back to the "kings and serfs" way of ruling the masses. Unreliable vehicles with limited range and next to no infrastructure to recharge them, no borders, just one, big "happy" utopian world. China has been demonstrating how wonderful this new world will be with their social credit system ... ?

mopac Enthusiast

mopac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

I guess the bottom line is ... and we've been hearing this not directly through speech, but through the globalist's actions ... that the internal combustion engine offers too much freedom. They need the world driving unreliable vehicles that can be disabled at the flick of a switch. Why, I have no idea. Guess it's part of their fantasy of going back to the "kings and serfs" way of ruling the masses. Unreliable vehicles with limited range and next to no infrastructure to recharge them, no borders, just one, big "happy" utopian world. China has been demonstrating how wonderful this new world will be with their social credit system ... ?

OK, I love my ICE truck as much as anybody, but a few points.

 

I totally agree with your point about the "utopian" world of "social credit" systems and that it's not a positive direction.  However, right now I think it's just as easy to disable a 5.3L Silverado "at the flick of a switch" as it is an all electric Bolt or the "hybrid" Volt.   On Star can do that now, regardless of what propulsion system you have.  There's a computer controlling them all.   The limited range of electrics is currently a problem.  But there a LOADS of people with their own electricity generation infrastructure (solar panels) on their homes.  I don't know anybody with their own oil refinery in the backyard.  So in terms of "controlling the masses" I would think it'd be easier to choke off the gas supply than get rid of all the solar panels.   Finally, I think pure electrics are likely to be far more reliable than ICE given the huge reduction in the number of parts.

Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted
On 9/19/2018 at 8:11 PM, RyanbabZ71 said:

People want smaller trucks??? I’d take a full size over a mini any day of the week.

 

 

Ryan B.

 

Yes, they want smaller trucks.  There are more short bed trucks on the road than standard bed trucks.  To me a short bed is a waste. May as well drive a Ridgeline. The dealership here said they will not order one to put on their lot.  They only order them if a customer specifically wants one.  Plus the building community doesn't even consider making a house with a properly sized garage to fit a full size truck anymore.  Millenials don't care, they just want their tech gadgets and not concerned with driving.  I know of a few that are in their early twenties and don't even have a drivers license and don't care to get one.

 

It will be interesting in 30 years when people need a plumber, electrician or HVAC person to come to their house and get stuck with a nice huge bill because there will be far and few out there in those fields.  Blue collar worker is an occupation that is going extinct.   Mike Rowe is trying to change it at least.

j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

...

It will be interesting in 30 years when people need a plumber, electrician or HVAC person to come to their house ...

30 years from now you won't need a plumber.

Your car will drive you to the next public washroom.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mopac said:

OK, I love my ICE truck as much as anybody, but a few points.

 

I totally agree with your point about the "utopian" world of "social credit" systems and that it's not a positive direction.  However, right now I think it's just as easy to disable a 5.3L Silverado "at the flick of a switch" as it is an all electric Bolt or the "hybrid" Volt.   On Star can do that now, regardless of what propulsion system you have.  There's a computer controlling them all.   The limited range of electrics is currently a problem.  But there a LOADS of people with their own electricity generation infrastructure (solar panels) on their homes.  I don't know anybody with their own oil refinery in the backyard.  So in terms of "controlling the masses" I would think it'd be easier to choke off the gas supply than get rid of all the solar panels.   Finally, I think pure electrics are likely to be far more reliable than ICE given the huge reduction in the number of parts.

I agree with you on paper ... but in reality, when GM, FoMoCo, or any of the others start mass producing these things, and cutting corners & pinching pennies like they always do, what you'll end up with is something far worse than what we've got right now ... and let me tell ya, we're not in very good shape as it is. I've already done a few major repairs on vehicles that aren't even close to 5 years old. I've never seen anything this poorly designed in my life.

 

Modern vehicles are rolling tributes to Walmart - cheap crap ... only they're being sold at a premium price point.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...