on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM’s Charlie Wilson was right: Stronger regulations can help U.S. automakers

Charlie Wilson had been the president and CEO of General Motors before being nominated to become secretary of defense by Dwight Eisenhower. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he controversially said, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." And he was right. While car companies aren't necessarily the most progressive when it comes to things that might have the slightest possibility of political blowback, General Motors should be credited for doing something absolutely forthright in this regard with its announcement that it wants the federal U.S. government not to squash the California Air Resources Board's emissions requirements but to actually create a 50-state "National Zero Emissions Vehicle" program that, in the words of Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac, "will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emission future." Filing comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks is one thing. But a graphic the company developed for this announcement — shown above — is something else entirely, something that is absolutely credible, creative and clever. There is a photo of a Chevrolet Bolt EV driving along a highway, which seems to be in Marin County (based on the blurred San Francisco skyline in the background). Text on the photo states: "It's Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles." It seems to say, in effect, "If we want to make America great again, then we're going to do it by leading in technology, not by retreating behind weakened regulations." General Motors understands that the auto market is globally competitive, and if U.S.-based companies are going to be in the game, then they'd better be able to out-innovate the companies based elsewhere, where emissions and economy standards are not being weakened. What's good for our country ... Related Video:

Next-gen Chevy Volt gets Corvette looks, adjustable regen levels

The hood may say "full speed ahead." The regenerative braking system says "slow down a bit." One person's automotive improvements is another's identity crisis, all in a day's work analyzing the new Chevrolet Volt. The next-generation version of General Motors' first extended-range plug in will include design touches taken from to the new Chevrolet Corvette, GM's iconic sports car. Hexagonal taillights and a "taut" hood will be part of the new package, Automotive News says, citing General Motors design chief Ed Wilbur. But does that mean the Volt is shedding any of its green-car cred? Not at all, if one considers that the Volt will also let the driver adjust the degree of regenerative braking using steering-wheel paddles to dial up and recapture as much energy as possible and engage in "one-pedal" driving or turn it down for easier coasting. Check out the 55-second video below featuring GM executives Mark Reuss and Andrew Farah trying out the Volt's new regenerative-braking system that was first used on the Cadillac ELR. GM will have more details for us when it unveils the 2016 Chevy Volt at the North American Auto Show in Detroit next month. The new version is said to have a larger battery, a longer all-electric driving range and more power, but Chevy's been fairly mum on those sorts of performance details so far. Green Chevrolet Electric volt cadillac elr corvette regenerative braking

A conversation with GM's Mark Reuss on MPG, aluminum and Corvettes

There was plenty to talk about when General Motors hosted its annual mid-December holiday media reception a few months ago. GM had just decided to pull its global Chevrolet brand out of major European markets, where Chevys have competed directly with GM Europe Opel and Vauxhall vehicles, and the US government had sold its last remaining shares of GM stock. But most important was the company's just-reshuffled leadership. Post-bankruptcy CEO Dan Akerson had announced that he would step aside and that 52-year-old Mary Barra would replace him on January 15. Not only would she be the first woman to lead a major automaker, she would also be GM's first engineer CEO since Bob Stempel in the early 1990s. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors" - Mark Reuss Replacing her as executive VP for global product development (and purchasing and supply chain) would be 49-year-old Mark Reuss, who had served a stellar four years as North American president, and elevated to corporate president (from executive VP and CFO) would be 42-year-old Dan Amman. All three are relatively young auto enthusiasts who are liked and respected inside and outside the company, and their collective talents and experience are highly complementary. I've interviewed Barra and found her smart, personable and knowledgeable, though she carefully walks the corporate line in speaking and answering questions. I met and chatted with Ammann for the first time at that holiday reception, and he made a good first impression. But I've known Reuss for some time as a genuinely good guy and a highly capable and inspiring leader, and I believe he is exactly the right person for the global product responsibility once famously held by the outspoken, oft-controversial Bob Lutz. So I jumped at an opportunity to join a group interview of Reuss (with mostly business reporters) at the Detroit Auto Show in January. It was an interesting session of mostly good questions, which he answered with refreshing candor and humor. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors," Reuss said. "We've taken down almost every plant in North America, converted and turned it this last year, and to do that with award-winning vehicles and pretty flawless launches is key. We have to keep the train rolling on great product, because the rest won't happen without the best product, period." A reporter asked whether GM was pushing big trucks, SUVs and Corvettes again because gas is cheap. "No," Reuss said.