2014 Chevrolet Equinox Ltz on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

GM struggles to sell small cars, plans to lay off 2,084 employees at two plants

Due to low demand for some of its vehicles, General Motors plans to cut 2,084 jobs at its assembly plants in Lordstown, OH and Lansing, MI. At the same time, the automaker also announced plans to invest approximately $900 million in three of its facilities – the Toledo Transmission Operations in Ohio, Bedford Casting Operations in Indiana, and Lansing Grand River in Michigan - for future products. GM will discontinue the third shift at both the Lansing Grand River plant and the Lordstown, OH plant. The Cadillac ATS, Cadillac CTS, and Chevrolet Camaro are made at the automaker's plant in Michigan, which currently has 2,700 employees. The move to eliminate the third shift affects 810 hourly workers, as well as 29 salaried employees, starting on January 16th. The plant in Lordstown, OH currently has 4,500 employees and makes the Chevrolet Cruze sedan. The plan to discontinue the third shift will affect 43 salaried workers and 1,202 hourly employees and will start on January 23rd. As Fortune points out, sales of the Cruze are down 20 percent through October, while sales of the Cadillac ATS and CTS were down 17 percent through the same period of time. In addition to cutting the third shift at both assembly plants, the automaker plans to invest a total of $900 million between three of its facilities for unnamed future products. GM's Toledo Transmission Operations will receive $667.6 million, the Lansing Grand River Assembly plant will receive $211 million, and the automaker's Bedford Casting Operations will get $37 million. Last year, GM cut roughly 500 jobs from its Orion Township factory due to slow sales of the Chevrolet Sonic and Buick Verano, with surging crossover and SUV sales as the most likely culprit. With GM posting much healthier sales figures for the Chevrolet Equinox and Cadillac XT5 compared to the ATS, CTS, and Cruze, it looks like compact SUVs are to blame for this year's layoffs as well. Related Video: News Source: Fortune, General MotorsImage Credit: REUTERS / Rebecca Cook Hirings/Firings/Layoffs Plants/Manufacturing Cadillac Chevrolet GM Coupe Sedan Lordstown Ohio

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.