1955 Chevrolet Bel Air150210 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Former Fisker CEO has some advice for Tesla Motors

Former Fisker Automotive CEO and ex-Chevrolet Volt vehicle-line director Tony Posawatz has some words of caution for Tesla Motors. The long-time automaker executive questions the California automaker's long-term viability – and gives some praise – in a talk with Benzinga, which you can listen to below. While the all-wheel-drive D that Tesla unveiled earlier this month in Southern California wowed a packed crowd, Posawatz (starting at around minute 4:45 in the interview) says Tesla would've been better off taking the resources it expended toward that Model S upgrade and directed them towards speeding up the development of a more affordable plug-in. Perhaps a number of investors agreed, since the company's stock fell the day after the D was announced. Posawatz says Tesla has been over-reliant on the sale of ZEV credits. Posawatz also says that Tesla has been over-reliant on the sale of zero-emissions vehicle credits in California for its earnings and questions whether the automaker will ever work at a large enough scale to sufficiently drive down costs and make consistent profits. Tesla CEO Elon Musk would take issue with this characterization. Posawatz first made his mark in the plug-in vehicle world when he was the vehicle-line director at General Motors for the Volt extended-range plug-in from 2006 to 2012. Later that year, he joined extended-range plug-in maker Fisker Automotive as its CEO, though quit that job during the summer of 2013 as the company was descending into insolvency. He joined the Electrification Coalition this past March. News Source: Benzinga Green Chevrolet Fisker Tesla Electric PHEV Tony Posawatz

CA Chevy dealer allegedly adds $50K 'market value adjustment' to 2015 Z06

It seems to happen with every eagerly anticipated new car – dealerships, recognizing that crushing demand far outstrips the initial limited supply of a new model, inflate the price via a so-called "market value adjustment." We've seen it in the past with a number of new models, and now it's happening again with one of the Detroit 3's hottest vehicles. A dealership in Roseville, CA, outside of Sacramento, has allegedly attached a staggering $49,995 market value adjustment to a 2015 Corvette Z06. We say allegedly because, despite the evidence uncovered by BoostAddict, John L. Sullivan Chevy's online inventory listing doesn't display the price premium of the Z06 in question, a (normally) $93,965 model with the top-end 3LZ trim. It's unclear if either of the dealer's other Z06s, both 3LZs, one of which is in transit, will receive similar price adjustments. Now, legally, Sullivan Chevy isn't doing anything wrong here. Dealerships are under no obligation to observe a manufacturer's suggested retail price, a point General Motors' spokesperson Ryndee Carney pointed out to Autoblog via email. "For the Corvette Z06, Chevrolet has established a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price we feel is right for the market. Actual transaction prices, however, are the province of the dealer," Carney said, adding that a dealer zone manager will be discussing the price hike with the dealership. While we also reached out to the dealership over both the market value adjustment and the price of the Z06 as it appears on the company's website, we've yet to hear back as of this writing. Should they reply to our inquiries, we'll be sure to update you. Until then, we'd like to hear what you think about this case. Is Sullivan Chevy simply pricing the cars as high as it thinks the market can bear, or is this a cash grab for an hotly anticipated product? Have your say in Comments.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.