1951 Chevy Pickup on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto sales in March and first quarter down nearly across the board

Nearly every major automaker reported weak U.S. sales for March and the first quarter of 2019, citing a rough start to the year, but said a robust economy and strong labor market should encourage consumers to buy more vehicles as 2019 rolls on. GM, which no longer releases monthly sales figures, saw first-quarter sales fall 7 percent, with declines across all brands. Sales of Silverado pickup trucks fell nearly 16 percent and the high-margin Chevy Suburban large SUV dropped 25 percent. Ford also no longer releases monthly sales numbers, but is due to release its first-quarter sales figures on Thursday. According to industry data, Ford's sales fell 2 percent in the quarter and 5 percent in March. Ford representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. FCA reported a 7 percent fall in U.S. sales in March and a 3 percent drop for the first quarter. All of FCA's brands dropped in March, except for Ram, which saw a 15 percent increase in pickup truck sales. "The industry had a tough first quarter, but with spring finally starting to show its face and continued strong economic indicators ... we are confident that new vehicle sales demand will strengthen going forward," FCA's U.S. head of sales, Reid Bigland, said in a statement. Toyota reported a 3.5 percent fall in U.S. sales in March and 5 percent for the first quarter, hurt by declining demand for its Corolla sedans and Camry vehicles. "While some of our competitors are abandoning sedans, we remain optimistic about the future of the segment," Toyota said in a statement. Nissan posted a 5.3 percent drop in sales in March, and its first-quarter sales were down 11.6 percent. Honda and Hyundai bucked the trend. Honda's U.S. sales rose 4.3 percent in March and 2 percent in the quarter, while Hyundai's were up 1.7 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Passenger-car sales suffered throughout the January-March quarter compared with the same period in 2018 as Americans continued to abandon them in favor of larger, more comfortable pickup trucks and SUVs, which are far more profitable for automakers. The battle for market share in the particularly lucrative large-pickup truck market intensified in the quarter, as Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' Ram brand outsold the U.S.' No. 1 automaker General Motors' Chevrolet-brand trucks. The two automakers have both launched redesigned pickup trucks.

Some 2012-13 Chevy Volts may not have enough battery coolant

The 2012 and 2013 model year Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle may have a battery glitch caused by low coolant levels. No recall has been issued and General Motors is taking care of the issue at no cost to drivers. Some of the affected Volts may have lower-than-advisable coolant levels because of some pesky air pockets in the car's cooling circuit. When the coolant levels get too low, the charging system for the battery powering the car's onboard generator (i.e. the Rechargeable Energy Storage System, or the RESS) may be shut down, turning one's Volt into a run-of-the-mill gas-powered car, and a pricey one at that. The Car Connection says GM is advising owners of the '12 and '13 Volts to contact their local Chevy dealer for a free fix. GM representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGreen for more details. We believe this is a separate issue than the one that brought 8,000 Volts back to the dealers for a battery coolant fix, what GM called a "voluntary customer satisfaction effort," a few years ago. General Motors sold 23,094 Chevy Volts last year after selling 23,461 Volts in 2012, so that fix-it list may get fairly lengthy. Check out a GM-Volt.com user thread related to this issue here. *UPDATE: Chevrolet spokesman Randy Fox confirmed in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen that the company issued a service bulletin to dealers that they may need to top off coolant levels on certain Volts because of the issue, and that the vehicle will "return to normal charging operation" once that's done.

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.