96 Chevy Dually Custom Bagged Pro Street 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.

GM to squeeze out more production capacity for midsize trucks

General Motors was predicting a strong showing for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon before they debuted, and demand among dealers for the midsize trucks even exceeded company's expectations. The positive situation has left GM with a problem, though: finding ways to increase capacity for the pickups at the Wentzville Assembly plant in Missiouri. With a third shift already running, GM has continued to look for ways to build just a few more of the trucks at the plant. The company has plans to hire as many as 1,000 more workers for the Saturday and Sunday shifts to construct an additional 2,000 pickups a month, according to unnamed insiders at the factory speaking to Automotive News. The little adjustments even extend to getting rid of an unpaid break to add 18 minute of assembly time over the course of a day, which equals about 3,500 more vehicles a year. All of this effort comes because the trucks are in such high demand. According to GM's figures, the company has delivered a combined 35,720 units of the Colorado and Canyon from January through April 2015, and the Chevy was the fastest-selling truck in the US for the previous three months. In May, it spent an average of just 12 days in showrooms before being snapped up. And even better for the company, 43 percent of these buyers came from other brands. According to Automotive News, the most popular trade-ins have included the Ford F-150, Toyota Tacoma, and Dodge Dakota. Related Video:

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.