So the idea is making the grid save fuel like a hybrid vehicle? Then, $/kW arbitrage cells should just be dedicated batteries that are very cycling resilient and cheap. The better way to put an electrified vehicle battery to work is: have less of it, cycle the whole thing, plus use an engine (that isn't nearly as expensive as they've become). Avoid the expense of energy density priority cells and lots of them.
The China thing. Playing shell games with costs is a socialist thing. Their population will greatly decline and they'll look to create vassals and foreign sweatshops. The wealthy there have to be expecting going to a more consumer economy. Maybe trusting minds in this country want to play their game, I sure don't.

Ouch! I hope everyone involved was unscathed.

Quick couple questions. Did you give any thought to a Toyota Crown? Does that thing count as a sedan or a couped crossover?

Wife was driving. Several broken ribs and a cracked sternum. Otherwise all good. Thanks for the concern.

When you say “consider” do you mean in terms of the conversation on the temporary death of sedans? Or did you mean as a replacement for our dearly departed Volt? Second question is easiest to answer. No. Never considered a Crown. We would have considered a Camry or Accord before a Crown and neither of those was ever a consideration. Too many other preferred vehicles before getting to any of those.

As far as the Crown and its place in the automotive landscape, sure. Crown has both a sedan version and a crossover coupe. The sedan replaced Avalon. The crossover replaced Venza. As I mentioned, brands like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan can be expected to continue with sedans in their portfolio. It makes sense, because their Truck CAFE fleets are under control. They don’t have high volumes of full-sized pickup trucks to balance out for CAFE. For every F150, Silverado, Ram that’s sold, the OEM has to balance the CAFE position by offering fuel efficient Truck fleet models. That’s where Equinox, Terrain, Trailblazer, et al come in. They pump up the CAFE average on the Truck fleet side. But for Toyota, Honda and the others I mentioned, they can concentrate more of their resources to offering a CAFE compliant car fleet. And if you’re Toyota, who is way ahead of everybody in terms of hybrid technology and cost, you make hybrid models on everything (except Supra) and shift a number of your high volume models (Camry, Crown, Sienna, Venza) to be hybrid only. Fixes the Car CAFE. Having hybrid as an option as well as a performance play on CR-V, Tacoma, and Tundra helps balance it on the Truck side.

Where does the 2.7L 4-cylinder Silverado fit into GM's CAFE equation? It doesn't get great fuel economy, but it must win them points with the EPA in some category?

Hard for me to say. I do know it’s significantly better than the 4.3L V6 it replaced. But I don’t know if that places it above the CAFE line or just moves it closer to the line.

Ironically, it does now what the Atlas engine (L4/5/6) was supposed to do 20ears ago.

If my information is correct, fuel economy is 18/21 for the 2.7 and 16/20 for the 5.3 in the Silverado. The 2.7's power is amazing for its size but it doesn't seem to have a significant advantage in terms of fuel economy over the 5.3. It has fewer horses than the 5.3 but more torque (430 lb-ft) which is very respectable.

I'd be curious to know how the 2.7 sells relative to the 5.3 and if that 2mpg bump for city and 1mpg bump for highway really helps GM achieve its CAFE goals. I appreciate the 2.7 for what it is, but if I'm buying a Silverado and the 5.3 is still available, I'm going with that. large displacement, pushrod, no turbo. Just IMHO.

Holy Crap the Ionic 5n is $66K

I was curious enough to test drive a 2.7 Silverado. It got 20mpg with the cluster screen, on a 18 mile mostly rural highway loop including about a 1000' climb. A decent number I'd like to compare when I get a similar weather free day. I still prefer the V6.

5.3L is the biggest seller by a lot. Then 6.2L, 3.0D, then 2.7T. As for the fuel economy difference, it's really not as simple as comparing the label to a number and my explanation would be even more complicated. And it's not a matter of does this configuration meet the regs or not. CAFE is portfolio based. All vehicles within a classification (Car / Truck) and computing the volume weighted fuel economy.

Instead of diving into a deep explanation I will show one of the dreaded shadow area or footprint charts that I keep referencing. No worries if it reads like hieroglyphics. It's super complicated. For the sake of this discussion, above the red line meets the targets. Below the red line doesn't meet the targets. The blue circle is the entire US Light Duty Truck portfolio sold or forecast to be sold in 2024. All brands, all models, combined. That would include everything from a Raptor or TRX down to a Trailblazer or similar sized CUV. Hopefully that helps explain why GM, Ford and Stellantis push CUVs. Those are the ones that would be above the red line. Colorado, Canyon, Silverado, et cetera are all below the red line. The fuel economy numbers on the left axis are NOT the numbers on the Monroney labels. There's a much more intense calculation to get to those numbers. So what looks like a 1 or 2 mpg difference on the sticker is not necessarily a 1 or 2 mpg difference on these curves.

I agree with you. I am also in the market for a Silverado and its 6.2. At the same time, I do not want to discourage others that want a truck but not necessarily a v8 or a thirsty engine. IMO the Silverado product is excellent. My hats off to Chevrolet and GM, as it seems that they really put a lot of design work into the pickup truck. It shows, as it is Chevrolet's single best selling product, and the pick up trucks are GM's best sellers. In fact, Ford is quiet to the fact that GM actually outsold their F150s for more than a single year.

However, I am wary of the possible fact that GM may just rely on the pickups and not put enough emphasis on their other car lines. This IMO would be a cardinal mistake. I am also a dissenter in that I feel that it was a mistake for Chevrolet to totally abandon its car lines. Cars and sedans in general have declined in sales; However, look at the plentitude of cars by Honda and Toyota. That says to me that somewhere down the line poor business choices were made. Cars by these two Japanese makers are still selling. It still amazes me as to why the domestic makers stumbled in this market. We have had the disadvantage of poor quality and reputation; However, GM and the other domestic companies had more than enough time to work on and improve their products.

That's great information, thanks for sharing, and I can't say I fully understand it all but it is interesting to me. But based on the graph, I think? it's good news that most of the circle is above the "meets" red line.

I think that might also speak to niche. Toyota and Honda are good at sedans. Not that GM isn't or can't be good at sedans, but T/H captured a lot of the market in the 80's and have held on to it. Meanwhile, GM and Ford have held on to the truck market and they do trucks really, really well. It may be a good business decision that GM isn't trying to compete in a saturated, lower-margin sedan market where people have largely moved away in favor of more utilitarian vehicles.

I miss GM of the 80's and early 90's. That's when I fell in love with their stuff. The S10, S10 Blazer, full size Blazer. Beretta GTZ/GTU/Indy/GT/Z26. Cavalier Z24, Sunbird GT. Lumina Z34 coupe, Euro sedans and coupes. Camaro IROC, Buick GNX, Firebird Formulas, Turbo Trans Ams. Pontiac Grand AM GT's, Pontiac Grand Prix, Bonneville SSEI, Impala SS. Olds Cutlass convertible. 454 SS pickup, Syclone, Typhoon. Some of these cars made the Corvette feel a little boring and stodgy!

GM used to sell really ordinary cars that could be had in really cool trims in a way that made people feel special, like they owned an enthusiast vehicle, something truly fun and a notch above the rest.

I can't even get a half-chub over anything labeled "RS" from Chevrolet anymore. GM makes boring cars. I don't want some Trax imported from South Korea. I feel like a dork when I'm driving one, and like we as a nation have sold part of our soul, auto manufacturing, to a balance sheet. The Equinox is useful, but no matter how it's configured, it's still a boring crossover and it feels like it's more at home in some single 57 year old woman's garage, full of feral cats. I can't tell you what Buick makes; I just don't care. And I'm not going to spend 60-80k on a Tahoe, sorry GM, it's the same stuff you use in your trucks for 30 grand cheaper, always has been.

So that's kind of why I just don't care that GM finally put the Malibu out to pasture. What a tortured name. TO say GM abandoned sedans is a true statement - but in reality, that happened 30 years ago.

The last glimmer of light seems to be in ZR2 pickups. I have a hard time wanting a Silverado other than for comfort, otherwise it looks like a truck on antidepressants that's gained a lot of weight. Something more at home in Grandpa's garage than your cool uncle's garage.

But I get distracted. GM lost its way a long time ago and I stuck around for cars like the Camaro, and a couple of trucks, and that's....it. The C8 is amazing, but Corvette has never been in my sights. Can't see myself owning one now.

I can assure you that nothing called Silverado, Sierra, Tahoe, Yukon, or Escalade is above the red line. That’s why Trailblazer, Equinox, Terrain, Encore GX are important. They are the ones above the red line that make it possible to sell the stuff that’s below the red line.



Reflecting on what I wrote above, since GM (and Ford and Stellantis) have limitations on how many vehicles they can invest in and bring to market at any particular time, they tend to lean more towards those that help balance the CAFE for the money makers in the portfolio. So, given the choice of keeping an Impala in the portfolio or bringing in a Traverse, Traverse wins every time. Cruze or Trailblazer? Trailblazer wins because it helps balance the Truck CAFE.

Arbitrary categorization of vehicles for OEMs to game EPA averages dictating what choices consumers get. What a great system!

*Not shooting the messenger, thanks for the graph and explanation.

That all makes sense.

Part of what I'm saying, even with GM's relatively few models it offers these days, and the ones it offers above the line, because of reasons, it seems to have lots its youthful, athletic edge which seemed to appeal to a very wide range of buyers. So much of GM design language just screams frumpy--and I don't think it has to be. That's been a disappointing headwind with GM for a long time now, and it wasn't always that way.

I hope GM does well with the new Equinox because I think the refresh is stunning. It's still a boring car underneath, but so was a Beretta GT, or a Cavalier Z24.