What are GM's Hybrid Vibe Plans?

[t9mike]

As was posted in an old thread, http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=1525, back in Jan 2000 a USA Today article (http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=1525) said GM would offer a hybrid Vibe in 2004 using GM's "ParadiGM" system. Welp, the 2004 models are out and there is no hybrid.Anybody know the current state of GM's hybrid plans? I Googled and Googled and could not find anything more current.Regards,-Mike

[joatmon]

I haven't heard anything about GM's hybrid plans. If they had come out with a new hybrid in 2004, I would be wary of it. The Toyota Prius had the highest number of customer complaints when it first came out. Maybe they've worked out the bugs some by now, but that radical of a change in technology is going to have some start up troubles. Given GM's reported troubles supporting the Toyota based Vibe, which is a relatively standard technology car, I would have very low confidence in the GM support system to be able to deal with a hybrid when it first comes out.Still, mega gas mileage is attractive. There's lots of effort going into aftermarket mods to improve power/performance, but the mod I would be most interested in wouldbe the one that would add 10% or more to the fuel efficiency of my Vibe. I would sacrifice some amount of HP/torque to get better mpg.

[ragingfish]

the concept o a 240 hp 6 cylinder HYBRID car is fantastic.I'd jump on that boat after it's had a few yers to "develop"

[joatmon]

Found http://www.tidepool.org/origin...97080forecast for GM hybrid passenger car anytime soon doesn't look promising

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »Still, mega gas mileage is attractive. There's lots of effort going into aftermarket mods to improve power/performance, but the mod I would be most interested in wouldbe the one that would add 10% or more to the fuel efficiency of my Vibe. I would sacrifice some amount of HP/torque to get better mpg. I've got the perfect mod for you, then. And it's free, quick, and very easy to do. Here's how to do it:step 1: raise hood and prop it securelystep 2: locate spark plug wires and remove 2 of themstep 3: close hoodI did this for fun on my Geo Tracker one time. I was hard to start, backfired like crazy, and could hardly go up hills. Running it on 3 cylinders, though, you could hardly tell the differece except the car felt like it would miss every once in a while. It had no power to begin with so running on one less cylinder really made no difference. Oh, and I had the timing advanced slightly, I don't know if that had anything to do with not noticing much of a difference. (It had the old-style distributer cap that you could rotate the cap to advance/retard the timing.)I'm the opposite way. I'm more than willing to feed it more fuel to gain more horses. I guess that's why I still love the old big-block Detroit V8's.

[ragingfish]

Wouldn't disabling a spark plug have an effect equivalent to that of a misfire?I mean, it's still letting fuel and air in, which are not getting combusted, so that can't be good.In other words, wouldn't that be bad for the engine?Just curious, that's all.

[joatmon]

Probably get blasted for asking, but if you want max power and don't care about fuel costs, why did you ever by a Vibe? Seems like there would be better cars than this corolla station wagon.When I bought my Vibe, it was rated as having the best MPG rating in the entire GM inventory. Sad that GM could only get that rating by rebadging a Toyota. My Vibe consistently gets 36 mpg. That should be the average for GM cars, not the top end. I want a fuel efficient car mostly to save myself some money. However, I think the US needs to get really serious about cutting oil consumption. My personal opinion is that the country wouldn't need to be so involved in the middle east if we weren't so addicted to the oil that comes from there. And if you really did want to convert your 4 cylinder car to a 2 or 3, then you'd probably need to disable the valves for the disabled cylinder(s) and probably remove the spark plug to eliminate compression in the cylinder(s). Just disabling the spark won't save you any fuel, and will pollute more.

[Stang2Vibe]

Easy, there, joatmon, I was only kidding. And yes, disabling a spark plug wire is about equivalent to a misfire.I bought the Vibe for the styling and the versatility, as well as its' relative quickness. If you look in my sig lines, I have the GT. Another selling point for me was the fact that the GT has the engine and transmission directly out of a Celica GT-S (toyota's top sports car). I get the performance without the high Celica price, lack of room, and high insurance costs. My Vibe GT only cost $12 per year more for me to insure than a loaded Civic EX--I checked into it. I had a 2000 Mustang (base model) and I think that my Vibe is a bit quicker and a hell of a lot less to insure. I might have kept the Mustang if there was more of a performance aftermarket for it. Short of spending $6K for a turbo setup for it, there really wasn't much out there for it. Everything was for the Mustang GT. I also made my Vibe decision banking on the fact that since it was a Corolla/Celica variant and has a Toyota mechanical sibling (Matrix) that aftermarket performance parts should not be much trouble. So far, the aftermarket for this car is pretty good, but could be better. Maybe with some more time as more of them are produced and get on the road, demand for goodies will increase and suppliers will respond. Also, the Mustang was a cop magnet. I got 3 speeding tickets and 2 warnings in one year's time. I drive my Vibe about the same way and not one cop has looked twice at me. They used to come down from overpasses and follow me for miles, now I get to enjoy my drive unmolested.And if you can think of another vehicle that offers performance that is equal to or better than the Vibe GT's at about the same price (within $1000) with similar equipment, is stylish, costs about the same to insure, has a noticable performance parts aftermarket, and can gobble up cargo like the Vibe, please let me know. I'm always looking to add to my "family" of cars. I'd really be interested in hearing your suggestions.As for our current bout of middle east involvement, you should look to recent history before you look to your gas tank for the cause. Don't know what I'm talking about? Do airplanes flying into New York's 2 largest buildings and the Pentagon ring a bell? People can bellyache about oil all they want, but the fact remains that it is still effectively irrelevant to the situation. Take Russia for example. They have the world's largest known standing oil supply in the Caspian basin. They tap only a small fraction of it. If we wanted, we could encourage Russia to expand oil production and get it for much less than what it is currently trading for on the world market. We could strike our own oil deals with them (much like France did with Iraq--but they did it under the table with funds borrowed from Germany because it was illegal) instead of just giving Russia millions of dollars every year to help keep their economy stabile. Also, we have a huge, untapped oil reserve in our own country. It's so big that we don't really even know how big it is. Plus there are vast oil pockets in the Gulf of Mexico. We don't get much from there because it currently costs more to extract and process oil from there than it does to just buy it from overseas. I think that technology could be developed to overcome that, but the domestic oil industry is afraid to sink that much money into researching and developing that technology because of the risk that alternative fuels pose to them. If hydrogen cars become feasible before, during, or shortly after they develop such technology, they are seriously financially screwed. The oil industry has to begin to acknowledge on thing quickly or they are in for some serious trouble in the future. Alternative fuels will undoubtedly be used in the future, they must realize this. Instead of wasting money on fighting it and stalling it, which is actually frivolous because it will happen eventually anyway, they should invest themselves in alternative fuel technologies to provide for their own survival in the future. Hydrogen fueled cars really don't have to be that far away. The only byproduct of the reaction that poweres the hydrogen "engine" is chemically pure water. I know, what a shame it would be to pollute our planet with pure water. I'm sure some eco-hippie is out there already plotting how to make this look bad. But anyway, the hydrogen power technology for cars is a great and plausible idea. The real obsticle that has to be overcome is stability. Another quick history lesson--remember the Hindenberg? That could easily be a hydrogen powered car if the stability issues aren't worked out. There is also the enormous cost of infrastructure changeover and development, but that can rather easily be overcome. So to blame the current state of middle eastern affairs solely or even primarly on foreign oil dependence is seriously overly simplistic and vastly short-sighted. In reality, it is little more than rhetoric that is so commonly mindlessly spewed into the public forum that sadly, many have come to believe it without really looking into it.So what really is the cause of our involvement in the middle east? I'll tell you. Crazy people. Crazy people are the cause of this problem. A small group of "destructionists", as I shall call them, have forced us to divert our efforts from bettering our nation and our world to fighting them. These destructionists hide behind religion to fuel their fire. You can ask true followers of Islam about this issue, and if they are willing to respond, they will tell you that these people are manipulating the Islamic religion and Muslim people to suit their needs. We make an easy scapegoat for them. We live in a society that is exponentially wealthier than the next closest society in wealth. We are so far ahead of every other economy on Earth that, if managed properly, nobody else will probably ever catch up. Ever. Now, you explain this to a society that has generally lived in unimaginable abject poverty, and we are really easy to blame for all their woes. So, what must they do to right this great wrong that has been done to them by our hard work and ingenuity? Blow us up! And how can they amass enough support to even attempt to accomplish this? Hide behind the only religion that these people have ever known. They have little to no means to discover the truth for themselves. Technologically, they are generally behind the Dark Ages. So really the first thing that these destructionists have hijacked is the Islamic religion in certain remote regions of the world. These people who have hijacked the religion are not truly Muslims or religious. They are religious extremists. Big difference. Probably every organized religion has them, and in every case, these fringe elements are not followers of the religion. They bend and twist the religion to suit their own sordid agendas. I am no expert on the Islamic religion, but I most highly doubt that the Islamic prophet Mohammed taught his followers that they must destroy everone in the world who disagrees with them and to take over the entire world for themselves and that everyone who fails in the attempt (i.e.--gets killed) will automatically go to paradise forever. Yet this is what Osama bin Laden and his followers are teaching. They have made this their religion. This worked as long as they remained isolationists. Now that they have come out of isolation (i.e.--blown up our buildings and began to actively terrorize our nation), they have to be delt with. And not by our blowing up a pill factory in the Sudan, either. They have to be hunted down across the globe and stopped in their tracks before they cause more mass harm. Anyone who aids them in any way must be dealt with severely because this is no joke. And brutal dictators who thumb their noses at the rest of the world, can't get along with other nations, pose a threat to world security, and repeatedly show no signs of changing their ways must be taken out of power by whatever means necessary. That, my friend, is why we
are currently involved in the middle east.

[joatmon]

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Claiming that they were fits your own words:Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »In reality, it is little more than rhetoric that is so commonly mindlessly spewed into the public forum that sadly, many have come to believe it without really looking into it.I guess I would rather believe that the current administration lied to us by using WMD to justify the invasion rather than believe that the entire US and British vast intelligence capability was so completely duped by the Iraqis that they really did think the place was one big WMD stockpile. I suppose you also feel that we should invade North Korea. I don't.We can debate politics indefinitely, but I don't have the time. I had said "My personal opinion is that the country wouldn't need to be so involved in the middle east if we weren't so addicted to the oil that comes from there." I stand by that statement.As a point of reconciliation and to try to get this thread back on topic, we can agree that the Vibe is a car that can satisfy both an "eco-hippie" like me and a performance tuner like you says a lot about how versatile and wonderful the Vibe is. It does appear that GM doesn't have any plans to offer alternate technology (hybrid, fuel cell, etc) cars anytime soon, but they are not ignoring those technologies either.

[Stang2Vibe]

Sadly, but as I expected, you missed the whole point of what I was explaining to you. Do you drive your Vibe with those blinders on as well? At my university, we have a professor there who was an advisor to a major international oil cartel for a long time. My (now) former roommate took his class that concentrated on the international oil trade. I would trust this man's knowlege over any false logic that you can continue to reiterate. I'm not picking on you, so don't take it that way. We have an entire segment of our population that unfortunately do the same thing you did. When your point becomes thoroughly explained and disproven, all of a sudden you don't have time to think it out any further. The explanation for this is as constant as it is simple. This group of people doesn't want any other explanation. I also guess you didn't hear on the news this morning about a high ranking Iraqi military offical turning himself in. He informed us that the front lines of the Iraqi military had chemical and biological weapons stockpiled and ready to use when the recent war began. Saddam gave the orders to use them, but the orders didn't make it through in time, so thank God, they weren't used. He said that the Fedayheen came in while the fighing was going on and took the WMD's back to aviod having them captured by the allies. I guess you would argue with this guy about what he saw with his own two eyes as well just because it isn't what you wanted to hear and doesn't fit the story you want to believe.And no, I don't believe that we should invade North Korea. Not yet, anyway. If we keep advancing our economic trade relations with China as we recently have, then China should be able to pressure madman Kim Jong Il enough to keep him from doing anything really stupid for a while. This will buy us enough time so that we can take care of this ourselves and build evidence for the rest of the world to see why this guy is a crazy teapot dictator.Also, you sadly have recent history wrong as well. We never launched any attack on Iraq because of suspected involvement in terrorist attacks. That was the issue that brought pressure on Saddam to the forefront, but ulitmately his demise came as a result of his persistant defiance of numerous resolutions that were passed by the United Nations. That makes the facts of whether or not Saddam supported terrorists irrelavent. Terrorist involvement, or lack thereof, has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that he was in absolute and repeated definance of UN resolutions. The most recent resolution, which passed UNANIMOUSLY, was the strictest of all of them. The only thing that prevented a UN Security Council vote of approval to take Saddam out was stonewalling on the part of France because of the vast amount of money they had underhandely riding on Saddam remaining in power. Germany went along with France because they provided the funding and if Saddam was removed, France would lose all the deals they (illegally) made and never have the chance to pay back the money they borrowed from Germany. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? It's actually very simple, that is, if you want to find the truth rather than support for your own agenda.Now, as for pertinance to the topic, I agree with you on the Vibe's broad range of appeal. I am still eager to hear your response to my original question of what other car meets those requirements that I set forth that would better justify my purchasing of a car other than the Vibe. I also think that all car manufacturers should quit wasting resources on developing electric vehicles. It will take too long and waste too many resources to make a practical electric car that will appeal to the majority of the North American population. And besides, developing hybrid and/or electric cars defeats the original purpose. You want to reduce dependence on foriegn oil? How is a hybrid or electric car doing that? Let's examine the truth. An electric car just shifts the burning of the oil from your in your car to in the electricity production plant. That energy has to come from somewhere. And by using the electric car, it is probably actually less fuel efficient than a regular modern gas powered car. Why? Well, the electricity has to overcome several things before it can get into your car plugged into the wall at home. There is electrical resistance every step of the way which requires that more electricity be generated in order for it to reach you. And let's assume that we are at some arbitrary point in the future and everyone in North America is primarily driving an electric vehicle. Can you imagine the enormous amout of money that would have to be invested into beefing up the power grid to support the transmission of all that energy? If one fallen tree in Ohio can wipe out a third of the North American power grid for days, imagine what plugging in several million electric cars all at once will do. I shudder to even think it. And hybrid cars are only slightly better, as long as they don't require being plugged into an electrical outlet to recharge. They still burn oil products, so it doesn't accomplish much. If they have to be plugged in, then they actually need to burn oil at two sources. One in the car's engine and, two, at the plant that generates electricity. So really, where is the big oil savings with these technologies?On the other hand, developing alternative fuels, like hydrogen, is brilliant. There are no teapot dictators sitting on some of the world's largest hydrogen reserves. It is conceivable that the average person could produce their own supply of transportation fuel on their own property. Wouldn't it be nice to just pull a hose out of the garage once a month and fuel up your car with hydrogen from your own compressor? This should be possible if we can develop a way to draw some of the hydrogen right out of the atmosphere. Even if you had to still get it from approved stations like we currently get gasoline, that would still be much better. I can see no real reason why alternative fuels are not the better route to take.

[joatmon]

Look, I didn't mean to get you so spun up, but I resent you calling me simple minded, misguided and ignorant. I obviously touched upon a subject that you have incredibly strong opinions on. It's ok to disagree, and we do. As far as what car you should have bought instead of a Vibe, I really don't know. I picked a vibe based on two primary factors - headroom (front and back) and MPG. after that, other factors came in, but at a much lower priority. Your priorities are different, you know what is best for your situation. Since I see the Vibe as an economy wagon, it is hard for me to relate to it as the street racer that so many people want to turn it into. Maybe it's both, but as you have already told me I have no perspective and poor judgement, and therefore my opinion is invalid. Who can argue against that? You are obviously correct on all points.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »Look, I didn't mean to get you so spun up, but I resent you calling me simple minded, misguided and ignorant.I would resent being called such things as well. It's a good thing that I never called you any of these things. That would be considered "flaming" and is not acceptable on this site. I know the rules and I may walk a fine line sometimes, but I never cross it. I resent your unfounded accusation that I said any of these things about you. Not only did I not say (by means of typing) any of these things, I did not imply them, either. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but that is as far of an apology as I can offer in this case. I am very concise and careful in the choosing of my written words, as I'm sure many on this site and in my life away from this site can attest. At no point was I trying to convey these ideas about you. At no point did those words or that phrase appear in anything that I wrote in this thread. I am not allowed to trash any person on this site by the rules that the administration have set forth. I am, however, completely permitted to voice my opinion, support it with facts and evidence, disagree with another's opinion, and state why I do so. That's as far as I went and it was all I intended to do. It seems you are trying to "spin" my words and make me out to be a hatemonger or something along those lines. And you didn't wind me up with your comments, I can't give you the credit for that. My life and my knowledge keep me pretty tightly wound. You just poked at the wrong can of worms, that's all. I don't take any of this personally, in fact, I'm glad it happens once in a while. It helps me to keep my facts straight and keeps me sharp. I have more respect for someone who will ideologically stand up to me and discuss their views than someone who just caves in and walks away. I just wish you would have supported your statements with more evidence because I truly am interested in what you have to say and why you think what you do. You can't construct a credible case for something without supporting evidence.Quote, originally posted by joatmon »Since I see the Vibe as an economy wagon, it is hard for me to relate to it as the street racer that so many people want to turn it into. Maybe it's both...Again, you are not seeing something because it is not what you want to see. The Vibe IS both, and that's OK! To many, it is reliable, economical transportation and not much else. I see that most people in my city that are driving a Vibe are middle-aged to elderly. Obviously these people are most likely oblivious to the "sporty" and "youthful" image that GM was trying to grab with the Vibe. Hey, like I've said in other threads before, my mom and my stepdad like the Vibe, and my mom may buy one in the upcoming months. My mom is in her early 50's and my stepdad is in his late 50's. This is a perfect example of what I think you may have been trying to say. My mom has similar automotive priorities to yours. She currently drives a '99 Alero and generally is happy with it. My stepdad has automotive tastes that are more along my lines. He has a "02 Monte Carlo SS. Both like my Vibe, but for different reasons. If GM would have branded the Vibe as an "economy wagon", they would't sell many of them, particularly in the youth market that they obviously were targeting with this car. This would never fly, especially under the Pontiac nameplate, which GM carefully tries to promote as their "sporty" and "performance oreinted" brand. Toyota was obviously aiming right at the younger "tuner" crowd with the Matrix. They aren't shy about it, either, as the Toyota salesman was eager to point out when I went with my sister to buy her Corolla S. I don't think that GM went into the Vibe project with the mindset of making it their most fuel-efficient vehicle in their lineup. That is more of a byproduct of having the Toyota drivetrain. In my opinion, Toyota currently does an excellent job of producing engines that are notably powerful yet get great fuel economy. Honda is generally seen as the fuel economy champion, but in the past few years, I think that Toyota has been beating them hands down. Compare the Corolla and the Civic. The Corolla has more power, torque, and better gas mileage than the Civic. The pricing on the cars is similar, but you still get a little more for a little less going with the Corolla. Also, Toyota will offer rebates and incentives, while Honda never has. Honda refuses to give price breaks on their cars because it is their way of keeping the resale value of Hondas artifcially high. Toyota also still ranks at the top of the dependiblity chart and I believe is still number one in customer service. So why are people still buying Civics? I'm a bit stumped.Quote, originally posted by joatmon »...but as you have already told me I have no perspective and poor judgement, and therefore my opinion is invalid. Who can argue against that? You are obviously correct on all points. Aww, c'mon now. That kind of attitude is just sad. I'm not 6 years old nor am I unintelligent. That kind of stuff is not going to work on me. Stop the spinning, I never said any of those things, either. Nor is it correct. Please don't make me out to be a bad guy. I'm really not. If you go back and actually read my posts without letting yourself become enraged for no reason, you will see that overall, I agree with much of what you are saying. Just for different reasons. I honestly would like to hear what you (or anyone else here for that matter) think about the future of powering vehicles. You already know what I think and why, I'd enjoy some other opinions. As I've already gone into, I think that alternative fuels are the way to go. I don't see how electric or even hybrid cars will cut it for the long run and I don't support developing them further for the reasons I've already stated and because of other reasons as well. Maybe this is part of what is causing GM to drag their feet on the issue. But they already produced the world's first electric vehicle for sale to the general public. Anyone remember the EV1? I think they came out with the EV2 shortly thereafter. It was just not practical for many people, so demand was low and they died off.

[NSimkins]

I think we've gone a tad bit off topic?

[drunkenmaxx]

good lord almighty! too much text...can't read on...head pounding.

[joatmon]

I guess all I was really trying to say was that my opinion contributed to my desire to find a fuel efficient car. Guess I got too defensive on your replies, took it too personal. Kinda felt like the spanish inquisition, which, as we all know, nobody expects. Didn't mean to make you out as a bad guy. World political/economic issues are so complex, I don't know much but I do know enough to not claim that there was one single reason for anything that goes on in the world today.So, sorry for all the trouble in this thread, hope we can have peace at least here on the forum, Still friends?

Attached files

[drunkenmaxx]

hydrogen cars would be fantastic! too bad the powers that be probably put a damper on that possibility, at least for now. it inevitable that fossil fuel will run out someday, why not prepare now? it sucks being tied to the middle-east, kissing (removed) for oil. hydrogen is a great base for the "new fuel", it can be made with nothing more than aluminum foil and certain types of drain cleaner!DAD- "What are you doing in the garage son?"KID- "Oh, moms car is almost out of hydrogen, so i'm whipping up a batch real quick"NEATO!

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »I don't see how electric or even hybrid cars will cut it for the long run and I don't support developing them further for the reasons I've already stated and because of other reasons as well. Maybe this is part of what is causing GM to drag their feet on the issue. But they already produced the world's first electric vehicle for sale to the general public. Anyone remember the EV1? I think they came out with the EV2 shortly thereafter. It was just not practical for many people, so demand was low and they died off.I agree the electric cars were never practical. But I think it was the industry's attempt to convince the public they're serious about developing alternative-fuel vehicles.Hybrids, IMHO, are not meant to be a long term solution, but more of a "stepping stone." I hear them saying "while we don't have alternative fuel vehicles yet. look at this. Dramatic fuel savings, fewer emissions, less consumption. It something to help reduce the current problems we're battling -- i.e. global warming, foreign oil dependence, etc. -- until we can perfect these alternative-fuel vehicles."Just my $0.01. (sorry, don't have another penny to offer. )