Give Us A Break GM.
For your consideration: Give Us A Break GM.
Welcome to another edition of Advertising Analysis.
The automobile manufacturers will give us enough mojo for this column for centuries alone. Around 2034, when scientists finally defeat the aging gene, Money King will be still be cranking out posts regarding how much cash vehicles cost us vs. what we actually get out of them. There’s a novel idea for us all to consider.
One of our crew heard an advertisement from General Motors talking about their ”MPVs of MPG!!!!”
What????!!!!!
Blah. Blah. Blah. GM may be known for its muscle cars and trucks, but one thing it’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind on is: fuel efficiency. They're even getting their butts kicked by Ford.
- Do we applaud these jokers for trying to accentuate that they really are attempting to improve MPG per vehicle?
- Do we just laugh at their commercials talking about how they’re getting a whopping 35 MPG on the highway with the Cobalt when the Toyota Tercel was doing this back in the 1990?
You tell us.
As we watch gasoline in America shoot over $4 per gallon, we’re wondering why we’re not hearing ads from companies like GM saying: “Guess what. We got our a$$es kicked, but we’ve been around for 100 years and we’ve got a lot of money. So, we’re firing half of our executives and scraping money to buy Honda motors entirely.”
That might actually be the only innovation GM can afford at this point in the game.
GM is an American company. The Money Kings are a bit on the nationalistic side of things. We certainly love our country. We don’t love what GM is doing with its ads, however.
Here’s The Money Kings tip, if you want to easily check MPG and compare vehicles:
Visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov!
You’re already paying for the analysis that GM and every other automaker out there embellishes with their ads. Find out for yourself, if they’re lying. Find which vehicle makes sense for your gasoline budget. Save GM a lot of money and trouble.
Good luck out there.
Keywords: GM, cars, trucks, lies, catch-up, hype, ads, radio, tv
If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to our RSS feed.
Or you can have new posts emailed to you by subscribing by email.
Digg
StumbleUpon
In case you hadn't noticed,
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been a pile of cars through the years that get > 30MPG on the highway over the course of automotive history. Emissions are lower however due to the introduction of catalytic converters.
What I really don't understand is that the cobalt LS sedan gets a combined 30MPG and the Aveo LT sedan gets 32MPG combined. That's a 6.7% improvement, but the Cobalt puts out 148HP and the Aveo only 103, which is a 30.4% reduction, making the cobalt far more efficient at using the fuel for power.
Here is the strange thing, they say that for every hundred pounds you shed from your vehicle you increase your mileage by about 2%, and since the cobalt is just a shade over 200lbs heavier than the Aveo that already counts for around 4% of the 6.7% improvement . . . why the heck doesn't this Aveo thing get like 40MPG (34% higher than the cobalt)?
Another strange example is my 2002 Ford Taurus. The Taurus has always come with at least a couple of engine options, one the normal one for the grannies and the high performance option which is much better for the size and weight of the car. For the 2002 model year you can get a 155HP or a 200HP engine, both are rated at 20MPG city and 30MPG highway. So you get a 29% increase in power with no decrease in fuel efficiency. What gives?
Obviously the technology exists for more efficient engines, even in the same model year. Why don't you see the majority of Taurus' on the road with the 200HP engine? Cost . . . it was a 2 grand option. So no rental fleets took it and barely anyone I know even knew the Taurus line has always had a higher powered option. I don't understand why the smaller engine doesn't use 29% less fuel and why more engines can't be better at converting fuel to power.
Post new comment