Will renaming the Saturn VUS and give it a Buick name fool many?

Will it be a better vehicles?

Will it be built in China or USA?

They still don't get it. Putting polish on a fuel-inefficient crossover does not make it a highly fuel-efficient vehicle, which is what they will need. They are stuck on "it's got to be at least somewhat big".
Why not even a midsize car? As oil prices go up, we'll be left holding the bag of loans to them when their vehicles stop selling AGAIN.

Will, your generalization about crossovers doesn't make much sense. The same crossover in the form of the 2010 Equinox results in nearly the same fuel economy with the 4-cylinder (22/32) as GM's midsize Malibu with the 4-cylinder.

I think GM has it right - this technology is optimal for people who do frequent, short jaunts around town. Such people tend to prefer crossovers over sedans. This is hitting the target market quite well.

Also, I haven't seen anything that GM said that would indicate they would not eventually roll this into their sedans. My guess is that this is just the first application of many.

Harvey,

What's to fool? If you mean its "badge engineering", there is NO Saturn Vue PHEV for sale, and never has been. The SAturn Vues we have seen are mo differnt than any ohte rconcept ca ron the auto show circuit. They alll change considertely, when or if they come to market. If the drivetrain appears in a Buick fine.

Better than not showing up at all.

Any engineer will tell you that certain drive-trains fit different classes of vehicles better or worse. With the cost of batteries exorbitant for now, larger vehicles need a different approach from the Volt EREV.

I welcome the appearance of the first production PHEV by a mass manufacturer. And welcome even more, the introduction of an advanced hybrid technology in FWD vehicles. Toyota's HSD is not the only or final approach, as Ford has shown; and the dual mode approach is an improved version overcoming an inherent design limitation in HSD's design.

You are apparently so committed to disparaging any other effort than Toyota's, that you should take a step back and dispassionately look at yourself. We are all seeking advances in Ground Transport that also steps forward in minimizing fossil usage, for economics and national security; even as we may differ on the scientific need for trace gas CO2 reduction, or urgency to do anything about it now, and not simply let technology solve any such problem automatically in a decade or two.

Stan:

Many car manufacturers in China and India will probably compete with Toyota (and other current majors) in the coming years, specially for (peoples's) affordable electrified vehicles.

Those two countries can build common sense under $10K BEVs while we could not even build the batteries for that price.

Let's hope that with over $1000+B in direct and indirect subsidies, our local industries will start mass producing more efficient electrified vehicles. Will they be competitive 3 or 5 years latter or will they need more $$$B every 5 years, that remains to be seen.

Harvey:

W.B. is in BYD for three reasons: he likes principle Wang Chuan-Fu, his tech advisor B Gates recommended it, and Berkshire intends to insure China the way it insures the U.S. China will be buying a lot of insurance as it expands and that is what makes Berkshire so successful.

Never-the less, quick profits on consumer electronics batteries does not guarantee a leading position in automotive EV technology. And as the link points out, China is rife with graft, corruption, pollution and poor quality control - typical of emergent industrials. In the end it's good competition for the west to stay ahead of.

Will, I am not trying to pick apart everything you say here, but where did you get this from?

"The Volt obtains 40mpg equivalent"

Even if there was such a number released, which I doubt, that could only be the fuel economy while cruising in range extending mode. You are clearly not getting the point of the Volt if you are using that as the benchmark for that vehicle.

In any case, even the almighty Toyota has not produced a hybrid SUV or crossover with anything smaller than a V6 yet. Honda - still waiting on a hybrid crossover of any kind. Where are these great strides you speak of?

Lastly, displacement is not the sole determinant of fuel economy. We've seen both the Prius (1.5 to 1.8) and RX (3.3 to 3.5) upsize their engines AND increase their mileage, considerably so in the RX. Perhaps that extra displacement allows them to run an Atkinson cycle engine with cylinder deactivation? Why don't you wait until the numbers are you before you start throwing your barbs.

Alpha wrote;

"We've seen both the Prius (1.5 to 1.8) and RX (3.3 to 3.5) upsize their engines AND increase their mileage, considerably so in the RX."

I fail to see how a 3.6L EcoTec is going to get better gas mileage than a 2.4L EcoTec, especially in a hybrid configuration, where a larger engine is clearly more inefficient. This is a greenwash vehicle, pure and simple, much like the Hybrid Accord, though at least the hybrid version achieved slightly better mileage than the standard Accord.

The Volt 40 mpg equivalent is from a number of calculations. The battery bank is 16Kwh and the AT is set for 70% DoD, which is 10.6Kwh or 36168 BTUs. A vehicle obtaining 40 mpg will burn one gallon at roughly 30% efficiency. Since gasoline is about 115,000 BTU/gallon, at 30% efficiency, that's very close the the amount of energy the Volt is claimed to use in 40 miles.

The point is not simply 'get off gas', but 'use less energy overall', as we don't simply want to blacken the skies with more coal burning. And since the Prius gets 25% higher efficiency (50mpg), GM has to play catch up even before the Volt is released. Interestingly enough, they had a vehicle prototype that achieved 4 times the fuel economy that the Prius can now and could hit 60mph in under 7 seconds over 25 years ago. Ever hear of this vehicle?

Why do y'all assume that electricity comes only from dirty coal. The US electric supply is amazingly clean and only the "unintended Consequences" of the NO Nukes idiots, keep a lot of the dirtiest coal plants still running.

But perfected Gen III+ LWR reactors are now available, forced by principled nuclear critics. Many are being ordered, and are in the early stages of construction that will double the clean nuclear generation from 20% to 40% of the electric generation mix in a mere 8 or 9 years from today.

Most of that displaced generation will be the extremely old and dirty coal plants, that were supposed to be retired in the 1980s, but remained on-line as their replacements were canceled. So an out-sized amount of toxic cleanup will occur in the electric generation mix in that time frame.

Provided of course that ham-handed Clueless doesn't screw it up like he almost did thoughtlessly, simply to get a handful of NIMBY votes for Harry Reid in the next election...

"The point is not simply 'get off gas', but 'use less energy overall..."

Initially the point is exactly to get off gas. Since that's where we send $700B annually for foreign oil. Cleaning up the grid is a second step since there's plenty of untapped energy at night to charge EVs.

And as Stan points out the energy portfolio going forward is going to need new nuke technology.

Could we buy cars and rent a tow truck whenever its needed? If we do, couldn't we remove millions of unjustified 3 to 4 tonnes gas guzzler tow trucks from our streets, roads and highways?

Overpowered (V-6 or V8) HEV sedans are not really justified (except for tow trucks-combo) and not selling that well. The main objective for HEVs is to reduce fuel consumption not to increase performance or weight.