Two new GM concepts go back to the Bare Necessities (w/VIDEO)
GM Bare Necessities Truck | GM Bare Necessities Car - Click above for high-res image gallery
General Motors says that it's learned a lot since the Chevy Volt concept was introduced a few years back. Paramount among these new revelations is that not all green vehicles are created equally, and not all customers looking for an eco-friendly ride really want the same thing. Some may want a full-fledged automobile with all the trimmings that just happens to get great fuel mileage while some more hardcore greenies may be willing to give up the finer things in life in exchange for the ultimate in efficiency.
With that in mind, GM created a new Eco Initiative Project with the goal of understanding what eco-minded consumers really want. The first two designs – the Bare Necessities Truck and the Bare Necessities Car – look to strip the automobile down to just its essential bits, i.e. the bare necessities. Your feedback is requested. What do you think about these two concepts?
We'll throw a vote in for the Bare Necessities Truck, which takes the idea behind the Chevy Avalanche and reduces it down to a smaller, more efficient package. Make it fuel efficient (turbodiesel please) and we think GM may have a winner on its hands. Click past the break for a series of videos explaining the Eco Initiative and the two new Bare Necessities concept vehicles.
Gallery: GM Bare Necessities Truck
Gallery: GM Bare Necessities Car
[Source: General Motors]
VIDEOS:
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Level 1:09PM (8/11/2009)
And people thought the Genesis coupe rear window hump was never going to catch on lol....
on a side not GM has a track record of making good ideas and bringing something complete the opposite....altho it seems to be changing....
Reply
Dude 1:38PM (8/11/2009)
To GM's credit, the Pontiac Solstice delivered everything the concept promised and more.
TigerMil 1:45PM (8/11/2009)
The 'bear necessities of life' from Disney's Song of the South.
geo.stewart 2:04PM (8/11/2009)
fyi, a seat back is a bare necessity. has been from day 1. even the rumble seat came with one.
otherwise. great ideas. I'd go so far as to say exposed wheels could be an integral part of a bare necessities vehicle. Why cant I have an enclosed 2 seat atom with a lower hp motor and get massive mpg?
Mike P. 2:06PM (8/11/2009)
@Dude
On the surface, maybe. The production Solstice, while in design and spirit faithful to the concept, was a car that was clearly rushed through development. The handling of the car, the interior, and other day-to-day functions of it (like how the roof folds--less space efficient than competitors') were lacking and underengineered.
Let's hope the habit of drumming up hype and then shooting themselves in the foot dies with "Old GM". My uncle was excited about the Solstice--until he took a test drive in one. The Miata was superior in most aspects.
Alex 8:43PM (8/11/2009)
While I get very excited to see new concepts all the time, this time around I'm not sure this is to their benefit (at least for Chevy) because they all ready have at least one car to meet each niche. Chevy is already saturated with product that's rebadged as something else.
Now I know that some of you will say "concepts are needed for brand growth & public reaction...blah, blah, blah..." this is true to a brand that is financially healthy and has room to experiment. I will say I'm glad to see the GMC brand grow into some new product that meets the industrial/commercial/personal use niche and continues to grow that.
Bottom line, GM needs to focus on it's current (and overly saturated) products, improve them, design from within (ie. Chevy Malibu) rather than replacing and costly developing from the ground up every 5 years.
In the long run, this is a formula that they will need if they want to emerge from their old ways.
GOT 9:37AM (8/12/2009)
Great looking concepts are a dime-a-dozen. I'll be impressed (and they'll get my money... voluntarily... not the ripped off bail-out-dough... which causes me to wonder what incentive do they have to do anything worth good money, when bailout-entitlements are always around the corner) when these manufactures begin building their beautifully designed concepts (and not the ugly derivatives they've been manufacturing for the last 3 decades).
The solstice was a great step in the right direction (only to be dumped... go figure). I was hopeful when the awesome Beat, Groove, Trax and Ultra concepts came out, but all we ended up with, ONCE AGAIN, is an ugly-derivative Spark.
Robert O 1:10PM (8/11/2009)
Down with GM. I heard on the radio this AM that they are no longer paying to keep mercury from parts they placed in cars in the 80's and 90's out of landfills under the theory that the "new GM" isn't responsible for the "old GM."
This company takes taxpayer money (and a lot of it) and then screws the public health. I'm done!
Reply
Judgeman 1:21PM (8/11/2009)
Be honest Robert, you were done a long time ago. People like you continuously look for reasons to bash. I'm sure you'll have no problem buying a car build primarily in China or India where environmental controls are non-existent. Your scorn is misguided. GM was forced into bk by the government knowing full well that bk would afford the corporation the ability to set aside issues like environmental cleanup. That's what bankruptcy is. The old company goes away so that the new company can start with a clean sheet. Don't blame companies for following the rules. Blame the rule makers!
MeiSooHaityu 1:21PM (8/11/2009)
The old company went bankrupt because its debt was so large that it surpassed its income. If you want "old GM" to assume all of its old debt, lawsuits, etc..., then how do you expect them to prosper?
If the taxpayer has spent all this money, mind as well get something that will survive to pay back its taxpayer loans.
Remember, if they were responsible for old debt, they go backrupt again (this time liquidation), and that old debt STILL wouldn't be paid. It sucks that this stuff happens, but when there is no cash, there's no cash.
Kevin 1:24PM (8/11/2009)
Judgeman: Spot on, Spot on...
TigerMil 1:48PM (8/11/2009)
So what's your option? Vote Republican next Fall? LOL! What you see going øn now is the result of the Socialists that got in last Fall. It can (and will) get worse before it gets better.
A democratic government can exist only as long or until its constituents realize they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Robert O 1:53PM (8/11/2009)
Ha! I've owned a bunch of Cadillacs and a few other GM products. I buy American, and I'm a Democrat. I just think that taking taxpayer dollars and then dumping poison in the the environment is morally wrong. The alternative? Take responsibility for your actions. Their unwillingness to assume that moral responsibility is appalling - kinda like people who walk away from their homeloans because they owe more than the house is worth, even if they can afford the payments.
alex 3:11PM (8/11/2009)
It's like some people just don't understand what bankruptcy is... Yeah people get screwed, but you have to remember that they would be just as screwed (and in a lot of cases even more screwed) if the company had just gone out of business.
And the idea of "take responsibility for your actions" is absolutely hillarious. The whole point of bankruptcy is to NOT be responsible for past actions. Don't like it? Call your congressman and ask them to strike all bankruptcy laws from the books.
MeiSooHaityu 5:25PM (8/11/2009)
Robert O, I disagree
Those issues are with "old GM" New GM is an entirely different corporate entitiy. The corporate GM that had existed for 100 years (old GM) ended.
New GM is an entirely new corporate entitiy. They like to refer to the old corporate heritage for marketing purposes, but when a company starts over they are no longer the same legal entitiy that existed before. They are completely different.
If you buy a resturant, the name, the staff, the menu items, etc... Then old patrons claim they had gotten bad food poisoning under the old ownership, does that mean you are responsible as the new owner? The name of the resturant is the same, the staff is the same, but the company was a brand new entity from the point of sale. You aren't responsible for the sins of the old owner, the old owner is.
Old GM is responsible for the sins of old GM. People don't try to go after old GM because they know after creditors tear it apart, there will be no more money left. That is why people think the new GM is responsible, they are going where the money is. Doesn't make it right, just the way it is.
Robert O 7:19PM (8/11/2009)
The point isn't that they are legally responsible. The point is that they are morally responsible. Are they not responsible for the warranties of the cars that old GM built? Is it right that a corporate entity takes billions of taxpayer dollars that enables it to survive as a new corporate entity and also shift the cost of poisons they put in the market-place?
I understand they may have the legal right to shirk their responsibility. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean I have to purchase their products. As a car nut, I am frequently asked by friends and relatives to assist with auto purchases, I'm just going to include this fact going forward when steering people away from GM cars. I want to do business with companies that honor their ethical obligations as well as their legal ones.
And BK does not always clear all debts and obligations. Some people should go to law school before they attempt to explain the law.
Paul 3:37AM (8/12/2009)
It wasn't bankruptcy GM went through. It was union-klepcy, Chicago-style. Bondholders, who typically become the new stockholders in bankruptcy got screwed. Ofama handed GM to the UAW. Thanks for the votes and the campaign contributions, boys! Keep 'em coming! Oh, and here's a company for you-all to finance that with.
So if you want to finance the next big corporate theft, go ahead and buy UAW. Uh, I mean GM.
Motor_Yakuza 1:11PM (8/11/2009)
Fail.
Reply
Nick 1:22PM (8/11/2009)
@Yazuka
Let me guess, it's because it's got no V8 and RWD?
You're the champion of retardation aren't you?
Motor_Yakuza 1:42PM (8/11/2009)
No, wise guy, because that car is fugly and looks like bionic mutant panda, and most of the americans will never buy a car smaller and less equipped then a Fiat 500. I do like the design of the truck, but if it won't have the right size, truck buyers won't even look at it. This is the real world not a cute, flower power green dream.