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 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 superhigh 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:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Throwback 3:10PM (8/11/2009)
I am all for both concepts, especially the truck, if it is a true compact truck with a 4 cylinder engine mild hybrid engine. This truck is one of their best concepts in years. This is exactly the type of truck I have been looking for. I think Toyota was on the right track with the ABAT, but they decided to kill the project.
Reply
paulwesterberg 5:06PM (8/11/2009)
The truck nose is way to stubby and "manly" to be efficient. It wont get 40mpg unless they round out the corners a bit. These are designers - they think they can just spec a better engine and it will be efficient, they are not engineers. These people need to be taught basic scientific principles and incorporate aerodynamics into their design.
The truck design is like volt concept.
paulwesterberg 5:18PM (8/11/2009)
If you want real innovation in a truck design then they should do this:
All electric or serial electric volt-type power train: allows weight to be distributed for a low center of gravity.
Electric drive via wheel motors: All wheel drive with traction/stability control and excellent regen during braking.
Actuated hydraulic suspension: raise the vehicle for more ground clearance when going off road. Lower the vehicle for better freeway handling. Tilt the vehicle in turns to improve handling.
Variable tire pressure: Harder tires for roadway travel and softer tires for off road driving.
I like the 4 passenger / larger cargo area concept, but they could do a lot more to make it interesting.
polo 1:56AM (8/12/2009)
I don't get whats so great about the truck. It looks like any other except with accentuated corners which will get smoothed in the production version...and the sub compact looks like any other typical subcompact except the concept has the rear wheels pushed back (which won't be in the production version)....I think everybody here is being fooled by the unrealistic tires.
If anything the truck looks like the bat with corners instead of curves.
Throwback 9:50AM (8/12/2009)
These are design sketches not final drawings. The sketches are used to get a general shape of a vehicle. The goal is a 40 mpg, probably on the highway. The Innovation is that you have a compact truck with midsize capability. No one has such a truck on the market. The ABAT would also give the capability (maybe not towing) but Toyota has decided not to produce it. Sure wheel hub motors would be impressive, but this truck has to be reasonably priced, not cost as much as a Ferrari..
ziv 3:29PM (8/11/2009)
That pickup is cool! The reversable bulkhead is outstanding! A 67" bed isn't huge but it is big enough for a substantial portion of the market. Anything close to 40 mpg would sell like mad. This does not feel like GM. Wait, this is just a mockup and some drawings, GM will obviously never actually build a vehicle that is trendsetting and cool...
Reply
Robert 3:47PM (8/11/2009)
The truck concept is very appealing. For a casual truck user like me it would work great if there was a high power/torque turbo engine option. I tow a fairly heavy trailer over high passes out west and the power/torque loss at altitude is a killer. This truck with an ethanol optimized engine like the one being developed by Ricardo would be just the ticket. It has the output of a turbo diesel without the high cost.
Reply
george 4:04PM (8/11/2009)
kjs lkj lkjfdslkjfds kjfdslfds lkjfds lkjfd lkjfd lkjfds lkjfdskjlfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfdslkjfdslkjfds lkjfds lkjfds lkjfdsj lkjfds lklkjfds fdslkjfdslkjfdslkjfdslkjfds lkjfds lkj lkjfdsfdsj lkfds lkjfds lkjfds lkj
Reply
Spence 4:11PM (8/11/2009)
Good god, are they really the new GM? That truck was almost...cool.
Reply
FitFan 4:14PM (8/11/2009)
It's kinda funny to see what look like 19" rims on an "bare essentials" sub compact.
Reply
matt 4:18PM (8/11/2009)
awesome ideas GM... this is the first thing in a very long time that has me interested in your pdoducts...
Reply
Eugene 4:23PM (8/11/2009)
they should make this truck like the volt and have range extender, and just make the volt a "bare essentials" pure ev.
but this is gm, who think the more models and variations the better
Reply
meme 5:13PM (8/11/2009)
God-awful aero, stubby front end, and tiny, poor visibility windows. I don't know why GM is in love with this style, but it's inefficient, ugly, and impractical. The trifecta.
Reply
Chibi Chaingun - blackhivemedia.com 5:25PM (8/11/2009)
- Truck Concept -
Sold. I would buy over any truck. I own a 4 cyl Ranger now. This is the kind of efficiency I want to upgrade to.
Reply
Matt 9:32AM (8/12/2009)
You and me both! I couldn't care less what it looks like, I just want a truck that can carry a full 4x8 sheet, tow a small trailer, and go off road; all while getting 30+ mpg. 40 mpg with a turbo diesel would = sold.
codogman 5:35PM (8/11/2009)
That truck is exactly what I have always wanted. I am amazed that GM came up with it. Unfortunately if it happens to ever make it to production, it will never be built with a diesel/hybrid drivetrain because this is America and we are addicted to gasoline. It will probably be built as a "flex-fuel" vehicle that gets barely better mpg than all the currently available trucks....
Have some guts and build it, GM!!
Reply
KK 5:33PM (8/11/2009)
I like the look of the car. But the way this concept is presented (and named) shows that they still don't get it. They still seem to think everyone WANTS big cars, even if some people may "give up" on it to save money. As long as they have that mentality, I don't expect they'll come up with a reliable high-quality compact car that I'd be happy to own.
Reply
josh 6:16PM (8/11/2009)
I'm still floored that every concept car has to be a freaky deaky pile of fictitious pseudo futuristic impractical crap. There's no hope of those looking anything like they do now if they made it to production. Just like the Volt. I guess GM (and just about every other auto company) still has that to learn.
That said, the little car is pretty dumb looking next to their own chevy beat concept, which made it to production in Europe. Just up the safety rating, lower the drag a bit, release it state side and they've got a good looking, practical and efficient product that's bound to do well.
The truck concept is functionally pretty cool. The gigantic rims are ridiculous, as are the body lines, but after the changes this would undergo when being put into production, it'd actually be pretty cool. I doubt the 40MPG at the moment though.
Reply
Jubei 6:25PM (8/11/2009)
GM can build and show off concepts for all eternity. The fact remains that their products are subpar and basically falls apart after 4 or 5 years of use. No matter how pretty or fancy the shell, the internals of a GM products is a piece of junk. Sorry GM, Korea and Japan builds far better vehicles. When it comes to quality, reliability, GM is not even close to thought for most Americans and the industry.
Reply
Mr Clickerson 2:28AM (8/12/2009)
Unlike you, Jubei, I have been in and out of the internals in MANY different vehicles- Chevys, Fords, Hondas, Dodges, Chryslers, Jeeps, Toyotas, and you know what? You're a complete retard. You're an Apple fanboy (and likely an employee or simply related to Steve Jobs) and you have an absolute lack of knowledge of the computer and electronic world... And then you have the nerve to try and spew your shit on Autoblog? You might as well kill yourself- you do not know a blessed thing about cars other than what Consumer Reports and the foreign dealers tell you. GTFO.