AD #2749 – GMC Introduces First-Ever Canyon AT4; NACTOY Winners Revealed; Car Sales Plunge in India

January 13th, 2020 at 11:32am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2749 – GMC Introduces First-Ever Canyon AT4; NACTOY Winners Revealed; Car Sales Plunge in India” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 6:14

0:59 NACTOY Winners Revealed
1:38 Geely Wants Stake in Aston Martin
2:15 Car Sales Plunge in India
2:51 Ford’s Local Hazard Warning
3:54 Nissan Has Contingency Plan for Split with Renault
4:22 Switch to EVs To Cause Job Cuts
4:58 GM to Revive Hummer
5:16 GMC Introduces First-Ever Canyon AT4

Visit our sponsor to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

32 Comments to “AD #2749 – GMC Introduces First-Ever Canyon AT4; NACTOY Winners Revealed; Car Sales Plunge in India”

  1. Jesse Says:

    Corvette looks good!A big step from the previous generation.I’m a fan as i’ve owned several.However,to make it the car of the year when it’s not even on the road yet is a bit of a stretch. It’s all new.Check.Mid engine.check. Very fast.check.That’s about all you can say.No one in the general public owns one yet! So why is it the car of the year?? The other ones are out,working and have been for a little while now. Oh well,such is life in the big car show!

  2. Lambo2015 Says:

    Sean yes! Studio looks better.

    No big surprise on the NACTOY winners.

    Sean, Question; I noticed on your clip of India that it looked like everyone was wearing helmets on the scooters and motorcycles. All the clips I’ve ever seen prior to today that never seemed to be the case. Just curious if they passed some helmet laws there?

    I like the looks of the Hummer pick-up. Wish they were offering it in both EV and ICE. Oh and keep it small.

    The Canyon looks like a full size truck. Park it next to a 70s full size and I doubt there is much difference.

  3. Barry T Says:

    My set suggestions… Move your chair toward Camera a couple of feet, we don’t benefit by seeing the chair, open the iris a bit on the camera, give yourself a little bit of a backlight to separate you from the background some, mix up the color palette on the background items more – I know all those things have importance, but it might be better to cycle them around rather than put them all up at once.

  4. Kit Gerhart Says:

    1 Presumably, Chevy provided a C8 to evaluate, and it will be sold as 2020 model year. If they re-think things, and call it a 2021, with none sold as 2020, I’d have a (small) problem with it being 2020 “car of the year.”

    2 I’ve seen photos of small motorcycles carrying families of about 6, none wearing helmets. I think some those pics would be from India.

  5. Kit Gerhart Says:

    4 Here’s a photo of a bike in India, but with only 5 people.

  6. Larry D. Says:

    5 It’s amazing that a tiny 3 cubic inch engine (50 CC) can move this whole crowd at all, let alone at 50 MPH.

    The women (mostly) on BEV scooters in China, typically college students, all wore helmets, and were going as slow as the bicycles. I saw one of them fall over, she was not injured much, rose from the ground and continued. Most scooter drivers have a strange blanket-comforter in front of them, was not sure if it was a safety item or to warm them up and shield them from the wind.

    2 Even an 80s full size would not be larger.

  7. ChuckGrenci Says:

    The Canyon AT4 is going to be a pretty competent rock crawler; seems the major players are going for trucky trucks leaving the Ridgeline for the suburbanites and light off-road crowd. Whether that is the smart move or not, I’m not sure but I think the majors should consider a smaller unibody, like Honda, and get some of that market. And I agree with 2, Lambo, the midsized are getting as big as the not so old full sized.

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    5,6 The bike in the picture is probably a “big” 110cc.

  9. Larry D. Says:


    Not only for the reasons given here, but also due to the far more reliable and far less service needed by BEVs. (Imagine if all your home appliances were ICEs and not E-motors. When I have to replace an electric appliance in less than 20 years, I consider it… unreliable. Since I bought my unit in 1987, I have replaced the very old Maytag washer around 2003, still have the same one, the stove in 1991 (still have it), and the furnace is pre-87 but I did have to replace its control unit for $500.

  10. Larry D. Says:

    8 wow. A full 7 cubic inch engine! At that Stahl museum they started (with a fire extinguisher prudently nearby) a truck-like vehicle from the 1910s or 20s called “Rhino” that had a 1,000 ci or 15 liter engine.

  11. Brett Cammack Says:

    That Xpulse 200T looked pretty sweet. Wonder what that would cost FOB Miami or Jacksonville.

  12. cwolf Says:

    I don’t think there is enough EV’s of different brands and data to accurately judge reliability. The electronics alone change so fast that anything over a couple years old is obsolete. These gizmo’s may last a long time, but to replace any of them will cost an arm and a leg.
    Just from my experiences, I believe total repair costs of all the ICE vehicles I’ve owned without all the fancy electronics would be far less than any EV I might own in the future.

  13. Larry D. Says:

    12 not necessary. If u used your common sense u would see it.

  14. Larry D. Says:

    12 also wrong on the replacements, this is the other breakthru with Tesla, over the air updates make ‘new models’ every 4 years or 5, obsolete. The current Model S is 8 or 9 years old and still going strong, Musk will not bother to waste billions coming up with the ‘annual model change’ like they did in the 50s or whenever.

  15. Kit Gerhart Says:

    11 It would be cool to have one of those bikes, but I suspect there would be no easy way to get one shipped to the US, and it would be difficult to register it for street use.

  16. Albemarle Says:

    Rather than play around at being bad partners, I think Nissan and Renault should just divorce. Based on current market value, I think Renault owns about $9.8B US of Nissan and Nissan owns $2.2B US of Renault. Shouldn’t be that big a problem for Nissan to raise the $7.6B difference and clear the slate. Then, if they really wanted to, they could merge again with a more currently equitable share. Heaven knows Renault could use the cash. But they could also use the sales & profit of Nissan, so it could be a non-starter.

  17. Kit Gerhart Says:

    John McElroy, will we get to see voting breakouts, and vote totals for NACTOY?

  18. Larry Skellion Says:

    This is always my running complaint. Why is it called the “car/truck/SUV of the year? It only addresses the vehicles that have undergone extensive change. Those vehicles may well not be the best! Quite often there are older models that are better. Why are these permanently excluded? To me, car (ok vehicle) of the year should be the best regardless of design cycle.

  19. merv Says:

    I like the new look to your set. I’m wondering if you could turn that into producing some revenue? Those impact wrenches and tools brands if prominently displayed maybe could be sell able? Or some other items you may wish to display.Just a thought.

  20. buildmore2doors Says:

    Did anybody else watching the Ford vehicles simply drive around the boxes in the road think that Ford could have done a better job of being a good corporate citizen by having the second driver pull off to the side of the road and re-locate the boxes to the shoulder so that the next vehicle coming along wouldn’t have to deal with the safety hazard? I just kept hearing the drivers say “not my job, let someone else take care of it” as they went on their merry way.

  21. cwolf Says:

    14) I’m not necessarily talking about “over the air updates”. Just the other day a commenter said he had already change motor wheel bearing in his EV. I doubt anyone really knows what impact the weight of the battery pack will have. Just considering the number of sensors, where/ how they are mounted could get expensive if an accident occurs. These things are just so new and unproven over time that replacement costs are a guess.
    As an example, Tesla had free super-charging, then they started to charge for the energy used. Now they are also adding costs of cooling and use of the charger.
    There remains so many unknowns, believing the total cost to own one of these things is cheep and trouble free is premature at this point.

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    20 Yeah, I was wondering about, why two new wheel bearings on a practically new car?

  23. cwolf Says:

    I have yet to dig into the physics and other dynamics of using hydrogen power, but I have a notion it should not be shoved by the way side. Presently it’s about 10X more expensive, but all new concepts are expensive. yet, creating an infrastructure would be much easier and without putting strain on the power grid. Refueling time is a main selling point.
    We are already seeing large trucks and small fleets converting to hydrogen for moderate hauls. As stations are placed along the interstate, the distances are increased.
    I’m not so certain, but it is very possible that hydrogen may prove to be much more eco-friendly in the long run than straining our electrical grid.

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    22 The hydrogen has to come from somewhere. At this point, it comes from dissociating methane, oil, or electrolyzing water. None of those makes sense, for powering vehicles. If electrolyzing water, why not just use the electricity to, you know, charge batteries. With methane, why not just use it to fuel power plants, heat homes, etc.

  25. ChuckGrenci Says:

    I’m no ‘rocket surgeon’ but did fine an interesting YouTube from “Engineering Explained” in which hydrogen combustion versus hydrogen fuel cell is broken down somewhat and helped me in my understanding of the processes. If interested, here’s a link (and it’s not too long either):

  26. Lambo2015 Says:

    21 & 22 I believe Bob said he was changing wheel bearings on one side due to hitting a curb. So not exactly anything specific to being an EV.

    20 Reality would be more like, people would quickly stop and see if anything of value was in those boxes and is so they would quickly be loaded up in their car and removed from the road.

  27. Larry D. Says:

    24 I agree that fuel cells are “fools cells” as Musk accurately labeled them, but then why is Toyota and other makers still investing billions on them?

  28. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25,27 The video Chuck linked explains why, if you want to power a car with hydrogen, fuel cells are better than combustion engines, because of higher efficiency and low/no NOx emissions. The thing is, where is this hydrogen going to come from? If it’s from electrolyzing water, use it to charge batteries. If it’s from natural gas, what’s the point at all? Use the gas in the usual ways, home heating, etc., and making electricity. If you really want to use it to run cars, burn it directly in engines. There will be CO2 emissions, but aren’t there CO2 emissions when you “take methane apart” to get hydrogen? Maybe I’m missing something on that. Are there any petrochemical engineers out there?

    27 I, too, wonder why Toyota and others are messing with fuel cells. The tech is expensive, and hydrogen (or natural gas) needs to be very cold, or at very high pressure to transport in useful quantities. I guess we may be missing something, but it’s a mystery to me what it would be.

  29. Lambo2015 Says:

    Fuel cells remind me of the old Stirling engines. Seem promising in theory but when actually applied they don’t really perform that great. Many years ago when I was running engine dyno’s a company was testing a new Stirling engine. Seem to be promising for maybe generator applications where it ran at the same speed all day but ramping up and down was slow and basically made it a bad choice for any vehicle application. Plus the fact they were pretty large. But hey that was back before CVT’s too so who knows, maybe it will make a comeback.

  30. Ukendoit Says:

    The video that followed Chuck’s (link below) talked about what Kit said; battery vs fuel cell. Fuel cells do have higher energy density and are quicker to refuel, but it is very expensive (8x-10x) to refuel and wastes a lot of energy to produce and ship the hydrogen. Since the late 90′s, a friend of mine keeps pushing the fuel cell and I’ve been saying that would only make sense as a stop-gap measure until battery tech was refined; we are now (20+ years later) nearing the battery tech that will surpass ICE and fuel cell, making it silly to keep investing in fuel cell infrastructure; the same money could more readily further the battery tech. ICEs will always be around (at least as hobbyist interest), but battery technology (where the current tech is going) just makes more sense economically, logistically, and environmentally.

  31. ChuckGrenci Says:

    30, ‘Uke’, nice video and I’ve learned some more; thanks for the link.

  32. JWH Says:

    #2 & #7 – I remember some information from a couple of years ago where the Colorado/Canyon are within an inch or so of the 1967 Chevrolet/GMC pickups.