Must Read!! Article from GM High-Tech Performance--CTS-V Differential!!

[V06]

Originally Posted by Holmes815

LETS MAKE THIS HAPPEN PEOPLE!!!!

Maybe I've watched too many home improvement shows lately, but when you say this why do I get visions of a horde of hard-hatted construction types carrying sledgehammers swarming towards GM headquarters? And half an hour later hollering, "MOVE THAT BUS... MOVE THAT BUS!!!" in order to reveal 04/05 Vs with performance rear differentials in them.

I guess I'm a little confused as to why GM, knowing that the diff couldn't withstand the output power of the 04/05 V's stock engine, would go ahead and greenlight its use anyhow. Anyone here have any good insight into what thought process would go into KNOWINGLY making an inferior product? A product that has been previously branded as high quality.

But I'm not an engineer or a bean counter at a corporation. GM must have had a good reason for doing what they did. I'm just a small business owner who was taught by family to always try to do the job right the first time. And if you make a mistake, say you're "sorry" and make things right with a smile no matter how hard it hurts your pride or your wallet.

And it shouldn't matter if you are selling something for $5 or $50,000 either; but I quess, with this kind of business philosophy, that's why my family business will always be a small one.

[CIWS]

Using existing parts at the time of production reduces overall production costs, especially on a model that was to be in limited production in the first place as the V series, instead of designing / purchasing a whole different unit just for our few thousand cars per year. This basically applies also to the reason we don't see a specific fix. Cheaper to simply replace the units that do fail and wait for customer warranty to run out than to engineer a worthy replacement as the car itself is getting a redesign in 08. The current CTS-V will have the kind of production numbers in it's 4 years of unit production ( 04,05,06,07 ) than a lot of GM models get in a single year. A full blown recall is a more expensive move (all cars get them replaced failed or not ) and draws attention to a poor design at a time GM is trying to improve a quality image and compete in a tougher market.

[bcholka]

The biggest problem I have with this issue (am I'm not speaking out of any anger--my diff has never had any issues) is that GM is being very difficult with the poor fellas that are having diff problems. I think the majority of us V owners are reasonable people who expect to be treated fairly. Cadillac has a known design defect with their vehicle and they continue to decline repairs under warranty. We're not asking for a total recall of the diff whether there are problems or not--just do the right thing and repair the ones that have issues under warranty.
We Cadillac owners are being disrespected and ignored--something I would never come to expect from this type of company.
PLEASE CADILLAC: DO THE RIGHT THING!!!

[svassh]

Being a NewV owner I haven't had any problems yetwith my rear diff. That said from what my experience has been like with my dealer, I wouldn't want them going near my rear diff. They are poorly trained and inexperienced when it comes to the V.

If Cadillac wants a new image as a youthful performance car company then 'charity begins at home'. Most of the dealer network I have read about on this forum and others is just as bad or worse than mine. Get these shops trained and certified on the cars so they can at least diagnose and work on them.

James and Ewil3rd at Lindsay are certainly exceptions to the rule but given the Cadillac reputation for quality and service they SHOULD be the norm.

[Got5onit]

Originally Posted by CIWS

Using existing parts at the time of production reduces overall production costs, especially on a model that was to be in limited production in the first place as the V series, instead of designing / purchasing a whole different unit just for our few thousand cars per year. This basically applies also to the reason we don't see a specific fix. Cheaper to simply replace the units that do fail and wait for customer warranty to run out than to engineer a worthy replacement as the car itself is getting a redesign in 08. The current CTS-V will have the kind of production numbers in it's 4 years of unit production ( 04,05,06,07 ) than a lot of GM models get in a single year. A full blown recall is a more expensive move (all cars get them replaced failed or not ) and draws attention to a poor design at a time GM is trying to improve a quality image and compete in a tougher market.

This about sums it up. GM must think that in the long run, the cost to correctly fix the problem will exceed their profit on the margin. They've accounted for the average failure rate vs mileage/warranty and probably figure this will move in their favor. Very, very, very, shady, but something big businesses always do.
It's very simple economics. A perfect example:
Wal-Mart accounts for yearly losses due to theft. They can spend all the money they want on security systems and extra personel, but in the end it's just not efficient. The cost for maximum security will eventually exceed the benefit. In the end, they'll mazimize benefit by spending $XX on security and allow $XX amount of theft per year.
That's who we are to GM, people. We're their "thieves".

In the grand scheme of GM's automobile manufacturing, we're forced to look at GM's plan of equilibrium benefit vs loss. We may never see action unless this thing snowballs with media help.

[atdeneve]

That's the problem, though. They've got a lot more to lose than X amount of dollars.

Cuz whatever equation or mathematical profit-based formula they're using, even though average failure rates, warranty period, mileage, yadayadayada may have all been accounted for, they certainly forgot to consider the largest factor as far as any business is concerned - all those future customers they have alienated and henceforth lost. Simple economics? Eh, I call it bad economics and just plain bad business. Stupid ass corporations. Suck my nana. Whatever the hell that means. Suck it.

[Got5onit]

Originally Posted by atdeneve

That's the problem, though. They've got a lot more to lose than X amount of dollars.

Cuz whatever equation or mathematical profit-based formula they're using, even though average failure rates, warranty period, mileage, yadayadayada may have all been accounted for, they certainly forgot to consider the largest factor as far as any business is concerned - all those future customers they have alienated and henceforth lost. Simple economics? Eh, I call it bad economics and just plain bad business. Stupid ass corporations. Suck my nana. Whatever the hell that means. Suck it.

Well put.
Especially, the suck it part.

[Holmes815]

Guys as far as media coverage, if someone can get me that article I will try everything in my power to make it seen publically. I work for NBC in the CNBC building and have a friend in the building who has contacts at our Detroit office which is used primarily to cover everything automotive. We can't let this thread die, I don't care if we are GM's write off or not, this whole situation is totall bullshit. We know the document exists, now we need it- PERIOD!!!

James

[Kurlee Daddee]

Originally Posted by Holmes815

Guys as far as media coverage, if someone can get me that article I will try everything in my power to make it seen publically. I work for NBC in the CNBC building and have a friend in the building who has contacts at our Detroit office which is used primarily to cover everything automotive. We can't let this thread die, I don't care if we are GM's write off or not, this whole situation is totall bullshit. We know the document exists, now we need it- PERIOD!!!

James

[dvandentop]

Hell yes to this thread, if the guy who wrote the article @ GMHTP is any kind of enthusiast he will bring this article to light!

[CTSV05]

Fellas......We went through this months ago, several board leaders had a conference call with 3 GM Higher ups........it wasnt resolved then, and I wouldnt hold My breath or any other body parts in anticipation of seeing any type of fix from Cadillac, GM, or Jupiter for that matter......

Face it, we are a small group compared to the production numbers of say trucks....just the way it is. Sorry

[Holmes815]

Originally Posted by CTSV05

Fellas......We went through this months ago, several board leaders had a conference call with 3 GM Higher ups........it wasnt resolved then, and I wouldnt hold My breath or any other body parts in anticipation of seeing any type of fix from Cadillac, GM, or Jupiter for that matter......

Face it, we are a small group compared to the production numbers of say trucks....just the way it is. Sorry

Well with that kind of attitude nothing will get resolved. Persistance works and more importantly media coverage of anything can dramatically change a situation. No guarantees or promises but it's better than sitting back and bitching at how nothing is changing.

James

[CVP33]

Originally Posted by CTSV05

Fellas......We went through this months ago, several board leaders had a conference call with 3 GM Higher ups........it wasnt resolved then, and I wouldnt hold My breath or any other body parts in anticipation of seeing any type of fix from Cadillac, GM, or Jupiter for that matter......

Face it, we are a small group compared to the production numbers of say trucks....just the way it is. Sorry

Lawfive, StealthV, Reed, Lasstss and myself were on that call. It did not go well. Imagine being in a courtroom with GM engineers and you have some understanding of the conversation.

US - We keep having problems with our CTS-V's rear differential.
GM - Are you asserting that there is an issue with the differential in your highly modified V?
US - I wouldn't call a cold air intake and an exhaust, 'highly modified'.
GM - Did these modifications increase the HP and TQ output of your vehicle outside and above the engineered specifications?
US - Nevermind.

[BadCad]

engineered specifications

Reading this post, seems to me the engineered specifications for the diff as published by GM are insufficient given the power output of the V even at stock trim, hence the many failures. I can't imagine that'd be a good retort on the part of GM in defending the diff.

[verbs]

Originally Posted by CVP33

Lawfive, StealthV, Reed, Lasstss and myself were on that call. It did not go well. Imagine being in a courtroom with GM engineers and you have some understanding of the conversation.

US - We keep having problems with our CTS-V's rear differential.
GM - Are you asserting that there is an issue with the differential in your highly modified V?
US - I wouldn't call a cold air intake and an exhaust, 'highly modified'.
GM - Did these modifications increase the HP and TQ output of your vehicle outside and above the engineered specifications?
US - Nevermind.

That's the problem. A bunch of us including myself blew rears on completely stock cars, and the rears were underrated to stock CTS-V power capabilities.