: GM Going Bankrupt...



syrob@MSN.COM
11-17-05, 02:27 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10075026/

GM Going Bankrupt...

I think it is inevitable. Wonder how it will affect us SRX owners...

SYROB

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 02:37 PM
I wonder how it will effect Cadillac owners in general. GM has come a long way but maybe it's too little, too late.. Maybe we'll see a Toyota label instead of a GM label on our cars one day.. Cadillac. A luxury division of Toyota..

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 02:42 PM
This is a pretty important subject. I'm moving it to the lounge where all of us concerned Cadillac owners and enthusiasts can comment on it...

Kev
11-17-05, 03:27 PM
Wow, not good news. It has been coming though hasn't it? It's looking like tough times for more than just a few. I know I've been looking very closely at my own spending habits and financial situation and I am making some drastic changes for the better I hope.

No more buying on credit. If I can't pay cash, I cant afford it. I'm trying to incorporate this standard into my business as well. It's really tough to do though, when your customers don't pay on time or at all.

Back to GM, I really hope they can turn things around, what's America without Chevrolet?!

"It's as American as Chimichangas and Toyota..."

It just doesn't roll off the tongue as well, you know?

Elvis
11-17-05, 03:35 PM
I was wondering when this would surface here. The news is really REALLY bad. They need fuel cells to bail them out, but they could end up lacking the cash reserves to bring that to market.

I'm not optimistic.

90Brougham350
11-17-05, 03:46 PM
The government will not and cannot let GM file for bankruptcy in the manner many of us are probably tinking. The government sure wouldn't have let Chrysler go under in the 80s, and they sure as hell will keep GM alive as long as possible. GM is just paying the price for years of corporate ignorance. Assuming people will love to buy their wonderful SUV's and light trucks is arrogant. Who cares if gas prices are dropping again. Trends are changing. Time to face the music, GM.

Kev
11-17-05, 04:00 PM
On the positive and ever hopefull side, this may be a good time to buy GM stock cheap and make some money when the ship turns around! :suspense:

:suspect: Boy! Talk about speculation.......WHAT AM I THINKING?! :helpless:

addison_ii
11-17-05, 04:06 PM
As we have feared this current trend has hit home. From years of complacency to a late start in responding to current public auto buying trends has taken a toll on GM. I can only hope that the government decides to do as 90Brougham suggested and bring GM back from the brink. This is going to have a huge impact on America. Wage cuts, pension cuts are just the start of things. If this goes on to the point of no return it will affect parts availability, warranty coverage and a whole multitude of other things. I can only hope that GM can be rescued, because as Kev said Toyota and Chimichangas just doesn't sound right. Hopefully we won't see a Toyota Cadillac division ever. That would be equal to treason.

DBA-One
11-17-05, 04:06 PM
This will be a good thing for them as far as unions are concerned. While under bankruptcy protection they can do even better than this last go around with the union negotiations. All those past and current workers better be ready to tighten their belts or risk having nothing at all. GM was far too generous in the "old world" and now it has become very expensive.

I wish them all the best but they simply must make cars people want to buy.

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 04:48 PM
If GM went under and Toyota took over, there would be no worries about parts availability. And who knows? We may even get better customer service... THAT is looking on the bright side. :o

Krashed989
11-17-05, 04:54 PM
So if GM gets even closer to bankruptsy, will all of the models be like 20 bucks?... Now THAT's looking on the bright side... kinda...

addison_ii
11-17-05, 05:02 PM
If GM went under and Toyota took over, there would be no worries about parts availability. And who knows? We may even get better customer service... THAT is looking on the bright side. :o True but they would say: toyota motor car division instead of Cadillac.:(

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 05:09 PM
Wait. They could still be called Cadillac - just like Lexus. Lexus is owned by the Toyota Motor Division... I'm a Cadillac enthusiast and I'd like to see Cadillac live forever. I'm not quite sure I care who owns them...

addison_ii
11-17-05, 05:18 PM
Wait. They could still be called Cadillac - just like Lexus. Lexus is owned by the Toyota Motor Division... I'm a Cadillac enthusiast and I'd like to see Cadillac live forever. I'm not quite sure I care who owns them...True but it just wouldn't sit right at first. Hopefully something will be done before it comes to that point. While there are some Lexus cars I like it just wouldn't be the same.

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-17-05, 05:29 PM
To be honest I wouldn't worry too much.

Ford bought out Aston Martin and Jaguar but they're still very much Brittish cars, and if Toyota took over Cadillac I'm sure they'd still very much be american cars.

They won't disappear off the face of the earth, but to be hnest, I think something serious WILL happen because GM make such stupid decisions with regards product direction. They've done it a lot in the past and will again until it kills them.

Kev
11-17-05, 05:30 PM
Being an old Oakland Homeboy I liken it to the Raiders moving to LA, they were infamously dubbed the LA Traitors by many previously loyal fans, then they moved back to Oakland and the folks in LA got a bit tweaked. It's never been quit the same for them in the loyalty department. I fear it might be the same with GM.

Even if the move happens and it turns out in the long run to be an improvement, there's just something about that kind of change that sits uneasy with a lot of people.

Krashed989
11-17-05, 05:35 PM
GM is just plain making the wrong competitive decisions. It would probably be good for them to be bought out by another company, but then there will be less progress with improvments in design because of there being less competition. The competition is what influences companies like that to build better. GM is just falling behind. I've said this before, The automotive world is evolving, and if GM can't keep up, they will become obsolete.

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 05:37 PM
Well, with so many people buying foreign cars these days, it just may end up better for Cadillac sales if Toyota DID take over. I mean, if Cadillac can still sell cars while owned by a company that gets no respect, imagine otherwise...

ElDawgg 2G
11-17-05, 05:38 PM
Hello...

TOYOTA CAVALIER :hide:

The model was briefly sold in Japan by Toyota, under a
company agreement with GM, badged as the Toyota
Cavalier, with some notable differences. Besides the
fact that it was right hand drive, the Toyota Cavalier
also featured a leather shift knob and steering wheel,
different taillights, power folding rear mirrors, side
marker lights on the front fenders, and carpeting on
the inside of the trunk lid. These parts are hard to
obtain in America but remain highly desirable among
hardcore Cavalier fans. Toyota Cavaliers were first
sold in 1995 and were sold up until 2000.

FYI
FWIW

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 05:55 PM
That's pretty interesting.. The Toyota Cavalier. :p Well, I wouldn't worry too much about ever seeing a Toyota STS or Toyota Escalade.. I think Toyota is smart enough to know they can't rename an American company with so much history to Toyota and expect us to be okay with it. That would be the one way to make hardly enough sales to be worth bothering...

addison_ii
11-17-05, 05:58 PM
A Toyota Cavalier?? now that just looks weird. I like the addition of leather on the wheel and shifter though. But still doesn't look right. psss*very quietly*it's missing the bowtie*end psst* :D

ben72227
11-17-05, 06:18 PM
From what I've heard, the Japanese people were pissed at Toyota for selling such a piece of "American crap." Of course, it was sold in a foreign market, so GM had to spruce it up, which comes to my point:

WHy in the hell does GM INSIST on giving Americans the dumbed down version of EVERYTHING. Europe gets the BLS, we get the half-assed CTS with black plastic console that looks like it was designed by RUBBERMAID! Holden gets the original Monaro, and we get the half-assed, COMPLETE rip-off, BADGE-ENGINEERED GTO. I mean damn, do GM's designers suck so much that if GM wants a hot products they have to import it? That same thing with the Solstice too! They had to jack that from Vauxhall.

AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A PONY CAR!!!ARGHHH!!!:mad:

SpeedyArizona
11-17-05, 06:24 PM
I just can't picture a Toyota Corvette, doesn't seem right. If GM does go bankrupt and Toyota makes a hostile takeover of the company, I'm switching completely to BMW!

Lord Cadillac
11-17-05, 06:34 PM
From what I've heard, the Japanese people were pissed at Toyota for selling such a piece of "American crap." Of course, it was sold in a foreign market, so GM had to spruce it up, which comes to my point:

WHy in the hell does GM INSIST on giving Americans the dumbed down version of EVERYTHING. Europe gets the BLS, we get the half-assed CTS with black plastic console that looks like it was designed by RUBBERMAID! Holden gets the original Monaro, and we get the half-assed, COMPLETE rip-off, BADGE-ENGINEERED GTO. I mean damn, do GM's designers suck so much that if GM wants a hot products they have to import it? That same thing with the Solstice too! They had to jack that from Vauxhall.

AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A PONY CAR!!!ARGHHH!!!:mad:
Don't forget the nice Buicks in China.. Have you seen them?

ShadowLvr400
11-17-05, 06:49 PM
Writing's been on the wall for a while. GM has the totally wrong approach to selling, and has yet to learn from it. Building a mediocre product and selling it cheap isn't going to work when everyone else is making a good and ever improoving product, and selling it for just a bit more. So far, everyone's moving forward with good products except GM. Aside from a very few exceptions, GM has been producing boring, unimpressive, slow, poor riding vehicles. When the amenities in a 10 yr old vehicle, match a new car, when the ride in a 10 yr old vehicle is equal to or better than a new car, when the quality between the 10 yr old and the new are the same, you're not going to do well as a business. Simple business rules, grow, or die, advance or become obsolete. GM has not been growing, and they have not been advancing. Truthfully, since the mid 90's they've been on a downhill slide. Since 2000 or so, they've been diving off the cliff.

FSU_Noles
11-17-05, 07:27 PM
The goverment bailed out Chrysler so what the hell, they can bail out GM.

GM has some ground to make up to the rest of the world. The problem is that they got so caught up in cross-pollenizing the divisions that each division lost its way. There used to be a day when Buick and Oldsmobile competed with Chevrolet for market share, the muscle cars were in constant conflict with one always trying to out perform the other.

As emissions and fuel mileage took their toll on the markets GM had to downsize and they did so at the expense of individuality. The late 70's and early 80's were a dark time for quality and style.

The next battle was with the unions, as recession and inflation grew GM continued to look after their employees and now they are paying for it. Labor rates have been ridiculous for years now and the health plan for hourly workers exceeds that of the executies. General Motors has been supporting many retirees for a long time and as they continue to age and health care costs rise GM gets hurt more and more.

GM will come out of this somehow, they will cut labor rates and health care and possibly they will have to move some plants to the South to get away from the UAW.

ben72227
11-17-05, 09:02 PM
Well, its no surprise to me, you guys have pretty much summed it up - mediocre product, decent products coming MUCH too late, failure to market towards OBVIOUS market groups (i.e. Where the hell is the pony car?), failure to acknowledge that consumers wanted decent, FUEL EFFICIENT vehicles, not half-assed attempts like the Saturn line for the past 15 years.

They relied/rely WAY too heavily on the SUV/Truck market. While that market is still somewhat strong, crossovers and hybrids seem to be the next big thing, and from what I can tell, GM hasn't REALLY embraced either. Their only hybrid (a Silverado) isn't a "real" hybrid.

Also, the brand identity crisis is as strong as ever. P

ontiac is supposed to be exciting and full of race cars, yet all I see is minivans, bland G6 coupes/sedans, an obsolete Grand Prix, and a half-assed GTO/Monaro. I will give them the Solstice, but even then, the Miata is still more fun to drive...

Buick has been taken down from the "classy" luxury car (whereas Cadillac is more "flamboyant") and has been turned into the car for the 65 to dead crowd. They should take advantage of their heritage and put out some good cars, like the Velite and maybe an '08 Regal Grand National???

Hummer may have some sales, but they're still regarded as some of the most wasteful, unefficient vehicles available. Just what GM needs to combat the eco-friendly, green, gas sipping Toyota cars and trucks...

GMC is just a waste of time and money. They could just as easily sell all of those trucks as Chevys and make GMC a commercial division, yet they still keep it as a badge-engineered example of crappieness.

Saturn is making a comeback, but only after years of sloppy product, weak engines, and overall UGLY cars. They do have good customer service though...:p

Saab seems to exist to cater to the crowd that wants something foreign, but wants it to be just as bland as American cars. It does it's job well...IMO, it was a huge mistake for GM, seeing as how Saab hasn't generated a profit in nearly a decade...

Chevrolet is a mix up of crap and...more crap:devil:. The Cobalt is a pathetic excuse for a economy car, especially now with cars like the Mazda3, Scion tC, etc. The Malibu should be dropped. The Impala went from bland to worse, with the loss of the corvette tail lights. The SUVS look awful (on the outside anyway), the Vette seems to be the only saving grace, but even it is somewhat controversial, with its lack of fold-in-headlights. The Monte Carlo should have been taken out back and shot LONG AGO. I mean, they actually expect that thing to compete with the Mustang:p:alchi:...

RobertCTS
11-17-05, 09:55 PM
I think we are being alarmist here. GM is hurting but still is solvent. I recently purchased $40,000 of GM Smart Notes and I'm not worried.

90Brougham350
11-17-05, 09:57 PM
They sure do, and they think it'll do a fine job with FWD! Haha, this is getting laughable. It makes you chuckle when you think that the brand that built the GTO and the Firebird also built minivans and the Azcrack (err, Aztech). Same with the brand that built the 427 Tri-Power now building a front-wheel drive Impala. It's not an Impala, GM, the last Impala died in 1996. I don't know what the hell it is! Oh well, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

SpeedyArizona
11-17-05, 10:26 PM
Much of the GM market isn't there, they aren't innovative on many of their mainstream products (trucks, suv's, etc).

Ford has the nearly all the truck market, the newly styled F-150 is definetly better than old Silverado's and appeals from farmers to luxury truck buyers.

Toyota has GM beat in the passenger car market, a combo of quality and bang-for-the-buck which GM doesn't meet.

Many German and Japanese brands have taken over the luxury car market (i.e. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus), and many buyers today aren't "loyal" to a certain brand, all they want is luxury and quality. Cadillac has fallen on hard times.

Sports car are all-around, from the Miata to the Mustang to the 'Vette. No certain brand appeals to just sports car buyers.

Ford has much of the SUV market (which has diminished in the past few months), the Explorer has always been one of the best selling SUV's in the US. Chevrolet has the Suburban and Tahoe, but are more expensive than other brands.

GM is trying desperately trying to put on a smile, but we all know the truth.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-17-05, 10:39 PM
Could you imagine what a world with out GM would be like?

Would Cadillac even exist anymore?

Elvis
11-17-05, 10:52 PM
Iacocca is 81, John DeLorean and Harley Earl are dead. We don't have any candidates qualified to bail GM out.

90Brougham350
11-17-05, 11:51 PM
Someone will rise to the challenge. Maybe Bill Ford will come run GM for a while!

FSU_Noles
11-17-05, 11:58 PM
What could Foose do with a blank canvas??? :thumbsup:

kippjones
11-18-05, 12:03 AM
Unions with their greed have been silently killing GM.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-18-05, 12:14 AM
Someone will rise to the challenge. Maybe Bill Ford will come run GM for a while!

Knowing what he's doing to Lincoln, he would probably Cadillac also

Randy_W
11-18-05, 07:50 AM
To buy GM, Tpyota would need a little help. The assets of GM are twice that of all the Japanese car builders combined! They don't have the cash if they wanted to buy them. I wouldn't start writing GM off just yet. It looks more like a ploy to lose their old retirement collar than anything else.:)

pimpin88
11-18-05, 08:45 AM
toyota corvette. psssh. they would probably put a stupid little 4 banger in there and call it a sports car. god that would suck

djfcars
11-18-05, 11:03 AM
I don't think Toyota will ever own GM. For that fact any other. GM will survive but needs a huge reality check in order to continue. Here's what I think it will need to do:

1. File chapter 11.

2. Start GM non-union.

3. Start developing hybrids.

4. Get your quality BETTER than the Japanese. (very important)

5. Round out your line of product to capture most consumers.

I have no doubt that after you get the debt of the unions off your back you will have a lot more capital for all I stated in the above.

I believe in a fair wage and a pension for retirement. Not greed.

djfcars (Dino Falabrino)

Lord Cadillac
11-18-05, 11:36 AM
That all sounds about right besides the part about building better quality vehicles than the Japanese.. It's not about Japanese technology.. It's the people.. When a vehicle isn't built properly, this information gets back to the people involved with the build - and they're shamed... It actually means a lot, to every individual who works on the vehicles, for their work to be of the best quality and attention to detail. Nobody over here really cares - of even finds out about their mistakes most of the time...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-18-05, 12:18 PM
When the the fall of GM start? I'm thinking around the early '80's.

ShadowLvr400
11-18-05, 01:13 PM
The 80's hurt, but there was still competition in every market for GM. Starting in the early to mid 90's, they began giving up markets 1 after another. Lost the caprice, there went inexpensive, big working car. No cabbies, no cop cars, no civies. Ford's aging Crown Vic became the sole option. The D-body died too, ending the true luxury line. Camaro gone a few years later, giving the whole pony/mid sports car to Ford and anyone else interested. (I have to lean towards the 350Z being in the area of pony car almost.) The mid-sized sedans, a bread and butter product went even staler, as the japs, and even ford advanced their products. Ford not as well, but they're getting... better? (I dunno yet on the 500 and Fuzion. Need to see them up close.) The midranged sedans, the japs are slaughtering GM. Altima, Maxima, TSX, Accord, etc can skull f*** their GM "competition." There just is no match there. The eco box market has been taken over by everyone except GM. Civic, Sentra, Corrola have all gotten bigger, sportier, and more useful, all the while staying inexpensive. Toyota made a brilliant move with the Scion line, bringing 2 oddball, ugly duckkling cute ecoboxes, building them well, but selling them for so little it's almost ridiculous. Plus, they marketed and set the Scions up for an ever increasing younger crowd, with more technological savvy and interest than previous generations. The sheer number of fun options for those cars is awesome. What did GM counter with? The Aveo (ugly and akward to drive) and the Cobalt. And when it comes down to it, Cobalt SS vs Scion TC, I'l take the Tc with this http://www.trdusa.com/tcsupercharger.asp over the Cobalt any day of the week.


Edit, I built a TC how I wanted online... 23k... Cobalt didnt even give me all the neat stuff I wanted.

Lord Cadillac
11-18-05, 01:31 PM
People can't stop comparing the Impala to the Camry (new model is about ready - nice, new design) and Accord (nice updates as well)... It's embarrassing...

Kev
11-18-05, 01:37 PM
People can't stop comparing the Impala to the Camry (new model is about ready - nice, new design) and Accord (nice updates as well)... It's embarrassing...I guess the glory days are long gone!

http://www.mnf.de/pages/clientcars/17/impala_complete.jpg

:crying2: :crying:

Lord Cadillac
11-18-05, 01:51 PM
Bring that back as a retro-type Impala. That would be a hit. :)

Elvis
11-18-05, 02:25 PM
Bring that back as a retro-type Impala. That would be a hit. :)

I swear I read something on here about a retro-Impala coming out next year or maybe 2008? Am I crazy?

I think ShadowLvr has really nailed it. It's not just one thing but a cumulative effect. They kept making small concessions. Two of the biggest were the Crown Vic and the Mustang.

It's hard to regain that footing, but I hope the Solstice is a step in the right direction. These new Buicks are appealing, and I think they're direct competition for Mercury. Unfortunately that's a small percentage of the market they need to be competitive in.

[/LAMENT]

ShadowLvr400
11-18-05, 03:07 PM
I worry that it will be too litle too late. For the most part, GM is trying to match current competition with 10 yr old designs and ideas. Even the awesome C6 Vette, is minimal innovation... It's Front engine, rwd, pushrod V8 with more displacement, throw more power at it. The looks are good, and it handles great, I wont argue that one bit. But as for new ideas.... It's a bit lacking. If GM can execute more of the same old ideas as well as the C6, they might stand a chance at recovering, but it's not quite a match for new ideas..

Kev
11-18-05, 03:19 PM
Scenario for GM salvation;

I think retro styling is a great idea for the immediate future. Look at the response to the Mustang and some of the concepts that incorporate the 60's muscle car look, or that Holden from down under, sweet! If GM would bring styling in like that and improve their quality and service they should see a boost for a year or two. This would appeal to the current middle aged crowd with higher discretionarry spending levels.

Meantime, as retro is cool it is going to be a temporary fad, they need to use the time bought by the retro boost to re-vamp the line to be inovative leaders in the industry. Maybe they need to start re-arranging the top spots with some fresh blood, let the reins loose on some of the younger engineers with fresh ideas. Guys and gals who are in closer touch with mainstream American car buying habits.

Just a thought..

addison_ii
11-18-05, 04:45 PM
Scenario for GM salvation;

I think retro styling is a great idea for the immediate future. Look at the response to the Mustang and some of the concepts that incorporate the 60's muscle car look, or that Holden from down under, sweet! If GM would bring styling in like that and improve their quality and service they should see a boost for a year or two. This would appeal to the current middle aged crowd with higher discretionarry spending levels.

Meantime, as retro is cool it is going to be a temporary fad, they need to use the time bought by the retro boost to re-vamp the line to be inovative leaders in the industry. Maybe they need to start re-arranging the top spots with some fresh blood, let the reins loose on some of the younger engineers with fresh ideas. Guys and gals who are in closer touch with mainstream American car buying habits.

Just a thought..Well said and I agree 110%. If they do that then they will capture the attention of those who they need to: US. Don't offer just incentives, offer us a car that screams at us : I look great and have new styling and interior goodies along with this wonderful quality: BUY ME NOW.

90Brougham350
11-18-05, 04:56 PM
The problem is, being so large GM takes such a long time to mobilize as a company. Implementing significant change in a corporation that employs 324 thousand employees doesn't take place over night. Most cars take years to go from brainstormed to built, and not just 2 or 3 (unless you're a Pinto). Further, GM has so much corporate arrogance embedded within it the change will take even longer. It's tough to sit here and see GM appear to be doing nothing, because we're all on a day-to-day basis. I'd love to see GM file profits in black tomorrow, but I know it'll take much longer than that.

ben72227
11-18-05, 05:42 PM
toyota corvette. psssh. they would probably put a stupid little 4 banger in there and call it a sports car. god that would suck

Don't you think that's just a BIT sterotypical. More likely, they'd pull out that OHV and put a DOHC V8 or V10 in there. Don't forget, Toyota knows how to build engines, hell that new IS350 is pulling over 300HP out of a NA 6 cylinder... Let's see GM do that...

10secvette
11-18-05, 06:50 PM
Exactly...... G.M. cars for the most part look like boring crap and have the same old technology. Example..... they are just now starting to offer a 5spd. auto trans. Heellllooooooo, we now have 6 and 7spd. auto's from the competition. Great job guys!!!! Sorry, but I won't buy a new G.M. product and take the depreciation beating they do for a inferior product. For years they have acted so damn arrogant and treated their customers as ignorant fools with the bland ugly styling and garbage engineering. Sorry to say, but the rooster is coming home to roost. I'm sure the big shots have their golden chutes ready to go. That ivory tower they hide in is going to be knocked down!!!


Well said and I agree 110%. If they do that then they will capture the attention of those who they need to: US. Don't offer just incentives, offer us a car that screams at us : I look great and have new styling and interior goodies along with this wonderful quality: BUY ME NOW.

Katshot
11-18-05, 07:03 PM
All I can say about this is, compare Chrysler now to the Chrysler before the "reorganization". GM could actually end up a whole lot better AFTER a bankruptcy. All they need to do is finally get rid of Rick Wagoner, let the enthusiasts have a louder voice than the bean-counters, and get real with what they pay their employees. ALL of them.

Randy_W
11-18-05, 10:10 PM
Don't you think that's just a BIT sterotypical. More likely, they'd pull out that OHV and put a DOHC V8 or V10 in there. Don't forget, Toyota knows how to build engines, hell that new IS350 is pulling over 300HP out of a NA 6 cylinder... Let's see GM do that...


Toyota has nothing to touch the LS7, period! 427 c.i./505 (real horsepower), as established by the latest SAE standards, the SAE gives the manufacturer the h.p., not the other way around. Toyota as well as most others have refused to use this standard. I wonder why? All this from a very modern and hi tech overhead valve engine, that will exceed 7000 rpm and make waaaaay more torque in a usable range than any ohc engine of the same size. The new Cadillac 6.2 liter engine is an ohv engine with VVT and over 400 h.p.!!Where is it written that high tech and modern must mean ohc?? OHC is technically older than ohv. There's a reason it wasn't in widespread use for many decades. There's nothing wrong with ohc, but it isn't God given tech that all must follow!;)

ben72227
11-18-05, 11:52 PM
Ah Randy, that may all be true. But it doesn't mean anything when GM is going bankrupt. Sure, the LS7 is a fine engine, but who can afford it? Or a Cadillac 6.2L for that matter?

Your average joe is going to get stuck with something like a 3500/3900 pushrod in his Pontiac/Chevy. Those engines are okay, but they can't touch their OHC counterparts. I mean, the S2000 I4 engine can hit up to 9,000RPM, and the GM OHV V6 can MAYBE hit 5,500 RPM...the S2000 engine makes 1/3 of the LS7's HP, using only 1/4 of its displacement and still gets MPG in the upper 20s...There's a lot to be said about OHC engines Randy...

Playdrv4me
11-19-05, 01:06 AM
I think we are getting way to far ahead of ourselves here... Bankruptcy is not a "writing on the wall" type scenario. Kmart went through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization, shut down a bunch of stores and re-emerged semi-profitable under the wing of Sears. Hell, it got too late for me but I almost filed for a Chapter 13 myself. These days the amount it bails you out so far outweighs the harm it does its almost worth it in some situations. Really the only thing it hurts you deeply with in the near future is interest rates and the ability to purchase a home. But I say its worth it to save yourself from possible financial ruin.

Given that, GM is just restructuring. Toyota has no chance to take over GM, and you all know I like the Foreign car makers every bit if not moreso than the domestics most of the time. It would literally take Toyota, AND someone like BMW coming together to rescue GM and then divide and reorganize the assets it contains. Toyota alone would have an extremely difficult time taking over GM as a whole, and they understand that the public backlash to a Japanese takeover of a domestic company would not be favorable to their global strategy in the long-term.

That being said, its time for the Domestic car-makers that remain (Ford and GM) to start thinking outside the box. There is so much stupid redneck level competition between GM and Ford it keeps them from seeing the long term future and saying "Hey... shit, if we work together on new products and technologies, well maybe just maybe we can maintain our product identity, speed product development and production times by incredible amounts AND achieve growth and profitability in all the market segments we serve domestically."

If GM and Ford teamed up and started turning their fortunes around together, I think we would see a mass exodus of consumers starting to purchase more domestic product again, and most of the "GM vs. Ford" pundits would probably shut up for a while.

That doesnt mean I still wouldnt take BMW and Jaguar products over most anything GM and Ford produce in the luxury segment, but not always, and between the two of them they could come up with some interesting and revolutionary ideas... At the core, these two companies have a tremendous amount of potential that is being squandered.

WORK TOGETHER.

ben72227
11-19-05, 01:35 AM
Yeah, right. Even if they wanted too, it wouldn't work.

GM people see Ford for what it is: Unoriginal, Souless, and only out for a profit. Case in point - the Ford 500, the Lincoln Zephyr, etc. Hell, Ford is starving Lincoln of decent product. And for what?

GM WOULD NEVER pull something like that on Cadillac. Rather than be ashamed of their luxury division, they rebuilt it into something (IMO) better than what it was before, and to great sucess. They've done this many a time, whether it be 1992 or 2002. GM is PROUD of Cadillac, and they should be. I'm pretty sure everyone that makes Cadillacs are proud to know that they're making THESE cars.

But Ford doesn't see Lincoln like that. They see Lincoln, and to them, its just another brand. It doesn't make money, so they cut it down, and they give it nothing more than badge-engineered vehicles to compromise almost its ENTIRE LINEUP.

Lincoln Zephr = Ford Fusion
Lincoln Mark LT = Ford F-150
Aviator = Ford Explorer
Navigator = Expedition
And the Town Car has been reduced to competing with Buick for christs sake due to the superiority of Cadillac's lineup...

Now, I know Cadillac has some badge-engineering going on (i.e. Escalade), but at least our cars have souls, and they're confident of themselves. They don't go out there like Lincolns and be ashamed of themselves because they know they're nothing more than a dressed up Ford.

That's why GM could never stoop to Fords level. Mercury is the same way too. I mean, what's the appeal of a Mercury anyway? The only thing thats really appealing about Ford is its foreign brands, but I'd rather not buy foreign (except maybe for Mazda..., which is different, since their cars DEFINATELY have soul and originality to them)

With GM, you may get some badge-engineering, but I'm pretty sure all of the brands are unique enough so not as to get them confused with each other...

Pontiac - Sports Cars
Saturn - Boring, Ugly, Econocars...with GREAT customer service:p
Hummer - Speaks for itself...
Chevrolet - The ICON of the American auto industry
Buick - The new car for the 65 to dead group. And winner of lots of JD power awards:p
Saab - For those who want a foreign car...thats as bland as an american car:p
GMC - Okay, GM isn't perfect. Yes, they badge-engineer too. GMC is pretty much the worst example of badge-engineering actually...I'm pretty sure the whole line is badge-engineered...Wow, that really sucks:canttalk:

Kev
11-19-05, 01:48 AM
Now, I know Cadillac has some badge-engineering going on (i.e. Escalade), but at least our cars have souls, and they're confident of themselves. They don't go out there like Lincolns and be ashamed of themselves because they know they're nothing more than a dressed up Ford.Uhh.. Ben.... uhh...yeah, you know that these are cars you are talking about? They are inanimate right? :shhh: You know that right? When you talk to them they don't talk back to you do they? :hide:

Yeah, OK, just checking there... :duck::bigroll:

Ben>:thepan:<Kev

OK, I'll just be on my way now.......... :getaway:

Playdrv4me
11-19-05, 01:57 AM
The difference is Ford has more modern production methods and ALOT more R&D funding than GM does. Just because Ford's products may seem boring and uninspired to YOU does not mean they do to everyone. Ford uses alot of very advanced techniques to design and produce their vehicles. They may not have the charisma or soul of all the GM products... but if you ASK ME, Fords BREAD AND BUTTER line, i.e. 500, Fusion, Focus, Escape, is MUCH MUCH more well rounded and better suited to the buying public then the terrible bread and butter line GM has including the Impala, Malibu and Aveo.

When it comes to luxury vehicles, yea GM is far ahead of Lincoln BUT... NOT Necessarily so far ahead of Jaguar or Land Rover, so its a toss up either way you look at it. Ford has just as much catchy product in their lineup slotted in different areas of the market than the ones where GM excels. The new Fusion is flying off the shelves while the Impala and Malibu continue to lumber on in obscurity and and almost total fleet sales volume.

The Ford Freestyle wagon also has a cult like following already and it hasnt been out long at all, GM has nothing to even compete except for the HHR which is "meh" at best.

Kev
11-19-05, 02:12 AM
My little anecdote is dated but I think still relevant to some of the difference between GM and Ford.

In 91 we were shopping for a family car. We ended up looking at a 1990 Celebrity station wagon and a 1989 Mercury Sable. The difference between the two interiors was stark. The Sable had a modern looking, smooth, molded style. I called it Euro-styling at the time. The Celebrity (a year newer) had the same old square, sharp angled out-dated dash and controls that I remember seeing in the old 1973 pickup trucks!

Come to think of it, my 89 DeVille (I love it dearly) has a nice interior but it is also rather square and dated compared to the Lincolns of the same era. Now GM has improved but they seem to be trailing the pack like the poor overweight kid in Jr. High trying to run the 440 with the rest of the kids. :helpless:

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-19-05, 04:14 AM
Have you ever driven an S2000?
Yes it's very impressive that it revs to 9,000 and yes it's impressive how much hp they can get out of such a small engine.
But it i not a ncie engine to drive. You have to be screaming it between 6 and 9,000 to get it to move fast. Below that it is gutless, it feels like an economy car.

I used to drive around in various european 4 and 6 cylinder cars and I'm at a loss as to what americans would prefer to buy an S2000 than a V8 muscle car. Instant throttle response, at any revs. Proper shove you in the back power. I'd take a large V8 with say 250BHP over a 2.0L with 250BHP any day of the week. Especially as those 4cyl hi-po cars are not any better on fuel consumption due to the gearing that's needed to keep them in their powerband.

I hope GM survives somehow. I want to be able to keep buying V8 engined cars.

mccombie_5
11-19-05, 04:51 AM
In my family, we have a 1999 Vauxhall Vectra 1.8 four cyl, that belongs to my dad, I have a 1999 Vauxhall Vectra V6, which is my beater, and I have the obvious V8s, the 4 cyl is a good run of the mill family/rep car, it works for my dad who was on the thin end of bankruptcy, so the purse strings can be tight at times. My V6 is a nice medium, it hammmers along at 150mph if i want it to, but it isnt as eco as the 4 cyl, and then i have my V8s, and i dont care what MPG they get......

Among other things, i have the V6 Diesel VW, which gets very good MPG for a car its size.

I think the problem is, that because fuel has always been cheaper in America, the American solution to making the car go faster, is to increase the dicplacement and cylinders. It doesnt always work. Europe had to keep the fuel economy high, and so made four and six cyl engines produce as much power.

The V6 in my Buick (its the 3.6) is a great engine! Nice balance

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-19-05, 06:19 AM
The basic problem is that american cars are bigger and heavier.
To move that you need a lot of torque.
You will not get a lot of torque from a 4cyl engine no matter how high tech you want to get, you're just not burning enough fuel.
Due to the fact that our cars are much smaller and thus lighter you can get away with less torque from the engine, particularly if you increase the torque to the wheels through gearing. The downside is that your rpm will always be higher (eg 3,500 at 70mph in some cases) which makes an annoying drone and of course uses more fuel than if the engine were turning slower but the trade off makes it worth it.

High tech has given us engines that will rev higher, along with better head and cam designs (including variable valve ones) which means we get more horsepwer through higher revs. We don't get any more torque, but due to the higher horsepower from higher revs we can use gearing to our advantage. The cars are getting a little heavier though and thus we're seeing more 6 speed boxes. Either to give an additional overdrive gear to kepe the revs down (because the final drive ratio is high, often 4.11 or greater) or to give an extra gear on your way to crusing speed to help keep the engine in that necessary higher powerband as it's gutless below.

An alternative has been the turbo charger which produces a load of torque on boost (because you're forcing a load of air and thus fuel into the engine and making it pretend to be a of much greater capacity) but the downside is that off-boost it doesn't make any power at all, and it adds significant cost. Also, if you're forcing that much air into the engine then you need to add a lot more fuel as you need to keep the airfuel ratio correct. Throw in the fact you need to run the mixture a little richer to avoid detonation and you end up with something no more economical than a larger engine.


As you say, due to fuel being cheap and the cars being heavy, a bigger engine has always been the solution and driving that larger engined vehicle is better as, ok, it has the same bhp as a smaller european engine, but the low-mid range torque is there to shove you along. It's harder to actually make as quick progress in the smaller enigne car as you hunt between gears to keep th engine in its powerband, the big engined car is lazy and will happily make quick progress in virtually engine gear and any rpm.

The problem now is that they are modernising the V8s, and downsizing them, for example the 4.6L Northstar and the 4.6L Modular Ford. The running costs of these are now in line with their european equivalents.
The rather large Chevrolet 5.7 - 7.0L V8 is making LOADS of power (to match it Jaguar and Audi and the like have to supercharge or turbocharge their smaller engines). But that's one big engine.

But what they don't have is a world class 2.0L engine.
What they should do is use the European ones in their compact cars.

But the problem is price. Our "economy cars" cost a lot more than theirs.
The Focus over here costs as much as a Mustang over there.
And their Focus is way cheaper than ours.
But it is far cheaper built.

Americans are prepared to pay more for a better quality product (eg Honda say) but how much more?

Randy_W
11-19-05, 08:18 AM
Ah Randy, that may all be true. But it doesn't mean anything when GM is going bankrupt. Sure, the LS7 is a fine engine, but who can afford it? Or a Cadillac 6.2L for that matter?

Your average joe is going to get stuck with something like a 3500/3900 pushrod in his Pontiac/Chevy. Those engines are okay, but they can't touch their OHC counterparts. I mean, the S2000 I4 engine can hit up to 9,000RPM, and the GM OHV V6 can MAYBE hit 5,500 RPM...the S2000 engine makes 1/3 of the LS7's HP, using only 1/4 of its displacement and still gets MPG in the upper 20s...There's a lot to be said about OHC engines Randy...

That's great in a tiny car, but when you double the mass to say 4 liters, you increase the stress load 4 times. If you go to six liters the load is twelve times greater. That's why there are no mass produced 6.0's out there turning 9000 rpm. The old OHC 427 Ford engines of the '60's were great race engines, but totally unstreetable and cost ten times as much to build as a standard side oiler high rise 427.
Note that the GM ohv engines blow the doors off the Ford ohc engines in the truck line! They also have the best fuel economy.;)

RobertCTS
11-19-05, 08:27 AM
Toyota plans to get into NASCAR Cup Series racing their cars. They are already winning with there trucks. I don't think their engine is strong enough for the Cup series..maybe a chevy engine???:hmm:

Katshot
11-19-05, 08:43 AM
1. Ford and GM have been doing joint ventures for years guys. Matter of fact, the new engine that's going in the upcoming Lincoln Aviator is a product of that joint venture
2. Anyone who actually believes that an import OEM like Toyota can't step right up and present a comparable or superior product (from an engineering standpoint at least) to anything currently built by an American OEM is an idiot. That same kind of thinking is what got us in the hole we find ourselves in now. Arrogant complacency is dangerous at best.
If there's anything that we SHOULD have learned by now is that patience, persistence, and consistent quality product is what will put any OEM in the driver's seat of any given market.

ShadowLvr400
11-19-05, 09:21 AM
And the Town Car has been reduced to competing with Buick for christs sake due to the superiority of Cadillac's lineup...


Ok, that I have to object to bigtime. The Town Car no longer fights any Cadillacs because GM GAVE the Town Car's market away. The Town Car is a full sized, luxury, comfortable sedan. Cadillacs, are not. They may be priced up there, but Caddy has moved to try and battle the European sports sedan. Which the way its being done, is miserable. My riding lawn mower gives the same ride as the STS, DTS, and CTS that I drove. Ride vs ride, the Town Car is about 1.2 million times smoother and cushier than Cadillacs line now. Now, Caddy's will outrun the Town Car all day, especially in the turns. But the Town Car isn't looking for a race, it's looking to cushion bad hips, bad backs, and big butts. It's not a superirity of Cadillacs lineup, it's target market that puts the Town Car against Buick. (Not that Buick even is that great a match anymore.)

Actually, looking at it... The Town Car is kind of lonely in that luxury cushy market... Used to be the Fleetwood vs the Town Car... now the Lincoln is really the only option... For sheer ride comfort, no worries about speed, the Town Car is by itself. Most others have gone to more of a luxo touring car...

90Brougham350
11-19-05, 11:03 AM
I agree. I don't think Cadillac will really offer any sort of complete direct competition with the Town Car until the ULS finally hits showrooms in a few years, and who knows if the TC will even be around then. Yeah, the DTS is supposed to be a competitor to the Town Car, but I just don't see it.

ben72227
11-19-05, 12:34 PM
Well you may not think Buick can compete with the TC, but I think they can.

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2006/buick.lucerne/06.buick.lucerne.r34.2.500.jpg

You can get that Buick Lucerne above (for about the same price you'd pay for a CTS) with a 300HP NORTHSTAR engine. That's right, Buick has the N* now...And that car doesn't look bad at all for a Buick...

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2006/buick.lucerne/06.buick.lucerne.int.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2006/buick.lucerne/06.buick.lucerne.f34.2.500.jpg

Dang, I might actually have to check one of those out...The inside looks great, the outside looks great (the front end could be a bit sportier, but hey, i can live with that), it has a Northstar. Hmm, well, I guess Buick is coming up afterall...

Elvis
11-19-05, 12:41 PM
Ben has a point, and I made a similar one a few days ago. It's all about the bottom line with Ford. They're not at all worried about the prestige about Lincoln. They slap a few more goodies on a Ford, re-badge it, and watch people pay a little extra.

I didn't fall for it. The Ford was a "good enough" product for me.

People don't get emotional about Fords. The Mustang is fun, but it's not something you get emotional about. The new T-bird SHOULD have been special, but for some reason it wasn't--Ford left something out, or else people would have been lining up to pay $40K for a comfortable 2-seater like that.

Hell, I'm even emotional about my old Cutlass and Delta 88, moreso than about the TWO mustang convertibles I had.

Cadillac, well that's another matter entirely. That's the ultimate.

Lincoln USED TO BE that way. But it's been about 40 years. Maybe JFK getting shot in one didn't help.

Elvis
11-19-05, 12:42 PM
I've been impressed by the new Buicks too.

Playdrv4me
11-19-05, 12:45 PM
Sho' nuf... It appears GM and Ford are already working together some. If they could bring together their production and design capabilities tho... I think the sky would be the limit...
This is from an official GM Press release at the GM Media Site...
FOR RELEASE: 2005-08-25
CONTACTS
*New Hydra-Matic 6T70 Six-Speed Automatic Delivers Performance and Fuel Economy
*Innovative, efficient transmission to debut on 2007 Saturn Aura
*First GM Powertrain front-wheel drive 6-speed automatic transmission
*Advanced clutch-to-clutch operation and wide 6.04:1 overall ratio spread
*Co-developed by GM and Ford Motor Co.
*Applicable to FWD and AWD powertrain layouts
*Torque capacity to 280 lb.-ft.
*Shift speeds up to 7000 rpm
*32-bit intelligent controller included in sophisticated internal transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM)
*Built at GM Powertrain’s assembly plant in Warren, Mich.
MILFORD, Mich. – General Motors new Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed automatic transmission, an advanced transmission with clutch-to-clutch shift operation for front- and all-wheel drive vehicles, will debut in the all-new 2007 Saturn Aura midsize sedan. Co-developed with Ford Motor Co., the new six-speed joins the already announced Hydra-Matic six-speed rear-wheel drive family of automatics and Allison 1000 six-speed automatic as part of GM’s mission to produce 3 million six-speed automatics annually by 2010.
The 6T70’s clutch-to-clutch operation allows for reduced complexity and compact packaging. A wide, 6.04:1 overall ratio spread helps the transmission deliver both performance and fuel economy, enabling up to 8 percent improved performance and up to 4 percent improved fuel economy when compared with current front-wheel drive four-speed automatics.
“The 6T70 offers the best of both worlds – the excitement of a performance transmission and the economy expected of an overdrive,” said Robert Vargo, assistant chief engineer, new front-wheel drive transmissions. “The joint development effort allowed both companies to maximize time and engineering talent to answer a common need for a fuel-efficient transmission that meets the performance needs of high-output, transverse-mount powertrains.”
Co-development of the transmission allowed it to reach production in less time and enabled each company to reduce development costs by as much as 50 percent. A common design and many common components are shared between GM and Ford six-speed variants, but each company developed its own controls and calibrations to tailor the shift feel of the transmission to fit their brand characteristics.
Rated for engines up to 315 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque, the 6T70 helps maximize powertrain performance and economy through its wide 6.04:1 ratio – the spread in gear ratios between first gear and sixth gear. This configuration allows for a “steep” 4.48:1 first gear, which helps deliver exceptional launch feel, and a 0.74:1 overdrive sixth gear – the “tall” overdrive gear lowers rpm at high speeds, reducing noise, vibration and harshness. Fifth gear is 1:1 or direct drive.
“The additional gear states are almost like having two transmissions in one,” said Vargo. “The low first gear provides tremendous off-the-line acceleration, but the transmission is able to use the middle gears to evenly distribute the torque and offers an overdrive sixth gear that helps delivers great fuel economy.”
Shorter steps between the gears, compared with a four-speed automatic, enhance performance and feel, as the transmission quickly finds the best gear for the vehicle speed and road conditions – there’s less “hunting” (shift busyness) on grades, for example. Also, the 6T70 offers the capability of driver shift control (DSC), which allows the driver to use tap-up, tap-down shifting to select the desired gear for specific road conditions, such as driving up a steep hill.
The Hydra-Matic 6T70’s highlights also include:
Compact dimensions of 357 mm in length and 197 mm in width for packaging convenience in a variety of front- and all-wheel drive vehicles with transverse-mounted powertrains – one the most compact transmissions in its competitive set
Clutch-to-clutch shift operation for all shifts except 1-2 reduces mechanical complexity and mass while enhancing shift feel
Integrated transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM) with driver shift control and performance algorithm shifting for shift feel and timing tailored to the driver
Internal control module reduces powertrain complexity
Auto grade braking and shift mode capability
Heat-treated gears are honed for a more precise fit, reducing noise, vibration and harshness
Narrow torque converter enhances packaging and maintains efficiency
Simple, less complex design has reduced number of seals
Adjustable capacity vane-type pump enhances fuel economy compared with non-adjustable gear-type pump
Although used in some low-volume high-performance sports cars and luxury sedans, six-speed transmissions are rare in most high-volume midsize cars and SUVs. GM and Ford Motor Co. recognized a need for a transmission that could accommodate increased powertrain performance while delivering excellent fuel economy. The compact size and reduced complexity afforded by the clutch-to-clutch design allowed engineers to answer the call for performance and economy with six forward speeds.
With its wide ratio and strong capacity, the 6T70 has the capability to transfer more torque to the drive wheels, particularly in all-wheel drive applications. It also helps vehicles such as SUVs to feel livelier at lower speeds, particularly at launch or when stepping away from a stoplight.
The 6T70’s advanced clutch-to-clutch operation is designed for smooth shift feel and packaging efficiency. All shifts except 1-2 (the transmission “free wheels” in first) feature clutch-to-clutch operation. This is achieved through three planetary gears, with three stationary clutches and two rotating clutches. It’s a simple, less complex design that enables the packaging of six gears in the space of a four-speed automatic.
A sophisticated transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM) is mounted inside the 6T70, reducing vehicle complexity. Similar to the control system used in the Hydra-Matic 6-speed rear-wheel drive transmissions, the TEHCM offers improved quality through its hard-wired connections and pre-calibration.
The unit is located entirely within the transmission and operates while bathed in transmission fluid. Locating the controller internally facilitates the modular design and assembly strategy while also shielding the unit from the outside environment.
Meanwhile, GM’s proprietary model-based controls strategy reaches a greater level of sophistication in the new six-speed FWD transmission family, said Vargo. The 32-bit system incorporates three levels of “learning” that actually allow the components to adapt to one another.
Although it is not uncommon to have a transmission-control module that adapts to the specific transmission with which it is mated, and to also have programming that optimizes transmission performance characteristics according to a variety of vehicle inputs, the new Hydra-Matic six-speed automatic adds another level of adaptability. Certain components within the major subsystems that make up the transmission also “learn” from one another – via the controller software – in a unique form of self-adaptation that maximizes the interface of all the “networked” components. This procedure takes place as the transmission “tests” itself and the interaction of its internal components before it is shipped from the assembly plant.
The TEHCM enables a host of performance-oriented and driver-controllable shift features, including performance algorithm shifting (PAS), driver shift control (DSC) “tap shift” and auto-grade braking.
The Hydra-Matic 6T70 is manufactured at GM’s Warren Transmission plant. It debuts in summer 2006, when production begins on the 2007 Saturn Aura.
Hydra-Matic 6T70 (MH2) six-speed automatic
Type:
six-speed transverse, electronically controlled, automatic overdrive transmission
Maximum engine horsepower
315
Maximum engine torque:
280 lb-ft
Maximum gearbox torque:
380 lb-ft
Gear ratios:
First:
4.48
Second:
2.87
Third:
1.84
Fourth:
1.41
Fifth:
1.00
Sixth:
0.74
Reverse:
2.88
Maximum shift speed:
7000 rpm
5-position quadrant:
P, R, N, D, (M)
Case material:
die-cast aluminum
Shift pattern:
(2) three-way on/off solenoids
Shift quality:
five variable bleed solenoids
Torque converter clutch:
variable bleed solenoid
Converter size:
258 mm
Transmission weight (kg / lb):
102 / 273 (wet)
Fluid type:
DEXRON® VI
Fluid capacity (L / qt):
9.0 / 9.5
Assembly site:
Warren, Mich.
Additional features:
Clutch-to-clutch operation (except 1-2); integrated transmission electro-hydraulic control module with driver shift control and performance algorithm shifting
CONTACT(S):
Nick Richards
GM Powertrain Communications
Phone: 248-857-0163
Email: nick.richards@gm.com

Elvis
11-19-05, 12:54 PM
At some point the two of them need to take a look around and do what's best for the country. I won't add Chrysler to that because I think they're going to become a watered-down Diamler-Benz in another ten years.

We have to cut this trade deficit NOW. Being punitive with tarrifs won't cut it because Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have all circumvented that by opening American factories. The only way to fix it is for American products to regain their superiority.

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-20-05, 04:19 AM
Sounds nce, but it'll only handly 28lb/ft which means no attaching it to a Northstar or other powerful engine that they might put in a luxury car, but at least it's good for the mass market cars which are, after all, what put bread on the table.

Randy_W
11-20-05, 11:07 AM
2. Anyone who actually believes that an import OEM like Toyota can't step right up and present a comparable or superior product (from an engineering standpoint at least) to anything currently built by an American OEM is an idiot.

Now Katshot, don't be so touchy, feely, tell us your true opinion!:D

90Brougham350
11-20-05, 12:00 PM
Sounds nce, but it'll only handly 28lb/ft which means no attaching it to a Northstar or other powerful engine that they might put in a luxury car, but at least it's good for the mass market cars which are, after all, what put bread on the table.

True, but what about the 6-speed they're putting in the STS-V? Now that's a transmission! I can't remember what it's called, someone will know.

Jesda
11-20-05, 02:51 PM
Honda S2000. Me no likey. Its high-revving nature makes it a good track car, but I'd rather have a Miata or Solstice with more useable torque. When you're snaking through the mountains and hills, youre not always going to be able to buzz at 7000rpm. You have to slow down and drop gears in the bends and pick up speed quickly before the next one -- torque is required. The S2000 is a science experiment, not a car.

1enthusiast
11-20-05, 10:57 PM
I've been an avid follower of the automotive world for 15 years. I've been saying the following for almost as long...... GM needs to do the following:

1. Scale down to Chevy, Pontiac, and Cadillac. THAT'S IT (no more GMC truck or Buick.)

2. Immediate halt any current and/or future pushrod engine designs. Every car they offer should come standard with an OHC/DOHC engine..... even their trucks (except really heavy duty 3500 series).

3. Start building transmissions of 5 gears minimum for automatics, 6 for manuals (MB has 7 speeds in the new S-Class)

4. Start offering more cars with true manual 6 speed transmission (and greater availability of those currently available)

and most importantly -

5. MAKE YOUR CARS BETTER THAN JAPAN OR GERMANY

That's the only way to win back customers.

Randy_W
11-20-05, 11:04 PM
I've been an avid follower of the automotive world for 15 years. I've been saying the following for almost as long...... GM needs to do the following:

1. Scale down to Chevy, Pontiac, and Cadillac. THAT'S IT (no more GMC truck or Buick.)

2. Immediate halt any current and/or future pushrod engine designs. Every car they offer should come standard with an OHC/DOHC engine..... even their trucks (except really heavy duty 3500 series).

3. Start building transmissions of 5 gears minimum for automatics, 6 for manuals (MB has 7 speeds in the new S-Class)

4. Start offering more cars with true manual 6 speed transmission (and greater availability of those currently available)

and most importantly -

5. MAKE YOUR CARS BETTER THAN JAPAN OR GERMANY

That's the only way to win back customers.

Why ohc truck engines? The current crop of engines have more power and get better MPG than ohc engines from the competition. The '07's are even better in both departments. Engines do not need to be ohc to be high tech!:tisk:

SpeedyArizona
11-20-05, 11:09 PM
GM needs to generate more hype surrounding future products and concept cars. Look at the Sixteen, it generate tons of hype surrounding Cadillac. GM needs to create a modern Supercar (no, not just a Z06 'Vette), I mean something like Ford did with the GT40 into the GT. If GM could produce something to compete with that, they would generate hype AND revenue.

Not to get off-topic, but Maserati Quattroporte for sale on EBAY, out the door price is $9000.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1983-Maserati-Quattroporte-ONLY-72K-MILES-4-9-liter_W0QQitemZ4590882889QQcategoryZ6313QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

Kev
11-20-05, 11:17 PM
Hype has to be backed up with actual product that compares with the hype or you loose more than you gain. Nothing more disappointing for my than to see an awesome concept car but when it goes to production it looks nothing like the concept.

Kinda like being shown Kelly LeBrock and end up with Mrs. Doubtfire. :eek:

1enthusiast
11-21-05, 12:11 AM
Why ohc truck engines? The current crop of engines have more power and get better MPG than ohc engines from the competition. The '07's are even better in both departments. Engines do not need to be ohc to be high tech!:tisk:

The 4.7 liter 32 valve V8 Toyota uses in it's large pickup line can get 17 - 22 mpg (depending on which cab/transmission combination you construct), and its indestructable (as with any Toyota engine).

The Vortec 6000 6 liter V8 Chevy/GMC uses is rated from 14 - 22 mpg, depending on how the truck is configured.

The towing and hauling capacities on a Tundra are about 2-3,000 lbs. more than a 1500 or 2500 Silverado.

The Toyota engine is also much smoother and near silent.

ben72227
11-21-05, 12:44 AM
and its indestructable (as with any Toyota engine).

Don't get ahead of yourself. Toyota V6 OHC's have a terrible habbit of engine sludging. As taken from a Toyota service bulletin:

Occasional problems on this vehicle are failures of the Engine, the Charcoal Canister/Evaporative Solenoids and the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Lift Sensor, 3.0L engine only. Failure of the Engine is caused because the engine oil gels. Engine oil gelling will also cause excessive engine oil usage. Toyota has issued an 8 year unlimited mileage goodwill repair for this condition. Failure of the Charcoal Canister/ Evaporative Solenoids or the EGR Lift Sensor will cause the check engine light to illuminate. The cost to repair the Engine is estimated at $4500.00 for parts and $1384.50 for labor. The cost to repair the Charcoal Canister/Evaporative Solenoids is estimated at $263.95 for parts and $65.00 for labor. The cost to repair the EGR Lift Sensor is estimated at $33.12 for parts and $65.00 for labor. All prices are estimates based on $65 per flat rate hour and do not include diagnostic time or any applicable sales tax.

$4500 to repair an "indestructible" engine:p. Next time get your facts straight, fanboi:devil:

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-21-05, 04:27 AM
The towing and hauling capacities on a Tundra are about 2-3,000 lbs. more than a 1500 or 2500 Silverado.


The Tundra can tow up to 6,800LBs

The Vortec 6000 Extreme equipeed Silverado can tow 10,000LBs


To be honest, the Toyota engine is weedy compared to the larger Chevy unit and there was no way it was going to be able to tow more.

Randy_W
11-21-05, 07:35 AM
The 4.7 liter 32 valve V8 Toyota uses in it's large pickup line can get 17 - 22 mpg (depending on which cab/transmission combination you construct), and its indestructable (as with any Toyota engine).

The Vortec 6000 6 liter V8 Chevy/GMC uses is rated from 14 - 22 mpg, depending on how the truck is configured.

The towing and hauling capacities on a Tundra are about 2-3,000 lbs. more than a 1500 or 2500 Silverado.

The Toyota engine is also much smoother and near silent.

The boy's been smokin' the wacky weed again!:D

90Brougham350
11-21-05, 09:28 AM
"Suitably equipped, a Tundra can tow up to 7100 pounds (V-8 models with optional towing package; 5000 lb otherwise). Payload capacity is 2000 lb. The standard engine is a 3.4-liter V-6 rated at 190 hp and 220 lb-ft of torque. The optional engine is a four-cam V-8 displacing 4.7 liters and rated 245 hp and 315 lb-ft of torque. (This is the same basic engine as used in the Toyota Land Cruiser and Lexus LX470 SUVs.)"

"....all the way up to a 300-hp, 6.0-liter stomper that is, bar none, the baddest light truck gas V-8 engine you can buy from any manufacturer in a half-ton truck. Even the Silverado's "next best" engine - a 5.3-liter V-8 - offers a rousing 285 hp, or nearly 40 more than the Tundra's top gun. The Silverado' ultimate towing capacity is a equally impressive at 11,000 pounds; max payload is 3334 lb - equivalent to the weight of a fully-loaded midsize sedan."

From 2001, but still relevant.

Katshot
11-21-05, 09:55 AM
Hype has to be backed up with actual product that compares with the hype or you loose more than you gain. Nothing more disappointing for my than to see an awesome concept car but when it goes to production it looks nothing like the concept.

Kinda like being shown Kelly LeBrock and end up with Mrs. Doubtfire. :eek:

Very true but not only should the production vehicle be true to the concept but the R&D cycle needs to be much faster than GM traditionally takes. The Pontiac Solstice shows at least a little promise in this area. IMO the problems are:

1. GM is fat and bloated with over-priced, under achieving executives with a track record of only bleeding GM dry.
2. Unions that want as much as they can get from management without having to actually provide any REAL talent as far as assembling a quality product.
3. Way too much product overlap.
4. Poor market planning.
5. A terrible dealership network that they cannot control.

Shareholders should've forced GM to make changes years ago but did not and now they will pay the piper for their inaction in the form of tumbling stock prices.
The first thing that needs to be done is clean house with respect to the executive staff. Make sure that only enthusiasts have anything to do with what is produced by the company. Then trim the model lines down to a point where each brand (Pontiac, Buick, Chevy etc) has product that specifically spells out that brand's personality i.e. GMC only makes trucks, Cadillac only makes luxury cars, Pontiac only makes performance cars, etc, etc.
Get the unions under control by somehow reaching the individual employees and motivate them to produce as high a quality with as low a cost as possible. Maybe offer tham a profit-sharing kind of deal or something like that. But bottom line, you NEED to break the unions. Then, go after the dealer network. You NEED to get them under control so they understand that they need to do what's best for the company as a whole not just for the owner's pocketbook on a daily basis.
I know this is pie in the sky thinking but if it doesn't get at least partially done, the company will face even more trouble.

90Brougham350
11-21-05, 10:54 AM
OK, but how do you go about finding new management that actually cares about the cars? I agree with you fully Kat, but how do you change corporate management?

Elvis
11-21-05, 11:15 AM
The news this morning isn't good.

GM is cutting 30,000 jobs and closing 9 plants.

One of those plants is a Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee (outside of Nashville).

That was a really big deal when it opened about 15 years ago. You might as well drop a nuclear bomb on Spring Hill. It wouldn't have any greater effect than closing down that plant will.

90Brougham350
11-21-05, 11:18 AM
Well, I guess we all knew something like this was coming, you can't lose 1.6 billion a quarter and not cut costs.

Katshot
11-21-05, 11:22 AM
Certainly you won't be able to just dump everyone at once but I'd start at the top and work my way down. Not totally unlike when a new President takes office. They bring in their own staff and reform the cabinet right? That's the way to do it. Dump Wagoner and go from there. When I was doing work for Cadillac, there were entirely too many executives that were simply riding out their retirement. Too many guys that were done contributing to the industry and the company. Those guys might as well leave now rather than just drag down the company. Even if you have to pay them, fine, at least you can get some new blood in there NOW rather than wait until that guy leaves on his own. There's plenty of good talent in the company that WISHES they could actually build the cars the way they want to but for various reasons just isn't getting the chance to. A lot of stiffled people at GM IMO. They need to take back the company and stop the mediocrity. I'd rather build 10 GREAT vehicles than 40 mediocre ones.

Elvis
11-21-05, 11:27 AM
The article says Ford is cutting 4,000 white-collar jobs through attrition.

I'd rather build 10 great vehicles than 40 mediocre ones too. That's one of the things I admired about Honda. Unfortunately they don't make anything that excites me now, and I'm afraid their build quality is suffering a little now.

It's the old KFC commercial--do ONE thing, and do it better than anyone else.

90Brougham350
11-21-05, 12:07 PM
So who's on the board of directors right now?
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html

Percy N. Barnevik (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Retired Chairman,
AstraZeneca PLC
Director since 1996
Erskine B. Bowles (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Chairman,
Erskine Bowles & Co., LLC
Director since 2005
John H. Bryan (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Sara Lee Corporation
Director since 1993
Armando M. Codina (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Codina Group, Inc.
Director since 2002
George M.C. Fisher (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company
Director since 1996
Karen Katen (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Vice Chairman,
Pfizer Inc
and President,
Pfizer Human Health
Director since 1997
Kent Kresa (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Chairman Emeritus,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Director since 2003
Ellen J. Kullman (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Group Vice President -
Safety and Protection,
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Director since 2004
Philip A. Laskawy (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young
Director since 2003
E. Stanley O'Neal (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Director since 2001
Eckhard Pfeiffer (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Retired President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Compaq Computer Corporation
Director since 1996
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#)
Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer,
General Motors Corporation
Director since 1998



What do we know about these people? Is Wagoner going anywhere with these people in the board room? I don't know, the list looks pretty crusty.....

Kev
11-21-05, 12:50 PM
Very true but not only should the production vehicle be true to the concept but the R&D cycle needs to be much faster than GM traditionally takes. The Pontiac Solstice shows at least a little promise in this area. IMO the problems are:

1. GM is fat and bloated with over-priced, under achieving executives with a track record of only bleeding GM dry.
2. Unions that want as much as they can get from management without having to actually provide any REAL talent as far as assembling a quality product.
3. Way too much product overlap.
4. Poor market planning.
5. A terrible dealership network that they cannot control.

Shareholders should've forced GM to make changes years ago but did not and now they will pay the piper for their inaction in the form of tumbling stock prices.
The first thing that needs to be done is clean house with respect to the executive staff. Make sure that only enthusiasts have anything to do with what is produced by the company. Then trim the model lines down to a point where each brand (Pontiac, Buick, Chevy etc) has product that specifically spells out that brand's personality i.e. GMC only makes trucks, Cadillac only makes luxury cars, Pontiac only makes performance cars, etc, etc.
Get the unions under control by somehow reaching the individual employees and motivate them to produce as high a quality with as low a cost as possible. Maybe offer tham a profit-sharing kind of deal or something like that. But bottom line, you NEED to break the unions. Then, go after the dealer network. You NEED to get them under control so they understand that they need to do what's best for the company as a whole not just for the owner's pocketbook on a daily basis.
I know this is pie in the sky thinking but if it doesn't get at least partially done, the company will face even more trouble.Kevin,
I can agree with nearly all of what you said with one exception. I am uncomfortable with "breaking" the union. My unattainable wish would be for the unions to get their act together as well as their people and start looking at the contracts realistically compared to the situation they are currently in. I believe there should be a balance of power. If both management and labor would begin working in realistic, honest terms, that can be achieved. As I see it, there is greed, avarice and abuse on both sides.

If the union would light a fire under their people to give a skilled, honest days work for a fair wage and eliminate their unreasonable demands and tenure they could contribute much toward the healing of the malignancy of this corporation.

On the other side, as you have said Kevin, the corporation needs to trim the fat starting from the top. Those people need to get excited about their products or get out and make way for someone who will be excited.

Then of course there is the network of dealers. There is another “Widows Nest” that must be dealt with.

As it looks now, GM’s solution is to close plants and lay people off. That’s one way to get out of union contracts.

Unions, when properly organized and run, can be a valuable asset to both labor and management. When abused, they can be just as bad as corporations who care nothing about their employees, only about their personal salaries and bonuses.

The fat has to be trimmed on both sides of the aisle but that requires reasonable cooperation from all parties (that's nearly asking the impossible). If you eliminate the union all together you run the risk of reverting to near indebted servitude. An imbalance of power will eventually lead to tyranny and abuse on the corporate level.

Just my 2 cents.

Kev
11-21-05, 12:52 PM
Of course, if the corporation folds, everybody looses.

Elvis
11-21-05, 01:27 PM
That board of directors looks great if you're Chase or ADM.

What do these people know about designing, building, or selling cars? I'll bet they don't buy or even CHOOSE their own vehicles anymore. They just climb in the back and somebody closes the door for them.

Katshot
11-21-05, 01:28 PM
Of course, if the corporation folds, everybody looses.

There's the true bottom line.

It's no secret that I can't stand unions and feel the country would be far better off without them. I agree that asking both sides for "reasonable cooperation" probably IS asking for the impossible but the fact is that as long as the unions are around there will be no satisfactory amount of cooperation. The reason is simple:
To justify their existence, labor unions MUST try to force employers into agreements that are decidedly lop-sided. If they didn't, then employees would start wondering what those monthly dues are going towards.
In the end, the unions "train" their members to think that they "deserve" whatever they can get. Consequently, the employer ends up having to adust for the increased overhead forced upon him by the labor union by either cutting material costs, or raising his price to the consumer. Unfortunately, this often ends up either reducing the quality of the product in question or the company's ability to compete in their particular market. Like it or not, the average company is NOT going to look at reducing their profit margin except as a last resort. Labor is generally the biggest single cost associated with manufacturing so until companies like GM can get their labor costs under control, you can expect to have continued profitability issues.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming all the problems on the unions but between the unions sucking at one end, and the executives sucking at the other, middle management doesn't stand a chance at getting where they know they need to be.

HotRodSaint
11-21-05, 10:48 PM
Ford seems like it would be an easier brand to fix, if you leave out the PAG.

But first, I want to know who at Ford thinks that American small car buyers wouldn't buy a European Focus? Because you just lost sales by giving us a boring update on good but aging car.

Now GM just has too many divisions with nothing to distinguish them from the competition, let alone each other.

I'd drop Saturn and Buick. No need for them. Pontiac could probably go too. Chevy and Cadillac can carry the load.

Or I'd fold Saturn into Pontiac/Buick and let them be sport/luxury versions of Chevies, which could be Australian or German sourced or engineered.

Saab is, well it's Saab. Who's bright idea was it to purchase the most obscure car company you could possibly find?

GM can be fixed, but car guys need to be on the board. Why doesn't Penske or some other racing or car dealer mogul sit on the board? Whats with all these box brand people? Car's aren't sold at Walmart.

They need Ghosn or someone like him to shake things up and fast.

I want to see a 2-dr coupe and a 4-dr sedan based off the Solstice platform. A reincarnation of the BMW 2002 at Corrolla prices with a Pontiac badge (and it's BMW-esque grill).

I want to see a RWD mid-size car with style, retro or modern, and a 327 motor with a 427 option. Why? Because 327 looks better on the side of a car than 5 point whatever (and it looks better than 350 or 5.7 too)!! Bring back the crossed flags too while you are at it.

And drop that stupid GM badge on all the new car's. There is no need to point out to everyone that its a car from the failing company in the news.

pimpin88
11-21-05, 11:28 PM
I mean, the S2000 I4 engine can hit up to 9,000RPM, and the GM OHV V6 can MAYBE hit 5,500 RPM...the S2000 engine makes 1/3 of the LS7's HP, using only 1/4 of its displacement and still gets MPG in the upper 20s...There's a lot to be said about OHC engines Randy...


to me, it doesnt really matter how high an engine can rev. i want power down low where it can be used. plus with gas going up, how often are you going to be revving your engine out to 9000 rpm.

also, comparison of the LS7 vs. S2000
LS7

* 505 hp
* 7.0 liter
* 16mpg city/26mpg highway
* pushrod
* 7000 rpm

S2000
* 237 hp
* 2.2 liter
* 20mpg city/26mpg highway
* VTEC
* 8000 rpm

all i can say is i really respect chevy for building an engine that can rev almost to the same redline as a 4 cylinder that is 3.18 times smaller. And they do that using PUSHRODS. quite amazing to me. i did my homework, and the other amazing thing is that the corvette get nearly the same mileage all while having nearly 500 lb ft of torque and the honda having 162 lb ft.

all in all. i would go with the LS7 anyday

Night Wolf
11-21-05, 11:40 PM
The 4.7 liter 32 valve V8 Toyota uses in it's large pickup line can get 17 - 22 mpg (depending on which cab/transmission combination you construct), and its indestructable (as with any Toyota engine).

The Vortec 6000 6 liter V8 Chevy/GMC uses is rated from 14 - 22 mpg, depending on how the truck is configured.

The towing and hauling capacities on a Tundra are about 2-3,000 lbs. more than a 1500 or 2500 Silverado.

The Toyota engine is also much smoother and near silent.

wow... that looks great on paper....

but not in real life.

my friends 2000 Tundra SR5 Access Cab TRD, 4WD. with the 4.7 DOHC V8 gets 13mpg around town and 17mpg on the highway.

Folks... thats the same exact numbers that my 1979 DeVille gets with a 7.0L big block V8, carburator and 3 speed transmission.

Night Wolf
11-21-05, 11:42 PM
to me, it doesnt really matter how high an engine can rev. i want power down low where it can be used. plus with gas going up, how often are you going to be revving your engine out to 9000 rpm.

also, comparison of the LS7 vs. S2000
LS7

* 505 hp
* 7.0 liter
* 16mpg city/26mpg highway
* pushrod
* 7000 rpm

S2000
* 237 hp
* 2.2 liter
* 20mpg city/26mpg highway
* VTEC
* 8000 rpm

all i can say is i really respect chevy for building an engine that can rev almost to the same redline as a 4 cylinder that is 3.18 times smaller. And they do that using PUSHRODS. quite amazing to me. i did my homework, and the other amazing thing is that the corvette get nearly the same mileage all while having nearly 500 lb ft of torque and the honda having 162 lb ft.

all in all. i would go with the LS7 anyday


This is GREAT, but you forgot one thing....

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.

the LS7 has 470ft-lbs torque.

the S2000 has about 180ft-lbs torque. basically, in other words.... its a freakin joke.

pimpin88
11-22-05, 08:30 AM
if you look in my post, i went to the s2000 website and it is rated at 162 ft lbs

pimpin88
11-22-05, 08:35 AM
2006 honda s2000 website

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=S2000&bhcp=1&BrowserDetected=True

2006 chevrolet corvette zo6 website

http://www.nascarick.com/z06/


162 vs. 475

90Brougham350
11-22-05, 12:38 PM
Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.

Power-to-weight ratio, effective gearing, sticky tires, and about 50 other things win races. Is my Brougham with 300 ft. lbs. going to beat a 97 Camry with a 140, let's say? Of course not! But I can't disagree with the statement about the average customer being a moron. Now don't take this the wrong way, but women make the majority of vehicle purchase decisions, and are far more concerned with safety features and "neat things" like stow-and-go. The remaining men who buy vehicles are brain-washed with horsepower. Horsepower is a fine thing, don't get me wrong, but realizing there's a lot more to a vehicle than what "Fast and the Furious" and years of Japanese marketing has brain-washed millions of Americans to believe is the important thing.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 04:25 PM
2006 honda s2000 website
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=S2000&bhcp=1&BrowserDetected=True
2006 chevrolet corvette zo6 website
http://www.nascarick.com/z06/
162 vs. 475


LOL!

what a POS.... my gosh

162ft-lbs of torque? 240hp means NOTHING with such crappy torque, and thats around 6,500RPM.... damn

That really is pathetic.... my lowest power engine is my 1989 3800 V6.... but even that is 165hp/220ft-lbs torque....

my gosh, what a load of junk.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 04:48 PM
Power-to-weight ratio, effective gearing, sticky tires, and about 50 other things win races. Is my Brougham with 300 ft. lbs. going to beat a 97 Camry with a 140, let's say? Of course not! But I can't disagree with the statement about the average customer being a moron. Now don't take this the wrong way, but women make the majority of vehicle purchase decisions, and are far more concerned with safety features and "neat things" like stow-and-go. The remaining men who buy vehicles are brain-washed with horsepower. Horsepower is a fine thing, don't get me wrong, but realizing there's a lot more to a vehicle than what "Fast and the Furious" and years of Japanese marketing has brain-washed millions of Americans to believe is the important thing.

You have never heard of that hp/torque saying before... have you?

of course there is more to it...

but it basically says, you always hear about HP being advertised, never torque, therefore it is so bad that the average person says more HP= better. Not the case.

HP is nothing more then a formula that has to do with RPM, a 4 digit number... and..... TORQUE. HP means nothing when when talking about the POWER of an engine. Torque is how much work can be done, HP is how fast it can do it, thats all. With little torque, the amount of work that can be done is low, but it can do it fast (rev quick)

Lets compare my 27 year old 180hp Cadillac to a brand new 240hp S2000.... 60hp more.... damn, that car is soo much faster.... Whats the towing rating on an S2000? does it even have a towing rating? Oh.... but my stock '79 DeVille can tow 5,000lbs..... but it has less HP.... how can this be? How come I can drive around all day and never go above 2,000RPM even when accelerating hard.... yet if you try to get an S2000 going at anything less then 2,000RPM, it'll stall? How come I can load up the Caddy with 5 people and suitecasses in the trunk and hardly feel the weight difference, yet S2000 owners complain about a noticeable performance (acceleration) drop when they have a single passenger in the car with them?.... oh.... wait..... maybe 320ft-lbs vs. 162ft-lbs of torque and the RPM those numbers are at has something to do with it....

Not saying to you, but in general, this is a perfect example of how misleading those numbers are. I know this, and I take HP as nothing more then face value, I always look at torque as to how powerful an engine is.

The S2000 is fast because it is in an extremly small and light weight car, the final drive is something like 4.11.... gosh, if I put a 4.11 in the '79 the stock 425 would have you plastered to the seat until about 60mph, when it redlines 3rd gear. So because of that insanely high gearing for a street car (Chevy guys don't even run that high) they need 6 high ratio gears to not only get the car moving, keep it accelerating, but prevent the engine form killing itself on the highway..... all this to work around the simple fact that there is NO low end.... hell, any torque at all.

On the other hand, another vehicle that uses a 4.11 final drive would be the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon.... but the Jeep isn't fast..... but it'll pull half the cars at the Honda dealership behind it without breaking a sweat..... Perfect case of how an engine with massive amounts of low end torque, and nice gearing can nearly pull anything, that is why the damn thing is so good off road.

When I test drove a Wrangler (3.73 gears) I could put it in 1st or reverse, and with the engine idling at 700RPM *with the AC on* I dumped the clutch, the tach hardly moved and the Jeep jumped forward. I was driving around at 20mph in 3rd, it was at 1,200RPM, I slightly jab the gas and the Jeep launched forward..... you could never do any of this in an S2000... hell my friends '01 Jetta 1.8T will stall unless you bring it up to 1,500RPM before letting the clutch out... it isn't rocket science... high RPM HP may be perfect for the track, but we do not drive on a high speed race track everyday, so that performance dosn't help us. Instead where high torque low RPM pushrods excel... low in the rev band, is where we drive more then 90% of the time, THAT is where the power is needed, and that is where I want my engines to develop their power.

I am glad my next vehicle is going to be a Wrangler.... atleast I get to live with high torque low RPM pushrod engine for years to come. Gosh when I test drove that thing (5spd... '05+ have 6spd) I was accelerating off the lights faster then the people around me, the Jeep was just powering its way thru.... yet I never went above 2,500RPM while shifting! I swear it was like I was driving the '79 in terms how how much freakin power the thing had... even the 4.9 in the '93 Coupe likes to rev... but that Jeep was just going... and it redlined around 5,500RPM too, so if I really wanted to push it, I could. It was amazing from a 4.0L I6 designed by AMC in the 80's.... hows that for old tech? the thing is nothing more then a glorifed tractor engine....but damn, I'll take the tractor engine over a Honda Indy-500 wannabe any day.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 05:07 PM
Another thing is aircraft engines.

Atleast the whole HP BS never carried over to them... that much.

An example would be the Cessna 152II I flew... little trainer, nothing special, but a great plane, and it got the job done.

Under the cowl was the Lycoming 0-235-C.... Lycoming keeps it simple by using the engine displacement as the engine model, in this case the horizontally, air-cooled 6.75:1 compression, 4 cylinder has 235 cubic inches of displacment.... that comes out to be 3.8L (3800 is 231cid) a 3.8L 4 cylinder, it had a redline at 2,800RPM, the HP rating, right at that redline was 115hp, but normal cruise around 2,400RPM was about 100hp. How could such a large engine have such low power? simple, Torque. even this 4banger, which is considered a toy in the aviation world produces high amounts of torque (that Lycoming dosn't publish :( ) Think about it, the engine is an extremly low RPM design, similar to a diesel, even lower RPM in some cases. Low RPM is needed in aircraft for many reasons... but try and run a Honda 4 cylinder at 2,400RPM and expect work to be done... it's not happeneing.

Heres the 0-235-C.... Its a great little engine... it faired me well :)

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/productSales/engineSelectionGuide/235.html

On the same note, Lycomings largest HO engine is a 720 cubic inch (about 11.8L?) 8 cylinder... thing is a beast but produces 400hp. Again, same concept, the torque of that thing is crazy, not only the ft-lbs, but the RPM its at, and how wide the power curve is. This thing is just a freakin beast:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=productSales/engineSelectionGuide/720.html

piston engine aircraft get along fine with 2-valve pushrod engines.... you'd think if DOHC and all that were so good, they would make their way into planes.

Ah well... Hopefully there will always be atleast 1 nice pushrod car I can always buy.... Maybe I'll switch to Chrysler if GM keeps playing this "do what the Japs have" stuff.... the Hemi is a perfect example of a high power pushrod for the average guys (reguarding the LS7 comment)

thu
11-22-05, 06:01 PM
Yes, I've seen the IO-720 at Oshkosh at they Lycoming pavilion. GIANT monster. 720 cubic inches in eight horizontally opposed cylinders. It was an option in the Cherokee Six (PA-32-400). Upon shutdown, there was so much heat in the cowl that it would often boil the gasoline in the injection lines. Solution was to open the cowl before you walked away.

I also noticed the complete lack of torque numbers for the Lycoming/Continental engines. I wonder why that is.

Another difference of these aviation engines from the automotive type is that the aviation engines are expected to run flat out (100% power) for hours and hours and hours sometimes every day. This is not the same as 'full throttle', but 100% power. Contrast this to an automobile in street applications where you may never see 100% power, *ever*. I would hazard a guess and say that the average power level used in an automotive steet applications is maybe 15%.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 06:27 PM
Yeah, that thing is a freakin' monster!

at my school (going to be an A&P mechanic) one of the many engines we have on display is a 6 cylinder Lycoming... that thing is big, much bigger then the 235 in the 152... they are such nice engines.

I think the lack of torque figures is because, unlike a car, there is no tuning or hot rod parts for these engines (for the most part) they are as they come and they stay that way. Also, the regulations that do have to do with enigne performance, are based on HP not torque. An example of this is, enable for a private pilot to be certified to fly a "high performance airplane" they have to go thru a check ride and some stuff.... one of the things that constitutes a high performance airplane is having 200hp or more. Meaning a Cessna 172 with 180hp 6 cylinder can be flown by any private pilot (if checked out for the plane) but a Cessna 182 with 210hp (IIRC) the pilot needs to be certified for it. The 182 also has a constant speedo prop (like a transmission in a car... same theory) but that is something else... although there are many versions of the 182 with more power then that, it is just an example.

Yes, aviation engines have a tough life.... upon take off and any time you are climbing, you are running it for all its worth.... in the 152 the tach would sit right at, or slightly above redline. Durring cruise you are using about 80% power most of the time, still, the RPM is up there. the 0-235-C in the 152 according to Lycoming should be overhauled every 2,400hours, thats quite a bit of time seeing as how 90% of it is either full throttle, or near it. I think I saw in a video once that 2,400hours is equal to about 250k miles.... try running your car flat out for 250k miles :) Of course that is the reccomended service interval... for general aviation as long as the compression is within tolerance and the plane passes it's annual/100 hour with no problems, you can fly it as long as you'd like... I would just be worried about flying with an engine overdue... not so much for local flight, but I would be very hesistant to do a long cross country flight.

Someone at the airport had a 152 that had 3,000 hours on the Lycoming since it was overhauled... the guy loved the plane and said he'll keep flying it until it wont pass its annual.... nothing wrong with that.

Aircraft engines also need to be low RPM for cooling. They are all air cooled... it would be very hard to have an engine turning over at 7,000RPM all day and try to keep it cool by air. Not only that but noise would become and issue.... I am sure many of you guys heard even a 4 cylinder Cessna running, thats at 2,500RPM and it's loud (plus its nice that a 4 cylinder sounds nice and beefy :) ) Also with an engine turning over that much, you would have to have massive gear reduction for the propeller as it is critical the speed of the prop tips do not go past the speed of sound.

Plus, when these engines are doing fine, why try and change it up? Lycoming has been using this basic Boxer design since 1948 IIRC...... Lycoming is huge, it would take a whole lot to overcome Lycoming and then try to beat them at their own game.

Ah well.... being naturally interested in IC engines..... flying the plane with this very engine.... and currently going to school to repair, and completly rebuild these engines (among other things) I have a high intrest in them.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 06:32 PM
Also, marine engines have a tough life as well... in fact, most all engines besides cars run a tough life... even the big diesels in 18 wheelers aren't revving out....

generators are run at a pretty high RPM non stop

lawn mowers and lawn equipment are beat to hell (go Briggs!)

construction equipment is ran at high RPM

but back to the marine.... yeah, they are ran, not flat out... but pretty high. My fathers 18' Sea Ray has a Ford 302, that only has about 800 hours on it, but it needs a ring job. But just normal crusing it is around 3,500RPM.... run it flat out, the secondaires on the Holly open and its taching over 5,000RPM..... your everyday 302 in a Crown Vic would never see 3,500RPM for hours on end.

BTW Thu.... you are a pilot as well? didn't know that... in that case, sorry for dumbing down some answers :)

1enthusiast
11-22-05, 07:40 PM
For those who douted the information I posted i.e. weight capacities of the Siverado and Tundra:

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/specifications/

and

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs.html


If you read all the fine print, you will notice the Tundra's max GVRW of 11,800 lbs exceeds the Silverado 3500's by 400lbs, and that's WITH the dual rear wheel option on the Silverado. And in order to get near Tundra's standard towing capacity of 7500 lbs, you need to load the option chart on the Chevy to where it blows the sticker price way beyond a standard Tundra.

I don't want to argue trucks all day on a forum about GM's demise, I'm just giving some insight as to why that might be.

GM can't move their trucks and Toyota can't keep them stocked.

Playdrv4me
11-22-05, 08:38 PM
There was some sort of portable pump that was running behind my apartment for several days during a construction project, that I guess was keeping some sort of displaced water or sewer line pressurized while they expanded this parking lot and buried it again. The thing just kept running and running and running. It sounded like a diesel power generator but it wasnt, and it was running at a constant and steady RPM for days and days and days. I was amazed that it didnt wear out or something. Quite impressive.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 10:28 PM
There was some sort of portable pump that was running behind my apartment for several days during a construction project, that I guess was keeping some sort of displaced water or sewer line pressurized while they expanded this parking lot and buried it again. The thing just kept running and running and running. It sounded like a diesel power generator but it wasnt, and it was running at a constant and steady RPM for days and days and days. I was amazed that it didnt wear out or something. Quite impressive.

gosh, those generators are made to run like that for YEARS.

Usually they are Catapillar turbo diesels... alot of them are the same Cat's used in 18 wheelers... over kill for a generator you say? Well, you can run a whole fair off one of them, or backup power for a small town... literally.

The dragstrip I raced at had 2 huge Cat's there... loud... they ran EVERYTHING, the track lights, power to the buildings, EVERYTHING.... when I asked why, it was simply because it is cheaper for them to buy diesel and run the Cat's then it would be to pay for the electric.

I know a few businesses that run them... its cheaper in alot of ways.

They sit at like 1,800RPM, there is a governer, they need to be at a steady RPM for the generator part, but as the load varies, it'll just bring the throttle up..... its basically a huge I6 or V8 turbo diesel Cat engine sitting there on a stand.... I was right next to one, it was so cool. The one I was next to was Gov't surplus from the 60's.... the thing had 8 hours on it, but the guy (ran a trucking depot/business) got it for next to nothing... the exhaust pipes that went to the turbo were bent (someone chained it up to move it wrong) but he fixed that..... it was so cool.

Randy_W
11-23-05, 07:56 AM
I don't want to argue trucks all day on a forum about GM's demise, I'm just giving some insight as to why that might be.

GM can't move their trucks and Toyota can't keep them stocked.

Damn man, do you ever get it right?? Where the hell do you come up with this crap? The gross vehicle weight of a 2wd 1500 Chevy with 4.8 liter is 12,000 lbs!
The sales last year were GM trucks 273,000, Toyota 73,000!! That's not exactly blowing GM away, now is it?

Night Wolf
11-23-05, 12:21 PM
Damn man, do you ever get it right?? Where the hell do you come up with this crap? The gross vehicle weight of a 2wd 1500 Chevy with 4.8 liter is 12,000 lbs!
The sales last year were GM trucks 273,000, Toyota 73,000!! That's not exactly blowing GM away, now is it?

Randy, its no use.... you have to enter the import mindset... and when you do that, you loose all common logic.....

1enthusiast
11-23-05, 04:41 PM
Damn man, do you ever get it right?? Where the hell do you come up with this crap? The gross vehicle weight of a 2wd 1500 Chevy with 4.8 liter is 12,000 lbs!
The sales last year were GM trucks 273,000, Toyota 73,000!! That's not exactly blowing GM away, now is it?

You obviously did not even bother to click on the links on my post which give the EXACT capacities.

Now, who's lost all logic here?

ben72227
11-23-05, 05:40 PM
Yeah Randy, YEAH:p You're just a GM fanboi. Get over it.:devil:

It's obvious to everybody else that GM makes pretty much the worst trucks now (maybe Mitsubishi makes worse?:p ). The Silverado is OLD, and its quickly getting passed by the F-150 even. Now, that's really its only competition, since it's nowhere NEAR being on par with Toyota trucks.

I mean, Toyota makes trucks that ride so well...you don't even know they're trucks...:pAnd, of course, they're reliable, something which GM is perpetually lagging in...

Kev
11-23-05, 07:54 PM
Well, I think this thread has come to the end of it's usefulness so I'll close it for now.