GM News, New Models and Market Share

62vetteefp · August 2008

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

Lexus really improved this year. I would say they got worried because they tied with Buick last year, but of course this is on vehicles built 3 years ago.

Overall pretty much everyone stayed in the same place.

Interesting how VW and Saab have the same numbers.

Top 5 issues:

Excessive wind noise
Noisy brakes
Vehicle pulling to the left or right
Issues with the instrument panel/dashboard
Excessive window fogging

62vetteefp · August 2008

I was playing around and found that the 2005 Century has the best dependibility for the midsize market. Sable / Camry came in 2nd/3rd. Interesting that the new for that year LaCrosse looks like it came in 4rth with the Sable. They do not list place below 3rd but the data shows it. Accord came in somewhere below. Below that a ways the G6 and Malibu.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-category/midsize-c- - - ar

A little more digging and I found the 2008 Malibu was #1 for initial quality (midsize). This bodes well for its long term dependibility. What is real interesting is that the Camry and Accord are not in top 3.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063

62vetteefp · August 2008

Looks like GM ahd Mercedes in a good place?

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International Inc. has sued Cobasys LLC and its parent companies, claiming the battery maker isn't delivering the battery packs it agreed to build for Mercedes' ML450 Hybrid (right) and as a result the German automaker might have to delay the launch of its planned hybrid SUV.

In a lawsuit filed last week in a U.S. District Court, Mercedes-Benz said it had scheduled the production launch of its new hybrid vehicle for June 2009, and that it had a contract with Cobasys in which that company agreed to supply 100 percent of the batteries for the ML450 and would do so "in due time."

As a result, Cobasys said it would not sign a purchase order Mercedes-Benz had presented for the battery packs months after Cobasys representatives signed the initial contract with the automaker.

Cobasys builds batteries for General Motors' mild hybrid sedans and, in June, GM officials said the American automaker was nearing a deal to buy Cobasys.

In a letter attached to the suit, Mercedes-Benz Secretary W. Lee Thurston said "there is no viable or commercially reasonable alternative source for supply which will allow MBUSI [Mercedes-Benz U.S. International Inc.] to meet its launch dates."

In a reply dated July 9 to Thurston's letter, Cobasys CEO Thomas Neslage wrote that Cobasys had stopped working because Mercedes-Benz had not paid invoices. Cobasys also denies that it agreed to produce the batteries for Mercedes, a unit of Daimler AG.

62vetteefp · August 2008

Looks like supply and demand is working

The Environmental Protection Agency rejected on Thursday a request to cut the quota for the use of ethanol in cars, concluding, for the time being, that the goal of reducing the nations reliance on oil trumps any effect on food prices from making fuel from corn.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said that the mandate was strengthening our nations energy security and supporting American farming communities, and that it was not causing severe harm to the economy or the environment.

The effect of the decision on fuel and food markets is hard to determine. Recently, high energy prices have led to even more ethanol production than the quota required. On the other hand, rising corn prices made some ethanol operations unprofitable, especially as oil prices started to fall.

Companies that use corn to fatten livestock and poultry, along with others in the food business, had called for lifting the requirements, saying that their costs were rising as millions of pounds of corn were diverted from feeding livestock to fueling cars. Farmers argued that the jump in corn prices was driven not so much by the demand for ethanol as by growing demand for grain-fed meat around the world, and their own higher costs for diesel fuel.

sls002 · August 2008

As I would have thought 62vetteefp would know, much more than 10% ethanol does require a flex fuel vehicle. Where I live we have a mid-grade fuel which is also the lowest price that is 10% ethanol. A few stations have E85. My SRX is supposed to use premium. My salesperson filled it with either regular or mid-grade when I picked it up. He said I could use regular and that it would make no difference. That first tankfull was worse MPG than the second and I could tell almost immeadiately after filling with premium that the mileage was somewhat better (based on the average computer MPG readout).

I think in larger metro areas where emissions are a concern ethanol has been added to most of the fuel to reduce emissions. This should reduce the amount of petroleum used by 5 to 10%.

andre1969 · August 2008

I noticed it has "very limited availability" and it only gets 24/32. Isn't this what the normal 4 cylinder gets?

Close. The base Malibu, with the 4-speed automatic, gets 22/30. With the 4-cyl/6-speed automatic, it's 22/32. The Malibu/Aura hybrid looked more impressive using the older rating system, which put a 2007 Aura (Malibu hybrid wasn't out yet) at 28/35. Still, even then there wasn't a huge difference. The 4-cyl/4-speed auto 2007 Malibu was rated 24/34. In the G6 it was a bit less, 23/33. And the Aura's smallest engine that year was a 3.5 V-6 rated at 20/30.

dtownfb · August 2008

So you pay the extra premium for a lousy theoretical 2 mpg bump. Hardly seems worth it....

torque_r · August 2008

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/latest_news_reviews/2- 010_buick_lacrosse_exclusive_photos_spied

62vetteefp · August 2008

As I would have thought 62vetteefp would know, much more than 10% ethanol does require a flex fuel vehicle

Yea, I think I know

but my premise still is there that perhaps we can make the ethanol penetration higher and not change the distribution infrastructure. Easy enought to require all new vehicles to be able to take E30. Most have it now and jsut need to put it on all models. Perhaps the mid range on the pumps becomes E30?

Issue with E85 is that the ethanol takes on water while in the distribution infrastructure. Not sure if E30 would have that same issue.

62vetteefp · August 2008

GM is beginning sales of its 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid this month.
The luxury full size two-mode SUV carries an MSRP of $71,685a $3,600
premium over a comparably-equipped conventional Escalade.

Escalade Hybrid features GMs Two-Mode Hybrid technology, enabling EPA
fuel economy ratings of 20/21/20 miles per gallon US
(city/highway/combined). The conventional 2WD Escalade carries an EPA
city fuel economy rating of 12 mpg US, and a combined city/highway
rating of 15 mpg US.

The hybrid system can operate the vehicle entirely on battery-electric
power during idling or low-speed driving situations.

I would think that a 6 mpg jump would be worth $3600 investment?

At 15,000 miles /year and $4 gas that would be a savings of $1000/year.

circlew · August 2008

No sale for me. Enclave does it better for less with more style if I ever buy another GM. $72K??? Sales will be going south a little more as we move on down the road at Cadillac!

As I've said, CTS needs to compete against some really tough competitors. I payed for all the US loyalty I am ever going to pay, all in the past. My next vehicle will be an import after my 330xi lease expires in December.

Regards,
OW

sls002 · August 2008

I don't see the sense in E30. A requirement for all vehicles to run on E85 or even pure ethanol makes sense to me. The basic problem is older cars will not run on E30, and new cars can run on E85. Cars that will run on E85 can use E30 if that makes sense in the future.

nippononly · August 2008

Old Oil Man Johnson and his buds in the federal government have staked everything on their E85 thing, along with the 2020 CAFE rules. They can't allow it to get backed down, because then they might have to actually take fuel economy and GHG emissions more seriously. They are hanging on by their fingernails, so they will back E85 to the bitter end.

E85 could be great if the government would (1) incentivize construction of the massive infrastructure construction that is needed to deliver it nationwide, and (2) would also pay for the rapid development of cellulosic E85 production so that world food prices aren't so heavily impacted (and so we have the ability to produce far more).

Until we get (1) and (2) delivered, E85 is just a nice idea to bump the domestics' CAFE averages for a few more years. I figure a realistic timeline for (1) and (2) to be completed is 20 years, which puts it in a head to head race with the development of hydrogen-fueled cars. E85 is cheaper of course, and the future of hydrogen fueling is less certain.

tlong · August 2008

GM is beginning sales of its 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid this month.

I really think GM should focus on putting their vaunted two mode into the Cavalier and Malibu so that they have some high-mileage smaller CARS. Then we can see if the two mode is really comparable/better than the Toyota or Honda systems.

With all the hoopla here a year ago about how great the two mode was, I don't see it setting the world on fire. People are looking for CARS, why hasn't GM done this yet? Even Ford has the hybrid Escape (I know, technology licensed from Toyo), which is at least a small SUV.

tlong · August 2008

I figure a realistic timeline for (1) and (2) to be completed is 20 years, which puts it in a head to head race with the development of hydrogen-fueled cars.

Hydrogen is an energy CARRIER which does not occur in nature in fuel form, it must be made using other energy sources. With what energy are you going to make the hydrogen? I don't see it - expensive, explosive, low energy density, requires other energy to make it (with all the conversion losses and infrastructure that requires).

bumpy · August 2008

Hydrogen is an energy CARRIER which does not occur in nature in fuel form

Not on this planet, at least. We'll have to mine Jupiter for it, though that's a ways off.

torque_r · August 2008

..when it comes to delivering class-leading fuel economy?

Toyota annouced that the face-lifted 2009 RAV4 will have a new 2.5L 4-cyl to replace the current 2.4L. Power is up from 164hp to 179hp. But what is more important is that 2009 EPA mpg is 22/28 for FWD and 21/27 for AWD. This compares to 21/27 for FWD and 20/25 for AWD for 2008. The 2.5L is hooked to 4-speed auto.
Imagine this engine in the 2010 Camry coming next Spring, and how much gain it can get from the current 21/31 estimation, especially when hooked to 5- or 6-speed.

circlew · August 2008

The only thing GM is fast at is the "Vette. Everything else is painfully slow!

Regards,
OW

cooterbfd · August 2008

Well, I believe the Enclave is getting the 288 hp version of the DI 3.6 that the Traverse is getting. Fuel economy goes up to 19/25 for the FWD. Considering you could fit a RAV-4 inside an Enclave, and the Honda Pilot (which can now seat 8) only gets 23 on the hwy, THAT"S class leading.

circlew · August 2008

But Buick might be axed...that's depressing!

Regards,
OW

torque_r · August 2008

Well, I believe the Enclave is getting the 288 hp version of the DI 3.6 that the Traverse is getting. Fuel economy goes up to 19/25 for the FWD. Considering you could fit a RAV-4 inside an Enclave, and the Honda Pilot (which can now seat 8) only gets 23 on the hwy, THAT"S class leading

Could you check your numbers please?
I think The Enclave gets 17/24 for FWD and 16/23 for AWD.
The class leading would be the Highlander, which gets 18/24 FWD and 17/23 AWD. But to be fair, the Enclave is much larger and heavier

cooterbfd · August 2008

My numbers are for the 2009 version, according to C&D. 2008 has a 250 or 260 hp non DI 3.6.

BTW, OW, Buick won't be axed, considering how well it does in China. One could make the argument that the Chinese may think that if Buick isn't good enough for the Americans, it's not good enough for us, or that the could axe Buick there. I can't see GM doing anything to jepordize Chinese sales.

Even if they did, the Traverse gets the same engine, and is the same size. Therefore, the lambda CUV's are still class leading.

62vetteefp · August 2008

Had a Euchre party at our house Saturday with 6 couples. Four lambdas in the driveway. Really selling well and families love them. Think 25 highway for such a big vehicle is amazing when a little Camry gets only 31. In my Enclave I get 24 mpg highway if I keep it below 80 mph. Love it.

62vetteefp · August 2008

The reason I suggest E30 is that perhaps it does not have the water issues that E85 has. Do not know for sure. Realize that all cars would have to be built to take it.

bruce6 · August 2008

I recently spent a few days in Big Sur, a resort area on the California coast, which gave me a good look at what rental car companies are putting on the road these days. One word: Pontiacs, lots of them. Prior to this trip, I'd seen precisely one G6 convertible in the flesh. The parking lot of my hotel had TWO, obviously rentals, and over the course of 3 days I saw LOTS of others -- all at hotels or other tourist sites. Also saw piles of new Vibes that were clearly rentals. I'm beginning to wonder if Pontiac sells any cars to actual retail customers anymore.

210delray · August 2008

"Little Camry gets only 31."

I don't think so. We're empty nesters and the Camry is plenty big enough for our needs. Plus we can carry 3 normal-size people in the back without problems. I agree that the Camry is "little' compared to an Enclave or a '71 Impala.

As for gas mileage, our 2005 routinely gets 32 mpg on the highway, with a believable 35 mpg as tops. Our 2004 does about 3 mpg better in the same driving conditions: 35-38 mpg.

210delray · August 2008

You are yanking our chains, right? Nobody buys a $72,000 vehicle to save gas.

sls002 · August 2008

People like Al Gore who need a big SUV would buy a hybrid version to look greenish.

circlew · August 2008

I felt a tug or too also. The blip in gas prices will no doubt keep SUV sales alive to some extent but the glory days are gone but not forgot!

Regards,
OW

nippononly · August 2008

Of course the Toyota news begs the question of why they are sticking with a lousy 4-speed auto for the 4-cylinder RAV4 when the identical engine is used in the Camry with a 5-speed. Toyota is much too slow to dump this old-tech 4-speed, and their fuel economy is suffering for it.

In two short years Toyota has gone from the top to the bottom of the pack in terms of its automatics. WAY too many 4-speeds left in its lineup when GM and Ford are leading the way by putting their new 6-speed in just about everything. Even Honda has gone to 5-speeds in all its models, even the $15K Fit.

andre1969 · August 2008

Of course the Toyota news begs the question of why they are sticking with a lousy 4-speed auto for the 4-cylinder RAV4 when the identical engine is used in the Camry with a 5-speed.

I was wondering that, too. Is it possible that maybe they just don't have the production capacity to build all the 5-speeds they need to? Or is there something about the 4-speed, like better durability perhaps, that makes it better suited to use in the RAV-4 than in the Camry.

I also remember one Town Hall member (maybe it was 210Delray?) who had a 4-speed Camry and a 5-speed, and saying that the 4-speed actually performed better AND got better economy?

FWIW, the only 5-speed automatic I've ever spent any appreciable amount of time in is a 2006 Xterra. I'm not that impressed with it. It seems like it's geared in such a way that it's revving so low that it's close to stalling out. When you stomp on it to downshift, it sort of just does nothing for an instant. It revs up in that gear, but really doesn't go any faster. Then when it gets to the right rpm it'll downshift and then take off, extra fast, as if to make up for lost time. It's plenty fast enough, but that lag time before shifting just seems like it could be dangerous.

Instead of being "just right", it seems like it's either too slow or too fast...if that makes sense.

Maybe this is just one case where the 5-speed automatic is just overkill with an engine that powerful? It might make more sense with a weaker engine. Or if my buddy stressed this Xterra out, such as using it for towing or heavy hauling.

62vetteefp · August 2008

The blip in gas prices will no doubt keep SUV sales alive to some extent but the glory days are gone but not forgot!

Keep cracking me up. Yes SUV sales and lux vehicles sales are down but so is the whole market. Escalade is down 30%. Does anyone really think that is a HUGE drop? Overall vehicle market is down the lowest in a long time. Gas was on it's way to $5, yet 71% still are buying the +$65k Escalades.

U.S. sales of the non-hybrid Escalade have fallen 29 percent so far this year as consumers spooked by high gas prices and the shaky economy abandon larger vehicles.

62vetteefp · August 2008

I don't think so. We're empty nesters and the Camry is plenty big enough for our needs. Plus we can carry 3 normal-size people in the back without problems.

As I said, FAMILIES, and I guess I should have stipulated families with kids, are buying the Lamdas. Yes for a couple they are a bit large, unless of course, they are hauling large trailers or loading up the rear with antiques or something.

Where it started is that the Enclave for 2009 will get 25 highway and the Camry gets 31. Not a lot of difference to someone who needs the capability of a large CUV. Sure, if you do not need the space buy a Mini that get 34 mpg. Just forget the groceries if you have 2 kids.

62vetteefp · August 2008

2011 Chevrolet Volt previewed at design center
August11

General Motors gave Good Morning America a sneak peek at the production Volt plug-in hybrid, which was previewed earlier this year with a single sketch.

The General hopes to have the Volt on sale in late 2010 as a 2011MY model.

Price wise, GM was hoping for an MSRP of around $30,000. It now seems that number may be closer to $35,000.

The Volt project is an ambitious one. The aim is to create a vehicle that can deliver the equivalent of over 100 miles per gallon, while offering a top speed of 120 mph, and a zero to sixty time of 8.5 seconds.

The so-called plug-in hybrid aims to have a charge time of 6.5 hours, and a range of 45 miles on batteries alone. For many customers, this could mean the daily commute would require no gasoline.

As with any hybrid, an onboard generator recharges the batteries when the gasoline motor is running. What makes the Volt unique is thats the only thing the gas motor does  in other words, it never drives the wheels directly. Maximum range  with a full tank of gas and charged batteries  is an impressive 640 miles.

Volt director Tony Posawatz indicated that several variations of the Volt could be in store for the future. Interchangeable bodies remain a real possibility. Possible for GM to design different body styles  such as a sedan or van  that can be placed on the platform. This versatility means your Volt could be an SUV one day and a two-door coupe the next.

nippononly · August 2008

Is it possible that maybe they just don't have the production capacity to build all the 5-speeds they need to?

Oh no, it's simply because they are cheaping out. That is what I would have accused GM of doing back in the day, and that is what Toyota is doing now. Just plain cheaping out. A hybrid version of the RAV4 is also overdue, considering the Camry with which it shares its powertrains has had a hybrid version for two years.

And it would seem that a hybrid Equinox is overdue too. Is it true that Aura and Malibu will offer the new two-mode hybrid powertrain for the '09 model year, or will this still be the not-really-worth-it "mild" hybrid from the current Malibu? I read a report on, was it the '09 Vue? With the two-mode hybrid that thing should get really good gas mileage, enough to take on the hybrid Escape head to head. Honda and Toyota will be left in the dust....

If it's true about the '09 Vue (if I remembered it correctly, in other words), they should plunk the same thing in the Equinox, their volume seller.

nippononly · August 2008

the Volt sounds very impressive and I can't WAIT for it to arrive, but $35,000 sounds a bit steep. Yes, the gas savings alone will probably save the "extra" $10K over five years for most buyers, but will GM be right in the middle of the same problem that has plagued the other hybrid manufacturers: the premium over a gas model is enough to need years to "pay off" causing many people to balk?

circlew · August 2008

Now that gas is under $4.00 I assume GM will cancel it's plans to close those truck plants. After all, 30% is not that big a deal. While they're at it, perhaps Hummer is a blessing in disguise!

Here is the reality...I couldn't have said it better myself!

Makes sense to someone... somewhere... somehow...

GM Car Czar Bob Lutz' infamous pre-Katrina remark, "Rich people don't care about gas," has once again come back to haunt him. This time it arrives in the form of a $71,685 two-mode hybrid; a rebadged Chevy Suburban SUV called the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid. Here's the problem: Bob's remark implied that rich people are environmentally unconscious (and, by extension GM). If that's true and I'm not saying it isn't why would anyone pay an extra $14,795 over the base 'Slade) or $3600 (for the two-mode system) to buy a gas - electric version of the Escalade? Is it because they care about looking like they care about the price of gas? And if that's right and I'm not saying it is wasn't Maximum Bob wrong in the first place? And if these rich people really cared about looking like they cared about the price of gas, why would they buy a hybrid SUV (20 mpg city) instead of something more fuel efficient (if a lot less big and infinitely less bling)? How many rich, luxury-loving, boat-towing, gas price or carbon-footprint-aware SUV drivers are there, anyway? Last question (I swear): how much did this doomed PR-mobile cost GM anyway? OK, two more. How stupid/eco-pretentious do you have to be to pay a $14,795 hybrid premium? And how long before those hybrid stickers and badges show up on eBay? [First photo of one of these in the wild-- customer owned-- gets an honorable mention.]

Makes sense to you, 62vetteefp, now doesn't it? :shades:

Regards,
OW

210delray · August 2008

I dunno; we had two sons and had a 1980 Volvo 240 and then a 1990 Mercury Sable, both sedans, as our primary family vehicles. We never had any problems carrying them, their car seats, and their toys or books in the back seat, plus our belongings in the trunk. Never had a roof rack or car top carrier, and the only items carried outside were bikes on a rack.

But I know for some reason, today's families seem to carry a lot more than we did, even if they have no more than 2 kids.

dtownfb · August 2008

But I know for some reason, today's families seem to carry a lot more than we did, even if they have no more than 2 kids.

Yes and each kid has to have a room to themselves plus a big family room, a wide screen TV, etc. A Camry has plenty of room for a small family.

62vetteefp · August 2008

That article is on the hybrid Escalade. I am discussing the escalade in general. My point is that $65k+ escalades are still selling at a decent volume for the times. Yes 30% is a drop that means 1/3 of your truck plants (assuming 30% drop across the board) need to be cut out. That is what GM is doing.

In looking at the data GM light duty truck sales are down 25% for Jan-July. Though I could not get a good list it looks like there are about 11 plants in N.A. that make trucks. They are shutting 4 down. That leaves 7 to make that 75% .

At the sales rate over the first 7 months this year that would be about 1.75 million truck units. One plant at two shifts can build about 240,000 units/year.

7 x 240k = 1,680,000 units

What the data shows is that GM had too much capacity last year for trucks. It was not until the new UAW agreement that GM could right size their capacity.

62vetteefp · August 2008

has put in place plans to cut North American capacity to 3.7m units, Mr Wagoner said

Julys annualised rate for U.S. car sales of 12.7m units, 

So at standard time GM is capacitized for 29% but once sales get back up to 16 m units more like 23% with probably another couple percent with OT.

torque_r · August 2008

Oh no, it's simply because they are cheaping out. That is what I would have accused GM of doing back in the day, and that is what Toyota is doing now

I would say this is a marketing technique, to leave room for improvment for the next generation RAV4. And why not? This 2.5L/4-speed combo gets best-in-class power and fuel economy as it is right now.

I even have a feeling that Toyota will not put a 6-speed in the 4-cyl Camry, and they will still improve the fuel consumption.

Remember guys it's all about fuel economy.

Look at this figure:
Toyota RAV4 V6 AWD, 5-speed: 19/26 mpg.
Saturn Vue V6 AWD. 6-speed: 16/22 mpg.

Obviously, the 6-speed auto did not help GM's thirsty 3.6L.

nippononly · August 2008

But the Vue also has more power than the V-6 RAV and may be faster to 60, so you ARE getting something for your gas dollars there. Where it is legitimate to compare 0-60s and stuff like that with the V-6s, because people are presumably paying extra and taking the FE hit for the extra power, I would think most people buying the fours are looking for gas savings, and there the margin between the RAV4 and its competitors is razor-thin (indeed, non-existent in the case of the CRV, right?). Toyota could plunk in a couple of extra ratios in that automatic with the 4-cylinder and probably pull a 30 highway rating out of its hat.

And then there will be a proper two-mode Vue hybrid in a few months, which I am sure will totally beat up RAV and CRV on the fuel economy front. Going head to head with Escape hybrid, as I said before. CRV may have a diesel late next year....where is Toyota's response for the RAV4?

torque_r · August 2008

But the Vue also has more power than the V-6 RAV and may be faster to 60, so you ARE getting something for your gas dollars there.

Actually the RAV4 has 269hp, compared to 252hp for the Saturn Vue, and the RAV4 is way faster.
And while there is no hybrid RAV4, there is a hybrid Highlander.

nippononly · August 2008

Hmm, I didn't realize the Vue had less hp, so I went and looked up the numbers. RAV is not WAY faster, but it is slightly faster. Given the tolerances of such a test, I would call the two even:

The Saturn: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=120836/pageNumber=3

The Toyota: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=108153/pageNumber=1?s- ynpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2008/toyota/rav4/100920113/roadtes- tarticle.html&articleId=108153

The RAV runs 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, the Vue does it in 7.3. The RAV runs the quarter in 15.2 seconds, the Vue in 15.7.

But, point taken. RAV V-6 does that while having slightly better fuel economy. That's good. I'm still looking for the 4-cylinder to have better FE, and I am eagerly awaiting FE ratings for the two-mode Vue hybrid.

jae5 · August 2008

"Of course the Toyota news begs the question of why they are sticking with a lousy 4-speed auto for the 4-cylinder RAV4 when the identical engine is used in the Camry with a 5-speed. Toyota is much too slow to dump this old-tech 4-speed, and their fuel economy is suffering for it."

Funny how the same thing was said of GM a year or two ago, with the only difference being people were defending GM's use of the 4-speed autos.

andre1969 · August 2008

Funny how the same thing was said of GM a year or two ago, with the only difference being people were defending GM's use of the 4-speed autos.

Well, I can see some advantages to it. For instance, the 4-speed auto is most likely cheaper to build, which might help keep the cost of the car down. It's also probably going to be a lot cheaper to re-build, something to consider on the used car market.

A lot of GM's bigger cars, like the Impala, LeSabre, etc, that were using 3.4's, 3.5's, and 3.8's, etc, seemed to get along fairly well with that transmission. I guess it could be possible that those engines really wouldn't benefit from a 5- or 6-speed.

I remember the 2004-2007 Malibu, especially, seemed to do really well with the 3.5 V-6/4-speed auto.

Also, to be fair, GM was taking A LOT of ragging a couple years back, for being behind the curve with using 4-speeds when everyone else was going to 5-speeds. It's just that a lot of GM defenders jumped in and, well, defended them!

I wonder if these same debates went on back in the old days, over 3-speed versus 4-speed transmissions. Or if people were getting on the internet back in the 50's and debating over 2 versus 3 speeds, or torque converters versus fluid couplings? :shades:

62vetteefp · August 2008

High revving engines do better for performance and MPG with more speeds. GM's cam in block engines would not get a large bump with a speed or two more. However high revving DOHC engines love more speeds.

GM has lots of 6 speeds coming out because they have been/are finally increasing capacity. Tranny manufactuing modules are very expensive. I would assume Toyota is having an issue because as their world wide sales go up they need more trannys and have not spent the money to tool up enough 5 or 6 speeds. Besides the real public does not really know what a 4 5 or 6 speed is all about. Hey, I could probably convince most folks that since Toyota uses 4 speeds and GM has 6 speeds that 4 speeds are obviously better. :P

lemko · August 2008

Hey! Dynaflow kicks Fluid Drive's butt!

dieselone · August 2008

GM's cam in block engines would not get a large bump with a speed or two more. However high revving DOHC engines love more speeds.

Maybe not, but I'd think overall performance would be better. Now that I've had my Expedition with a 6 speed for a while now, no way would I go back to a 4 speed in a truck/SUV. Huge difference in overall performance compared to my 5.3/4speed Suburban. Sure, foot to the floor acceleration (non towing) is probably pretty close overall, but in routine driving, the 6 speed provides effortless acceleration in almost any situation.

Towing is where I really notice the performance improvement. It's nice not to have to rev the engine to 4k rpm to maintain enough torque to accelerate in the next gear. With the 6speed, I rarely need to go over 3k rpm to accelerate with the boat on back. The extra ratios means the engine doesn't have to work as hard to do the same amount of work and it makes for a more refined powertrain. At least when comparing the Expe to a Suburban. The Expe never feels like it's working hard, where my Suburban often felt very strained with more engine vibration and noise.

I'm sure my wife's 3.8 powered grand prix would benefit from a 6 speed. Even though it has plenty of torque, it runs out of steam above 4k rpm and while it's really peppy around town it isn't nearly so at highway speeds. The extra ratios would certainly help utilize the engines powerband.

There is a reason why semi's have 13+ gears.

Now is it worth more money to go to a 6 speed vs. a 4speed in an in expensive carr? We can debate that all day. Certainly, I'd rather have a well behaving 4 speed over a manic 6speed that never can figure out which gear to use.

GM News, New Models and Market Share

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles