I don't think Nissan's truck/SUV troubles have much to do with their platform. I've researched them and the majority of problems seem to be interior issues and brakes. GMs Trailblazer and Colorado aren't know for reliability/build quality either. The Pathfinder/Frontier don't seem to have nearly as many issues.
I think Ford and GM aren't doing so well in small trucks because they don't have a comptetive product. Ford has always been strong in Full size trucks and the Ranger used to be a top ten seller too. Now that the Ranger is older than dirt, people are looking elsewhere.
Of course, you know you are supposed to be using your MIRRORS, not craning your head to see out the window, right?
I taught driving and if possible, it is better to actually look back quickly, not just rely on mirrors....as i told the students, don't trust your life to an image in a mirror.
IMO the size of the windows is completely a style issue. BMW's, Mecedes, Audi, all have normal size windows and they look better than those thin little gunner slot windows. Ford 500, Passat, Jetta all look better than the Magnums. My brother had a Magnum rental and it is really claustrophobic sitting in there looking out the gun slots. And yes it does have a hood which is nice to see today, but your eyes are level with the hood. Rear vision is terrible.
Large windows are good styling because windows are practical, it is narrow windows that are a terrible design. The new Camaro is supposed to be like a "Fast and Furious" car.....looks as bad as the movie was to watch.
If I am paying good money for a car, I want it to have a hood.
If I want to drive a bus or a van, and not have a hood, I would buy a bus or a van.
Real cars have an engine in the front, and they have to have a hood.
I also like the feeling of being surrounded by steel, so I also like a real trunk. Not sawed off like some of those Lexus's and Integras. I don't like to have my face against the windshield, and a big drop off to the road. I drove that new Civic loaner car and I could not stand the fact that I felt I was driving a computer game....a big digital speedo and NO HOOD!!!! :mad:
With the graduated licensing system in BC, you are failed on your first road test if all you use are relying are your mirrors. Examiners expect you to be aware of your surroundings and turn your head and look around every 6-8 seconds. Examiners are far pickier on the first road test for this.
Since eye movement is hard to detect, on a road test you are pretty much expected to crane your head in all directions and exaggerate as much as possible, especially for shoulder checks when lane changing and turning.
since I took the driver's test in 1986, you're supposed to actually LOOK at what you're doing. Not rely on a mirror. A quick glance at the mirror can give you some feedback about what's going on in back of you, but you really need to look first. They would've failed us back then for not looking.
Now I'm not saying look and gawk long enough to see that woman in the minivan on your left beating the snot out of her kids in the back seat or the full-sized pickup with the two men sitting awfully close together coming up on your right, or the guy in the Bronco who, when you really look occasionally you can see that his girlfriend looks like she might be testing the headroom under the tilt steering wheel. But at least take a quick glance. You should always be aware of your surroundings, and not rely solely on your mirrors. Mirrors are bigger than they used to be back in the old days, but they don't totally eliminate blind spots.
"looking around", I have no choice. In many cars these days, the top of the windshield is actually below my eyeline, so I have to crouch a bit. And the A-pillars on many of these cab-forward cars (not just Chryslers, other manufacturers are getting more cab-forward, or windshield-forward, than they'd care to admit), are in what would normally be my line of vision if I were in a wider vehicle that had the windshield a bit closer and the A-pillars off to the side more, instead of closer together and more in the way.
I test drove a Dodge Caliber about a month ago, and it had to have some of the worst A-pillar blockage I've ever seen in a car. Also, the more slanty an A-pillar is, the more of your vision it's going to block. Older cars that had the more upright A-pillars had better visibility.
4.3 V6 ... you mean the one I had in my Blazer. I never towed anything and can't tell you how it handles towing. But it had hard time pulling the vehicle itself. The engine doesn't like to rev. Tranny quickly shifts to top gear, RPM stays around 2000 rpm mark, and passing anyone at high speed is just impossible. Then, I had gasket problems, emission issues, and, of course, tranny problems all along. Over time the engine became more and more noisy (or I became less and less tolerant). I hope GM is not building another engine like that - if GM is, I will not even test-drive Aura (when I will shop for a midsize car next year).
Looking is mandatory when you change lanes. For routine road surveillance, mirrors are OK. Even truck drivers don't have 100 % blind-spot free zones with the added convex mirror for better vision.
Now I'm not saying look and gawk long enough to see that woman in the minivan on your left beating the snot out of her kids in the back seat or the full-sized pickup with the two men sitting awfully close together coming up on your right, or the guy in the Bronco who, when you really look occasionally you can see that his girlfriend looks like she might be testing the headroom under the tilt steering wheel. But at least take a quick glance. You should always be aware of your surroundings, and not rely solely on your mirrors. Mirrors are bigger than they used to be back in the old days, but they don't totally eliminate blind spots.
you guys are correct - even the driver's ed test (here in Cali) requires you to look over your shoulder when changing lanes, merging onto the freeway, etc.
if you wanna have some fun, take the flash tutorial and brush up
I test drove a Caliber also, and like Car & Driver said, it was like sitting in a tub.
I'd also like to see the return of more upright windshields and bigger side glass. It is a style thing: Look at these side impact test results from the IIHS.
Gun-slit windows: Chrysler 300 with side airbags -- Marginal
Larger side glass: Previous-gen Camry and current-gen Accord (both with side airbags) -- Good and Good
you are teaching driving and you are teaching kids to do something OTHER THAN keep their eyes forward?
It has been about 35 years since I taught driving but it is better to look back. Lets say you are in the left lane with 3 lanes of traffic and if you pass a car in the centre lane, you only use your mirror, you could miss a car in the right lane moving into the centre lane just when you are about to do the same. It only takes a half a second. Also, if you are driving forward you should be checking your rear view mirror about every 40 seconds...what if there is a police car or ambulance there? Also, you have to have an idea of who is behind you and their distance and size.
Obviously, getting hydrogen to the car is an issue. But I expect the big oil and other energy companies are going to figure out hydrogen logistics sooner than many think.
I'd put hydrogen right up there with E85 as one of the biggest non-solutions to the gas crisis. Hydrogen doesn't grow on trees, it takes ENERGY to produce. Where's all that energy coming from? Fossil Fuels!!!!! Not to mention the logistics and need for demand before anybody would invest big. Kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I agree, the sedans will play a much, much more important role, if the market switch to RWD, V8 powered family sedans holds promise in the wake of $4/gallon petrol.
Well, we keep waiting for these competitive mainstream sedans. It's always the current year +1 for introduction.
4.3 V6 ... you mean the one I had in my Blazer. I never towed anything and can't tell you how it handles towing. But it had hard time pulling the vehicle itself.
Maybe my expectations aren't that high, but my uncle's '97 Silverado has the 4.3. It's an extended cab, 6 1/2 foot bed, and for what it is, I think the engine handles it just fine. Now sure, any V-8 pickup that's offered today is going to outgun it, but among base pickups, it's still pretty competitive. I remember driving a base Dodge Ram with the 3.9 V-6, and it was a dog. They use a 3.7 OHC unit these days, but it's still overmatched. And I don't think Ford's 4.2 V-6 is any better, plus there you probably get the added bonus of blowing head gaskets since it's based on that old 3.8/3.9 engine.
I wonder if GM geared the Blazer differently from the Silverado? My uncle's pickup has a 3.73:1 rear, IIRC. On the downside, it's not the most sophisticated sounding engine in the world, but it got the job done. His truck has about 100,000 miles on it and the engine has been rock-solid. Let's not talk about the transmission(s) though!
Where's all that energy coming from? Fossil Fuels!!!!! Not to mention the logistics and need for demand before anybody would invest big. Kind of a chicken and egg problem.
Hydrogen is only one of the most common elements in our atmosphere and 2/3rds of all water.
CalTech and private companies are pretty close to a marketable solution that uses bacteria, water and sun. You can flood desert areas, let bacteria break down H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, with the sun as the powering agent.
Getting hydrogen logistics in place will cost money, true. Society will have to balance the cost of carbon in the atmosphere (The democratic nations and China need also balance the cost of doing business with unstable demagogues) with setting up the apparatus to use hydrogen.
I predict a combination of improved hydrogen extraction technology and the growing expense of using Carbon fuel will fall into hydrogen's favor.
Finally, I mentioned GM's fuel cell research in response to a poster who said GM does not like to innovate. Here we can agree GM is working on technology that still has significant hurdles (we disagree in that I think the hurdles can be overcome through science whereas you appear to think we are at the limits of our technical prowress). GM is clearly taking quite a risk at innovation here. One that may not pay off for many years (or, if we assume your pessimism stance, ever.)
I test drove a Dodge Caliber about a month ago, and it had to have some of the worst A-pillar blockage I've ever seen in a car. Also, the more slanty an A-pillar is, the more of your vision it's going to block. Older cars that had the more upright A-pillars had better visibility.
A GM car series that had tall windows and was styled well was the 77-90 Chevy Caprice 4-doors. The styling on these cars still looks good after many years. Check out best version, original 77.
Most Chevy models in years past had good styling, not too many were dogs. Not true today. Wonder if there would be market for a little smaller (than 77) Caprice 4-door with RWD (and traction control), V6 or V8 and weight in 3400-3600 range. Styling cues could come from best of 77-90 years.
People are very pragmatic today what with purchases of suvs, crossovers. Maybe the time is right for a well styled up-to-date Caprice 4-door with tall seating (like Ford 500) and real space for 6 passengers (front bench option) and big trunk. Price it in range of Accord/Camry with about 3-4 trim levels (DX, LX, EX, SS) and it would be a success. The SS would have top brakes/susp and would shame the current Impala SS in handling. Think that a new Caprice rwd would be very popular with police and municipal folks.
Seems that there would be a much greater mass appeal and market for a 4-door Caprice than there will be for the niche Camaro or there was for the defunct SSR or GTO. With good build quality and reported GM reliability up, the Caprice would compete well in the 4-door segment.
I guess the engine got the job done because of good low end torque (you can start moving with a big weight without difficulty). But it lacked passing power (power needed to accelerate from 60 MPH to 70 MPH). The CR-V I use now doesn't have Blazer's towing capacity (I don't need towing - I buy SUVs because I don't want a minivan). But the CR-V accelerates easily from 60 MPH to 70 MPH or higher speeds - the engine RPM needle is always willing to move and I just need to press on gas to make it move. Blazer's engine RPM needle wouldn't go beyond 2500 RPM in any case (I wondered why they had the gauge calibrated up to 6000 RPM). I know CR-V isn't ideal for anyone who needs towing. But I want GM to make some engines with customers like me in mind and not just serious truckers in mind.
A GM car series that had tall windows and was styled well was the 77-90 Chevy Caprice 4-doors. The styling on these cars still looks good after many years. Check out best version, original 77.
I think my favorite flavor of the B-body is the 1977 Catalina. I'd like to get ahold of one of these one day. I always liked the front-end with its slight wedge shape and the crosshair grille.
Funny thing about the B-body though, is at the time, people often complained about the visibility out of them! I never had a problem, but I think people complained about the way the hoods and the trunks sloped off so that you couldn't see where the car ended as well as you could on the previous design, so even though they were smaller than the cars they replaced, some people found them harder to parallel park. You could see the hoods better on the older cars, but they had even more slope to the trunk, so I can't imagine being able to see the decklid in the rearview mirror.
By today's standards though, they're exellent in the visibility department. I had a 1985 LeSabre for a few years, that my grandma gave me when she quit driving. I liked it, and the stand-up hood ornament was great for aiming! :P
Hydrogen is only one of the most common elements in our atmosphere and 2/3rds of all water.
It's not that we have a lot of it, it is the form that the hydrogen is in. Hydrogen in water has already given up its energy to get to the water molecule. It takes that same amount of energy (actually, a bit more, since conversions are not perfect) to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen.
CalTech and private companies are pretty close to a marketable solution that uses bacteria, water and sun.
I hadn't seen the "close to a solution" status. Do you have a link?
You can flood desert areas, let bacteria break down H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, with the sun as the powering agent.
So you're saying that all the energy needed would be solar powered. For us to replace substantial amounts of gasoline with hydrogen (even granting the argument about bacteria), the land areas would be enormous. Imagine how fast we're going to get national agreement to flood large portions of the continent to make energy. And where is all that water coming from?
...whereas you appear to think we are at the limits of our technical prowress
I did not say that. I just don't see, practially or thermodynamically, that hydrogen is a solution even remotely near viability on a large scale. Even E85, though a poor answer, is more ready than hydrogen.
CalTech and private companies are pretty close to a marketable solution that uses bacteria, water and sun. You can flood desert areas, let bacteria break down H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, with the sun as the powering agent.
If could be done, what happens to the extra oxygen? Does atmosphere dome expand ever outward around earth? What about breaking down water for getting at the hydrogen? Will ocean levels drop? Should man alter/reduce the amount of water on earth?
"Price it in range of Accord/Camry with about 3-4 trim levels (DX, LX, EX, SS) and it would be a success."
Don't expect Chevy to steal buyers from Honda/ Toyota. I have switched to Honda after owning GM products for decade. The reason wasn't styling or performance. I was sick of GM's poor quality and lousy resale value. Cool features are good for attracting enthusiasts and no good when it comes to average shoppers like me. And, most people shopping for a Malibu or Equinox are average shoppers. If they weren't average, they would be shopping for STS or Escalade.
I read somewhere here that the 3.6L in the CTS will receive direct injection. Any updates regarding that? In any case, GM must join the 300hp V6 club if it wants to be competitive. Honda just did, with the introduction of the 3.7 V6 in the new 2007 MDX (300hp and 275lb). This adds to other high output engines from Lexus, Infiniti and BMW (306hp, 306hp, and 300 respectively).
"I realize people make ridiculous claims to try to discredit GM products"
It's not ridiculous when I or many like me claim that we've had multiple GM cars and that the general has lost them as a customer. All the GM apologists here think that those that don't like the general suffer from some misplaced perception or illustion.
Well, I mentioned in my previous posts that I'm talking about passing someone at high speed (60 MPH - 80 MPH). My comments don't apply to towing or offroading situations. I don't know if engine can rev faster in those situations because I never tried towing or offroading.
Please read the posts completely before responding. I don't want to credit/ discredit any manufacturer - and, my opinions are opinions that can be different from yours. Also, my comments are based on my first hand experience and not based on other sources. It's possible my experience is not identical to yours. If I say that I didn't like my Blazer, you should be able to accept it - not every customer who buys a product feels good about it.
As I pointed out before, GM's press release on this stated a 15% increase in power. This suggests about 290 to 300 horsepower for the 3.6 and probably around 290 lb-ft of torque.
Clearly consumers are increasingly disgruntled with GM products or GM's market share would stablize. I have been disappointed with some of my more recent GM products. My current car is OK and I will probably drive it long enough for GM to either go chaper 7 or to start making better stuff.
it's possible that at higher speeds, the Blazer might not go much above 2500 rpm because of the transmission. I think my uncle's pickup does ~1700 rpm at around 60 mph. Stomping on it would make it shift down into 3rd gear, which would put it at around 2500 rpm, which incidentally is about where the 4.3 gets its peak torque (260 ft-lb@2800 rpm).
Would a GM 4-speed tranny shift into 2nd gear at 60 mph if you floored it hard enough?
Now if it's pulling 1700 rpm at 60, it should do about 2300 at 80. If you could get it to downshift at 80, it should pull about 3500 rpm. Okay, so that's more than 2500 rpm, but in general it's not a high-revving motor; you're not going to be doing 5000-6000 rpm highway passes. HP tops out at 195 hp@4600 rpm, but I doubt the transmission would let you keep it at that rpm range for very long before upshifting.
As for the Colorado replacement, it looks like they now offer an inline 5 that's 3.7 liters, as opposed to 3.5. It puts out 242 hp@5600 rpm and 242 ft-lb of torque@4600 rpm. So it looks like the old 4.3 still has the Colorado beat in peak torque. Although at 2800 rpm, the 3.7 looks like it puts out around 230 ft-lb. Looks like it first tops 200 ft-lb at around 1700 rpm. The 4.3 starts off with about 220 ft-lb practically the moment you start it up, according to the GM powertrain graphs I'm looking at.
Great info - frankly, I don't know if I'm smart enough to digest the info. I guess your post explains why 4.3 has been good for towing.
Unfortunately, I didn't know all this - I should have opted for a high revving engine to start with. It was the "SUV craze" that carried me away. I shouldn't have paid so much for Blazer's high-torque engine when I didn't need one. I should have bought what I have bought recently - a CR-V with a lovely high-rev engine that offers great passing power.
Apparently, GM can now make a variety of engines. I hope GM uses this capability cleverly while refreshing and augmenting its product line. In fact, I would like to see a high-revving DOHC engine in Equinox to begin with. Most Equinox shoppers aren't serious truckers.
National Healthcare paved the way for Canada to build the Camaro. How sad is that ? :sick: We have a remodeled Oklahoma City GM plant that has had hundreds of millions worth of upgrades and the U.S. still can't land the contract.
It is very sad that GM's Oklahoma plant is being shuttered, but it's like kids fighting for a shrinking inheritance, every plant is on their own. And GM has also made an enormous investment in their manufacturing facilities in Oshawa, Ontario. Hey, I read that Nissan is considering a new North American factory (although it's early and may be Mexico)- but maybe GM can sell Oklahoma City to Nissan. The workers there would have to apply for jobs there (and no union would be there to represent them), but I'd bet that there would be no shortage of good workers to choose from. If GM only had some good selling vehicles, they wouldn't have had to worry about shuttering all of these plants.
Are you saying that unless you pressed down enough to downshift, or at least release the torque converter clutch, the motor was running at 2500 rpm at 60? If you wish to speed up quickly, you push down and shift into third or enough to open the torque converter; are you saying you didn't do that? I'm not seeing how that's a deficiency. I do that all the time in my cars to speed up.
> If I say that I didn't like my Blazer, you should be able to accept it
If you reasons are plausible. This one wasn't. IIRC your other descriptions were valid and you were open to discussing them.
In this case are you saying a Honda is revving much higher at 60 mph so it's in it's high horsepower range for speeding up?
"If could be done, what happens to the extra oxygen?"
Um, quick refresher on fuel cells:
Typical reactants used in a fuel cell are hydrogen on the anode side and oxygen on the cathode side (a hydrogen cell). Usually, reactants flow in (hydrogen from the fuel tank, oxygen from the atmosphere) and reaction products (that would be WATER) flow out.
There wouldn't be any 'buildup' of oxygen in the atmosphere since oxygen in consumed in the fuel cell process. Loss of water due to hydrogen production?
Remember, the breakdown of H20 into it's components (hydrogen and oxygen) is ONLY TEMPORARY. What do you think HAPPENS to all the hydrogen consumed in a fuel cell? It doesn't just cease to exist; it 'remarries' the closest damn oxygen molecule it can find, as quickly as it can, resulting in a molecule of (taDA!) water.
The problem (as I see it) is that a LOT more energy is required to 'divorce' the hydrogen out of a VERY stable relationship than we can ever hope to extract by putting the two back together again.
In fact, I would like to see a high-revving DOHC engine in Equinox to begin with.
Yeah, I wish GM would've put something a bit better in the Equinox, myself. They got most of the truck right, but then it seems like they shot themselves in the foot with the engine!
A buddy of mine wanted a new SUV and narrowed it down to the Equinox or the Xterra. He's not exactly car-savvy, so the OHC versus pushrod debate would be lost on him. And at the time he was driving a 1998 Tracker convertible with 135,000 miles on it, so just about anything out there would probably feel like an improvement.
I went on him with the test drive for the Equinox, and it actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I guess my expectations for the 3.4 were so low because of all the criticism I heard of it. I think the problem is that it's actually an okay engine, but just about everybody else is so much more than okay.
In the end he got the Xterra. The deciding factor was that it was "cooler looking" and most of his friends that he asked said get the Xterra. :P
I've driven it a few times, and it actually does take a bit of adjustment. I'm actually used to bigger, low-revving engines, and while this Xterra is pretty powerful and torquey, you still have to punch it to get anything out of it. With my old '85 Silverado, if I'm loafing along at 60 and give it a little more pedal pressure, it just takes off, in that gear, immediately. The same amount of pedal pressure in the Xterra gives you nothing. A little more in the Silverado and the 4-bbl opens up, and it takes off quicker, but with the Xterra, still nothing. But then with a little more pressure, once the Xterra gets off its butt and downshifts, it takes off like a rocket. And my old Silverado just has a 3-speed automatic, so it's not going to downshift at 60+ mph unless I really bury the pedal or do it manually. And then it's mainly just wasting gas.
I guess the moral of the story is, don't drive an Xterra like you would a 21 year old Chevy pickup, or vice versa! :P
Well, we are going off-topic. Blazer's 4.3 engine revs at below 2000 RPM at 60 MPH and I had no problems with that. But when pressed hard on the gas to accelerate to 70 MPH, the engine didn't respond well and the RPM needle hardly moved.
If I do the same on Honda, engine RPM starts increasing and the vehicle quickly accelerates from 60 MPH to 70 MPH.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with 4.3 engine - the design ensures torque at low RPMs and easy towing. CR-V's 2.4L DOHC can't tow, but it can do what I want - offer plenty of response at high speeds and great passing power.
Again, you pick the one that suits you. I believe Equinox needs a Honda engine (just like VUE).
The problem (as I see it) is that a LOT more energy is required to 'divorce' the hydrogen out of a VERY stable relationship than we can ever hope to extract by putting the two back together again.
If the research I cite above has promise, bacteria and sun provide the energy.
As to where water needed for extraction should come from, natch, the sea. The bacteria in question are genetically manipulated relatives of organisms found around under ocean volcanic ducts.
People want larger vehicles, with windshields that would stand straight up, and that would be equal to driving a Brick wall down the highway! I bet you would get really GREAT Fuel mileage with a 4500 lb car, that has that high a profile, and is that top heavy! Now as far as NOT getting enough power out of the GM Vehicles, I am fascinated! I've owned over 20+ GM vehicles, I STILL own a 93 Blazer/Tahoe, the 1st year of the Tahoe body style, and drive it at 75 - 80 mph all the time, with little effort, and have never had any problems passing anyone! Where I live, if your NOT driving those speeds, you will most certainly get run over by the guy behind you! The aerodynamics of the newer vehicles are so much better then old, especially the Caprice, with it's Brick Wall windshield, high center of gravity, and weight! My wife's Monte Carlo SS, gets awesome fuel mileage, has great visibility, aerodynamics, and is NOT a very heavy vehicle, and has a V6 that has more then enough power to keep up with anyone! I also drive a new Corvette, and PLEASE don't tell me that this car don't have everything that a car needs to pass any of the tests that your talking about, except Towing! From 1st gear alone, I only have about 3 seconds to go to the next gear, or I Red Line, and I can drive this on the back roads at 35 mph in 6th gear, up hill, or any other way you want! I STILL get great fuel mileage for what I am driving! GIVE ME A GOOD AMERICAN CAR ANYDAY! Keep America working, not the foreign companies! Why are we in so much trouble? Don't blame the President for NAFTA, or WTO, all of you are probably driving foreign vehicles anyway, and that is where ALL our money is going! If your going to do that, then go pay them for their oil also!! $10. a gallon!!! :mad:
Ok, fine. So, how much hydrogen gas can be provided by bacteria living in the water and converting the solar energy into hydrogen gas?
From what I could find, lab experiments indicate the process is between 6-8% efficient (combustion energy of hydrogen gas produced/incident light energy).
PV panels, while not terribly efficient, are substantially better than this. Are PV panels relatively expensive? Sure. But at 6-8% efficiency, one would need a LOT more surface area devoted to hydrogen production. And of course there's the small matter of hydrogen COLLECTION from your multiple-square mile bacteria-producing hydrogen farms.
Um... HUH? We're well off the focus of GM styling, folks.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
The article really didn't get into the health issue side of it, but may have been a reason in the deciding factor. AS well as the name thing - remember that going back and forth? Plus as stated in another post, it's a shame that GM is shuttering NA plants that are efficient while looking to China for cheaper labor (and the resultant cheap quality parts).
But to stay on topic I really don't like the style of this car. It looks like a Cadillac-ized Camaro, just doesn't do "it" for me. It looks half-baked (or like the designers were into the same thing that the guys in Half-Baked were into ). Needs to go back into clay and have a nick/tuck.
... it won't, because GM hasn't a clue. I can't tell the difference between all the big boxy SUVs anymore, and they are all devoid of 'sport'. I believe the GM brand is beyond redemption among people who are style-conscious.
Cadillac's folded-paper look is contrived and already dated -- the Mercedes SLK is a much sexier car than the Cadillac XLV. And I can't tell the Cadillac sedans apart without a photo chart - CLS, DLS -- holy crap already. Caddy lacks style, as the jingle goes. Or went.
The Corvette is probably the best-looking thing GM makes -- until you get inside, and realize the Mazda MX5 outclasses it.
GM, even as it shrinks, is a big clueless bureaucracy that has played it safe for decades when it comes to design, and the financial results are all about this shortsightedness. There is nothing in a hot-selling Mini, Audi TT, Range Rover Sport, or a VW New Beetle, or a Toyota FJ Land Cruiser, that GM couldn't have done. What's wrong with a bit of real, actual, God-I-swear-this-is-the-genuine-metal aluminum trim instead of cheap plastic? Where does Land Rover find its cows for those seats? BMW invented the now-extremely-hip Mini brand overnight, yet GM makes Corvette owners traipse through the showroom where the pickup trucks sit. HINT: Style starts with the brand image and the experience, and a BMW showroom makes its cars look a hell of a lot better than the Chevy-Buick-Caddy showroom. GM is the anti-style brand for people for whom aesthetics are secondary.
When we ask for innovation, perhaps unwisely, we get wretched garbage like the adolescent pseudo-hot-rod now-defunct Chevy SSR convertible pickup with a $20 plastichrome grille or the bland HHR that everyone's supposed to kustomize. The Cadillac CTS isn't bad looking, but then the next four models in the line are clones.
Here's a clue: Build a car or two that people really adore -- I mean, MUST have. Then study what Audi, BMW and VW are doing with their interiors. A VW Touraeg is classy -- you feel right wearing a nice suit in it. An Escalade is a bloated pimp-mobile. Why doesn't Jeep offer 20" spinner wheels on its SUVs? Because they're actual SUVs, not poseur-mobiles.
Finally, stop insulting us with all this shared platform rubbish. Any 9 year old can see that a Tahoe, Escalade and the Yukon are the same big jacked up station wagon. Why is Cadillac selling Tahoes? (Yes, I know they have different engines, but for the typical customer running to Blockbuster and the grocery store in his/her 3-ton truck it doesn't much matter.)
Kind of a rant here, sorry, but GM has had years to sort this out. I can't stop at a light here in California without seeing 2 BMW 330i's, and I'd argue the Bangle designs aren't the best. But, they are edgy, progressive, and intentional, kind of like a rolling art exhibit that says you weren't willing to buy an anonymous, slab-sided box in which to waste your driving life. GM still has Buicks floating around that cement its image as a moribund octagenarian brand or a loser rental car. (Really - when I get a Mustang from Hertz, I feel like I scored. When Avis gives me a Malibu, I just explain to people that it's a rental and point out the bar code sticker on the glass...)
GM needs to outsource its styling, interior and exterior, to the Italians or maybe the Brits (Ian Callum?) who have an eye for this thing. GM is good at hiring accountants. It has proven beyond a doubt that it knows zero about hiring car people.
A VW Touraeg is classy -- you feel right wearing a nice suit in it. An Escalade is a bloated pimp-mobile. Why doesn't Jeep offer 20" spinner wheels on its SUVs? Because they're actual SUVs, not poseur-mobiles...
Really - when I get a Mustang from Hertz, I feel like I scored. When Avis gives me a Malibu, I just explain to people that it's a rental and point out the bar code sticker on the glass...
How about that?
Nine paragraphs to advise GM copy VW and Ford, two companies with sales spiraling at rates that make GM look like an all time champ.
(And by the way, you are aware that the Toureg shares its platform - rather obviously - with the Cayenne? And let's no talk SEAT over in Europe.)
In the latest Motor Trend they suggest that Holden has proposed building a RWD Pontiac Grand Prix based on the Commodore. Would have a 3.6 V6 and the 6 liter V8. The style is more or less generic Pontiac.
There is also the possibility of building a long wheelbase car that would be based on the Holden Caprice.
Comments
I think Ford and GM aren't doing so well in small trucks because they don't have a comptetive product. Ford has always been strong in Full size trucks and the Ranger used to be a top ten seller too. Now that the Ranger is older than dirt, people are looking elsewhere.
I believe so, I know they share the same v6 and trans.
I taught driving and if possible, it is better to actually look back quickly, not just rely on mirrors....as i told the students, don't trust your life to an image in a mirror.
IMO the size of the windows is completely a style issue. BMW's, Mecedes, Audi, all have normal size windows and they look better than those thin little gunner slot windows. Ford 500, Passat, Jetta all look better than the Magnums. My brother had a Magnum rental and it is really claustrophobic sitting in there looking out the gun slots. And yes it does have a hood which is nice to see today, but your eyes are level with the hood. Rear vision is terrible.
Large windows are good styling because windows are practical, it is narrow windows that are a terrible design.
The new Camaro is supposed to be like a "Fast and Furious" car.....looks as bad as the movie was to watch.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
If I am paying good money for a car, I want it to have a hood.
If I want to drive a bus or a van, and not have a hood, I would buy a bus or a van.
Real cars have an engine in the front, and they have to have a hood.
I also like the feeling of being surrounded by steel, so I also like a real trunk. Not sawed off like some of those Lexus's and Integras. I don't like to have my face against the windshield, and a big drop off to the road.
I drove that new Civic loaner car and I could not stand the fact that I felt I was driving a computer game....a big digital speedo and NO HOOD!!!! :mad:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
(I am not asking what they should do when in reverse.)
just curious, how often do you tell your students to look in their mirrors while driving down the highway at highway speed?
Since eye movement is hard to detect, on a road test you are pretty much expected to crane your head in all directions and exaggerate as much as possible, especially for shoulder checks when lane changing and turning.
----------
Competent ion?
Wouldn't that come from the Saturn division of GM, not Chevy?
:P :P :P
yes, you should check your mirrors at least every 6-8 seconds, but "look around"???? That's ridiculous, and extremely dangerous.
I can see how the examiner would have difficulty knowing if you are looking in the mirrors, however.
Now I'm not saying look and gawk long enough to see that woman in the minivan on your left beating the snot out of her kids in the back seat or the full-sized pickup with the two men sitting awfully close together coming up on your right, or the guy in the Bronco who, when you really look occasionally you can see that his girlfriend looks like she might be testing the headroom under the tilt steering wheel. But at least take a quick glance. You should always be aware of your surroundings, and not rely solely on your mirrors. Mirrors are bigger than they used to be back in the old days, but they don't totally eliminate blind spots.
I test drove a Dodge Caliber about a month ago, and it had to have some of the worst A-pillar blockage I've ever seen in a car. Also, the more slanty an A-pillar is, the more of your vision it's going to block. Older cars that had the more upright A-pillars had better visibility.
Ahh, man, your killing me!LOL!
if you wanna have some fun, take the flash tutorial and brush up
http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/practice-tests.php
I'd also like to see the return of more upright windshields and bigger side glass. It is a style thing: Look at these side impact test results from the IIHS.
Gun-slit windows: Chrysler 300 with side airbags -- Marginal
Larger side glass: Previous-gen Camry and current-gen Accord (both with side airbags) -- Good and Good
It has been about 35 years since I taught driving but it is better to look back. Lets say you are in the left lane with 3 lanes of traffic and if you pass a car in the centre lane, you only use your mirror, you could miss a car in the right lane moving into the centre lane just when you are about to do the same. It only takes a half a second. Also, if you are driving forward you should be checking your rear view mirror about every 40 seconds...what if there is a police car or ambulance there? Also, you have to have an idea of who is behind you and their distance and size.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I'd put hydrogen right up there with E85 as one of the biggest non-solutions to the gas crisis. Hydrogen doesn't grow on trees, it takes ENERGY to produce. Where's all that energy coming from? Fossil Fuels!!!!! Not to mention the logistics and need for demand before anybody would invest big. Kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I agree, the sedans will play a much, much more important role, if the market switch to RWD, V8 powered family sedans holds promise in the wake of $4/gallon petrol.
Well, we keep waiting for these competitive mainstream sedans. It's always the current year +1 for introduction.
Maybe my expectations aren't that high, but my uncle's '97 Silverado has the 4.3. It's an extended cab, 6 1/2 foot bed, and for what it is, I think the engine handles it just fine. Now sure, any V-8 pickup that's offered today is going to outgun it, but among base pickups, it's still pretty competitive. I remember driving a base Dodge Ram with the 3.9 V-6, and it was a dog. They use a 3.7 OHC unit these days, but it's still overmatched. And I don't think Ford's 4.2 V-6 is any better, plus there you probably get the added bonus of blowing head gaskets since it's based on that old 3.8/3.9 engine.
I wonder if GM geared the Blazer differently from the Silverado? My uncle's pickup has a 3.73:1 rear, IIRC. On the downside, it's not the most sophisticated sounding engine in the world, but it got the job done. His truck has about 100,000 miles on it and the engine has been rock-solid. Let's not talk about the transmission(s) though!
Hydrogen is only one of the most common elements in our atmosphere and 2/3rds of all water.
CalTech and private companies are pretty close to a marketable solution that uses bacteria, water and sun. You can flood desert areas, let bacteria break down H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, with the sun as the powering agent.
Getting hydrogen logistics in place will cost money, true. Society will have to balance the cost of carbon in the atmosphere (The democratic nations and China need also balance the cost of doing business with unstable demagogues) with setting up the apparatus to use hydrogen.
I predict a combination of improved hydrogen extraction technology and the growing expense of using Carbon fuel will fall into hydrogen's favor.
Finally, I mentioned GM's fuel cell research in response to a poster who said GM does not like to innovate. Here we can agree GM is working on technology that still has significant hurdles (we disagree in that I think the hurdles can be overcome through science whereas you appear to think we are at the limits of our technical prowress). GM is clearly taking quite a risk at innovation here. One that may not pay off for many years (or, if we assume your pessimism stance, ever.)
A GM car series that had tall windows and was styled well was the 77-90 Chevy Caprice 4-doors. The styling on these cars still looks good after many years. Check out best version, original 77.
Most Chevy models in years past had good styling, not too many were dogs. Not true today. Wonder if there would be market for a little smaller (than 77) Caprice 4-door with RWD (and traction control), V6 or V8 and weight in 3400-3600 range. Styling cues could come from best of 77-90 years.
People are very pragmatic today what with purchases of suvs, crossovers. Maybe the time is right for a well styled up-to-date Caprice 4-door with tall seating (like Ford 500) and real space for 6 passengers (front bench option) and big trunk. Price it in range of Accord/Camry with about 3-4 trim levels (DX, LX, EX, SS) and it would be a success. The SS would have top brakes/susp and would shame the current Impala SS in handling. Think that a new Caprice rwd would be very popular with police and municipal folks.
Seems that there would be a much greater mass appeal and market for a 4-door Caprice than there will be for the niche Camaro or there was for the defunct SSR or GTO. With good build quality and reported GM reliability up, the Caprice would compete well in the 4-door segment.
I think my favorite flavor of the B-body is the 1977 Catalina. I'd like to get ahold of one of these one day. I always liked the front-end with its slight wedge shape and the crosshair grille.
Funny thing about the B-body though, is at the time, people often complained about the visibility out of them! I never had a problem, but I think people complained about the way the hoods and the trunks sloped off so that you couldn't see where the car ended as well as you could on the previous design, so even though they were smaller than the cars they replaced, some people found them harder to parallel park. You could see the hoods better on the older cars, but they had even more slope to the trunk, so I can't imagine being able to see the decklid in the rearview mirror.
By today's standards though, they're exellent in the visibility department. I had a 1985 LeSabre for a few years, that my grandma gave me when she quit driving. I liked it, and the stand-up hood ornament was great for aiming! :P
It's not that we have a lot of it, it is the form that the hydrogen is in. Hydrogen in water has already given up its energy to get to the water molecule. It takes that same amount of energy (actually, a bit more, since conversions are not perfect) to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen.
CalTech and private companies are pretty close to a marketable solution that uses bacteria, water and sun.
I hadn't seen the "close to a solution" status. Do you have a link?
You can flood desert areas, let bacteria break down H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, with the sun as the powering agent.
So you're saying that all the energy needed would be solar powered. For us to replace substantial amounts of gasoline with hydrogen (even granting the argument about bacteria), the land areas would be enormous. Imagine how fast we're going to get national agreement to flood large portions of the continent to make energy. And where is all that water coming from?
...whereas you appear to think we are at the limits of our technical prowress
I did not say that. I just don't see, practially or thermodynamically, that hydrogen is a solution even remotely near viability on a large scale. Even E85, though a poor answer, is more ready than hydrogen.
If could be done, what happens to the extra oxygen? Does atmosphere dome expand ever outward around earth? What about breaking down water for getting at the hydrogen? Will ocean levels drop? Should man alter/reduce the amount of water on earth?
Don't expect Chevy to steal buyers from Honda/ Toyota. I have switched to Honda after owning GM products for decade. The reason wasn't styling or performance. I was sick of GM's poor quality and lousy resale value. Cool features are good for attracting enthusiasts and no good when it comes to average shoppers like me. And, most people shopping for a Malibu or Equinox are average shoppers. If they weren't average, they would be shopping for STS or Escalade.
I hope you don't expect us to believe that a Blazer's motor wouldn't be able to go above 2500... LOL
I realize people make ridiculous claims to try to discredit GM products on here (not on topic, BTW) but that's outrageous.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's not ridiculous when I or many like me claim that we've had multiple GM cars and that the general has lost them as a customer. All the GM apologists here think that those that don't like the general suffer from some misplaced perception or illustion.
Please read the posts completely before responding. I don't want to credit/ discredit any manufacturer - and, my opinions are opinions that can be different from yours. Also, my comments are based on my first hand experience and not based on other sources. It's possible my experience is not identical to yours. If I say that I didn't like my Blazer, you should be able to accept it - not every customer who buys a product feels good about it.
Would a GM 4-speed tranny shift into 2nd gear at 60 mph if you floored it hard enough?
Now if it's pulling 1700 rpm at 60, it should do about 2300 at 80. If you could get it to downshift at 80, it should pull about 3500 rpm. Okay, so that's more than 2500 rpm, but in general it's not a high-revving motor; you're not going to be doing 5000-6000 rpm highway passes. HP tops out at 195 hp@4600 rpm, but I doubt the transmission would let you keep it at that rpm range for very long before upshifting.
As for the Colorado replacement, it looks like they now offer an inline 5 that's 3.7 liters, as opposed to 3.5. It puts out 242 hp@5600 rpm and 242 ft-lb of torque@4600 rpm. So it looks like the old 4.3 still has the Colorado beat in peak torque. Although at 2800 rpm, the 3.7 looks like it puts out around 230 ft-lb. Looks like it first tops 200 ft-lb at around 1700 rpm. The 4.3 starts off with about 220 ft-lb practically the moment you start it up, according to the GM powertrain graphs I'm looking at.
The more I look at this vehicle the more I dislike the styling and proportions.
Unfortunately, I didn't know all this - I should have opted for a high revving engine to start with. It was the "SUV craze" that carried me away. I shouldn't have paid so much for Blazer's high-torque engine when I didn't need one. I should have bought what I have bought recently - a CR-V with a lovely high-rev engine that offers great passing power.
Apparently, GM can now make a variety of engines. I hope GM uses this capability cleverly while refreshing and augmenting its product line. In fact, I would like to see a high-revving DOHC engine in Equinox to begin with. Most Equinox shoppers aren't serious truckers.
Good Post jae, let the truth be told.
Rocky
> If I say that I didn't like my Blazer, you should be able to accept it
If you reasons are plausible. This one wasn't. IIRC your other descriptions were valid and you were open to discussing them.
In this case are you saying a Honda is revving much higher at 60 mph so it's in it's high horsepower range for speeding up?
If your
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Um, quick refresher on fuel cells:
Typical reactants used in a fuel cell are hydrogen on the anode side and oxygen on the cathode side (a hydrogen cell). Usually, reactants flow in (hydrogen from the fuel tank, oxygen from the atmosphere) and reaction products (that would be WATER) flow out.
There wouldn't be any 'buildup' of oxygen in the atmosphere since oxygen in consumed in the fuel cell process. Loss of water due to hydrogen production?
Remember, the breakdown of H20 into it's components (hydrogen and oxygen) is ONLY TEMPORARY. What do you think HAPPENS to all the hydrogen consumed in a fuel cell? It doesn't just cease to exist; it 'remarries' the closest damn oxygen molecule it can find, as quickly as it can, resulting in a molecule of (taDA!) water.
The problem (as I see it) is that a LOT more energy is required to 'divorce' the hydrogen out of a VERY stable relationship than we can ever hope to extract by putting the two back together again.
Yeah, I wish GM would've put something a bit better in the Equinox, myself. They got most of the truck right, but then it seems like they shot themselves in the foot with the engine!
A buddy of mine wanted a new SUV and narrowed it down to the Equinox or the Xterra. He's not exactly car-savvy, so the OHC versus pushrod debate would be lost on him. And at the time he was driving a 1998 Tracker convertible with 135,000 miles on it, so just about anything out there would probably feel like an improvement.
I went on him with the test drive for the Equinox, and it actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I guess my expectations for the 3.4 were so low because of all the criticism I heard of it. I think the problem is that it's actually an okay engine, but just about everybody else is so much more than okay.
In the end he got the Xterra. The deciding factor was that it was "cooler looking" and most of his friends that he asked said get the Xterra. :P
I've driven it a few times, and it actually does take a bit of adjustment. I'm actually used to bigger, low-revving engines, and while this Xterra is pretty powerful and torquey, you still have to punch it to get anything out of it. With my old '85 Silverado, if I'm loafing along at 60 and give it a little more pedal pressure, it just takes off, in that gear, immediately. The same amount of pedal pressure in the Xterra gives you nothing. A little more in the Silverado and the 4-bbl opens up, and it takes off quicker, but with the Xterra, still nothing. But then with a little more pressure, once the Xterra gets off its butt and downshifts, it takes off like a rocket. And my old Silverado just has a 3-speed automatic, so it's not going to downshift at 60+ mph unless I really bury the pedal or do it manually. And then it's mainly just wasting gas.
I guess the moral of the story is, don't drive an Xterra like you would a 21 year old Chevy pickup, or vice versa! :P
If I do the same on Honda, engine RPM starts increasing and the vehicle quickly accelerates from 60 MPH to 70 MPH.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with 4.3 engine - the design ensures torque at low RPMs and easy towing. CR-V's 2.4L DOHC can't tow, but it can do what I want - offer plenty of response at high speeds and great passing power.
Again, you pick the one that suits you. I believe Equinox needs a Honda engine (just like VUE).
If the research I cite above has promise, bacteria and sun provide the energy.
As to where water needed for extraction should come from, natch, the sea. The bacteria in question are genetically manipulated relatives of organisms found around under ocean volcanic ducts.
Ok, fine. So, how much hydrogen gas can be provided by bacteria living in the water and converting the solar energy into hydrogen gas?
From what I could find, lab experiments indicate the process is between 6-8% efficient (combustion energy of hydrogen gas produced/incident light energy).
PV panels, while not terribly efficient, are substantially better than this. Are PV panels relatively expensive? Sure. But at 6-8% efficiency, one would need a LOT more surface area devoted to hydrogen production. And of course there's the small matter of hydrogen COLLECTION from your multiple-square mile bacteria-producing hydrogen farms.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e0g.htm#5.6 future prospects
Not quite ready for prime-time.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The article really didn't get into the health issue side of it, but may have been a reason in the deciding factor. AS well as the name thing - remember that going back and forth? Plus as stated in another post, it's a shame that GM is shuttering NA plants that are efficient while looking to China for cheaper labor (and the resultant cheap quality parts).
But to stay on topic I really don't like the style of this car. It looks like a Cadillac-ized Camaro, just doesn't do "it" for me. It looks half-baked (or like the designers were into the same thing that the guys in Half-Baked were into
Cadillac's folded-paper look is contrived and already dated -- the Mercedes SLK is a much sexier car than the Cadillac XLV. And I can't tell the Cadillac sedans apart without a photo chart - CLS, DLS -- holy crap already. Caddy lacks style, as the jingle goes. Or went.
The Corvette is probably the best-looking thing GM makes -- until you get inside, and realize the Mazda MX5 outclasses it.
GM, even as it shrinks, is a big clueless bureaucracy that has played it safe for decades when it comes to design, and the financial results are all about this shortsightedness. There is nothing in a hot-selling Mini, Audi TT, Range Rover Sport, or a VW New Beetle, or a Toyota FJ Land Cruiser, that GM couldn't have done. What's wrong with a bit of real, actual, God-I-swear-this-is-the-genuine-metal aluminum trim instead of cheap plastic? Where does Land Rover find its cows for those seats? BMW invented the now-extremely-hip Mini brand overnight, yet GM makes Corvette owners traipse through the showroom where the pickup trucks sit. HINT: Style starts with the brand image and the experience, and a BMW showroom makes its cars look a hell of a lot better than the Chevy-Buick-Caddy showroom. GM is the anti-style brand for people for whom aesthetics are secondary.
When we ask for innovation, perhaps unwisely, we get wretched garbage like the adolescent pseudo-hot-rod now-defunct Chevy SSR convertible pickup with a $20 plastichrome grille or the bland HHR that everyone's supposed to kustomize. The Cadillac CTS isn't bad looking, but then the next four models in the line are clones.
Here's a clue: Build a car or two that people really adore -- I mean, MUST have. Then study what Audi, BMW and VW are doing with their interiors. A VW Touraeg is classy -- you feel right wearing a nice suit in it. An Escalade is a bloated pimp-mobile. Why doesn't Jeep offer 20" spinner wheels on its SUVs? Because they're actual SUVs, not poseur-mobiles.
Finally, stop insulting us with all this shared platform rubbish. Any 9 year old can see that a Tahoe, Escalade and the Yukon are the same big jacked up station wagon. Why is Cadillac selling Tahoes? (Yes, I know they have different engines, but for the typical customer running to Blockbuster and the grocery store in his/her 3-ton truck it doesn't much matter.)
Kind of a rant here, sorry, but GM has had years to sort this out. I can't stop at a light here in California without seeing 2 BMW 330i's, and I'd argue the Bangle designs aren't the best. But, they are edgy, progressive, and intentional, kind of like a rolling art exhibit that says you weren't willing to buy an anonymous, slab-sided box in which to waste your driving life. GM still has Buicks floating around that cement its image as a moribund octagenarian brand or a loser rental car. (Really - when I get a Mustang from Hertz, I feel like I scored. When Avis gives me a Malibu, I just explain to people that it's a rental and point out the bar code sticker on the glass...)
GM needs to outsource its styling, interior and exterior, to the Italians or maybe the Brits (Ian Callum?) who have an eye for this thing. GM is good at hiring accountants. It has proven beyond a doubt that it knows zero about hiring car people.
Really - when I get a Mustang from Hertz, I feel like I scored. When Avis gives me a Malibu, I just explain to people that it's a rental and point out the bar code sticker on the glass...
How about that?
Nine paragraphs to advise GM copy VW and Ford, two companies with sales spiraling at rates that make GM look like an all time champ.
(And by the way, you are aware that the Toureg shares its platform - rather obviously - with the Cayenne? And let's no talk SEAT over in Europe.)
GM has hung itself with its blandness.
There is also the possibility of building a long wheelbase car that would be based on the Holden Caprice.