General Motors discussions

rockylee

imidazol97,

The same extended Thank-you goes to you also. I don't need to Thank lemko, he already knows I thank him.

Rocky

rockylee

ROTFLMAO !!!!

Rocky

rockylee

rorr,

Agree with your post, but it's not patriotic and right IMHO, to help/allow foreign governments to buy up vast quantities of america, just because they can.

Rocky

lemko

...opened up outside of Hazleton, PA. The local government gave them all kinds of foolishly generous tax incentives upon the company's promise to hire local residents. What did the place do? It imported immigrant workers, (legal or otherwise) and hired no natives. When a local resident applied using his real name and address, he got no call for an interview. When the man went back, filled out the form using a Hispanic name and a New Jersey address, he got a call the same afternoon! Something's not kosher!

rorr

"...to help/allow foreign governments to buy up vast quantities of america, just because they can."

And the reason for that is.....?

Let's say Toyota buys a large chunk of dirt in San Antonio. They then invest a billion or so $ in the area to build a plant and hire employees. This is called 'investment'.

What are you afraid Toyota (or Japan) will do with that hunk of dirt? Open a wormhole for the direct invasion of the Japanese army into south Texas?

The flip side of it is when GM (America) invests a few billion $ in foreign countries (like China). Do you think the Chinese should FEAR a foreign government buying up 'vast quantities' of China? How would GM purchase/investment in China be BAD for the Chinese?

xrunner2

Guys, check out the cool vehicles and concepts from Paris

There was a smallish GM concept shown there. Maybe this fits in with what Bob Lutz said in Paris according to yesterday's WSJ. Some of his items:

"I'd say the best thing the government (US) can do is raise the gas tax by 10 or 15 cents a year until it reaches European levels....In Europe, people buy $30,000 Golfs.... People are willing to pay lots of money for extremely well equipped, fuel efficient cars."

He also said that three years ago, GM instinct would be to make future Hummers even bigger and more massive than the current H2. "Now, our instinct would be to go down instead of up" in size, toward a vehicle even smaller than today's H3.

Is GM thinking still behind the times? Three years ago, Honda was probably getting ready for Fit and Toyota and Nissan getting their Versa and Yaris finalized. And, GM was thinking bigger is better?

Toyota, Honda and Nissan already well positioned to offer small fuel efficient well equipped and "desirable" cars if US gas taxes were to start climbing toward European model. GM is lagging behind.

rockylee

nippon, saw that post already pal, and thanx it was a good read pal. I'm thankful he isn't able to strong-arm my GM. :mad:

However, saying that he does own 9.9% and they are basically prohibiting him from buying more of GM. I don't find that right or ethical, even though I'm glad it's happening to him for GM's sake. The guy reminds me of Hitler in his final days. Desperate !!!! He knows the big man upstairs could take him anytime, and for some odd reason he wants to leave his mark in history. He is a strong-armned man. A bulley some would say.

I personally think a GM-Ford Merge would be easier on GM IMHO. They both compete to much with each other and could channel their energy's on Toyota, etc to regain there glory. A Nissan-Renault merger would yes yield some benefits but I think the culture difference would be a hard task to overcome. Again IMHO.

Rocky

sls002

The prime reason for adding the extra valves is to increase the total valve opening so more air/fuel can flow into the cylinders. With one intake and one exhaust valve, the size of the valves are limited. If two intake and two exhaust valves are fitted into the same space (the cylinder bore), one finds that four smaller valves can have a bit more opening than the two valves that they replace.

As far as opening the valves is concerned, the camshaft/pushrods can easily be designed to do that.

sls002

Some of you seem to have serious misconceptions regarding what an OHV engine is vs what an OHC engine is. Both engine have overhead valves. However, OHV pushrod engines have their camshafts in the block, normally only one camshaft, but two could easily fit. OHC engines have their camshafts on top of the heads, which means that a pushrod is not needed, and in the case of double overhead cams, the cam can push the valve open directly. However, the valves are still overhead valves!

bumpy

Rocky, didn't you learn unit conversions in school? A kg-m is 7.233 foot-pounds, and a PS is 0.986 horsepower.

62vetteefp

Is GM thinking still behind the times? Three years ago, Honda was probably getting ready for Fit and Toyota and Nissan getting their Versa and Yaris finalized. And, GM was thinking bigger is better?


Three years ago GM was already selling the Aveo in this country. The Fit/Versa/Yaris are just getting here. So yes the transplants were getting ready to export those models while GM already was. Good Point.

nippononly

it's NOT a merger they are talking about, it's an alliance. Just the way Toyota and GM have had smaller alliances in the past (Vibe/Matrix being the latest, the NUMMI factory in California being a lasting legacy of their previous alliances).

I am thinking Nissan-Renault would be very interested in GM's new dual-hybrid system, as well as its DOD technology for larger engines. Meanwhile, GM could get its vehicles onto common platforms using common parts, and perhaps get tips for streamlining their production too. These two parties DO have things they could offer each other, and ways in which they could cooperate in future for both sides' benefit.

sls002

Not much torque below 5000 RPM's. Compare with GM engines like this: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2006/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- 06_28L_LP1_CTS.pdf

logic1

He also said that three years ago, GM instinct would be to make future Hummers even bigger and more massive than the current H2. "Now, our instinct would be to go down instead of up" in size, toward a vehicle even smaller than today's H3.

Is GM thinking still behind the times? Three years ago, Honda was probably getting ready for Fit and Toyota and Nissan getting their Versa and Yaris finalized. And, GM was thinking bigger is better?

I do not follow on three points:

First, the quote you have says GM is thinking about going down, not up.

Second, while GM is planning an even smaller Hummer, (probably will be the H4) it is also planning the plant that will make the Corsa in North America and bringing the Torrance - a small rwd 4 cylinder sedan (which I believe will be the only 4 cyl. hard top rwd in North America) here as a Pontiac.

Saturn Astra is on the way. (Next generation, Astra and Cobalt will be the same car) The next generation Aveo is already being processed as well.

Just as Toyota and Nissan continue to make trucks - and Toyota just launched that retro LandCruiser thing - GM cannot afford to give away Hummer's market. But it is working on smaller options as well.

Finally, the dual phase hybrid trucks and large sedans are on the way. First dual phase trucks start shipping later this year.

rockylee

I guess I'm in fear of a "one-world" government is all.

Rocky

62vetteefp

He makes a good point that 3 years ago GM was, with gas prices still low after many years and SUV's selling like mad, was redesigning and selling large vehicles. They were however, at that time, developing technology to make them the most efficient in their market. At the same time Toyota, Nissan and Ford were doing the same.

But 3 or so years ago GM was also selling a small car, the Aveo, that had no or little competition. So about 3 years ago the competition decided that they should also enter the sub-compact market and prepared the Fit/Yaris/Versa for export into the US to compete with the already selling Aveo. Those 3 vehicles are now just hitting our shores.

So what was GM thinking!!! They developed the best gas efficient large trucks to keep their lead on the new Toyota/Nissan trucks AND they redesigned the Aveo.

rockylee

If I did, I don't remember it.

Rocky

62vetteefp

Meanwhile, GM could get its vehicles onto common platforms using common parts, and perhaps get tips for streamlining their production too. These two parties DO have things they could offer each other, and ways in which they could cooperate in future for both sides' benefit.

GM is already on the road to streamlining platforms throughout the world. No need for Nissan to come in and help. Plants are almost as efficient as the transplants but their is still a little problem-Union work rules.

Sorry I just do not see much for Nissan to offer.

rorr

"I guess I'm in fear of a "one-world" government is all."

I can understand that fear (even though, IMO, I don't think 'one-world' government is REALLY what you fear...)

I just don't think it'll happen because Toyota/Honda/etc. invests in the U.S. anymore than it'll happen because GM invests in China.

bumpy

The F20C climbs from ~100 to ~135 ft-lb up to 3000 rpm, then levels off to 5000, then climbs again to ~160 ft-lb at 7500 rpm. It's almost a mirror of the 2.8HF torque curve, which starts out high then levels off and dies beyond 5500 rpm. There were some whiners who complained that S2000 couldn't pull out tree stumps at 1500 rpm, so Honda debased the F20C by stroking it out.

rockylee

I can understand that fear (even though, IMO, I don't think 'one-world' government is REALLY what you fear...)

rorr, what do you think I fear then ?

Rocky

rockylee

Again English, Doc :P

Rocky

rorr

"So about 3 years ago the competition decided that they should also enter the sub-compact market and prepared the Fit/Yaris/Versa for export into the US to compete with the already selling Aveo."

As far as Honda goes, traditionally the Civic was their 'subcompact'. However, to meet American tastes better the Civic grew with each generation, until it no longer fit that segment. So Honda brought over the Fit to meet the segment the Civic used to be in.

And Toyota has always had a car in that market. It used to be the Tercel, and then the Echo. Now it's the Yaris. If you want to interpret Toyota's decision to bring the Yaris over to compete with the Aveo, terrific. Another interpretation would be that the Yaris is simply replacing the Echo (which, in all honesty, NEEDED replacement).

BTW - GM redesigned the Aveo? I thought the Aveo was ENTIRELY a Daewoo of Korea effort and GM was simply purchasing rebadged versions for the American market? I'd honestly like to know how much GM design/engineering effort went into the Aveo... :confuse:

sls002

Well, the low end torque is down by about 30% of the peak at 1500 RPMs, not good.

Here is the power curves for the up coming crossover 3.6: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - - 07_36L_LY7_Acadia.pdf

Some comments were made yesterday about the 3.6 power output. Note that this engine is not the direct injection version. Add 15% to this power output and what do you have? MOre than 300?

bumpy

Horsepower and foot-pounds are English. Were English, anyway. They use kilowatts and newton-meters now.

logic1

GM redesigned the Aveo? I thought the Aveo was ENTIRELY a Daewoo of Korea effort and GM was simply purchasing rebadged versions for the American market? I'd honestly like to know how much GM design/engineering effort went into the Aveo...

When GM and Suzuki bought the Daewoo assets that became GM DAT, I believe the Aveo design as we now know it was substantially complete. GM did some design work on the initial car, then did more on the sedan redesign available this year.

The next Aveo - which I believe comes out in 08, will be a ground to completion GM design (of course by the engineers at GM DAT with some Opel, Holden and NA input as well).

rorr

"rorr, what do you think I fear then ?"

My opinion, sitting here 400 miles away?

Foreign labor, foreign governments, and foreign business; top 3 and not necessarily in that order.

bumpy

Well, the low end torque is down by about 30% of the peak at 1500 RPMs, not good.

Not good for what? 1500 rpm is only 7.5% of the F20C's operating range.

rorr

Thanks logic - that clears up (in my mind anyway) a point. Essentially, the Aveo which currently competes with the Fit/Versa/Yaris was NOT (for the most part) a GM design.

However, the next generation arriving (next year?) as an '08 would be a GM design. It'll be interesting to see how that car competes with the Fit/Versa/Yaris.

sls002

So I take it that your position is that a flat torque curve is not a good thing?

plekto

Looking at the graph, and cutting it off at 4000RPM, which is as high as is practical to drive it given the tall transmission gearing and normal driving speeds in the U.S., you still get ~175HP and 220-245lb-ft of torque.

That's a huge improvement over the 3800 engine. Loads of torque and enough power to move quickly.

logic1

Where I think GM really missed out - and fortunately Lutz has been all over the brass on this - is the Corsa.

The new Corsa is among the best of the lot of the subs. It would sell for more than the Aveo, but be worth every dime.

The problem is the folks at Opel never bothered to talk to the US engineers. Making the current new Corsa US legal would make it not profitable.

Lutz says the next version, which is three years away, will even be made in NA. The biz rags are speculating Mexico. I'm not so sure. GM will have a lot of capacity in Spring Hill then.

bumpy

A flat torque curve is a good thing in trucks and vehicles that are expected to tow regularly. My GMC peaks at 300 net ft-lbs at 1600 rpm and doesn't drop below 90% of that peak from idle to 4000 rpm (horsepower peak is at 3700 rpm). A sports car like the S2000 or Corvette should have an upward-tilted torque curve, so hard launches don't needlessly roast the tires and stress the drivetrain, and increased horsepower can be made at high rpms. Regular cars should strike a balance between those two extremes.

rockylee

Now that would be cool bumpy.

Rocky

rorr

I've only heard a little about the Corsa, but what I hear is that it does compete very well in that segment.

It's a shame that Opel can design such car and no plans made whatsoever to bring it across to the U.S. Is the concept of a slightly upscale subcompact THAT alien to GM thinking? People driving a subcompact don't what to think it's a penalty box...

rockylee

My opinion, sitting here 400 miles away?

What ?

Foreign labor, foreign governments, and foreign business; top 3 and not necessarily in that order.

Well, In my eyes I'm seeing all that you just listed ruin our politics and way of life. I like my independence.

Rocky

sls002

I would not disagree with you in general. However, even for sports cars, an engine that can cruise at low RPMs will allow for a high gear that can minimize fuel consumption. An engine with 85% of peak torque at 1500 RPMs will pull more than the same engine with only 65% of peak torque at 1500 RPMs.

I think GM's engine designs in general try to get better torque at lower engine speeds rather than to go for the highest possible horsepower rating. If GM were to design for higher speed torque, with a lower low speed torque, they could boost the horsepower ratings. For example, the high horsepower northstar:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- - %20V/2007_46L_L37_Cadillac_DTS.pdf

The general purpose northstar:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- - %20V/2007_46L_LD8_DTS.pdf

Note the difference in lowend torque. The high performance northstar comes with a high performance axle ratio, otherwise the base engine would out perform it. The high performance axle reduces highway MPGs from 26 to 24. With the high performance axle, the base northstar also is rated 24 (Pontiac Bonneville).

rorr

Caution: off-topic post coming up...

"What ?"

I was taking a wild guess about how far it was from Cedar Park up to Dumas. Boy, was I way off. It's actually closer to 535 miles (by road) from here in central Texas up to your neck of the woods.

In all honesty, I don't think anything foreign has anything to do with 'ruining' our politics.....and (unfortunately) one's perception of their own 'way of life' tends to be tied very closely to their politics. It's amazing how well one's 'way of life' is going is tied to whether or not 'their' party is currently in the WH. Of course, those tendencies apply to people of ALL political stripe....

"I like my independence." Okay, I'm going to get real cynical now....

Do you? Do you really? Then why identify with Unions (which do everything in their power to quash 'independence'), Government healthcare, and protectionist policies? Each of these things (and I've but barely scratched the surface) scream 'DEPENDENT'......

escambiaguy

Well, GM is sticking to that 100k mile low maintenance theme. A timing chain in a OHV engine will sometimes last 200k miles. A timing belt in a OHC engine needs replacing at 60k miles. And if that timing belt breaks, your engine is shot. I think GM is looking at that timing belt as just another high maintenance issue. I'm not sure if any manufacturers have used timing chains on OHC engines, I have never heard of it :confuse: .

m1miata

Aveo? Would you put the Aveo in the same class as the Fit, Yaris, and Versa? Actually, some of those reach into the cost of a four banger Sonata, so why pay so much for a miniature car? The new baby Hyundai is suppose to be pretty good value. The Elantra may be one to look at -- bigger, yet inexpensive. Aveo is not all that great of gas mileage and not super cheap to buy. I have seen some near the price of a base Corolla. I would take the Corolla.
-Loren

rorr

My Celica GTS uses a timing chain. A large number of OHC engines use timing chains.

And breaking a timing belt results in engine damage ONLY if it is an 'interference' design. From what I understand, most Honda engines ARE interference design (valves can hit the piston if the belt breaks); Toyota engines are NOT (valves can't hit the piston even if the belt breaks.

I know the timing belt broke on my mom's old Supra and there was no engine damage at all.

m1miata

Timing belts last longer than 60K, and I would think all newer engines do not destruct when the belts break. I guess going back in time they did.
-Loren

lemko

My Seville STS is DOHC and uses timing chains. If that car had timing belts, I'd be even more paranoid than Hugo Chavez.

m1miata

Hey, I did not know that about Honda engines. Will take a mental note on that. I assumed all the new designs had enough clearance after a failure of the belt. Thanks for info. Do you know if the four cylinder Mercedes SLK has a belt or a chain -- clearance?
-Loren

advequityguy

and you might want to recheck your reasoning. Mustang GTs do not sell for $6000 off. There is no rebate on them. Ford has a $1500 rebate on 06 models but they only did that once all the 2006s were already gone. The add you saw is not indicative of Mustang GT pricing, it is the ever popular "loss leader" add. Respond to it and I assure you that either it is already sold, or it has some expensive aftermarket modifiction on it like the Saleen or Rousch package, but I assure you you will not be able to buy it for $6000 off true MSRP. You cant even buy a nice used one for that. There is no $2500 rebate that has ever been available on a Mustang GT, and the Markup on one is only a little over 2000. You find a dealer truly willing to do that and tell me who it is. I'll but the car, sell it as used for a profit, and pay you a nice finders fee. Just a little edjumaction for you.

lemko

A co-worker of mine had a 1993 Honda Accord coupe with 86K miles on it and hadn't changed the belt. I told him he was tempting the gods by putting off replacing the timing belt. He escaped potential disaster as he traded it for a new 2004 Accord later that year.

qbrozen

I must have missed something. Where is this talk of "strongarming" coming from??

Is it because Ghosn wants an answer ASAP? What successful businessman doesn't want everything RIGHT NOW? Its an attitude of the trade.

I wish more details were publicly available (but of course I understand why they wouldn't be). I'd like to know why GM would be adverse to making/saving money. Does it really matter who makes more? That seems silly to me. "No, no, I don't want to split the lottery ticket with you because you'd take a bigger cut. We should then just throw it in the fireplace instead."

If they can do better with someone else, that's great and that's what they should do. But if it comes down to Nissan or nothing, they should take what they can get.

m1miata

Well the Mustang GT is pretty overpriced, with many over $28K. I would expect at the least $4K off an '06 and around $2k to 3K off a new '07. It is not like this is a German quality interior, or for that matter worth so many thousands more than a Fox body. Sure it is improved in handing and such, though reliability I am still not sure of. Seems like more strange problems on the new compared to the '04 model. These are just inexpensive, fun pony coupes. It is not like it is a World class car. Those selling at $30K to $50K range are ridiculously price. Just get a Corvette if you want something domestic to run with the Euro cars.

The New Stang has a prop rod to keep the hood open, and an ad on the gas cap to use BP gas.... not exactly classy all around.
-Loren

advequityguy

Oh, I think the facts point directly to my statements. Here's a little recap for you.

early '80s: chrysler / dodge has a huge quality issue. the public perception is that they are indeed the poorest quality cars made. and for good reason btw, i had one. trust me. Solution?.....well, the long term solution is an easy one, build better cars. The problem is, that will take years and a more short term solution is needed. The answer?....increase perceived quality by incorperating a cheap, but long term warranty into the cost of the cars.....the famous dodge 7yr / 70,000 mile warraty was the result. The crazy thing is, this was the most effective move that company ever did. it was a stroke of genius. increase perceived quality until actual quality could catch up.

fast forward to modern day. the companies with the bogus long term warranties are the same that have huge quality issues, be they perceived or real. in recent years, i think the only thing mitsubishi has advertised is their warranty. i dont know if this ploy has worked for them or not, but their reputation is still pretty bad. hyundai and kia have had very poor quality reputations and have rediculous resale values, just like the mitsubishis. their short term answer for the problem is the same. a bogus long term warranty. i have no hard facts, but this warranty coupled with their practice of financing anyone for anything would probably yield some short term success. at least, i dont think people laugh nearly as hard at you now as they would a couple years ago if you are driving a hyundai.

the reverse is also tru of corse. honda has great perceived quality, though i personally am not a fan of their engines. no need for an extended warranty in thier case. people think they have great quality anyway. the same is also true of toyota.

the point is, companies do not introduce long term warranties because they know their products are great and wont need them. they do it when they have to to address a concern, founded or not, in the marketplace to stay competitive.

as for the hyundai warranty you quoted, i have never worked for hyundai, but i can tell you that i know several people who have for a long time. they make jokes about it. maybe one day you'll find out what they're laughing about.

wideglide

That is a poor comparison, as GM and Ford have legacy plants that simply cannot be kept open in a modern economy. Even from a purely green point of view, keeping old asbestos laden plants that do not use energy efficiently is senseless.

Okay, let me rephrase the question; How many new plants have GM & Ford built in Mexico and elsewhere to build cars for sale here? The following from the Detroit free press on March 31, about GM's palns for a new plant in Mexico:

"I guess they're awfully cautious to make sure that nobody in the UAW feels hurt by this decision. That's the reason they've kept a low profile on the news release."

GM imports several top-selling vehicles, including the Chevrolet HHR small car and Buick Rendezvous SUV, from Mexico. GM builds some Chevrolet Silverado pickups and Chevrolet Suburban and GMC Yukon XL large SUVs in Mexico as well as the United States.

Ford builds a lot of the cars it sells here in Mexico as well, with more to come at the expense of American jobs (Detroit Free Press, June 16):

In January, Ford announced its Way Forward turnaround plan for North America, a plan that included 14 plant closures, 34,000 job cuts and other measures, such as a new low-cost plant for an unnamed location. The internal proposal -- dated April 3 -- obtained by the Free Press and WDIV-TV Local 4 suggests that new plant, as well as a lot of other investments, will go to Mexico, a country where labor and parts are less expensive.

Or are you saying from Japanese and Korean perspectives, the transplants in North America are bad. And if this is so, shouldn't you be against them? I mean Japanese and Koreans are people too.

HUH???!!!??? How in the world did you come up with that? I think it was quite clear that I said I supported any automaker that was building their cars HERE, instead of somewhere else. Yes, they are nice people, but I care more about people here in America having jobs, than I do about Japanese having them. DON'T YOU? I understand some of you guys work for GM & Ford, and are cheering for the "team"... But face it, the "team" is selling you down the river in the name of corporate profits. :mad: