General Motors discussions

andre1969

escambiaguy wrote: "I'm not sure if any manufacturers have used timing chains on OHC engines, I have never heard of it."

A few others I can think of, off the top of my head, are Nissan's 2.5 4-cyl and 3.5/4.0 V-6 engines. My Intrepid, a 2.7 DOHC, uses chains. Ford's 4.6 OHC V-8 also uses chains.

Timing belts used to have an advantage over chains because the longer a chain is, the more likely it is to stretch. With OHV engines there's only like 8 inches or whatever between the crankshaft and the camshaft, but OHC engines are much more of a stretch. However, to help minimize the stretching they use guides to keep the chains from getting slack in them.

I think Nissan has been using timing chains for awhile. My Mom & stepdad's old 1991 Stanza 2.4 had a chain.

rockylee

I agree with Nippon. You may think what engines they have are great, but a great deal of comparison shoppers and 99% of the media disagree.

Why does 99% of the media disagree, it actually quite the opposite.

Rocky

qbrozen

Really? find me one review that states a GM V6 is as good or better than a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan V6. I haven't read one, but would be happy to if it exists.

I've only ever read good things about the vette engine and ecotec 4-banger. Most other praising comments I've read usually occur when the vehicle is looked at by itself rather than compared. When its put up against the competition, it is exposed for what it is.

Sure, I was exagerating with "99%", but lets not get caught up in silly semantics.

rorr

"Timing belts used to have an advantage over chains because the longer a chain is, the more likely it is to stretch."

I thought the reason the manufacturer's used belts is because they were quieter and in the never-ending search to reduce NVH, they would go the belt route?

andre1969

I thought the reason the manufacturer's used belts is because they were quieter and in the never-ending search to reduce NVH, they would go the belt route?

Well let's face it, knowing the auto industry, the main reason they probably started using belts was because it was a cost cutting measure! :P

rorr

"Well let's face it, knowing the auto industry, the main reason they probably started using belts was because it was a cost cutting measure!"

Agreed.

w9cw

Andre - yes, Nissans have been using timing chains for quite some time. The Datsun PL510 sedan (circa late '60s) used a 1.6L OHC with a timing chain, as did the SPL1600 and SPL2000 sports cars (the greatest copies - and improvements - of MGBs ever!); and, I bought a new 1976 Datsun 620 pick-up which used a 2.0L SOHC with a chain. I think Nissan has used primarily chains in most of their engines.

One very important marque that I forgot to list using timing chains was Porsche of course. I don't know how I managed to forget that one! BTW . . . The first production engine to use a toothed belt cam drive was the 1961 Glas (Hans Glas, formerly of Googlemobile and BMW?). I think Fiat (and others) adopted them within a couple of years. The first US production engine to use a toothed belt cam drive was the 1966 Pontiac Tempest SOHC inline six.

Actually, timing belts, or more properly Gilmer belts, are not all that bad. Since they're outside the engine, they are easier to change than timing chains in OHC designs, and they also are durable - as long as one adheres to the maintenance skeds. Belts are also quiet, as compared to some chains. Belts have gotten their bad reputation for primarily two reasons: 1). Owners not following the replacement schedule, and 2). Use of belts with interference engine designs. If one breaks a belt, or a timing chain for that matter, in an interference engine design, holed pistons and bent valves will result. However, many new engines that use belts today are non-interference engines, and breaking a belt does not result in any engine damage.

Timing chains can also break, or stretch and jump tooth or two, especially if the chain tensioner has a problem. There are distinct advantages to both, but chains are less maintenance-intensive, but when you do have a problem with a timing chain in an OHC design, it can cost you big time!

rockylee

I just called General Motors, and we will see if you are correct or not. If it is "Free" then they changed the laws without me noticing which is surprising. I'm suppose to recieve a call back within a few hours.

Rocky

rockylee

Ummm, the Saab V-6 Turbo, has recieved several good reviews along with the 3.6 High Feature V-6.

Sure, I was exagerating with "99%", but lets not get caught up in silly semantics.

Okay, but it was kinda ridiculous, even though most of the car mag media would agree with you.

Rocky

55396

I thought the reason the manufacturer's used belts is because they were quieter and in the never-ending search to reduce NVH, they would go the belt route?

Sure, but then they get to use a cheaper part, and it needs to be replaced sooner generating more revenue. What's not for a MFR to like?

gsemike

Also don't forget that changing the timing belt is a nice pricey piece of scheduled maintenance. The dealer service departments sleep well at night knowing the these cars go out the door with a scheduled 3 or 4 hundred dollar job coming up at 60k.

When I last shopped, one of my criteria was to get a car with a chain but when I asked the salesman about that, they looked at me like I had two heads. They put the belt in assuming that no one will think about it when they're shopping and then the service department cashes in changing them

62vetteefp

My bottom line is that Nissan could not help here.

The high value V6 is a great engine. Competitive with Toyota and Honda. GM just chooses to offer an economical cam in block V6 also which they sell tons of. this is the engine the media has a problem with but the customer keeps buying them.

GM also now offers a 6 speed trans. so Nissan would not have helped there. They also offer the Hybrid trans which Nissan would probably love to have.

62vetteefp

Why would GM get rid of the Vette platform for the Astin Martin? That makes no sense and it is low volume anyway.

The Zeta platform is enough for Cadillac and Whatever usage. No need for an S80 platform.

How about the GM cars in Aussie? Whoops those are Zeta and they are using that architecture here!

Again why would GM use the Land Rover platform when they have one of the best truck platforms already?

I just do not see a reason for Ford and GM to merge due to platforms. GM has enough already.

62vetteefp

Huh, I wonder who sold more. the Taurus platform or W car platform? Bet it was the W car.

qbrozen

but the customer keeps buying them

The bottom line is the bottom line. GM is still in the red by a WIDE margin. So whatever it is you think they are doing correctly is obviously not enough.

62vetteefp

You'll never hear Lexus offering a stereo with a name like Shaker 1000 or Monsoon. It just sounds like some POS you buy at a flea market. "Premium Audio System" doesn't convey what it is??

And you will not see any more Buicks or Cadillacs that have Monsoons either. Pontiacs yes.

qbrozen

like i said, rock, i have read decent reviews ... unless the car is compared to its competitors.

Its easy to stand out when you are standing alone. Its standing out in a crowd that GM has a tough time doing.

qbrozen

How about the GM cars in Aussie?

how about them? We don't live in australia. When they finally start using that platform to deliver mid-level rear drive cars that "wow" the public and the media here in the US (like DC has done), then we've got something to talk about.

62vetteefp

The point was that GM did not need to share platforms with ford.

gsemike

I guess that Monsoon is appropriate for Pontiac's image of extremeness.

qbrozen

ah, ok. I see what you are saying.

however, I can also see a point to arguing a Ford/GM alliance. Regardless of who has what, cutting back costs while producing a quality product is what needs to be done. Sharing costs across companies could be greatly beneficial in that respect (which is what alliances are all about).

I have to wonder how GM will continue to afford developing new products while losing billions of dollars.

62vetteefp

The new V6 is a contemporary design, with heads and block of aluminum alloy, dual overhead cams per bank controlling 24 valves, and variable valve timing. As the chassis seems to get happier when pushed, so does the engine. It's plenty adequate down low, if not excessive, and builds power in a healthy manner from 3000 rpm up until just before the redline, power characteristics that are best taken advantage of with a manual transmission. And the standard six-speed's ratios are well-chosen for the task. If the 3.6 isn't powerful enough, there's always the CTS-V.
That’s why GM created an all-new “high-feature” VVT V-6. This engine is all-aluminum and incorporates variable valve timing (VVT) for both exhaust and intake, a first for any GM engine. The system gives the V6 a broad flexible torque curve with 90% of the torque available between 1,600-5,800rpm. Another advantage of VVT is reduced emissions and improved fuel mileage, where you can expect about 19-mpg/city and 28-mpg highway. from autochannel

62vetteefp

I have to wonder how GM will continue to afford developing new products while losing billions of dollars

Fortunately they are no longer losing billions of dollars. The past 2 qtrs have been profitable, but not by much. This is w/o the overhead cut yet. Plants still need to be closed and people gone. They have only booked the money for that, I believe.

but GM does have an issue with development cost and hopefully GMAC will be half sold and some money will come in.

nippononly

Well, GM fans find usefulness in these multiple engine families. Me, I don't.

Look at the new GMT900 trucks, there's what, six engines including the 400 hp motor for the Escalade? Some with DOD, some without. This is the "high feature/low feature" GM philosophy at work. Give them all high feature and charge accordingly! Low feature is just code for cheap and outdated, and who wants to feel they bought "cheap and outdated", even if it did have a lower price relative to other GM models?

The Ecotec has received accolades, and I am not sure why. It is not a remarkable engine for power output, NVH reduction, or anything else is it? However, it is adequate for what it is, the low-priced alternative to a V-6, which is obviously GM's forte where small cars and 4-cylinder engines are not. These are areas where GM could benefit from partnering with a Japanese company. Partnering with Ford, not so much.

Chrysler minivans (and the Hemi, insert manly belch here) and half the GM line are pretty much all that is left in the American market using OHV engines. GM could cut all these out and stick to higher-profit engines, leveraging them to the max among many different models. This is another area where consultation with one of the import brands (and perhaps shared development of future products) could help a lot.

edit...I could see continuing the OHV engine series in the Corvette. This is an engine so ridiculously overpowered for the car it is hauling around that the engine will never rev over 2000 rpm for most buyers' daily needs. With that low a design spec, why not leave it OHV. The same may or may not be true for Chrysler's applications of the Hemi, although the OHV engines in its minivans definitely need to go.

62vetteefp

And at one time it was somewhat approriate for Buick. the Century Monsoon system was advertized as "Concert Sound II" System while the more youthful Regal called it the Monsoon system. Today Buick is moving toward a more premium image with the Lucerne using the excellent Harman Kardon system.

62vetteefp

Trucks are a different story. Truckers know what they need. They need different features for different tasks. I surely cannot say what that is but they need it. The V8 used though is the same basic engine and I see not problem with GM nicheing the powertrain. I mean half the vehicles sold in this country are trucks. There is no one answer for them all.

Give them all high feature and charge accordingly!

Love it!! Just charge people and they will buy!

aldw

VW Passats have Monsoon systems, and they sound quite fine.

qbrozen

i know about the new 3.6, but have yet to see a real-world comparison of it against the competition. let me know if you find one, I'd like to read it. I've been waiting to read one.

qbrozen

The past 2 qtrs have been profitable, but not by much.

HUH??? This is the first I'm hearing of this. Please tell me where you read such a thing.

GM restates 2nd quarter loss

GM posts 6th consecutive quarterly loss

rorr

"I just called General Motors, and we will see if you are correct or not."

LOL! Okay.....

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the whole 'tariff' issue gets thrown around like it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that foreign governments have tariffs specifically against the Big 3......yet no one can provide any evidence about what these 'tariffs' are?

I'm not saying they don't exist - I just want to know WHAT they are and which countries have them?

BTW - did you call GM or a UAW steward?

sls002

After some websearching I think that the Japanese are not imposing a tariff on imported cars. However, the Japanese people are more likely to buy Japanese products first and imports last. This somewhat out of date news item might be of interest: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/12/japan.cars/

logic1

China went from around 40% tarriff to 25% this year.

Thailand is at 80%. I believe Malaysia is as well.

Most countries with VATs charge an equialization tax on imports which is not entirely fair, as the US and Canada do not similarly tax their products.

The problem in Japan is not tax but delivery. The rules for getting cars to consumers are so restrictive that only a few - all Japanese - companies - manage to get it right. The big Japanese companies own significant pieces of the existing distributors, and effectively shut off competition. This is not a problem for big dollar luxe brands (even Cadillac and Harley Davidson), which can afford to set up their own expensive channels.

But it is a problem for appliance cars.

rorr

"However, the Japanese people are more likely to buy Japanese products first and imports last."

Really?

So, the Japanese are a nationalistic bunch and if one intends to compete in their market, one would need a (duh) COMPETITIVE product?

Seems kinda like us here in the good 'ol USA......

I guess we just need to convince the Japanese that they really REALLY need full size trucks and SUVs....

rorr

"Most countries with VATs charge an equialization tax on imports which is not entirely fair, as the US and Canada do not similarly tax their products."

I'm not sure I follow your logic, logic (I've wanted to post that for a loooooooong time... )

If (for instance) Germany has a VAT that they apply to THEIR domestic vehicles (Audis, BMWs, MBs) then, to be fair to their OWN domestics, wouldn't they also need to charge an equalization tax on imports? Otherwise, the imports (in this case, the Big 3) would have the 'advantage'?

And the US and Canada doesn't similarly tax their products anymore (or any less) than similar products produced domestically.

fintail

Well, they aint gonna buy Malibus and Grand Prix, even with zero import fees...

rorr

On that, we can agree....

I've just often wondered WHAT vehicles we would be exporting to Japan or the EU that they would buy?

fintail

No point in NA GM operations importing much to the EU when their Euro products are for the most part superior.

Maybe they could find some old Astro van dies and remake them for Japan?

douglasr

GM did not need the N-R alliance. If anything such a merger would have been tantamount to a take-over of GM by Nissan-Renault, using the assets of GM plus the shareholdings of Mr. kerkorian to leverage control of the company. Mr. Wagoner was correct to demand a premium payment ontop of a payment for stock or assets. This in effect would have drained off N-R's cash, reversing the situation: GM would have taken control of Nissan-Renault, cementing its position is the world's largest auto firm. It is Nissan-Renault that needs a partner, not the other way round.

GM is slashing $9.5Bn in costs, plus introducing new models. Combined, the two moves will put GM back on track towards profitability in North America by Q2 of 2007. Wagoner has spent his whole career at GM, and despite entreaties otherwise, he should not be pushed out by Kerkorian, who has only recently come to the table at GM. Kerkorian does not have the interests of GM in mind, he is persuing only his own agenda---even if he increases his shareholdings to 12% becoming the second largest shareholder behind State Street Global Holdings at 15%. What GM needs is not another partner, but better CARS and trucks.

DouglasR

sls002

What I was getting at was that I think that the Japanese consumer will buy the domestic product first and will only buy an import if no domestic product is available. I am not sure that competitiveness makes a difference. However, I think that BMW's are hot items in Japan. Or maybe it was Hong Kong...

lweiss

The high tech field that I am in has no problems selling our products in Japan or most other countries. Likewise, other American industries do well over there too (did you know that Starbucks has about 300 outlets in Tokyo alone!). Fact is that the Big 3 have never really made that much of an effort to export finished vehicles to Japan or other countries. Maybe the reason is that high fuel prices have been a fact of life in most countries for decades, and most of the vehicles made here are designed for cheap gasoline. I really don't think it's a tariff issue.

sls002

If we don't want them, why would anybody else want them?

logic1

Well, I doubt the taxes are aimed at NA companies in any event, given that both Ford and GM are so entrenched in European manufacturing that any export they send to Europe would be competing with their own product.

That out of the way, I disagree with your example. Europe taxes corporate production mainly with the VAT. The US (and Canada) taxes corporations with income tax.

Assuming a US company were to export a car to Europe, they would have to pay the income tax and the equalization tax, meaning the car would have to be more expensive than its counterpart selling in the US.

On the other hand, the German companies set up North American subsidiaries. These subsidiries buy vehicles from the German parent and resell them to dealers in the US and Canada. Most of the profits they make is eaten up by marketing and warranty costs, etc., meaning they pay less tax and can sell their products fairly close to what they sell them for in the EU.

This is even more distorted when you consider Korean and other developing and third world manufacturers, to which the Equalization tax is most squarely aimed. I believe the Equalization tax is the only reason companies like Fiat, Citroen and Renault still manufacture entry level sub-compacts. The better made sub-compacts such as the Mini, Smart, Corsa, etc. will still be made profitably in Europe as people are willing to pay more for them. But come on. The Punto?

qbrozen

What GM needs is not another partner, but better CARS and trucks.

i'm pretty sure that's what most folks here have been saying, for the most part.

jae5

Maybe your Seahawks, will have better luck poaching a Bear

Hey, hey...the B-Boys of Chi-town aren't doing too bad. And how the heck did Indy come back and win that game? Is Manning doing a Favre impersonation this season of what?

Back on topic, I think that judge is going to extend the "talks" indefinitely. I just wish he'd give some real time, like 3 months or something, instead of these 3 ~ 4 week extensions. Again, there's been more extensions than in a beauty shop on a Saturday afternoon!! :P

62vetteefp

I guess I forgot to qualify that. I thought I explained that.

GM lost $3.2 billion in the 2nd qtr. However there was a one time charge of $3.7 billion charge to pay off the union to leave their jobs. In the 3rd qtr this charge will not be there and some of these high paid folks will be gone. The job banks should also be emptying out. There was another $.6 billion in other one time charges. Like I said there was not much profit ($1.1 billion)

hey, I guess it is in semantics. when they sell GMAC I will not consider that a profit

GM reported a net loss of $3.2 billion, or $5.62 per share, for the second quarter of 2006, compared with a reported loss of $987 million, or $1.75 per share, for the year-ago quarter. The net loss for the quarter included a total of $4.3 billion, or $7.66 per share, in special items that reflected a previously announced $3.7 billion after-tax charge related to the successful accelerated attrition program, in which 34,400 hourly employees participated. Other special items included a loss related to the pending sale of 51 percent of GMAC, a gain on the disposition of Isuzu stock, and restructuring charges.

62vetteefp

What GM needs is not another partner, but better CARS and trucks.

i'm pretty sure that's what most folks here have been saying, for the most part.

And to convince people they are better!!

hey there is a Forum that discusses "what will save GM" here.

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.efdc04a/11210

rorr

"Europe taxes corporate production mainly with the VAT. The US (and Canada) taxes corporations with income tax."

So, is the 'solution' additional taxes/tariffs on cars JUST from those countries? Or perhaps the vagarities of our own income tax system is the problem?

The initial insinuation in this whole 'tariff' issue was that foreign goverments were enacting protectionists measures to protect THEIR domestic product, therefore we should do the same. And if NOT for these 'tariffs' (or other barriers to trade), the Big 3 could compete just fine with American built autos in these markets. I know you weren't making that insinuation, but that is the one I was attempting to address.

From your example above, it seems as though it's a problem with the US tax code enacting additional costs (through corporate taxes) even though the income was earned overseas. Is this 'unfair' to the American based business. Quite possibly. But I don't see it as the 'fault' of a foreign government and I don't see the 'solution' as being a tariff. Because by instituting a REAL straight-forward tariff, then you just invite a response in kind.

qbrozen

thanks for the clarification, vette. I figured that HUGE number was taking some weird stuff into account.

no, i wouldn't consider that sale a profit, either.

when and if they actually post a true profit from car sales, I'll consider that a win and regain a bit of hope that MAYBE they can survive. But not before then. I'm just not a fan of fuzzy math.

I find it interesting that, looking at the financial report I found on yahoo, they seem to bounce between a huge loss one quarter into a small profit the next and then back to a huge loss. Seems like the ONLY way to look at it is as a yearly total since there's apparently some bookkeeping issues there (as your example shows) that most of us probably don't know about or fully understand. I have also noticed that few sources seem to give the same numbers. Check this out:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GM

According to that chart, they made $445m in the first quarter. Every news story I have found says the opposite. Something like a $330m LOSS.

This is why I'm not an accountant.

mariner7

However, I think that BMW's are hot items in Japan. Or maybe it was Hong Kong...

Yes, BMW and MB dominate the luxury market there, but of course they dominate everywhere else. Lexus has just been introduced, Infiniti not yet, so the picture may change in a few years. The Japanese also love very expensive and fast Italian sports cars, and upper end Japanese marques, which are now all German owned of course.

No sign of life from Caddy and Lincoln. But they import quite a few 300C, the only American to have any success there. This I pick up from a luxury car Japanese magazine I regularly browse.

logic1

I admit to jumping in without reading the entire argument.

I don't think the Big 2 at least ever really tried to export to Europe. No reason. They are two of the biggest players in Europe already.

On the other hand, I think that Europe has used the Equalization tax to more effectively keep the Asian (and other low wage/low tax nation) makes at bay than the US or Canada.

Finally, I do believe that the Japanese companies used their internal logistical barriers not so much to keep existing US and Canadian product out - the truth is the Big 3 never made product that 95% of the Kei car buying market there wanted - but rather to discourage them from even trying. Which in turn did afford them breathing room in the 1970s and 1980s when they had significantly less resources to compete with.