General Motors discussions

plekto

The problem isn't that the 3800 is bad so much as it utterly lacks any low-end torque when you compare it to the new 3.6L replacement.

The 3800 is "quiet and smooth" - but that's an illusion since the car will shift into overdrive at ~35mph if you let it. Try to make a quick, short movment and it utterly falls apart - it turns into a clone of the nasty V6s in the Camry and other imports. Maximum torque for all of these is achieved at roughly 50mph in *second gear*. Lexus/Toyota's approach of tightening up the ratios and adding a gear helps, but all of them are flawed in their basic design, be it SOHC or DOHC.

The problem is you have a 4000 pound car by the time you put two people in it, plus fluids and fuel. The engines are HP-heavy for marketing purposes, yet put out no more torque at the RPMs that they want to shift at during driving than they did back in 1980.

3600prm? The car will shift at 2000rpm unless you flog it, and then it still will shift at 3000, unless you floor the pedal and rev it to the point where it sounds like the transmission's about to explode. THEN it gets rated HP. It's so bad a combination that it drives like it has turbo-lag.

The flaw is the concept of a heavy, big car with an engine that needs to be revved like a 4 cylinder to get its power. It creates torque-steer, bad handling, and the suspension has to be made soft to absorb the massive swings in torque.

So you get smooth elderly person characteristics or "tests great on a dragstrip" with nothing inbetween. Seriously - get any 3800/4 speed combo up to 35mph on city streets. Note how you can press the pedal down about half an inch and all the car does is rev? It's in overdrive and only a sharp downshift will do anything at all.

Previous generation Hondas and Toyotas were simmilar. The 5 speed Toyota unit is plagued with problems hunting for the right gear, since the engine is engineeered wrong - it really can't find the right gear for anything other than grandmotherly driving.

What needs to happen is a shift in overall philosophy. They need to do what Mercedes did in the 60s - very small engines with lots of cylinders. My 230S has a ~2300cc inline 6 engine. It has beautiful torque and power, and is physically smaller than the 3800 by a large amount. It's essentially a 1.5L inline 4 with two extra cylinders added.

For a 3000lb car, it's great. For a 4000lb Buick - they need to make a 3.2L V8 or simmilar - a *very* small, fuel-efficient torque-monster. Revs quickly, has tons of torque. They need to reverse the numbers - instead of 250ft-lbs and 400hp, it needs to be 400ft-lbs and 250HP.

OR - they can use VVT and other tricks, like in the 3.6 Silly flat torque-curve. Drives like a tiny V8. Go actually test-drive one. You'll wonder what took the industry so long.

bumpy

When GM bought back the Buick 225 V6 from Jeep in 1974, they modified it to use the same cylinder bore as the Buick 350, hence 231 cid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_3800_engine

imidazol97

>get any 3800/4 speed combo up to 35mph on city streets. Note how you can press the pedal down about half an inch and all the car does is rev? It's in overdrive

My car doesn't shift into overdrive until approx 50 mph-47 at lowest. What car were you talking about that's in overdrive at 30 mph?

>The flaw is the concept of a heavy, big car with an engine that needs to be revved like a 4 cylinder to get its power. It creates torque-steer, bad handling, and the suspension has to be made soft to absorb the massive swings in torque

I dare say my car doesn't display torque steer. Those are nice stories but they don't apply to the car I see.

3800 graph torque & horsepower:

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/HPT%20Library/90%20Deg%20V- 6/2006_3800_L26_Buick.pdf

3.6 graph torque & horsepower:

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/HPT%20Library/HFV6/2006_36- L_LY7_LaCrosse.pdf

Compare horsepower and torque at 2000, 2500, 3000 for the two. Ain't much diff. Unless of course I'm just too dumb at interpeting graphs and data.

nvbanker

1975, the 231CID very uneven firing V-6 was introduced in the Buick Skylark, Olds Omega and Starfire, and a few other models.... That's the grandfather to the current 3800. Same engine, updated several times. Not a bad one either, just crude by today's standards.

plekto

The 3800 wants to shift at 2500 rpm or so, which is maybe 120HP in normal driving. But it will gladly shift into overdrive at 35-40mph if you let it.

The problem is the 1000-1500rpm range, where the car actually is when you aren't accelerating. I've owned threree cars with the 3800 in it and it's a slug when you're moving from cruising along to actually going quickly. There's something "un-magic" about the transmission in the GM FWD cars and the 3800 doesn't play along nicely with it.

The 3.6 is much quicker to respond, though I admit it is still WAY WAY underpowered for a nearly 2 ton car. But it's a step in the right direction. Quicker to respond to throttle changes and .3L smaller.

socala4

Do you have links to sites other than those that focus on GM/s problems. Other makers also have problems..

And how would pointing out the faults of some of the other automakers help GM to sell more cars?

GM has to focus on GM making products that better serve its customers, not on some vague hope that Volkswagen makes more mistakes. (And with mixed reliability and the huge budget blowout caused by developing the failed Phaeton, VW has more than enough problems of its own.)

Honestly, does anyone think that this ostrich approach is going to help GM make money? Whether or not the products are "good" by some lone holdout's definition is immaterial here.

A "good" product should be defined as one that people in the target market are willing to buy. If the average consumer is not impressed by the cars, then the cars need to be changed, even if a few people still insist on liking them.

zjim

Whoa Plekto! I think you're getting way too far off course in your criticism of the 3800 engine. The 3800 is still one of the most reliable and economical engines being used today. While I don't argue that that venerable 4 speed auto used behind it is lacking, the engine is still a jewel when it comes to what the average auto buyer wants. Those of you who want the more expensive overhead cam motors with their sometimes doubeous specs can always go and buy those expensive cars, the majority of us want a car that is affordable, economical, and reliable. The 3800 meets all that criteria.

I'll offer a prime example to show how ridiculous it is to equate performance with overhead cams. The best example to debunk the OHC argument is the LS series of aluminum, pushrod V-8's produced by GM. The newest version used in the Corvette makes it the 2nd best performing sports car in the world, with over 500 horsepower!!! It beats all the "Supercars", in spite of their "exotic" engines, regardless of price except one, and then loses only by a hair. My stock LS1 6-speed Z28 Camaro could blow off a stock Mustang OHC GT any day, any time, while getting 18 city and 28-29 MPG.

I say, keep the 3800, but give it a better transmission to allow its full potential. It's a great engine that runs forever!!

lemko

...if its the 4-speed that's holding back the 3800, why not mate it to a 5-speed and see what happens? Personally, I love the 3800 whether its the old one (Park Ave) or the newer one (LaCrosse). It's a sturdy, economical engine that delivers decent performance in day-to-day driving. Heck. I have no intention to drag race my Park Ave or put girlfriend's LaCrosse through the slalom. I just want to get to work.

gogogodzilla

Hmm...

I really hate being outta the loop regarding recent events. Of course, being stuck in South Korea between 2001-2004 kinda made it hard to keep up.

socala4

I don't see an apology there at all. What I do see is a pitch to "try out our products and compare them to others". Pretty much the same old, same old, just with a slightly different spin.

Expressions such as "We're sorry", "We really let you down", or "We want to earn back your trust, we don't blame you for giving up on us" aren't to be found anywhere in the press releases that I found. I don't see the chairman getting on TV, looking America straight in the eye, and seeking the forgiveness that is required for true redemption.

If I step on someone's foot and break his toes, telling him that I bought a new, lighter pair of boots and that I plan on walking more carefully is not the same as offering an apology for sending him to the emergency room and paying him for his inconvenience.

In the case of GM, words will not be enough -- the products will need to be better, and the company will need to stand behind them. I don't see how that has happened at all.

chrisducati

We owned one of those horrible 1976 231 v6's in a Buick Century. It was backed by a crappy transmission as well. Ours ate timing chains every 15.000 miles. We had a car that sounded like a industrial diesel before GM put its crappy diesels in cars.

plekto

...if its the 4-speed that's holding back the 3800, why not mate it to a 5-speed and see what happens?
***
The problem is, it would need to be a 5 speed with ranges about 40% tighter/quicker, covering the same speeds. Not just slapping another gear on it.

But that would require the engine to rev twice as high during normal driving, essentially killing the fuel economy. What we don't need is Toyota's nonsense - taller gearing and a bunch of computers trying to out-think you.

irnmdn

I'll offer a prime example to show how ridiculous it is to equate performance with overhead cams. The best example to debunk the OHC argument is the LS series of aluminum, pushrod V-8's produced by GM

If pushrods are such wonderful engines, why isn't GM's premium divison-Cadillac not offering a single car with a pushrod engine it?

62vetteefp

GM is spending almost $5/vehicle to keep its employees and retirees happy! Wonder if Toyota gives its employees such satisfaction

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/AUTO01/604160393/1148-

imidazol97

I tested the overdrive engagement speed of one of my 3800/T65Es today. I couldnt' get it in 4th lower than 47 miles per hours. So yours at 40 must have been in 3rd. You may be mistaking the 98% lockup as a next gear when you say it was already in overdrive at 40 or 35, whichever you said.

torque_r

'GM is spending almost $5/vehicle to keep its employees and retirees happy! Wonder if Toyota gives its employees such satisfaction'

I am very sure Toyota's empolyees are happier. They get huge profit-sharing bonuses and they don't fear being laid off.

bigo08

i was recently reading Motor Trend.. and i happen to read about a comparasion between the 07 Escalade n Range Rover Supercharged.. and i was amazed on the outcome of that comparo.. the Slade outperformed the Rover in every test.. except for braking.. the interior of the Slade was much better than the one found in the Rover.. and the best thing is the price the tested price of the Slade was 67k while the Rover was at 94k.. i dont know why any one would pay 30k more for a rover over a Slade.. this shows that when Gm wants to make a good product they can.. but the problem is getting them to do it more often.

What do you guys think???

stevekilburn

I fully agree. Escalade outclasses Range Rover and it will be more reliable. Range Rover gets customers and good reviews because of english heritage.

As a product it is no match for Even GMC Yukon. Thats for sure. 400 hp of raw passion is lurking in that Escalade. Behold, the Truck-zilla has arrived.

stevekilburn

GM should get rid of everything except Chevy, Cadillac and GMC. These three are enough. make them global brands gradually and that will take care of it.

GM's passions get distracted due to too many brands. Even if they control the problem, it will emerge again in a few years.
By getting rid of all the mess and focusing on Chevy, Cadillac GMC, they will concentrate the passion and get better results.

That is the only long term solution. Everything else is just bad strategy. Bad, very Bad.

rocketman67

"GM should get rid of everything except Chevy, Cadillac and GMC. These three are enough. make them global brands gradually and that will take care of it."

GM will survive despite it's best effort not to... :P
Current GM and Honda owner.. :confuse:

george35

I have had an opportunity to see both of these segments and how they operate. The basic problem is operational philosophy in making that FINAL DECISION.
"WE" (AMERICANS) are culturally an irrational, emotional, short sighted ,spoiled, fickle bunch. We expect everything NOW.....how we want it, when we want it and at the lowest price. We are driven by the dollar and a status mentality.
When you understand that you will understand why decision makers adopt a very short term viewpoint in accepting change in design or engineering.
Recommendations made by those who have a different (long term) mindset will not get engineering and design concepts thru if it costs one penny more that cannot be justified in immediate profits.
RONA (Return on Net Assets) and paybacks on total engineering cost and design investments in 12 months is the benchmark. That may change in the next 10 years but I doubt it.

The competitor looks at this as a long term (read growing market share) decision process. The JAPANESE have this ingrained in their make up.

To quote an old Asian saying:

"The first generation plants the seed, the second generation tends the tree and the third and succeeding generations enjoy the fruit'.

Before you laugh at that consider some history.
1956 (Minimal Japanese impact on car production ) 1976 (innovative applications in design,quality and engineering) Refusal of accept conventional labor structure and organization.Much larger consumer acceptance of product.
1996 (refinement of D&E,quality improvements)Overwhelming product acceptance.

2016 ?????????? But you know it will be improved.

It is a VERY tough industry out there.

sensai

If pushrods are such wonderful engines, why isn't GM's premium divison-Cadillac not offering a single car with a pushrod engine it?

Last I checked they offered 2, the CTS-V and the Escalade...

anythngbutgm

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/17/crash-tests-show-benefit-of-side-air-bags- /

torque_r

I expect the 3800 to be killed after the 2007 (or the 2008 model year the latest). Only 3 cars offer it for now and this is what i am expecting:
Pontiac Grand Prix: The 211hp 3.5L and the 240 3.9L will replace the 3.8 and 3.8 supercharged. Same engine offerings as the Impala.
Buick LaCrosse: Will get a 224hp 3.5L and the DOHC 3.6 will be upgraded to 250hp. Same engine offerings as the Saturn Aura.
Buick Lucrene: Will get either the 224hp 3.5L, the 240 3.9L, or the 250 DOHC 3.6L. What do you guys think?

chuck1959

I'd buy the Range Supercharged easily. 1) it looks better 2)it has features that the Escalade doesn't have...hence the higher price. 3)the resale value is better. 4) I'd NEVER fork over that kind of money for a GM product that most likely IMO would not be be as reliable.

socala4

I'd NEVER fork over that kind of money for a GM product that most likely IMO would not be be as reliable.

I'm not exactly GM's greatest cheerleader, but Land Rovers are some of the most unreliable cars on the road today, while Cadillac reliability is actually quite respectable. (I don't personally care for the "bling" factor, but that's another story...) A Cadillac is likely to deliver Toyota-like reliability in comparison to a Range Rover.

dieselone

Well I don't know about reliability, I mean Rovers have never been known for being reliable.

I read the MT article and to me, it was more about which vehicle had more Bling. No doubt, the Escalade held it's own and is a nice SUV. I myself would pic the Denali over it, because I prefer the more subtle design.

I doubt the Escalade could match the Rover's off-road ability, but I think most Escalades will rarely ever be used off-road anyway.

chuck1959

I have 3 friends that have them (one an older model) and they have had little trouble with them. A GM product "likely to delivery Toyaota-like reliabilty"???? Thanks for the laugh.

socala4

It's all relative. In comparison to a Land Rover, the GM products such as Cadillac should be pretty stellar in terms of reliability. (Being that Land Rover is about at the bottom, everyone else starts looking pretty good.)

bumpy

...is not that they are inherently inferior to OHC engines, but that GM's pushrods are inferior to its competitors' OHC engines. The RWD LSx V8s are respectable performers but not exemplary (even the LS7 has a lower specific output than the Ecotec 2.4 in the Solstice). The FWD pushrods are simply not worth the effort to build. The LS4 lost 50hp in the translation from the LS2 (57.17 hp/L versus 66.67 hp/L) and the dog's breakfast of V6s are similarly underwhelming. When GM builds a 5-valve, direct injection, VVTL, small-displacement pushrod V8; then it can claim that pushrods are a viable alternative to OHC, not before.

sensai

Wow, reading that post was funny. The LSx engines are not exemplary performers because of hp/l? Please take that useless measurement elsewhere. What matters is those engines make 300 to 500hp in a small, lightweight, cost effective, fuel efficient package. There is not an OHC V8 I can think of that can outdo the LSx engines in all of those categories.

nvbanker

Oh man, they did rattle, didn't they? And, they had about a 60,000 mile lifespan too, but the catalytic converter would plug way before that, stalling the engine.

sls002

Must we have another silly round of pushrod vs overhead cam arguments? DOHC are certainly good for producing a lot of horsepower out of an engine. But the DOHC design takes up more space in the engine compartment, meaning that the pushrod design could be a larger displacement in the same engine compartment.

If you consider GM's current production FWD DOHC V6, the 3.6 in the LaCrosse, and the Impala's 3.9 liter pushrod V6: both produce about 240 horsepower; the 3.9 has 240 lb-ft of torque, while the 3.6 has 225. The 5.3 liter V8 fits into the engine compartment. I am not sure that the 4.6 northstar would.

nvbanker

Yes, well having had an Escalade for a brief time, I can tell you that it will very likely be more reliable than the Rover at this point. Rover is coming up, but you still have a BMW motor in it, and I don't think Ford has replaced ALL of the Lucas components in it as of yet. The next gen Rover will have mostly Jaguar/Ford stuff in it, and should be much better. And, at that point, I'm interested as well.

My Escalade was dependable from a "never stranded me" viewpoint. The AWD in it though got me stuck at lot in the snow, and there were a bunch of electrical glitches in it. The Navigation was the worst I've ever used. Very user unfriendly.

bumpy

Internal combustion engines are glorified air pumps, and the more power they can extract from a given volume of air the better. Efficiency is the only benchmark worth considering; everything else is excuses or eyewash. If you can't think of any OHC V8 that can match the LSx, you're simply not trying.

sensai

Internal combustion engines are glorified air pumps, and the more power they can extract from a given volume of air the better. Efficiency is the only benchmark worth considering; everything else is excuses or eyewash. If you can't think of any OHC V8 that can match the LSx, you're simply not trying.

Well why don't you name one? Remember, the categories are packaging, cost, power, and fuel efficiency. Sure I can think of many that meet one or two of those categories, but not all four of them. The Ford 4.6 3 valve comes close, but it is only a match for the LS4, not the LS2.

So tell me, what kind of efficiency is hp/l measuring? BFSC is a better measurement for that, but even that does not hold up in the real world. Besides, shouldn't this argument have ended when Honda reduced the hp/l of the S2000?

ace35

the supercharged rover has the jaguar (ford) engine not the bimmer engine.

nvbanker

Ok, then, that's the one I want, actually. It's extremely comfortable for me and exactly "butt-high" when you get in. Know what I mean?

allargon

Chevy, Cadillac and GMC?

I would think Opel/Saturn, Chevy, Cadillac and Hummer. GMC pretty much duplicates Chevy's truck/SUV lineup.

Buick is a money pit despite having some of the best quality and reliability. It has some of the worst styling (the topic of this thread) and driving experience as well as one of the oldest average buyers of any brand.

Pontiac has the Solstice. The GTO is okay, but lacks styling.

Saab? Err.. um...

nvbanker

What do they need GMC for? It's the ultimate redundancy, IMO. Should be the first brand to go.

chuck1959

I would think Opel/Saturn, Chevy, Cadillac and Hummer. GMC pretty much duplicates Chevy's truck/SUV lineup.

Totally agree with that. GMC should be "upscale" of the Chevy Trucks...perhaps all Denali?

Buick is a money pit despite having some of the best quality and reliability. It has some of the worst styling (the topic of this thread) and driving experience as well as one of the oldest average buyers of any brand.

Buick blew it big time getting rid of the "classic" names that their long time customers (as old as they may be)knew and bought loyally.

chuck1959

IMO they do have a place. For the ones that want an upscale truck. I suggested before maybe an all Denali line up?

nvbanker

"Buick blew it big time getting rid of the "classic" names that their long time customers (as old as they may be)knew and bought loyally."

Amen, brother. Do you smell the repeat of "not your Father's Oldsmobile" here? Watch Buick go the way of Olds eventually. They're doing the same thing again.

m1miata

Well GMC is a truck line. Why not get rid of Chevy Truck?
Actually Saturn/Opel/Holden, could be GMG or GM Global, and GM for cars domestic. Cadillac for top line cars from GM.
And the GM line should be compact to full sized cars, and drop the sub compact and cheapest cars. Japan, Korea, and even Ford has a handle on that.

And for heaven sake, let's have some new cars. If Hyundai can make a car as cool looking as the Tiburon, why then can't GM make a neat little coupe? And no, the Solstice and Sky are not coupes, and manage to have higher prices as well, even with a four banger, and no roll bar.
And if they make the Solstice into a coupe, will it be large enough for comfort inside, and have the safety equipment of Hyundai's Tiburon.
-Loren

chuck1959

Because there is a need for lower priced less fancy trucks. That can be Chevy's role. Amen on what you said about some new cars!

chuck1959

Do you smell the repeat of "not your Father's Oldsmobile" here? Watch Buick go the way of Olds eventually. They're doing the same thing again.

Yes I sure do and it's a very strong smell! IMO Buick will be out in the next 3 years. But I do wonder do you think what GM is doing to Buick and in some way to Pontiac on purpose? I dunno why so that why I'm putting the question out there.

m1miata

Why does GM insist on advertising the comparison links for their cars? Has anyone done one with say the Lucerne, Chrysler 300 and the Camry lowest model with the V6? The Lucerne may be better in some ways. But if you were to just crunch the numbers on power and gas mileage, price and such, then it ain't gonna look pretty. If they are trying to sell the car, maybe they should stick to how quiet it is, or it is more Buick in style, or our interior looks richer, or whatever, but these comparo's ain't gonna do it.

If I was considering a sedan right now, I would be test driving a Camry. Actually the Camry, Altima, and Sonata all have more HP in their V6 cars. For value, I guess the closest to fair price is the Impala. If bought at the right price, it may be a value, though the car never seems to fair as well in car reviews. Seems like Camry and other cars are always a step ahead. The new Impala does look much better, inside and out. Is it enough?
-Loren

m1miata

Well the Lucerne, with the V8, could be the entry level Cadillac. The DTS becomes RWD in a couple years. A DTS, in a different skin, with a few less gizmos, the Lucerne should be the entry Caddy. They may want to keep a FWD car for those in snow country, and to keep the cost down. Price the V8 at $30K, and drop the V6 models OR make the 3.9 V6 a base engine one, with a price tag of say $28K with everything standard which would be offered on the Hyundai Azera. The LaSalle, oops Lucerne would survive the demise of Buick in the States. In China, there will be a Buick, no doubt. Here they could call it one of the Cadillac line.
-Loren

chuck1959

Isn't GM doing a lot better overseas?

rockylee

Ha ha ha ha and some want to rip the Cobalt. :surprise: The Cobalt is light years ahead of the Tiburon in technology. Has the tiburon ever been freshened ? MY GAWD !!!!! :confuse:

Rocky