GM News, New Models and Market Share

andre1969

And yeah, it is heavy as it's basically a 350 block (bore is different?) I think they pretty much used the same crank.

Yeah, I think the 350 was a 4.00x3.48 bore/stroke, while the 305 was a 3.74x3.48, but I'm just going on memory here, so I might be a little off.

In cars, I think GM did manage to get the 305 up to around 225-230 hp in the Camaro and Trans Am, but then they just started going with 350's, which could put out more hp and torque with less effort.

What was the last year for the 305, anyway? I know in 1993 you could still get it in the Caprice, although the Roadmaster and Fleetwood used a 350. Maybe it persisted in trucks for a few years beyond that, though?

circlew

OK, not a failure just a death trap!

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which is known for its testing of vehicles and results that are often shown on NBC's Dateline television news program, gave the Astro a "poor" rating in 1996 because of what by all appearances was a horrifying display of structural failure in the Institute's 40 mph (64 km/h) crash test into a fixed, offset barrier. The underbody of the test van buckled, pitching both front seats forward and shoving the crash dummy into the dashboard and steering wheel, and resulting in a broken left leg, leading the Institute to comment that "[t]he collapse of the occupant compartment left little survival space for the driver."

Regards,
OW

tjc78

Maybe it persisted in trucks for a few years beyond that, though?

IIRC it went until 2002 in the Express vans and maybe the pickups. By that time they were calling it the "vortec 5000"

andre1969

I know it's a small consolation, but back then most heavy body-on-frame domestic vehicles crumpled up like that in the offset test. The Ford Aerostall did really bad too as I recall.

I think part of the problem is that if you take a big, heavy vehicle like that and run it into something that's not going to give very well, like a big tree, bridge abutment, etc, all that weight tends to work against you, increasing the forces on the impact. And the closer you sit to the front of the vehicle, the more screwed you are.

I think the Astro was based on the S-10 pickup of the time, and it was little changed over the years, although it did get heavier. I think the original Astros were only around 3500 lb, but I think that one the IIHS crashed was something like 4600. So here you have a big, heavy vehicle based on the frame of a relatively lightweight compact truck, and that just doesn't sound like a good combination to me.

anythngbutgm

Your right Andre. Actually my wife has a couple of these for her business with the 4.3 6-cylinder and you really do sit right over the front wheels which is definitely not ideal in a crash.

But the point is that GM has always lagged in safety. The Astro is only one example. Heck, check out the dustbusters which were supposed to cater to families?

Minivans

:sick:

Worst Crash Test

More recent SUV comparo

link title

4 GM models score in the basement.

dieselone

I think 03 was the end of the 305 as it was replaced by the 4.8 in the fullsize trucks/vans. Like tjc said in 02 or 03 it changed to the vortec 5000. The 5.0 and 5.7 are still being produced for marine applications. The 305 in my boat is an '03 and it was in either 02 or 03 that the marine version used the vortec design heads (still cast iron for marine use) and roller lifters etc. It was a pretty big rpm and power boost. IIRC pre '02 marine 305's were rated for 4200-4400 rpm. Mine will run over 5k rpm with a rev limiter of 5200rpm. Granted, a boat isn't like a car, so the only way I can get max rpm is by having a light load.

anythngbutgm

The Accordian?

link title

:surprise:

andre1969

doesn't scare me too much...

1997 Buick Park Ave crash test.

It did better than my old Intrepid, which looks like it might've been able to give me a bloody nose and a foot-ectomy.

Over all though, we've come a long way, bay-bee!

british_rover

You can't compare the Leaf to the Volt.

What is the maximum Range the Leaf will do on a full charge on the highway? I honestly don't know but it can't be more then 100 or so miles right?

Then you have to wait for it to recharge. The Volt can be a good commuter city car and a decent long to medium range trip car. The Leaf is a short trip car only because there is no way to charge the batteries on the move.

dave8697

Not to be an Equniox apologist, but the Astro I drove years ago was the most crude and unappealing vehicle made by a major auto maker that I have EVER driven. Sit up high, feet angled into a narrow footwell, non-linear accelerator, noisy engine, marginal brakes, wandering steering, jolting ride. It even made a Chrysler minivan feel like a refined sports car. So perhaps some refinement is more important to some drivers than others

I prefer sitting up high. The footwell is wide enough for me. Angled feet? a rediculous comment.

Linearity of the accelerator? Yeah, and the disconbobulator is non parametric too.

Noisy engine? Mine is whisper quiet at 122k. My brakes have never been any problem. Jolting ride? My passengers had no problem sleeping the entire ride home. Almost 180 cu ft interior space behind the front seats? room to bring everything you want, get to it, and stretch out.

iluvmysephia1

will go approximately 100 miles on one charge. The Volt, with it's gas motor generating-the-electrical "motor" back up, goes what, upwards of 400 miles per "tank" of electricity and gasoline, eh?

Nissan is being very pro-active in helping to get the re-charging infrastructure built up in the U.S. It's in the works, as they say.

tlong

I prefer sitting up high. The footwell is wide enough for me. Angled feet? a rediculous comment.

Linearity of the accelerator? Yeah, and the disconbobulator is non parametric too.

Noisy engine? Mine is whisper quiet at 122k. My brakes have never been any problem. Jolting ride? My passengers had no problem sleeping the entire ride home. Almost 180 cu ft interior space behind the front seats? room to bring everything you want, get to it, and stretch out.

So glad you like the Astro and it works well for you.

imidazol97

I've spent a lot of time riding in our friend's high mileage Astro when visiting in Tennessee. We rode in it from near Nashville to Chattanooga and back. Very comfortable. Not a minivan like a Town and Country, but those don't let you put a bargain riding lawnmower in that you bought while in Ohio to take back to TN.

>perhaps some refinement is more important to some drivers than others

I always laugh when someone pulls out the nebulous "refinement" as a reason for downing a car which they personally don't like. Bet there are lots of toyota owners wishing their recalled/not recalled cars didn't have so much "refinement" which was the reason they bought them.

tjc78

Yes. there are some things that just bother some more than others. My 99 S-10 with the 4.3 V6 is about as coarse sounding (and rough) as anything when the revs get much over 3000. Does it bother me in that vehicle? Not at all, however I would never want a car or a passenger van with that same engine.

fho2008

Because it is........what a waste. The block may be good, can bore it out.....the rest......POS!!

fho2008

Shouldnt be rough.....by '99 the 4.3 had a balance shaft above the cam.

elias

thanks for the informative posts about the 305 V8 (that does not including yours, "f ho 2008")!
Seems like many of us have each put a few hundred thousand reliable miles on those 305 engines.

tjc78

Well it does have over 100K on the odometer. I find it rough, especially compared to my car. Keep it under 3000 RPM (which isn't hard ) and all is fine. I will say it uses no oil and no valve noise or anything even after sitting for a week or two in these cold temps.

dieselone

Shouldnt be rough.....by '99 the 4.3 had a balance shaft above the cam.

Well, smooth they are not, balance shaft or not. That doesn't make it a bad engine. It was a very good truck/suv 6 cylinder engine and good for marine use. Certainly not something fit for a Cadillac. Like every pushrod v6 I've ever sampled, it sounds strained at high rpm, but on the flip side, you won't find many v6's that have as much torque as the 4.3 under 3k rpm. Granted you don't see many v6's' with as much displacement either. The 4.3 was a tough engine. I had one in our first boat. It was tough and performed well, but it did sound and feel harsh when pushed.

fho2008

I coulda told ya its a "small bore 350" whatever you wanna say, a lemon is a lemon, if your enjoying lemonade, good for you, why GM ever made it nobody will ever know.

Yeah yeah, emmisions, mileage but....

Would have been easier to make a 302 V8........something they did in the past, and wow save 3 CID, and, use the same block and heads, different crankshaft.

305 needs 305 heads, not 350 heads. So an all new engine with a 350 crank, new heads and block or a short throw crank in a 350 block? We know what they decided on.....maybe that was the start of GM's problems.

So if the 305 was so good as you say it is........why did the Mustang kill the Camaro?

305 couldnt keep up with the 302.

You want a 350 in a camaro? NO

Well........maybe.

OK Ford's kicking our butt......you can have a 350..........only with an auto trans.

When GM finally tried to get things right they put the all new 350 in cars, Firebird, Z28, that you couldnt see where the nose was when driving. Guess Ford killed the 'bird also.

GM still makes the 4.3 V6, and that is basically a 350 - 2 cyl!!

Do they make 305 - 2 cyl?

I'll give you the answer........they dont.

fho2008

You would see a difference if you drove a 4.3 with/without a balance shaft!

And I didnt say it was a bad engine.........3/4 of a 350 is a good thing!!

The 4.3 from '99 on is a very good engine......got one in my truck

andre1969

Do they make 305 - 2 cyl?

I'll give you the answer........they dont.

No, but they did...the 229 V-6 from 1980-84. I had a 1980 Malibu coupe with that engine in it. I'd probably hate its performance today, but for the time it was pretty good, when you consider its 115 hp competed with an 85 hp 225 slant six from Mopar, a 110-115 hp Buick 231, an 88 hp Ford 200 straight-six, and a 98 hp weakling of a Ford 250 straight-six. Misery loved company!

My Mom bought that car new, and gave it to me when I got my license. I wish she'd sprung for the 305! :P

lemko

I had an oddball 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic with a 4.3 V-6. It was hardly a hot rod, but I got very good fuel economy in a traditional full-sized car.

elias

Thanks for posting some details, fho2k8.
I'm not sure why you say one couldn't get a 350 with a camaro. They were available for many (all?) model years from 1987 through 2002, and were fine! I did prefer the 350 to the 305 but agree to disagree with your opinion that the 305 was awful. I'll leave it to others to continue discussing this with you in case there is any interest.

dieselone

I don't think the 305 was awful. It may not have been great, but has more to do with it always being the 350's little brother. The only 305 in my experience that I found disappointing was the 305 w/throttle body injection that was used I believe in a late 80's or early 90's Camaro RS. A friend of mine's mom bought one new and I remember it being fairly slow, I think it only had like 170hp IIRC. The tuned port injection 305's were much better.

IMO, the 305 was never as good as Ford's 302 in terms of performance and attitude. But Chevy neutralized that by using the 350.

My grandpa had a 305 powered 87 Caprice Classic and it was more than adequate. I've also sampled it in my uncle's '87 Monte Carlo SS. Not bad, but not great. He had headers on it with true dual exhaust with a chip to liven it up a bit. It definitely sounded great with the aftermarket exhaust system. Though he did have issues (before the chip and exhaust upgrades) with the electronic controlled carb. From the day it was new, it always seemed to have a check engine light and he had issues with it running rich.

cooterbfd

".....Would have been easier to make a 302 V8........something they did in the past, and wow save 3 CID, and, use the same block and heads, different crankshaft."

The Z-28 302 was a race engine.

andre1969

The Z-28 302 was a race engine.

Yeah, there was that little detail. And usually the engines that are the best on the track ain't always the best on the street. To use a Mopar analogy for example, a 426 Hemi simply dominated on the track...but it doesn't belong in a New Yorker! (although if I had unlimited funds I'd be tempted to do something stupid like putting a crate Hemi in one of my '79's :P )

I wonder if a de-tuned version of that 302 could have worked, though? Essentially, just take a 327 and put a 283 crank in it? The main problems I can think of though, is that with a short stroke it probably would have needed to rev to get its power, and that didn't necessarily work well with the taller axle ratios they were using in the 1970's. Also, once they started messing around with emissions controls, they found that once you hit a bore threshold of about 4.00", emissions went up disproportionately, and therefore would have required a more severe smogging, I guess.

I think Ford tended to use shorter ratios with their 302's than GM did with their 301's, 305's, 307's and 350's, or Mopar with their 318's and 360's. So that might have helped them a bit in acceleration. Back in the late 70's and 80's though, I think the 302 was usually rated a bit lower in EPA estimates than the 305 or 307. And sadly, that's what counted.

Incidentally, Pontiac's 301, which used the same 4.00 bore and 3.00 stroke as a Ford 302 (or that old Chevy 302) was banned in California and high-altitude areas because it was too dirty.

greg128

Our business had a 1989 Astrovan which we sold in the late 1990's with
160,000 miles on it. It had overheated at around140,000 miles and rather
than replace the head gasket we installed a $400 junkyard 4.3L special.
I spoke to the person we had sold it to a few years later and it was still
running with 320,000 miles. It still had the original transmission.

The great thing about that van was the ridiculously low prices for parts.
I remember rotors at the time (maybe mid 1990's) were $20 ea.
A starter installed was under $100.

All in all it was a great reliable vehicle.

lemko

Here's to hoping andre1969 wins the Powerball lottery! :shades: I'd love to see a 426 Hemi 1979 New Yorker! Of course I heard the 426 was a lousy engine for everyday driving. It likes to be run flat out, not stop-n-go on city streets.

dave8697

My 4.3 Sonoma is much noisier than my Astro. They have belt driven cooling fans and the torque to tow 5500 lbs. The Astro has more insulation. Even my '87 Astro was the exact same as a Caravan in dB at highway speeds inside back in the day.

As far as 3000 RPM? Sonoma turns 1300 revs at 40 and 1900 on the interstate. I might spend 10 seconds a year over 3000 revs in either. At 3000 revs, it has the torque of a Subaru twin turbo at redline. Would you expect that to be quiet?

berri

I had a 79 Chev with a 4 bbl 305. It drove alright, but after I traded it a few years later I got something in the mail from the Federal courts indicating it had a Chevette tranny and I was entitled to an extended warranty. So I guess that is something you'd want to check out on a 305.

fho2008

I know that, but think of all the time and money spent to make the 305 when hey, if you put in the 3.00" crank, use everything else from the 350.......not to mention compression ratios were lowered at the time, what a good engine the 302 could've been, not as a race engine but a reliable V8 in all kinds of GM vehicles the 305 was put in.

I know the 302 was a Z28 engine 67-69 (70 for a little while with a strike that postponed the all new 70 design)

andre1969

What model of '79 Chevy did you have? According to my old car encyclopedia, the 305-4bbl had 160 hp that year. Pretty impressive when you figure that Ford had NOTHING that powerful that year. Their biggest engine, the 400-2bbl still used in Lincolns, was choked down to 159 hp. No doubt it had a lot more torque though. Over at Mopar, only the 4-bbl version of the 360 would top that, with 195 hp. The 2-bbl had 150, and the 318-4 had 155.

My book says that engine was only offered in the Malibu and Monte Carlo, although I think Olds used it in the 4-4-2 aeroback. That book has been known to be wrong before, although I guess I can see that rationale. I don't think you could get a 350 in a '79 Malibu or Monte Carlo, so if you wanted more hp out of a 305, the 4-bbl was the way to go. But with the Impala/Caprice and Nova, you could still get the 350, with 170 hp, so I guess they figured the 305-4bbl was a bit redundant.

As for that Chevette tranny, that's the THM200C. I had it in a 1980 Malibu. Never had any troubles, but that car only had a 229 V-6, and wasn't all that heavy. Plus, my Granddad was anal about maintenance, and talked my Mom into going in for transmission services every year. And I continued the tradition when Mom gave me that car.

I have a 1979 Malibu brochure that optimistically touts as one of its features, 100,000 mile service intervals for that THM200C. No wonder the damn things failed so often!

Something else kind of odd I found about service intervals...I have a 1976 LeMans manual that, I think, calls for 30,000 mile intervals for the transmission (THM350 or THM400 depending on the engine), but in the 1979 Nova brochure, theyr'e calling for 60,000 miles interval on its THM350. I wonder what changed in those three years? Improved transmissions, improved fluids, or both?

dieselone

What model of '79 Chevy did you have? According to my old car encyclopedia, the 305-4bbl had 160 hp that year.

I wonder how many actually were shipped with a 4 barrel carb. My dad had a 79 Caprice Classic Wagon and it had a 305 2 barrel. IIRC, 140hp or so. Yeah, it seemed many of the Ford's were down on power back then.

berri

It was a Monte Carlo which I ordered from the factory. The 305 4bbl was the biggest engine available or I would have gotten a 350. I had to order it to get the 4bbl. It wasn't a bad car except for the frameless windows that let in a lot of wind noise, would come out of their track and eventually leaked in heavy rain. I traded it for an 83 Olds Ciera - Big mistake! That car was an electronic lemon that the dealer never could fix right and seemed like it always had to sit around the shop for a week or two waiting for parts to come in. I only kept it two years (too many). It was unfortunate, because had it been reliable it was actually a decent car given the ride, economy and useable space they got out of that downsized intermediate. But it makes me understand why customers left GM in droves during the 80's and still harbor distrust toward their vehicles.

anythngbutgm

link title

According to a Detroit News story, “Romney writes that that an unnamed CEO of an automotive industry corporation told him that despite what is said publicly, ‘the government is calling the shots on every major decision at GM, including which plants to expand and which to close.’

Romney’s assistant, Eric Fehrnstrom explains:

“There’s ample evidence that the government is calling the shots at GM, from the Obama administration orchestrating the selection of a new CEO to Rep. Barney Frank pressuring GM to keep open a facility slated for closure. The real issue is that government ought to get out of the auto business and distribute its shares to taxpayers.”

Romney: “The managed bankruptcy that I proposed ultimately occurred,” Romney writes, “but only after tens of billions of taxpayer money had been wasted, and only after sweetheart deals and paybacks for favored interest groups had been engineered with the public’s money.”

:lemon:

tlong

http://www.visualeconomics.com/a-detailed-look-at-tarp/

GM was bailed out more than B of A, more than Wells Fargo, more than all companies except AIG!

Pretty sad.

stever

Hummer Deal Falls Through; GM to Terminate Brand (Edmunds Daily)

smarty666

that is good about Hummer, that was like an anchor attached to GM's leg!

yeah, a soccer mom really needs a all terrain military assault vehicle to take the kids back and forth to soccer practice! its good to see GM has finally gotten some of their sense back!!

lemko

I'd rather see Hummer dead than in the hands of the Chinese. Besides, the Hummer is being replaced by the military:

Hummer Replacement Prototype

chuck1919

If you don't like the Chinese goods, don't shop at all your popular stores. It's all Chinese goods. Not saying it's good or bad-it is what it is. They are now THE WORLD'S LEADER in manufacturing.

Check the label of your under garments, they are not made here either!

fintail

It's funny that a brand could be so unappealing that even the Chinese backed out. Of course, they probably feigned interest in order to get access to design secrets. Not surprisingly, there's already a copycar Hummer, the Dongfeng EQ2050:



Now that Hummer is gone, tasteless nouveau riche [non-permissible content removed] posers will have to stick to Cayennes, G-Wagens, and various Rovers.

fezo

I'm amused that Hummer sank just as it's final that Saab lives on. Would have hated it had it been the other way around.

tlong

If you don't like the Chinese goods, don't shop at all your popular stores. It's all Chinese goods. Not saying it's good or bad-it is what it is. They are now THE WORLD'S LEADER in manufacturing.


Well as of 2008 you are wrong. That might have changed since then due to the recession. Anybody have more recent data?

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/10/13/data-on-the-largest-manufacturing- -countries-in-2008/

circlew

Well, in 2009 they might be...

China to overtake US as largest manufacturer

The great leap is revealed in forecasts for the Financial Times by Global Insight, a US economics consultancy. According to the estimates, next year China will account for 17 per cent of manufacturing value-added output of $11,783bn and the US will make 16 per cent.

:sick:

Regards,
OW

anythngbutgm

link title

Gray’s departure marks the second major figure to part ways with GM’s Volt team, following the announcement that Frank Weber, head of powertrain and electronics for the Volt, announced that he was leaving GM for an executive position with Opel. Weber was considered by many to be the mind behind the Volt, and acted as a public face for the project.

rockylee

I personally think and believe General Motors Corporation will once again be the Largest and Most Powerful Atomobile Corporation In The World!!!! :shades:

These recalls the Japanese, are having will make GM #1 once again!!!! :shades:

-Rocky

ptrjakson

Can some one suggest me some good driving training Schools in South west London

iluvmysephia1

as long as The General continues paying off the U.S. taxpaying public, all things will end up pretty much as they should automotively for them, eh?

tlong

These recalls the Japanese, are having will make GM #1 once again!!!!

Hi Rocky!!!

I'd personally like to see Ford get that title before GM.