Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I think when the LS-1 came out, it represented a clean-sheet break from the old Chevy smallblock. It started in the Corvette, spread to the Camaro/Firebird, and whenever the 4.8/5.3 truck engines came out, I believe that's what replaced the old 305/350.
However, there is one engine out there that probably isn't all that different from the old smallblock V-8. The 4.3/262 V-6 they use in trucks. It's essentially a 350 with two cylinders lopped off. Looking under the hood of a brand-new Silverado, that 4.3 doesn't look so different from the 305 under the hood of my '85...except that it's shorter, has fuel injection sitting on top, and they make the water pump easier to get to.
And, the 305 in my pickup doesn't look so different from a 1955 265. Yeah, they have definitely improved them and made drastic changes over the years. But, they never got to the point that they totally threw out the old design and came up with something totally new. At least, not until the LS-1.
Actually, the Mopar smallblock "A" engine had a good long run, too. It debuted in 1955 as the Plymouth V-8, and by 1957 had been enlarged to the now-legendary 318 displacement. For a few years, there was a 326 CID version (actually 324, but marketed as a 326, most likely to make buyers think it was "better" than the old Dodge 325 poly it replaced).
A wedge-head version of the engine came out in 1964, known as the "LA". It was narrower and about 50 pounds lighter. It initially came as a 273, but later it was bumped to 318/340/360 configurations. Sometime around 1992 or 1993 the 318/360 got the "Magnum" treatment, which made them pretty formidable for awhile, although the competition moved fast and did catch up. I think in Magnum form, the 318/360 were around through 2002-2003. The 318 was phased out in favor of the 4.7 SOHC, while the 360 gave way to the
Pentroof"Hemi"We traded our old boat for a new one last month. The old one had a 305 MPI with 270HP and the new one has a 300HP 350 MPI. I've always heard people mention they didn't like the 305 compared to a 350 and now I know why. The 350 simply has a lot more power. The new boat is about 1,400lbs heavier than the old, yet it still can out accelerate and match the same top speed as the old one. Also the 350 likes higher RPM than the 305, which surprises me, the 350 doesn't sound nearly as strained above 4k rpm, even though both will run 5k rpm. Granted it's still an OHV engine, so it doesn't sound or feel happy at WOT.
Ford had a pretty long run with their own small blocks too. The 351W was around until 2001 or so I think it had about a 40 year run.
Thanks for that interesting fact about the small block engine.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While the ancestor to the original small block is still in use, there are still quite a number of differences between it in 1955 and 2012.
Personally, from the "heritage" POV, I would have suggested Corvette.
It's been in continuous production, yet modified through the decades to stay in tune with the latest technology. If it hasn't passed VW in air-cooled Beetle production in number of years yet, it most certainly will soon.
Also, it was the first real "sports car" with alternative construction materials that was affordable to the average public.
I can't think of any other manufacturer that has had a model in existence, with continuous production, for any comparable length of time.
It's a true success story for GM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine
GM is the one that doesn't get it. Which is why they keep needing a bailout...
Well, if you want to get over-technical, there was no 1983 Corvette. :P But, I know what you mean.
Then why are those folks here in the GM discussion trying every which way to justify their belief that GM is not for them. They should be over in the Honda, toyota, Subaru, VW, Suzuki, et al, forums telling them how wonderful their products are and why everyone should be buying their favorite product. Instead we have folks posting here with all kinds of negatives including every little detail they can justify as the single criterion for determining if the latest GM product meets their requirements, i.e., it doesn't have an ashtray for the 3rd passenger in the rear seat, or it doesn't have enough speeds in the transmission like Honda folk used to crow when theirs had 5 speeds and GM had 4.
My GM cars have served me well. I have driven, ridden in, and shopped other brands, although that too is a faux criterion used by some to squelch critiquing of the favorite brands here, out of topic, in the GM News, New Models and Market Share discussion.
If it takes more money to help GM survive against the politically poorly-handled past decades of allowing foreign vehicles to take over US manufacturing jobs, then bring on the stimulus package. It would be nice to reduce the power of UAW by helping them leave the US companies and organize the foreigners where the workers have little if any rights. But we'll leave that to the DC politicians.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That wasn't politicans poorly handling the influx of foreign makes, that was GM! And your solution is to just pat them on the head, and hand them more money (MY money, by the way) so they can continue to make products YOU like but the rest of the market does NOT. I'm not subsidizing YOUR favorite car. IF GM makes and sells something I like, maybe I'll consider buying one and giving them my money. That's the ONLY way they deserve to get our money.
In the meantime, GM keeps hearing people crying for the Cruze hatchback, and reply with "we're not selling it here, Americans don't buy hatchbacks." We ask them to sell us the Trax and Cruze, and the response is "Americans don't want small SUVs." Well, GM doesn't seem to like listening to Americans, and hence Americans don't necessarily want to buy GM. Or invest in GM. That's what you and GM are facing.
And I'm sure you'll simply brush off these concerns with a wave of the hand because it's obviously just hate and people need to get over it and love GM as it is.
I know Audi has made cars in Hungary. To me, that is preferable to Mexico or the USA, but then again, your experiences may vary.
Politicians need to stop telling people to "consider" GM, and start figuring out ways to reduce spending, costs, and taxes.
People will consider GM if they make relevant products, not because Lemko says the dozen or so he's owned were essentially perfect and flawless, or because Obama and Bush tell you to buy GM for the good of the nation.
Please, feel free to share with us some sort of proof of these accusations... because I call major B.S. on these claims. Btw, I also worked as a supplier to automakers all over the globe. The conditions, the morale and the attitudes at the import plants were far better than those unionized (UAW/CAW) plants that you speak so highly of.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that conditions are so bad at these import plants, and workers have "zero rights", as you say, that the UAW has been given the boot time and time again... :confuse:
Oi Vey... :sick:
The energy spent by so many people to post repeatedly here about why no one should enjoy a current or recent GM product, is beyond astounding.
These guys want GM to fail it seems!
I can't see expending so much negative energy on the subject.
Personally, I'm not anti GM.... Not since the Big-3 realized they needed to match the imports on quality of material and construction. I'd have no problem purchasing a domestic over import, if it suited my needs better. I'm almost 58, and my ownership ratio, domestic .vs. import is has easily been 3 or 4 domestic to 1. That's hardly what I would call someone who is anti-domestic or anti-GM, since most of those domestics were GM, followed by Chrysler products.
But, I can easily separate GM, the product, from GM, the ward of the state.
Nor am I sternly against future aid to GM in the future, financed by the government (us taxpayers), but I am sternly against simply throwing $$$ at a problem, hoping we cross some magic threshold where all problems mysteriously disappear.
I want to see some legitimate movement inside GM that clearly shows it can run itself all BY itself. That means addressing the legacy costs still looming, and getting its workforce expenses in line with everyone else in the industry, among other costs/issues.
I'm NOT interested in hearing more crap about it being the union's fault, it being currency manipulation, or any other such nonsense. Other industries compete globally, under the very same constraints, and do it very successfully. Caterpillar, John Deere, and Peterbilt come to mind...
If GM management can't figure out how to solve these issues, there isn't ANY amount of assistance i can think of thats going to keep them alive in the long run.
What's the big hoo-haa over an ancient engine? Does that somehow show being a leader (as I recall the original reason it was brought up?). I'd just say it's an ancient engine still in production. Is it competitive with current alternatives?
As I've said before I'm actually pretty neutral towards GM but the bailout made me more negative. On one hand, and in one sense, I'd love to see GM fail because that would teach the dumb politicians an important lesson, that bailouts are a waste of money and effort. This is a lesson that apparently needs to be learned the hard way.
On the other, I don't mind if they succeed as long as they do it without using my money via taxes (highway robbery!) to subsidize their failings. Bank robbers are successful until they get caught. Bank robbers and bailouts are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned.
I am negative towards Chrysler. I know they are just all scumbags, and will do my best to save future potential customers from making the mistake of buying a Chrysler product in their lifetime. If I can save one person, it's all worth it!
What's significant is that it's still being used today, when it should have been historically long ago.
We've discussed this before. People who aren't interested wouldn't be in this forum. I'm sure my thoughts are similar to many others. I'm proud of U.S. innovation and excellence. Take Apple. Or even Microsoft. Or NASA/JPL. Or Boeing.
In a venture as significant and complex as auto manufacturing, what do we have to be proud of? It's incredible that over 3-4 decades the US manufacturers have been so clueless as to what was happening to their markets. So little effort to reverse the trends. To the point of total failure for the largest company of all. A huge embarrassment. Total incompetence.
What's funny is that the critics of GM are called "haters" in this forum. Well perhaps certain posters just believe in tough love. Perhaps they think (foolishly?) that GM might actually be interested in public opinions, and GM employees with influence would be reading this forum! Those critical of GM aren't hating. They have a desire to see real, meaningful. bold improvement. So that GM could be in the same category as the other organizations listed above.
Some parents coddle their their derelict druggie child and will keep giving the derelict money and free housing when the derelict won't get responsible and find work. Some parents will kick their derelict children out of the house, feeling that in the long run that will better help turn the derelict around. So with GM. But both sets of parents care about their kids, just in different ways. Not haters.
Shouldn't be hard to understand, even for those who would house the derelict forever.
Don't you know, it's the fault of the critics! :P
I disagree, actually.
There's a whole generation of buyers who grew up in the 80s watching imports thrive, especially Japanese nameplates, and those buyers are hopeless. They're not likely to buy GM no matter what happens.
GM needs to keep buyers they have, and bring in newbies with the Spark and Sonic. Or perhaps get people switching from other brands that are not full-line manufacturers and for instance do not offer a pickup (Hyundai for example).
Targeting skeptics is pointless and would be a wasted effort. They have to target open minded folks, new buyers, and existing clients.
That's critical criticism if I ever saw it.
I think so. Increased focus on fuel efficiency is perhaps its biggest threat (see EcoBoost).
Ward's has awarded GM with their 10 Best engines 26 different times and the small block was listed among the best engines of the last century.
Targeting new buyers is a wasted effort as well if they are sold an unreliable GM or Chrysler product.
Can a car company survive soley on "new" suckers born every minute?
Ward's has awarded GM with their 10 Best engines 26 different times and the small block was listed among the best engines of the last century.
Thanks for the update. But the V8 market isn't growing. Are they also competitive with 6 and 4s?
A deep voice speaks, and on the screen, you see pictures of what was happening, technologically speaking, in 1955...
"Yes, while our competition has been quietly innovating and designing advanced modern technological power plants, we at Chevrolet continue to use the old "tried and true" mechanics that got us where we are today...
Yes, that small-block engine that powers your new Chevrolet was in production when the Polio vaccine was introduced... It was introduced the same year that Texas Instruments introduced the very first silicon transistor. Indeed, that marvel of a power plant was first installed only 5 years after the deHavilland Comet, the first commercial jetliner began service..."
And it goes on...
Sorry, but I simply couldn't resist the temptation...
The DI 3.6l V6 is competitive, yes.
The smaller engines need more attention. Ditch the iron blocks in the Volt and 1.4T engine for starters.
Give up on the mild hybrids nobody seems to want.
And this is why GM is losing money. You want to advocate tarketing marketing dollars to be expended on existing clients? As in the ones already buying GM? The loyal customers who wouldn't consider other brands, THOSE are the people you want to focus a marketing campaign on? That's a waste of money. Our bailout money, that would be.
The skeptics are the ones you want. You need to get those customers OUT of the Hyundai/Toyota/Nissan/Ford dealers and INTO the GM dealers.
I'm sure they can engineer a light alloy block for their small cars.
The main problem with the Sonic is it weighs hundreds of pounds more than its direct competitors.
Exactly.
BMW isn't that large, but they are revered and excellent at certain things.
GM is better than before, but still too large. Large creates mediocrity, as you go after market share, volume, rentals, "pump-it-out" mentality. And way too many divisions, still.
A non-politicized BK would have been much better at right-sizing GM, so that they could focus more on products instead of how to keep 3x too many plants operating.
I'm actually defending FIAT, because that's why their 1.4T uses an iron block. Physics don't change just because one of them is made by GM. Though it's worth noting that FIAT gets 160 HP out of their 1.4T. And 180_ lb/ft of torque. :shades:
And that means you need bigger brakes. Which means bigger wheels. And so on and so on.
They have the "Dirty Jobs" dude as their spokesman in the commercials.
Evidently, Ford (or it's ad agency) sees some promise there...
Well my wife has 4 year old Saturn Aura with the 3.5L V-6 and 6-speed
auto. We previously had an older Nissan Maxima, which was a good car.
We just came back from a 200 mile trip (each way) and the car was flawless. It is quick, quiet, smooth riding and got an average of 29.5 MPG with A/C on averaging 75-80 mph, with some periods of time in traffic on regular gas.. It is superior in every way (except handling) to the older Maxima, and it was $3000 cheaper new.
My one criticism is that I would like to have more padding in the seats,
but all new cars have lousy hard seats now.
I have driven my Brother-in-law's 2006 Acura TL. The ride is stiff and the cabin is noisy. I'll take the Aura any day.
Oh and I have a Silverado with the 4.3L V-6. It's a great feeling knowing that all the bugs were taken out of that engine over 20 years ago. Im not that confident in the newer engine designs...DI and turbos. I've owned 3 turbo cars and 2 of them needed head gaskets within 50,000 miles. There are quite a few reliability complaints about the newer Turbos (eg: Mazda CX-7)
I wonder how much weight you'd really save, going from iron to alloy in these newer, smaller engines. To use one really old example, the aluminum 4-cyl that the Chevy Vega used weighed 285 lb, while the Pontiac Iron Duke, which replaced it, was 350 lb.
I read an article a while back where GM claimed the weight savings of using an alloy block wasn't very much.
I read an article a while back where GM claimed the weight savings of using an alloy block wasn't very much.
in a 1.4L they're most likely right. I'm also surprised about the lack of DI, but maybe that's harder to do in such a small engine. FIAT isn't doing it in their 1.4L turbo either. The one they get more power out of. Just sayin. :shades:
but all new cars have lousy hard seats now.
Not the Volvos I've sat in, try one of them.
I'm confident in new technology and engines if it comes from a reputable company (not Big 3). For example, the Hybrid technology in the Prius has been supremely reliable from the get go. Also, my 2006 Audi A3 has both DI and a turbo, and has been reliable for 91,200 miles to date. Only the recirculation valve (3 hours labor, $100 part) and induction cleaning service ($150) were needed because of those 2 technologies.
My DSG transmission gets rave reviews and deserves them from 2006, while Ford's version in 2012 is getting roundly panned.
Mazda's turbo issues are probably likely the effect of having Ford disease when they were still joined at the hip. It was recently that Mazda was known for having underpowered gas guzzlers, and now they rank at or near the top in FE (probably thanks to not having the weight of Ford on their back).
I have driven my Brother-in-law's 2006 Acura TL. The ride is stiff and the cabin is noisy. I'll take the Aura any day.
The ride being stiff makes it sporty and fun to drive. The cabin being noisy could simply be due to cheaper sportier tires than the Aura has. I know Honda skimps on tire quality OEM.
With cars getting as heavy as they are these days, I'll take any weight savings I can get anywhere I can get it, even if negligible. Saving negligible weight in 10 negligible spots can make a big difference when you add it all up.