GM has two main problems: technology-wise, they haven't done anything with the OHV engine since it was introduced in the late 1940s except add electronic fuel injection (which was pretty much forced on them by emissions regulations) and electronic VVT just recently (Ford had a mechanical VVT system in the '60s). It's still the same thing you could get in a 1949 Cadillac: no multi-cam designs, no multi-valve heads, nothing to improve on the pushrod itself.
The other, much larger problem is that GM's pushrods don't make enough power to compensate for their larger displacement, which puts them at a marketing disadvantage in displacement-taxed markets (basically everywhere but here). This wasn't a problem when GM's core business was in a pushrod-friendly North America, but to a company relying more on "foreign" markets and trying to redeem itself to a "home" market increasingly favoring OHC characteristics, the pushrod becomes an unaffordable liability. GM needs to either make fundamental, dramatic revisions to the pushrod concept or give the world the OHC designs it wants. GM can't afford to do both.
The basic difference that I see is that the overhead camshaft design makes it easy to build in 4 valves per cylinder, or double the usual number of valves. This makes it easier for the engine to breath in more air/fuel and so can produce more power. Since GM has developed variable valve timing for their pushrod engines, this is less of an advantage, but with the double overhead camshaft, the intake and exhaust valve timing can vary independently. GM's variable valve timing on their pushrods varies the timing for the intake and exhaust valves together, not independently.
I have nothing against Miata or anyone else, I am just informing him about some facts that he may not be aware of to clairify some issues.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not always about numbers" but if that is supposed to nullify what I said than I have to disagree. WHat I stated were facts about the powertrains offered by GM and others. You can say those facts dont affect your opinion of GM but the facts still stand.
As for "young guys", I dont know if that is aimed at me but I have been posting here for about 8 years off and on. Incidentally, I dont see what experience has to do with discussing GM's outdated powertrain options.
4 valves per cylinder, or double the usual number of valves
Four valves per cylinder is the usual number of valves these days. Some hot-dog engines have five, and some stragglers have two or three. Putting the cams on top of the head also shortens the valvetrain and reduces its mass, which yields beneficial NVH reduction and increased efficiency.
You are totally off base if you think GM pushrods havent advanced since the 40s. The specific output of GMs pushrod engines today is far beyond what was offered 10 years ago, much less 60 years ago. I sincerely suggest you go to GM powertrain's website and read the detailed descriptions of GM's OHV engines to see what technology is offered. First of all, older OHV engines lacked most of the features found on some of GM's current OHV engines. A few examples would be aluminum blocks, aluminum heads, ETC, VVT, piston cooling jets, variable displacent, etc. The output and redlines of GM's current OHV engines is far beyond what GM used to offer. One example would be to compare the Series I 3800 (170hp) of the early 90s to the 3900 V6 (242hp) today. That is 72hp from .1 L of displacement and the 3900 redlines at 6400rpm which is far higher than the series 1 3800.
As for other markets, GM makes OHC engines for their other markets and many of those engines are diesels. Diesels produce a lot of torque out of relatively small displacements, especially with turbocharging but as you know diesels arent too popular here. With that being the case GM uses OHV engines and large displacement OHC engines to provide plenty of torque for American motorists.
Four valves per cylinder is usual for OHC engines, not pushrod engines. Putting the cams on top of the engine does reduce the number of parts in the valve train, but I don't know what impact that has on NVH. The extra length of the chains to operate the cams adds to the NVH, particularly on V designs.
Actually, Buick had an OHV straight eight in the 30's. On the otherhand, if pushrods are basically the same as 50 years ago, then OHC's are basically unchanged from 100 years ago.
People dont want to acknowledge that 6 speed autos offer minimal advantages over 4 or 5 speeds. I am all for GM upgrading to 6 speeds ASAP but 6 speeds help acceleration more than fuel economy, especially on engines that have a broad torque curve. I believe a 6 speed will increase economy 4%-5% over a 4 speed auto. When you compare the mileage on the Grand Prix GTP (18/28) with the Aura (20/28) you dont see huge difference even though the aura has two more gears and a smaller engine. The Impala with the 3.9L and 4 speed gets 19/27 I believe. A lot of people are hyping up CVTs but when you look at the mileage of most Nissan vehicles with CVTs you dont see a measurable difference when compared to comparablel vehicles. The Altima V6 gets 22/28 which is worse than the Camry and slighly better than the Aura and about the same as the Accord with 5 speed.
You are totally off base if you think GM pushrods havent advanced since the 40s.
No, they are still built the same they were in 1949: one cam, two valves per cylinder, metal rods driving the valve lifters.
Your cited "advances" have also been around for a long time. Aluminum blocks and heads were done 45 years ago, VVT was done 40 years ago, oil squirters have been around for decades, variable displacement was done 25 years ago. The small-block in the old Camaro Z-28 redlined at 7000 rpm. Nothing new to see here.
It seems to me that improving performance and still getting better fuel economy is a step forward. Fuel economy really depends on how you drive. I think that the six speed transmission may help a lot if you drive for better economy. If, on the other hand, you drive like you are in some sort of race, then the six speed transmission may just increase fuel consumption.
The basic internal combustion engine design has been around since the late 1800's. Aluminum is all very well and good until there is a coolant leak, then corrosion is a problem.
Wow, you GM loyalist are devoted to these old drive-trains. OK, I will test another car or two with the old Nellie engines and trannies in them to do more comparisons. I know off the line the OHV is pretty good. I have owned some GM V6 engines. Looking for sound, passing range power, smoothness at speed and at idle. This 3.5 V6 seems to be the most used now for the base cars, and the 60* is said to be the quiet OHV, so a few more drives are called for.
As for other offerings from GM in the way of engines, of course they have them - for a price. For the Aura, they are thinking some 20% will be the more expensive model. You get the 3.6 engine, which may be worth money, a six speed tranny, which people are shy of on this board, I take it, and stability control (free on Hyundai Sonata). If the six offers no improvement overall, I agree, perhaps the old four speed is best. Time marches on, and sooner, rather than later, the competition has the "slick" , as in more marketable if not for anything else, transmission, and engines with greater HP while still smooth running. Let's put it this way, the Aura may be a best deal as a base model. They are selling more as a base model. And it is probably a pretty fair deal. Now if you were offered the XR for a couple of thousand more, would you not take that one? Would it not have helped image wise, as in blowing out the competition to make the base model the only model of Aura. Looking for a one - two punch against the Japan and Korean offerings, wouldn't you not go for what would get a best write-up in Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver, CR and others? Dropping the debate as to OHV vs. DOHC and only considering IMAGE, would it not have been the thing to do? Maybe Chevy Malibu gets to do the old 1-2 punch After reading debates on engine types, I can appreciate benefits of both types of engines, however, we are talking marketing -- actually selling cars and GM to the press and public. Old Nellie has her limits these days. Time moves on. Like it or not, the perception nowadays, is that GM is getting passed in the fast lane by Toyota and Honda, from what I see in California. GM is now selling the notion of it being hip again. Well this means keeping up with the times, both in fashion and mechanics. -Loren
Please say "included". No one is giving anything away!
6 speed does allow a broader band of gearing which is very important for high revving OHC engines. The "cam in block" engines are lower RPM, torquer engines which do not get as much benefit out of more speeds.
Would it not have helped image wise, as in blowing out the competition to make the base model the only model of Aura. Looking for a one - two punch against the Japan and Korean offerings,
Come on, the public has spoken. Per your data they are buying the base engine. Looks like the public has chosen to save some money than pay for the benefits of OHC. Perhaps, what a thought, the Hondas and Toyotas are not selling on their "Hi-tech" engines but on reliability image? yes GM could drop the cheaper engines but then they would have to sell the basic car at the higher cost and there go a bunch of sales.
Come on guys. Most buyers do not give a whit what OHC or OHV is and do not even know what it is. If they did they would bypass the OHV and buy the OHC Aura.
Hey, here is way to prove it. Toyota should come out with an OHV engine in the Camry and make it $2000 cheaper than their V6. How much you wanna bet the V6 cars sells 80% OHV/20% OHC!!!
6 speed does allow a broader band of gearing which is very important for high revving OHC engines. The "cam in block" engines are lower RPM, torquer engines which do not get as much benefit out of more speeds.
Well said 62. Many think it is only a oneupmanship to have an automatic with the most speeds. The benefits come in the gear ratio spacing and engine matching. It's like when MB first came with the 7-spd auto, or now Lexus with the 8-speed. It was more to it than the "my tranny has more gears than yours" mentality. There actually was some thought behind it.
It does seem the C-I-B engines may not take as much advantage as the OHC with more gears. The OHC engines are happy-revvers, so the extra speeds can help keep the revs down while keeping the engine on boil. Also helps on kick down.
Cost to build these OHV engines, which I do believe the Hemi by Chrysler can be included, should be less than making say their 2.7 DOHC engine, yet people pay a premium price for the Hemi -- interesting.
How much longer does it take to build the DOHC vs. OHV engine?
I think even if GM went to all-OHC layout people would nit-pick that. Making statements that they missed the ohv engine's low-end torque, the engine growl, it revs to high, it's buzzy, maintenance issues. Honestly, I don't think GM can win no matter what they do. Side note: I've owned, worked on and raced vehicles with both engine versions, and more times that not I preferred the CIB-OHV over the OHC. While a cam swap can be easier on an OHC car (depending on the engine/accessories) it ain't no picnic. And a belt/chain swap on an OHC car can be brutal and cost a ton!! As someone mentioned their BIL paid $395 for a belt change, it really isn't a rip-off at the dealer; it's actually not that bad considering the labor. The water pump is usually recommended to be changed because everything is open, the only additional cost is the pump & it would cost just a much to work on the pump at a later date. OK, enough of that debate.
I do agree that GM has marketing & perceived quality problems that they just can't shake. But for their sakes they better figure it out soon.
...if that 8-speed tranny fails, the cost of repair or replacement is going to be fierocious! The way things are, I'd say $2,500 is the minimum cost to replace/repair a modern transmission and things multiply exponentially with each additional gear.
Again you are misinformed. OHV engines are generally lighter than DOHC engines.
VW/Audi fours and V6s also have iron blocks so it's silly to act like having a OHC valvetrain makes an engine wholly modern.
210: I don't see these words in context as being disruptive to the discussion about GM models and stock and etc. on the site. I didn't find the beating a dead horse quote. But I do know certain people, yourself excluded, don't post continual jabs at negatives for GM as though the alternates are perfect. You and I have discussed this.
I would like to see the trolling errrr constant stating of negatives about GM on this proGM forum lowered to a level commensurate with the amicability and understanding we have nurtured in this discussion heretofore. That would evoke less reaction from those of us who have no problems with the GM cars we have or have owned.
Others: The OHC and CAMinBLOCK motor quarrel has been run down this trail too many times. CIB allow lower hoods; OHC allow high revving, low torque motors with higher horsepower output but at high speeds. There. It's been restated so it doesn't have to be argued again.
...and if things keep going this way with 7-speed, 8-speed, etc, it'll cost more to replace a transmission than an engine! I'm not sure if CVT is the way to go. Theoretically, you have infinite speeds, but I'm kind of wary of the "rubber band" tranny.
Sorry, did not realize this was a "Pro-GM" forum. Forward thinking of that nature is what got GM in the deep trouble it is in today. All is well - we are living in the 70's - GM rules. Personally, I never liked bell bottom pants.
Look out, 21st Century is gonna hit like an asteroid!
Great history of GM cars, aside of a couple to three decades of junk. In the world of automobiles, they are but another car company. Are they "Moving Forward", or just "An American Revolution" one of the two ads actually makes sense. I suppose that at 53 I am simply too young to not expect progress by an auto manufacturer. -Loren
That was ten years ago and the car was otherwise in great condition. Still looked like a new car inside and out. If the car still looked as good today as it did back then, I'd have it repaired again. I got rid of it a few months after I had the tranny fixed.
>GM market model view, market share and Profit News. does not say pro GM.
Does it say constant ragging on GM? :confuse:
Pick a Toyota discussion and start continually reminding them about transmissions/software/engineering or sludging. How will they react to the ragging?
Oh, very true. Totally agree. Will depend on the gear sets, pump, valve body, modularity and ease of disassembly.
I use the same thoughts with any "new" tech advancement, total cost of ownership, including repair/replace. I can't wait until those iDrives, COMAND and Navi's start going haywire.
I have to say Miaita, your posts are getting more and more juvenile. I think the point being made is that no one comes here to read everyone's personal grievances with GM. It's apparent that you dont like GM products and that is fine, but don't subject us to post after post rambling GM insults that often dont line up with reality. You made a point about GM's "old" powertrains and people responded with facts. You ignored the facts and then want to claim that GM is stuck in the 70s and isnt competing with the imports. This is just not true, even if you dont want to believe that.
Contrary to what you think, people here are well versed in GM's stumbles over the years. If you really think nothing is changing at GM than you haven't been paying attention recenty. You strike me as one of those people that has a problem with every GM vehicle that comes out no matter what. You identify every feature it "should've" had and how it should've been executed differently to meet your standards.
As for CA, you and others need to understand that CA isnt represtative of the rest of the country. We all know domestics arent popular out there and import buyers in CA look down on domestic buyers. That isnt true across the country and honestly, the imports stronghold is on the west coast. If Toyota didnt have 25% share in CA imagine what it's share would be overall. Sure the imports have a higher than average share on the west coast but that means they have a lower than average share in the rest of the country.
" suppose that at 53 I am simply too young to not expect progress by an auto manufacturer."
Escalade, Aura, XLR, '08 CTS, '08 Malibu, '08 Vue, Silverado, Astra, G8, Vette, etc. You dont see any progress in those products? sorry but many of us do and the press agrees. See, thats the whole problem with the "you GM fans have low expectations and thats why your impressed" argument, you fail to realize that the press has noted these improvements as well.
I think actually that you get more torque from the OHC engine. Compare the 3.9 pushrod GM engine with the DOHC 3.6 for example. Of course a lot depends on the tuning. For example my SLS's 4.6 is tuned for low end torque, while lemko's STS's 4.6 is tuned for high end torque/horsepower.
I did not realize that the M-series V10 did not have the Valvetronic. On the otherhand, I am dubious about the value of horsepower that peaks at much more than 6000 RPMs. For racing yes, but for street use :confuse: :confuse:
You are obsessed with the 3.5L engine for whatever reason. I havent read anything suggesting its as unrefined as you suggest. You keep alluding to the fact that GM is struggling due to using OHV engines but you arent mentioning trucks. GM uses OHV engines in 90% of its trucks and those trucks are doing fine in the marketplace. If the Tahoe switched to a DOHC V8 I doubt it would make much of a difference to potential buyers. Gm's "hippest" vehicles are arguably the Vette and the larger SUVs like the Denali and Escalade and those products are powered by OHV engines. When people like the performance and styling of a vehicle they could care less about valves per cylinder. MOst people couldnt explain the difference between OHC and OHV if you held a gun to their head. Only people who read auto mags or work on cars know what is under their hood.
"This 3.5 V6 seems to be the most used now for the base cars, and the 60* is said to be the quiet OHV, so a few more drives are called for. "
The 3.5 is the base engine in the Impala, MC and Aura ONLY. the G6 and Malibu have DOHC engines standard. The Lacross has the 3800 but this engine will be phased out soon. The 9-3, Sky, Cobalt and all Cadillacs have DOHC engines standard.
"Old Nellie has her limits these days."
Yes limits like the 505hp V8 in the Z06 that redlines at 7000rpm.
There were two 3.5's, but this year the VVT version (a shorter stroke 3.9) is the only one left in production for cars. The other one is still available on some trucks.
General Motors Corp. Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson called the automaker's announcement last week that it would have to restate earnings again and delay reporting 2006 financial results a personal embarrassment, as the company struggles to put a series of accounting problems behind it.
A higher rpm for peak horsepower yields a larger quantity of horsepower simply because of the math: (tq x rpm)/5252.
Torque gets you started but horsepower keeps you going. If you don't want to keep going, then torque may be enough for your needs. My '66 GMC has a torque peak of 300 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm and never drops below 90% of that peak through its operating range, but only has 190 horsepower to propel 5000 pounds down the road. It will outpull anything less than twice its size, but my 2000 Accent will outrun it despite the shorter gear ratios in the truck.
I think that my SLS is better with more low end torque than the STS model with less low end torque but more horsepower at a higher speed. I can do about 90 MPH in 2nd gear. Comparing an old truck engine with a modern car engine is somewhat dubious.
People are going to have different points of view about pretty much everything that comes up here. There are going to be GM lovers, GM likers, GM neutrals, and folks who may not think GM or their products are the best thing since sliced bread.
If someone posts something you disagree with, you have the option of ignoring what they have to say and getting on with your life. But please let's stop with the "what are you doing here?" since the discussion is about what people think of GM and their models and market share. Please do not turn this into a battle trying to "prove" anything about GM one way or the other.
Let's stick to that and avoid talking about each other and we'll keep things moving along. Thanks!
Lemko, have you ever owned a pick-up truck before ????
I own the 96' Dodge and my buddy has been working on it and re wired the whole truck and was driving it back to me and discovered the radiator hasn't been replaced. The Dodge dealer told us the radiator was replaced and my buddy pulled it out today and said if they replaced it with a new one it sure rusted fast !!! :surprise: :mad: The engine was starting to over heat as he was driving it to me !!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
So I will talk to my lawyer for some advice if they charge us for one. We haven't received the bill yet. He can only charge us for parts since he had the 3/4 ton Dodge for 6 weeks and failed to fix it. :sick:
Lemko, I am really thinking I'm going to put the 96' Dodge on ebay or in the local paper and just pony up and get me one of these GMC Sierra Denali Pick-up's. The more I look at her the more I am falling in love with her. I need to find out for sure if the 2-mode hybrid option will be available this fall. 62' or anyone else if y'all read or hear something factual please lemme know. The wife thinks the new Denali Pick-up will be the most practical for us. She says I'd have something safe to drive in the winter, it would easily haul both her and the kids and we'd have the cargo room to pick-up any items we'd need when shopping without making sacrifices in the passenger department.
I think the boss almost has me convinced. I told her we can get one as long as we get black exterior. She says she wants the cashmere tan leather interior. We of course will get every option available. I might even option for the cargo management system. I would also rhino-line the bed to avoid any worry's about scratches.
What I'd really love to see is a 3/4 ton Duramax GMC Sierra Denali. I'd buy one of those as lemko says in a "New York second" :shades:
Well that's the end of the UAW workers being the highest paid arguement. I just want to add that UAW factory rats like my aunt make $14.50 an hour with zero benefits at Delphi and $19.00 at GM w/ zero benefits....well at least until next month at Delphi, if they get a contract settled ?
Side Note: The $27.00 a hour average doesn't include the hundreds of workers making wages at the level my aunt does so the article isn't entirely accurate.
DETROIT — General Motors has confirmed that the all-new Saturn Astra and the 2008 Pontiac G8 will be unveiled at the Chicago auto show next week. In addition, the automaker said it will roll out a pair of special-edition Chevrolet Corvettes.
link Seems it the second best selling car in Europe now and is outselling the Focus. If I recall correctly, when I owned my Opel Manta Rallye back in '73, Opel was the top selling car in Europe. Anyway, if it is outselling the Focus of Europe and that car is related to the Mazda3 and the Volvo S40 there is hope for the new little car. There is a new Volvo hatchback coming, which should be a popular hatch, with loads of power -- but no doubt a higher price tag than the estimated $16K starting price on the Astra. The Saturn/Astra may sell. Hatchbacks, as you know, are a harder sell in America, but I am now seeing more and more people buying the more sporty hatches like the Mazda3. IMHO, the Astra looks like a more exciting entry from GM than was the Cobalt. -Loren
Thans for the link.... The Cobalt SS has recaro leather seats which are nice. I feel the major thing missing from making the Cobalt a real Civic alternative is a good interior. I don't know what the future plans are for the Cobalt, but I feel a good interior and a few suspension upgrades and perhaps a switch from the Supercharged ecotec-4 cylinder to a Turbocharged SS model with AWD might improve things ????? I also would like to see the cavalier design go away. I'd would assume they could use design cues from one of their popular small cars in another country.
Comments
The other, much larger problem is that GM's pushrods don't make enough power to compensate for their larger displacement, which puts them at a marketing disadvantage in displacement-taxed markets (basically everywhere but here). This wasn't a problem when GM's core business was in a pushrod-friendly North America, but to a company relying more on "foreign" markets and trying to redeem itself to a "home" market increasingly favoring OHC characteristics, the pushrod becomes an unaffordable liability. GM needs to either make fundamental, dramatic revisions to the pushrod concept or give the world the OHC designs it wants. GM can't afford to do both.
The basic difference that I see is that the overhead camshaft design makes it easy to build in 4 valves per cylinder, or double the usual number of valves. This makes it easier for the engine to breath in more air/fuel and so can produce more power. Since GM has developed variable valve timing for their pushrod engines, this is less of an advantage, but with the double overhead camshaft, the intake and exhaust valve timing can vary independently. GM's variable valve timing on their pushrods varies the timing for the intake and exhaust valves together, not independently.
If you consider the 3.9 liter pushrod V6 compared to the 3.6 liter V6, the torque is nearly the same for both engines.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - 07_36L_LY7_CTS.pdf
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HVV6/20- - 07_39L_LZ8_Impala.pdf
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not always about numbers" but if that is supposed to nullify what I said than I have to disagree. WHat I stated were facts about the powertrains offered by GM and others. You can say those facts dont affect your opinion of GM but the facts still stand.
As for "young guys", I dont know if that is aimed at me but I have been posting here for about 8 years off and on. Incidentally, I dont see what experience has to do with discussing GM's outdated powertrain options.
Four valves per cylinder is the usual number of valves these days. Some hot-dog engines have five, and some stragglers have two or three. Putting the cams on top of the head also shortens the valvetrain and reduces its mass, which yields beneficial NVH reduction and increased efficiency.
As for other markets, GM makes OHC engines for their other markets and many of those engines are diesels. Diesels produce a lot of torque out of relatively small displacements, especially with turbocharging but as you know diesels arent too popular here. With that being the case GM uses OHV engines and large displacement OHC engines to provide plenty of torque for American motorists.
No, they are still built the same they were in 1949: one cam, two valves per cylinder, metal rods driving the valve lifters.
Your cited "advances" have also been around for a long time. Aluminum blocks and heads were done 45 years ago, VVT was done 40 years ago, oil squirters have been around for decades, variable displacement was done 25 years ago. The small-block in the old Camaro Z-28 redlined at 7000 rpm. Nothing new to see here.
Except for VTEC and its clones, that's pretty much true.
As for other offerings from GM in the way of engines, of course they have them - for a price. For the Aura, they are thinking some 20% will be the more expensive model. You get the 3.6 engine, which may be worth money, a six speed tranny, which people are shy of on this board, I take it, and stability control (free on Hyundai Sonata). If the six offers no improvement overall, I agree, perhaps the old four speed is best. Time marches on, and sooner, rather than later, the competition has the "slick" , as in more marketable if not for anything else, transmission, and engines with greater HP while still smooth running. Let's put it this way, the Aura may be a best deal as a base model. They are selling more as a base model. And it is probably a pretty fair deal. Now if you were offered the XR for a couple of thousand more, would you not take that one? Would it not have helped image wise, as in blowing out the competition to make the base model the only model of Aura. Looking for a one - two punch against the Japan and Korean offerings, wouldn't you not go for what would get a best write-up in Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver, CR and others? Dropping the debate as to OHV vs. DOHC and only considering IMAGE, would it not have been the thing to do? Maybe Chevy Malibu gets to do the old 1-2 punch
Please say "included". No one is giving anything away!
6 speed does allow a broader band of gearing which is very important for high revving OHC engines. The "cam in block" engines are lower RPM, torquer engines which do not get as much benefit out of more speeds.
Would it not have helped image wise, as in blowing out the competition to make the base model the only model of Aura. Looking for a one - two punch against the Japan and Korean offerings,
Come on, the public has spoken. Per your data they are buying the base engine. Looks like the public has chosen to save some money than pay for the benefits of OHC. Perhaps, what a thought, the Hondas and Toyotas are not selling on their "Hi-tech" engines but on reliability image? yes GM could drop the cheaper engines but then they would have to sell the basic car at the higher cost and there go a bunch of sales.
Come on guys. Most buyers do not give a whit what OHC or OHV is and do not even know what it is. If they did they would bypass the OHV and buy the OHC Aura.
Hey, here is way to prove it. Toyota should come out with an OHV engine in the Camry and make it $2000 cheaper than their V6. How much you wanna bet the V6 cars sells 80% OHV/20% OHC!!!
Well said 62. Many think it is only a oneupmanship to have an automatic with the most speeds. The benefits come in the gear ratio spacing and engine matching. It's like when MB first came with the 7-spd auto, or now Lexus with the 8-speed. It was more to it than the "my tranny has more gears than yours" mentality. There actually was some thought behind it.
It does seem the C-I-B engines may not take as much advantage as the OHC with more gears. The OHC engines are happy-revvers, so the extra speeds can help keep the revs down while keeping the engine on boil. Also helps on kick down.
How much longer does it take to build the DOHC vs. OHV engine?
Is the GM 350 V8 no longer in use?
I think even if GM went to all-OHC layout people would nit-pick that. Making statements that they missed the ohv engine's low-end torque, the engine growl, it revs to high, it's buzzy, maintenance issues. Honestly, I don't think GM can win no matter what they do.
Side note:
I've owned, worked on and raced vehicles with both engine versions, and more times that not I preferred the CIB-OHV over the OHC. While a cam swap can be easier on an OHC car (depending on the engine/accessories) it ain't no picnic. And a belt/chain swap on an OHC car can be brutal and cost a ton!! As someone mentioned their BIL paid $395 for a belt change, it really isn't a rip-off at the dealer; it's actually not that bad considering the labor. The water pump is usually recommended to be changed because everything is open, the only additional cost is the pump & it would cost just a much to work on the pump at a later date. OK, enough of that debate.
I do agree that GM has marketing & perceived quality problems that they just can't shake. But for their sakes they better figure it out soon.
VW/Audi fours and V6s also have iron blocks so it's silly to act like having a OHC valvetrain makes an engine wholly modern.
210: I don't see these words in context as being disruptive to the discussion about GM models and stock and etc. on the site. I didn't find the beating a dead horse quote. But I do know certain people, yourself excluded, don't post continual jabs at negatives for GM as though the alternates are perfect. You and I have discussed this.
I would like to see the
trollingerrrr constant stating of negatives about GM on this proGM forum lowered to a level commensurate with the amicability and understanding we have nurtured in this discussion heretofore. That would evoke less reaction from those of us who have no problems with the GM cars we have or have owned.Others: The OHC and CAMinBLOCK motor quarrel has been run down this trail too many times. CIB allow lower hoods; OHC allow high revving, low torque motors with higher horsepower output but at high speeds. There. It's been restated so it doesn't have to be argued again.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Personally, I never liked bell bottom pants.
Look out, 21st Century is gonna hit like an asteroid!
Great history of GM cars, aside of a couple to three decades of junk. In the world of automobiles, they are but another car company. Are they "Moving Forward", or just "An American Revolution" one of the two ads actually makes sense. I suppose that at 53 I am simply too young to not expect progress by an auto manufacturer. -Loren
GM market model view, market share and Profit News. does not say pro GM.
Does it say constant ragging on GM? :confuse:
Pick a Toyota discussion and start continually reminding them about transmissions/software/engineering or sludging. How will they react to the ragging?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I use the same thoughts with any "new" tech advancement, total cost of ownership, including repair/replace. I can't wait until those iDrives, COMAND and Navi's start going haywire.
Mucho Dinero
Contrary to what you think, people here are well versed in GM's stumbles over the years. If you really think nothing is changing at GM than you haven't been paying attention recenty. You strike me as one of those people that has a problem with every GM vehicle that comes out no matter what. You identify every feature it "should've" had and how it should've been executed differently to meet your standards.
As for CA, you and others need to understand that CA isnt represtative of the rest of the country. We all know domestics arent popular out there and import buyers in CA look down on domestic buyers. That isnt true across the country and honestly, the imports stronghold is on the west coast. If Toyota didnt have 25% share in CA imagine what it's share would be overall. Sure the imports have a higher than average share on the west coast but that means they have a lower than average share in the rest of the country.
" suppose that at 53 I am simply too young to not expect progress by an auto manufacturer."
Escalade, Aura, XLR, '08 CTS, '08 Malibu, '08 Vue, Silverado, Astra, G8, Vette, etc. You dont see any progress in those products? sorry but many of us do and the press agrees. See, thats the whole problem with the "you GM fans have low expectations and thats why your impressed" argument, you fail to realize that the press has noted these improvements as well.
"This 3.5 V6 seems to be the most used now for the base cars, and the 60* is said to be the quiet OHV, so a few more drives are called for. "
The 3.5 is the base engine in the Impala, MC and Aura ONLY. the G6 and Malibu have DOHC engines standard. The Lacross has the 3800 but this engine will be phased out soon. The 9-3, Sky, Cobalt and all Cadillacs have DOHC engines standard.
"Old Nellie has her limits these days."
Yes limits like the 505hp V8 in the Z06 that redlines at 7000rpm.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/UPDATE/701310464
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/AUTO01/701300344/1148- /AUTO01
Torque gets you started but horsepower keeps you going. If you don't want to keep going, then torque may be enough for your needs. My '66 GMC has a torque peak of 300 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm and never drops below 90% of that peak through its operating range, but only has 190 horsepower to propel 5000 pounds down the road. It will outpull anything less than twice its size, but my 2000 Accent will outrun it despite the shorter gear ratios in the truck.
People are going to have different points of view about pretty much everything that comes up here. There are going to be GM lovers, GM likers, GM neutrals, and folks who may not think GM or their products are the best thing since sliced bread.
If someone posts something you disagree with, you have the option of ignoring what they have to say and getting on with your life. But please let's stop with the "what are you doing here?" since the discussion is about what people think of GM and their models and market share. Please do not turn this into a battle trying to "prove" anything about GM one way or the other.
Let's stick to that and avoid talking about each other and we'll keep things moving along. Thanks!
http://www.sportruck.com/news/2007-GMC-Sierra-Denali/index.htm
Lemko, have you ever owned a pick-up truck before ????
I own the 96' Dodge and my buddy has been working on it and re wired the whole truck and was driving it back to me and discovered the radiator hasn't been replaced. The Dodge dealer told us the radiator was replaced and my buddy pulled it out today and said if they replaced it with a new one it sure rusted fast !!! :surprise: :mad: The engine was starting to over heat as he was driving it to me !!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
So I will talk to my lawyer for some advice if they charge us for one. We haven't received the bill yet. He can only charge us for parts since he had the 3/4 ton Dodge for 6 weeks and failed to fix it. :sick:
Lemko, I am really thinking I'm going to put the 96' Dodge on ebay or in the local paper and just pony up and get me one of these GMC Sierra Denali Pick-up's. The more I look at her the more I am falling in love with her.
I think the boss almost has me convinced. I told her we can get one as long as we get black exterior. She says she wants the cashmere tan leather interior. We of course will get every option available. I might even option for the cargo management system. I would also rhino-line the bed to avoid any worry's about scratches.
What I'd really love to see is a 3/4 ton Duramax GMC Sierra Denali. I'd buy one of those as lemko says in a "New York second" :shades:
Rocky
:P
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/BUSINESS01/701310410
Well that's the end of the UAW workers being the highest paid arguement. I just want to add that UAW factory rats like my aunt make $14.50 an hour with zero benefits at Delphi and $19.00 at GM w/ zero benefits....well at least until next month at Delphi, if they get a contract settled ?
Side Note: The $27.00 a hour average doesn't include the hundreds of workers making wages at the level my aunt does so the article isn't entirely accurate.
Rocky
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119422
Rocky
link
Seems it the second best selling car in Europe now and is outselling the Focus. If I recall correctly, when I owned my Opel Manta Rallye back in '73, Opel was the top selling car in Europe. Anyway, if it is outselling the Focus of Europe and that car is related to the Mazda3 and the Volvo S40 there is hope for the new little car. There is a new Volvo hatchback coming, which should be a popular hatch, with loads of power -- but no doubt a higher price tag than the estimated $16K starting price on the Astra. The Saturn/Astra may sell. Hatchbacks, as you know, are a harder sell in America, but I am now seeing more and more people buying the more sporty hatches like the Mazda3. IMHO, the Astra looks like a more exciting entry from GM than was the Cobalt.
-Loren
Thans for the link.... The Cobalt SS has recaro leather seats which are nice. I feel the major thing missing from making the Cobalt a real Civic alternative is a good interior. I don't know what the future plans are for the Cobalt, but I feel a good interior and a few suspension upgrades and perhaps a switch from the Supercharged ecotec-4 cylinder to a Turbocharged SS model with AWD might improve things ????? I also would like to see the cavalier design go away. I'd would assume they could use design cues from one of their popular small cars in another country.
Would a RWD/AWD Cobalt be the ticket ??????
Rocky