The Eldorado Brougham was in production in the late 50's. It cost $23,000 per copy to build, they sold it for $13,000. The $13,000 price tag was about double the price of the other Cadillacs.
I would think that Mercedes makes most of its revenue on the C-class and E-class. The S-class has to be expensive to build. If they sell enough of them, they may be profitable.
Well I do know that new engine development (starting from scratch I mean) is horrendously expensive...shockingly expensive....so designing a range of engines for a complete product line would be a major expense.
I guess that as long as the Big 2.5 can get credible performance out of pushrod engines they will consider that ample compensation for their "low tech" image in engine development....even though they really aren't "low tech" as much as "good old tech". Why design a new rocket if the Saturn V will get you to the moon just as fast?
As another example, there are audiophiles who insist that music on a vinyl LP sounds better than a modern CD, and I think they are right---but even so the music industry gave up on this medium because of other advantages. I think the Big 2.5 will soon abandon the pushrod for both marketing and technical reasons. Pushrods work for V8s but what about all those 4s and 6s the competition is developing?
Torque has nothing to do with the engine configuration or the number of cylinders, but rather the displacement of each cylinder. It's the size of each hole that produces torque. You build a 7 liter DOHC engine and it's going to be pretty formidable...Porsche race cars used to pump out 1,200 horsepower 35 years ago from only 5.4 liters but of course used Turbos...which is the supposed answer to the mantra "there is no substitute for cubic inches".
You know there's no perfect engine. We could flap our gums about this forever and not come to a conclusion.
But with the ability to varying camshaft timing separately, and using 4 valve (or more) per cylinder (hard to do with a pushrod), and ESPECIALLY with inline 6 engines, the OHC setup is very attractive.
Since Detroit is not much interested in marketing the inline 6, and since they try to keep costs down for "value marketing" purposes, they keep a distinct advantage in simplicity over an OHC V-8 engine builder.
Where an OHC engine produces its peak torque is matter of design and tuning. The CTS 3.6 V6 has its peak torque at about 3000 RPM's, more or less the same engine speed as the 3800 V6. Cadillac's northstar V8 has good lowend torque in the base form. The RWD northstar, with VVT is quite good with lowend torque and still has good high speed horsepower.
Turbo's (or superchargers) boost torque considerably. The 3800 with supercharger had around 275 lb-ft of torque, while the base engine was about 230. The 95 Riviera with the supercharged V6 was a quick as the Aurora with the V8. The Aurora had less torque, but more horsepower.
I know Snake... everybody is wrong. When they test drive the cars side by side and prefer the OHC car, it's because of marketing and "perception" with a sprinking of anti-GM bias.
OHC offer a smoother, more efficient engine. That's what people want and that's what they buy.
Where an OHC engine produces its peak torque is matter of design and tuning. The CTS 3.6 V6 has its peak torque at about 3000 RPM's, more or less the same engine speed as the 3800 V6. Cadillac's northstar V8 has good lowend torque in the base form. The RWD northstar, with VVT is quite good with lowend torque and still has good high speed horsepower.
And yet - the SAME engine re-tuned for use in the LaCrosse CXS makes the maximum torque at ~1600-1800rpm intstead of ~3600. the tradeoff was about 10-15% of the top-end horsepower.
It's a no-brainer which drives better(and costs less as well). too bad GM won't let you get a stickshif in the Buicks, though...
If you put the average driver in a car that has a push rod engine and then in one that has a OHC I seriously doubt that a vast majority would be able to tell the difference.
People buy what they think is better, not what they can perceive is better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Still, how it's built makes no difference as long as it has VVT or something simmilar. This is like comparing traction control and stability control. Two different beasts. With traction control, like what engine type it is, it's highly debateable which offers better results.
But with VVT and Stability control, it's a no-brainer if you can get it. Huge difference and little or no negatives.
And, yes, OHC technology is older than anyone posting here.
If I can opine on this subject, Caddy isn't even the standard of America any more. They're under too much pressure to share components with their lesser brethren to approach the esteem shared by Lexus, MB and BMW.
And Lexus does not share components with Toyotas?
Toyota Windom
Lexus ES
And Acura does not share components with Honda?
Acura MDX
Honda Pilot
These three vehicles are also based heavily off of each other:
As are these two:
Sorry. Try that one again?
On the other hand, all Cadillac's North-American cars are platform-exclusive except the Cadillac Escalade, which shares a platform with the Tahoe/Yukon and the Cadillac DTS, which shares a platform with the Buick Lucerne.
Neither approach is "better" or "worse".Standalone luxury companies tend not to share platforms because they have nothing "lower" to share them with except themselves.
And oops! Two things:
1. We forgot VW/Audi:
is based off the same platform as this:
2. Even high-end manufacturers share platforms. So scratch that!
These three are all on the same platform: One Volkswagen, One Audi and two Bentley derivatives :surprise:
But wait! Maybe Ferrari can save us! Oh, no, no no!
Brought to you courtesy Fiat Spa. which owns both,I give you the Maserati MC12:
And the (gasp!) Enzo Ferrari!
:surprise: They also share a platform. Betcha didn't know that eh?
My brother is a GM defender and pushrod fanatic. We had a great conversation on Christmas because he insists that OHCs are so poorly suited to "everyday driving" due to the lack of torque and peaky power delivery. The question I kept asking him is that if that is so, why do all the top selling cars have OHC? You wouldn't think that hundreds of thousands of people would buy Camrys, Accords and Altimas if they were so poorly suited to everyday driving.
That is a straw-man argument. It has nothing to do with the "suitability" of DOHC engines (both are "OHC" engines--the difference is in the number of cams) on the road. The issue is what "modern" means. It couldn't be age, because the DOHC design is older if anything--and both are over a century old. (Then again if "new" is "better", I have a "new" flux capacitor to sell you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIoagnswqQI ) "Everybody else does it" means absolutely nothing in terms of "superiority" (whatever that means).
For one, we can also say that until the Ferrarri 599 GTB Fiorano
and Audi TT came around, GM was the only company in the world to use the GM/Delphi-developed magnetorheological suspension on things as diverse as these:
An engine is an engine. An OHV engine is no less "low-tech" than a Wankel rotary engine, such as can be found in this:
I was going to say that a Porsche flat six behind the rear axle wouldn't be considered "low tech"--even though everybody knows it is "inferior" to a mid-engined layout (which has a lower polar moment of inertia).
That would make this "low-tech":
And this, "high-tech", no?
Both you and your brother should find something else to argue about. Preferably something you know more about--like "flux capacitors"?
If you made a list of automotive technical innovations of any serious consequence, Detroit would come up pretty short. Corvette's magnetic-ride was one of the few things worth mentioning that Detroit has done in the last 35 years. (and which I was immensely pleased to see).
The reason we have the "perception" of European (especially) technological prowess is because...it's true....
not one of these things came out of America after WWII:
successful mass production turbocharging successful mass production electronic fuel injection mass production OHC engines and 5 speed transmissions successful, non-intrusive FWD systems active suspensions 5 and 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions superb braking and handling in a passenger car superior fit and finish reputation for reliability rotary engines sterling engines W engines hybrid drivetrain systems high-intensity lighting (not quite sure about this one) successful mass production disk brakes radial tires
"People buy what they think is better, not what they can perceive is better."
That's a joke, right? Then why all the test drives if people can't tell the difference anyway?
On component sharing, the three makers I mentioned were Lexus, BMW and BMW... not Audi, Acura or whatever else. We're looking for the standard of the world, so we don't need to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the question.
On component sharing, the three makers I mentioned were Lexus, BMW and BMW... not Audi, Acura or whatever else. We're looking for the standard of the world, so we don't need to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the question.
I already showed you where Lexus shares platforms.
That leaves BMW all by itself (with Mercedes--as you mentioned above) If you are willing to argue that BMW or Mercedes is the "Standard of the World" (and forget about Bentley, Rolls-Royce and Ferrari), that is fine with me, but according to your own criteria--Lexus has to go, since it shares platforms and components with "lesser" vehicles.
No its not, there is a multi billion (thats billion with a "B") industry based on creating and maintaining perception. That is why McDonalds with sub par food is so huge.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
. The S-class has to be expensive to build. If they sell enough of them, they may be profitable.
Expensive to build yes, but it also sells for a lot also. There is no way that at nearly 100K units a year worldwide they aren't printing money off the S-Class. The S is a major profit generator for Mercedes, especially since they've streamlined some of the processes to build it. The S is the main reason Mercedes is making huge profits this year.
You are most certainly correct. The question was not whether Cadillac is in fact the "Standard of the World" (which it isn't), but whether or not platform-sharing was "proof" or "evidence" of this--which it is not.
Is most defnietly profitable. Yes the platform is basicly unique but the engine, transmissions and much of the switch gear is the about the same as lesser Mercedes. Lots of savings to be had there.
Also remember that as of right now we only get a couple of versions of the S-Class in the US. We don't get the diesels yet and we don't get the 6 cylinder version.
If they still build the 6 cylinder version like they used to.
The C-Class is probably less profitable then the S-class. It is harder to generate profit from a small car like that even when you are building it in the volumes that the C-class is made.
My guess on the least profitable mercedes is the SL. Specificly the SL500/550 as there is a lot of components specific to just that vehicle and it doesn't have the huge mark up that the SL600 and the AMG versions have.
Oh god yes, the warrant claims on the W220 and first few years of the W211 E drove Mercedes into the ground. The first generation ML and 2001 C also killed profits.
The new S appears to have been launched without an hitch, very spooky that you don't hear or read anything about it. There is one owner on the S-Class board that had his car bought back, but others report no problems.
I'd say that any V12 MB just allows MB to print money when they charge 20-40K more for the same car with a different engine and some other trim upgrades. AMGs too.
Oh god yes, the warrant claims on the W220 and first few years of the W211 E drove Mercedes into the ground. The first generation ML and 2001 C also killed profits.
Oh the delicate balance of making sure you charge enough for a car to cover the warranty claims. I would love to see the books of a large Mercedes or BMW service department to try and figure out how much warranty money they build into their cars.
I Know about how much Land Rover builds in and it would be interesting to compare the two.
The new S appears to have been launched without an hitch, very spooky that you don't hear or read anything about it. There is one owner on the S-Class board that had his car bought back, but others report no problems.
The couple of clients I know who have them haven't had any problems beyond some minor new vehicle teething issues but nothing major.
I'd say that any V12 MB just allows MB to print money when they charge 20-40K more for the same car with a different engine and some other trim upgrades. AMGs too.
The most profitable models are going to be the Various V12 sedans and coupes and then the AMG models. All of that handbuilt stuff doesn't cost that much.
My guess for the absolutely most profitable model is probably the AMG V12 CL class(they still build that one right?)
You are correct that "platform sharing" is not, in and of itself, a problem. Most automakers with diversified product lines share platforms, as they should.
Where the problem lies is in "badge engineering", something that GM practically invented. It was the accountant's mentality that prompted GM management to believe that by grafting a few luxury options onto an already miserable Cavalier (at least they were honest by warning everyone that they had a "cavalier" attitude toward the quality of the car) along with a new name;late and higher price that it would suddenly be transformed into a Cadillac. And it helps to explain why it is now losing money, while other companies that share platforms quite nicely are earning profits.
It's also nice when "innovations" actually work. The 8-6-4 was a horribly unreliable car, and GM fairly paid the price for its mistakes. How many more Vega-quality "success" stories does one company need before it finally learns its lesson?
No its not, there is a multi billion (thats billion with a "B") industry based on creating and maintaining perception.
The irony is that if you were correct, GM would be swimming in cash. But as it turns out, it's losing its shirt because the American consumer would not accept a second-rate product when a better one was available, even if the accounting and marketing teams believed otherwise.
You can rename a bad car five ways to Sunday (Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac), but it won't work. People have learned to look beyond the cosmetics and demand value for money, and that generally requires a relatively smooth, reliable OHC motor. They may not know what OHC means, but they like what it does.
The irony is that if you were correct, GM would be swimming in cash.
The irony is that I am right, if not why do companies spend billions throwing advertisements at you 24 hours a day to convince you one way or the other.
Those who do not realize this will fall victim to it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The most profitable models are going to be the Various V12 sedans and coupes and then the AMG models.
To be honest the most profitable models is what thy deem to be most profitable. In a manufacturing company making more than one product there are costs that cannot be directly associated with any one product. How they apply said costs will decide how "profitable" each model is.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
oh puleeeeeeeeze. Who spends more money on advertising and marketing than GM? Do you think that Matt Dillon keeps talking about Pontiacs because he likes them? With all that money spent, why do people still perceive GM to have an inferior product?
The irony is that I am right, if not why do companies spend billions throwing advertisements at you 24 hours a day to convince you one way or the other.
GM has not spent the last three decades lacking in advertising dollars, but this hasn't helped it from sliding toward the abyss.
I'd realize that you'd like to believe that you are uniquely correct, while the automotive critics, industry analysts, product testers and millions of consumers are wrong, but there has been a notable product deficiency at work that has greatly contributed to the fate suffered by the Big 3.
The defense of Detroit does the automakers no favors. The constant excuse making simply serves as an enabler for these companies' addictions to mediocrity and arrogance toward the consumer. These companies will really need to hit bottom before they and their ardent supporters finally wake up and learn that disrespect of the consumer has no merit.
part of the problem here, I'm sure, is that many of our visitors here aren't old enough to remember how truly horrific Detroit products had become by the late 70s/early 80s. You "had to be there".
Anyone between the ages of...oh.....45 and 65 are still gun-shy about Big 2.5 products in any shape or form, and no amount of advertising is going to make the nightmares go away.
it's interesting I think that the very few American cars that have gained any sort of respect are the most expensive ones....
But take heart, domestic car lovers...it's not as bad as say Renault's reputation in America, or Fiat's. Those are ruined forever most likely, until we are all dead and all the jokes are no longer passed onto our children.
At least Cadillac has begun to outlive its bad name, and Corvette rose from the ashes of underpowered coke bottles. Even Harley Davidson came back from the dead.
To answer the question again. According to Autoweek there is no S-Class competitor planned, no Sixteen will be built and either the STS or DTS has to go.
You can't be the standard without a S/LS/A8/XJ/7 competitor. No question they could build a competitive car, but like I said before GM doesn't have the funds.
If you put the average driver in a car that has a push rod engine and then in one that has a OHC I seriously doubt that a vast majority would be able to tell the difference.
I know that when I've driven Accords and Camrys, I feel a lot of power and very smooth delivery of that power. My old '85 Jetta was smooth for a 4, and our new Mazda 5's 4 cylinder is very smooth and quiet.
When I've rented smaller American cars I'm usually appalled at the vibration and coarseness of the engines. I also rented a new model Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 6 cyl and was astonished at all the noise and vibration for how little power was delivered.
Ultimately I don't care what the engine technology is, I care that I get smooth, quiet, refined power with decent economy. Maybe it's a coincidence that most of the engines that have been noisy and coarse have been pushrods. If these American cars can produce smooth pushrods then more power to them. I doubt most Americans care about the technology, but they DO notice the quality of the power delivery.
When I've rented smaller American cars I'm usually appalled at the vibration and coarseness of the engines. I also rented a new model Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 6 cyl and was astonished at all the noise and vibration for how little power was delivered.
Absolutely right, there is a noteworthy NVH gap between many of the pushrod domestics and DOHC/OHC transplants.
To be fair, though, I'm not sure how much of it is attributable to engine technology. Two personal examples: I had a Kia rental with what I presume was an OHC motor that was wheezing for breath, and a Crown Vic that presumably had the modular 4.6 liter V-8. Perhaps some of the automakers have just given pushrods a bad name...
I'd realize that you'd like to believe that you are uniquely correct,
I am not uniquely correct, many people, even the big auto manufactures, realize that that is correct. Otherwise why spend the money on advertising and getting their cars to people to examine. If I am wrong why do they spend billions advertising.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But the thing is you knew what you were driving. If I put you in two identical cars with the exception of the engines. Two different engines of similar characteristics but one a DOHC engine and one a push rod I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference. I would bet that if I did that with a sizable number of people that not much more than half would pick the DOHC engine over the push rod.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Snake, you've got to be joking. So GM does everything well except marketing and that's why they've lost about 20% of the market in the last 20 years.
How about this: I was raised on GM and used to be a loyalist until I had it with their reliability issues and went Japanese. After a dozen GMs, the three Japanese cars that I've had have been the most reliable and well thought out cars that I've owned. I've been burnt by GM, have something that's better now and have no reason to go back. No amount of marketing by GM or a Japanese competitor has figured into this. It's just my first hand experience.
Your post in 695 has one reasonably decent point. Some consumers don't pay attention to the engine and couldn't tell the difference between OHV and OHC in otherwise identical cars. For these buyers, it's all the other details where GM loses them. I'm the only import buyer in a family of domestic loyalists. The poor execution and lack of attention to detail in some of the other cars in my family jumps out at me.
Go and find some cavilers from the last couple of years they made them. Should be tons of them at the local used car lot.
Drive one with the crappy pushrod 4 cylinder that Chevy used to use and then drive one with the Ecotec motor. You will be able to tell the differance.
Also keep in mind that all 4 cylinder engines and most 6 cylinder engines need balance shafts to run smoothly. V8s do not need balance shafts since they are naturaly balanced. A pushrod V8 is going to be naturaly smoother then any 4 cylinder and smoother then any 90 degree six cylinder. The optimium angle for a 6 cylinder is a 60 degree angle.
A common practice of domestics is to take their inherently smooth and stable push rod 90 degree V8s and cut off two cylinders to make a 90 degree V6. Well a 90 degree V6 is not ideal so you have to add a balance shaft which may or may not work perfectly at all RPMs.
Still it is much cheaper then deveolping a stand alone V6 engine since almost all of the tooling from the V8 engine can be used.
The 4.3 liter V6 from GM is an example of this as it is just a 5.7 liter V8 with two cylinders knocked off. The 3800 series engine from GM is another example although it is a little more refined then the 4.3.
Build better cars. Price them intelligently. Receive great reviews from the appropriate magazines. Reviews should contain phrases such as, "...conspicuous quality of materials..." and "...outstanding build quality..." Dial in the proper ride/handling for the audience that you need to buy your car. In the same review, phrases such as,"...BMW-like handling but with a Lexus-like ride..." Or heck, just "...eerily similar to the ride/handling characteristics of a BMW while costing thousands less!" should be referenced. Word of mouth will begin to generate. And now that you've built it, they will come!
See? Now wasn't that simple!
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
I am surprised that Mercedes is selling 100,000 S-class cars worldwide, so yes that would be profitable.
Since BMW now has the Rolls, Audi/VW has the Bentley, and Mercedes has the Maybach, perhaps to be THE Standard requires more than having an S/LS/A8/XJ/7 competitor. I think to really be the standard requires that you are way above any competition for a long period of time.
For example, BMW has been the sports sedan standard for a long period, beginning back in the days of the 2002 model. There is now a lot of competition (at the lowend 3-series class), but BMW's 3-series is still the standard. It may not be the best year in and year out, but no one has taken over the position of being the standard bearer that all others are compared to.
While I think Cadillac may have been the standard for the US market at one time, when imports were such a small part of the market that they were not important, I do not think Cadillac was ever the standard in the European market.
At least Cadillac has begun to outlive its bad name, and Corvette rose from the ashes of underpowered coke bottles. Even Harley Davidson came back from the dead.
Indeed it has, shifty - but not really because Cadillac makes a world class car, it's just a hellova lot better car than they USED to make, and it's good. BUT, it's still very GM to me. The Northstar is now over 10 years old - and isn't a bulletproof engine at all, with cylinder carbonization and head warping an issue. Now, all Cadillacs are about the same size if they're RWD, and you can't tell which one you're looking at unless you get very close and read the alphabet soup on the back. Of course, BMW has a similar problem these days between the 7, which looks kinda small, and the 5 that looks kinda big. When I get into an STS with a V-6, I sure as hell don't say, "Wow"! I say, hmmmmm, lotsa ugly plastic. I like the DTS interior best!!
Yes, they sell pretty well, yes, they sell to younger people, and yes, baby boomers are driving Lexi now, not Cadillacs. But 30 year old Cops, love em.
The biggest problem with OHV comes I think from 4 cylinder engines, which have inherent vibration issues, and *especially* if you try to make them with too large a displacement. You'll rarely see a 4 cylinder engine, even an OHC, over 2. 5 liters, for this reason. They can create very weird vibrational issues.
BMW obviously recognized, and had enough faith in, the inline 6 as an engine with potential for smoothness and power, whereas the Americans have just about abandoned it. In America, 6 cylinders was always associated with "cheap", but of course, in Europe it was just the opposite.
Detroit has always built *great* V8s but have had a hard time building most other types of modern engines. The GM V-6s have been bedeviled with problems from the get-go, and the 4s have been okay but kinda crude.....I guess the Ford V-6 Mustang engine is a pretty good unit. Not sure where that engine came from...home-grown or import?
Those who are emulated are - hands down. Mercedes, BMW and to a lesser degree, Lexus - each in a slightly different niche. BMW = Performance/Luxury. Mercedes - Luxury/Performance. Lexus = Luxury/Perfection
NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY is emulating Cadillac. Not even Lincoln is trying.
I wouldn't argue with the Luxury and Performance but the rest are still up for grabs in my opinion. Of course "Beauty" is subjective so we won't argue that point, "perfection" is out of the question IMO,(for any car in the world much less Cadillac), "reliability" is about average right now, and durability has yet to be proven, given the last ten years results for Cadillac.
But those are certainly a great set of goals for any car that wishes to become the "standard of the world".
I always used to say that no car could be a true "classic" unless it had "prestige, engineering prowess and beauty".
Well things like prestige and beauty are very subjective but fortunately we can measure reliability and durability over time.
I guess the Ford V-6 Mustang engine is a pretty good unit. Not sure where that engine came from...home-grown or import?
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COLOGNE (GERMANY) ENGINE;
Started life in the US in 1972 in the Mercury Capri at 2.6L as a pushrod, solid lifter, iron block and heads engine. In 75, it went into the Mustang II at 2.8L, then into the Pinto as an option in 76, same displacement. Found it's way into the Ranger Pickup and Bronco II in 82 in the 2.8L form, and went into the first Explorer in 91, expanded to a 4.0L displacement, it's current form. About 02 it was converted to OHC from OHV, and has been continually upgraded each year. It has been known for rugged life and reliability with very few issues over its lifetime. Melting or cracking intake manifolds a few years is about all. Now resolved. The engine will go an easy 200,000 miles in any of these forms without a sweat.
It's still made in Cologne, Germany, the only place it has ever been made. It now powers the Mustang quite handily and has generally replaced the Essex engine in anything it used to power. It's life span is limited now, and future uncertain, as the corporate 3.5L V-6 is slated once production can be attained, to replace both the Essex (the only pushrod engine Ford has left) and the Cologne engine, assuming it proves to be as good as it is purported to do.
I bragged about your photo research in the "Entry-Level Luxury Performance Sedans" forum. I can confidently defend the 08' Cadillac CTS in that forum from the predators because of your photo's and all I can say is thanx.
Without the 3800 drive train, GM would be in bigger trouble than it is. It is/was one of the few auto engines they produced with a very good reputation. Cadillac never produced an engine for a car in recent history to match the reliability of that old dog.
Until they do it one better, Cadillac will never be a standard.
Comments
I would think that Mercedes makes most of its revenue on the C-class and E-class. The S-class has to be expensive to build. If they sell enough of them, they may be profitable.
I guess that as long as the Big 2.5 can get credible performance out of pushrod engines they will consider that ample compensation for their "low tech" image in engine development....even though they really aren't "low tech" as much as "good old tech". Why design a new rocket if the Saturn V will get you to the moon just as fast?
As another example, there are audiophiles who insist that music on a vinyl LP sounds better than a modern CD, and I think they are right---but even so the music industry gave up on this medium because of other advantages. I think the Big 2.5 will soon abandon the pushrod for both marketing and technical reasons. Pushrods work for V8s but what about all those 4s and 6s the competition is developing?
Torque has nothing to do with the engine configuration or the number of cylinders, but rather the displacement of each cylinder. It's the size of each hole that produces torque. You build a 7 liter DOHC engine and it's going to be pretty formidable...Porsche race cars used to pump out 1,200 horsepower 35 years ago from only 5.4 liters but of course used Turbos...which is the supposed answer to the mantra "there is no substitute for cubic inches".
You know there's no perfect engine. We could flap our gums about this forever and not come to a conclusion.
But with the ability to varying camshaft timing separately, and using 4 valve (or more) per cylinder (hard to do with a pushrod), and ESPECIALLY with inline 6 engines, the OHC setup is very attractive.
Since Detroit is not much interested in marketing the inline 6, and since they try to keep costs down for "value marketing" purposes, they keep a distinct advantage in simplicity over an OHC V-8 engine builder.
OHC offer a smoother, more efficient engine. That's what people want and that's what they buy.
And yet - the SAME engine re-tuned for use in the LaCrosse CXS makes the maximum torque at ~1600-1800rpm intstead of ~3600. the tradeoff was about 10-15% of the top-end horsepower.
It's a no-brainer which drives better(and costs less as well). too bad GM won't let you get a stickshif in the Buicks, though...
People buy what they think is better, not what they can perceive is better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But with VVT and Stability control, it's a no-brainer if you can get it. Huge difference and little or no negatives.
And, yes, OHC technology is older than anyone posting here.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- 07_36L_LY7_LaCrosse.pdf
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/HFV6/20- 07_36L_LY7_Acadia.pdf
Northstars:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- %20V/2007_46L_L37_Cadillac_DTS.pdf
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- %20V/2007_46L_LD8_DTS.pdf
VVT
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- %20V/2007_46L_LH2_STS.pdf
And Lexus does not share components with Toyotas?
Toyota Windom
Lexus ES
And Acura does not share components with Honda?
Acura MDX
Honda Pilot
These three vehicles are also based heavily off of each other:
As are these two:
Sorry. Try that one again?
On the other hand, all Cadillac's North-American cars are platform-exclusive except the Cadillac Escalade, which shares a platform with the Tahoe/Yukon and the Cadillac DTS, which shares a platform with the Buick Lucerne.
Neither approach is "better" or "worse". Standalone luxury companies tend not to share platforms because they have nothing "lower" to share them with except themselves.
And oops!
Two things:
1. We forgot VW/Audi:
is based off the same platform as this:
2. Even high-end manufacturers share platforms. So scratch that!
These three are all on the same platform:
One Volkswagen, One Audi and two Bentley derivatives :surprise:
But wait! Maybe Ferrari can save us!
Oh, no, no no!
Brought to you courtesy Fiat Spa. which owns both,I give you the Maserati MC12:
And the (gasp!) Enzo Ferrari!
:surprise:
They also share a platform.
Betcha didn't know that eh?
My brother is a GM defender and pushrod fanatic. We had a great conversation on Christmas because he insists that OHCs are so poorly suited to "everyday driving" due to the lack of torque and peaky power delivery. The question I kept asking him is that if that is so, why do all the top selling cars have OHC? You wouldn't think that hundreds of thousands of people would buy Camrys, Accords and Altimas if they were so poorly suited to everyday driving.
That is a straw-man argument. It has nothing to do with the "suitability" of DOHC engines (both are "OHC" engines--the difference is in the number of cams) on the road.
The issue is what "modern" means.
It couldn't be age, because the DOHC design is older if anything--and both are over a century old.
(Then again if "new" is "better", I have a "new" flux capacitor to sell you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIoagnswqQI )
"Everybody else does it" means absolutely nothing in terms of "superiority" (whatever that means).
For one, we can also say that until the Ferrarri 599 GTB Fiorano
and Audi TT came around, GM was the only company in the world to use the GM/Delphi-developed magnetorheological suspension on things as diverse as these:
An engine is an engine. An OHV engine is no less "low-tech" than a Wankel rotary engine, such as can be found in this:
Or a Porsche flat six behind the r
That would make this "low-tech":
And this, "high-tech", no?
Both you and your brother should find something else to argue about. Preferably something you know more about--like "flux capacitors"?
The reason we have the "perception" of European (especially) technological prowess is because...it's true....
not one of these things came out of America after WWII:
successful mass production turbocharging
successful mass production electronic fuel injection
mass production OHC engines and 5 speed transmissions
successful, non-intrusive FWD systems
active suspensions
5 and 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions
superb braking and handling in a passenger car
superior fit and finish
reputation for reliability
rotary engines
sterling engines
W engines
hybrid drivetrain systems
high-intensity lighting (not quite sure about this one)
successful mass production disk brakes
radial tires
That's a joke, right? Then why all the test drives if people can't tell the difference anyway?
On component sharing, the three makers I mentioned were Lexus, BMW and BMW... not Audi, Acura or whatever else. We're looking for the standard of the world, so we don't need to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the question.
I already showed you where Lexus shares platforms.
That leaves BMW all by itself (with Mercedes--as you mentioned above)
If you are willing to argue that BMW or Mercedes is the "Standard of the World" (and forget about Bentley, Rolls-Royce and Ferrari), that is fine with me, but according to your own criteria--Lexus has to go, since it shares platforms and components with "lesser" vehicles.
(And even they would--if they could).
No its not, there is a multi billion (thats billion with a "B") industry based on creating and maintaining perception. That is why McDonalds with sub par food is so huge.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Expensive to build yes, but it also sells for a lot also. There is no way that at nearly 100K units a year worldwide they aren't printing money off the S-Class. The S is a major profit generator for Mercedes, especially since they've streamlined some of the processes to build it. The S is the main reason Mercedes is making huge profits this year.
M
The question was not whether Cadillac is in fact the "Standard of the World" (which it isn't), but whether or not platform-sharing was "proof" or "evidence" of this--which it is not.
Also remember that as of right now we only get a couple of versions of the S-Class in the US. We don't get the diesels yet and we don't get the 6 cylinder version.
If they still build the 6 cylinder version like they used to.
The C-Class is probably less profitable then the S-class. It is harder to generate profit from a small car like that even when you are building it in the volumes that the C-class is made.
My guess on the least profitable mercedes is the SL. Specificly the SL500/550 as there is a lot of components specific to just that vehicle and it doesn't have the huge mark up that the SL600 and the AMG versions have.
Still no noticeable complaints about W221 defects, and it's been on these shores for about a year now. Looks like a home run...
AMG cars also have to have massive profits, as they are marked up to often amusing levels.
I wonder how the E fares with so much volume being leased.
The new S appears to have been launched without an hitch, very spooky that you don't hear or read anything about it. There is one owner on the S-Class board that had his car bought back, but others report no problems.
I'd say that any V12 MB just allows MB to print money when they charge 20-40K more for the same car with a different engine and some other trim upgrades. AMGs too.
M
Oh the delicate balance of making sure you charge enough for a car to cover the warranty claims. I would love to see the books of a large Mercedes or BMW service department to try and figure out how much warranty money they build into their cars.
I Know about how much Land Rover builds in and it would be interesting to compare the two.
The new S appears to have been launched without an hitch, very spooky that you don't hear or read anything about it. There is one owner on the S-Class board that had his car bought back, but others report no problems.
The couple of clients I know who have them haven't had any problems beyond some minor new vehicle teething issues but nothing major.
I'd say that any V12 MB just allows MB to print money when they charge 20-40K more for the same car with a different engine and some other trim upgrades. AMGs too.
The most profitable models are going to be the Various V12 sedans and coupes and then the AMG models. All of that handbuilt stuff doesn't cost that much.
My guess for the absolutely most profitable model is probably the AMG V12 CL class(they still build that one right?)
I bet the AMG C-Class is a close second.
Where the problem lies is in "badge engineering", something that GM practically invented. It was the accountant's mentality that prompted GM management to believe that by grafting a few luxury options onto an already miserable Cavalier (at least they were honest by warning everyone that they had a "cavalier" attitude toward the quality of the car) along with a new name;late and higher price that it would suddenly be transformed into a Cadillac. And it helps to explain why it is now losing money, while other companies that share platforms quite nicely are earning profits.
It's also nice when "innovations" actually work. The 8-6-4 was a horribly unreliable car, and GM fairly paid the price for its mistakes. How many more Vega-quality "success" stories does one company need before it finally learns its lesson?
The irony is that if you were correct, GM would be swimming in cash. But as it turns out, it's losing its shirt because the American consumer would not accept a second-rate product when a better one was available, even if the accounting and marketing teams believed otherwise.
You can rename a bad car five ways to Sunday (Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac), but it won't work. People have learned to look beyond the cosmetics and demand value for money, and that generally requires a relatively smooth, reliable OHC motor. They may not know what OHC means, but they like what it does.
Yep, well yeah there will be another CL65 AMG sometime next year.
I bet the AMG C-Class is a close second.
Not sure sure profit wise, but they've stopped importing the C55 for 2007.
M
The irony is that I am right, if not why do companies spend billions throwing advertisements at you 24 hours a day to convince you one way or the other.
Those who do not realize this will fall victim to it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
To be honest the most profitable models is what thy deem to be most profitable. In a manufacturing company making more than one product there are costs that cannot be directly associated with any one product. How they apply said costs will decide how "profitable" each model is.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
pont
Its getting the message across effectively and that doesn't have to mean spending the most money.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
GM has not spent the last three decades lacking in advertising dollars, but this hasn't helped it from sliding toward the abyss.
I'd realize that you'd like to believe that you are uniquely correct, while the automotive critics, industry analysts, product testers and millions of consumers are wrong, but there has been a notable product deficiency at work that has greatly contributed to the fate suffered by the Big 3.
The defense of Detroit does the automakers no favors. The constant excuse making simply serves as an enabler for these companies' addictions to mediocrity and arrogance toward the consumer. These companies will really need to hit bottom before they and their ardent supporters finally wake up and learn that disrespect of the consumer has no merit.
Anyone between the ages of...oh.....45 and 65 are still gun-shy about Big 2.5 products in any shape or form, and no amount of advertising is going to make the nightmares go away.
it's interesting I think that the very few American cars that have gained any sort of respect are the most expensive ones....
But take heart, domestic car lovers...it's not as bad as say Renault's reputation in America, or Fiat's. Those are ruined forever most likely, until we are all dead and all the jokes are no longer passed onto our children.
At least Cadillac has begun to outlive its bad name, and Corvette rose from the ashes of underpowered coke bottles. Even Harley Davidson came back from the dead.
Articl
You can't be the standard without a S/LS/A8/XJ/7 competitor. No question they could build a competitive car, but like I said before GM doesn't have the funds.
M
I know that when I've driven Accords and Camrys, I feel a lot of power and very smooth delivery of that power. My old '85 Jetta was smooth for a 4, and our new Mazda 5's 4 cylinder is very smooth and quiet.
When I've rented smaller American cars I'm usually appalled at the vibration and coarseness of the engines. I also rented a new model Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 6 cyl and was astonished at all the noise and vibration for how little power was delivered.
Ultimately I don't care what the engine technology is, I care that I get smooth, quiet, refined power with decent economy. Maybe it's a coincidence that most of the engines that have been noisy and coarse have been pushrods. If these American cars can produce smooth pushrods then more power to them. I doubt most Americans care about the technology, but they DO notice the quality of the power delivery.
Absolutely right, there is a noteworthy NVH gap between many of the pushrod domestics and DOHC/OHC transplants.
To be fair, though, I'm not sure how much of it is attributable to engine technology. Two personal examples: I had a Kia rental with what I presume was an OHC motor that was wheezing for breath, and a Crown Vic that presumably had the modular 4.6 liter V-8. Perhaps some of the automakers have just given pushrods a bad name...
OTOH, I've also driven Mercedes with nasty engines as well as a few Toyotas, so it really has to be on a car by car basis.
But GM and Ford - they peed in their own bed for too many years and the stench still lingers in people's noses. :P
I am not uniquely correct, many people, even the big auto manufactures, realize that that is correct. Otherwise why spend the money on advertising and getting their cars to people to examine. If I am wrong why do they spend billions advertising.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How about this: I was raised on GM and used to be a loyalist until I had it with their reliability issues and went Japanese. After a dozen GMs, the three Japanese cars that I've had have been the most reliable and well thought out cars that I've owned. I've been burnt by GM, have something that's better now and have no reason to go back. No amount of marketing by GM or a Japanese competitor has figured into this. It's just my first hand experience.
Your post in 695 has one reasonably decent point. Some consumers don't pay attention to the engine and couldn't tell the difference between OHV and OHC in otherwise identical cars. For these buyers, it's all the other details where GM loses them. I'm the only import buyer in a family of domestic loyalists. The poor execution and lack of attention to detail in some of the other cars in my family jumps out at me.
Drive one with the crappy pushrod 4 cylinder that Chevy used to use and then drive one with the Ecotec motor. You will be able to tell the differance.
Also keep in mind that all 4 cylinder engines and most 6 cylinder engines need balance shafts to run smoothly. V8s do not need balance shafts since they are naturaly balanced. A pushrod V8 is going to be naturaly smoother then any 4 cylinder and smoother then any 90 degree six cylinder. The optimium angle for a 6 cylinder is a 60 degree angle.
A common practice of domestics is to take their inherently smooth and stable push rod 90 degree V8s and cut off two cylinders to make a 90 degree V6. Well a 90 degree V6 is not ideal so you have to add a balance shaft which may or may not work perfectly at all RPMs.
Still it is much cheaper then deveolping a stand alone V6 engine since almost all of the tooling from the V8 engine can be used.
Bank angles explained.
The 4.3 liter V6 from GM is an example of this as it is just a 5.7 liter V8 with two cylinders knocked off. The 3800 series engine from GM is another example although it is a little more refined then the 4.3.
3800 GM V6
Ford also has a 3.8 liter V6 that is based of the 5.0 liter V8.
Price them intelligently.
Receive great reviews from the appropriate magazines. Reviews should contain phrases such as, "...conspicuous quality of materials..." and "...outstanding build quality..."
Dial in the proper ride/handling for the audience that you need to buy your car. In the same review, phrases such as,"...BMW-like handling but with a Lexus-like ride..." Or heck, just "...eerily similar to the ride/handling characteristics of a BMW while costing thousands less!" should be referenced.
Word of mouth will begin to generate.
And now that you've built it, they will come!
See? Now wasn't that simple!
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
Since BMW now has the Rolls, Audi/VW has the Bentley, and Mercedes has the Maybach, perhaps to be THE Standard requires more than having an S/LS/A8/XJ/7 competitor. I think to really be the standard requires that you are way above any competition for a long period of time.
For example, BMW has been the sports sedan standard for a long period, beginning back in the days of the 2002 model. There is now a lot of competition (at the lowend 3-series class), but BMW's 3-series is still the standard. It may not be the best year in and year out, but no one has taken over the position of being the standard bearer that all others are compared to.
While I think Cadillac may have been the standard for the US market at one time, when imports were such a small part of the market that they were not important, I do not think Cadillac was ever the standard in the European market.
Indeed it has, shifty - but not really because Cadillac makes a world class car, it's just a hellova lot better car than they USED to make, and it's good. BUT, it's still very GM to me. The Northstar is now over 10 years old - and isn't a bulletproof engine at all, with cylinder carbonization and head warping an issue. Now, all Cadillacs are about the same size if they're RWD, and you can't tell which one you're looking at unless you get very close and read the alphabet soup on the back. Of course, BMW has a similar problem these days between the 7, which looks kinda small, and the 5 that looks kinda big. When I get into an STS with a V-6, I sure as hell don't say, "Wow"! I say, hmmmmm, lotsa ugly plastic. I like the DTS interior best!!
Yes, they sell pretty well, yes, they sell to younger people, and yes, baby boomers are driving Lexi now, not Cadillacs. But 30 year old Cops, love em.
BMW obviously recognized, and had enough faith in, the inline 6 as an engine with potential for smoothness and power, whereas the Americans have just about abandoned it. In America, 6 cylinders was always associated with "cheap", but of course, in Europe it was just the opposite.
Detroit has always built *great* V8s but have had a hard time building most other types of modern engines. The GM V-6s have been bedeviled with problems from the get-go, and the 4s have been okay but kinda crude.....I guess the Ford V-6 Mustang engine is a pretty good unit. Not sure where that engine came from...home-grown or import?
NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY is emulating Cadillac. Not even Lincoln is trying.
The only make Lincoln seems to be emulating is it's own faltering Mercury sister. Lincoln is so lost it's an embarrassment.
But those are certainly a great set of goals for any car that wishes to become the "standard of the world".
I always used to say that no car could be a true "classic" unless it had "prestige, engineering prowess and beauty".
Well things like prestige and beauty are very subjective but fortunately we can measure reliability and durability over time.
The new V6 in the mustang is from Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COLOGNE (GERMANY) ENGINE;
Started life in the US in 1972 in the Mercury Capri at 2.6L as a pushrod, solid lifter, iron block and heads engine. In 75, it went into the Mustang II at 2.8L, then into the Pinto as an option in 76, same displacement. Found it's way into the
Ranger Pickup and Bronco II in 82 in the 2.8L form, and went into the first Explorer in 91, expanded to a 4.0L displacement, it's current form. About 02 it was converted to OHC from OHV, and has been continually upgraded each year. It has been known for rugged life and reliability with very few issues over its lifetime. Melting or cracking intake manifolds a few years is about all. Now resolved. The engine will go an easy 200,000 miles in any of these forms without a sweat.
It's still made in Cologne, Germany, the only place it has ever been made. It now powers the Mustang quite handily and has generally replaced the Essex engine in anything it used to power. It's life span is limited now, and future uncertain, as the corporate 3.5L V-6 is slated once production can be attained, to replace both the Essex (the only pushrod engine Ford has left) and the Cologne engine, assuming it proves to be as good as it is purported to do.
Rocky
Rocky
Until they do it one better, Cadillac will never be a standard.