Author Topic: 2006: The year GM loses top spot.  (Read 2953 times)

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #120 on: February 23, 2006, 04:36:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Numbers are not the best indicator of age.  Trust me.  I know a lot of people younger than me who are older than me. :)



Ahh true, I have been acused of never maturing past 15 so I am pretty safe I think. ;)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #121 on: February 24, 2006, 09:07:00 AM »
Guess I got to ask.... are we talking about cars here or transportation?

I mean... why would anyone own a front wheel drive car?  

lazs

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #122 on: February 24, 2006, 09:22:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Ahh true, I have been acused of never maturing past 15 so I am pretty safe I think. ;)
They must have been talking about IQ. :rofl



Lazs - agreed. AWD is best. :D

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #123 on: February 24, 2006, 12:57:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2


I mean... why would anyone own a front wheel drive car?  

lazs


Easy to handle in the snow... especially if it has ABS.

You've been on the road. Most people aren't all that good at driving.
sand

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #124 on: February 24, 2006, 01:43:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
best features?   look at a new vette... look at the suspension and drive train... we are talking a 525 hp car that gets 26 mpg and will do 200 mph and pull a g on the skidpad... and.... cost 65k.... name anything like it from anyone else..


Vette's a nice car, no doubt.  I put it more in the category of Hot Rod though.  People build 500+ small blocks all the time.  But taking that as an example...why not OHC/4 valve?  Why not VVT?  Yeah, it's kind of cool to do a 7K rpm pushrod block...but doesn't seem like there's any need when there are better alternatives.

Look at it this way, from a DIY perspective. We already know the benefits that this "new" technology has for 4-bangers.  Imagine applying it to a big block.  Imagine a big block that develops power to 7K RPM (without blowing up), and still has a 1K idle.  But we can't have it, cause US blocks are stuck on rockers.

Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... we do have OHC engines by the millions... in 4, 6 and 8 cyl versions.


Why are there *any* pushrod engines left in the lineup?  Everything from econoboxes to SUVs should have been upgraded by now.  Why the slack?

Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
Our computer and fuel injection systems are inovative.


Quite the opposite IMO.  We had carbs when everyone had EFI, we had TBI when everyone else was sequential.  We are (or were) behind the curve there, I think.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Easy to handle in the snow... especially if it has ABS.


Yup.  You can floor it, whatever, and no ill effects on ice.  Other than that, if you aren't interested in the extreme edges of handling (I'm not talking about people who take sweepers at 147 :) ) then awd rwd fwd it makes little difference.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #125 on: February 24, 2006, 02:28:59 PM »
phoo... you are missing the point.  We have ohc V8's the reason that vette (and others) use the pushrod (and extremely inovative all alluminum) v8 is space... have you looked at even a tiny little 4.6 liter ohc v8?   The pushrod v8 is lighter and stronger and more durable and smaller in all dimensions while still giveing a 427" motor... please tell me how GM would have improved this package with an ohc engine?

ABS will do nothing for you for traction... you are probly talking about traction control which was pretty much invented an d perfected by American car companies.


We have some of the best computer controls in the world... they are also very versitile and flexible and can be programed with aftermarket chips... As for the vette being a "hot rod".... maybe but.... it gets 26 mpg... it has air and killer stereo and leather seats and every luxury item known to man and will go 200 mph and do 0-60 in a little over 4 sec.... all with the air and stereo on... all for 65k.... name anything by any manufacturer that even aproches that level of refinement for twice the price...  You can add an aftermarket supercharger with a factory warranty and add another 150hp if you want for a couple grand....  try that with your exotic or non exotic your-0-peean euro trash cars.

front wheel drive.... those aren't even cars in my book..

I really do normally try to stay out of arguements about cars with people who don't care about cars except as pods for moving people.

oh... and one of the best 4 bangers for power to weight and power to size was the olds quad 4... nobody wanted it.

lazs
« Last Edit: February 24, 2006, 02:31:27 PM by lazs2 »

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #126 on: February 24, 2006, 02:31:14 PM »
This was posted over at AGW, and I thought it was apropos.

"23 February 2006
By Robert Farago

A couple of days ago, I was talking to an auto industry analyst about the world’s largest automaker. We were discussing the cracks in GM’s hull, trying to figure out which of The General's compartments were already breached, which are filling with water and which remain viable. A wistful tone in the analyst’s voice indicated head-shaking dismay. “I’m no longer hearing anything positive about GM,” he revealed. “The conversations range from how bad it is, to how bad it’s going to get.” I didn’t want to sound like a paranoid fantasist to a new source, so I tried not to out-pessimist the doomsayers. But it wasn’t easy.

GM’s supply situation is dangerously dire. If former subsidiary and mission critical parts supplier Delphi doesn’t reach an agreement with its unionized workers by March 30th -- the third and “final” deadline -- a judge will void the company’s labor contracts. Pundits poo-poo the possibility; they reckon the UAW will make concessions and GM will fork over the necessary union blood money to keep Delphi chugging along. But… over at Tower Automotive, the smaller but equally bankrupt GM supplier tried to cut $1.50 to $3 from their union members’ $13 to $15 hourly wages. The United Auto Workers (UAW), United Steel Workers and International Union of Electrical Workers (IUEW) said no. On Monday, a judge will void Tower’s union contracts. The inevitable strike will deprive GM’s Hail Mary GMT900 SUV’s of vital suspension components (amongst other things).

This ominous development reflects the indisputable fact that the UAW and its brother unions are not prepared to surrender a single dime in their salaries, pensions or health care benefits. Not one. Not ever. (I doubt UAW Boss Big Ron Gettelfinger has ever said the word "concession" in public.) What's more, the unions are literally spoiling for a fight. To wit: members of IUEW will vote today to authorize its leaders to strike Delphi as and when. That’s 33,000 Delphi workers ready, willing and able to walk at a moment’s notice. It's not posturing; it’s preparation.

The unions own GM. If organized labor strikes even one key supplier, they'll be giving The General a 90-day death sentence. While some analysts believe that's no bad thing-- the situation forces the unions to accept responsibility for the fate of the company paying its wages, leading them to take the hit needed to keep those wages coming-- nothing could be further from the truth. The UAW and its fellow unions are like a cancer: they will feast on their host until it dies. End of story. Why would they walk out on Delphi and send GM into Chapter 11? Because they can. Look at the Rust Belt. How avoidable was that? By the same token, General Motors gives in to union demands when it can’t afford to because that’s what they do.

GM didn't rush in, bail out Tower and protect its new SUV's because the supplier is only the tip of an iceberg that’s gouging a hole in the General’s hull. GM’s constant efforts to low-ball its suppliers, its poor credit (downgraded by Moody’s on Tuesday to B1, five rungs below investment grade) and the looming prospect of bankruptcy are all inflicting fatal wounds to its supply chain. Suppliers are caught in the squeeze between rising commodity costs, declining production (due to lost market share) and contracts that reduce pricing over time. TTAC’s Deep Throat reports that an inferior part for the GMT-900 recently forced GM to return to a “quality supplier.” The supplier refused to invest its own money to create the part and demanded a contract stipulating that the automaker would pay a true market rate for the finished component.

This is not an isolated case. GM used to provide suppliers an advanced payment program arranged by GE Credit. Late last year, GE bailed on the entire business, in favor of GMAC (yes, the same GM-owned finance company currently on the block). If that wasn't a bad sign of GM's financial situation in and of itself, GMAC then tightened the restrictions. The payment program is no longer available to the broad spectrum of GM suppliers. Bottom line: GM's current procurement process fails to assure parts manufacturers adequate financial compensation, doesn’t provide protection against program termination due to budgetary constraints or model “realignment”, and can’t possibly guarantee payment if GM files for Chapter 11.

It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that at some point, one way or another, GM’s entire supply chain will collapse. How’s that for dark? You want light? How about this: I’ve received dozens of emails from frustrated workers, designers and administrators inside GM. No question: there’s an enormous amount of creativity and passion locked-up inside General Motors. Once The General shakes off its union, deep-sixes its insufferable bureaucracy, dumps unnecessary brands and gets down to the business of building a limited number of great cars, it will build a limited number of great cars. When it comes to GM, the parts are greater than the whole."

http://thetruthaboutcars.com/content/11407149391580627324/index.php

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #127 on: February 24, 2006, 04:44:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
Vette's a nice car, no doubt.  I put it more in the category of Hot Rod though.  People build 500+ small blocks all the time.  But taking that as an example...why not OHC/4 valve?  Why not VVT?  Yeah, it's kind of cool to do a 7K rpm pushrod block...but doesn't seem like there's any need when there are better alternatives.

Look at it this way, from a DIY perspective. We already know the benefits that this "new" technology has for 4-bangers.  Imagine applying it to a big block.  Imagine a big block that develops power to 7K RPM (without blowing up), and still has a 1K idle.  But we can't have it, cause US blocks are stuck on rockers.



Why are there *any* pushrod engines left in the lineup?  Everything from econoboxes to SUVs should have been upgraded by now.  Why the slack?



Quite the opposite IMO.  We had carbs when everyone had EFI, we had TBI when everyone else was sequential.  We are (or were) behind the curve there, I think.



Yup.  You can floor it, whatever, and no ill effects on ice.  Other than that, if you aren't interested in the extreme edges of handling (I'm not talking about people who take sweepers at 147 :) ) then awd rwd fwd it makes little difference.



You do know GM had a very good OHC inline 6 in the 60s, called the sprint 6(Pontiac put it in firebirds)that was inovative as hell, but no one wanted it because it was pricey and why bother when you could get a nice 326 V8 instead?

You do know that chevy was fuel injecting cars in the 50s?


You do know most of the "inovations" you claim had been done as far back as ww2 on aircraft engines.




GM keeps the pushrod V8s because they do the job for less money and just as good as a complicated OHC v8 would.



They key is there was no need.  There is now with gas prices going up so they may change the engine lineup. but 5 years ago I would take a pushrod v8 in a car over an overly complicated OHC V8 any day.


You ever hear the term: keep it simple Stupid?

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #128 on: February 24, 2006, 04:59:12 PM »
Interesting read Thrawn.


Why can't GM just fire the unions and hire non union labor?


I bet what happends is they go chapter 11, fire the unions close all the UAW plants,  make new plants in mexico, kill a few davisons that have needed killing for years(GMC, Pontiac, and Buick), and then do ok from there.

Or they get bought out and the above happends under the rains of another company.

Offline vorticon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7935
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #129 on: February 24, 2006, 05:17:46 PM »
question:

is it possible to find a 25+ year old japanese import with less rust than a 56 chev thats been sitting in some farmers feild for god knows how long?

and will that still apply in 10 years?

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #130 on: February 24, 2006, 06:26:20 PM »
"the UAW and its brother unions are not prepared to surrender a single dime in their salaries, pensions or health care benefits. Not one. Not ever. (I doubt UAW Boss Big Ron Gettelfinger has ever said the word "concession" in public.) What's more, the unions are literally spoiling for a fight."


Well why would they?  Why should they?  

"Judge approves bonus plans for Delphi execs - Six-month incentive plan awards up to $21 million"

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/AUTO01/602110310/1148


Same crap occured with Enron, Tyco and Worldcom (recent big profile examples)  employees got skrewwed over royally while the executives made out VERY well before, during and after bankruptcy too.   After all is said and done employees lose thier jobs, watch thier retirement flat line, lose out on wel deserved promotions and merit increases - all that is except the execs.
BIG bonuses for being incompetent or a thief?  Who are you anti-union types
kidding?

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #131 on: February 24, 2006, 06:51:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2


ABS will do nothing for you for traction... you are probly talking about traction control which was pretty much invented an d perfected by American car companies.

I really do normally try to stay out of arguements about cars with people who don't care about cars except as pods for moving people.

lazs


Not talking about traction. I'm talking about stopping... especially in ice and snow.

For most people cars are just that... people movers. It's not a lifestyle or a hobby or a sport. It's simply a means of travel.

My wife's car is a front wheel drive Dodge with ABS... it keeps her (and drivers like her out of trouble).

It's a good thing. Most drivers aren't nearly as proficient as they might think. Especially in areas like here at home where we get about five inches of precipitation per year. Most people here seem to lose their minds if is snows.
sand

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #132 on: February 24, 2006, 06:52:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by vorticon
question:

is it possible to find a 25+ year old japanese import with less rust than a 56 chev thats been sitting in some farmers feild for god knows how long?

and will that still apply in 10 years?


Depends on where you live. Cars around here don't rust much at all.
sand

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #133 on: February 25, 2006, 01:04:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You do know most of the "inovations" you claim had been done as far back as ww2 on aircraft engines.


I know.  Which makes it all the more puzzling.

Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
GM keeps the pushrod V8s because they do the job for less money and just as good as a complicated OHC v8 would.


Nonsense.  They did it with the Caddys, and they did it with the ZR1/2.  Because it's better.  So yes, you can fit a 32V motor in a Vette.  It does help the powerband, it does help RPM and drivability.  And as far as expense...if the imports can do it in econoboxes, why not the US?  Is there something good about staying in the stone age?  Not if the sales figures are any reflection.

Not saying the Vette is a bad car, cause it isn't.  But look at the rest of the lineup.  Barf.

Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They key is there was no need.  There is now with gas prices going up so they may change the engine lineup.


And the result of that negligence (among other things like fit and finish) is that US cars are in the tank today.  Maybe if they had done these things *before*...it wouldn't be so bad.

Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You ever hear the term: keep it simple Stupid?


That doesn't seem to have helped the reliability records of US cars.

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #134 on: February 25, 2006, 06:43:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know about the cars, but the Toyota trucks last forever. Quite common to see them with 250,000 miles or more on em.


 One of my trucks is a 1983 RN6 4x4 Toyota.
The box is going to hell but the mechanical and cab are great.
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead