GM Exects a bunch of schmucks

Bob I wrote:
>
>
> Speaker of the Truth wrote:
>> I know I've been bad rappin GM here for the better part of last year.
>> So in
>> response to "what is it you think is wrong with GM ?" I'll answer
>> that for
>> starters:
>>
>>
>> 1) They don't make a good 4 cyl. engine.
>
> Only your opinion
>
> http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/I4I5.html
>
>> 2) They make a second class 6 Cyl. engine.
>
> Again your opinion
> http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/I4I5.html
>
>> 3) They don't make a CAR that has a low operating cost/low maintenance
>> for
>> the 1st 100,000 miles.
>
> Humm, how is change the oil and check the air filter is High cost.
>
>> 4) They make almost no 4 valve per cyl. engines.
>
> So, it is better engineering if you don't need as many parts to
> accomplish the objective.
>
>> 5) They're engines still use pushrods !!!!
>>
>
> And they soundly beat the engines that don't use them!!!!
>
> Sounds like you favor complexity for the sheer reason it is more complex!

Sorry Bob, I think you got it wrong. Those
don't qualify as "opinions" (he's not an
expert). The more correct term is, "unfounded
assertion."

In response to pushrods. GM has always
acknowledged that pushrods, are pretty much out
of business beyond 6-grand. (remember back to
the Buick pushrod engines for the Indy cars).

GM is pretty good at making sure that the torque
curve in their pushrod engines gets business
done below the clock reads 5-grand.

Keep in mind that the most powerful (and
efficient) internal combustion engine, in the
world, turns under 200 rpm. (something about
n-squared IIRC)

Throwing darts at pushrods is about like
Consumer Reports wanting every car over $ 25K
have a 5-speed or 6-speed automatic.

I believe the Corvette hood would be about two
inches higher if pushrods were ruled out in the
design process. DOHC is also a sure way to eat
up HP that never makes it to the rear wheels...etc.

If 'Speaker' is talking about GM's 3.8L V-6
engines, I've owned five (two were in commercial
vehicles) plus one 3.3L and a 2.8L. The engine
is most certainly a bag of compromises -- that's
what good engineering is all about. One recall
to reseal an intake (6 hrs at the dealer).
Another recall for the #1 main in a Series I
engine (2 days at the dealer and they gave me a
free loaner). Otherwise, no breakdowns, no
repairs in over 500K miles of damn good gas
economy (on regular), exceptionally low
maintenance cost, good low end torque and
excellent driveability. Low purchase price and
low replacement parts cost figure big with that
engine.

My leased Infiniti had a sophisticated, very
smooth DOHC V-6 engine (that got crappy mileage
on premium). One August it left me high and dry
70 miles East of Palm Springs on a nice, warm day.

Sophistication didn't get me a drink of water;
however, the dealer did put me up in a
sophisticated hotel after the tow back to
civilization.

As T.J. Watson (IBM) used to say, T-H-I-N-K !

--
pj

500K miles on one car?

>> 3) They don't make a CAR that has a low operating cost/low maintenance
>> for
>> the 1st 100,000 miles.
>
> Humm, how is change the oil and check the air filter is High cost.
>
I'll give it to you, scheduled maintenance on GM vehicles is cheaper than
many foreign counterparts. But its unscheduled maintenance you have to
worry about. My GM vehicle required major transmission work (on a non-wear
item) with less than 5 years and 50,000 miles. There's simply no excuse for
certain parts going bad, especially on low mileage vehicles. Repairs
covered on my dime, when all their vehicles out there now have 100,000 mile
warranties. And quite frankly, GM didn't give a damn when I contacted them.
Though they were willing to step in and delay my repairs for a week (without
my request, and while I'm without transportation) while they open an
inquiry. They were ready though with several excuses why GM couldn't do
anything, or that they already had helped me with parts prices. I've been
around dealerships long enough to know the line between the manufacturer,
and the dealership, and I know when I'm being jerked around.
Their attitude toward their products, and customers is the reason they're in
the shape they're in. My father was in upper management for an Olds dealer,
as well as running the service and parts departments for a couple stints in
the 70s and 80s, and according to him, it's the same shoddy customer
treatment now as it was then. On numorous occasions, the dealership was
forced to eat the costs of warranty work because GM denied the claims. And
never bothered to produce legitimate fixes to chronic problems.
In GM's eyes, once you buy their product, the vehicle is your problem, not
theirs. Fine from a legal perspective, they don't own it any longer. But
from a customer satisfaction standpoint....well you can see the results.
Not that this is their only problem. Far from it. But it certainly doesn't
help.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a GM basher. I really like the new
products their introducing, but its a little late. I'll give them credit
for once being a great company, but they rested on their lorals for a bit
too long. I believe their products are exciting, but I'm also a realist.
Honda and Toyota have them beat badly when it comes to reliability and
dependability.



>
>> 5) They're engines still use pushrods !!!!
>>
>
> And they soundly beat the engines that don't use them!!!!
>
> Sounds like you favor complexity for the sheer reason it is more complex!

I wouldn't say using OHC is favoring complexity for complexity's sake. A
pushrod motor has more moving parts (push rods, rocker arms, connecting
rods) than an OHC. The fewer moving parts, the simpler. Which is exactly
why the Z06 is such an engineering marvel, safely pushing a pushrod motor to
7000+ RPM.

On the other side though, OHC is nothing new. Peugeot has been using them
since the early 1900s when they were introduced in their race cars. And I
believe Fiat developed an OHC engine before that.
So it isn't exactly as if GM is/was slow to the OHC game. If that's the
case, many manufacturers were slow to the game. OHC has existed for nearly
100 years. It's simply a matter of preference. Both layouts present their
own advantages and disadvantages.