Which GM division is doing the best?

[skip0110]

Not going to happen unless new legislation is passed or GM starts buying engines from VW. I don't think they even have an engine that will pass current legislation, if only because they don't have an engine.

GM owns a massive amount of diesel intellectual property and design skills in the shape of Isuzu. How do you think the Duramax came about after those lame-o 80s diesels?

 

[Tornado]

But, my point is that they don't currently have an engine that can be used (which mostly hinges on whether or not they want the Duramax sitting in a car and whether they could legally do so); and the constantly changing legislation makes the diesel road rather unnattractive in America. For export markets, hell yeah.
Besides, it was also a joke. A VAG V10 TDI in the Camaro would be awesome.

 

[YSSMAN]

@ Skip: Yeah, you're right on the "Alloytec" thing, I just like using the name these days. Its basically the 2.8L V8 out of the Saab line sans turbochargers...

As for the whole diesel question:

If you peered over Charlie Freese's shoulder toward the horizon Thursday, you just might have seen the future of the American muscle car. Or, at least, the powerful and fuel-efficient diesel engine Cadillac needs if it's ever going to be a major player in Europe.

Freese had just revealed the first tantalizing information about General Motors Corp.'s 360-horsepower V8 turbodiesel, which will debut sometime after 2009 -- probably 2010 or 2011 -- in a full-size pickup. Freese is the automaker's executive director of diesel engineering.

Details are scanty, because GM is waiting to receive patents on some of the engine's technology, but Freese promised it would meet emissions requirements in all 50 states when it goes on sale. That's a significant accomplishment. The United States will have the most stringent limits on diesel emissions in the world in 2010.

Other automakers, primarily German brands with a century-plus history of diesel development, have said they expect to be able to meet the requirements, but they don't know how yet.

GM's figured it out, said Freese, but it's not telling anybody until the ink dries on the last digit of the patents.

Here's what the rest of us know now:

• GM promises the engine will use 25% less fuel than a comparable gasoline V8.

• GM developed the engine to match or beat the world's finest diesels on power, fuel economy, sound and vibration. That makes it what Freese calls a premium diesel, like the ones that power most luxury sedans like the Audi A8, BMW 7-series and Mercedes-Benz S-class in Germany.

• The turbodiesel features high-pressure direct fuel injection, dual overhead cams and four valves per cylinder.

• GM developed it for use in a variety of vehicles, not just big pickups.

• The engine fits in several different families of GM vehicles.

• It may be used in vehicles GM sells around the world.

• It fits in the same engine compartment as GM's wildly successful small-block gasoline V8, which powers everything from the Chevrolet Corvette, Impala SS and Silverado full-size pickup to the Cadillac Escalade luxury SUV and Pontiac GTO muscle coupe.

• It will be smaller than the 6.6L Duramax V8 GM already builds for heavy-duty versions of its big trucks.

• Emissions of particulates and oxides of nitrogen will be at least 90% lower than current diesels. Carbon dioxide emissions will be 13% lower than from a comparable gasoline engine.

"Diesels are critical to GM," Freese told me this week. "Globally, diesels are very much in demand," particularly in Europe, where they account for about 50% of new car sales, and South Korea, where 90% of SUVs roll out of the factory under diesel power. He expects diesel sales to grow in other booming markets, particularly China.

Diesels haven't been much of a player in North America. They're used primarily for tractor-trailers, work-oriented heavy-duty pickups and agricultural and construction equipment.

GM was a leader in diesels once, but it lost that position through inattention and eventually sold its Detroit Diesel unit, now owned by DaimlerChrysler.

GM spent the better part of the last decade making up for those mistakes. It builds more than one million diesels a year today. Its model line stretches from a little 1.3-liter diesel that powers small cars in Europe to the 6.6-liter Duramax V8. GM builds the Duramax in Moraine, Ohio, for use in workhorse trucks like the GMC Topkick and Chevrolet Silverado HD. Moraine built about 200,000 Duramax engines last year.

The engine will debut in a pickup because diesel's combination of power and fuel economy is especially appealing in big, heavy vehicles. Diesel engines cost more than gasoline power plants -- nobody will say exactly how much, but $1,000 to $2,000 is a reasonable estimate -- but owners get a return on their investment much quicker when a diesel is in vehicles with low fuel economy, such as pickups and SUVs.

The new V8 will plug a gap in GM's diesel lineup between the 3.0-liter V6 it sells in European cars like the Opel Vectra and the Silverado HD pickup's stump-pulling 6.6-liter Duramax.

GM's not saying where the new V8 will come from, but you can bet production will be somewhere in North America and it will be used in high-end vehicles.

That's why Freese is so adamant when he calls it a premium diesel.

"We benchmarked it against the finest diesels in the world," including the smooth and powerful ones in top luxury sedans like the Mercedes S-class and Audi A8, he said.

"Our engine needs to be the best," Freese said. "The alternative for North American buyers is a gasoline engine. The owners of the vehicles that will use the engine have never been exposed to a diesel, so the noise and vibration need to approach the levels of gasoline engines."

And that opens the door for diesel muscle cars and Cadillacs.

Without a smooth and powerful diesel for cars like its STS sedan, Cadillac is doomed to remain a marginal player in Europe, brand general manager Jim Taylor told me earlier this week.

And imagine a 2010 Chevrolet Camaro with a 360-horsepower V8 and highway fuel economy over 40 m.p.g. That's my guess on fuel economy, but it's not unreasonable. It would make the nouveau muscle car appealing to many more buyers, and give GM's corporate average fuel economy figures a boost from an unexpected corner.

Freese told me the technologies in the V8 may be used in other engines, and I know GM's Saturn brand is looking for fuel-efficient, low-emissions diesels for some of its upcoming models.

The pickup truck is the start, but keep your eyes on the horizon. There's more coming.

...They are working on more options, as GM realizes the importance of that kind of fuel efficency and power...

The question becomes, will they do it on their own, or will they join the BlueTec camp like all the German automakers?

...My guess is that GM goes out on it's own, maybe joins with Ford...

 

[neanderthal]

honda has thier own diesel emissions sytem figured out. forgot what the article was from (autoweek i think) but detaisl were scant as is the case with any emerging technology. they also went a different way than blue tec/ urea injection.

 

[YSSMAN]

If I recall correctly, Honda will have their diesel models on-sale here in the US post-2008, or shortly thereafter...

 

[///M-Spec]

To answer a few of ///M-specs Questions:

I've had plenty of exprience behind the wheels of more recent Pontiacs and Chevrolets, but not the newest versions of the cars. As noted before, the newest of the W-Bodies I had driven was an '02 Monte Carlo "SS" (200 BHP 3.8L V6, 4T80E Automatic), otherwise an '02 Pontiac Grand Prix SE (same engine) as well. The way I look at the cars is that you can't go in expecting BMW agility or Honda build quality...* The cars are great at "regular" driving, going to Meijer, driving to Chicago, etc. When you push them hard, the age shows through in the twisties. They are fun to drive in that they go like stink, particularly the old Supercharged models that dissapeared for the most part (you can still buy them in the Pontiac Grand Prix GT) a few years ago.

...As for the Epsilon cars, particularly the Malibu and the G6, it is pretty much the same case. If you go in expecting a Camry or Accord, you are going to be dissapointed.* I drove an '04 (or was it an '03?) Malibu LT a while back and I was impressed.

*= emphisis mine

Well, I would go into these cars expecting them to either offer something better than the competition OR the same thing(s) the competition offers, but at a better price. That's what value means to me.

If you can say a car offers 95% of a BMW's ability at 75% of the price (the G35 comes to mind...), then it becomes a good deal.

But you say a car offers 70% of a Honda's build quality and engineering at 70% of a Honda's cost, then it simply becomes a low priced alternative or in other words, cheap.

Not that there's anything wrong with cheap things. There's lots of places in life where cheaping out can be a good thing. But that's not the same thing as getting good value for your money.

The Cobalt SS sounds like good value for your money.. I'm not so sure I can say the same about the G6 or Malibu.

The G6... is this what Pontiac is positioning against the Accord/Camry/Passat these days.. or are they after the Civic/Corolla/Jetta crowd?


M

 

[Tornado]

Unquestionably the best small SUV on the market, still. No point in arguing, though, since your decision is based upon looks.

No, actually, its not. The Equinox is a far more ergonomic vehicle than the VUE, and always has been. It has more space and a better designed interior. The truth is, barring the looks of the old VUE and the Honda engine, the VUE was never as "good" (if you will) as the Equinox. Faster? Yes. Better? No. Though in truth, I haven't heard much to see if anything in the Vue was improved when it was uglified.

 

[TheBigMan045]

It really doesnt matter as they share motor, chassis, body
all GM cars are cool

 

[1X83Z]

No, actually, its not. The Equinox is a far more ergonomic vehicle than the VUE, and always has been. It has more space and a better designed interior. The truth is, barring the looks of the old VUE and the Honda engine, the VUE was never as "good" (if you will) as the Equinox. Faster? Yes. Better? No. Though in truth, I haven't heard much to see if anything in the Vue was improved when it was uglified.

First off, "ergonomic" is not an adjective. You can't be "more ergonomic" or "less ergonomic" than something. The better-designed interior thing is your opinion, and I think it's dead wrong. Having just rented an Equinox two weeks ago, I disagree 100% and would invite you to live with either vehicle for an extended period of time. For example, the Vue has a rear cargo organizer, lacking on the Equinox, which allows for easier small-item storage in the rear. Also, the parking brake on the Equinox gets lost between the center console and the seats, making it extremely easy to forget to release. It's mounted higher in the Vue. Additionally, the window switches in the Equinox are in the center and laid out next to each other, which makes it easy to choose the wrong window. In the Vue, they are on either side of the transmission lever, and in correct position.

Yes - the Equinox has more space - about five more cubic feet in the back, which is absurdly small considering it's seven inches longer than the Vue. Meanwhile, the Honda Pilot is six and a half inches longer than the Vue yet it has 24 more cubic feet in the back. In other words, the Equniox has a Vue-sized interior with a Pilot-sized exterior.

It doesn't matter, since the vehicles are in different classes anyway. The Equniox is longer than a Honda Pilot; it's a midsize SUV. The Vue is only as long as the old Honda CR-V; it's a small SUV. Don't let the fact that the Equinox is trying to use a small SUV engine fool you into believing that it's actually a small SUV. It's merely another reason why it's a crappy midsize SUV.

By the way, if the vehicles were competing, the Vue would win, being cheaper, more powerful, more fuel efficient, better equipped, and only marginally smaller inside.

 

[skip0110]

1) Ergonomic is an adjective.
2) Aren't the Vue and Equinox on the same platform?

 

[1X83Z]

1) Ergonomic is an adjective.

Not according to a dictionary.

2) Aren't the Vue and Equinox on the same platform?

Yes, so I offer you the following question: if the Equinox and Vue sit on the same platform, why is the Vue so far superior? It has almost the same cargo space as the Equinox yet its size is notably more compact, and it has 75 more horsepower than the Equinox, marginally more equipment and better-priced options. And it's more fuel-efficient, and it offers a Hybrid. And it's cheaper.

The Saturn Vue: still untouchable.

 

[skip0110]

Not according to a dictionary.

According to Oxford and Webster, ergonomic is a adjective. Ergonomics is a noun. As in an "ergonomic chair" or the "ergonomics of a chair".

Yes, so I offer you the following question: if the Equinox and Vue sit on the same platform, why is the Vue so far superior? It has almost the same cargo space as the Equinox yet its size is notably more compact, and it has 75 more horsepower than the Equinox, marginally more equipment and better-priced options. And it's more fuel-efficient, and it offers a Hybrid. And it's cheaper.

The Saturn Vue: still untouchable.

I don't disagree, the Vue is better than the Equinox. Just confirming that they were on the same platform.

However, the Vue is at or near the bottom of the pack for small/midsize SUVs. I would say the CX-7 is probably the best, by virtue of being the most car-like.

And the Hybrid has minimal effect on the economy of the vehicle, you are paying for a badge and bragging rights (or possibly the right to use a HOV lane).

 

[Tornado]

First off, "ergonomic" is not an adjective. You can't be "more ergonomic" or "less ergonomic" than something.

O' RLY?

Ergonomic
adj : of or relating to ergonomics

So considering that was your sole argument, aside from the fact that the Vue is uglier, I'm still wondering how the Vue is worse.

Again, O'RLY?

It has more space and a better designed interior

"Better than we're used to" describes the Equinox overall, particularly considering the source from which it has sprung. It's not just a Vue with more room; it's a wholesale improvement.

It's sometimes hard to believe that the same corporation that builds something as mediocre as the Saturn Vue can also turn out a vehicle as well executed as the Equinox.

By the way, if the vehicles were competing, the Vue would win, being cheaper, more powerful, more fuel efficient, better equipped, and only marginally smaller inside.

Except it didn't.

 

[YSSMAN]

A few things about the current discussions:

@ ///M-Spec: It isn't that all of the W-Body or Epsilon cars are disappointing when compared to that of an Accord or a Camry, they just aren't quite THERE yet, if that made any sense. There is still the looming specter of "cheapness," and I think anyone at any GM dealer would say the same thing, but I wouldn't go out and say that they are completely undercutting everyone on every level in value.

If we want to talk percentages, I'd estimate it at about 80% of the car at about 90% of the price. Of course it does get gradually better depending on what model you talk about, the Aura arguably being the best of the Epsilon models, the Impala the best of the W-Body models.

...You do however make an interesting point on where exactly the cars compete. I would consider the Epsilon and W-Body cars both competitors to the Civic/Corolla and Accord/Camry crowd, but I'm not sure on the actual definition of either group. I've seen Malibus and G6s compared to Accords, and I've seen Impalas and Grand Prixs compared to Camrys. It pretty much comes down to how much money you want to spend, what size car you want (the differences are not that great), and if you want an American or European (sorta) driving experience.

---

On the Equinox/VUE issue:

EDIT: Problems addressed by other people

...However, I do think it is important to discuss that both are being replaced very soon. The Saturn VUE will be replaced by the Opel Antara, while it is assumed that the Chevrolet Equinox will be replaced by a crossover based on the GMT960 (Outlook, Acadia, Enclave) platform that will also make the Trailblazer disappear as well.

I was looking at a VUE for a few minutes today while at the Saturn dealer (looking at Auras, searching for Outlook information). By today's standards, the VUE is pretty much outclassed by the Japanese competition. I'd certainly concede that the VUE is arguably one of the best small SUVs made by an American manufacturer, it just isn't on-par with others like the CR-V, RAV4, and CX-7 (The CX-7 easily the best on that list).

 

[1X83Z]

O' RLY?

I mean - are you joking? That site lists the sole adjective definition as "of or relating to ergonomics." For instance, as a qualifier: it is an ergonomically-correct design. Something can't be more ergonomic than something else. Lord.

Again, O'RLY?

I didn't say that. You're 0 for 2, my friend.

Except it didn't.

Um. I've given reasons why I prefer the vehicle. I've spent significant time in both. Motor Trend gave its reasons. It's spent significant time in both. You've essentially not rebutted yet. You've clearly spent time in neither. If you haven't got any constructive things to say, then don't chime in. 0 for 3.

 

[Wolfe]

I mean - are you joking? That site lists the sole adjective definition as "of or relating to ergonomics." For instance, as a qualifier: it is an ergonomically-correct design. Something can't be more ergonomic than something else. Lord.

Okay, I know you'd rather not admit defeat on this small point, but you really should. The more you drag it out, the worse it's going to make you look. Honestly.

"Ergonomics" is the field of "human engineering," or, "an applied science that coordinates the design of devices, systems, and physical working conditions with the capacities and requirements of the worker."

There's nothing black-and-white there. Ergonomics can't be black-and-white, because not everyone has the same body dimensions, and not everyone has the same physical capabilities.

As something that you can sit on, a blocky and flat-sided wooden chair is more ergonomic than a large metal sphere. In turn, a comfy office chair with cushions, arm-rests, a lean-back function, and several adjustable elements is more ergonomic than that squarish wooden chair.

 

[1X83Z]

You know you've got the correct side of the discussion when people aren't focusing on the issue, but rather a grammar point.

The Vue is still the best small SUV. The Equinox is still one of the worst midsize SUVs, and was upon release.

 

[neanderthal]

my 1990 300E is more ergonomic than my 1976 BMW 2002.

regardless of your body size.

 

[Wolfe]

You know you've got the correct side of the discussion when people aren't focusing on the issue, but rather a grammar point.

You know someone's wrong on a grammar point when they change/ignore the subject.

Anyway, YSSMAN, skip0110, Toronado focused on the cars in their last posts, so if you're referring to me, then keep in mind that I don't like the VUE or the Equinox, and I couldn't care less about how good they are because I'd just as easily forget that they even exist.

 

[Tornado]

You know you've got the correct side of the discussion when people aren't focusing on the issue, but rather a grammar point.

You are the one who brought it into the discussion that I used the word inccorectly (which I didn't).
I'll go over it with you:

Suggestions for computer workstation ergonomics.

That is using the noun ergonomics.

Setting up your office using ergonomic considerations is important to protect your health.

That is using the adjective ergonomic.

The fact that you continue to raise the issue despite being proven wrong accentuates your stubbornness more than your point on the Vue/Equinox. 0 for 1

I didn't say that. You're 0 for 2, my friend.

Actually, you did. I remember exactly where it was as well, and I know you said it because to get that I clicked on the quote button. You editted it out of your post whilst I was posting. Lying doesn't really make you look good, does it? 0 for 2.

Um. I've given reasons why I prefer the vehicle. I've spent significant time in both. Motor Trend gave its reasons. It's spent significant time in both. You've essentially not rebutted yet. You've clearly spent time in neither. If you haven't got any constructive things to say, then don't chime in. 0 for 3.

Doesn't matter. The criteria that was chosen was that if they competed, the Vue would win. They competed. The Vue didn't win. If you don't know the criteria I was responding to, don't chime in. 0 for 3.

 

[1X83Z]

Actually, you did. I remember exactly where it was as well, and I know you said it because to get that I clicked on the quote button. You editted it out of your post whilst I was posting. Lying doesn't really make you look good, does it? 0 for 2.

This is just comical. I edited it because I realized it was wrong, so I changed it to a correct statement, which you won't rebut to because ... it's completely accurate, and proves my point. Then you quoted something I had changed fifteen minutes earlier! If you want to argue about something, go up to what I actually said and rebut to that. You're six posts into this discussion and you haven't yet made an argument for your "point!"

Doesn't matter. The criteria that was chosen was that if they competed, the Vue would win. They competed. The Vue didn't win. If you don't know the criteria I was responding to, don't chime in. 0 for 3.

I don't understand. Like I said in a post to Skip: "It has almost the same cargo space as the Equinox yet its size is notably more compact, and it has 75 more horsepower than the Equinox, marginally more equipment and better-priced options. And it's more fuel-efficient, and it offers a Hybrid. And it's cheaper." So how the hell is the Equinox better? Because Motor Trend says so? Come on. Who the hell is this guy?

 

[Tornado]

This is just comical. I edited it because I realized it was wrong, so I changed it to a correct statement, which you won't rebut to because ... it's completely accurate, and proves my point. Then you quoted something I had changed fifteen minutes earlier!

And you said that I was lying by attributing a post to you that you didn't say.

You editted it out of your post whilst I was posting.

If you want to argue about something, go up to what I actually said and rebut to that. You're six posts into this discussion and you haven't yet made an argument for your "point!"

Also, the parking brake on the Equinox gets lost between the center console and the seats, making it extremely easy to forget to release

Which seems especially odd, because it is essentially located in the same place in relation to distance from the drivers seat in both cars, well forward both seats.

Edit: These are pre-2007 examples, but the shift knob is in the same place in the redone version, as are the window buttons, so I will leave them in anyways.

Additionally, the window switches in the Equinox are in the center and laid out next to each other, which makes it easy to choose the wrong window.

With no disrespect intended, that sounds like a personal problem to me, because I'm sure I wouldn't have any trouble discerning what window was which; though I will admit that the Vue's are technically easier to determine which is which, however this is at the expense of ease of reaching it when the car is in gear.

Yes - the Equinox has more space - about five more cubic feet in the back, which is absurdly small considering it's seven inches longer than the Vue. Meanwhile, the Honda Pilot is six and a half inches longer than the Vue yet it has 24 more cubic feet in the back. In other words, the Equniox has a Vue-sized interior with a Pilot-sized exterior.

Yeah, and the Pilot is also 6 inches wider, nearly 2 inches taller and has a 6 inch shorter wheelbase which saves room in the back at the expense of eating into the rear seats. The Equinox also has far more rear seat room than the Vue.

For example, the Vue has a rear cargo organizer, lacking on the Equinox, which allows for easier small-item storage in the rear.

And the Equinox has the cubbys above the rear tires which nearly balances that out (I will admit it doesn't completely do so), and the large shelf for storage which the Vue doesn't have.

 

[skip0110]

Both of those interior pictures are of older interiors.

The Vue and the Equinox have had their interiors overhauled for 2007.

 

[Tornado]

Upon looking at the new pictures at the Saturn and Chevy websites, I will admit that Saturn has fixed one of my bigger problems with the Vue: The poor center console layout.

 

[TopHat]

This is a pointless argument, we all know that the Tahoe owns them all

END OF DISCUSSION!

 

[Tornado]

This is a pointless argument, we all know that the Tahoe owns them all

END OF DISCUSSION!

2 Door GMT400 Blazer>Tahoe

 

[TopHat]

Matt goes in for ending the argument... AND HE SCORES!!!!

But really the New Tahoe is such an improvement over the last one, its SCAREY

 

[skip0110]

I'm still waiting to see what diesels they put in the GMT900....

The Duramax is so much better than 6.2/6.5 Diesels, but still not up to par with the Cummins.

 

[Tornado]

Matt goes in for ending the argument... AND HE SCORES!!!!

Doug isn't back yet.

But really the New Tahoe is such an improvement over the last one, its SCAREY

That is true. But I want a two-door.

I'm still waiting to see what diesels they put in the GMT900....

As am I. I'm quite surprised that GM hasn't announced it yet with the cars being on the market for a little while already.

 

[YSSMAN]

The new Tahoe is a vast improvement over the past model and it has really surprised me how little credit GM has gotten for making a truck that almost seems like a completely different animal. Okay, so they didn't go with an IRS, but they did that to keep prices low and functionality high. There have also been questions over the lack of chrome on the truck, particularly from my family (for some reason there just has to be chrome...). But alas, they are awesome.

My biggest problem has been that GM has been pumping them out at a good clip, but they seem to forget that not everyone wants $50K LTZ models with every option box checked. That is indeed why my Grandfather has chosen not to replace his current LT before heading down to Florida for the winter, and it is also part of the reason why the Step Mom (she is still pretty stupid) bought an Envoy instead of a Tahoe.

...Either way, the Tahoe (and Yukon) is arguably the best full-size SUV available from any American manufacturer, and although it is lacking in some areas against the foreign competition, you can't get around the fact that it is indeed a truck, and will work like one when you need it. Here in Michigan, that is a HUGE plus.

However, the GMT960 platform trucks (those being the Saturn Outlook, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave, Chevy version to debut in Detroit) are going to be worthy replacements to the far-too-old GMT360 trucks (Trailblazer, Envoy, etc). They are not only on-par with the Pilot and Highlander, they blow them out of the water with better pricing, similar build quality, better packaging, more power, better fuel economy, and arguably better looks.

As far as diesel power goes, it is in the works. Everyone I've talked to at Berger and Todd Wenzel have said that they aren't going to get any until 2009, or that is what GM is telling them. Diesel power will start in the trucks and make its way down to the cars, and chances are, most of the diesel cars will be sold through Saturn and Chevrolet.

Chances are the new diesel V8 that the Free Press was talking about will be the standard fare in the trucks, good for 360 BHP and probably well over 400 ft/lbs of torque. Fuel economy will be the big-seller, and if the people in state and federal governments will pull their heads out of their asses and push forward development of bio-diesel here in the US, cheap and efficient fuels aren't far off...

Plus we can finally get away from those stupid hybrid cars that everyone seems to think are "so great."