Since I have already had my say and my opinions on GM and its decline...several times.......I will not add anything here myself but felt this was an interesting article on the subject.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100180.html

 

That was a great write up. The analysis was pretty dead on.

 

The article was pretty good, but offered little in how GM could improve itself. That is the reason I posted in another similiar topic that we could write or email GM and tell them what kind of cars we want and what to look at for reference since they do not seem to know what Americans and the world wants in an automobile. Give them examples like E46 3 series and M3, older 5 series, M5, G35 coupes, M45, GS430, new IS350, Audi TT, Audi A8, S4, SL Mercedes, SLK, (last Supra, 300zx, RX-7), Acura NSX, TL, RL, TSX, Toureg, Porsche 911, Ferrari F430, Honda Accord Coupe, EVOs, STI, Skylines, Lotus Elise, RX-8, Bently Continental GT, Aston Martins, Maybach, RSX, etc to model designs, interiors, or performance after and not give us semi good interpretations. Get rid of those outdated rough pushrod engines and start being pioneers of engine and transmission technology. Get new designers for interior/exterior.

GM designs and final product should be superior to Japanese and European products in every sence. They may loose some money on this but they will create buzz and people will start respecting their cars. They can use the experience to filter down to less expensive cars. Stop giving excuses why you used cheap materials or didn't give the car the most horsepower. I remember when the Caddy CTS came out and Bob Lutz said it probrably would not be sold in Europe because it was not up to par with fit and finish and interior quality of materials and design to European taste. How could you say that and let your product be released when you know it is flawed and subpar. That is like him saying only Americans who don't really expect high quality in their vehicle will appreciate this car, no wonder nobody wants to buy your cars with that attitude. The GTO could have been a huge hit but they took the cheap route and kept the conservative styling from the Holden and made it even more conservative and lackluster. Now the car just sits on the lots because they didn't spend the money to give it a unique appealing shape. GM does not need to change a little but totally change the way they design and build their cars. If not it will mean tens of thousands of hard working Americans will be out of jobs while upper management and bean counters enjoy their millions that they saved from building subpar cars. Come on the U.S. used to lead the auto industry and many people who buy imports would like to buy American and support our autoworkers. Give us the cars we want to buy and own before it is too late.

 

I'm not taking sides here, but GM's own explanation for using pushrod engines (besides the obvious low cost of production) is the inherent low-RPM torque of a pushrod design....a characteristic that many American buyers want, or so GM still thinks.

As for the GTO, yes, I hear a lot of complaints about the so-called "rental-car" styling, and again I'm not going to take sides on this but I will point out that the original car from the 60's was also a "boring" design....essentially just a plain-Jane Pontiac Tempest / LeMans with hood scoops.....and it was a huge success. In fact, whan the first really flamboyant GTO......the "Judge " model........ came out in 1969-70 with the bright orange paint and the tri-color side flame stripes, it didn't sell particularly well at all. I remember that car well...I grew up with muscle cars in the late 60's.

 

GM's problems are not new. In my opinion, they go back as far as the 1960's. They have gotten by with selling inferior products since then. Why? Consumer inertia, perhaps. GM developed and marketed some great vehicles during the 1950's and developed a reputation for quality.

I remember well buying Chevrolets during the 1960's and wondering why GM continued to sell them with the two-speed Powerglide transmissions while Ford and Chrysler were installing three speeds. But I continued to buy them because I was a Chevrolet person. I believe they first started using the three-speed Hydramatic in the late 1960's, at least ten years after Ford and Chrysler upgraded.

Later, as other manufacturers started offering port fuel injection, GM again took the cheap route. They stayed with carburetors until emission laws forced them to upgrade and then got by for a time with throttle body fuel injection.

They were able to get by with this for so many years because of the lack of competition. In the 1970's when Toyota, Nissan, and Honda first landed on our shores, they didn't really compete with GM's large cars and in the truck market. In the years since then, that situation has changed, and now GM is fighting for its very survival.

However, even in a fight for survival, the cheapness continues. Note how many of the new GM models are still being sold with 4-speed automatics. How much would it cost to upgrade to a 5-speed? It seems to me that their decision-making process is heavily weighted toward cost savings when they should be trying to strike a balance between cost and quality. It seems to be "bean counters" versus engineers - and the bean counters always win.

 

Why get rid of the purshrod engines theyre downright awesome engines to begin with!

It seems some people get the misconception that just because its a large displacement design it means its a physically larger and bulkier engine! When off course its not true. In fact I suspect that my 2jz-ge in my car is about as heavy if not heavier then a LS2 found in the corvette. I dont understand why thered be an objection to pushrod design, twin cam powerplants would indeed offer more power then a similar displacement pushrod engine. But guess what? That twin cam design is also much bulkier and heavier then the pushrod plant! So if theortically speaking a 6 liter engine has the same size and dimensions as a 4.2 liter dohc engine and develops slightly more power eh Id say rock on!

Power is power, whether multivalve is your weapon of choice or raw displacement is your choice, both have their pros and cons, but when I see a pushrod Large displacement V8 pump out 400-505 hp and still get the fuel mileage that many 4 multivalve V8s could only dream about, while still keeping similar physical dimensions and weight, I dont see any problems with a manufacturer deciding to stick to pushrod V8s.

Now interior quality, and 5+ speed transmissions now that I can agree with the rest of you.

 

The 3-speed Turbo-Hydra-matic was offered on larger Chevies like the Caprice and Impala in the mid-60's. The 2-Speed Powerglide.....which I agree did more gliding than powering.....was reserved for cheaper Chevies...and other GM divisions. it was also offered on Buick Skylark and Olds Cutlass in the early-mid-60's. But GM also had some real winner transmissions, too. The Buick 3-speed Super Turbine Drive, used on the mid-60's Electra 225 and some other large Buicks, was just marvelous. It was pure fluid drive......almost no direct mechanical action. It was reserved for Buick...no other division used it, although unfortunately Buick later in the 60's converted to the standard GM Turbo-Hydra-matic. Its smoothness was unbelievable...more so than the Cadillacs. Great care was ensured in its design in an attempt to get maximum smoothness. To this day......and I am not exaggerating........I have never seen its equal for smooth, quiet operation....even in the Lexus LS430. Of course the LS430's overall quality trounces any mid-60's Buick though.

I'm with you on fuel injection....and that was not just a GM issue. The entire industry SHOULD have converted to fuel injection in the 1970's....even wihout advanced electronic controls yet...... instead of the late 1980's....although some cars, primarily European manufacturers and even some GM products like Cadillac converted earlier. Carburators simply could not handle the drivability requirements with emission controls. Choke settings were deliberately made too lean in an attempt to meet EPA emission requiremants....and sometimes the butterfly valve would go too far the other way and stick closed, shutting off the air. New-car buyers had to put up with and hesitating, stalling, and carburator icing for WAY too long after carburators should have been dumped.

 

Problem with your list of posts is that none of those cars are very big hits at all...
GM needs a Camry or Accord
GM needs a Mustang
GM needs a design team

 

How is a DOHC motor HEAVIER than a pushrod? You just compared the 2jz (an IRON BLOCK MOTOR) vs the LS2 which is aluminum... how is that fair at all?
a better comparison would have been vs the LT1, which is MUCH heavier than the 2jz

Bigger-power pushrod motors do not get good city gas mileage... the way the vette and fbodies did ok was with the 6-speed in 6th gear at 60mph... then they get high 20s...
there's a reason there's a thing called CAGS on the Getrag 6-speed in those vehicles... its because the gas mileage sucked so bad...
Where as big-power DOHC motors when done right can... variable cam and valve timing, etc...
the current NSX with a 3.2L V6 makes 290hp? and still gets great gas mileage

let's compare a few engines here
LT1 vs VQ35 or the NSX motor, or one of Toyota's new V6s...
hell take the LS1 and compare it if you want...

pushrods are great because they are CHEAP, EASY TO WORK ON, COMPACT, and CHEAP... thats the end of the dicussion right there...
in every single other aspect they absolutely pale in comparison (and yes I'm talking about power anywhere in the rpm range, if you put the right cam setup in a OHC motor, you'll make just as much if not MORE torque than a pushrod)

 

Look at the phyisical size of the engine, All I am saying is that there is no reason to knock a great engine just because its a pushrod. Everything else being equal same block etc etc etc, the dohc engine is always going to be larger more cumbersome heavier, simply because their heads would be that much bigger.

If GM can make great performing engines that are big displacement but still relatively light and compact (compared to like alternatives.) More power to them! Many ways to get a fast car multivalve setup is one way big displacement is another.

True if both are same displacement the multivalve version would just trounce the pushrod version when it comes to power. But that argument goes out the window if a Larger displacement pushrod can match the physical dimensions if not supersede its smaller multivalve counter part right, while make the same power if not more?

Different ways of making power, i would not deem one superior over the other.

 

I have the ultimate answer to save GM. Stop using pushrods and continue to make round the clock refinement to their nonpushrod motors. Why?

- Pushrods are crude, shakey and sounds like a truck. This gives people(especialy import buyers) the perception that everything else is poorly built. People don'twant their cars to sound like trucks. Once you go import, you rarely rarely comeback.

- All that crude shake makes vehicle age very fast as they loosen body panels and cause other structural parts to rub against each other.

- Crude shakes also make vehicle less reliable, never know when parts are going to become detach prematurely. Happens to my dodge truck all the time.

- Crude shake also waste power since alot of it went towards vibrating car. Domestic fans love these shakes, they call it having charactors, but I don't believe that for a second as an NSX or Integra Type-R,M3, all Ferrari, Porsche has proved otherwise.

- They say Pushrods are cheaper to make and takes up less space. That maybe so, but todays vehicles are so dam big that there's plenty of space under the hood that a pushrods advantage is not an issue. It is the crudeness of pushrods charactors that prevents them from commanding a premium price, especially when a more powerful yet ultra smooth and refine DOHC is available for only a grand or two more from Honda and Toyota.

It is this crudeness that makes me want to drop in a Lexus or Infiniti V8 into a camaro.
If GM takes care of refinement, the mags will be singing endless praises.

 

The pushrod is inferior in just about every aspect compared to an overhead cam engine. The only reason GM uses pushrod engines because they are cheap and easy to build. The corvette engine makes decent horsepower but it is 6 liters. The 5.7 in the last vette made 350 which is nice but Infiniti uses a 4.5 to get 340hp, BMW uses 4.5 to get 325 and I believe a 4.6 to get 360. Hell Porshe uses a 3.8 flat6 to get 350hp and 400 for the new GT3. All these engines are known for smooth power delivery from the entire rev range where the LS series are rougher and course. GM even admitted the engine would be smoother and make substantally more horsepower if it used an over head cam setup. Another reason Corvettes get good gas mileage is that they are extremely light. Lighter then most 4 and 6 cylinder family sedans.

The main pushrod they need to drop is the 3800 v-6 they put in just about everything. That motor is horrible and so below the competition in horsepower, smoothness, and reliability. Every one I have driven gives the same cheap underwhelming feeling. The Grand Prix I used to drive lost most of its power at the top of the rev range, was loud with an ugly exhust note, and the engine was rough and puttered. This 3.8 liter usaully in normally aspirated mode makes 200-205hp where most 3 liter over head cam engines make 240 plus. Even supercharged 3800 supercharged versions usaully put out 240hp with one at 280hp. That engine really needs to go and I have never really heard anything good about it yet GM keeps putting it in their 6 cylinder vehicles because they know it saves a bunch of money.

Some of those cars I listed are not huge hits but they are exceptionally highly regarded and what many people would like to see qualities filter into less expensive cars. If GM came out with cars that had interiors as nice as Audi, older-BMW, Acura, and Lexus and performed like M3, 911, M45 they would start to get tons of respect and interest. GM does not need a mustang, they had the Camaro which in later years tarnished their image more with the horrible build quality. Mustangs are known to be poorly built cars using cheap materials with decent performance from a inexspensive v-8 model, not the image GM needs right now.