Thank you for admitting technology found even in German WWII fighter planes could have been in production in 1975 GM cars. So why was technology stifled until fuel injection (and other innovations) appeared in 1992 in competition products? Some are so in denial as to now try to obfuscate this discussion. They would fill the air with nitrogen oxide pollution - and even claim that catalytic converters were for NOx reduction. Even the original catalytic converter was only for the burning of hydrocarbons - because the engine did not. Nonsense. No. Outright lie. Someone has been listening too much to GM propaganda rather than learning reality. If GM propaganda was so accurate, then why is GM losing so much money – and now even attacking the LA Times for only publishing the obvious facts?

Daimler products cost less to manufacture than a comparable GM car - in part because so many Americans keep buying those inferior GM products. So many Americans so hate America as to not let GM engineers use technologies both developed and stifled in America. They buy the crap. That vote says “Keep making crap”.

Chrysler was the perfect takeover for Mercedes. They could still sell the Benz with large profit markups, and then sell the same car in much greater numbers as a Chrysler. Massive profits from the rich and large profits from the masses by selling the same platform. The Chrysler 300 is but one example of a Mercedes sold under the Chrysler name. Expect more Mercedes sold at Chevy prices under a different brand name because Daimler products cost less to build than pathetic and boring GM products. And BTW, even the BBC tonight discusses those boring GM products. BBC specifically used the word “boring”.

In the meantime, what do some Americans do? They continue to buy the crap GM products. A patriot believes in the free market - buy the best. But some Americans only make the American economy worse. They pay more for the crappy GM product. So crappy that it cannot even be exported.

Correctly noted is that GM has never made all its content. Therefore the average salary of a GM production worker (GM employee and their suppliers) was somewhere around $30K. Japanese labor cost more. And still the Japanese car costs less to build. Why? Numbers were provided previously. A superior product takes less man-hours. Just another reason why a GM car - using less expensive labor - costs more to build than a comparatively equipped Mercedes.

What does GM management blame? The government, the tax structure, their pension funds (which GM management under funded to mask losses on their inferior products), the education system, you, me, the labor unions ... everyone except the enemies of America - GM top management. Especially Rick Wagoner who was losing money for GM’s North American operation when he was promoted to CEO.

Numbers posted were correct. Assembly line workers did get paid more. But when the labor numbers all averaged out, the GM worker averaging $30,000 per year (about $20 an hour) got paid less than his Japanese competition. Still the GM product cost more to build. Who did management blame? Blame the overpaid unions (and not the grossly overpaid top executives who did not even know how to drive).

BTW automakers were not forbidden to sell their emission technologies to other companies - even their competition. Why is the EGR valve developed in Chrysler found in all other cars? Clearly this must violate some federal law... not. But then I keep knocking down myth after myth. The bottom line is that a GM product costs more to build than a Mercedes and it still an inferior product. So inferior because GM management still will not put the 70 Hp/liter engine in all cars. You can tell which GM cars have the lowest performance engines. They are the ones that make the most noise - and are therefore wearing out faster.

Watch GM run to the government for protection. Maybe ask for another $100 million to develop a hybrid engine? No. A $100 million to develop a hydrogen fuel vehicle - which even fundamental science says is not feasible. But then when did Congress look at facts when bribery of Congress is legal? We all get rich - in GM and the Congress. People protected by public fools whose entire decision is based only on "Buy American" - screw the numbers.

Fuck it. The pig just doesn't want to learn to sing. :p

xoxoxoBruce - inventing numbers such as a Mercedes costs three times as much to manufacturer does not make your posts credible. Provided are numbers such as labor costs. You can deny those numbers all you want. But without better numbers, again, you are just nay saying. Where are your facts? I only read from you speculation. Where are your numbers. I provided many numbers direct from industry professionals. The most damning being Hp/liter and man-hours of labor to manufacturer each vehicle. Where do you provide a better industry benchmark? If you post as if Saddam's aluminum tubes are for WMDs, then you will only be confronted with reality you don't want to hear. Industry numbers would go a long way to making your point.

Meantime, I found another example of what has happened to GM since car guys stopped designing the product around 1970. IOW I come to opinions by first learning these facts:

From the New York Times of 23 April 2005
Since more consumption means higher gasoline prices, where is the logic in GM's planns. Those who lived through this kind of downturn in the 1970s can also appreciate what GM, Chrysler, and Ford's solutions were back then. They simply kept building more large vehicles with low performance, low mileage engines. History tends to repeat itself in 30 year cycles when we don't learn those lessons.

I made a mistake.
 

In TW’s original post he made the assertion that GM’s management sucks. I agree with this assertion. However, he offered up as proof the magic 70 hp/liter as evidence of higher efficiency, better mileage and longevity which is utter bullshit.
Russotto offered an opinion which TW twisted until it was unrecognizable and belittled the poster as unworthy. You’ve seen it before.

Actually I made two mistakes. One was trying to respond to TW’s jumping around history and technology, and trying to answer his accusations of things I didn’t say, when I was too busy to devote that kind of attention to the thread.
The second, and more important mistake, again because of hurrying, was to reverse the chronological order of the catalytic converters. I apologize if I misled anyone. :o

More hp/liter doesn’t prove anything because there are so many ways to make hp. Better manufacturing tolerances, better balance for lower vibration (preferably by design and care rather than counter balance), better air flow in and out, more accurate spark and fuel delivery/timing, higher compression, variable valve timing, supercharging, turbo charging and NOS not to be confused withNOx.

I said And TW responded Carburated, pushrod Chevy is the same technology as an overhead cam, fuel injected Merc. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Next 1992?? By '92 everything had injection for several years. Before Bosch invented the oxygen sensor enabling electronic fuel injection and electronic engine management, fuel injection was a nightmare. Prestigious, yes, but tremendously complex to manufacture and maintain. Easily clogged, impossible to keep in tune more than a few months at a time, and no advantage for street driving. That’s one reason the Mercedes engines cost 3 times as much as GM’s to buy.
I also said mercs cost 3 times what a Chevy does, in reply to TW’s, I guess “patriots’ are much richer than most of us if they can spend 3 times as much for a merc.
So then he says, You see how he’s twisted what I said from the cars cost the consumer 3 times as much to the manufacturing costs being 3 times as high? Man, your nose must be growing.
I also said, And he responded, This time "work together" becomes "sell". Liar, liar, pants on fire. :p
All the manufacturers had a deadline to come up with a system of controlling their pollutants. The Fed’s were afraid collusion would prevent independent research to come up with the best possible solution(s) so they made it illegal to work together or even to know what the other was doing. After they had met their targets they were free to use any method to meet their mandated levels.
Make up a myth and knock it down. Wonder if he knows anyone named Sancho Panza?

An engine cylinder has a set displacement so it needs a certain amount of fuel to maintain a ratio of 14.7 pounds of air for each pound of fuel. At times of low or no load it's wasting that required minimum fuel but if they give it less fuel the combustion temperature soars and the engine will melt down plus the NOx climbs with the temperature. The ERG valve replaces part of the oxygen rich air with oxygen poor exhaust gas so they can withhold part of the fuel and not go lean, causing the temperature and NOx to climb.
Unfortunately the ERG valve is a trouble spot because its controling exhaust flow which tends to clog the valve with deposits. But since GM didn't invent it, that's ok.

You know...I’m beginning to think Bush didn’t lie. :lol:

Well done deconstructing, B. Good information.

Listed are things required in the standard 70 Horsepower per liter engine. However, somehow xoxoxoBruce feels GM products still use carburetors?

Fuel injected engines come with and without specific features. Those (in the same fuel injected category) which include these features last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build. Why was carbureted engine technology replaced by fuel injected technology? Because the engine lasts longer, gets better gas mileage, pollutes less, and costs less to build. Or in GM's case, because it was all but required by the EPA.

Curiously, the same technolgy GM engine either compromises or forget to include standard features of current technology fuel injected products. As a result, their engines must have two extra pistons which means costs more to build, vibrates more, fails more often, burns more gas, etc.

Compare current GM technology to that of Daimler Benz. For example, the Chrysler 300 can be purchased with a 2.7 or 3.5 liter V-6. They output 70.4 and 71.4 Hp per liter. Why? Daimler uses world standard (post 1992) technology that GM could have sold in even 1975. (Chrysler is a Daimler Benz company).

Let see what GM sells. The base engine of the Buick Lacrosse (called Allure in Canada because LaCrosse had too sexy undertones for GM Canada) has a 3.8 liter V-6 outputting 52.6 Hp/liter. The Chevy Impala uses 3.4 l and 3.8 liter V-6s that do 52.9 and 52.6 Hp/liter. Spend more for the Pontiac Bonneville and get … 53.9 from the V-6 or 59.7 from the V-8. Spend more and get lower performance? Where is te 70 Hp/liter technology? GM 2005 technology is still even using push rods. No wonder Ward's Automotive said that GM could not even give new 3.8 liter engines to Honda or Toyota - for free. What is 2005 technology to GM is obsolete pre-1992 technology to the competition.

Why would anyone buy those lower performance products? No wonder a GM car costs more to build than a Mercedes product. Base price of the Chrysler 300 - $23,370. Of the Buick Lacross: $22,835. The Pontiac Bonnevile - $27,965. As industry insiders note, a Mercedes (Chrysler) product selling for same price also has a higher profit margin as well as the superior engine. Why? Which vehicle has the higher HP/liter? Notice again, Hp/liter means the superior product.

Ahh... but Hp/liter means nothing to some here. They know more than industry professionals. Then explain why GM cars make more noise, their larger engines wear faster, and have higher failure rates? Why do cars with lower HP/liter come from the auto company that has no profits and is losing market share every quarter? One need only look at that so-called *useless* number to see why GM lost $1 billion last quarter. Why they were literally giving away products with 0% interest sales incentives just to maintain market share.

Consumer Reports April issue lists their Quick Picks. For high ratings in all areas, not one GM product with their low performance engines is listed. Vehicles with 70 Hp/liter engines dominate the list in every category. For those who consider fuel economy important, one GM product made the list: Pontiac Vibe. The Pontiac Vibe comes with a 68, 72, or 94 Hp/liter engine. And who makes it? Toyota. To make the list - to have a 70 Hp/liter engine - GM sells a Toyota product. (yes GM does sell a few 70 Hp/liter products if you are willing to spend premium dollars).

For those who consider reliability important, again, 70 Hp/liter products dominate the list. A lowest performer in that high reliablity group being the Subaru Forester at 66 Hp/liter.

Other Quick Pick categories include safety and owner satisfaction. Every category is dominated by vehicles that do about or more than 70 Hp/liter. What is missing in every category? Low performance GM products that do only 52 or 60 Hp/per liter. Of course. Hp/liter strongly indicates product quality.

Numbers mean nothing because xoxoxoBruce and russotto are clearly more knowledgeable? They need not post numbers. They need only say that tw is wrong. That alone proves they must be right? Heaven forbid should they post any numbers. Why post supporting facts? Only those who must be always wrong would provide numbers and facts.

Let’s look at the list of “Used Cars to Avoid” for Chevy. Chevy Astro 1997-2003 never did more than 44 Hp/liter. 2002 Avalanche: 54 Hp/l. Camaro in ’97, ’99, & ’01: 50, 52, 53, 54 & 57 Hp/l engines (classic of what GM hypes as a high performance vehicle). Cavalier ’99-’00 & ’03: 52 & 63 Hp/l. Impala ’01: 53 Hp/l. Lumina ’97 & ’99: 52, 63 Hp/l (Chevy dropped the 63 Hp/l engine after 1997). Malibu ’97-’00: 48, 50, 62 Hp/l. Monte Carlo ’99: 52 & 53 Hp/l. Also listed as Used Cars to Avoid: Pontiac Bonneville ’98-’02: 54 Hp/l. Grand Am ’97-’01: 50, 51, 62 Hp/l. Grand Prix ’97-’98: 51 & 52 Hp/l.

That 62 Hp/l engine? Only available in 4 cylinder versions. Even GM could not sell a 4 cylinder engine that was lower performance. At least GM engineers got to do some designing.

Yes, some 70 Hp/liter models do exist in that long list of Used Cars to Avoid. But the list is dominated by vehicles with low performance engines. Again performance (horsepower per liter) suggests which vehicles will last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build.

Which should we believe? Two posters who just know that Hp/liter means nothing – and never post any supporting facts? Clearly they know better only because they say so. Or do we believe industry professionals who discuss the concept at length. John Hutton, chief power train engineer at Ford discusses Hp/liter when he noted how Ford had to do with only 4 liters what their 5 liter engines were doing. Roger Heimback, executive engineer for GMs power train systems group discussed engine development strictly in terms of Hp/liter. Jorg Abthoff noted how Daimler must get 15 to 20 percent more power from their current designs. All talk about Hp/liter.

xoxoxoBruce and russotto know better than these engineers? They say so and that is all one need believe?

GM recorded a $1billion loss in the past 3 months. GM cars have long been selling at pathetically low profit margins - low performance SUV covering up losses in their automobile line. One need not wait for spread sheets to report the obvious four to ten years later. Long before the spread sheets can measure it, the product oriented numbers have been reporting which companies will be in trouble. Hp/liter is an excellent example of which automobiles cost more to build, are less reliable, burn more gas, and pollute more. One simply does the HP/liter number for GM cars. At 52 Hp/liter, GM products are so pathetic as to clearly explain those $1billion losses.

Which company, with so many low performance products, also would not build a hybrid. Ten years after the US government gave them $100 million to do so, they still don't have one hybrid product. Ever hear the expression "corporate welfare"? Look who the recipient is. Free money and they don't have to build anything. What more do they want from the US government. Protection from the imports? They already got that.

Patriots believe in the free market. Patriots stopped buying Fords when all Ford products were designed in the accounting department. Patriots stopped buying Chryslers in 1979. Therefore Chrysler finally addressed their only problem - top management. Those in 1979 who were so anti-American as to buy Chrysler said, "Don't replace bad management with a guy who has a driver's license." Patriots always buy the best. Patriots believe in free markets. Not the communist propaganda called "Buy American". Patriots who stopped buying Ford and Chrysler products back then saved both companies. It took the threat of bankruptcy to remove the only problems in both Ford and Chrysler. Anti-Americans say "keep making crap" and therefore blindly "Buy American".

What is GM's problem? Their top management. What is the thing that removes bad management? Patriots buy the competition's products. German Chryslers and VWs. Japanese Hondas and Toyotas.

Unfortunately, many still buy GM products. Products so inferior as to require two extra pistons and other expensive hardware. GM will then blame everyone else but top management for their pathetic and grossly expensive products. They will beg you to 'buy American'. A product line that still does not feature 70 Hp/liter engines. They hope you never learn that fact.

The competition uses technologies pioneered in GM 30 years ago. And yet still GM does not install their own technology in every vehicle. Why? One need only read the reasons provided by xoxoxoBruce and russotto. Reasons? What reasons? They just know that Horsepower per liter means nothing. All those numbers and industry professionals be damned.

Clearly the very best car in the world is the Subaru Impreza WRX STi, which manages to get 300 HP out of a (turbocharged) 4 cylinder (!) 2450cc engine for 122.4 hp/liter.

Never mind, turns out the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo gets 276 hp out of a 2 liter for 138.

Oh, yeah?
 

I'll see your Subaru and raise you a Mazda RX-8 Wankel--161.5 hp/liter, NON-turbo

http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_r...mazda-rx-8.htm

Do you have an MBA tw? I only ask because it seems to be an MBA-ish trait to latch onto one little "factoid" (70 HP/litre!), which isn't accurate under all circumstances, and parrot it endlessly, as though it's some universal guiding truth. It's more commonly known as "tunnel vision."

As flawed as some of your logic is, you are right about one thing... modern low-end and middle-of-the-road GMs suck. But I'd enjoy the hell out of a Corvette Z06.

Well, they have a much bigger messenger to kill, since S&P just downgraded GM and Ford stock to 'junk'.

Right now, Kirk Kerkorian and his company still want to buy GM shares, but that might have more to do with GM's finance arm than the auto manufacturing.

It looks like GM management is running it into the ground. Unfortunately, unlike K-Mart, I don't see how any one person can get in there and fix all of the problems.

not to nitpick, but this has nothing to do with stock. what was downgraded was the credit rating of each company. similar to your FICO, each entity has a credit rating assigned, based on the books and financial outlook. this credit rating affects only debt (bonds) not equity/ownership (stock).

what that means is that if GM wants to borrow more money, the terms under which they can do so just got a lot worse.

the reason stock prices drop dramatically with this news is that stock price is based on expectation of profit. if GM has to pay significantly higher interest payments on newly issued debt then that will erode profits even further... and people aren't as likely to want to own the stock of a company with downward spiraling profit margin... and the cycle continues.

I stand corrected Lookout, it was the credit rating. What this means is that certain institutional investors will have to pull out since they can only own investment grade bonds. GM and Ford were at the lowest investment grade prior to the downgrade.

Astro 97-03 ~ engine is a problem some years especially 03 but the exhaust and ignition are a problem every year. Also in the later years cooling, fuel, paint/trim/rust, air conditioning and transmission are a problem. But by golly we'll recomend you not by this car because it doesn't put out 70hp/liter. :headshake
Right on down the list.......same shit....different car. They all have multiple problems. And what did they have to do? Move the damn car! But more than that, move it in a manner buyers in that catagory/price range expect. You know, performance. Hutton was talking about delivering the performance the customer expected...no, demanded, with a 4 liter engine. Why? Don't know. Somebody/something dictated that they would use a 4 liter. Could have been space restrictions or often as not marketing said so. Marketing?? Yes, to differentiate between models(read, price breaks) one of the most popular items is engine size. A $30k model will lose market share to a $20k model from the same manufacturer, with the same size engine, even if it has a lot more goodies. Dear me, I guess you're not a true patriot unless you have a good enough job(or credit) to buy the very best. OK, all you damn poor people...get out of our country...go to Mexico or Canada and don't come back until you've got enough money to be a true patriot. Damn pushrod lovers! :p
sigh TW, right for the wrong reasons....and so emotional, tsk, tsk.