Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

GM To Be Destroyed By Environmentalism – AGAIN! Pages: 12

JJM on Sat January 12, 2008 2:25 PM User is offline


This time around GM deserves to die. It appears that GM did not learn a single lesson from its near extinction in the 1980s, and one would think that its recent close call with bankruptcy just a few short years ago would have lead to an epiphany. Instead, they are going back to their failed ways of trying to be a little something for everyone, and not being particularly good at anything. At least when the obituary is read, it will be written that GM was a good steward of the planet.

I have just learned that GM is canceling production of a new V-8 slated to replace the aging Northstar V-8.

GM Cancels V-8 Program for Luxury Cars

Instead, GM will utilize yet another monotonous V-6 to replace the Northstar V-8 on its luxury vehicles. GM has just lost this and many future customers, no doubt in an effort to satisfy CAFE standards – the very same CAFE standards that nearly led to its extinction just two decades ago. Lexus, BMW and Mercedes here I come.

I guess GM concludes that V-6 engines in Acura and entry level BMW and Mercedes models have been so popular that they too will be popular in a Cadillac. What GM fails to realize is that barring a V-8, what other reason is there to buy a Cadillac? It certainly isn’t quality, as Cadillac quality and workmanship, as those of us who have gotten to know everyone in Cadillac service departments on a first name basis can attest. It isn’t because a Cadillac is considered trendy or sporty, given the average age of a Cadillac buyer is well up into AARP territory. And it isn’t because Cadillac buyers simply like big cars, because there was always the less expensive V-6 Park Avenue and Lucerne which never sold well. So I think its safe to say Cadillac buyers buy a Cadillac for its large, smooth, powerful V-8 engines. So what does GM do? Cancel production of ALL its V-8 engines!

Meanwhile, BMW and Mercedes can’t build 7-Series and S-Class models with V-8 and V-12 engines carrying six-figure plus price tags fast enough.

In the mid-to-late 1980s, GM almost became extinct in large part due to downsizing in order to meet C.A.F.E. standards. The luxury divisions were nearly decimated in 1985 and 1986 with their vastly smaller, lighter, fuel-efficient poor excuse for transportation vehicles. Buyers were willing to accept lesser-powered V-8s and even diesels in the late 1970s and early 1980s so long as they were large, comfortable and V-8 powered. GM introduced the Buick V-6 into its luxury vehicles in 1981-1982. It was as repulsive then as it is now. And let’s not even mention the 85 HP diesel V-6 in 1985. But GM keeps flogging dead V-6 engines, none of which could be characterized as stellar.

The fortunes at GM and Cadillac gradually began shifting by the end of the 1980s, not because Cadillac’s became more fuel efficient and “green” – quite the opposite – they grew because larger and more powerful. And the Cadillac revival really began in earnest in 1994 with the introduction the Northstar V-8 – its most powerful engine in decades. Instead of building on that momentum, GM kills the very engine that led Cadillac to victory – all in the name of saving fuel and the environment. And the stupid JACKASS GM executives will sit there scratching their heads AGAIN wondering just what went wrong. GM given history, no doubt the remedy won’t be a better V-8, but a more fuel-efficient I-4 instead.

Looks like it is de ja vous thanks again to environmentalism.

mhamilton on Sat January 12, 2008 4:40 PM User is offlineView users profile

Hmmm... it will be interesting to see what really happens at GM over the next few years. Maybe they are going to put the V6 as the base engine to meet CAFE standards, but have a corporate V8s as optional?

There were rumors going around that with the new Malibu, GM would bring the Impala back in a RWD platform... along with some other divisions, possibly with a V8. Not holding my breath for that, but you never know.

The engine in the SUVs is not the Northstar, right? I was going to say, they could never get those 3 ton boat anchors moving with a V6.

NickD on Sat January 12, 2008 8:02 PM User is offline

Another 90* V-6? Our old 86 Maxima had a 60* V-6, was a very smooth running engine, we had over 200K miles on it and still purring nice. My 92 DeVille with a 4.9L V-8, a 3,600 pound vehicle with the cruise set at 53 mph burning ethanol free summer gas still gets better than 30 mpg on a trip. Our old 4.3L V-6 in a 3,600 pound S-10 at the same speed would only get 21 mpg. So is it the engine cylinder number that makes the difference or a ton of other factors? I sure liked my 37 Caddy Limo with a V-16, if I recall properly, only a 15 mpg vehicle, but the darn thing weighed 7,500 pounds? Ha, darn thing was so high needed a step ladder to wash the roof, not exactly aerodynamic.

A well designed vehicle can get better mileage with a V-8, but again the marketing people just like air compressors is playing a numbers game, what ever happened to good old fashion engineering?

With my 78 Fleetwood, I did test drive a new 82, what a piece of crap that thing was, had to floor the gas pedal just to keep up with a kid riding a tricycle, said no thanks. That is another time GM really went under.

mhamilton on Sat January 12, 2008 9:55 PM User is offlineView users profile

It seems like GM has some fear of using an engine design more than 10 years old. They have to come up with a new one, then go through teething problems, by the time they get it right they're shoving a new engine in their cars.

The Buick 3.8 90* V6 was pretty good, I don't remember any vibrations from that one in an '86 Buick. They may have had a balance shaft by that time. Seems that was the only engine GM bothered perfecting and got decent power out of in the last 30 years. Had the turbo version making more hp than the 4bbl 350 in the late '70s. Of course they're still using it now in some cars.

But, all of the '70s and '80s GM powerplants were a bad joke. A 500ci Cadillac big block just pushing 250 hp? Even before they went off lead. Then there were the Chevy 400s with 2bbl carbs... a whopping 190 hp or something like that. The NS was about the only thing that saved Cad after the HT4100 debacle.

Nick, It sounds like your '92 is getting better mileage than the later NS. Yours predates the NS, correct? Does it have the same 4 valve OHC design? I remember playing around with the info center on a '97 and '01 Eldorado with the NS... highway mileage was hovering in the low-mid 20s.

NickD on Sat January 12, 2008 10:55 PM User is offline

The 4.9L is about as conventional as you can get, block mounted camshaft with a timing chain, two valve per cylinder, HEI distributor, and a single unheated cheap O2 sensor, idle control looks more like the insides of a watch, motor driven and completely repairable. Weird is the block, cast iron heads with large cast iron cylinders to a large cast iron plate that mounts the oil pan, that is surrounded with an aluminum jacket that seeps coolant if you don't give the cooling system, pills. Wonder how much weight the are saving with that design, two pounds?

I did like my 89 Continental, put a lot of work in that car and got everything working, always had at least 500 miles on the trip odometer before stopping at gas station, but with the 3.8L in there, forget about passing on a hilly two lane road. And this car let me down royally when in a 40 mile trip home, the head gasket blew, AXOD went, and the car settled to the ground when the air suspension gave out. Incredible, but luck in a way that all this happened at the same time. Anyone occurring would have repaired that, but this was way too much. Was lucky to find the DeVille the next day and it was sitting along side a 92 Park Ave. But after looking at the simplicity of the the DeVille with a 430 electrical manual on the Park Ave, choose the DeVille instead, mileage and condition was the same, but got the Caddy for far less money. Ironically, the dealer gave me two new rear air struts for this car as the ones on there looked pretty rusty, that was over nine years ago, those new struts are still in the box. Rear suspension is working perfectly yet. And when you step on the gas with a 200 HP engine in a 3,600 pound car, it goes. It's not very good around town getting around 16-17 mpg, so I don't use it around town, it was made for the interstate. It handles like a dream compared to my last 78 Fleetwood, uses all weather proof connectors and tungsten switch contacts, has been virtually maintenance free. Caddy really went way uphill on this model, but afterwards, way downhill again, ask Joe.

mhamilton on Sun January 13, 2008 9:55 AM User is offlineView users profile

Oh, okay, you have the "HT4900" although GM didn't actually call it that. It was the 3rd iteration of the 4100, bored out to have a square bore/stroke, used 1991-95. In '93 the Northstar debuted, but only in Allante.

The 4.6L NS is powerful when pushed into high RPMs, but in my experience driving it, once it settles into 3rd or 4th for around-town cruising, the lack of low end torque is noticeable. I'll bet your 4.9L makes more torque and at much lower rpms.

GM did have a good thing with the '94-'96 B/D body Impala/Fleetwood. The LT1 350 made 270hp and over 300 ft.lbs. with an iron block on regular fuel, still got 25 mpg highway. Of course, that had to be canceled, because those cars were lasting well over 200,000 miles with no problems.

Then there was the Oldsmobile Aurora... I don't remember if that was selling well, but Olds had to go to make room for Hummer. Woops... GM probably should have thought that one through a little more... if the EPA puts CAFE requirements on trucks, GM will be gone for good.

NickD on Mon January 14, 2008 7:05 AM User is offline

My first car was a 1930 Olds, really a well built car and I had to get my hands on a 1949 Rocket 88, first car with an OHV V-8 engine, the 1939 Olds was the first car with a fully automatic transmission, I looked at one, but wasn't really interested in AT back then. Olds was quite the leader in new proven technology and I would like to buy a brand new one now.

Any suggestions where I can get one?

The Disturbed Crew on Mon January 14, 2008 3:14 PM User is offline

I almost feel betrayed. I just bought a 2007 GMC canyon and thought at the very least it would have an HR, HD, HT, or at the least a HU but hell no, Its got a Denso 10S located under the 5 cyl engin.

ice-n-tropics on Mon January 14, 2008 4:50 PM User is offline

Nick,
Sure was fun to ride the outside turn running board on the 30's Olds while my 13 year old cousin tried to throw me off in the turns in my Uncle's pasture. Used bailing wire to keep the door closed.
Drove a 49 Olds coupe (small back window) when I lived in Milwaukee for 3 months.
Had a 37 Ford PU with a early 50s rocket 88 w/ Hydramatic and 411 diff. Not much tire life.

TDC,
GM Truck and Bus is fleeing Delphi like rats off a sinking ship. Your Denso should out live several Delphi comps. Too bad for 4S potential business. Also, the import knock offs and overseas remans don't bode well for 4S. The China, Taiwan, Japan compressor replacement companies have Calorimeters, NVH, durability benches and the whole 9 yards to measure quality. The retail outlets, more and more, provide warranty with labor and refrigerant thrown in. Therefore, your going to have your work cut out to lower compressor return rate (not warranty responsible rate).
I remember when the Chief Engineer of Delphi/Harrison gave a speech at MACS bragging how they lowered the warranty rate from 6% to only 3% and how happy he was to brag about that. Warranty targets were way, way too low.
Cordially,
Old IV guy

-------------------------
Isentropic Efficiency=Ratio of Theoretical Compression Energy/Actual Energy.
AMAZON.com: How To Air Condition Your Hot Rod

NickD on Tue January 15, 2008 6:58 AM User is offline

Often wonder why, THEY call Hondas and Toyotas import cars when they are more American made than the domestics. First Delco went out to pasture, GM really screwed the investors that took over that division as GM promised them business, switched it over to Delphi and doing the same thing to those guys.

Rumored that GM is in bed with Exxon, if they are, Exxon is screwing GM now sticking them with a ton of low fuel economy SUV's causing GM to lose over 36 billion last year. Excuse me, they don't use the word, screwing they call it business.

See that the IRS is only permitting a 48.5 cents per mile standard deduction this year for business use, that doesn't seem fair as the price of gas is up over 150% last year. If you go back to the early 70's what manufactured appliance with all this computer stuff and automation has increased in price by a factor of 12 in these years besides cars and trucks? And that is also true for the price of gas and who is really getting screwed in the process?

Joe blames the Environmentalist, seems to me the corporate controlled congress, EPA, DOT, DOE, and IRS should be getting that blame, they are the ones making the rules and setting the prices. The rest of us are getting screwed no matter which way we turn.

The Disturbed Crew on Tue January 15, 2008 7:54 AM User is offline

Yeah ice I know. 4S has a new program where we buy bulk from overseas vendors and sell them as new compressors. We supply the market and if anything craps out we can fall back on the suppliers warranty.
I know what their quality is like. My job, before I left for Margaritaville, was assisting with incoming inspection using my CMM, Helium mass spec, bench functionality testing and vac/pressure decay.
Some were great some were so so. On the one that outright failed I would send my personalized QC hold form back to them with the shipment.
My hold for was a picture of Kobe Bryant attempting to make a half court shot, just missing, and a caption that said "Nice Try"

mhamilton on Tue January 15, 2008 5:18 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Often wonder why, THEY call Hondas and Toyotas import cars when they are more American made than the domestics.

I don't know how the company hierarchy is structured, but I'm sure profits get mailed "home" with those companies. You can bet if it was any cheaper, they would be making all those cars across the Pacific in a heartbeat. And you can also bet they have all the numbers crunched down to the penny on costs of production, shipping, and taxes, and found they could make their cars here for less than actually importing them.

Karl Hofmann on Tue January 15, 2008 7:56 PM User is offlineView users profile

Hmmm ... So many manufacturers make a big lazy luxobarge far better than GM so the Caddy either has to improve its act or go down market. The caddy is a unique vehicle to the US and is something that only you guys get and so is a difficult car to export. They tried to sell them here but are just not suited to our style of driving so the only real market is the US which is becoming flooded with more exciting imported stuff... If you are the type of guy to afford a top of the range Cadillac then you will also be looking round for something that is more fun and holds it's value better. Perhaps an entry level 5 Series or Lexus GS..

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

mhamilton on Tue January 15, 2008 8:39 PM User is offlineView users profile

I'm not sure if those are in the same target market as the traditional Cadillacs. The new CTS is aimed at the 3/5 series, C/E class, and whatever the Japanese equivalents are. Let's just say Grandpa isn't driving a CTS

I think the comparable cars are the S class, 7 series, XJ type, but Cadillac was priced lower. But, really only the Deville (DTS) is left to compete with those... no more extra large, extra luxury D body Fleetwood.

NickD on Wed January 16, 2008 2:34 PM User is offline

Wonder if Elvis was starting off today if he would want a yard full of Cadillacs? Ha, back in 58, a doctor friend going on vacation gave me his new Caddy convertible to take care of, with a full tank of gas, said drive it when I was in the military. Even my commanding officer called me sir, in those days when you drove a Caddy, you got respect.

Talk about resale value, that is why I purchased my 92 DeVille back in 99, was so deep in debt after my divorce, was the only car I could afford, another Honda Accord was completely out of the question, even a 92. One good thing about Caddies, and I am not even sure about Joe's, the interiors wear like iron. The body still looks good on mine, uses all stainless steel trim and bumpers, but can't say that for previous Caddies, they would rust out faster than a Chevy.

Wife says my Caddy is too large for her to drive, maybe a little over a foot longer than the Chevy, ha, I told her if it were any smaller, could put it in my back pocket. Not quite like my old 73 Fleetwood, but it does look huge compared to the brand new ones.

Do you think if I rented a tuxedo, my nearest Lexus dealer would let me test drive one? Would also have to rent a limo to drive in his lot.

Karl Hofmann on Wed January 16, 2008 5:55 PM User is offlineView users profile

Ha! it is funny how different dealers treat prospective customers, when I was looking for a replacement for the RAV4 I popped in to several dealers as I was passing them so I was always in working togs.. old jeans, polo shirt and a tatty fleece... BMW looked at me as if I was just there to waste their time, Toyota were friendly and business like, Lexus welcomed me like an old friend, sat down with a cup of tea and listened to what I wanted... six months later when I finally decided on the Lex, the same guy remembered my name and the make of car that I was interested in... Full marks to Lexus Stoke.

The problem with Caddy that I can see is that instead of trying to make a better car than the competition, they seem to have tried to give the customer quantity at a budget price at the cost of quality, especially interior quality... This is fine if you are in the market for a Kia but not for a premium brand

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

bohica2xo on Wed January 16, 2008 6:03 PM User is offline

So Karl, how many '06 / '07 / '08 Cadillacs have you driven?

And when was the last time you drove on US roads?


B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

mhamilton on Wed January 16, 2008 8:07 PM User is offlineView users profile

Oh... again with this? Cadillac went back to using real wood interior trim 15 years ago. Yes, the rest is plastic, but so is every other car made today. And I think we all know who we have to thank for the stark, cheap, black/gray plastic interiors prevalent in all cars today.

I never realized how difficult it was (for me) to put my finger on exactly where Cadillac falls in today's market. It's not quite the quantity for your dollar anymore. You get a highly optioned car, powerful engine, but they're not inexpensive cars. I really don't know how Cad prices fall in comparison with the Asian cars. But, 11 years ago, the flagship sport coupe' Eldorado ETC cost upwards of $70,000.

Quite honestly, I don't get the "different roads" argument at all. I drive on every possible type of road in my daily commute, so do most others in this part of the country. 1 mile of loose gravel, 8 miles of tar/gravel, 15 miles of broken concrete, 20 miles of fresh asphalt, 2 miles of urban lunar landscape. I've heard people say that Mercedes are so much better because they're designed for antique cobblestone roads... right... the roads I drive on make cobblestone look smooth. And the next person says they're better because they're designed for glass-smooth autobahn pavement.

mhamilton on Wed January 16, 2008 9:12 PM User is offlineView users profile

Here is a side by side: 97 Seville vs 97 S420. There seems to be a "slight" resembelance, no?



HerkyJim on Thu January 17, 2008 1:29 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: mhamilton
Here is a side by side: 97 Seville vs 97 S420. There seems to be a "slight" resembelance, no?









Heck, I bought a new Corolla the other day. It looks about the same as these. I expect it will outlast me. Had to go out of state to find one with standard trans and crank up windows. Has power mirrors standard on even the stripped model. Makes no sense. So how do I go about disabling the circuit that cuts out th starter unless the clutch is depressed? And the damned headlights are on all the time even with the switch off.

Karl Hofmann on Thu January 17, 2008 7:36 AM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: bohica2xo
So Karl, how many '06 / '07 / '08 Cadillacs have you driven?



And when was the last time you drove on US roads?





B.

Last Caddy I drove was a 98 STS and I really didn't feel at home in it it certainly had all the toys and gadgets but just didn't make you want to get in and drive it. I think that GM have given up trying to sell caddys to the Europeans and I have never driven on US roads...But I'm not the one who is bemoaning the demise of the V8 caddy. If they felt that people would buy them then they would make them. it seems that even you guys don't want them ...so why is that then?.. Same reason as people not wanting Rovers and other defunct european cars

I certainly wouldn't by a three pointed star either.. Gimme a toyota product anyday

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

Karl Hofmann on Thu January 17, 2008 7:44 AM User is offlineView users profile

Mhamilton, those cars have got to be at a dealer, they just shine with dashboard slime.. I'm not sure that I see the similarity other than all modern cars follow the same pattern which I think was pioneered by Caddilac early last century
Renault used to make some really nice comfortable cars that were very luxurious by european standards but they just fell flat on their faces when it came to build quality and reliabillity... The R25 was the worlds fastest depreciating car in its day... So they gave up and made the little Clio which sells like hot cakes... Make what people want and they will buy them

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

NickD on Thu January 17, 2008 9:26 AM User is offline

Ha, another memory popped up driving Caddies, old guys used to come to me, I see you are driving a Cadillac, don't go to a Cadillac dealer for parts, they will rob you blind, buy your parts from a Chevrolet dealer, same part and will be a lot cheaper. LOL, good advice.

MB and Caddy copied the dash from my 88 Supra, can I sue them? Ashamed to even show this picture, interior was clean as a whistle when I put it away. Looks like I have to pull it and clean it, another thing added to my long list of things to do.



mhamilton on Thu January 17, 2008 9:49 AM User is offlineView users profile

Those were some cars on eBay that I looked at a while ago. I thought you would notice the faded black leather seats... but then again, that's 10 year old leather that probably sat in the sun its whole life, and was never cleaned or conditioned. Starting with the Seville in the '70s Cad tried to emulate a European car, and it looks like they copied the Merc dash directly on the Northstar cars.

With the exception of the failed HT4100, Cadillacs were always supremely reliable. As were all the GM RWD vehicles, and the FWD Northstar platform.

I'm not saying you should like the new Cadillacs. I don't like them myself. GM seems to be going after a younger market, which makes no sense to me. On the road, I see the Lincoln Town Car with it's traditional design outnumber the new Cadillacs by at least 10 to 1.

Nick, that dash looks identical to the Allante' interior... what year did that design come out? Allante' was 1987.

Edited: Thu January 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM by mhamilton

NickD on Thu January 17, 2008 10:24 AM User is offline

Actually, very similar to the dash layout in my old 84 Honda Accord with the console mounted radios and climate control, ha, wouldn't like any kind of car like this with the console and gear shift lever on the floor in my early drive-in movie days, today, a real PITA for doing any kind of under dash work. Supra introduced this dash layout in 1986.

In my predriver days, when car looking, first thing I would look at was the highest number on the speedometer, if it didn't go to at least 120 mph, didn't want it. Learned later that just because the speedometer read that high, the car wouldn't necessarily go that fast. Ha, shouldn't want my 92 DeVille either, it only goes to 85, even when in diagnostic mode with the digital display, peaks out at 85. Not saying when or where I tested that. That sure has changed in the last few years, even my tiny Cavalier goes up to 110 mph. Supra only goes up to 140, but that car is much faster than that, governed at 167, that I read with test reports.

Was burnt when all domestics peaked out at 85 on the dial, but back then the maximum speed limit anywhere in the good old USA was 55 and 85 would take your license away, so what difference does it make? In traffic, lucky to do 3.

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.