• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    GM: Diesel For The Light-Duty Trucks Are Under Consideration


    • The 4.5L Diesel V8 Could Be Coming To GM's Pickups

    With Ram offering a small diesel and Ford announcing that next F-150 will be considerably lighter, GM is considering all options with their pickups to raise fuel economy. One of those options happens to be a 4.5L Diesel V8 that was planned to go into their pickups five years ago.

    Steve Kiefer, GM's vice president of global powertrain tells Automotive News that GM is considering dusting off that engine and slip it into their new trucks.

    "We are looking closely at diesel entrees in that segment. In fact, I heard the terms 'dust off' that 4½-liter at one point. That is certainly one of the options. Clearly, we have a portfolio of diesel engines," said Kiefer.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    YES YES YES, Put that bad boy into the Full Size SUV's line. Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL and Escalade, Escalade ESV would do well with this.

    Class leading HP, Torque and MPG would be awesome for GM.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, GM needs to do something. With both Ram and Ford bring new innovations to the segment, GM really played it too safe with the redesigns of the trucks with not enough to set them apart from the competition.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with Dwightlooi, GM should just use the existing 6.6 and scale it down as a V6, V4 and really kick ass in the auto industry. People would buy up every 4.95L V6 powered Yukon Denali and Tahoe with this engine. I also can see huge sales in both full size and mid size pickups with a 3.3L V4 Duramax Engine.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    What would the timeframe testing-to-production be like with this plan?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    A few questions. I thought you had said on another thread that diesels benefited most from using DOHC due to the superior breathing offered from DOHC and the lack of air obstructions in diesels. It would certainly make intuitive sense that an engine that always runs lean would benefit most from using a DOHC valvetrain. Is the smaller packaging, lower parasitic friction of a pushrod V engine still sufficient to overcome the higher specific output / better breathing / lower reciprocating mass of a DOHC even in a diesel - at least in your estimation?

    The upcoming Canyon/Colorado are going to offer a 2.8L duramax, which is VMRA208 puts out ~200hp (possibly less after US emissions are added) and weighs ~520 lbs. The ecodiesel that Chrysler is using in the Grand Cherokee and the Ram 1500 is a Vm Motori A630 which puts out ~240hp and weighs ~500 lbs. Dimensions really don't look like the I4 does much to save space over the V6. So, at the end of the day, if these were the two options why on earth would GM choose the I4 over the V6? Is it a cost issue? Volume production issue? Will an I4 with a lower power output produce better fuel economy numbers of a more powerful V6? My impression is that perhaps this would be true in a gasoline engine with a throttle, but without a throttle does this logic still apply to a diesel?

    The dimensions of the ecodiesel, which is a DOHC 3.0L V6 are 695 mm (27.36 in) in length, 729 mm (28.7 in) in width and 697.5 mm (27.46 in) in height. Do you have the dimensions of the 6.6L duramax? And your proposed 4.95L smaller duramax, what would the proposed weight/dimensions of that engine be? Would it be appreciably larger and heavier than the ecodiesel?

    Your proposal seems to be fantastic on its face. 2 different displacement diesel engines for the half tons which would *easily* give them best in class fuel economy across all models. What are the drawbacks to doing something like this? Is there any limitation from attempting to shrink the current duramax architecture? How difficult would it be to add balance shafts to a V6 at that angle? Does it being a heavier diesel engine make any difference with balance shafts / NVH? Very genuinely curious since on its face your idea seems to result in engines that put out near *perfect* power/torque numbers for a half ton pickup, all built on an engine architecture that already exists and could be extremely modular - thus significantly reducing costs.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Your proposal seems to be fantastic on its face. 2 different displacement diesel engines for the half tons which would *easily* give them best in class fuel economy across all models. What are the drawbacks to doing something like this? Is there any limitation from attempting to shrink the current duramax architecture? How difficult would it be to add balance shafts to a V6 at that angle? Does it being a heavier diesel engine make any difference with balance shafts / NVH? Very genuinely curious since on its face your idea seems to result in engines that put out near *perfect* power/torque numbers for a half ton pickup, all built on an engine architecture that already exists and could be extremely modular - thus significantly reducing costs.

    It is not hard to add balance shafts... you can simply put one in the oil pan or above the camshaft. There is a difference between shrinking -- as in making the pistons, combustion chambers, valves, etc. smaller -- and simply removing two cylinders and changing the crank pin angles. The latter is easy because all the combustion and aspirational work is done. A diesel has heavier pistons and rods. They need bigger weights on the balancer. It doesn't affect refinement as much as it affects engine resposiveness. Still... the same applies to the 4.5 DOHC and the difference is immaterial between a 4.5 and a 4.95L engine. In fact, the 4.5 is trickier because it is a 72 degree Vee engine -- which is worse from a balance standpoint than a 60 degree (unbalance shafted) or a 90 degree (with balance shaft). This is why V6es are usually either 60 degree (for good intrinsic balance) or 90 degree (when derived from a 90 deg V8 or when it is desirable to stuff a supercharger or turbo(s) in the valley.The 72 degree angle was chosen entirely for packaging reasons to make the fat DOHC heads fit in the same width as a 90 deg pushrod design, and still be wide enough in the valley for the single turbo to fit

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They need a 3 liter V6 diesel in a bad way, they just don't see it yet. There are other diesel V6s out there with 240ish hp and 425 lb-ft, whether they be in an Audi A6 or a Ram 1500, the numbers are similar. That is the sort of engine GM needs, with an 8-speed transmission you can keep the engine in it's power band and you'd have adequate acceleration, plus the fuel economy.

    Rumor is Ford is planning a diesel V6 with a 10-speed automatic for the F150, add that with the drop in weight and they are surely to have over 30 mpg in a pick up, if GM's best offering is 23 mpg, they are screwed.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Forget the 4.5 Duramax Diesel -- the cost, complexity and mass of a four cam V8 isn't worth the specific output improvement. A very simple solution is to simply build on the Pushrod-32v Duramax 6.6 architecture. Instead of building a smaller V8, just take two cylinders off the Duramax 6.6. The resulting 4.95L V6 will make about 300 bhp / 575 lb-ft. That's close enough to the projected 310 bhp output of the 4.5 they were developing and more importantly superior in stump pulling torque (which is what really matters in a truck). While they are at it, why not a 3.3L V4 with 200 bhp / 383 lb-ft? The beauty of a cam-in-block + pushrod design is that you can use a V configuration with no penalty in terms of number of camshafts or phasers needed. The Duramax 6.6 and/or it's 6 or 4 cylinder engines are already reverse flow engines where the exhaust exits the valley of the Vee permitting the efficient use of a single turbo instead of two smaller ones flanking the engine. Unlike the 4.5, the 4.9 and 3.3 Duramax 6.6 derivatives will share the piston, connection rods, wrist pins, valves, springs, lifters, pushrods, bolts and a huge number of other parts with the 6.6L sibling.

    A few questions. I thought you had said on another thread that diesels benefited most from using DOHC due to the superior breathing offered from DOHC and the lack of air obstructions in diesels. It would certainly make intuitive sense that an engine that always runs lean would benefit most from using a DOHC valvetrain.

    IIRC; the emphasis was on 4-valve heads for air flow, not DOHC. Duramax is an IBC 4-valve design- best of both worlds in some instances.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 1990Suburban
      1990Suburban
      (28 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt - Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.cheersandgears.com
      Tesla Officially in Trouble, Business Insider Says!

      To quote Business Insider final comments on Tesla and the Chevy Bolt:
      "Clearly, Tesla would be in less trouble if the Chevy Bolt were a bad car. But it isn't. Teslas have always blown me away. The Bolt blew me away for different reasons. I just hope Tesla is prepared to take this into account." 
      Matthew is a Business Insider senior correspondent who covers transportation and as a fan of Tesla was excited to check out a Chevy BOLT as comparison to the Tesla. On a recent trip to california he took time to visit the closet Chevrolet Dealer to his hotel and this is what he found.
      He states that to borrow Barkley's line, "Tesla is in trouble." You have one of the world's biggest auto companies that is known for killing the electric auto stepping off the sidelines and actually committing considerable resources to building a long range EV where it can afford to lose money on it long term till the market changes. Tesla has 400,000 plus pre-orders, but is burning through cash by the billions and while the launch of the Tesla 3 is near and Tesla still has Sexy much like Apple to an iPhone. Tesla does not have the depth of customer auto experience to pull from and as the author points out, Tesla balance sheet is precarious as it is based on raising funds on a growth story. The author goes onto say that no one will cross shop a Tesla S or X with the Chevy BOLT. They will due to limited options cross shop the Tesla 3 to the Bolt.
      To pull some interesting statements from the story, the author had the following to say:
      "I found it more fun to drive than both the Tesla Model S and the Model X, but not the original Roadster, a much smaller vehicle."
      "The Bolt is plenty fast for most people."
      "GM isn't going to overwhelm Tesla with Bolt sales. I actually think the Model 3 will greatly outsell the Bolt once Tesla's car arrives. However, it's also possible that if the Model 3 is delayed or is slow to ramp up, Chevy will be preparing a mid-cycle refresh of the Bolt before Model 3 sales start to achieve some major momentum. In other words, GM will always be ahead, and the company — barring another massive financial meltdown — will never stop putting the Bolt up against the Model 3."
      BI covered the BOLT in follow stories with the next one being more of an official review that starts off with covering the auto with the following statement: "A platform, not business as usual!" 
      From ride-hailing to ride-sharing, self driving Chevy has delivered an auto for the future that gives GM options on how they build and expand their EV lineup. BI took delivery of their white Premier BOLT just before the blizzard that hit NY. Clearly a compact-crossover-hatchback look, design is what the magazine employees felt it was and is. Surprising the BI reviewers was the amount of cargo the auto can hold and how well it handled 4 people and grocery getting. BI states that GM has told them the next addition to the BOLT lineup will be a larger auto that can accommodate 5 or more people. An exceptionally well executed minimalist design that comes with an interior that feels more premium in comparison to auto's this size in the past from GM that felt clearly parts bin cheap. The review goes on to talk about how setting the front seat for a 6'4" tall driver and getting in the back with room ahead of the knees for the same size person is a nice welcome addition to such a compact auto. Heated steering wheel was welcomed by all. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto kept everyone happily connected to their phone while driving.
      The final statement to quote from the review is as follows:
      "We were impressed with the Bolt, as a car, as an electric car, and as a mobility concept. In many ways, it is GM's post-bankruptcy masterpiece, a real feather in the cap of CEO Mary Barra and her executive team, who took what the company had achieved with its ill-fated EV-1 back in the 1990s and turned it up to 11. 
      I also flat-out loved driving it. I blasted in and out of New York City twice, rocketed around the streets of Gotham, darting through traffic, and cruised along the highways of New Jersey. I also enjoyed just driving it around the quiet streets of the suburb where I live.
      The steering is quick and responsive, and the handling is sharp enough to provide the confidence you need when surfing that sweet EV torque.
      The single-pedal mode is also very cool — I dug not using the brakes at all for extended excursions in my town. After a bit of practice, you get into a kind of Zen state with it. 
      Not a single person asked me about the car, and that can be chalked up to the ho-hum design. But I didn't care. I was lovin' it. Plain and simple, the Bolt is fun."
      Here is where we have overlap between story #2 and Story #3 which covers the 7 Killer Features:
      Dual Screens- 10.2" touch screen infotainment center & an 8" drivers console display which are totally customizable. Auto's wireless charging console. BOLT App allowing you to be connected to your auto at all times. Five cameras: front, rear, side mirrors and their 360 camera. 9hr full charge time from a 240 volt charger. 25 miles per hour, faster with Level 3 DC charging. Lane Keep assist feature. Modern Seat design allowing for maximum space inside. Over all these writeups show that GM has delivered a superior auto to the Prius, Leaf, 500e, etc. The future will be bright for the BOLT as GM move the platform forward.

      BI Story #1
      BI Story #2
      BI Story #3
    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.
    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors seems being in a cutting mood as it drives to improve its profit margins and stock price. Last week saw the sale of Opel and Vauxhall to PSA Group and it's only the beginning said GM CEO Mary Barra.
      Automotive News reports that GM is considering reducing investments in North American cars and "select" international markets according to a chart that was shared during a conference call with analysts last week. The chart says these two earned a spot on the chopping block due to low profit potential and weak strength in franchises.
      "There's a little bit more work that we're doing in the international markets. Our overall philosophy is that every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital," Barra said on the conference call. 
      Barra and GM President Dan Ammann declined to go into details about these plans.
      GM has already made significant changes in terms of their international operations by ending or reducing operations Australia, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand. The automaker has also scaled back plans in India. The comments made during the call suggest more cuts could take place here and possibly elsewhere.
      As for 'reducing investments in North American cars', this likely means GM is taking a hard look at various segments in passenger car segment. With consumers trending towards utility vehicles and trucks, sales of passenger cars have been falling precipitously. As of March 1st, dealers had four month's worth of inventory of cars, compared to an 81-day supply for light trucks and less than 60-days for full-size SUVs. GM could walk away from certain segments such as compacts or full-size sedans, or delay investments in certain models.
      These moves will allow GM to funnel money into models that make more money, and returning capital to shareholders.
      "That's an immediate opportunity for us to reward shareholders without changing the risk profile of the company or our ability to manage through a downturn," GM CFO Chuck Stevens said.
      Analysts are mixed on GM's plans.
      "It takes a lot of discipline to shift away from a volume-is-king kind of mentality," she said. "In the end, that's going to make a better GM -- a longer-standing company that's not only more profitable but more relevant," said Rebecca Lindland, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book to Automotive News.
      John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch isn't so sure about this plan.
      "It appears that GM's recent decision-making has become much more short-term-focused and, in our opinion, could create challenges for the company in the coming years," Murphy wrote in a report.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors seems being in a cutting mood as it drives to improve its profit margins and stock price. Last week saw the sale of Opel and Vauxhall to PSA Group and it's only the beginning said GM CEO Mary Barra.
      Automotive News reports that GM is considering reducing investments in North American cars and "select" international markets according to a chart that was shared during a conference call with analysts last week. The chart says these two earned a spot on the chopping block due to low profit potential and weak strength in franchises.
      "There's a little bit more work that we're doing in the international markets. Our overall philosophy is that every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital," Barra said on the conference call. 
      Barra and GM President Dan Ammann declined to go into details about these plans.
      GM has already made significant changes in terms of their international operations by ending or reducing operations Australia, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand. The automaker has also scaled back plans in India. The comments made during the call suggest more cuts could take place here and possibly elsewhere.
      As for 'reducing investments in North American cars', this likely means GM is taking a hard look at various segments in passenger car segment. With consumers trending towards utility vehicles and trucks, sales of passenger cars have been falling precipitously. As of March 1st, dealers had four month's worth of inventory of cars, compared to an 81-day supply for light trucks and less than 60-days for full-size SUVs. GM could walk away from certain segments such as compacts or full-size sedans, or delay investments in certain models.
      These moves will allow GM to funnel money into models that make more money, and returning capital to shareholders.
      "That's an immediate opportunity for us to reward shareholders without changing the risk profile of the company or our ability to manage through a downturn," GM CFO Chuck Stevens said.
      Analysts are mixed on GM's plans.
      "It takes a lot of discipline to shift away from a volume-is-king kind of mentality," she said. "In the end, that's going to make a better GM -- a longer-standing company that's not only more profitable but more relevant," said Rebecca Lindland, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book to Automotive News.
      John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch isn't so sure about this plan.
      "It appears that GM's recent decision-making has become much more short-term-focused and, in our opinion, could create challenges for the company in the coming years," Murphy wrote in a report.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)