Let's Petition GM to REMOVE the 3.0L From Cadillac and the Lacrosse

[Cmicasa the Great]

I'm serious. We now have a way of actually directly talking to GM management thru the "TELL FRITZ" http://www.gmreinvention.com/?commentSubmitted=true LINK

I wrote: Please for the love of GOD.. Get rid of the 3.0L in the Cadillac SRX, CTS, and Lacrosse. It does not improve the MPG and obviously performs worse than the 3.6L or 2.8Lt. I am willing to bet the 3.5L would do better . Unless the 3.0L has a turbo. Kill it.

[Cmicasa the Great]

If we bombard them with this request.. perhaps they will realize that there simply is no reason in the world to offer this engine.

It's Pointless... and makes no sense whatsoever considering the 3.6L gets better fuel economy with a substantial increase in power. The 2.8L does as well... and if the reasoning behind not offering the 2.8L as the only engine is it's necessity for PREMIUM FUEL... then the 3.6Lsidi with 304HP makes a better case. Boost the 2.8L Turbo to 325HP (as is the Opel Insignia OPC) and all is well.

[Satty]

Online petitions and online mobs solve everything.

[regfootball]

great point. there is better thread for this on GMI. although, GM prob needs a 3.0 litre version of this for some international reason and needs to spread the production of it around to make it financially viable is my guess.

they should retune it for decent torque.

this engine should not exist in the SRX. it should only be in front drive lacrosse as a base motor.

Edited August 15, 2009 by regfootball

[Blake Noble]

Good luck on this. You'll need it.

[loki]

they're putting the 3.0 in the cts?

[pow]

They're doing this so they can charge more and make money.

[intrigued]

I fully agree with this. The biggest issue is that it cannot be much if at all cheaper to make then the much more powerful and just as fuel efficent 3.6 DI. It really detracts from the driving experience of some cars (Even non car enthusiest drivers, especially American drivers, love torque) and it would probably be cheaper to have just the 1 variant as well due to economics of scale.

That said I suppose GM is doing this to force people to pay more for the more powerful engines but I think they would sell more cars for little if any production cost increase without the crappy base engine.

[ZL-1]

Online petitions and online mobs solve everything.

Just like randomly clubbing baby seals.

[Satty]

Just like randomly clubbing baby seals.

At least that nets me a new hat after a while.

[FAPTurbo]

Just like randomly clubbing baby seals.

Clubbing seals constitutes 30% of Canada's economy. Without the hunt, or Bryan Adams, we'd starve.

[Z-06]

Clubbing seals constitutes 30% of Canada's economy. Without the hunt, or Bryan Adams, we'd starve.

Celine Dion and Nickelback do not contribute to the economy anymore?

[A Horse With No Name]

Good luck on this. You'll need it.

+1

Chris

[Blake Noble]

Celine Dion and Nickelback do not contribute to the economy anymore?

How could they? You can only sell the same $h! in a different box for so long. I'm sure GM can explain why.

[regfootball]

Celine Dion and Nickelback do not contribute to the economy anymore?

celine is knocked up again. she contributes her eggs to create a wunderchild, that and albums in both english and french.

[ZL-1]

:rotflmao: at all the comments re Canada's economy. You guys are funny! However and on a serious bote, you have more than that: mining companies that pay my salary, for example. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited August 19, 2009 by ZL-1

[GMTruckGuy74]

Personally, I'd like the petition to include the use of the 3.6L V6 in the GMC Terrain instead of the 3.0L V6 to differentiate it more from the new Chevrolet Equinox. I know that the exterior design does that well enough, but GMC could also charge a little more for the upgraded V6 and make more PROFIT for GM in the process (what GMC is good for anyway).

However, maybe thus is already in the works... with a Denali version of the Terrain

[Cmicasa the Great]

Good luck on this. You'll need it.

Supposedly It's not so far fetched... In reference to ONLINE OUTCRY.. the Buick Vue was killed... So why not this?

Tom Stevens, GM Vice Chairman

Last week, we had a new and future product showcase at which employees, potential customers, dealers, media, analysts and others toured our Design facilities and test-drove vehicles at the Milford Proving Ground. The main reason we did it was to get people talking about us — and to us. And, this is the important part, when they talked, we listened.

And we got some great positive feedback… the future Cadillacs drew great praise, our GMC concept was very well received, and the lineup of fuel efficient Chevys — Spark, Aveo and Cruze — impressed many of our guests. Three future Buicks we showed also drew a lot of interest and compliments.

However, not all the feedback was positive.

The Buick crossover we showed received consistent feedback from large parts of all the audiences that it didn’t fit the premium characteristics that customers have come to expect from Buick.

You may recall that this was the Buick compact crossover I announced in Traverse City a few weeks ago, with a plug-in hybrid version to accompany it — this is not the smaller Buick crossover we showed that was playfully referred to as “the baby Enclave.” That vehicle did very well and remains in the lineup.

We were all struck by the consistency of the criticism of the compact crossover. And what we decided to do in response is a good example of the essence of the new General Motors… acting quickly, and boldly, and listening to feedback from customers, employees, dealers, media and just about anyone else with an opinion.

Last Friday, reaction to the Buick crossover was discussed at the meeting of our Executive Committee, the newly formed group that steers product decisions, and it was decided that if it didn’t belong, it didn’t belong. Buick crossover canceled. Fritz Henderson, Bob Lutz and I and the rest of the committee decided to take swift action to prevent a potential underperformer from reaching the marketplace. And we decided that the important plug-in hybrid technology would be applied to another vehicle, at no delay, that we’ll discuss in the very near future.

What gives me pause is how quickly we made a decision and carried it out. In the past this would have been a several-month process involving meeting after meeting of the APB, ASB, and various other acronyms, and also many “offline” follow-up discussions before a decision was reached and enacted. This happened in one day.

So there’s the proof, in my eyes, that the new GM is listening, and moving quickly. Watch this space.

LINK to FASTLANE

[smk4565]

The 3.0 is pointless if it gets equal or less gas mileage than the 3.6.

The 2.4 gets good mileage, they could turbocharge that to get the 3.0 V6's power with more mpg. Ford is going to use 4 cylinder turbos to replace their 3.0 and 4.0 V6's.

[regfootball]

The 3.0 is pointless if it gets equal or less gas mileage than the 3.6.

The 2.4 gets good mileage, they could turbocharge that to get the 3.0 V6's power with more mpg. Ford is going to use 4 cylinder turbos to replace their 3.0 and 4.0 V6's.

the 3.0 is pointless. the vue does not have the 6 speed. the buick version would with the 4 presumably. buick does need to think turbo.

unlike honda and mazda, whose 4 popper turbo crossovers drink fuel at an alarming rate, i think GM could definitely make a market splash by adding the 4 popper turbo to the equinox/terrain/buick variant, as well as the malibu/regal and products like the orlando down the line.

[Bimmer325]

Buick should offer one trim-level with the 3.6 standard.