Leaderboard

I think there is a lot of chicken-littleing in this thread. The sky is not falling. This is ultium platform sharing, but not the body in white. You're not going to see CR-V shaped Equinoxes. It will be all the dirty bits underneath. Note how similar the CR-V, Equinox, and Terrain are today: Equinox - 1.5T with 170 hp and 203 lb-ft, 6-speed automatic Terrain - 1.5T with 170 hp and 203 lb-ft, 9-speed automatic CR-V - 1.5T with 190 hp and 179 lb-ft, CVT None of those are drastically different to even the above average consumer who would bother to check the specs. In this segment, they care more about seat comfort, what the stereo sounds like, and how much space there is in the hatch. Each one has their pluses and minuses: + Equinox and Terrain for having a good bit more torque - Equinox and Terrain for having the tendency to burn up their cylinder heads + CR-V for having more horsepower - CR-V for having a CVT (though probably one of the best CVTs available) + Terrain for having a 9-speed auto - Equinox for having a 6-speed auto - Terrain for having a $30k base price + CR-V and Equinox for having a ~$26k base price All this announcement does is say that GM and Honda will share the motive power. Do you really care if the electric motor and battery comes from Honda or GM? A battery is a battery and an electric motor is an electric motor. GM is ahead of Honda on both of these, so it is wise for Honda to partner with someone rather than spend R&D money on developing battery technology. @balthazar are you upset that your Sierra has a Ford developed transmission in it? Do you think it would have changed your purchase decision if it was the 3.0 Ford Powerstroke diesel in there instead of the Duramax? If not, why not? At least Mrs. Balth's Malibu has a GM transmission in it... the same one the Escape uses, albeit with one more gear.

Yep, still there..saw the Garden of the Gods balanced rock many times when I lived about a mile from the park from '97-02...

Colorado Springs, CO ~

^ Red resto-mod is a ‘66-67, but the bottom car is the ‘63-65 body; 2 different body shells. The white wheels are abominable, but the rest is pure Buick Styling : It’s incredibly hard to do any significant improvements, stylistically, to a ‘66-67 Riv. Tho not as popular or iconic as the ‘63-65s, they are near perfection in line, proportion and detail. Not that the earlier cars are easy to improve upon either…

My point is that even piddling little turbo engines of mediocre output are/can be quite sensitive to oil change requirements. I can hear and identify certain sounds that different brands make. Ford starter, old GM pushrod V6 starters, Northstar starters, any GM RWD 4-speed auto accelerating, any Panther accelerating, most older FWD Chrylsers coming to a stop... the list goes on and I'm sure you can identify those and some others too. I can hear an insufficiently oiled Audi/VW Turbo-4 coming at me with my eyes closed. I can hear/feel an insufficiently oiled GM 1.4T/1.5T from inside the car. This aren't even the high performance ones.... and for every well maintained WRX out there, there is another one with the body kit falling off and a dangling fart can. I think the exact same thing with happen with this new Toyota.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. And "co-developed" for both the GM 9-Speed / Ford 10-Speed is pretty generous wording. I'm sure each company had a lot of input on the respective designs, but GM was the lead on the FWD version and Ford was the lead on the RWD. Ford did some cost cutting on the 9-speed by dropping the final gear. Final tuning for both is done by the company using the transmission obviously. Honda is so far behind on EV development that the most they can contribute to GM is money, but yes, they'll need spec requirements from Honda as well.

I've been working on this little by little each day but I think the SQL server tuning is finally there. I made a change just now and the server is lightning fast... the site seems to be the fastest its ever been.

Henry Ford passed away today, 75 years ago, in 1947.

Sounds like David is, ironically, afraid of new technology and assumes it will fail.

As of about 5 minutes ago, I got a new high powered search tool installed. Site searches using the box in the upper right should be faster and more Google-like in quality. It will take a bit for the software to reindex the 20ish years worth of posts here, but as of now it is already 12% done. There may be a *slight* performance hit while the search indexer is running, but it still seems faster than anything we've been use to for the past 20 years.

1997 - 2005, and probably later, but they are getting away with it more now by specifying lower weight oil and full synthetic. Those years are just what the class-action/recall covered. It's a 185 hp/liter 3-cylinder, heavily boosted. They'll be sensitive to oil changes just like any turbo-charged engine... likely more so.

Gotta Love stories about one off concept that engineers built. This is Sexy for the era. General Motors Engineers Built A One-Off Buick Tire Shredder (jalopnik.com) 300 HP NorthStar FWD Riviera!!! Here is one for @balthazar Bagged 1960s Buick Riviera GS Has Saucy Candy Apple Red Land Yacht Digital Vibes - autoevolution Have to say a modern touch on a classic here really works for me. Love the body flowing lines.

Many. Olds enumerated a few above. And lots of platforms shared across makers—GM and Toyota, GM and Suzuki, Ford and Mazda, Etc. JVs happen.

And why should they buy GM? Lemming pool? Generic appliances? All three questions and Im gonna bash GM defending Honda. Yes...Honda builds generic shyte. As does GM. One generic appliance vehicle from GM is no better or worse than from Honda. GM HAD a lemming pool of rabid fanbois. GM pissed that away. GM has tried to get them back. Honda invited them in and these folk have not looked back. Dont blame Honda lemmings. Blame GM corporate big wigs for phoquing it up. Yes. GM is no longer THAT GM anymore. But its too damned bad if Honda fanbois stay with Honda. But the thing that bothers me most about that quote of yours and Balthy's about not sharing with Honda.... Honda has GREAT engineers. Being partnered with Honda is an ASSET for GM. And obviously vice versa. Honda has no EV platforms. They could engineer them. They may not have the cash to do so. HOWEVER, Honda engineers will work with GM engineers when these Ultium platforms become available to them and when enough Honda EVs by Ultium are sold to Honda customer's....Honda engineers could work with GM engineers to IMPROVE upon future Ultium platforms. Honda has a wide wide wide engineering field. It was smart for GM to partner up with Honda... Honda

^^^ Saturn Redline V6 was a 3.5 liter Honda V6 Pontiac Vibe had a Toyota 1.8 liter 4 cylinder mid '80s Chevrolet Nova had a Toyota 1.6 liter 4 cylinder Toyota 86 has a Subaru 2.4 liter flat 4 cylinder this generation Toyota Supra has a 3.0 liter inline 6 from BMW Lotus Elise uses a Toyota 1.8 liter 4 cylinder Lotus Evora uses a Toyota 3.5 liter V6 McLaren F1 used a 6 liter BMW V12 Aston Martin uses AMG engines. V12s and V8s. I dont remember what models... Im sure there are other examples. These are from the top of my head that I know about. Honda does not have any EV platforms. Honda could just as easily partner up with another manufacturer that could use the R&D money and engineering sharing that has a platform, maybe BMW, maybe Mercedes, maybe Ford or Stellantis or even Toyota. (Toyota has been known to help fellow Japanese car makers...like Mazda) and GM could just as easily lose out to (sales) Honda in the long run anyway... Might as well partner up, share costs, use Honda brains AND money and sell affordable EVs world wide. GM may have needed solid state battery tech. Or at least to share R&D costs for solid state tech... If GM (and Honda) is to sell affordable EVs, for real, to customers, because as we know EV production is expensive and selling high priced EVs to compensate the costs is not viable as the majority of car owners are not of the wealthy type..then this way is the way. Dont partner up with Honda, Honda will partner up with another, and lose out on potential sales with Honda as your rival.. Partner up with Honda, share costs and engineering, and lose out on potential sales to Honda, but as your partner... Big difference.

I don't expect to see that sort of 'low-cowl' proportion to come back anytime soon. The now-mandatory high nose (pedestrian regulation) and uber-high deck (CAFE regulation) would make a 'worn soap' sedan look very bloated. Think mercedes EQS.

ah, GM, we need something like this back...... although how would this translate to a longer greenhouse and possibly a hatch,

Random but recurring thought: A decade ago, and prior to that, I found it hard to decide WHICH vehicle I might want to buy from among the choices available to me. Currently, I find it hard to decide IF there is a vehicle I might want to buy from among the choices available to me.

If GM doesn't 'need' Honda's engineering input, why solicit it? - - - - - Most of the industry itself, since... the beginning, looks at it more like, say; Major League Baseball. These companies are in competition with each other (duh). When the Mets & the Phillies meet up, the Mets don't say 'Hey; you're behind 9-2. Why not use our lead-off hitter - he's @ .403 right now! Then we can have a higher aggregate game score... you just have to pay us .05% of his salary per at-bat!' If it's legit that 'Ultium represents a milestone achievement in electrification', then let the chips fall where they may, and if that includes honda falling 'so far behind' : ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. GM 'doesn't need' honda and doesn't own honda anything. That would include whatever minor 'economies of scale' such partnership may generate (offset by every lost sale to an Ultium honda/acura); GM doesn't need it. GM made $10 billion in net profit in a rough year last year, and they claim they'll have 30 BE models on sale 30 months from now. That'd put GM near the leading edge of BE volume (by model count).