Jump to content
Create New...

balthazar

In Hibernation
  • Posts

    40,855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    583

Everything posted by balthazar

  1. I didn't "ignore" the reasons GM is doing this, surreal; I talked on both 'economies of scale / capital' and 'engineers co-operating' in my posts above. If anyone has any other motive reasons, feel free to expound. I'm sure they did find some profit to be made off that venture. Needless to say... GM has pursued numerous ventures with good intentions and undoubtedly compelling figures that have up-ended in short order. My question still stands about the longer-term / broad picture of handing your proprietary 'milestone' BE hardware over to the competition (who has none such of their own). But when I read GM's recent Corporate PR from Barra, I'm less & less convinced she / GM view themselves as being in competition anymore, and that instead, all the OEMs are going to gather around the (digital, of course) campfire and hold hands, as one conscious entity under the stars. Whatever - just ignore my question then if too annoying.
  2. ^ It wasn't a 'doom' scenario then, however; once Edsel Ford passed and Ol' Henry took the tiller again ('43), it was clear he was past his prime / ability to doing so. He retired a 2nd time in Sept of '45, so he wasn't heading up the company long that 2nd time.
  3. 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).
  4. Henry Ford passed away today, 75 years ago, in 1947.
  5. I looked hard at the F-150 when shopping, but when optioned as I wanted, as soon as I selected the Powerstroke 3.0, it kicked out both the color & rims I wanted. It was a close 2nd. [Ram, BTW, was thousands more expensive in a comparable trim]. The trans is co-developed by Ford & GM. Nope- doesn’t bother me. Although I did see a recent article on Ford having 10R80 issues on the F-150. I know they are tuned/tweaked respectively. But this was never about my purchase particulars, it was a question RE competition within the industry. As far as honda engineers, is anyone saying GM NEEDS honda engineer input to get the job done?
  6. ^ 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…
  7. So... I don't 'get' how automakers compete with each other, and I claimed 'the end is nigh for GM' while I was at it. Interesting interpretation. - - - - - Robert - have any cross-corporate engine-sharing examples you can think of?
  8. 1942, I believe in Colorado. U.S. Mail vehicle, purpose-built for excessively muddy areas ~
  9. From a R&D standpoint, that's true. But obviously the margin on a complete vehicle will be more than on one component of such. Then there's the tactical advantage of 'that Buick Encore has a 320 mile range, but the Honda CR-V only goes 200 miles; let's go check out Buick'. Changing a hardcore loyalist's opinion is commonly futile, but there ARE 'open-minded' consumers out there, and electrification presents a 'ground floor' where a number of consumers are going to 'reset' their biases. Look no further than the adoption of Tesla. * Not that folk were biased against Tesla, but it was an outsider that's made significant inroads among consumers. - - - - - I'm not approaching this as 'consumers care/don't care who made the powertrain', but as 'GM has a strongly competitive BE platform... and honda doesn't'.
  10. ^ Probably so- the market for a 2-seat sports car is small. After decades upon decades of relative stability in the global auto industry, then a spate of discontinuances circa the early 2000s, I suspect another round of venture failures is in the works - the market overall isn't exponentially-expanding volume-wise... but there are a whole host of intended new OEMs trying to make a go at it (some with severely lopsided expectations). This potential expansion of volume is going to 'carve the pizza' into smaller & smaller slices, AND see some intended OEMs never get off the ground / fail soon after.
  11. I've certainly daily-driven non-GM products in the past. But yes; I don't find Euro vehicles appealing.
  12. I just see a potential for a huge competitive advantage were GM to start mass, great-range affordable Ultium BE vehicles and across the street; honda is still pushing IC civics CR-Xs.
  13. I believe singular engines here isn't a direct parallel (despite me bringing that example up). Ultium (according to GM) will power ALL their products at some point ("soon"), and it would empower GM sales to maintain all Ultium production for themselves - they should 'shut honda out' if honda has no suitable competition. There's also a question of having suitable volume/supply for GM in this era. GM has ONE vehicle currently out on Ultium, and they're already agreeing to sell the powertrain to a competitor.
  14. I do agree than some nameplates have been changed for little to no reason, and unquestionably the shown 'Silverado EV' should've been named the Avalanche (still hoping there's a 'real' pickup reveal, or at least separate body/bed variants coming). But to be fair, GM has many nameplates that have lasted for decades & decades, including the longest running nameplate in the industry.
  15. I know Lincoln used a BMW diesel in the '70s. The toyoter 86 has a Subaru engine... but these are both niche sub-segments. A -say- compact CUV has a huge potential volume in comparison. What are some other examples? - - - - - I see an issue once an 'Ultium Equinox' and an 'Ultium CR-V' (or whatever) are in the same segment/space, that whereas Utium could have swayed the sale to GM... instead it will go to Honda. I mean; that's GOING to happen, and that's a lost sale to GM.
  16. Putting your 'class leading' powertrain under your competition's vehicles will only harm GM. It's a very poor decision, long-term.
  17. I've stated it numerous times here before. It'd be stupid to change the name of the same model simply because the motive power changes. That'd be like Chevy having 4 different names for the 1/2-ton pickup because it has a 4-cyl gas, a 6-cyl turbodiesel, one 8-cyl gas or another 8-cyl gas engine.
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings