rkmdogs

Low demand??? Who is kidding who? People don't buy them because they are not available!! And don't give me the old schtik about the Magnum --- that was a farce, as a wagon!! Like I said before --- go where people are using their vehicles to haul stuff, and see what they want! CUV's and SUV's sell ---- 'cause that's all you can get! But they sure are not the answer to everybody's needs! As proof? Try to find a '78-'83 Malibu wagon ---- at a fair market price. Everyone you find is inflated, because most of them turn into highly desired drag-race cars!

You must smoke them funny cigareetes! Go to a DOG SHOW! Go to a HORSE SHOW! Go to any event where gear needs to be hauled! When wagons disappeared vans took their place. Now vans are disappearing, but the need still is there ---- if you know where to look!

You need to take off your rose-colored glasses then and: Question with Boldness Listen for and to Answers Hold to the Truth Speak without Fear ..... and read Thomas Paines' book Common Sense! He only wrote it over 100 years ago!

As I said on another blog, in my area I have seen 4 Ford ads in 2 days promoting their Taurus SHO sedan. What does GM have to offer against it? The Pontiac G8 is no more... and it was RWD. (Which I prefer) The new Buicks are out of the price range. The Malibu and Impalas are a joke. All the SS's are dead.... Chrysler still has the Charger, as a sedan. So I say again, what does the General offer as a performance SEDAN? Don't say the Camaro, because in your wettest dream, that is not a sedan. In order to stay in the market, you have to compete ---- apples to apples! An old latin saying, QUO VADIS, GM ????????

You may not have heard tonights' news. So many people in MI. have bought into this program, THEY HAVE RUN OUT OF SUBSIDY MONEY! There was "only" 1 Bil released from the 4Bil appropriated --- so the whole program is on a hold. Dealers are pissed, not getting the money. I also heard that the engines have to be removed before the crushing, and they can be sold by the scrap dealer. Guess where that metal is going? ----- CHINA!

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! It's time that Chevy got back to designing a "family car" You'll notice that on this one, the second row seats FOLD FLAT! They don't do that on the Equinox! That is what knocks that vehicle out from any consideration as a "multi-purpose FAMILY vehicle!" It's time that someone remember what the features were of that old dirty-word --- a STATION WAGON! That's what FAMILIES BUY !!!!

I donno' ---- but I've got 4 different ones!.... made by several different companies!

When did you invent a people-shrinker???? Get real! Small cars are forced on the public by penalties from government regs! People are not getting smaller, they in fact are getting bigger! Until you can invent a pill to make people like being stuffed like sardines in a can, small cars will only succeed by economic penalties. What small cars have had the market success that standard cars have enjoyed for years! Stop your wimping!!!! Lighter ?------ go read a physics book on the subject of mass impact! 3900 lb cars were created by government regs to make safety cocoons! My 1983 full-framed Malibu only weighed 3380 lbs!...... by actual scale test. But it did not include the B/S currently required that allows you to become an inattentive driver.

Ditto on most of your comments. The ones that I have heard here from other bloggers is why GM is in such big trouble! We just switched from a Chrysler T & C minivan to a downsize, for economy! Looked at the HHR's. Couldn't even touch a used one for under 20k, equipped the way I would want one! Looked at a Dodge Caliber SXT. Bought a used one for $5,000. less than the best deal on an HHR! AND..... it is more functional and PRACTICAL --- than the HHR! And gave 30.9mpg! I like the looks and proportions of the new Orlando. Might even considr a switch after seeing one in the flesh. It seems to have returned to a realm of practical rather than snobb appeal! Oh yeah, a small diesel would set this apart from the rest and bring mileage back ahead of the flock!

The Magnum was a farce as a wagon! It could not hold or haul anything of size or large proportions! It was a Kammback sedan! AND seating...... count placements on one hand, not what a wagon should be able to do. Its only saving grace was that it was RWD!

Both of you need to get rid of your slant-eyed glasses! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ---- and I think the Traverse is the BEST of the lot! So there!----pf-f-ft! Put that in your negative teacup!

I haven't been reading this website much recently, but after reading the 7 pages of this blog----- I have one thing to say. This is supposed to be a pro-GM website. Why don't all you bitchers go play somewhere else? You all have spewed enough hot air about sh-t that you can't do anything about to float an entire fleet of airships! If you think some other product is better ---- go to their website and bitch! Positive comments are what makes for improvments, not nag,nag,nag. The bottom line on all of this B/S is where do the final checks go? If it is overseas, then go get your paycheck in rice kernels! ---- 'cause you are not keeping dollars home where they can do more "work." All of the manufacturers are plagued with the same problem. That's a Congress who thinks that they know more about vehicle design than the manufacturers, and tell them how to do it via regulation! I would still like to know when they started handing out birth certificates with a lifetime warranty? Our Government regs appear to be that way..... Let's get positive in the comments dept.

I can't believe my eyes! 13 pages of crapola about everything under the sun, instead of an intelligent commentary about the Traverse! Why don't you marketing wanna-bes go play on another thread. This was supposed to be commentary on Chevy's new product, good, bad or indifferent----- it is like the sunrise. It's coming tomorrow, and you are not going to stop it. To digress and go into all this otherB/S, is a waste of time and space! But I have become guilty of my own lament------- Everyone is ignoring the 500lb Gorilla in the living room, or the elephant in the refrigerator(choose your own metaphor). The Traverse is intended primarily as a family vehicle with lots of versatility. It appears to be the Generals mini-van replacement for an Astro-sized vehicle.(Which is sorely missed) BUT IT IGNORES CURRENT REALITY in the economy and fuel market issues! This is a vehicle that should be on the short list to receive the new VM Motori V6 diesel! Volkswagen is gonna have one. Subaru is gonna have one. Mercedes is gonna have one. Even BMW is gonna have one. Are the GM planners so afraid of the political pundits out there on the West coast that they ignore reality ---- or maybe they have their own political agenda. 2nd generation, or Bluetooth Diesels are the practical way to improve on our fuel situation in the shortest period of time. If they come out with a diesel option ----- I'll consider buying one and give up my Chrysler Town&Country! --- even tho I'd lose my stow n' go seats!--- The greatest thing since sliced bread and motherhood for us old farts who need multi-purpose vehicles!

Oh you of ambiguous statements.............. Please define "full size" in specific terms, 'cause the definition of it, in my mind keeps moving with each era! '60's and '70's "full size" cars were MUCH larger dimensionally than what some folks call "full size" today. These definitions seem to change faster than you can change your underware, ..... and make even less sense! I would like someone to tell me, other than by cubic volume, what parameters are now being used to categorize car sizes?

You obviously were not around then when GM did the same thing with a trio called the B-O-P cars! And then again with Chevy & Pontiac........ and how about the "G" bodied cars of the '80's? Your memory is way too short!

Right on Carbiz! How many of you know about our military hardware problems caused by outsourcing? One incident----- Austria makes the controls for our "smart bombs" used by our Air Force. In response to a lack of support from the UN about our presence in Iraq, they refused to deliver XXX number of controls. Consequently, we were short-supplied in our war efforts, due to the Austrian politics. The British also had them assemble some hand-grenades, which again for the same reason they refused to deliver them. How many Brits lives have been lost because they did not have the munitions their government out-sourced? In that same vein, while the F-22 fighter was being developed, it came to pass that Boeing needed to manufacture some titanium forgings for the landing gear structure, but the US no longer has the capability to make titanium forgings! They had to out-source them to China!' As a result, one of our caring congressmen tacked a rider on to a military approprations bill, that 65% of the content of all purchased military hardware had to be made in the USA! It was fought tooth & nail! Guess who fought it? Our State department and some of our Joint Chiefs! They claimed that by having to make things here, it would increase the military budget by 2 Billion dollars-- and we could not piss off our new friends in China! Well, I'm remided of a statement by Mr. Iococoa to the auto-workers at the Belvidere, Il. plant who went on a wildcat strike for more money. Mr. Iococoa told them he had 2300 jobs at $19.++/hour, and 0 jobs @ $22.00/hr.! That holds true when we are looking for strategic parts that our out-source refuse to make, for political reasons. We are rapidly losing the capability to manufacture, and trading it for secondary service jobs! How can you service a G.I.'s broken M-16 when you can't get the parts 'cause they are made in XWQDAK-land!!!! Wake up America! This car business is not only about who has the prettiest one out there, but is about who has got the job & salary to be able to buy one!

In an article in the Sunday, March 25, 2007 edition of Parade supplement the is a column called, "Intelligence Report" written by Lyric Wallwork Winik (it says), and alleges to be a report from abroad. It says, "Europe: "No" to foreign cars Americans have embraced Japanese cars to the point where U.S. automakers like Ford and General Motors are fighting for their lives. Not the Europeans. Most show great loyalty to their own nationalities when it comes to buying a new set of wheels. In Germany, the 10 best-selling cars are all German. In France, nine of the top ten are French-made. Three of the five most-popular cars in Italy are made by Fiat, an Italian firm. And in Sweden, Volvos and Saabs account for the four best-selling vehicles." I attribute this situation to the general dumbing-down that has occurred in the American driving situation. When we build cars that literally "think" for the driver, what do they have to know about cars? Mosy of todays drivers think of the car as another appliance, like the stove or refrigerator. They don't realize the fact that it is said that one out of every seven jobs in the U.S. is someway related to the auto industry. But that was yesterdays news. Now we have foreign-owned companies that build plants here and hire Americans---- but the profits still go offshore! We need to wake up and realize that the job you save, by buying a car from an American-based company may just be your own! Of course that too was before NAFTA started "sucking" jobs outside of our borders. Well when you are out of work and need a car, ask if you can pay for it in yen, or pesos, or some other foreign currency!

Yeah, but they are buying Impalas for $18K, and the Fudd models for just a little more. D-C cars are at the top of the food chain in squads, both in performance and price. Departments are having to make choices....... and so far, a lot of them are switching to the FWD Impalas!

Not totally correct in your facts. The '94-'96 "B" bodied Caprice 9C1's, when tested in the Michigan State Police trials had a top speed of 138mph. But these were further restricted, via the computer down to 126mph, based on tire selection on the purchase order. Meanwhile, the last Camaro BC4 packages topped out at 148mph....... which is why many departments have kept them, if they have a pursuit policy. The current tests show Impalas running in 3rd place, on most of the performance tests, but their prices put them back up. In middle FL., many sheriff depts. are switching to them.

There is (was) a rumor that had wide circulation, that the '91-'96 "B" body cars were designed around a 300,000 mile life mandate, in order to successfully produce the 9C1 and taxicab variants. Now I do not know if this was for the whole structure, the powertrain, or what, but I can tell you that my '95 9C1 Caprice recently turned over 195,000 miles, and its early life was a hard one as an FBI undercover car. It still runs without a squeak or rattle, but I did have to do some major tune-replacements on the engine. In this day and era, any vehicle designated for police or taxi use has to have this life mileage value, >300,000 or the designers are just kidding themselves, and their company!

This is a fantastic thread, and I really do appreciate all of the detail and specifics. However there is one point that has been overlooked, or left out of the discussion. That is, the desmodromic valve consideration. For those of you who were not around in the 50's, desmodromic valves do not use springs for valve closure, they use mechanical actuation for both opening and closing. Two of the best examples of this concept were the Mercedes W196 engine, and the Pegaso 504. I wrote a theme paper about the Pegaso when in college, explaining this feature. The Pegaso was a very expensive car to build. It was financed by the Spanish government and the design was by Spanish college students, so expense was not even considered as a factor. I would love to hear some comments from you contemporary guys on this, if you have any research data. The other factor not mentioned in this discussion other than casually, is internal parasitic frictional losses. Most college-level internal combustion engine design textbooks raise the issue of internal efficiency, and the ways to measure it for a given design. Does anyone have any input on this factor, in the valve system design discussion? Again, love this thread & would like to see a lot more like it. This is the kind of stuff that C & G should promote, not the "feel" of the upholstery!

Let's go back to the original questionable premise--"that it costs more to design a diesel engine instead of a gasoline one." The emphasis here was on "design", which is the comment that I challenged. Go back to the orginal GM press release. "GM's development of the new engine is being coordinated under the leadership of GM Powertrain's European operations in Turin, Italy, in cooperation with VM Motori based in Cento,Italy. GM Powertrain will focus on the development of the clean combustion process, electronic engine control and exhaust-gas aftertreatment, as well as calibration and integration into GM vehicles. VM Motori will build the new unit at its plant in Cento,Italy, and is responsible for the mechanical aspects of the engine's design, development and bench testing." No where did this release say the Cadillac was doing any of the engine work, so the design cost is coming from a different pocket in GM's pants! These are the ivory-tower divisions of GM, not the Cadillac division! The only additional cost to Cadillac may be some more hardware in the building of the car, but not $5000. worth! This whole "schtick" of, "diesels cost more", is a sales ploy that has been foisted on the auto buyers for far too long! It is time for an accountability check!!!!

Again, you are confusing ivory-tower development technology with run-of-the-mill production design. They are not even in the same ball park. I know, I've been there----- on both sides, but at different times, of course!

Those are all add-ons, and do not pertain to the cost of the engine design, which was the statement I referred to in my previous post. High performance internal combustion, gasoline-fueled engines require similar external hardware, like catalytic convertors, and O2 sensors, to comply with mandated political agendas. So, those costs factor out as a wash. Turbochargers don't care whether they are on a diesel engine or a gas engine. Their technology is the same, but their physicals may vary. Again, volume of manufacture becomes the criteria on cost break-down, plus some amount for degree of sophistication. That is all covered in the extent of manufacturing devlopment. That is not to say that the engine designer does not have to have some acumen about how the engine will be fabricated and adjust the design for the best use of the manufacturing processes. The history here is a point. When GM first had Buick design the 3.5L BOP all-aluminum engine in the early 60's, it cost $200 more to manufacture that engine than a larger cast-iron engine. The reason: The state-of-the-art in casting aluminum engine blocks could not prevent or discover internal casting porosity. In some cases not until the engine was 90% machined. They did not have the pore-sealing technology then that later became SOP, so blocks were scrapped that had a lot of time and money expended on them. This was not a design fault, it was a manufacturing technology flaw, that has subsequently been solved. But to save loosing money on scrap engine blocks, Buick switched back to the cast-iron block designs in 1964. Today we have all-aluminum engines again, that are now considered run-of-the-mill designs and are made without the prior manufacturing problems. They call that progress!!