GM ranks their powertrains ahead of Toyota

[LubeOiler]

I am sorry to say the consumer is not stupid enough to think GM has passed Toyota in anything.GM advertises a lot more perhaps but making a good product is not made up by telling people its good. The proof is in the numbers and until GM quits thinking spending money on advertisment will convince the auto buying public they are better than Toyota they will never pass anyone.Nissan has done a wonderful job of giving the customer what they want in their transformation.The SE-R is 750lbs lighter than the G-6 GT compare the two and you will find for the price and reliability Nissan makes a better product. My son is a GM fan but his 4.3 S-10 had tons of trouble. On the other hand his Cavalier served him very well. Toyota has a good transmission so it will be hard for JD Powers or anyone else to convince the public their trannys are sub par.I had a 99 Acura loved the car sold it because of the Transmission.Even the TL was bad that year so check around before you buy because the AT can cost you a bundle.

 

[BatmanLS1]

Can someone confirm this for me?:

Overhead cam is an older design than pushrod (cam in block).
-------
What is crude and low tech about the GTO? It's an engine. They don't cast smooth edges onto the block. They don't pay someone to file the edges down and make it smooth.

Throw one of those pretty covers on it like other manufacturers and all the sudden it's a refined, high tech engine?

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LubeOiler:
snip.... The proof is in the numbers snip....

---

So when GM comes up with good numbers, you dismiss it?

 

[Ryan00TJ]

The GM 4 banger Ecotec is the King of fast sport subcompacts currently holding almost every record and especially the 6.9 @ 197mph ET record.

Toyota has no V8 that can compete against the LSX series of V8's. GM's are more compact and lighter, much more powerful and deliver as good or better fuel economy while being easier to work on and lasting the same amount of time.

Toyota along with other Japanese companies IMO are really ahead of US makers in the 6 cylinder category. They make some really nice and powerful 6 cyl engines.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatmanLS1:
Can someone confirm this for me?:

Overhead cam is an older design than pushrod (cam in block).

---

"The Grand Prix Car 1906-1939" by Pomeroy, page 256 seys Mercedes had an OHC engine in 1907. Plate XXXI shows a 1905 Daimler OHC engine.

Cam in block OHV engine were also around at the same time.

That doesn't answer your question about which was first, but shows they were close.

This OHC may be the first OHC engine:

1898 Wilkinson

I didn't see anything definitive on early OHV engines, probably because they are less remarkable.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Time will tell... Toyota General Motors may eventually evolve/merge converge and end this silly debate for all

Then what?

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
So when GM comes up with good numbers, you dismiss it?

---

Sure..the same people who, 10 years ago, pointed at JD Power data to prove that Japanese cars are more reliable are probably the same ones now scoffing at it because it's not saying what they want to hear.

 

[Mud]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

Tell that to the piston slapping, intake eating 3.1 in our 99 Cutlass.

 

[NewGuy]

IMHO GM has come a long way in the last 10-15 years. I am a former Honda and Toyota owner and agree that the Japanese make good products, but I own a GM SUV now and couldn't be happier. GM is getting some very high ratings in many automotive publications. Of course, they do still have some cars in various classifications that are not as good a value as their Toyota / Honda counterpart.

Some people won't give GM a second look no matter how good they get.

 

[kenw]

initial ownership numbers are totally useless for the consumer.

1) if you aren't happy in the 1st 90 days, you are basically admitting you made a poor choice. Not many people are so willing to admit stupidity. They (we) are too in love with their new purchase, and our pride won't let us admit to making such a horribly expensive mistake that we will be paying 5 years on.....

2) reliability (and therefore value in my book) determinations cannot be made within 90 days of almost ANY manufactured product. Almost any piece of cr@p will hold together by shear self-determination.

3) you also have the expectations of the demographic to deal with. Some groups of people who tend to buy a certain brand just expect less and are happier with lower quality. Since the "defects" are reported by the owner, they are defined by the owner. Any consitent definition of "defect" is hopeless. the whole concept is way too subjective.

 

[Tosh]

Batman:
I believe there's an association with the lack of attention paid to the details on the outside of the engine with what's going on inside. This is what refinement is, attention to detail, and GM has none of that....
No, I don't like horrible plastic engine covers, like in recent Mercedes for example.

 

[Tosh]

Criticizing GM is like telling someone they have an ugly baby: What? How can that be? It's a baby. Everyone knows all babies are adorable!

 

[got boost?]

I didn't see anything definitive on early OHV engines, probably because they are less remarkable. [/QUOTE]

LOL, yeah, lighter, more compact, cheaper to manufacture, easier to work on and modify, with no disadvantages. Not remarkable at all, LOL.

 

[TomH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by got boost?:
I didn't see anything definitive on early OHV engines, probably because they are less remarkable.

---

LOL, yeah, lighter, more compact, cheaper to manufacture, easier to work on and modify, with no disadvantages. Not remarkable at all, LOL. [/QUOTE]

Well, if OHV engines are so great, why is GM the only major automaker still using them in passenger cars and light trucks?

OHV engines were good in their day, but that day has long since come and gone. GM seriously needs to "get with the program" in the engine department.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by got boost?:
I didn't see anything definitive on early OHV engines, probably because they are less remarkable.

---

LOL, yeah, lighter, more compact, cheaper to manufacture, easier to work on and modify, with no disadvantages. Not remarkable at all, LOL.

---

Well, if OHV engines are so great, why is GM the only major automaker still using them in passenger cars and light trucks?

OHV engines were good in their day, but that day has long since come and gone. GM seriously needs to "get with the program" in the engine department. [/QUOTE]

And transmission. Still 4spd autos? Even in the Vette. Amazing.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomH:

Well, if OHV engines are so great, why is GM the only major automaker still using them in passenger cars and light trucks?

---

That would be because GM is the only car company in the world that knows anything about engines.

The arguments for pushrod engines remind me of the troglidites that were still saying flatheads were the best in the 1950s.

 

[brianl703]

I think most customers do not care about the details of the internal workings of the products they buy, as long as they do the job.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:
And transmission. Still 4spd autos? Even in the Vette. Amazing.

---

You could still buy a new car in 2002 with a 3-speed auto, and it wasn't a GM product.

 

[1sttruck]

I think that GM, like Ford and Dodge, have been working on vehicle quality a lot. More and more 'foreign' vehicles seem to be made in the US, so differences will tend to be less with time. Our 93 Taurus has zero problems as I recall for the firs7 70k miles, hauling six people on vacations with a full trunk and the air on at 70mph to 75 mph and still delivering 28 to 29 mpg. It's still running at 190k miles, better now after a series of problems, but it hasn't been reliable as we've replaced quite a few parts. It had fewer problems than the 99 Taurus that we have, which just came off of a 75k mile extended warranty. I appreciate that the old is proving to be durable and is still running, but would have preferred fewer problems as it aged. But, we ended up with the car none of the typical Japanese offerings had the room and configuration that we needed, so 'superior reliablity' is a moot point when they don't offer it in a vehicle that you would buy. I'm also not about to pay 30k for a Honda minivan or some SUV with less ground clearance than my Taurus.

But, so far GM and Ford don't make anything attractive either, which is why I ended up with a Dodge truck for the last vehicle. A roomy, affordable diesel sedan would be nice when we need to replace one of the cars, but I don't expect to see any.

 

[got boost?]

the LSX series and HEMI are two clean sheet OHV engine designs developed in the last ten years. both the LSX and HEMI outperform (power AND fuel mileage) anything comparable. they are also both very light and compact. it is also much easier to add cylinder deactivation to a single camshaft engine. BTW the Duramax diesel is a pushrod four valve per cylinder engine.

[ July 13, 2005, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: got boost? ]