I have heard some claims that GM’s basic automobile technology that is incorporated in the cars they sell today (not research projects) , is a generation or so behind that of manufacturers like Toyota, BMW, Honda etc. because GM does not have the capital or the appetite to invest in the R&D necessary to keep pace with their peers. Is this GM bashing or is this true?
My guess would be it’s GM bashing unless somebody provides information about specific technologies that GM is not implementing. On the surface the statement is too vague to be true or false.
As part of my job I’ve worked with GM advanced engineering, none of which is in cars on the market yet. Some is behind other car companies and some isn’t. As comparison I’ve also worked with BMW and Daimler-Benz.
Ed
I worked for GM a long, long time ago (it’s been 9 years, now), and currently work for one of their competitors.
It’s GM bashing. Sure, there are always, always individual technologies that one company is ahead of or behind on, but that goes for everybody. And in many of those cases, there are reasonable justifications (or business cases) for choosing to pursue or ignore certain technologies.
There is so much “technology” in a car, that it would be important to define what these people mean. Is it the technology in the car? Which part? What’s behind about it? Or is it the manufacturing technology? Are they comparing a plant in Tokyo with a plant in China?
Suppliers are another good reason that technology is shared. Everyone – that’s everyone – depends on their suppliers for many of their solutions.
The main contention that GM is behind the times stems from the fact that they still use OHV, also known as “pushrod” engines. This basic engine design has been around for a long time and has been “eclipsed” by OHC engines. I don’t believe that that is necessarily true, both have their relative strengths, but nevertheless GM is seen as “old-tech” compared to Honda or Toyota.
Incidentally, has anybody noticed that with all the new stuff the Japanese companies have been putting on their cars they are not particularly price-competitive anymore? It used to be that Japanese was code for “cheap” and for a long time it was true, they did undercut the US automakers on price. Now go out and price an Accord or a Camry against a Malibu. They’re about the same base, but nobody pays MSRP for a Chevy (again, “quality” reputation). They’re fixing for a fall, just like the Big Three did. All they have to do is let their quality control slip a little bit and they’re in for some pain, because “quality” is all they have over GM, and not even that so much anymore.
The Corvette pretty much proves that OHV engines have a place, even in a supercar.
GM has nothing more than an image problem, but that image problem can easily overshadow great cars, high quality and even high drivability marks. Many folks are biased or convinced GM cars aren’t good before they ever get in one.
Didn’t I see a story about how highly some GM products were rated when the emblems were removed, but then were scored low when the makers badge was put back on?
I am disappointed with most of the Japanese cars I’ve owned and driven lately, after getting on their bandwagon in the early nineties. I don’t get it. The gap is gone, it was based on simplicity/reliability and affordability, but those areas are so gray as to be insignificant. Give me a GM, FORD or German offering.
GM’s big troubles are more financial and managerial than technology-oriented. Over the years, they’ve built up a lot of obligations (which may yet kill them within a few years). Plus, their management team is still very inbred, with few managers having outside viewpoints. This can be a strength, but when it totally domainates it tends to blind them to market opportunities and realities.
My 3800 Series-II was an overhead cam (maybe dual - 00 Bonny?). That was the chief difference between it and the original 3800.
I see that the Toyta trucks are 32 valve, which is a good spot for still using push rods… let’s see what GM uses… too much historical information. A quick once-over seems to indicate that their current V8’s are all DOHC, but I’m too lazy to look with much detail.
All 3800s are OHV. The 3800 is also no longer being made, IIRC. GM will be or has already switched to OHC engines for their smaller cars.
As for OHC being superior, maybe for very very small engines, but until some other company comes up with a production engine that can match the power/weight ratio AND the fuel economy of the LSx Corvette engine, OHV is still king. The new Mercedes-AMG 6.2l V8 comes close in the first 2 but fails miserably in the 3rd.
I can think of a few reasons: the 3.6l and 3.8 l OHV (pushrod) engines are old designs and all paid for. New variants can be developed cheaply. Also, GM has pinned its future on variable cylinder actuation-this is more easily done with OHV engines. OHC engines are actuated via rubber drive belts (need to be replaced at 50-60K miles, or via metal chains (very costly).
The real reason: almost no American drivers shift above 4000 RPMs-no need for OHC at such low engine speeds.
So GM’s decision is quite sound-only people think that OHC engines are “high tech”. They are not.
Of all it’s problems, engines are the least-most GM engines will run for 300,000 miles easily. Their real problems are high labor costs and a (perceived) stodgy product line. Their quality is now very good-probably better than M-B (much better if you count M-B’s enormous repair and maintainence costs.
GM’s problem hasn’t been so much a matter of technology as it has been quality and durability. They got real good at cost cutting at the production level and the Japanese seized the opportunity. The American automakers have drastically narrowed the gap but the impression remains.
GM has/had plenty of capital and they have made huge investments in technical advances. However, there have been some extremely poor management decisions that have left them poorly positioned in the current market. I heard a recent report that said GM had on hand $24 billion in cash. However, due to recent market conditions they are blowing through about $1 billion a month. That’s not lack of capital, it’s poor management of the capital.
I would agree. The Big Three churned out crap from the late 70’s till the late 90’s.
I or my wife buys a car every 5 years. So we keep one car for at least 10 years.
We made the mistake to buy a new 02 American car. It costs us about $1000 a year in repairs. It’s bullshit.
My current Nissan, and my previous Nissan never had/has any issues.
We shopped. We studied. We gave the American car manufactures the benefit of the doubt. We thought that perhaps they had learned, and would make a better car. Then we got burned, big time.
Fool me once. Chrysler burned their bridge with me a long time ago.
And that’s part of the problem. If Chrysler /Jeep admitted that there where some problems with the car, AND FIX IT I would consider them again. But, they won’t.
I’ll get aftermarket rotors and calipers on it next time.
It’s a Grand ($1000) for a Grand (Jeep Cherokee). Every time for service. The service desk tried to joke about it… It’s a “Grand “ for a Grand Jeep Cherokee.
Very funny. Ha, ha.
See ya.
Well objectively speaking, that’s your problem right there. Chrysler has never been shown to improve their quality relative to the quality leaders. I felt embarrassed for them when Hyundai passed them in 2003!
Don’t take your bad luck with Chrysler as an indictment of GM and Ford, though. They’ve never been behind Hyundai, and Ford is now tied with Toyota for initial quality and 3 years time in service.
My personal experience with Jeeps and Chryslers has been very positive. However, my experience with several Chrysler dealerships in the area is that they are a bunch of crooks. My step-dad drove a Jeep Cherokee for about 130,000 miles before he totaled it. He always took the damn thing to a dealership for routine service, and every single time wound up paying ridiculous amounts of money for things that amounted to being muffler bearings and windshield wiper sharpening. Since most of the reliability statistics are based on reports from either dealerships or owners, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if reliability of Chrysler vehicles was actually much better than any statistics would show.
You touch on an interesting point. I bought a Ford truck from a “small town, friendly Ford dealer” and later found out they were a bunch of crooks ( a whole other story). Possibly a big piece of the problem with American auto sales is the pedigree of the dealers. People have learned to avoid them through bad experience.
In fairness, there is a Toyota dealer that I bought a vehicle from with whom I would never deal with again. I won’t name them but they are in New Jersey just past the Holland Tunnel. The whole scam was the usual dealer prep, window etching, discount on LoJack, paperwork fees, and on and on. Screw them, they got me once and I got the vehicle I wanted but I’ll never deal with them again. Thankfully, it was a Toyota so I never had to take it back to their sorry dealership again for any service. I’ve dealt with other Toyota dealers and it’s been very pleasant.
US carmakers in general seem to have a talent for correctly identifying a trend and jumping on it with both feet at exactly the wrong time. So whenever a small car trend is coming to an end is the time they’ll bring out a new range of new compact cars. Record-breaking spikes in the oil price are guaranteed to be the time they bring out their largest-ever heaviest-ever most-powerful-ever fleet. If customers want cheap cars Detroit will focus on quality, if they want quality that’s the time the (formerly) Big 3 will have just finished implementing an agressive cost-cutting programme. Any investment they make in a foreign partner is usually the sign of its impending implosion, whereas FIATs miraculous recovery came shortly after GM paid $2 billion to escape from a comittment to take them over.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. One can only mourn the death of the UK car industry - the Laurel to Detroit’s Hardy.
It’s not really GM so much as nearly all high-volume manufacturers- you can’t just come up with a new technology and stick in all your models overnight, just because there’s so much infrastructure to consider.
It’s pretty much a truism of the auto press that if you want to know what new gizmos your car will have in ten years, see what Mercedes is putting on the S-Class.
The S-Class (and SEL before it) pioneered an astonishing amount of technology that we take for granted on even some entry-level models today: anti-lock brakes, airbags (including side airbags), traction and stability control, multiple-zone climate control, remote locking, immobilizers, electronic transmission management (intelligent shift patterns), air suspension…
Anyway, aside from the the fact that they’re still using pushrod engines, which Ford won’t even put in the Crown Victoria anymore, there’s not really a basis for saying that GM is behind the times.
Actually Ford saved JLR, Aston Martin, and Mazda, but didn’t save Volvo who wasn’t really in trouble. Of course for Jaguar/Land Rover as well as Aston Martin, the real problem was the over-investment without a plan to make a profit, but it certainly didn’t hurt the brands. Volvo mostly benefited Ford for technology, but it’s brought in profits on and off as well without the serious, regular investments that made JLR and Aston Martin such sink holes. Mazda was struggling, but Ford’s financial help provided footing, and later was able to use Volvo’s technology.
Ford’s current quality leadership (seriously, don’t laugh) has as much to do with expropriating these technologies as is does with changing its mindset.
I was recently talking on another forum about GM’s recent decision to axe the Sky/Solstice platform. It’s selling in fractions compared to its direct competitor, the Miata, and sells for a $10,000 loss per vehicle according to inside sources, whereas the Miata is profitable.
This is a great example to talk about GM’s engineering prowess. The Solstice is an exceptionally engineered vehicle. It drives very well, and the ecotec 4 cylinder is a fantastic engine. It’s not particularly reliable, but I’m not willing to blame the engineers for that, since it was rushed into production and QC likely suffered as a result.
So why is it a failure and the Miata is a success? Well, the Solstice loses its trunk if you put the top down. The Miata’s trunk remains unchanged. You have to exit the Solstice to put the top down. The Miata’s can be lowered from the driver’s seat. The Solstice is mostly hydroformed and hand assembled, the Miata is churned out of conventional materials with conventional methods.
My personal theory is that some designer penned up the Solstice. They made a clay model to present at a car show. People went apeshit over it, and GM management decided to make it happen. So they go to the engineers and say, “Make this car work. You can’t compromise on the looks, because people liked the show car.” So some very talented, exceptional engineers figured out a way to make a car that doesn’t suck and yet still looked like the show car. Unfortunately, that involved making compromises on the roof and expensive manufacturing techniques.
The Miata, on the other hand, was designed with production and useability in mind, and the form follows that function. You can say that it was approved with a price point and a target buyer in mind, whereas the Solstice was approved because of a car show.
That, in a nutshell, is what separates GM from the competition – bad management. And, to make it worse, after 1 failed attempt, GM is killing the platform. Mazda took feedback from the first generation Miata and made a better one, and then a better one after that. GM is choosing to give up. Again, stellar management at work.
I recommend this article from the Atlantic about the gamble GM R&D is taking with the Chevy Volt program.