But how many people actually use their SUVs for towing, or their pickups for hauling? Some, to be sure, but is it above 20%?
Well, the one person I know enough about their driving behavior to answer this question, has towed. So it’s 100%! 
That said, there’s nothing saying that they couldn’t make two kinds of SUVs: one for people who are ironclad certain that they’ll never tow, and one for those people who want a big frikking vehicle that can tow things like big frikking vehicles do. Now, you tell me: ten years ago, in the halcyon days of low gas prices, who would want the weaker vehicle? Gas prices are not a consideration, and you may just need to rent a trailer someday to drag one of those soccer-kids’ stuff to college…
Diesels do a much better job towing and get better mileage. There is really no reason to put a corvette motor in an SUV.
Well I’m not going to argue that they couldn’t have been made into better more fuel efficient vehicles still having the same towing capacity. Though when gas cost wasn’t a consideration, there was really no reason to do so.
My son is driving our 1987 Volvo 740; 723,000 kms (453,000 miles), not a spot of rust, black leather interior still posh, he gets about 35 mpg highway. I drive a 1996 Volvo 960, 275,000 kms (171,850 miles), get about 30 mpg, body pristine, interior likewise even hauling 2 kids around all the time. I just sold a 1984 Subaru, it had over 400,000 miles on it, the original air conditioning still works, the power windows still work and the body is in great shape. I bought it in 1999 for $800 and sold it for $400 last month, that little car doesn’t owe anyone a dime.
OTOH we have a 2005 GMC Sierra we bought new and the thing is such a piece of crap, you just look at it sideways and it falls apart. I don’t complain too much about the poor gas mileage as we bought it as a farm vehicle and it doesn’t get much driving time, but it is a really poorly made vehicle and we will never again buy a GM product.
One decision they made, or one assumption they seemed to operate under, was that the world was never going to change. They weren’t paying attention, obviously.
Didn’t say they were thriving. Just saying that their problems are pretty much the opposite of GM’s… it’s car people, but it’s run by Fords, who, ah, are so not business people.
So what’s the reason to put a corvette motor in a Corvette? At least an SUV or truck has the possible need for that power. And I suspect you are talking about the hemis that Chrysler is using.
Now, My large mid-sized SUV (Pathfinder) has a v-6 that puts out 266hp. If I would have waited a year I could have gotten a v-8. I sort of wished I had waited. I’m on the fence about that.
Looking at the biggest engines in the Nissan, Jeep and Toyota cars -
The new Pathfinder has 310hp @5100lbs. Towing cap. - 7000lbs.
The Pathfinder has 1hp per 16lbs (not taking towing into account.)
The Nissan Maxima has 290hp @3500lbs. Towing cap. - N/A on the web site.
The Maxima has 1hp per 12lbs.
Altima - 270hp (probably the same engine as my Pathfinder) @ 3400lbs.
The Altima has 1hp per 12lbs.
Toyota Camry 268hp @ 3483 Towing cap N/A.
1hp per 13lbs.
Let’s look at the Jeep Grand with the Hemi (since you mentioned ‘Corvette engines’)
Jeep Grand 420hp. @4316lbs. Towing cap of 6500lbs.
1hp per 10lbs. (not taking towing into account)
That is a small sample. I tried to make it fare by picking the largest engine in each class. Seems to me that the cars are the ones that have unnecessary power. At least the SUV class here has towing capability. And is often expected to do a bit more than the average sedan.
Let’s look at the smaller engines.
Altima 175hp@3200lbs = 1hp per 18lbs.
Pathfinder 266hp@4900lbs = 1hp per 18lbs.
As far as diesel is concerned, it’s about 80 cents more a gallon where I live. Not that a diesel option is even available in anything but pickups. (That’s changing).
Well the point I was trying to make is that it was and continues to be predictable that gas prices will rise. Have a contingency in your pocket. That means being able to change the product line with more fuel-efficient European engines that GM already makes and sells.
Retooling is something they do every model year so it’s not a huge exercise on their part.
No, the Chrysler hemi has a variable cylinder system that shuts down individual cylinders in cruise to make the engine more efficient. At least the 340 hp version.
The car lines you listed also make very fuel efficient cars and offer them in sizes that families can use. They also modify their sedans to coupes so essentially they’re making sport cars out of their sedans. Your point is not lost but you have to look at fleet averages for comparison.
Well, as I say, I don’t understand why GM cannot make a car just like a Toyota Camry-it is NOT rocket science. I really don’t care for most Japanese cars-I find the styling pretty bland. But I understand why people like them-they are reliable, and you can buy one and be pretty sure you will make 100,000 miles without too many problems. So where did GM go wrong (with the Malibu)? I think they did the design on the cheap-there is no way that ball joints (in the control arms) should wear out in 10,000 miles. So GM bought the cheapest design they could-which bit them in the ass, when their customers had to go back for replacement.
I am a SATURN driver-I have had 4, and all have been very good cars. But I have noticed that GM has cheapened the quality over the years-my wife’s ION has had a lot of small issues (like a heater control switch that has had to be replaced twice), and the anti-sway bar links that have worn out (at 50,000 miles). This stuff should NOT happen. So I think the main isse has been: GM thinks its customers are idiots-unfortunately, that is the only possible conclusion.
You seem to be back pedaling. I was just trying to point out that lb for lb, it makes more sense to have a higher hp to weight ratio in an SUV or truck than a family car. Having reasonable power to weight ratio in a utility vehicle has nothing to do with driving it like a sports car.
Why are they cramming nearly 300hp into a 4 door family car? For fun that’s why. But put a V8 in a Utility vehicle and people cry foul.
Fleet averages don’t have anything to do with my response to your post (from a power/weight standpoint).
So GM is putting the Corvette engine in an SUV? Cite please.
I suspect that was hyperbole. That’s why I mentioned the Chrysler Hemi.
Back to the OP. I think it’s mostly a reliability issue. And innovation. In the late ‘70s and through the 80’s American cars where crap. They still may be. My Wife has an ’03 Grand Jeep. We thought that they had gotten over all their problems. We where wrong. Love the car, except for its maintenance problems.
3 sets of brake rotors in 60,000 miles? Umm no. And as I Google it, this has been going on for model year after model year. They know it’s a problem but they don’t fix it. (There was a class action lawsuit).
And (on the same '03 Jeep)-
Two starter motors? Water pump? Power stearing pump? Axle seals? Transfer case leak (twice)? Fuel injectors? That’s just of of the top of my head. It’s absurd.
I’ve had three Nissans. No problems.
My perception of American vehicles is that they are probably still crap, and I’m not going to shoot craps and buy another.
What ails American autos is not a new problem. Most insiders were saddened when GM was run by accountants instead of auto enthusiasts. Weaseling and cheapening and cost cutting with little regard for quality was dangerous.
But that points out the second big problem. Short term is all they can provide. If your salary and bonuses are predicated on yearly performance in front of the board and stockholders ,how can you plan ahead. Can you say no dividends this year we are retooling to build smaller more economical cars of the future. Especially when incredible profits were being made producing huge SUVs.
It is a systematic flaw. We can not plan for the future. Do you expect a chief executive to forego a huge salary and bonus to plan ahead. ? Not going to happen. The sysetm is set so the execs can make a bundle and look out for themselves.
The Trailblazer SS and its platform mate SAAB 9-7 Aero are powered by the LS2 engine from the last generation Corvette. Not that this is particularly relevant to your discussion since A) the Corvette and old F-body Camaro/Firebird could achieve excellent fuel economy if driven conservatively, better than most V6 sedans(we’ve had a number of threads in the past on this) and B) The people who are buying these things are buying them specifically for the Corvette engine.
I wish I had a fuel sipping Corvette engine in my car instead of the turbocharged 4 cylinder gas guzzler I have now.
It’s one of those American firms which make the mistake of offering private medical insurance to Spanish workers. I call it a mistake because:
- it’s not necessary,
- anything SS doesn’t cover, those leeches don’t cover,
- there’s been a succesion of scandals about private companies charging SS for procedures that they’d also charged their insured for
Both SS (medical insurance + unemployment benefits) and Mutuas (medical care specific for work-related injuries or illnesses, plus yearly checkups specifically linked to the work you do) are compulsory. Any company which spends extra in a third scheme is led by idiots, with my apologies to ancient Athenians who weren’t interested in politics 
In Spain at least, they also refuse to hire anybody with experience. While having a career track “in house” is definitely interesting, this also means that they can’t/won’t hire anybody whose resume they didn’t see within three months of finishing college :smack:
You guys bashing GM for poor fuel efficiency and quality need to take a look at their new generation of vehicles and their new technology.
For years, GM’s problem was basically that their pension liabilities and other costs led them to put bean counters in charge, who tried to even out the per-vehicle cost deficit by using cheaper materials and less complex engineering. Consumers noticed.
But in the past few years, they’ve put a car guy back in charge (Bob Lutz), and GM has been making huge gains in technology, reliability, and in building cars people really want.
The Saturn Aura is just as good as the Camry. The new Chevy Malibu might be even a little better.
And for those who are ragging on the Corvette motor - do you realize the Z06 has 505 horsepower, and get 26 mpg on the highway? Compare that to Dodge’s 6.1L Hemi, which makes 80 less horspower and only gets 20mpg highway.
GM’s new 3.0L V6 is a world-beating engine. It’s all aluminum, has direct injection, variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust, and pretty much every other high-tech feature you could imagine. The result is that it can make over 300HP while getting over 30MPG in a heavy sedan, without turbocharging. Add a turbo, and it’ll do even better.
The company that has bigger problems going forward (at least in terms of their vehicle lineup) is Ford. They’re way behind on engine and transmission technology, they don’t have the kind of sophisticated platforms that GM and others now have, and their vehicle lineup has become boring. Technology-wise, Ford is probably five years behind the field with a few exceptions like their Sync system.
I worked for a division of GMAC not all that long ago, at the begining of the current credit troubles, and GM’s only profits were coming from that portion of the company. If it were not for GMAC, GM would have disappeared some time ago. The division I worked for was sold to private investors partly to give GM an infusion of cash but mostly because GM’s poor credit rating was killing that division. It could be argued that GM would be in better shape if it had divested itself of at least its North American car division several years ago.
GM committed to this post-WW2, at a time when the percentage of workers who lived long enough to draw down the pension fund was insignificant compared to the very real threat of Walter Reuther’s UAW, who were pushing for a government-backed pension scheme. Rather than cave so dramatically to Creeping Socialism™, GM chose to assume the burden all on its own.
And the point I made, is that a diesel is always a better solution for towing.
You’re taking the statement literally. Chevy Corvettes have 430 hp motors and Cadillac Escalades have 403 hp motors. They’re complete different engines. Engines over 300 hp are found in the Avalanche and Suburban.
Reliability was 1 of 2 benchmarks I gave, the other was fuel efficiency. I’ve had less trouble with my Saturn than I did with my Honda. In fact, I’ve had zero problems with the Saturn and it has 116,000 miles on it. So GM is capable of making a car that is reliable.
Ah. Then I am wrong. I’m surprised that that engine is available in a Chevy SUV.
Though it does make more sense to put the LS2 in something that can use it than just wrap some fiberglass around it. Ever see a trunk or trailer hitch on a Corvette? Me either.
And yes, my beef at Magiver was that he/she seems to think SUVs are over powered.
That’s just not the case. If you want to look at any car that is ‘over powered’ look to mid sized family cars that are turning into 4 door sports cars. At least an SUV or truck has a reason to have a bit more punch to it.
All the SRT-8 cars are large, heavy, and auto only, comparing them to a Z06 isn’t really fair.
GM is no slouch in the 4 cylinder department either. The new 2.0l Turbo LNF engine is essentially the best in the world.
The funny thing is that Americans think they want “Japanese cars”, when the vast majority of cars sold in North America by the Japanese car makers are designed and built in the US/Canada, and most are sold only for the North American market. Americans have never liked real Japanese or European Cars, Toyota/Honda simply became better at building Buicks than GM.
All the car makers know that the North American car market is divided into 4 categories:
-
Enormous gas guzzling body-on-frame trucks with large engines and leafspring suspension.
-
Enormous gas guzzling body-on-frame SUVs with large engines and leafspring suspension.
-
Enormous gas guzzling front wheel drive sedans and coupes (e.g. New Honda Accord)
-
V6 Mustangs with 4 speed slushboxes.
Anything else is either a niche product or a loss leader. Ford and GM’s overseas operations do very well, but very, very few of their products are exported from North America, because the products North Americans want would be laughed off the road in any other country.
It wasn’t that long ago that Ford’s Expedition/Navigator plant was the single most profitable industrial concern on the face of the earth. The willingness of Americans to pay $50k for a truck that costs Ford $9k to build with circa 1950s technology was simply beyond the comprehension of foreigners. That explains why Toyota, with the new Tundra, was so desperate to break into this market - the profits were so huge that the US car makers could afford to be so massively inefficient, with a lackluster small-car portfolio, yet still stay in business.
Sure, fuel prices have gone up a bit, but I don’t really see North American buying habits changing any time soon.