GM Ready for Smaller Engines When Customers Are

[E. Haskell]

How many Honda/Toyota's have engines smaller than a comparable GM model????

The guy in the article is talking about putting a 4cyl in a CTS.

Where is Honda's 4cyl equipped TL? Where is the 4cyl equipped Avalon?

How is GM behind?

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by motorman

what happens if the price of gasoline keeps falling ?? do you think a lot of people in the US will still be in the market for a small 4 cylinder s--t shaker,i don't think so.

Well, there are MILLIONS of people in the US and they have been buying thousands upon thousands of 4 cylinder cars for years... and have been doing so long before gas was anywhere near $4 a gallon... So yeah, a lot of folks will still want them.

And I didn't want to be the one to have to tell you this but in the year 2008 we actually have the technology to build a small internal combustion engine that doesn't shake poop! In fact a lot of them are smooth as silk.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by HotCarNut

Anemic? You think 260 bhp is anemic??? What planet are you on? Most of the V8s of yore didn't put out 260 bhp, and especially not out of 2.4L of displacement.

The key isn't the number of cylinders, it's power to weight ratio and fuel economy. A turbo 4-cylinder with the right gearing can be just as good as the 3.6L DI V6. Face the facts that next to nobody uses all 300 bhp offered in that DI engine, and the 2.4L Ecotec makes as much bhp as the base 3.6L V-6. Even if fuel economy is only marginally better (say 10%) it is still an improvement that GM can brag about - same power, better mpg.

Exactly. I don't understand why people think the numbers today are a minimum. My 1995 Intrepid (Dodges version of an Impala) came with a 168 HP 3.3. I don't know the torque numbers, but that car has all the power you need for a car that size. Also, it wasn't geared low either because at 65 MPH it only turns around 2000rpm. Today we have similar sized cars with 250 plus horses and we think anything less is going to be slow.

Not everything needs to be a rocket car. I also feel that we shouldn't be forced into under powered piles of crap either. We should have the CHOICE to buy the perfectly capable 170 hp car, or the CHOICE to get the 260 hp version.

GM just doesn't understand the idea behind CHOICE.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by emh

WTF is wrong with GM? Is Cadillac the first brand they think of when it comes to efficiency and frugality?

Is that a rhetorical question???

They see Cadillac because they can ask more money for Cadillac because... well, it's a Cadillac. Therefore, the profit margins are greater.
GM still can't build small cars efficiently and profitably in the US, so using an "expensive" car to build up some cash is ... for better or worse ... smart.

Now...The effect of this is multi-fold...
1) Cadillac gets fuel efficient engines, and therefore heads off the Germans at the pass by offering more fuel efficient engines before BMW wises up and starts offering the 523i in the US. I think it's a sincere and serious possibility.
2) Cadillac gets small engines, and because the cars are already overweight, degrades Cadillac's newfound "performance" image.
3) GM plays the stupid game of decontenting the "cheap" engine; therefore, screwing up Cadillac's image. GM needs to be able to run the full gamut of options with the small engine, as the 3.6L and 3.6L DI.

If GM plays its cards right, this might be effective for Cadillac.
But.... how many times has GM ever played its hand effectively?

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

How many Honda/Toyota's have engines smaller than a comparable GM model????

The conventional wisdom is that Toyota's I4/V6 sales are 80/20.

Until this model year, GM's mainstream sedan was the Chevy Impala which comes 6 cyl minimum. (I won't deny that GM's traditional customers demand V6s, but this plan ignored any conquest sales.)

So the answer to your question is the entire midsized segment until very recently.

Realize also that Joe Sixpack isn't hanging on GM's every word and perhaps missed the news of the "Malibu Summer Package" before going down to Honda and buying a 4cyl Accord (that's actually bigger than the Impala).

[blkwrxsti]

Maybe Tom's waiting for a petition similar to Rocket 88's letter... They've had to cut back on market research I'm sure...

[Ming]

How's this for a signal: I bought a GM Daewoo affordable 4-cyl. wagon with a Suzuki badge because you refused to offer anything similar without "retro-funky" SUV-like, PT Cruiser clone styling. And I'm enough of a GM fan that I wanted something at least manufactured by GM overseas (with a Holden-built engine, no less) Now I run a Suzuki blog on the side.

I know, I know, I'm just a freak and everyone else wants V8 powered SUVs and SUV look-alike Crossovers with poor fuel economy from being jacked up into the air and cladded for no practical reason.

Somehow I should have proven to you that I wanted a small engine in a sensible, utilitarian wagon with modern styling. And not just because it was "cute" like a PT Cruiser. Maybe by buying a 4-cyl. Equinox. Oh, wait...there wasn't one. But it did have a cheap, rough running "magic fingers" old GM V6 from China! Or by buying a 4-cyl. Malibu Maxx...no, couldn't do that either. Something I could have used my GM card points on, like a Saturn Vue -- no, wait... Heck, I wanted to, but you weren't making it easy.

Heck, with the Malibu Maxx there was a mythical "Fleet Only" 4-cylinder option in ordering guides, for a short time. I guess you didn't want to leave it up to regular consumers back then, eh? Fleet only? WTF?

Face it, my choice was not the $profitable$ one that you wanted to sell me, GM (but the Koreans and Japanese sure do). And it looks like you guys aren't changing much.

You excite me with a cool new plant, then go ruin it with a lame speech that reminds me of the GM response to overwhelming online popularity of the Beat.

Sounds like this guy has been in one too many meetings with a dour-faced, small car-hatin' Bob Lutz. Wait until there's a hurricane and gas hit's $5, Quarterly Earnings are in the toilet, then start making preparations to bring the Beat here that will take 7 years.

Don't pin this on me, you silver-tongued freaks at GM, you.

[motorman]

the people out there who NEED, not just want, better gas mileage,the low income people, can not afford a new car payment just to get better mileage. with cheap leases going away the average car payment will be more than the average low income person can afford so who is GM going to sell all these 4 cylinder cars to ?????. like i have posted before the fuel cost difference between 30 MPG highway which car the impala size gets and 35 MPG highway what 4 cylinder cars get is small compared to a new car payment.

[Ming]

It just struck me. Didn't I just read an article that last month GM's 4-cylinder sales mix was double what it was in June of 2007?

In other words, the popularity of GM 4-cyl. equipped cars DOUBLED in a year?

What, does this concept require fluency in Japanese to translate? Maybe that's why this seems so apparent to me and these guys at GM are having trouble figuring it out.

Maybe these old guys at the top need to be examined for mercury poisoining or the early symptoms of Alzheimers, because they're ignoring, forgetting or keeping quiet news about their dramatically improved 4-cyl. sales while continuing to insist that we all want 8-passenger crossovers with half the fuel economy of what we really want and need.

Either that, or Bob Lutz has instructed them to wait for gas to drop to $2.50 again, and try to "ride out" this small car / 4-cyl. thing that he disagrees fundamentally with.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by vcs2600

The conventional wisdom is that Toyota's I4/V6 sales are 80/20.

Until this model year, GM's mainstream sedan was the Chevy Impala which comes 6 cyl minimum. (I won't deny that GM's traditional customers demand V6s, but this plan ignored any conquest sales.)

So the answer to your question is the entire midsized segment until very recently.

Realize also that Joe Sixpack isn't hanging on GM's every word and perhaps missed the news of the "Malibu Summer Package" before going down to Honda and buying a 4cyl Accord (that's actually bigger than the Impala).

if you live in a place other than the flat lands larger cars with 4 cylinder engines don't cut it. D/C tried that with 4 cylinder mini vans and they ended up buying most of them back because the fuel mileage stunk in area that were not all flat. a close friend worked for D/C credit and he told me all about trying to resell these buybacks at car auctions. you can not put a 4 cylinder engine in every car and expect great fuel mileage. i bet the 4 cylinder accord did not get any better mileage than our V-6 impala,20/22 every day and 28/30 on the open road. i bet it would be worse if you had to haul around 4 people in the accord in a hilly area like where i live Pa.

[Chaz_23]

So by that logic we should be elated if a V8 makes more that 200 hp, because well, in 1980...
We're in model year 2009. The CTS would be laughed out of stores if they put a 4 cylinder in there.

Originally Posted by vanshmack

Uhh, you are aware that the base engine in the 2008 CTS makes around 260 HP now, right? Are you also aware that in previous model years, the base motor was a 210 HP 2.8 V6?

Please ed-u-ma-cate yourself before posting here.

As for my opinion, as long as they can deliver SMOOTH performance in a Cadillac without 4-banger NVH, I say go for it!

[Mcmflow]

Originally Posted by motorman

the point is there is not enought people out there that are ready to buy another new car just to get a few more MPG. you have to do the math to find out how many miles you have to drive to break even if you trade in a paid for car and get back into payments. you have to do what the math tells you not what your heart tells you. my silverado is 20 years old and get 14 MPG and a new silverado will get me 20 MPG but how long will i have to drive it to break even at the cost of $30 K ??? i can buy a lot of gasoline for $30 K even $15K what a small 4 cylinder costs.

If people out there were actually doing the math, they wouldn't have dumped their SUV's and trucks for massive losses to buy Corolla's and Civic's the last few months. That's just it though, most people don't sit down and figure it out. In the mean time while GM is waiting for the customers to tell them they want small engines toyota and honda are cleaning up.
People's mind set have changed, and are going to be stuck in fuel efficient mode for years to come. GM needs to act now!!!

[motorman]

Originally Posted by Mcmflow

If people out there were actually doing the math, they wouldn't have dumped their SUV's and trucks for massive losses to buy Corolla's and Civic's the last few months. That's just it though, most people don't sit down and figure it out. In the mean time while GM is waiting for the customers to tell them they want small engines toyota and honda are cleaning up.
People's mind set have changed, and are going to be stuck in fuel efficient mode for years to come. GM needs to act now!!!

not if the price of gasoline keeps going down. like i posted before i lived thru the 70s when there was no gasoline and long lines but it came back just like the prices will come back down to where the should be arounf $3.50 a gallon. what do you think will happen if a person goes out and buys a 4 cylinder car and does not get that much better MPG,they are going to be pissed. people who are buying hondas and toyotas and not buying cobalts is because consumer magazine tell them not to buy GM because their 4 cylinder engine is noisy even if it had a better warranty and gets better MPG.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by motorman

if you live in a place other than the flat lands larger cars with 4 cylinder engines don't cut it. D/C tried that with 4 cylinder mini vans and they ended up buying most of them back because the fuel mileage stunk in area that were not all flat. a close friend worked for D/C credit and he told me all about trying to resell these buybacks at car auctions. you can not put a 4 cylinder engine in every car and expect great fuel mileage. i bet the 4 cylinder accord did not get any better mileage than our V-6 impala,20/22 every day and 28/30 on the open road. i bet it would be worse if you had to haul around 4 people in the accord in a hilly area like where i live Pa.

That's a stereotype that is bred by what we are familiar with. I rode in a fully loaded (a full bed and 3 passengers), 3-cylinder, turbocharged 660cc Kei (mini) truck up a STEEP incline in Nagasaki, Japan, and that little truck booked like a crazy horse.

Now if you're talking about long, roller coaster like hills, sure a 4-banger would strain a bit going up if it is equipped in a big car, but some of these cars are heavier and bigger than they have a right to be, given their overall utility and passenger room.

Perhaps it is that the Chrysler Minivans were too fat and bloated for their own good, and the 4-cylinder engines too weak by nature of inferior design.

A well engineered 4-cylinder can power a van or truck with ample passenger space in many other parts of the world. The cars we got used to over the last couple of decades with long overhangs, small passenger room to vehicle size ratio are pretty much American things. You don't find so much of the Crown Victoria-like massively long hoods in other countries --- they find ways to make vehicles hold as much as possible within a smaller footprint. And a smaller footprint means a lighter car, without necessarily giving up any of the passenger room our "big cars" afford us (try sitting in the rear seat of a 2008 Grand Prix or Impala, it ain't that great).

[camaro_freak]

Originally Posted by windvale

And that's the PROBLEM ! People don't think of Chevy when they think of fuel efficient cars. The people that want a fuel efficient 4 cyl. don't even think of Chevy.

I needed to buy a fuel efficient commuter car two weeks ago. I pretty much just shopped Honda and Toyota. The Aveo is an inferior product.

I bought the Fit. It's a wonderful little car. GM has nothing, NOTHING that even comes close, and so I never even bothered visiting a Chevy dealership. When I want a new truck I'll shop Chevy.

But GM doesn't want to sell you a small car. They want you in that big cash chow Full Size Truck!

Originally Posted by prototype66

Your way of thinking and people like you are part of the problem and GM not willing to change their way until they get smacked in the face is the other.

no it is certainly not. So the consumer should buy from GM because they only offer one, underdeveloped, small size car? Why should we reward GM for making crappy product and spend our hard earned money on an inferior product?

Originally Posted by windvale

Yeah. We're referred to as "informed consumers", not shills for whatever Detroit decides we need to buy...

thank you! That is what prototype66 apparantly isn't getting. If GM made a decent small car, gee.... consumers might come back.

But GM won't make that call until there is demand? It is a circular firing squad up there in Detroit. A knee jerk, cause and effect reaction.

hey GM, why don't you stick your neck out and try something new instead of waiting ot see what the other guy does and then try to play catch up, and then do it badly.

If there are ANY brain cells left at GM will they please join together and get this done?

thank you