100 Days of New GM: Product

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by Ghrankenstein

100 Days: Grading the New GM

Product

Lead Editor: Anderson Johns
Ghrankenstein, GMI Staff Member since 2001



Both cars have already received heavy criticism for the 3.0L SIDI V-6 engine that also appears in the Chevrolet Equinox. We don't doubt that the engine itself is quite good, but it tends to make torque in the neighborhood of 220 lb-ft, at rpm’s north of 5000 rpm. Numbers like that make fans of the venerable 3800 pushrod V-6 snicker a bit to themselves, and that’s not counting the fuel economy ratings. The EPA estimated figures of 18/25 for the 4224 lb 3.0L FWD SRX (5), and 17/27 for the 4019 lb 3.0L FWD Lacrosse (4) aren’t completely out of the neighborhood, but they are at adequate at best. With those vehicles having curb weights that are at the top of the heap, both cars pay a penalty in performance (6, 7, 9, 10). We think GM can make these vehicles match up better, but too much car and too little engine is not the way to do it.

Still my biggest complaint about GM's new car is the 'new' 3.0. Can you just get rid of it already and offer the 3.6 DI in the Equinox, SRX, and Terrain, and make it available in the Lacrosse at a lesser price.

[mgescuro]

B- is a fair assessment of product at this stage.

[MAK]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

Still my biggest complaint about GM's new car is the 'new' 3.0. Can you just get rid of it already and offer the 3.6 DI in the Equinox, SRX, and Terrain, and make it available in the Lacrosse at a lesser price.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think the 3.0L is totally bad. I really wonder if the development done on it wasn't more marketing based. Meaning, GM marketing "Our research shows that people want alot of hp, so let's give them a V6 that makes alot of hp" and that's what drove the development. The motor was tuned to make lots of HP for advertising instead of being tuned for real-world usable power. If the 3.0l instead made say 240hp at 6k rpm and 250-260 ft-lbs of tq from 3k-6k rpm, it'd be much more usable power and probably much better fuel economy vs the 220ft-lbs @ 5100 and 255-265hp @ almost 7k rpm and crappy mileage.

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

Still my biggest complaint about GM's new car is the 'new' 3.0. Can you just get rid of it already and offer the 3.6 DI in the Equinox, SRX, and Terrain, and make it available in the Lacrosse at a lesser price.

Yup the 3.0 has NO business being installed in ANY car let alone Cadillacs.

[eaton53]

Who is that damn hippy in the 1st picture?

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

Originally Posted by A.J.

BiasbiasbiasbiasBIAS. Notice I said "bias" instead of "BS".

Haha, got you partner!

[mikmak]

RE: Cruze, there is one element that seems to be overlooked at times and that is its positioning. The Cruze isn't supposed to compete with vehicles like the Golf. It is better than the Corolla, sitting above it on spec, but below it on price. The Astra will be the high end competitor recently beating the Golf on its home turf (Europe). That means GMs strategy is to squeeze from both ends.

As for the 3.0 SIDI engine, GMI will have an extended review in the VERY near future! Stay tuned.

Great article though Ghrank. It's hard to cover all the bases on such a broad range, but you guys nailed it.

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by mikmak

As for the 3.0 SIDI engine, GMI will have an extended review in the VERY near future! Stay tuned.

Just curious, what exactly do you mean by an "extended review".

[mikmak]

Longer than a day so we can really get a strong impression of the good and the bad.

[steve333]

Originally Posted by mikmak

RE: Cruze, there is one element that seems to be overlooked at times and that is its positioning. The Cruze isn't supposed to compete with vehicles like the Golf. It is better than the Corolla, sitting above it on spec, but below it on price. The Astra will be the high end competitor recently beating the Golf on its home turf (Europe). That means GMs strategy is to squeeze from both ends.

As for the 3.0 SIDI engine, GMI will have an extended review in the VERY near future! Stay tuned.

Great article though Ghrank. It's hard to cover all the bases on such a broad range, but you guys nailed it.

Will it beat the Civic in NA? Thats the question. In a head to head comparo where would the Cruze land when going up against the Mazda 3, Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Forte, and next gen Focus?
My guess would be:
1. Ford Focus
2. Mazda 3
3. Honda Civic
4. Kia Forte
5. Either the Cruze or Elantra
6. Toyota Corolla

Any other info that would suggest otherwise?
Chevy needs the Cruze to be Number 1, not Number 5.

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by MAK

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think the 3.0L is totally bad. I really wonder if the development done on it wasn't more marketing based. Meaning, GM marketing "Our research shows that people want alot of hp, so let's give them a V6 that makes alot of hp" and that's what drove the development. The motor was tuned to make lots of HP for advertising instead of being tuned for real-world usable power. If the 3.0l instead made say 240hp at 6k rpm and 250-260 ft-lbs of tq from 3k-6k rpm, it'd be much more usable power and probably much better fuel economy vs the 220ft-lbs @ 5100 and 255-265hp @ almost 7k rpm and crappy mileage.

I wish I could agree with you about it not being 'that bad.'. I really really want to like the way this engine drives, but after seeing the mpg and test driving it, I just can't even see buying a car with it. Maybe they did design the car to look good on the spec sheet with a high 'hp' number, but it just isn't that good.

Compared to the older, non-di version of the 3.6 in our Vue...it feels considerably weaker (hard to beleive it feels that much weaker with more hp, but the 30lbs/ft of torque at the rpms makes it feel that much weaker). It also doensn't run as smooth, and gets only 1mpg better. For a 'new' engine with 'new' technology....not only is that acceptable in a Cadillac, but it isn't acceptable even for a 'new' Chevrolet.

As of right now, our dissapointment with that engine IS the reason we are going to hold on to our Saturn Vue with the 3.6 (even though it has a lot of miles on it, I do a lot of driving for work). We test drove the 3.0 Equinox, but until they put a better V6 in it, or do some major upgrades to it, the older non-direct injection 3.6 is just a much better engine in the real world.

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by steve333

Will it beat the Civic in NA? Thats the question. In a head to head comparo where would the Cruze land when going up against the Mazda 3, Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Forte, and next gen Focus?
My guess would be:
1. Ford Focus
2. Mazda 3
3. Honda Civic
4. Kia Forte
5. Either the Cruze or Elantra
6. Toyota Corolla

Any other info that would suggest otherwise?
Chevy needs the Cruze to be Number 1, not Number 5.

I can hear what you are saying but only sales will be the ultimate grading. For that assessment we'll just have to wait. Personally, I rate them for overall goodness, thus:

1. Mazda 3 (noisiest and arguably ugliest but most fun with a strong petrol option)
2. Cruze (best accommodation, space, value, modern design and refinement, but needs help with the 1.8)
3. Focus (Like the 3 but still old gen. needs a serious refresh, up there for fun)
4. Kia Cerato (good value but you get what you pay for, including fresh design but sub par materials)
5. Civic (all the handling finesse of a legless grasshopper with poor engine choice and NVH)
6. Corolla. Completely uninspiring. Interior is okay.
7. Elantra is rubbish.


It would be reasonable to assume that segment preferences would transfer the attributes of the Cruze to number one spot if the 1.4 is all that (or just better than the 2.0 in the Mazda 3) and Cruze needs to watch its back when the new Focus arrives, which will no doubt be a certified cracker. Still the upper end of the Focus range will be tackled by the Astra, giving consumers a choice. I fail to see how that is not a strong strategy.

[mang01]

Originally Posted by Ambalanche

Great article but I would point out that the comparison of "old GM with new GM" is not accurate in that ALL the new products and upcoming products are of "old GM" lineage.
Really, probably after 2013 we'll start to see some "New GM" products since it takes at least 4 years to develop products, not to mention new platforms. As good (even with their drawbacks) as SRX, LaCrosse, Equinox, Terrain and even Camaro are, they are still products of "Old GM".

Yes, I was thinking exactly all this.

Originally Posted by Ambalanche

I still say the Cruze was not thought out fully especially since the American market is the last to get it. Arn't they just now getting around to building the plant that will build the engine for it and the Volt? By the time the car debuts here, it'll be time for a MCE in other markets!!

Think of it as out of town try-outs for the Cruze before it makes its Big-time debut !

[Gagarin]

About weight:

Isn't this tied to material purchasing / engineering decisions based on cost-cutting because of the tremendous labor/overhead the company was bleeding out?

Saftey regulations have forced cars to incorporate new features, and you can do this...

A.)
Low material weight
High material cost
Long development time

Or

B.)
High material weight
Low material cost
Short development time

GM had been famously short on cash and short on time (or high in development ineffeciency).

Even though they don't have those costs the same way they did now, the products - sheet metal, unibody frames, core 'platform' components - have pretty much been engineered to whatever PERFORMANCE specs (saftey, NVH, dynamics) and COST specs for some time.

I think it'll take some time before GM has cars matching weight with other cars. You're already looking a generation out for that. Perhaps they can 'un-do' some cost saving measures in some products in the next 2 years and lighten some vehicles up. But I imagine hundreds of pounds have been added as the result of "We can't do that that way, too expensive. Do it this way, use this material, use this component, otherwise we won't make any money on this car." Even as DESIGN and product was getting better, someone has to approve the material and structural reality underneath it... making a lean looking car pretty heavy on the inside.

[Gagarin]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

Just curious, what exactly do you mean by an "extended review".

Perhaps ala
"The Mostly Ruthless Destruction Of The 1981 Dodge Omni" ?

http://www.sixfoot6.com/omni/


In fairness, NO, I do not own a car with the 3.0 V6, and I won't anytime soon, and I have no capacity to buy one with one if I wanted. But it's just been slagged in reviews of otherwise good/great products, and it's LESS of an engine all around from what I can read.

Not great performance, not stellar fuel economy, pretty much just as expensive to make as some of the smaller or larger engines in the goold ol' parts bin? Wow... I don't get it.