GM Inside News Forum banner
1381 - 1400 of 1780 Posts

·
Editor
Joined
·
26,951 Posts
What type of shoes would NSAP wear? Would a man of discerning Cadillac taste perhaps wear a traditional high quality brand like Allen Edmonds, a relatively plebeian but quality brand like Rockport , a forward thinking American brand like Kenneth Cole or perhaps an Italian brand of loafer like Prada?
Hugo Boss or Kenneth Cole for formal shoes. The ones in the suitcase are my more casual ones (Calvin Klein I think).
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
Hugo Boss or Kenneth Cole for formal shoes. The ones in the suitcase are my more casual ones (Calvin Klein I think).
So a man like NSAP could be considered a forward thinking yet avante- garde American? My name is Germeezy1, and not only do I approve this message I also wear Kenneth Cole, and Calvin Klein shoes.

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,105 Posts
so how many drives to you get? im surprised no ones has asked for you to look for certain things (or a similar thread hasnt been started yet).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,578 Posts
Yes indeed.
Thank you for pointing that out - it is corrected now in the one post at least.
Dr. Show-Me, we kinda' did all that somewhere previous in one or two of these LT1 threads.
Take a look at the details in all the presser material...... 'think' about NVH and...... some things..... 'related'.
Especially if one is in an AFM mode .... with more load.
Look at how it's more robustly and precisely put together..... and less..... how to say 'asymmetric' in a sense.
Now add up all the little things here and there ..... and yes, there are other purposes being met as well -
If that doesn't work out, then consider...... why exactly has Chrysler to date been able to engage and hold MDS longer and more often. Careful , you kinda' have to sort out why they also would want to as say - more of a necessity rather than a nice to have.
Perhaps later, maybe closer or @ launch, GM will go into more detail about the 'new' AFM capabilities and how they see it will come out more.
Like so much involved with even 'just the LT1, this feature is going to require some different thinking on the part of the community - in a good way I might add.
Specifically as an example, nobody with even a wisp of common sense will be disabling AFM on the street.
That was dumb further back anyway - it's what you do when you really do not have a handle on the better ways to solve things.
Thanks for a partial answer.
A different afm that is more complex and provides better fuel economy sounds fine, tell me more.
For those of us who don't want to go dig through multiple threads, could you just spell it out? Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,418 Posts
I just test drove a 2013 Silverado...just so GM will mail me the $50 Visa Gift Card they promised. :rolleyes:

My dad bought a 2011 Silverado, so naturally GM wants him to test drive another...I don't get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Basically there are some inherent harmonic disturbances, and weaknesses that the previous GEN IV engine had that in many ways limited the AFM activation envelope in the interest of NVH among other things.

Chrysler's MDS system allows more NVH to enter the interior of the vehicle but it's activation envelope is far greater than GM's AFM system at this current time because of improvements made in these areas in many ways.

If you truly look into the relatively thirsty, and dirty combustion chamber design of the HEMI it also shows that it's greater MDS activation envelope has a notable affect on fuel economy. < Hmmmmm yeah 'ok'...... sorta'..... but...... >

I believe that America123 is alluding to the fact that they for all intents and purposes have barely scratched the service of what active fuel management is capable of, and in many ways they simplified it because of inherent GEN IV issues.

. In fact my Escalade does not even have AFM, and they only recently started to offer AFM on the L92 utilized in the Escalade. < Yes indeed, there is also the aspect of what displacements - and installations got AFM.... when >

One would have to really peruse the LT1 data as America 123 and I have to read between the lines, and see exactly what we are referring to.

In many ways the changes that were made had other reasons aside from those relating to power.


This Gen V V8 in it's initial format will offer only a slight increase in < HP with a large torque increase - which also 'needed' some of the seemingly more generic improvements to be workable > power but significant increases in fuel economy in my opinion.

Basically the Gen V V8 had very necessary changes made to it that were needed circa Gen III V8 many of which were not related directly to power, and basically when they say new combustion system we are truly looking at a combustion system that is the only one of it's kind.

In essence they have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, and not only do Peter and Paul need payment but the whole manner in which they are paid needs to be changed.
Yep, pretty much most of it and pretty well said. :yup::yup::yup:

And I know you will understand what I say next and not take it the wrong way.....

Now you very likely have the basis for ..... a fully and truly world class xyz - good enough for Cadillac installation in the best sense of those terms - btw. ;):):D

People are worried about the new 5.3L being 'only' 350hp, but DI is really only supposed to boost power about 1/8th. So 315hp x .125 = 40hp. This puts it right at 355.

America123, I'm guessing the 'stage two' will be sparkless ignition? I would think that would work better with big inch, low rpm engines that aren't running up and down the rev range all the time. That would be something. You'd think it would be perfect for series hybrids where the engine runs at one rpm or a very narrow rpm range.



But in the near term, just a 24mpg, 350hp Silvy seems like a big deal. I think despite all the kvetching we did about Eco-Boast that Silvy will be retaining that 'least expensive to own' laurel with better across the board economy.

I think the trick from the bean counter viewpoint will be that they will be selling less expensive-to-make Silvys that match Ford's DOHC V6 against a DI OHV V6, and an OHV V8 against a turbo DOHC V6.

WRT to the HEMI, I get 20mpg hwy evert time in mine - but with the AFM kicking in and holding for long periods even at 65mph. Chevy 5.3 gets that kind of mileage with the AFM only kicking in downhill. With a more 'aggressive' AFM that can go down to 2 cyls < I think ? you mean lose two and down to six ? >and/or have 'rolling' deactivation that might decrease the vibration factor - and factor in the 500lb weight loss - I think we may be seeing the "V8 power V6 economy" ads. 18mpg city would match the '13 V6 8spd Dodge.
Lot to this post.

Well worth discussion....

I'm short, so just a few things for now - but you are definitely on some of the right tracks available - which under the right circumstances, still does not preclude smaller displacements in certain smaller and lighter applications........ if you will.

Yes, the later type is all about providing - if you allow some latitude in the terms - all about getting to an HCCI....... or........ a related type combustion mode or better said, - getting in and out of something like that - it's the transitions and transients that are the really hard part for all that.

So yes, perhaps more ....... and definitely more and different modes of combustion and therefore - yet again a different combustion system.

'Imo' this LT1 and it's likely brethren address all the inherent deficiencies or limitations in all the previous sbs - that not only are 'desirable' for other reasons both generic and specific - including creation of the LT1 pkg itself but are also required for that second combustion system.

Just look at how they handle the basic wet sump oiling system and related air /oil separation - pcv.

On the one hand, gee, a gen 3 or 4 etc could have really benefited from that in practical real world terms.... - big useful margin for real world ****ty oil and fueling effects as they specifically express in these - and including when all ****ed up by that and then also in AFM mode.

However, is all of that really required for all of the LT1s - or more to the point - for a LT1 truck derivative ?

Maybe.... maybe not...... or maybe........ not so much.

What is absolutely clear - is you do need it for HCCI and related.

And lets be clear you need it to be real strong and real good - so why not run it out there 'early' and make sure of it... besides, it can only also 'be good' for the LT1 etc.

So again, multiple ( possible ) and possibly shifting in sense purposes or reasons for a feature - with regard to past, soon to be present, and ..... future.

The LT1 and it's compatriots are apparently ...or perhaps...... the bridge...... somewhat like aspects of some of the Gen 2s were. That's a very imperfect analogy but has an element that's useful .

Geermezy1 does point out something real relevant - much of this other improvement is 'catch up'. Beyond belief - if you want to get real hard nosed about it.

Anyway.....

You can kinda' put it all together from one point of view ie 'catch up' that now has sufficient value - according to 'Mgt'.

You know, some of the same bozos who put it off for a really long time..... to chase the Prius - a task not worth doing.

I wouldn't - but some would and by golly, they most certainly did.

Oh well......

Five to ten years late is still better than -

The important thing is - now it's done.:yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Yep, pretty much most of it and pretty well said. :yup::yup::yup:

And I know you will understand what I say next and not take it the wrong way.....

Now you very likely have the basis for ..... a fully and truly world class xyz - good enough for Cadillac installation in the best sense of those terms - btw. ;):):D



Yes, the later type is all about providing - if you allow some latitude in the terms - all about getting to an HCCI....... or........ a related type combustion mode or better said, - getting in and out of something like that - it's the transitions and transients that are the really hard part for all that.

So yes, perhaps more ....... and definitely more and different modes of combustion and therefore - yet again a different combustion system.

'Imo' this LT1 and it's likely brethren address all the inherent deficiencies or limitations in all the previous sbs - that not only are 'desirable' for other reasons both generic and specific - including creation of the LT1 pkg itself but are also required for that second combustion system.

Just look at how they handle the basic wet sump oiling system and related air /oil separation - pcv.




What is absolutely clear - is you do need it for HCCI and related.


The important thing is - now it's done.:yup:
I'm wondering if the 'next thing' for AFM is closer to the original Cadillac 8-6-4 - or at least the concept that the typical V8 engine has so much 'excess' displacement that it's not a matter of sometimes shutting down 4cyls but only activating all 8cyls more like 'turbo' style when you put your foot to the wood. In other words, you'd have a 'high cylinder pressure' 6cyl for like the first half of throttle travel. Just like the current MDS or AFM, lighter weight vehicles would benefit most, but it would be more like you only have the full V8 when you have like the 'carb secondaries' kicking in in the olden days.

And then the individual PCV and oiling - as perhaps a 'rolling' AFM would be able to better hold up under the the strains of being a 'high pressure' V4 or V6 *most of the time* rather than the current idea of it being a 4cyl with high pressure only when loafing and a regular low cyl pressure v-8 most of the time because of limits in the current design which count on the engin not being pushed to its limits most of the time.

WRT to sparkless - I suppose that under 'cruise' conditions maybe the individual spark/coil would just shut down and the individual cylinder - and helped along by the 12:1 compression allowed by Direct injection - could go into a sparkless ignition mode. For some reason I imagined the benefit being an engine that doesn't have an ignition system at all.
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
I'm wondering if the 'next thing' for AFM is closer to the original Cadillac 8-6-4 - or at least the concept that the typical V8 engine has so much 'excess' displacement that it's not a matter of sometimes shutting down 4cyls but only activating all 8cyls more like 'turbo' style when you put your foot to the wood. In other words, you'd have a 'high cylinder pressure' 6cyl for like the first half of throttle travel. Just like the current MDS or AFM, lighter weight vehicles would benefit most, but it would be more like you only have the full V8 when you have like the 'carb secondaries' kicking in in the olden days.

And then the individual PCV and oiling - as perhaps a 'rolling' AFM would be able to better hold up under the the strains of being a 'high pressure' V4 or V6 *most of the time* rather than the current idea of it being a 4cyl with high pressure only when loafing and a regular low cyl pressure v-8 most of the time because of limits in the current design which count on the engin not being pushed to its limits most of the time.

WRT to sparkless - I suppose that under 'cruise' conditions maybe the individual spark/coil would just shut down and the individual cylinder - and helped along by the 12:1 compression allowed by Direct injection - could go into a sparkless ignition mode. For some reason I imagined the benefit being an engine that doesn't have an ignition system at all.
The LT1 will have an AFM system with a wider activation envelope, and will also have significant fuel economy as well as power curve improvement. It however will still be just scratching the surface of what AFM, and the new combustion system are capable of. Also keeping in mind that the LT1 is capable of at least 13.0 to 13.5 to 1 SCR which in and of itself would improve BSFC, and torque but GM does not need to utilize all of the capability now especially with a lighter Silverado as well as Corvette.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
Regardless of how the publicity finally plays out, some congratulations are in order to BvonScott. We're almost to 100 pages here, and over a year of posts. He has a legit claim for starting an "epic thread" on GMI :clap: It's almost like the "NSAP said it's coming" thread for the SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
The LT1 will have an AFM system with a wider activation envelope, and will also have significant fuel economy as well as power curve improvement.

It however will still be just scratching the surface of what AFM, and the new combustion system are capable of.

Also keeping in mind that the LT1 is capable of at least 13.0 to 13.5 to 1 SCR which in and of itself would improve BSFC, and torque but GM does not need to utilize all of the capability now especially with a lighter Silverado as well as Corvette.
Germeezy1, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

The expectation is that AFM will be ' real large ' / ' real effective' on the LT1 and related and it is beyond premature to suggest anything for what comes after...... either way.

It's most likely one of the main - if not the main driver as to why the LT1 shares nothing but a handful of token parts with any of the previous.


I'm wondering if the 'next thing' for AFM is closer to the original Cadillac 8-6-4 - or at least the concept that the typical V8 engine has so much 'excess' displacement that it's not a matter of sometimes shutting down 4cyls but only activating all 8cyls more like 'turbo' style when you put your foot to the wood.

In other words, you'd have a 'high cylinder pressure' 6cyl for like the first half of throttle travel. Just like the current MDS or AFM, lighter weight vehicles would benefit most, but it would be more like you only have the full V8 when you have like the 'carb secondaries' kicking in in the olden days.
:yup::yup: - Exactly.

In addition.....

Honda's made a 6-4-3 work.... and although it's another 50 % er, VW's coming shortly with a 4 -2.

If you can take a compromised to begin with I4..... and run it as a '2' then anything less than 8 - 6 - 4 that does not have a 'big' VVT capability at the very least......... is just excuses..... for a mere pittance of lower initial cost


And then the individual PCV and oiling - as perhaps a 'rolling' AFM would be able to better hold up under the the strains of being a 'high pressure' V4 or V6 *most of the time* rather than the current idea of it being a 4cyl with high pressure only when loafing and a regular low cyl pressure v-8 most of the time because of limits in the current design which count on the engin not being pushed to its limits most of the time.
:yup: - along those lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Interesting -

By MarketWatch

PARIS--General Motors Co. GM +2.48% is in advanced negotiations to sell its French transmission operation in Strasbourg, the company said Friday, as it works to cut costs in its troubled European operations.

Belgium's Punch Metals International and Germany's ZF Friedrichshafen AG, a major car-transmission company, are involved in advanced talks that could lead to a sale, a GM spokesman said.

As part of the potential deal, Punch would buy the site and would enter a long-term deal with GM and ZF to make 8-speed transmissions, a spokeswoman for the plant added, saying that the sale terms would safeguard the roughly 1,000 jobs at the factory.
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
America 123 read the statement that I made as a whole without singling out the comment about AFM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,578 Posts
So are we saying AFM has wider parameters, can go to 2 cylinder operation, and can switch to an hcci-like mode, and that those new modes and features won't all be available from introduction, but rather rolled in over a period of days/weeks/months/years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
No, that's not it -

For now until we know better, just figure a much stronger, wider ranging - and better feeling 4 /8 operation - which will really be a large and useful improvement.

And really a decent possibility of 6 -3 for at least one of the V6s (ohv) that have been mentioned.

Then, a possible for 8 -6 -4 ..... more for things outside the Corvette at least to start.

___________


Related..... we need to see if the 5.3 is a 5.3......which seems most likely but then again a 5.5 is not a complete no go....and would possibly - key word 'possibly' be of interest in a different way than a 5.3

2 'out' of a 6 or 8...... assuming of some kind of legitimate interest and basic feasibility - a humongous question in and of itself - would require stuff outside this discussion and anything we have heard.

Let's just arbitrarily call that a "special support / 2 cylinder mode" - which even if it got thru the above, might then get squeezed by a combination of start stop + the same sort of thing for a special support / 3 cylinder .... or 4 cylinder mode.

If you can vary the range of 'efficient' 4 out of 8 cylinder operation by other means - probably get a better result than by tryin' to go to 2.


As a simple example, imagine a 'special' eAssist mode for 4 out of 8 running.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,537 Posts
Good point. I think Ford's grille is hideous and I've never been a huge fan of the Ram's "big-rig" styling. I also don't care for the Silverado, but love the Sierra.
Same here. The Sierra should have been a Chevrolet. I may have bought one.

The frame coating on my Avalanche is perfectly intact, though its only 3 years old.
Wax dipped frames are not of the highest quality. The wax comes right off. You can literally rub it off with your shirt doing an oil change. If you're happy with a Second Best coating on your frame, good for you. There's a reason Ford and Dodge use Paint.

The Ford was just redesigned. Ford's interiors were **** compared to Chevy when the GMT900's launched.
The Dodge indeed was. The Ford however was not. Ford's interior launched in 2004 was world's better than the Chevrolet interior which came 3 years later. It's no coincidence that GM is now using the same supplier for this upcoming truck.

And Ford and Dodge are just blips on the radar. Jeep owns this market.
Um no, not really. We're talking about TRUCKS. Take Jeep off the table. Ford and Dodge DO OWN the offroad TRUCK market. Chevy is nowhere to be found.

False. My GMT900 Avalanche has four wheel disc brakes.
Again, we're talking about Trucks. The Silverado and Sierra do Not. Our 3500 Express vans at work also had disc brakes. Drums are not first best, they are second best. GM was penny pinching period.

And to the sheetmetal issue, please do yourself a favor and look at any 900 Silverado over the rear wheels on the bedside at an angle. On every truck out there it looks like there's Bondo over the rear wheels it's so wavy. These are brand new trucks costing upwards of 50-60 grand. You folks find that acceptable?? It's NOT Quality Crafstmanship. The Chevrolet I grew up with would Never have let such a thing out the door. I'd love to have a face to face conversation with the person who approved such a thing.

GM's frames are not significantly lower than the competitions - if you measure them from the GROUND,
Actually, Yes they are. 9 inches slung lower to be exact.



NAZRancher & SDRacing, the only 2 other Real Truck Men on this thread. Also the only 2 other guys on here that have a clue as to what they're talking about.

Finally, the best example of this is Milwaukee tools. Their quality took a noticeable and significant impact when their production was moved to China.
We're on the same page here.


With the GMT-400/800 IFS? EVERYTHING. bump steer, weak tie-rods, banjo diff housing, low-strength components, deflection, etc. It is TERRIBLE by comparison. I'd take an 8-lug, 30 spline 8.5 10bolt over the first gen IFS any day.
I wouldn't say the 900-HD IFS is crap, but it isn't golden gem of awesomeness either.
First, linear-rate torsion bars are more than enough reason. To get a 6k GVWR front axle capacity, the torsion bar rate was increased significantly. Because they are linear and not progressive like Dodge and Ford, the suspension is stiffer. Fine when you're hauling around a plow, but a bit much empty. Secondly, while the individual suspension travel is similar to Ford and Dodge, what the SFA crowd has to benefit is the lever effect of the beam axle. With similar spring rates, this benefits the SFA in terms of articulation, the IFS in terms of ride.
However, where as the IFS may have a design advantage in terms of ride, it suffers by comparison because each tire is independent, there is no effective lever across BOTH springs and thus a higher spring is required.
But most importantly, and this is often where the PRO-IFS and ANTI-IFS crowd but heads, the GM IFS has too many negatives in terms of off-road. Tire size capacity is too small, strength of the axle housing, half-shaft strength and steering component strength are all too light for large tires, on a heavy truck in a moderate to heavy off-road situation.
That's not to say that IFS in general is terrible off-road. That is not true, it is just more expensive and difficult to build.
The GM 1/2ton coil spring suspension is a better design for off-road, but they still need to facilitate larger (heavier) wheel and tire combinations.

It isn't a question of IF IFS can be good off-road, it is the truth that the GM IFS ISN'T that so many cannot accept.
Quoted for the cold hard truth.
 
1381 - 1400 of 1780 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top