GM in deep Doo-Doo

[RazM]

Originally Posted by rck0025

ya I guess your right considering the Saab 9-3 is virtually the same as the malibu, pontiac g-6(or whatever its called) and one of the Saturn models(i want to say the aura). Not to mention the H3 is based on the same truck frame as the canyon and the Colorado. And if I remember correctly, the H2 was built on a Tahoe/ suburban frame with a beefed up suspension (i dont think its changed much). But at least the emblems are different and they do mix and match engine types.

Although, I do love GM products for the price, and the fact that four members of the fam. are GM engineers or are retired GM engineers.

This crap is still floating around? How many times does it have to be shot down before the masses finally 'get it'?

The H3 is NOT built on the same frame as the colorado/canyon. They share about 2 crossmembers that aren't modified, everything else has been modified to work with the H3, not to mention the H3 frame has been boxed.

The H2 is also NOT built on the Tahoe/Burban frame, it's a new frame built from 3 components, the center piece being new and the front and back are heavily modified frame components from other GM trucks. The key here is HEAVILY modified.

[rck0025]

Originally Posted by RazM

This crap is still floating around? How many times does it have to be shot down before the masses finally 'get it'?

The H3 is NOT built on the same frame as the colorado/canyon. They share about 2 crossmembers that aren't modified, everything else has been modified to work with the H3, not to mention the H3 frame has been boxed.

The H2 is also NOT built on the Tahoe/Burban frame, it's a new frame built from 3 components, the center piece being new and the front and back are heavily modified frame components from other GM trucks. The key here is HEAVILY modified.

Well, I cant say the H2 is currently on the Burban/Tahoe frame - but from what I was told from GM engineers about the initial H2 - it was indeed based on a Burban/tahoe frame. I guess that you are justified in interpreting some degree of modification as an original piece of engineering. However, I have to respectfully disagree (i'm assuming this is your argument?????).

[RazM]

Originally Posted by rck0025

Well, I cant say the H2 is currently on the Burban/Tahoe frame - but from what I was told from GM engineers about the initial H2 - it was indeed based on a Burban/tahoe frame. I guess that you are justified in interpreting some degree of modification as an original piece of engineering. However, I have to respectfully disagree (i'm assuming this is your argument?????).

No, that's not my arguement at all.

The frame hasn't changed on the H2, so what it was at launch is what it is now. The H2 uses a unique frame composed of 3 parts. The front is a modified 2500 series frame section, the center section is an all new piece, the rear is a modified 1500 series frame which was strengthened for the weight of the H2.

[Big Dad]

Everyone's in deep doo-doo...not just GM.

[rck0025]

Originally Posted by RazM

No, that's not my arguement at all.

The frame hasn't changed on the H2, so what it was at launch is what it is now. The H2 uses a unique frame composed of 3 parts. The front is a modified 2500 series frame section, the center section is an all new piece, the rear is a modified 1500 series frame which was strengthened for the weight of the H2.

Good to know! Damn that center section is innovative!

[NoMoGMPG]

Originally Posted by rck0025

Well, I cant say the H2 is currently on the Burban/Tahoe frame - but from what I was told from GM engineers about the initial H2 - it was indeed based on a Burban/tahoe frame. I guess that you are justified in interpreting some degree of modification as an original piece of engineering. However, I have to respectfully disagree (i'm assuming this is your argument?????).

I call BS, since the H2 was an AMGeneral/GM cooperative venture. I highly doubt you even know a "GM Engineer" that would have been on that project.

[rck0025]

Originally Posted by NoMoGMPG

I call BS, since the H2 was an AMGeneral/GM cooperative venture. I highly doubt you even know a "GM Engineer" that would have been on that project.

I guess I'm not understanding your comment. I don't believe I ever said I knew an engineer on the H2 project per say, but I have 2 uncles that currently work for GM as engineers and my grandfather is a retired GM engineer. The fourth is no longer with us. I simply go by what they have to say about such matters. I bet your just gunning for the GMS id's - well I'm only going to fall for that one twice!

The original point that I was making was that the GM business model is broken - one reason (out of many) being that it is perceived that they xerox their cars and market them accordingly to whatever niche they are trying satisfy. This can be seen with the Saab 9-3, the Ponitac version of the 9-3 (i think its the G6), the chevy version of the 9-3 (the malibu), and the Saturn version of the 9-3. Feel free to pick whatever model you want to be the benchmark and call all the others modified if you wish.

I wouldn't get too up in arms about it. But think what you will.

[NoMoGMPG]

Originally Posted by rck0025

I guess I'm not understanding your comment. I don't believe I ever said I knew an engineer on the H2 project per say, but I have 2 uncles that currently work for GM as engineers and my grandfather is a retired GM engineer. The fourth is no longer with us. I simply go by what they have to say about such matters. I bet your just gunning for the GMS id's - well I'm only going to fall for that one twice!

The original point that I was making was that the GM business model is broken - one reason (out of many) being that it is perceived that they xerox their cars and market them accordingly to whatever niche they are trying satisfy. This can be seen with the Saab 9-3, the Ponitac version of the 9-3 (i think its the G6), the chevy version of the 9-3 (the malibu), and the Saturn version of the 9-3. Feel free to pick whatever model you want to be the benchmark and call all the others modified if you wish.

I wouldn't get too up in arms about it. But think what you will.

I will not dispute that GM, along with every other multi-line franchise i.e Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc, utilizes platforms. They will vary the design to appeal to as many potential customers as possible to offset the incredible tooling, R&D, and marketing costs bringing a new vehicle to market entails.

Just because two or more vehicles share a powertrain option does not make them equal, it makes them better able to be serviced though in the event of a product failure. I can tell you from my own 30+ years of GM experience, that failure rates are at an all-time low per vehicle in the GM lineup and I attribute that to superior pre-release testing and lessons learned from decades past. Warranty repairs per vehicle are fewer than Toyota and Nissan, and on par with Honda. But you never hear that on the evening news, do you? The news only puts out the negative as they see it, never anything positive about the domestic manufacturers. Pisses me off.

This is not the 70's-90's. The domestic manufacturers took quite a beating doing exactly what you point out, when the vehicles were cookie-cutter. I personally don't think a Saab looks anything like a G6, nor does a G6 look like a Malibu. What ticked me off was your assertion that the H2 was a modified Tahoe, which is ludicrious given the boxed frame structural design, the first time ever electric locker, 3500 front diff, etc. None of which ever saw a Tahoe, but when pointed out to you was dismissed as "how innovative". The H2 was not built to be an innovation, it was built to be a capable off-roader with luxury attributes. I think it accomplished those goals.

Now if you want innovation, the Chevy Volt, which has been given an accelerated production date of 2010, has my interest. I am on the list for the first ones in Colorado. There are also 9 other vehicles GM is releasing over the next 3-4 years on fuel cell technology, all based on a single platform. Why? Because the platform is the basis of the R&D, to make it affordable. They will get family cars, minivans, and even an El Camino like vehicle out of this particular platform.

But you will scoff, probably bring up the EV1 and "Who killed the Electric Car" or some BS about it being all the same platform, blah blah. If you have or had family members who worked for GM at the level you claim, I'm sure they would appreciate a little loyalty. Is that asking too much?

[rck0025]

Originally Posted by NoMoGMPG

I will not dispute that GM, along with every other multi-line franchise i.e Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc, utilizes platforms. They will vary the design to appeal to as many potential customers as possible to offset the incredible tooling, R&D, and marketing costs bringing a new vehicle to market entails.

Just because two or more vehicles share a powertrain option does not make them equal, it makes them better able to be serviced though in the event of a product failure. I can tell you from my own 30+ years of GM experience, that failure rates are at an all-time low per vehicle in the GM lineup and I attribute that to superior pre-release testing and lessons learned from decades past. Warranty repairs per vehicle are fewer than Toyota and Nissan, and on par with Honda. But you never hear that on the evening news, do you? The news only puts out the negative as they see it, never anything positive about the domestic manufacturers. Pisses me off.

This is not the 70's-90's. The domestic manufacturers took quite a beating doing exactly what you point out, when the vehicles were cookie-cutter. I personally don't think a Saab looks anything like a G6, nor does a G6 look like a Malibu. What ticked me off was your assertion that the H2 was a modified Tahoe, which is ludicrious given the boxed frame structural design, the first time ever electric locker, 3500 front diff, etc. None of which ever saw a Tahoe, but when pointed out to you was dismissed as "how innovative". The H2 was not built to be an innovation, it was built to be a capable off-roader with luxury attributes. I think it accomplished those goals.

Now if you want innovation, the Chevy Volt, which has been given an accelerated production date of 2010, has my interest. I am on the list for the first ones in Colorado. There are also 9 other vehicles GM is releasing over the next 3-4 years on fuel cell technology, all based on a single platform. Why? Because the platform is the basis of the R&D, to make it affordable. They will get family cars, minivans, and even an El Camino like vehicle out of this particular platform.

But you will scoff, probably bring up the EV1 and "Who killed the Electric Car" or some BS about it being all the same platform, blah blah. If you have or had family members who worked for GM at the level you claim, I'm sure they would appreciate a little loyalty. Is that asking too much?

I think this is going far out of the stratosphere. As far as loyalty is concerned, I drive a Saab 9-3 and an H3. When they come out with these green/efficient vehicles (like the Saab bio-hybrid, and fuel cell cars you mention) i'll take notice like any other rational consumer. But I dont think dismissing current issues with how they have run things for years based on what they haven't even accomplished yet is remotely a rational argument.

However, I pay GM money for their product, what is more loyal than that. I think their product is fine for what they cost the consumer, but regardless they have been coming up short for quite a long time now haven't they? - profit wise. Perhaps they are too big (law of diminishing returns, etc.).


Furthermore, if you want to talk about loyalty - my grandfather, the retired engineer whose existence is evidently in question for some reason- is getting his health benefits suspended because GM cant make up for their deficient marketing and economic strategies. But I guess all the retired employees, be it engineers or blue collar joe's should just suck it up and be grateful that they had the opportunity to dedicate their lives to such a wonderful company.

Lastly, I never brought up the media or the quality of a GM product. I think they make a fine product although the compass is broken already on my h3 with only 3000 miles on it. I was referring to their strategy for making profits - xeroxing cars doesn't necessarily make them bad cars, but making the same car that people are not already buying in different trims and divisions doesn't necessarily make that car more profitable.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

[furblog]

Originally Posted by NoMoGMPG

I will not dispute that GM, along with every other multi-line franchise i.e Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc, utilizes platforms. They will vary the design to appeal to as many potential customers as possible to offset the incredible tooling, R&D, and marketing costs bringing a new vehicle to market entails.

Just because two or more vehicles share a powertrain option does not make them equal, it makes them better able to be serviced though in the event of a product failure. I can tell you from my own 30+ years of GM experience, that failure rates are at an all-time low per vehicle in the GM lineup and I attribute that to superior pre-release testing and lessons learned from decades past. Warranty repairs per vehicle are fewer than Toyota and Nissan, and on par with Honda. But you never hear that on the evening news, do you? The news only puts out the negative as they see it, never anything positive about the domestic manufacturers. Pisses me off.

This is not the 70's-90's. The domestic manufacturers took quite a beating doing exactly what you point out, when the vehicles were cookie-cutter. I personally don't think a Saab parts looks anything like a G6, nor does a G6 look like a Malibu. What ticked me off was your assertion that the H2 was a modified Tahoe, which is ludicrious given the boxed frame structural design, the first time ever electric locker, 3500 front diff, etc. None of which ever saw a Tahoe, but when pointed out to you was dismissed as "how innovative". The H2 was not built to be an innovation, it was built to be a capable off-roader with luxury attributes. I think it accomplished those goals.

Now if you want innovation, the Chevy Volt, which has been given an accelerated production date of 2010, has my interest. I am on the list for the first ones in Colorado. There are also 9 other vehicles GM is releasing over the next 3-4 years on fuel cell technology, all based on a single platform. Why? Because the platform is the basis of the R&D, to make it affordable. They will get family cars, minivans, and even an El Camino like vehicle out of this particular platform.

But you will scoff, probably bring up the EV1 and "Who killed the Electric Car" or some BS about it being all the same platform, blah blah. If you have or had family members who worked for GM at the level you claim, I'm sure they would appreciate a little loyalty. Is that asking too much?

I also like Chevy Volt I was not influenced by the issue on the disagreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding how the Volt should be tested to determine its official fuel economy rating.

[wpage]

The problems at GM run deeper than frames and platforms...

The writing was on the wall during the late 70's oil crisis!

The rest is and will be history unless GM starts to "Get It"

The need is advanced transmission and power systems that make the #'s.