The intentional (?) destruction of GM (gm)

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

[Dave Van]

The retired banking analyst in me says if GM goes away (or is just 100% controlled by China) it will be blind greed  that caused it. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

All I can add to that is "Good job, Mary. I knew you could do it from day 1. That's what you got paid $25 MILLION dollars a year for."

[Radretireddad]

I could see this coming years ago when my sons and I were still attending the Chicago Auto show every year and not just with GM. When the only car Chevrolet sells today is the Corvette and when potential North American customers who are interested in an affordable compact or midsized sedan have exactly zero non Asian makes to choose from, something is seriously amiss and it’s most likely at the top of GM’s food chain. If I had to put my finger on exactly when it happened, I’d say it was probably the intentional outcome of the big shakeup about fifteen or so years ago that killed Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer.

[maxwell48098]

FYI  GM sells more vehicles in  China than in North America, and builds 93% of them in China.

[Dragline]

Sad indeed. Being a GM guy (with side bouts of Mopar) all my life, greed has become so prevalent that I wonder how anything gets done anymore in the corporate world. The Grab and Git world has fully arrived.

[Ace-Garageguy]

8 minutes ago, Dragline said:

Sad indeed. Being a GM guy (with side bouts of Mopar) all my life, greed has become so prevalent that I wonder how anything gets done anymore in the corporate world. The Grab and Git world has fully arrived.

Someone on another thread made the very accurate observation that we, as consumers, now pay manufacturers for the privilege of finishing up their R&D and doing their product testing.

This has of course been a popular software model for decades, but now it's everywhere.

Case in point: the really good aftermarket vehicle service providers and consultants are figuring out what caused GM's BILLION DOLLAR LOSS on L87 engine failures...and how to fix it...just as a few have taken failure-prone many-speed automatic gearboxes and made them reliable.

 

[Beans]

29 minutes ago, Dragline said:

Sad indeed. Being a GM guy (with side bouts of Mopar) all my life, greed has become so prevalent that I wonder how anything gets done anymore in the corporate world. The Grab and Git world has fully arrived.

I don't know that it hasn't always been here.  The difference is that the super business moguls of the past wanted to build empires that lasted forever.  Nowadays the corporates heads are out to milk a job for all it is worth then jump to something else and do the same.  Empire building draws too much scrutiny.  Better to get the big bucks and move on before the actual damage you've done is truly realized.

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, Beans said:

I don't know that it hasn't always been here.  The difference is that the super business moguls of the past wanted to build empires that lasted forever.  Nowadays the corporates heads are out to milk a job for all it is worth then jump to something else and do the same.  Empire building draws too much scrutiny.  Better to get the big bucks and move on before the actual damage you've done is truly realized.

While there's surely some truth to that, car companies, even after the 'empire building' phase, actually tried to get things right.

EXAMPLE: With the widespread introduction of US-produced OHV engines and hydraulic lifters after WWII, increased valve spring pressure was causing premature failures of camshaft material that had been fine for decades, primarily due to insufficient lobe-surface hardness and lubrication for the increased demands. 

Manufacturers addressed camshaft alloys, surface hardening techniques, and enhanced engine oil capability, including the addition of zinc additives (ZDDP, 1951). It didn't cost hundreds of millions in 1950s dollars, or thousands upon thousands of warranty failures to get it done. They realized there was a problem and fixed it.

EDIT: A side note is that when manufacturers went to roller-lifters in search of less friction and better gas mileage, they also eliminated the requirement for zinc additives in engine oil, which contain phosphorous that has detrimental effects on catalytic converters.

This is why, if you have an older engine running 'flat tappets', you MUST run an oil or an additive containing ZDDP.

EDIT 2: Of course, when short-term profits began to take precedence over building a quality product and charging what it was worth, pre-emptive correction of known design or engineering deficiencies kinda went out of fashion. Not installing factory 'camber compensators' on first-gen Corvairs and fuel tank shields on Pintos, for instance.

Edited Thursday at 10:09 PM by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[junkyardjeff]

I heard somewhere that GM is going to be a company that puts its name on products made by other manufactures producing nothing.

[Ace-Garageguy]

33 minutes ago, junkyardjeff said:

I heard somewhere that GM is going to be a company that puts its name on products made by other manufactures producing nothing.

KInda the plan. They were the largest importers of Chinese electric vehicles for a while there, making nothing but the nameplates...which were probably made in China too.

"Ewwwwwwww. We don't want to be icky car manufacturers. That's like, gross...and old-fashioned boomer-think. We want to run on the Amazon business model. Buy Chinese garbage and mark it up. If we work it right we don't even have to buy the stuff. They'll just be essentially drop-shipped from China, some minimum-wage contractor will slap the badges on at the dock (maybe even right-side-up), away they go, and we get our cut. That's WAY oh so mo better. Can I get my $25 million dollar check now?"

                                                            

 

Edited yesterday at 12:30 AM by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[1972coronet]

7 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

A side note is that when manufacturers went to roller-lifters in search of less friction and better gas mileage, they also eliminated the requirement for zinc additives in engine oil, which contain phosphorous that has detrimental effects on catalytic converters.

To make matters worse, the A.P.I. - to the best of my understanding - didn't bother to update its rating on oil for gasoline engines ( diesel engines oils employ a different , "CI" (Compression Ignition ) rating -- just a general statement , @Ace-Garageguy, not a response to you personally ) back in 2006 when ZDDP was removed .

NO notice on the labelling whatsoever ! 

Lots of wiped cam lobes back then !

Soon as I found out about this "BLAH_BLAH_BLAH" that the A.P.I. pulled , I started running 4-cycle ATV oil , 10w-40 , in my '72 Coronet's 318. 

[1972coronet]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

KInda the plan. They were the largest importers of Chinese electric vehicles for a while there, making nothing but the nameplates...which were probably made in China too.

"Ewwwwwwww. We don't want to be icky car manufacturers. That's like, gross...and old-fashioned boomer-think. We want to run on the Amazon business model. Buy Chinese garbage and mark it up. If we work it right we don't even have to buy the stuff. They'll just be essentially drop-shipped from China, some minimum-wage contractor will slap the badges on at the dock (maybe even right-side-up), away they go, and we get our cut. That's WAY oh so mo better. Can I get my $25 million dollar check now?"

                                                            

 

She makes my skin crawl. Typical empty suit... and empty head.

[Mark]

None of it happened overnight...various stages of it have taken place over the last 60 years plus.  On one hand, there's the last minute de-contenting of the original Corvair, there's slapping multiple nameplates on the same car.  They're still selling the same trucks with two nameplates.

On the other hand, for some time they were building four completely different 350 cubic inch V8 engines.

Over time, the original GM (actually the second one; it reincorporated prior to 1920 when Chevrolet basically took over the first GM) went from being a car company that loaned money, to a bank that built cars on the side.  They now seem to want to just sell and finance vehicles, not build them.

[tbill]

Good news is the LS engines still eat cams and lifters , just like the old days, but now it takes 15 hours to fix it, and a lot more parts….

[Ace-Garageguy]

12 hours ago, Mark said:

...On the other hand, for some time they were building four completely different 350 cubic inch V8 engines.

Though I dearly love GM's first-gen OHV V8s, all the R&D and tooling expense for Caddy, Olds, Buick, Pontiac, and finally Chevrolet to build entirely different engines made little economic sense.

Still, I think the pendulum swing to "corporate engines" and "platform sharing" went too far in the opposite direction.

I also disagree with the decision to kill the heritage brands Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Both divisions could have been downsized to build interesting niche vehicles profitably.

Oldsmobile was building cars before Mercedes...since 1901 and recognized as the world's first mass-produced automobile. That's kinda special if you think about it. Mercedes plays heavily on their background and history, but GM's recent management doesn't seem to have a clue, or a care, about their own.

[Mark]

Oldsmobile was squandered.  Rather than starting up Saturn, GM could have reinvented Oldsmobile, much as the division itself wanted to do in the Seventies.  I guess GM wanted to sell new dealer franchises though.

The different V8 engines was also a waste of money once smog and (later) fuel economy testing entered the picture, as each 350 V8 had to be tested separately. 

The engine switching deal happened mainly due to Cadillac wanting the Olds 350 for the Seville.  This at the same time Olds was gunning for first place in sales with the Cutlass.  Somehow GM couldn't build enough Olds engines, yet somehow they never ran short of Chevy engines.  So some Cutlasses got Olds 350s while others got Chevy engines.  They could probably have pulled off the switch had the Chevy engines been even slightly different in displacement; say, 340 or 360 cubes instead of the same 350.  GM could even have called the 350 a 347 or something just to differentiate it, like the 402 cubic inch SS 396 Chevelles after 1969.

[tbill]

The problem with the excessive brands in the GM family was that over the years they all became the same, just different badges, Cadillac cimmaron comes to mind as an earlier one, and it just progressed from there.i could go on and on about GM, been with them for almost 40 years…..

[Rodent]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

Somehow GM couldn't build enough Olds engines, yet somehow they never ran short of Chevy engines.  So some Cutlasses got Olds 350s while others got Chevy engines.

The neighbor ordered a new Cutlass Cruiser in '76-77 when all of the hand-wringing about this was going on. It was a factory order due to not wanting the colors and options already available on the lot. He was afraid he was going to get a Chevy engine, so the salesman talked him into ordering it with the 403. I still think he would have been better off with a 350 Chevy than the biggest dog of the Olds engine family, but he was content with his 185 HP and 10 MPG. At least they had a bit of torque for the day. I taught their oldest son how to power brake soon after he got his license.

There really hasn't been any GM product in the last 35 years or so that I wanted to buy new. A couple I thought I did, but after renting them and putting some miles on them I quickly changed my mind. 

[Mark]

Though I never owned a GM product, whenever I shopped new vehicles I had one or more on the comparison list (through 2004).  After the last time, nope.  All four of my siblings did own multiple GM vehicles in years past...none of them have one now.  They have lost generations of customers, and I have no idea what they could do to have another shot at getting them back.

[Ace-Garageguy]

31 minutes ago, Mark said:

Though I never owned a GM product, whenever I shopped new vehicles I had one or more on the comparison list (through 2004).  After the last time, nope.  All four of my siblings did own multiple GM vehicles in years past...none of them have one now.  They have lost generations of customers, and I have no idea what they could do to have another shot at getting them back.

As far as I can tell, concepts like repeat business and brand loyalty don't register on minds like Barra's.

I've owned many GM vehicles, all bought used, some in beautiful condition, some rough or junk...though I have the '63 Olds my parents bought new.

Having worked on a very wide variety of vehicles over decades, there are things I like about older GM products, and things I prefer about the way other manufacturers did them.

My 3 GM trucks, 1989, 1992, and 1996, have been as tough as tanks for the most part, easy to fix when they broke...again, for the most part...and considering what I paid for them and how many miles they had on them when they came to me and how many miles I've put on them, I have zero complaints.

But the only other GM product of somewhat recent vintage I'd purchase is a C5 Corvette (though I'd buy an '04-'06 GTO if the price was right for the right car).

Frankly, I think the C5 is the single best vehicle GM ever built, and one of the best high-performance cars ANYBODY ever built.

And I wouldn't buy anything they "build" today if I literally had money to burn.

 

 

[tbill]

A lot of the problem is related to emissions and gadgets as I see it ( from a GM/Chevy dealer tech perspective), every time they finally got something right, it got scrapped ( yes, the venerable small block and the 3.8L v6), oil leaks finally got solved, cam issues, oil pressure issues and general drivability issues solved, rock solid dependable, welp, need more gas mileage, toss those out, let’s run crazy timing chain layouts and displacement on demand with variable cam timing, direct injection, secondary air injection, let’s run electrically controlled thermostats, throw a turbo on everything, toss in a transmission with 6/8/9/10 speeds, make the valve body virtually unserviceable, make the interior more entertaining than your living room, make your phone hook to it so you can be distracted, and when it doesn’t work, let’s rewrite all the software, well, while we are at it, let’s throw in some radar that’s wired so if the LAN circuit goes down, it makes the car not start, oh and for good measure, let’s make everything run on a different module……

 

good times, haha….

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, tbill said:

A lot of the problem is related to emissions and gadgets as I see it ( from a GM/Chevy dealer tech perspective)...so if the LAN circuit goes down, it makes the car not start, oh and for good measure, let’s make everything run on a different module...

Pretty much the way I see it.

Thing is, there was NOTHING wrong with the old smallblock bottom end. The bore spacing and even the bellhousing bolt patterns are the same as the LS family (except for one bolt hole on the LS tail end), fer dog's sake.

Emissions, mileage, and performance almost ALL come from the heads...chambers and porting...and engine management including valve event timing, EFI, and ignition control.

SO...LS-style heads could have been developed to bolt to the old smallblock, or the old block could have been minimally redesigned to take the LS heads (the aftermarket makes a smallblock bottom-end that WILL take LS heads, by the way), saving gazillions in tooling. It even could have been aluminum, with a separate main girdle for the really hi-po versions. All that development has been done for decades by the aftermarket and racers. But no. We gotta reinvent the whole wheel.

AND...with stand-alone EFI and engine-management computers, harnesses, and software, INSTEAD OF RUNNING EVERYDAMBTHING THROUGH THE CENTRAL COMPUTER with another gazillion LAN-linked modules, and by using stand-alone subsystems and analog controls for dumb functions like lights, wipers, etc., reliability, simplicity, and ease of diagnostics and repair could have been vastly improved.

It could have been cheaper to manufacture that way too. I KNOW it could.

But when you have a bunch of clean-hands dweebles like Barra et al running things, you get this disaster.

And sadly, the rest of the car manufacturers are all plagued by the same we've-never-done-squat-but-we-know-better-than-a-bunch-of-past-it-geezers attitude.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[1972coronet]

26 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

But when you have a bunch of clean-hands dweebles like Barra et al running things, you get this disaster.

Clean, manicured hands indeed. They don't come from an innovative / inventive background in any capacity of the term(s). NOT a single hotrodder amongst them ; just computer-college-tech dweebs.

All of the fellers who started automobile companies had dirty hands and a thirst for innovation - whether their background was in railroading, bicycles, or carriages ( Fisher ! ).
Remember when the Big Four were moonlighting ? The likes of the Ramchargers and so forth - hacking around afterhours , tinkering, adapting, testing , and - most importantly - applying their theories in tangible applications .

Barra, et alia, don't give an ish about any of those primitive activities... no need to offend anyone , far as they're concerned.