GM Can Go to Hell

I haven't seen the ads myself (for obvious reasons), but not to worry, the American public is smart enough to look past a few basic advertising ploys (misleading advertising anyone) and buy the better car. When I was in Chicago late last year I saw more Toyota's than I did Chevy's (and that was before the massive GM bailout). I am not aware of any Chevy's that can compete with Toyota's on millage (and to a lesser extent cost, reliability, build quality, etc).

If they are trying to cut costs, why then are they making GMC and Chevy trucks?

<hmmmm> , if it looks like incompetent management and it sounds like incompetent management then chances are....... Rather simplified view of the GM problem as a whole (and I am certainly NOT the first one to say it), but if you cannot change and adapt to compete with the current products then a baseless smear campaign is the next best thing.

A picture is worth a thousand words. See just one previous example below

GM's Inner city vehicle concept (2009)

Toyota's Inner city vehicle concept (2007)

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/36380

WTF are they thinking.

When I was in Chicago late last year I saw more Toyota's than I did Chevy's (and that was before the massive GM bailout). I am not aware of any Chevy's that can compete with Toyota's on millage (and to a lesser extent cost, reliability, build quality, etc).

I don't know about GM...but isn't Toyota an American car company now.

No, but they have a large sales and assembly plant presence in US (under the names "Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, "TEMA") and a joint-venture operation with GM at New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), in Fremont (which may be what you are thinking of).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota

Then point is, when a statement of GM can go to hell....one should not use such a wide paint brush.

IMHO GM is bloated.

Apparently GM got clobbered by the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Too many people used it to buy Toyotas, which have a 80% brand loyalty. So, a whole bunch of customers are lost to GM now. They made (maybe still do) a decent half ton pickup. Then they began adding every bell and whistle and chrome doodad they could. I worked with a guy who had a pickup he paid over 50 grand for and he couldn't haul a load of dirt!

And, that dumb commercial where Howie Long makes fun of the "little man step". I used to buy the bigger rear bumpers so I'd have something to step on once they dropped running boards and I couldn't go up the side. Maybe some people have 38" long legs, but many of use have short legs and can't just step into the bed of the truck. All that ad did was make me determined never to buy another Chevy truck (although the recession depression took care of that possibility).

Same problem here!! To get into the back of a full size pickup, I pick myself up high enough (using arm muscles) to get my butt up on the tailgate, then swing my legs around and work my way into a standing position. I am 5' 4" with short legs.

I also noticed a few years ago a NEW Dodge pickup with a spoiler across the bed... making its hauling capabilities next to worthless. I expect my truck to WORK and won't spend such money on an expensive toy.

Bill

I purchased a new '72 Vega, my final purchase of a GM vehicle.

If they are trying to cut costs, why then are they making GMC and Chevy trucks? They are identical except for some trim and the badge. They could all be made in one plant and the appropriate badge put on by the dealer.

I worked in a gas station in the early 70's when a customer brought in a vehicle to be serviced. I pulled it into the grease rack and filled out a work order. The dashboard had an Oldsmobile 'Omega' logo on it, and when I got out of the car, I noticed that the logo on the front fenders were that of a similar Chevrolet (the model name of which I don't recall). Both had the same bodies and guts, and they were made in the same plant.

Remember when they put Oldsmobile engines in Cadillacs?

Yep. Olds turned into GM's test vehicle for new engines, etc. It was once one of the best cars money could buy.

Yes I can remember Oldsmobile engines in Cadillacs. The digital fuel injected engines used only in the Cadillacs, and in the high end Tornadoes. I also remember Oldsmobile, Buick, Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, and GMC with their own engines that they did not share with any other divisions. Back in the 50s, Chrysler, Dodge, Desoto, and Plymouth each had it's own engines. In the 60s Ford had different engines for Ford, Lincoln, and even Edsels. They all went to standardization of engines. Why is it wrong to have a Chevy engine in your Oldsmobile, and Ok to have a Ford motor in your Lincoln?

Don't recall that. When I was in high school in th 60's my grandfather discovered his new oldsmobile had a chevrolet engine in it after a trip to Florida. He bought a new olds every three years and threw a fit at the dealer about the chevy engine. They did nothing and he never bought another olds. Probably not much difference between them other than valve covers and paint color ( red vs. gold).

Oh yes there was considerable difference in them most parts were not interchangeable even the cosmetic's

History lesson from an older mechanic.

In 1960 fuel concerns drove American auto manufacturers to start selling smaller cars. Chevy Corvairs, Ford Falcons, Plymouth Valiants, Dodge Lancers. In 1961, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac did not want to miss out on the sales, So they also brought out the Olds F85, Buick Special, and Pontiac Tempest. Pontiac decided to slice four cylinders off of it's 389 engine, and had a slant 4. Buick and Oldsmobile shared a 215 Ci V8 for one year. That was the first of the sharing of engines at GM that I can remember. In 1962, Buick had their V6 ready, and used it in their cars from then on. Oldsmobile retained the 215 until the body change in 1964, including a turbocharged version.

In 1964, Buick, Oldsmobile Pontiac and Chevrolet all shared a new body for their small cars. Chevy still had the Corvair and Chevy II, but now also got a Chevelle to go along with the BOP intermediates. At this point in time all four were using their own engines. Buick used their V6 at 198 and 225 CI, and a 300 CI V8. Oldsmobile had a brand new V8 for division wide use and offered a 330 CI version in the F-85, and offered the Buick V6 at 225 CI. Pontiac abandoned the slant 4 and used aversion of Chevrolet's inline 6 at 215 CI and their own 326 V8. Chevrolet had anew straight 6 engine from 1962, so it was offered in 194 and 230 CI versions along with their own 283 and 327 V8s.

By 1965, Buick started to offer it's 401 V8. Olds offered it's 400 V8. Pontiac offered its 389 V8 in late 64 and continued in 65. (GTO). Chevrolet released it's new 396 in late 65 for use in it's Chevelle.

In 1966, Buick added it's new V8 in 340 and 400 versions while eliminating the old design 401. Oldsmobile abandoned the V6 and started to offer the Chevy straight 6 at 250 CI. Pontiac developed their own inline 6, but with an overhead camshaft. It was made available in the 66 Tempest. Chevrolet left things alone for 66.

Things remained the same until 1968 when Buick and Pontiac also switched to the Chevy straight 6.

That is my memory of "engine sharing" at GM. up until this point. There were some displacement changes along the way, but V8s were always true to their brand at this point. If needed, I can next go into the start of V8 sharing. At another post.

From around I'm thinking around '68 (kinda fuzzy on the date) or so, Buick, Pontiac, and Olds, all agreed to sell variants of Chevy's small block V-8 with various modifications and drop their separate V8 designs for a corporate standard. All Hail Ed Cole! I had a 350CID '68 Pontiac LeMans with a 2 speed "Powerglide" ATM, aka "Powerslide" (which was a GTO with nicer trim and a detuned engine/drivetrain) which ran like a bat outta Hell Michigan until a motor mount broke during a high torque high lateral G evasive maneuver and the engine throttle went to full and I lost control and rolled it. bent every piece of sheet metal on it, and blew out three tires when I landed, but it landed on it's wheels and the engine was still running, if I had had three spare tires, I coulda driven it home. I do indeed miss that car. I got it in 1984 with 27K original miles on it. The engine was still burning oil for crying out loud. I kick myself every time I think about that wreck.

The only engine that was made by Chevrolet in any Oldsmobile in the 60s was the inline six that went into the F-85-Cutlass. And that was only when the base engine was chosen. All full sized Oldsmobiles had genuine Oldsmobile engines. That engine was the ONLY American engine sold with 10 bolts retaining the valve cover.

In the late 60s and early 70s all of GM's divisions offered a 350 CI engine that was manufactured themselves, or was changed substantially. The only substantially changed 350 CI engine was the Cadillac, that used the Oldsmobile engine, but with the digital fuel injection system. Buick, Olds, Pontiac and Chevrolet all offered a 400 CI engine at the same time. Chevrolet had 2 separate 400 CI engines for some years, and ALL of them were as different from each other as Ford's 400 was from Chrysler's 400 CI.

Many people could never tell the difference between any of them. You and your grandfather may have been misled by an unscrupulous Ford fanatic. One should never trust anyone that worships the blue oval.

Bob

Since you seem quite competent on the subject... In '55, Chev came out with the 265 ci V8, and in '57 with the 283, then later with the 327. I believe the only major difference in these engines was the bore (3.5", 3.75", and 4" respectively).

What I have wondered is if the Chev 350 ci is a further expansion on this same basic engine or is it a totally different critter? With a given block, you can only bore so far until you run into water jackets, oil galleries, and other things.

Much Thanks

Bill

Yes. The small block Chevy family includes; 265, 283, 327, 302, 307, 350, 262, and 400 (but only as a 2 barrel carb version). I think I have covered most of the sizes used over the years, but I may have missed some from the late 70s or early 80s. There have been some differences over the years, but all have many basic dimensions that are the same. They changed the valve cover bolt pattern in 1958. They changed the main bearing bore size in about 69. They changed the rear main seal from two piece to a one piece design around 78 (I think) The stroke of the engines also changed over the years. 302 and 327 were the same stroke. 307 and 350 were the same stroke. I would need to dig a book out to quote the remainder of them. I hope this helps.

I rented a GMC Terrain on a recent trip. It was nice enough - leather seats, rear view camera, satellite radio, etc., but it had absolutely no pick up. There was a light on the dash that said "ECO". I'm guessing that's why.

But you remind me of an ad I saw back in the 70's. If you're old enough to remember, that's when the big three peaked out in bad quality, and that's when they started to lose their market share. There was a commercial in response to all the bad press they were getting. It said, and I kid you not, "The new - whatever - comes with the same tires you get on a Mercedes!"

I rented a Traverse for a family roadtrip to FLA last year and it was a pretty decent vehicle. Got fairly decent gas mileage for a minivan with a V6, something in the mid-low 20's if memory serves. Really rather liked it and considered trying to convince the wife to buy one when it came time to retire our current vehicles. But then again I only had it for a week and it was practically brand new so it really had not had time to develop any issues yet. then a few months later I rented a Chrysler minivan for a different road trip and really was not impressed at all. everything on the interior was cheaply made and it showed, there was only one side opening door and it was not electrically operated like the Traverse's dual doors were. The fold down seats did not fold into the load bed, you had to remove them to get a open load bed. The keyless entry/ignition system (same as used on the Mercedes & BMW BTW!) crapped out on us and locked us out of the vehicle. we had to wait for a tow truck to pop the lock. Apparently once you operate the electric lock switch in the door panel, the keyless entry system will reset itself, but this is apparently a known problem with the system. And on top of that the engine just didn't feel very powerful at all compared to the GM.

By comparison I drove a Turbo Deisel E-class Mercedes in Germany while was there last month and fell in love with the vehicle. Power everything, including the heated leather seats (gawd they felt good!) and the sexy GPS voice with the British accent. I wanted to ask it out to dinner afterwards, the voice was so attractive. And I drove my bosses Dodge Magnum SRT a couple weeks ago (which is essentially the same vehicle platform with a Chrysler Hemi engine and the E-class transmission) and had a blast with how much power the vehicle had. Hitting 100mph on the tollway was so tantalizingly easy with it I really had to watch myself, but again the "sport" interior was cheap looking and kinda spartan. Fuel economy? Don't ask. Neither the Dodge minivan, nor the E-class nor the Magnum can talk about fuel economy with a straight face. But all the powered bells and whistles on the Traverse have me wondering about long term reliability for all those gadgets. the more stuff you have on the vehicle the more likely something will break.

The only problem I have with GM going to hell is that they're taking Michigan (Indiana, Ohio, etc.) with them.

I'm not sure what the conversion works out to but the 2004 silverado 2500 4dr diesel I just bought gets 10.5 L. to the 100km. and it has 244000km my friend has the same truck in a 2008 and is floored by the difference he wouldn't even tell me what he gets and my truck drives just like the new one I tried. my dad has a new Suzuki crossover much smaller and lighter he gets 11.5L. to the 100km. we boath have 4wd. my truck might be a jem but I think things are not always as said ( newer is better) I just don't like the commercials that assume we are all idiots Chev is not the only one

The commercials are written for idiots why were you watching?

I have not been a fan of GM over the years, and on this site have pointed out several times that they have produced the most dangerous vehicle on the road (the Blazer) for several years running. Large vehicles should be inherently safer than smaller ones, and both the Toyota and Nissan equivalents were some of the safest vehicles. It takes both stunningly bad engineering and management that doesn't care about safety to claim the title "producer of the most dangerous vehicle on the road".

However...

I seriously doubt that the two GM pickup trucks are made in separate plants. The norm throughout the industry is to make differently badged vehicles in the same plant. I've consulted in Ford plants where Mazda radios are made for example, and in another where Taurus and Sables were made side by side, and in another where the Ford Ranger and Mazda equivalent were made side by side. I don't think GM is any worse than anyone else in this respect, and I would want to have rock solid data to the contrary before claiming otherwise.

The 21 mpg figure is correct, and Ford gets the same figure with their own "high efficiency" model. They both build the truck to the EPA tests, for which they cannot be faulted. Your mileage will vary. But if you claim that GM thinks its customers are stupid because of their 21 mpg figure, then Ford thinks their customers are equally stupid.

The Volt is the only near-term significantly different vehicle coming from any manufacturer. (We've already had all sorts of all-electric niche vehicles.) And the Volt has forced manufacturers around the world to ramp up their own plug-in hybrid programs. Pure electric vehicles will have a niche, but most people simply cannot live with the range limitation and staggering cost. The Volt is plenty pricey itself, but far more versatile than a Tesla, and about 1/3 the price. ($32k after rebates vs $96K after rebates). Before the Volt's broad acceptance and anticipation, Toyota poo-pooed the idea of a plug-in hybrid, but are now going to come out with their own.

I have always liked Ford better than GM, and interviewed with both companies many years ago, which strongly reinforced my preference for Ford, but I think GM has done some good things recently, with the Malibu being a top seller, the pickups outselling Fords, etc. They are not Toyota, and have a ways to go, but they are headed in the right direction. Their EV1 from ten years ago was far more efficient than the current Tesla (190 watt-hours per mile vs 310 watt-hours per mile for the Tesla) so they are probably not as dim-witted as you make them out to be. Their Buick outsell Lexus in China, and their market share for many vehicles around the world is growing.

I've been involved in new vehicle launches, and the marketing is far more sophisticated than most people think. Even in very competitive segments (e.g. entry level Mercedes vs Volvo vs BMW vs Lexus.) the cars function in very nearly identical ways. But the marketing guys from each can point to studies that show much different demographics (Volvo buyers are "We" people, Mercedes buyers are "Us/Them" people, BMW buyers are "Me" people...). It sounds like voodoo, but this is the way manufacturers market cars. The Hummer (which sold like hotcakes despite being a completely stupid vehicle in hundreds of ways) was all about assuaging sexual insecurities, showing "power", expressing a need to intimidate, etc. Off road? whadya kidding me? It's all show. The Hummer is an urban car.

If GM can sell a POS like the Hummer as well as they did, they must be doing something right. There are marketing differences between the GM pickup and the Chevy pickup, with the GM being associated with the big "real" trucks that are marketed as GM. Their strategy has so far put them ahead of Ford (and obviously Toyota, Nissan etc.) in sales numbers, so it is probably not a bad one.

A Lexus is a gussied up Toyota. Would you advise them to stick the Lexus badge on in the showroom?

If GM can sell a POS like the Hummer as well as they did, they must be doing something right. There are marketing differences between the GM pickup and the Chevy pickup, with the GM being associated with the big "real" trucks that are marketed as GM. Their strategy has so far put them ahead of Ford (and obviously Toyota, Nissan etc.) in sales numbers, so it is probably not a bad one.

True they are doing something right, but for their own benefit, not to benefit the buyer. They couldn't care less about what the public wants. I'm sorry, but the perception I and others get is "we want your business regardless of what you want". They create the marketing. They convince the public that the GMC is the right truck for you, because it is a real truck. What's the Chevy? a toy! The public wouldn't know the difference if you made Chevy and GMC in the same plant and added the badge at the dealers. Call the public stupid if you want.....I don't know. For the record, I own a Silverado and am very happy with it. I just don't like GM trying to influence my decision.

Back in the 90's I was looking for a small light truck.

4WD, Automatic, Extended cab, short box. I test drove Chevy, Toyota, and Nissan.

As far as ride Toyota had the best all around vehicle, but not an extended cab and had a standard transmission.

I stopped at a light, and with a standard shift, it was so quiet I though I snubbed it.

Nissan, I like until I lean against it on the box and the body side panel went ping (Because of the thin material). Salesman told me not to worry about it because its material is stronger.

I bought the S10 not because it was an overall better truck, I bought it because it had all what I wanted, It's V-6 was a strong engine, and had good power. But had alot of issues after purchased. GM stood behind it.......fortunately, but I was thinking of buying a extended warranty, but the issues were worked out

p911

Back in 93 a friend of mine needed a small work truck. For whatever reason, He bought a S-10 extended cab. He drove it for 10 years, before retiring it. He replaced the timing chain at some point, but nothing other than a clutch.

An hour ago I drove that same truck, which is he gave to me in 2003. It has the crappy 2.8 engine, not the desirable 4.3. The transmission now needs to be replaced because the input and output shafts both had grooves in them in 2000, caused by getting water inside the transmission. BUT, it has 309,000 miles on it. original heads. Original rings and bearings.

It ain't a Toyota, but I think it has done as well as any other truck made.

Mine was a 91 S-10 I bought in june of 90. sespension Bushings went out in it a couple of times, front drive, 4WD air cannister, Main seal, It also had a poor paint job started peeling the first 3 months. Had 6 flat tires in the first months....that must have been a coinncedent. Sat outside, started in 20 below weather, and took me to the shipyard 50 miles away, it was a white knuckle drive....for the life of me, I do not know why I did not call in sick

then after the warranty came close to running out I was going to get an extended warranty but decided not to.......just change oil, brakes radiator flush...standard maintenance nothing more. It was loud inside, and a little drafty. An S10 is no work truck, But No complaints here.

put 200,000 miles on it, and give it to my nephew for his first vehicle.

at 250,000 he I needed a vehicle and he gave it back. those 4.3 I loved.

Bought a 2003 2500 HD Chev. also love that truck

p911

Guys, an S-10 is not a Chevy, it is a rebranded Isuzu.

I beg to differ. The late Isuzu PU is a re-badged S-10. The engine lineup is all of the Chevrolet engines used in the S-10s.

wtf......then what is the argument here.

GM can go to hell, except chev S-10, because.......

This whole thread is really starting to sound like its coming from teenagers now.

Or this whole thread only basis was emotion

The principal reason for wanting a small, light truck is fuel mileage. Back in the 80's, I too was looking for a small, light truck and I found it in a Mitsubishi turbo diesel. 32 mpg day in/day out. It climbed steep interstate grades without losing power. I could hear the "knocking" of the gas powered cars as I passed them. It was small; didn't have the creature comforts of the big Ford and GM vehicles, but it did the job and did it well. When looking for a vehicle, you must decide what is your primary concern. Is it economy? Is it comfort? Is it looks?

for 1983. Extended cab, 4x4 and diesel models were part of the mix for the pickup's sophomore year, and an S-10 Blazer SUV joined Chevy's lineup.

It was normal for my neighbor to get 30mpg in his full-size Chevy blazer diesel too.

If GM can sell a POS like the Hummer as well as they did, they must be doing something right.

The Chinese is interesting in purchasing this division.

But its not the car company that can make this model popular....its the people with low self esteem about thierselves that buy it.

Don't worry Ron they are well on their way already and it won't be long before they arrive. Why do you think they named a town in Michigan 'Hell'? And guess what, it freezes over every winter.

Quoth a guy that owns two high mileage toyotas that are still going strong.

Why now are they doing something about it.

Because they can't tell us what we want anymore...they learned to read the writing on the wall

GMC is made in Canada...I like GMC you can see'em coming with the one light lit

if they have improved gas mileage,

They reset the chip...

Never have I seen a company that thought the public is so stupid like GM

Is the public stupid? I'll put on my politician hat and vote present

I don't know my silverados (I had them since 1990 avg 150,000 on each one 6 different versions) always ran between 18-20 mpg highway. The company I work for used Fords then switched to Toyotas. The Fords ran about 14-16 mpg and the toyotas about 16-17 mpg. The Fords and now the Toyotas are all have problems with there transmissions plus a lot of body rust problems with the Toyotas. My biggist problem with the bigger Toyotas is that the cabs are still to small, no leg room or shoulder room. The Fords couldn't get out of there own way.

I've never bother following the commericals only a fool would I base my actions on my personnel experiences and what I like. I haven't seen the commerical yet between Chevy vs Toyotas but I have seen it between Chevy and Honda.

The rust problem is a known issue and a NHTSA recall may be in the works. They appear to have solved that problem for later models.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/08/nhtsa-launches-probe-into-2000-2001-toyota-tundra-frame-rust-cla/

They're all 2006-2008. I work in construction and mining maybe it just can't handle the abuse. The fords never really had any issues and my Chevy gets worked out regularly with no rust problems. Maybe poor galvanizing this batch.

If you think GM treats the general public with a lack of respect, you should get a load of how they treat their suppliers. If their buyers weren't p***ks before they went to work for GM they either became one or never advanced.

Bailing them out was one of the stupidest thing the fed ever did. The cold cruel free market has a way of working well when left alone. Sure, letting them fail would have had a major impact on Michigan and Ohio, etc. but propping them up is only prolonging the agony. Better to take the amputation and move on than die of a thousand cuts.

The transplant automakers are tough customers, but they are fair and if you have problems can usually be counted on for a hand instead of a fist.

Please...as soon as Toyota builds a one ton with a "diesel" I will own it. Cost...will be the last consideration.

In that case order one, they've been made for years...

Toyota called the T100 a "1 ton" truck but it really was not, neither was the original Tundra. They were really "Heavy Half's" as Chevy used to call them or perhaps lightweight 3/4's depending on how you wanted to split the hair. They showed a prototype off in 2007 of a TRUE 1 ton dually at a SEMA car show. They used a 8 liter Hino engine, a Eaton 5 speed manual and a Meritor dually rear axle, but they have since purchased a stake in Isuzu (as well as stakes in Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent company of Subaru) and the word is that it will be released possibly as a 2010 model with an Isuzu engine and drivetrain. But that might get delayed depending on the economic situation. The Tundra Plant down the highway in San Antonio has been idled for several month due to low demand, but Toyota was the primary beneficiary of the "cash for clunkers" program so they got a nice shot in the arm which might help the issue.

BTW, the S-10 was (at least for the longest time, not sure if that is still the case.) a rebranded Isuzu pickup, so was the venerable LUV which came before it. Just as the GEO prizm was a rebranded Toyota Corolla and the Geo Metro and Tracker were rebranded Suzuki's.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0804dp_2008_toyota_tundra_diesel/index.html

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/103105-2009-toyota-1-ton-diesel/

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2008/01/14/toyota-tundra-diesel-confirmed/

General Motors along with Ford were both running American owned and operated factories in Nazi Germany during the war and utilizing slave labor from the concentration camps and manufacturing vehicles for the German military.

So maybe karma might have something to do with it.

Like in politics, the best way to avert someone's attention to your failings is to throw mud at someone or something that is better than you are. My wife had a Chrysler Town & Country and I have had a number of Toyotas. After oil changes, the T&C's oil within 500 miles was like black sludge. After 5,000 miles, the Toyota's oil looked new. We spent several $ thousand on repairs and upkeep on the Chrysler, and zero on repairs for any of the Toyotas. We both have Toyotas now. As some have said, the U.S. vehicle industry was primarily about making money for the execs, workers and Unions. There was very limited concern re the environment, gas mileage, repair frequency. Dodge's 500 hp cars are a good case in point. Large vehicles with less that 20 mpg should be part of our past, but too many people just don't care!

[the fact is that Detroit does "build the cars America wants".] Detroit builds cars they have conditioned the public to want.

[Just a couple years ago, three Ford F150's were sold for every Honda Accord sold.] How can you compare a car with a pickup truck?

[A huge corporation cannot shift gears instantly.] Yes they can. Look at the switch from cars to tanks during WW II.

[Honda and Toyota have suffered as a result of the recession.] Everyone suffers during a recession

[GM makes some excellent products and will continue to do so.] Why is it when the public is asked to comment on their choice, 9 out of 10 cars are foreign made?

All car companies are profit driven. The difference between foreign and domestic companies is: One tries to give the most bang for the buck without compromising quality. Better quality control. Detroit will let faults go past rather than fix it on the spot. They let the dealer deal with it and hopefully it won't be discovered until after the warranty has run out.

[Further, there are more than simple badge differences between the trucks.] Oh! what are some of them?

Am I knocking GM? Damn right I am and to a lesser degree, Ford and Chrysler. To say their car and trucks are great is really stretching it a bit. Most of their vehicles are just ok. I have owned Ford, GM and Chrysler products for over 50 years. I've owned Buicks,(Skylark) Chevy's,(Corvair) Cadillac. I have had good and bad experiences with them. I've also owned some foreign vehicles with good and bad experiences, but overall, the foreign vehicle experience has been more satisfying. In this age of space exploration and computers, I would expect GM and others to do a better job than they are. I place the blame on management and especially the unions. I suspect you are a union man, so I'm sure you will have a bias opinion regarding anything to do with unions.

Why does GM and others wait until a crisis to introduce "improved gas mileage". There were things that could have been implemented years ago but they chose not to until now.

BTW, Please don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking GM products; just GM.

I've owned a number of vehicles in my lifetime. The first was the '68 LeMans I mentioned earlier. Loved that car, had very little problem with it until the motor mount broke (old rubber I'm sure).

The next vehicle was a '79 Pontiac Gran Prix. had nothing but trouble with it. Finally got rid of it and got myself a '88 Chevy Berretta. After replacing the transaxle twice, and having the dash replaced under warranty I got rid of it before I made the 60'th payment, traded it for a '93 Saturn SL-1. I believed they hype about it being "a different kind of car company" BS. I had to have the Alternator replaced 3 times under warranty before I finally got rid of it. it was located too close to the exhaust manifold and it was being cooked. After the first replacement they replaced it with a higher power unit that was spec'ed for the newer year models, I guess in the thinking that it would have a bit more temp. margin. But that didn't solve the problem, 9 months later it died too. I finally got rid of it when I couldn't get any dealer except the original dealer to service the dog. Meanwhile guess what the newer year model had? all electric everything, so they took an alternator that was already marginal and INCREASED the power draw on it! That was when I realized Saturn engineering was staffed by idiots. Along about this time frame my wife's '89 Nissan Sentra started running really rough and would not start in cold weather. we discovered that the distributor journals in the block were worn out and it would not stay in time. (the vehicle had less than 80K miles on it.) and repairing it would require a new engine. we sold the sentra and bought a '92 Jeep Cherokee, had lots of issues with it culminating with a trashed transmission. (a toyota tranny, go figure.), got rd of it and got the '98 Tacoma I have now used. it is still ticking along without an issue. The Saturn we dumped and got a '98 Corrolla, used, drove it into the ground, got a brand new '04 corrolla and have just about driven it into the ground too.

needless to say, I really can't say I've had a lot of luck with domestic vehicles,nor Nissans.

The difference between American made automobiles and Japanese made automobiles stems back to post-WWII.

Japan was desperate to shake being a second rate country in production. All of their products were considered second rate around the world.

W. Edward Deming came up with a managing program to increase production and improve on product quality. He first proposed it to American Companies and they rejected his proposal because who the hell was he to tell them how to run their companies.

He then went to Japan and presented his plan. The Japanese CEO's were just as egotistical but some of them were willing to give it a try and the others went along with it in case it worked and they didn't want to be left out.

They gave the program five years to show results and they started getting results in less then three.

The result became very apparent in the 1970's when everyone wanted to buy Japanese.

In 1980 a journalist wondered what happened to Deming and found him and had an interview. Ford and GM CEO's watch that interview when the Deming stated "If Japan can do it, why can't we?" Ford and GM acted on that statement and hired Deming as a consultant but it's too little too late.

One of the biggest advantages Toyota has over most other auto manufacturers is that the employees are responsible for all the improvements made in their automobiles. Toyota receives over 3 million suggestions each year and implements 85% of those suggestions. They value the employee input. The majority of our American company managers feel they are giving up too much power over the employees with empowering them with that much influence over their product so our American companies continue to be left behind.

I don't remember anyone in the 70's what a Japanese car I remeber a lot of refereces to "Jap cr$$p" or was it scrape.

The biggest problem from the 70's models was the steel......it was too pure. and rusted in the northern climate.

As far as the references to "Jap cr$$p" most of these opinions were based on prejudices against the foreign automobile industry and was reinforced by arrogance, ignorance and pride.

It wasn't crap, or it would not be around today.

Also don't forget that their entire industrial capability was bombed into oblivion and they had to rebuild everything from scratch after WWII whereas our factories were still standing and were built and tooled years earlier. Same with Germany. all of our steel mills and all of our stamping plants and everything existing at the time were designed and built in the 1910-1930 time frame and had been worn out building our war machines. They had nothing left after WWII so we graciously rebuilt it all for them with late 1940's and early 1950's technology, technology that had benefited greatly from our wartime advances, so they were at least one and possibly two generations ahead of us in industrial capability when we finished. So they had quite a technological lead on us thanks to the Marshall Plan after the war. I used to work for a company that made steel mill equipment (it was a division of Mesta Machine that got spun off during it's bankruptcy.) and we had the original prints for many of the rolling mills around the world. The ones Mesta supplied to Mitsubishi after the war were miles ahead of the ones J&L or US Steel had in Pittsburgh for instance that were built in the early 1920's. We had one set of steel rolling mill prints dating to 1901 and it was still in operation when I left the company about 15 years ago.

Yes post WWII.....we got the gold.

The following two sites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1and http://www.ev1.org/

tells the story better than I can of why GM is not a friendly company. Throw in the oil companies and the government and a full blown conspiracy is hatched. All three are in bed together. They want to maintain the status quo and discourage new ideas. As a result, who will win? The foreign auto makers. The foreign companies have to develop alternate sources of power due to their high fuel costs. The U.S. will continue with imported oil until it's either gone or costs too much. Then we will embrace electric technology too late. We now have a unique opportunity to lead the world in electric vehicles. We know it will come, but GM and others will discourage it for their short term profits. I have owned about 28 vehicles over the past 55 years, both foreign and domestic and mostly new. I can truthfully say that I didn't have any complaints with any of them. They all did what they were intended to do. Naturally parts wear out and have to be replaced. That doesn't detract from the basic auto. So I repeat, I have no problem with any vehicle, only the corporation behind them. I currently have a 2001 Silverado and a 1996 Camry. Both give me good service. I've never been a CEO so I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but don't sell the public short. They are a lot smarter and wiser than you think.

This post is getting messy. If you wish to attack me more, write me at:

ronaldseto@bellsouth.net.

Hello Blink, I have to disagree about the Chevy- GMC badge thing. My dad had a 1976 heavy 1/2ton GMC. It was passed to me in 84. Shortly I striped it down to repaint it a different color. Under the floor cover under the seat on the passenger side we found ALL the badges for + the build sheet for a Chevy VIN # was off some from the GMC, differens in coding I guess. Color, options and all were the same. Other than the tail gate and vin plate and some stickers the truck would have been a Chevy.

Also in some other GM owned cars over the years there is very little differents other than badges and or cosmetics like grills or some inside trim.

Even fords trucks and the excursions cosmetics can be changed out.

A lot of aftermarket add ons depend on stuff like this other wise it becomes to cost expensie unless there a demand.

Times change, and trucks do also. Over the years, GMC and Chevy trucks have grown very close. Back in the 60s the GMC line up used their own engines, not Chevrolet's. They had a V6 that was outstanding. It was available in 305, and 351 CI versions. I can't remember if there were other sizes, but they stacked 2 of the 351s together to make a V12 used in the bigger GMCs.

In some years, GMC used leaf springs in the back, while Chevy was using coils. Dashboards were different in some years. I am no expert on the differences. These are just some that I remember.

Ronseto's suggestion was to do all the badging and trim work at a dealership level.. to make a stripped truck look like one or the other by manual labor, instead of doing it in a factory. He incorrectly thought that these trucks are made in separate factories. He was writing about new trucks not one three decades old.

Current Sierras and Silverados have door labels with the letters individually applied, so even that alone would be costly to do by hand labor. But the fact is there are many, many, differences, almost all cosmetic. Leaving off the grill, the headlights, the door threshold plates, the paint, the seats for a Denali, the wheels, etc, etc, would defeat the whole idea of mass production. All this stuff is installed on the line at no additional cost: it just a matter of putting the right stuff on, and the worker doesn't have to think about it. But doing it in dealerships would be, simply put, idiotic. It could cost thousands to custom paint and trim a Chevy to make it look like a GMC.

Here are the fronts alone for 2007 models:

As I said before, headlight lenses, grill, bumpers, wheels, etc. If you left all that stuff off and sent them to dealers to be built into Chevy or GMC, you'd be adding cost, not reducing cost. There are, of course, the obvious other issues, such as the fact that GMC and Chevies are generally not sold from the same dealers.

But don't take my word for it, check out the photos here.

Maybe you missed my point. Of course most of these differences are cosmetic (although, as I said, there are differences in option packages as well). No one disagrees that GMC/Chevies, Fords/Mercuries are functionally the same. But the idea of installing everything different at dealers (even if all the dealers sold the trucks side by side -- which would weaken GM's marketing idea --you won't find Mercuries beside the matching Fords in dealerships either) would be completely unworkable.

Good luck with getting a Ford pickup to look exactly like an Excursion, you'd have serious metal smithing to do.

Clearly ronseto does not know GM products very well

I have a 95 Cadilac Eldorado that gets 36+ MPG gas on the highway

I also have a 04 Silverado Duramax that gets 25+ MPG diesel on the highway

the last ford I had i couldn't keep it out of the shop

[I have a 95 Cadilac Eldorado that gets 36+ MPG gas on the highway] That must be coasting down a long grade in neutral? The Duramax, I can see.

2 resent trips come to mind

Layton Ut to Las Vegas and back 950 miles

Layton Ut to West Yellowstone Mt 641 miles

both trips were over 36 MPG all a mixture of up hill and down hill

What does GMAC have to do with Chevy?

You tell us as you explain this report from Dec. 30, 2008

escert -

The federal government will invest $5 billion into auto lender GMAC as part of its effort to prop up the car industry.

In addition, the U.S. Treasury has agreed to loan General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM) as much as $1 billion to invest in the reorganization of GMAC as a bank holding company.

GMAC is jointly owned by General Motors and Cerberus Capital Management, the investment firm that owns Chrysler.

The sharp downturn in U.S. auto sales and big losses in a residential mortgage unit have pushed GMAC to the edge of bankruptcy.

The Federal Reserve said late last week it would allow GMAC to convert into a bank holding company. That move will lower GMAC's borrowing costs and make it eligible to get money from the Treasury. It also will require General Motors and Cerberus to cut their stakes in GMAC.

OK here we go GM is the parent company. GMAC, Chevy, etc etc. etc. are the children. So if one child is bad that means all the children are? That all I'm say Doorman said Chevy suck because GMAC stuck it to him. I'm not doubting that at all. I've had issues with GMAC with some of my loans also, but it doesn't mean that my Chevy Silverado sticks. I'm also not beating up on Doorman because he doesn't like Chevy, I just hope his dislike of Chevy is based on something other then a bad experience with a loan.

They all do the same thing. They make more money off the logo. The Ford Ranger and the Mazda B4000 are the same vehicle but you pay more for the Ford logo.

Chrysler does the samething. The Dodge/Plymoth Caravan and the Chrysler Town and Country are the same vehicle but you pay more for the Town and Country. It all has to do with marketing. Jeep as well, some of the Jeep and Eagle vehicles are actually Chrysler but they put the Jeep logo on them to attract the Jeep fans.

My two favorite trucks to date:

(this obviously does not include my jeep wrangler, which is the best rig I've ever driven, year round, hands down)

1989 Chevy S-10 Extended Cab with the 4.3L V-6 (this was a HARD working truck that ran 250,000 miles before I finally let her go, with only a few minor repairs along the way, Great comfortable truck)

1986 Toyota Pickup, standard Cab with the the 22R motor (That truck was Bulletproof, ran forever, probably still is. I let her go with 270,000 miles, also a HARD working truck, best small pickup ever made in my opinion)

Worst Truck to date: 1998 Chevy S-10, standard cab, fuel injected 2.?L, (that truck is a giant money pit, and NEVER ran well, no matter how much work was done to it. But I will credit it to working hard, but not having enough balls to get the job done. The motor was blown 3 times(none of which I was driving).