And, they still use an out dated 4.3 L V6 motor developed shortly after in the GMC and Chevy for many years later. A great marine and small bus motor and excellent in it’s time for reliability but a gas hog and not as reliable by today’s standards. No GMC advantage there though parts are plentiful for repairs needed. It and the small block v8 it was derived from are still used today as a primary RWD motor and a reason GMC has played second fiddle to Ford in modern Truck engines. All this backed by no fact, just my personal old age experience with the 4.3 driving their busses, trucks and vans and my humble opinion of course.
GM stagnated for a long time in engine devolpment. They had, what, 3 or 4 different engines they used across the whole lineup? 5.7L V8, 5L V8, 3.8l V6, 4.3L V6
GM stagnated for a long time in engine devolpment
GM LOVES to hold on to lines for a long time…too long. Maximize profit. If you have a design that’s been around for a while…keep it for as long as you can to get the most profit possible…thus losing customers in the long term…
“GM stagnated for a long time in engine devolpment”
Unfortunately, the average car buyer probably doesn’t really care much about the design of the engine in the car. I think back to the early 1950s when the Pontiac was still using pretty outmoded flathead inline 6 and 8 cylinder engines. The 1953 Pontiac was very popular and outsold the Dodge which introduced a modern V-8. In fact, I know people who traded earlier Oldsmobiles with an OHV V-8 for a flathead 8 Pontiac. By the late 1950s, each division had its own OHV V-8 and I think this competition prompted engine developement, but the average person didn’t seem to care. Many buyers believed that 8 cylinders were great, but didn’t think much about the design. An 8 cylinder engine meant performance and a 6 cylinder engine meant economy. It is interesting that in 1959, the 259 cubic inch Studebaker Lark V-8 got virtually the same gas mileage as the 169 cubic inch flathead Lark 6, but the V-8 had much better performance.
What happens is that when the public realizes that an engine is an outmoded design, it’s too late for the manufacturer. At this point, sales are lost to a competitor.
Unfortunately, the average car buyer probably doesn’t really care much about the design of the engine in the car. I think back to the early 1950s when the Pontiac was still using pretty outmoded flathead inline 6 and 8 cylinder engines.
Oh…but they do…Car manufacturers advertising told them there’s a difference…so they are very interested. Look at the 80’s advertising when fuel-injection was getting to be popular. Many people who didn’t even know what fuel-injection was were telling the car salesman that they MUST have the fuel-injected car…
I’ll leave the legal aspects to the lawyers. Not my problem.
However it should be noted that while in concept the use of limited standard platforms is a good idea, without good execution it can be a disaster. GM tried this years ago…remember the Cadillac Cimmarron? Chrysler also did this with the K-car, and again attempted it when they were married to Daimler.
What seems to happen is that either the model on the lower end of the “shared platform” usurps sales from the higher models (as happened in K-cars) or the lower end model drags down the prices of the higher end models sharing the platform. Sometimes there’s simply a total mismatch between the plaform and one of the models it’s used on.
The “modular” model described by Triedaq, making powertrain and other major components swappable over a limited number of chassis arrangements, has had much better success.
We’ll see how it works out.
From my college days, I seem to remember that’s it’s perfectly legal (and acceptable) to use someone else’s words (even exact words) providing you give them credit (remember “footnotes”). Apart from adding “Taken from …” to the bottom, just before the link, this post should survive any litigation.
I think that the problem with the Cimarron was that Cadillac customers were not ready for a small car. Cadillac wised up and didn’t do that when they introduced the Catera. Still, it was not particularly successful because customers were not ready for a mid-size Caddy. Finally, the CTS was and is accepted because customers were finally ready for a mid-size Cadillac.
You might be right JT, but my guess as to why the CTS is successful and the Cimmeron wasn’t is that the CTS is a pure and classy Cadillac, deigned as a unique personal luxury car from the ground up on its own platform. Unfortunately the Cimmeron was just a Chevy with fancy trim.
I test drove a CTS, and while is was out of my pricerange and not quite what I was looking for, I liked the car. I thought they did a great job with that design.
mountainbike, I agree that there is more to it. Sharing a lot of parts with the Cavalier was one of the reasons the Cimarron was a failure and why GM went with an upscale Opel for the Catera. Still, America wasn’t ready for a small Cadillac. It took a change in strategy for the division to get buyers for a small Caddy. The big sedan was turned over to Buick and Cadillac is now more of a sports-luxury car. Cadillac would rather you compare their cars to BMW than to Lexus. Just the converse is true for Buick.
Chaissos, not so. Copyrighted material is simply not supposed to be reproduced without permission. There are provisions for reviews. You may be referring to use in a term paper or thesis.