Sorry you don’t like it JT, but that’s my opinion. I did try a GM product again in '95. That one confirmed my earlier bad experience. Since GM went bankrupt, I can only assume that millions of others have had similar experiences.
I thought you’d post. We’ve danced this dance before. No matter what they do, you’ll jump to the defense of GM. Whenever anybody asks what to buy, you recommend GM. If they ask whether to buy an Audi or a Porsche, you recommend they buy a GM. I respect your right to be a GM fanatic. Respect my right not to.
That Morris Minor was the absolute worst car I ever owned and left me stranded almost daily, but if I could find one again in reasonable condition for a reasonable price and the wife was in a good mood and the market was up a little, I might just buy one again. I mainly would want it for the class reunion parade. Then it would just sit in the garage or go around the block a few times every once in a while. I came close looking at a Corvair again at the Back to the 50’s car rally. The more I looked at it though, the more the memories came back and kicked the dust off my boots and walked away.
I don’t know what that has to do with GM or aluminum welding.
Aluminum has been used successfully in automobiles for generations now. With modern bonding technologies and modern design software capable of phenomenal FEA to analyze the manifestations of stresses, I don’t understand why GM would even pursue the welding of such dissimilar materials. During my years in the manufacturing industry I occasionally saw a project that stayed alive past its point of being feasible because they were a pet project of someone in power. Perhaps this is one of those projects.
If I can be allowed to prognosticate, I predict that this technology will be tried unsuccessfully and will ultimately disappear displaced by engineered materials and advanced bonding/joining technologies. I guess time will tell.
Agree with your prediction and the reasons GM is pursuing it @the same mountainbike ! I’d guess they are pursuing it just to reduce the cycle time of bonded seams.
There is a cold upset technology that’s been around awhile called Tox, if I remember correctly. It is a punching-forming process that forms what looks like a snap in each material. Sort of an internal crimp. A few of those and adhesive should give cycle times short enough of 75 cars an hour.
Maybe GM doesn’t want to pay the patent rights to use Tox? That would also be a GM meme. Kept them from releasing a Wankle rotary engine (Mazda apex seal patent) and high mounted counter-rotating balance shafted 4 cylinders (Mitsubishi patent) until the patent expired, of course.
I was unfamiliar with that one, but it looks interesting. It appears that it would have excellent strength both laterally and axially, as long as materials in their malleable states were used. Thanks a million for the info and the link.
From what I read, one reason GM is pursuing this approach (along with the aluminum-aluminum spot welding method in that older link) to reduce the changes to the line needed. Ford spent about $400 million modifying their truck line for aluminum, GM wants to spend less.
GM has a very long history of introducing new things that are not fully tested and debugged. Starting with the V16 engine (Ed Cole’s idea) in the early era, followed by the infamous knee action front suspension in the late 30s, the vacuum shift in the early 40s, the infamous air suspension in 1958, the Corvair (another Ed Cole idea), the Vega, the gasoline converted diesels, the 4-6-8 V8 engines, the X-cars with their dreadful transmissions and power steering units, water based paint that would not stay on, and so on.
I have learned to NEVER buy any GM product with new technology incorporated until that stuff was PROVEN. Using customers as guinea pigs and products testers is not my idea of world class corporate behavior!!!
Having said that, @jtsanders, I’ve had 6 GM cars with proven technology and was quite happy with them.,
The Vega wasn’t the last failed GM experiment. Remember their 8/6/4 engine?? Or their 5-cylinder engine. I agree with MB - GM doesn’t have a good track record of introducing new technology.
@“the same mountainbike”, isn’t it nice to know we are predictable?
I recommended an AWD Sienna on this forum a short while ago. My next car might be an A6, now that you mention it. I hope to buy a midsize luxury sedan; the A6, GS350, and E350 are at the top of the list. I’ll drive the CTS too and see if its handling trumps the reliability of the other 3. You appear to have forgotten that I drive an Accord.
I agree that GM will not pay royalties to use a technology. They only produced mild hybrids before the Volt, which is apparently different enough that they would not have to pay royalties. I never found their mild hybrids attractive. The Prius is a much better execution and Toyota didn’t pay royalties! Well, not until they busted. That patent they infringe on can’t last much longer if it hasn’t lapsed already.
I haven’t forgotten anything, jt. But in future let’s try to stay focused on the subject at hand and leave the personal commentary out.
My son has an Audi A(something) station wagon. He had an A4 last year, but “growing family syndrome” compelled him to want something with more utility. He liked the A4 and also likes the station wagon. I find it to be a nice car, but I think they charge a premium for the name. My neighbor has a new VW Passat sedan and I think it’s as nice as the Audi.
Weight of everything automotive has come down over the years. When the new Chevy V8 came out in 1955, they bragged about the light weight of only 535 lbs for a 160 HP engine. Today’s 4 cylinder jobs with aluminum blocks weigh jut a fraction on that. Same with transmissions. The use of high strength steel with corrosion protection has given us lighter bodies with better corrosion protection and no more frames!
What has added weight is all the safety and environmental stuff. As well as all the gadgets we did not have before.
Mountainbike, the issue for me isn’t whether you do or don’t like GM vehicles. It is making recommendations based on experiences from decades ago. I had bad experiences with three Fords, the last one purchased in 1995. I won’t buy another Ford product, but I won’t tell anyone else not to. My experience is too old to be useful to a current buyer. I fully agree with you that our experiences should dictate what brands we buy in the future, and I would never suggest that you buy a GM vehicle. It just isn’t for you, and ther are lots of other choices. My last response was not meant to cause trouble but to be informative.
Jt, the issue for me is you making personal commentary instead of simply disagreeing. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what you think of me. Keep your personal barbs to yourself. I’m bending over backwards here to let this die, but you don’t seem to take a hint.
This thread isn’t about me. Or you. If you don’t know what the thread is about, go back and read the title.
