GM should kill the Corvette

6/30/2009 7:47 AM EDT

If you believe that pushrods are obsolete, then you must know that gasoline was developed long before the pushrod valvetrain. Why are you not being more logical and suggest that GM get rid of gasoline burning engines? This penchant for antique mechanicals is missing the bigger issue of obsolete technology.

I cannot see a logical reason for developing vehicles that are not running on biofuels only.

6/30/2009 8:57 AM EDT

Are you kidding me? Kill the corvette? Why can't they just re-engineer it to compete effectively?

6/30/2009 10:22 AM EDT

GM knows (or used to know) how to build cars to compete with Camry and Accord, but those are entirely a different market than Corvette. The Opel division has been building fuel efficient cars for years, the recent Cobalt and Astra products are derived from Opel designs. The Vibe came off the same assembly line at NUMMI as the Matrix.

GM doesn't know how to MARKET against the Japanese small cars any more.

I fail to see the connections between powertrain, body construction, and fuel efficiency. I thought being American meant being free to choose. If GM can make a profit selling Corvettes or Hummers, and maintain a market, while attracting showroom traffic, what difference does it make?

When it comes to cars, I'm pro-choice.

Now that GM has an additional 535 board members (Senate and House), design by committee will severely take its toll.
I expect they will be making electric/hybrid versions of Trabants or Wartburgs within 5 years.

6/30/2009 10:24 AM EDT

Well I drove a series push rod V6's (3.6L) powered GM sedans in Australia for 20 years, these were full sized family cars returning >29mpg highway cycle and 20mpg city cycle. Competing vehicles with similar weight and engine size with DOHC were ~10% worse. This is largely because a DOHC while developing more power for a given size mostly due to better breathing, has higher frictional losses.

Also important to a car company is cost of assembly, and if you look at the cost of building a V6 or V8 with DOHC configuration, you end up with a lot more parts and therefore higher cost. When your building a 4cylinder DOHC the extra cost is not so great so you can use it to squeeze more power out of what is typically a smaller engine.

When I went to upgrade my car I bought a Japanese car with a DOHC V6, and while it has more power, the economy is actually poorer on the highway cycle even though it weighs less than my outdated push rod beasts. I tried a 4cylinder model, but they sound like rattle boxes at highway speeds, much more engine vibration.

So my point, while burning liquid fuels and maintaining efficiency and cost is the result required, push rods are still very serviceable technology.

On the issue of biofuels, I have found that using 10% Ethanol my new car has worse fuel economy by 5-6% meaning that around half of the biofuel content doesn't contribute to the movement of the vehicle. When you consider what biofuels mean to world poverty, I don't know why we bother. I think the only solution is Hydrogen fuel cell technologies or all electric where we avoid using internal combustion entirely. AND 90% of us should switch to public transport. It's not a welcomed solution, but it's the only sustainable one.

6/30/2009 11:02 AM EDT

The Corvette and its racing success provide Chevrolet marketing with so much credibility that it could kill the brand by dropping this 56 year icon. As stated in other posts the efficiency that GM power train engineering has developed in the push rod engine is amazing. It gets better MPG then its direct competition and is lower in mass, complexity, and part count.

6/30/2009 11:55 AM EDT

What made the USA great was the capitalist system of government. In the last 225 years the USA has become the dominate world power both economically and militarily by letting inovative people create. This 5% of the worlds population has created 25 to 30 % of the worlds worth, while bailing out the world community on numerous occasions!

But we have been deluting our population with poorly educated people who can not even speak the language, and we have now let that part of our society help elect a Socialist government. That government now owns more than 50% of GM and the banks, and it is trying (quite successfully at the moment) to change our lives to one of mediocrity (remember the movie 1984).

If you like socialism and socialized medicine look at Europe where it takes months to get an appointment with a specialist for a life saving operation if you survive that long. The people with money from these socialist countries now come to the USA for their life saving operations!

As we continue to off-shore more and more of our manufacturing, we will become a country of shopkeepers with the USA people being dependent on the rest of the world for our products. If you do not believe that we are quickly becoming a third world nation, look a the country of origin of most of the products that we buy! If we do not manufacture products in the USA, what products will we have to trade to the countries that do manufacture?

By not tapping into our domestic sources of oil until Green energy arrives some 20 years in the future, we will all have less, since we cannot afford foreign energy!

And by printing Trillions of dollars we are devaluing our currency and that will bring Hyper-inflation in the next several years. Making everything that we buy far more expensive. Those people old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's administration also remember 17% mortgages and high unemployment like what is happening under the Obama administration!

When you make all of the cars look like they were created by a cookie cutter, what incentive is there to buy American?
There currently is a 9-12 month wait on the new Camaro, Why? because people who made this country great want to go back to the era where "Made in America" really ment something!

The new 2010 Corvette ZR1 can outrun all of the European $250,000+ hand made sportscars and it is built on an assembly line that turns out more than 20,000 cars a year! And that push rod engine Corvette delivers about 25 mpg! This is the kind of car that causes people to visit Chevrolet showrooms!

Keep the Corvette!

6/30/2009 12:41 PM EDT

Back in my youth, in Steeltowon USA, foreign cars were viewed as un-American. This version of reality however, was short lived and people chose to buy cheaper foreign cars. This led to where we are today. Remember, brand loyaly, American loyalty, can not and should not ever be traded for what is cheaper. Because cheaper will eventually become unaffordable when your USA based employment has also been sold to a cheaper, foreign manufacturer. In order to live the American lifestyle we must buy and manufacture American goods.

6/30/2009 4:09 PM EDT

The Corvette is a fine GM product. As others have stated it brings people into the show room. An excellent flagship for the company and the country. In the future I think GM should build a hybrid engine for the car, with a switch that optimizes the engine for economy like many hybrids, and a setting that optimizes it for the race track. This really would bring be to the show room in a hurry.

6/30/2009 4:58 PM EDT

The comments about the Corvette's exceptional MPG, in spite of a large engine, are, in large part, a testament to good aerodynamics. If more cars looked like the Corvette and less like barn doors, we would collectively be using a lot less energy to get down the road.

Perhaps better science education will help correct people's choice in vehicles in future generations, for whom efficiency must necessarily be an important criteria.

Aerodynamics 101: sports car body = relatively low drag coefficient (that's good); typical SUV/truck body = relatively high drag coefficient (that's bad).

6/30/2009 9:01 PM EDT

Let's debate the facts.
4 valve heads move more air than 2 valves, BUT suffer from sluggish air velocity off the line (read lower launch torque.) Overhead valve designs rev higher (read more horsepower) because the shorter mechanical path lets the valves follow the cam better at highest RPMs. So why bother with the Corvette? Well the LS series V8 is the pinnacle of compact pushrod V8 design. The unmatched volume to power ratio of this architecture allows the engine to nestle low in the frame for improved handling and aerodynamics. It's frictional efficiency allows more displacement to offset the airflow restrictions. Hooking up to the pavement with a big V8 is like getting booted in the keister. A tall flat torque curve provides smiles that buzzy motors can't match.
For the record when electronic valves become practical all this is turned on it's head. And please, forced induction motors are a different category entirely.

7/2/2009 10:15 AM EDT

Uh, two words Top Fuel.I've been to a few quarter miles and have never seen a Honda in top Fuel, I do beleve that is the fastest class and the highest HP is it not? Is there a more powerful engine out there being used in a car I don't know about?Maybe someone needs to tell those guys about the wonders of DOHC?

7/3/2009 8:35 PM EDT

In the late 80's an Australian designed engine called the McGee was campaigned for a while with minor success. In the 90's there was what was called the Sainty engine, also Australian designed that was just starting to get sorted out when the NHRA banned multi valve, overhead cam engines in the top fuel classes in '98 or '99.

The author of this blog needs to get a better understanding of what is going on before he calls for the banning of the Corvette. That car is certainly not what brought GM down. It has been one of few ongoing success stories for GM in quite a long time.

7/7/2009 9:00 AM EDT

I'd like to see a Corvette with a Diesel engine. It would be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy you would get with a super- or turbocharged Diesel and either a 5 speed manual or, a 6 speed double-clutch automated layshaft transmission.

One of my favorite standing jokes is that the possibility of such a car is so slim, the only way a young guy can have any hope of driving a Diesel Corvette is to seek a commission as a Lieutenant in the Ecuadorian navy.

7/7/2009 10:40 AM EDT

It seems that some engineers here need to learn more about market forces. Corvettes sell because they provide high performance and sports car styling at an (relatively) affordable price.

Japanese cars sell for reasons GM can't understand: "High Quality at a Low Price". IF corvettes sold for $15K, GM could not make them fast enough. If corvettes could comfortably seat a family of 4-5 and start at $18K, GM wouldn't have to make anything else.

People have certain requirements they need like seating capacity, towing capacity, trunk space, performance, etc… They will buy vehicles to meet these requirements. But purchasers will also consider other criteria to trade with the cost as long as requirements are met, such as styling, entertainment system options, drivetrain options, etc… But make no mistake COST is the driver.

Hybrids, biofuels, and other alternative technologies need to stay in the lab and mature to a point of providing the same performance/price before forcing them into every market segment. Only two types of consumers are buying hybrids right now; people who pay the premium for vanity and those who are technologically ignorant enough to think they are getting something worth the extra money they spend.

Diesel has a lot of potential for economy, but not since the price of diesel shot up with no hope of coming down (due in part to government low sulphur mandates).

Let me guess - the article is written by one of "those" Prius drivers.

7/7/2009 10:40 AM EDT

Moroy Marshall just does not understand the automotive industry or what happened to the once cherished makes like Chevy, Oldsmobile and Buick.
To think the problem with Chevy is the current Corvette, a great car, or pushrod engines is really a waste of time, it’s irrelevant. It's like saying that MB and BMW made a great error in not adopting FWD, well we know how that worked out.
It's not OHV vs. OHC or FWD vs RWD, its about having an opinion an approach, it's about integrity, people understand that.
GM KILLED ITS OWN CAR COMPANIES, REPLCED THEM WITH "BRANDS" AND BECAME THE BRAND. That's its biggest and last remaining problem, but only a few can see that.
Before Rodger Smith dismantled Sloan's wonderfully balanced organization "GM executives" served the "Car Companies", called divisions in the old GM.
Each "Car Company" had its own identity, engineers, marketing, factories and battled for market share. Sure they shared components and there was a central design but these "Car Companies" were very independent perhaps Chevrolet the most independent.
Smith's centralization TO BRING THOSE CAR COMPANIES UNDER CONTROL AND REPLACE THEM WITH BRANDS (we now have brand managers, useless) also contributed to the poor quality coming out of the newly centrally organized factories. Engineers and designers too became centralized, building a great car became secondary to the needs of the overall organization.
Of course if you don't take action to correct the real problem the market will. Slowly but surely these great Car Companies, now brands, lost all meaning and become "GMs". So if Mr. Moroy and it seems many of the GM ecutives don't see the problem; the end of the "Car Companies" called Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc. is the natural outcome as we are seeing.
KEEP CORVETTE, make other great cars, Kill THE GM BRAND, it's dead already and make a New Car Company with passion, with purpose --people understand that and respond. Call it
"Chevrolet Motor Cars and Trucks" (they make Caddys too) -- .
over the last 25 years we have learned what a great business man Mr. Sloan was and how wrong Rodger Smith was.
Oh yes, Rodger also made Saturn, as if he undestood that the new GM he was creating would fail --- nice guy.
Regards, dw12ate

7/7/2009 1:15 PM EDT

"I never said that pushrod engines are obsolete, only that they have not been used in high-performance engines for many years."

Yeah, Corvette hasn't had ANY success running that pushrod against DOHC's at Le Mans...

7/7/2009 4:45 PM EDT

Not a "real" question comparing the Corvette engine to the Peugeot because they are running in different classes. And the Peugeot is a diesel.

Based on your "logic" so far, we should also immediately abandon all gasoline engines right now because it was a diesel that won.

Cadillac did have their Northstar engine in a prototype back in the early 2000's, but racing at that level was too costly so that's why they run Corvettes instead. Plus it appeals to their main buyers more anyway than an exotic prototype.

7/10/2009 9:00 AM EDT

"How much does today's Corvette appeal to a working class family that wants to buy a family sedan?"
The answer to your once-sided question is an obvious NONE.

How much does today's Corvette appeal to a working class person that enjoys the freedon and choice in America?
More than you think (unless you are a Ford guy).

Any yes I own two Corvettes (1963 & 2001)

Why don't you attend a local car show and get the real answer (and a clue while your at it)?

The technology in Corvette is shared throughout GM.

You must be starved for attention. I've never heard of you prior to learning about your random thoughts and online rant. Who are you and why should anyone care what you think?

7/11/2009 5:05 PM EDT

The orginal GT 40's that dominated in the mid and late '60's were powered by 289 pushrod engines. It took a lot of development to wring out the power needed to take on the likes of Ferrari. That would not happen today. The engines in the new Ford GT's were 5.4 Liter DOHC Supercharged engines. I believe that some of the cars used in competition are powered by Cosworth engines, not by the 5.4 factory style engine.

The McGee's are a very interesting group. The family has been in racing for 60 years and have innovated all along the way. Interestingly, they are most involved in Junior dragster racing now, I think that one of their daughters are competing in one of the classes. That means they are working on extracting the maximum amount of power from small single cylinder engines (Think lawn mower engines on steroids).

To my knowledge their were no pushrod Sainty engines, but I am not familiar with what they were doing in their early days. Although there are a lot of conspiracy theories to the contrary, I believe that the NHRA wanted to ban these engines before they became too prevalent because they were concerned about the safety of the drivers. There was much more potential for performance improvement than there was from the old Chrysler Hemi pushrod engine.

I personally happen to be a Ford guy. I Drag Race a 351 Cleveland powered Mercury Capri (Think Fox body Mustang, but not as bland looking) Hence the moniker "capriracer351". Luckily Ford more or less started on the correct path a few years before the economy took a nose dive. Also, we have had SOHC and DOHC engines since the early 90's. Unfortunately the design of the combustion chamber is not up to snuff, therefore gas mileage is not as good as it should be. That being said, I was getting 24 miles per gallon in a mid 90's Thunderbird with a SOHC 4.6. My 3.0 DOHC Ford 500 only gets about 20 in mixed driving. Even though it is all wheel drive, this just does not make sense to me. Obviously Ford still has some work to do.

I would have no problem with a 3.0 Liter turbocharged DOHC powered Corvette. It would most likely get 30 miles per gallon and outrun the current model.

I agree that GM became quite complacent. The old thinking of "We will determine what the customer wants" is long over. There is too much choice and too much competition. GM had better get with the program or they could still go the way of AMC or Studebaker.

7/14/2009 11:44 AM EDT

I stand corrected. I was mainly commenting on the commentors. I think you do have an interesting point; just concerned where all this "green" mania is taking us.
I've always been a Ford man, now I drive all Dodge, and have never liked GM. I could just be biased, but every GM rental car I have had exposed serious quality issues as compared to similarly used Ford, Toyota, and Nissan rentals.
Thanks for starting the disscussion!

7/21/2009 12:47 PM EDT

Disclosure: I am a car guy with 25 years experience with GM/Delco/Cadillac/Opel/Delphi. I had to leave Delphi, the handwriting was on the wall.
Much more job security now. That said, I agree with your post that GM has plenty of talented engineers. Their engineering talent was quite abundant.
I don't know if I can still say that, lots of talent has left or been chased off by the less than stellar management.
Their leadership, much less their management, has sadly nose-dived, and it didn't begin with Roger B. Smith, although he definitely did his share of damage. When the management focus is on cutting costs, instead of developing quality, competitive products, that is what gets accomplished.
The Cimarron might have made it as an Olds, but Cadillac buyers knew what old Roger B. was up to and didn't buy it.
When Congress gets done with it, GM will not resemble even its former self. Politics and engineering don't mix.
GM now will have to please the labor unions, which appear to have the upper hand in this administration, along with the greenies, the taxers, and home team for the suppliers and manufacturing plants. It will not end well.
If you've never driven a Trabi, a Wartburg, or a Lada, which were the products of political production committees, you might not realize how bad those cars were.

The singular act that I consider the beginning of the end of GM was when they hired Ignaci Lopez and rejected Ed Deming.
I knew then that Lopez's dictum "quality is a given" was code for "buy the cheapest". I saw countless suppliers whipsawed into cutting more and more cost out of products until they couldn't make a profit any more.
Not saying that competitive pressure on suppliers is all bad, but like most everything, moderation is more successful than hyperzealousness.

A great example of misplaced priorities and poor marketing is the Cadillac Catera, which I worked on at Opel. You might sell low-priced car insurance with a lizard, but you're not going to sell Cadillacs to Cadillac buyers with a cartoon duck. Opel Senator, which was rebadged for Cadillac as the Catera, is my concept of what Buick needs today, an affordable, reasonable performance sedan with room for 5, fuel economy, styling, and Autobahn capability for cruising and accelerating. Do they have anything like that?

What is the logic in GM selling or leaving their small car expertise, e.g. Opel, NUMMI? Last I checked, the Vibe had higher JDPower numbers than the Matrix. Has Pontiac pushed that? Nope, Pontiac's going to be pushing daisies. Reason: Can you tell a G6 from a G8 from a Mitsubishi from a Nissan driving down the road? Not till you get real close. Pontiac always had distinctive styling. Anybody have any problems spotting a new Mustang?
The last GTO was a hot car, but you couldn't tell it from a G6.
Like other posters, it has nothing to do with FWD, RWD, or any of that, MB and BMW have still made it work in the most demanding market - Germany, although they have home field advantage there.

My social and geopolitical conscience is clean, I drive 2 Flex-fuel vehicles which run cleaner, although at a sacrifice of fuel economy, but promotes energy independence and returns profits to the Rust Belt, not Jihadistan. The carbon/green footprint of my '99 Tahoe is much lower than the toxic chemicals in the hybrid batteries that will someday inhabit the landfills, and the energy cost of the new vehicle production.
How much more energy does it take to build a new "green" car than it does to keep a "clunker" on the road?
If the infrastructure was there to support an E100 engine design that wasn't compromised for burning gasoline, the MPG would be comparable due to the more efficient burning (less unburned fuel -> less pollution). Don't say it can't be done, Brazil has already done it. We may need a few more years to get algae, cellulosic, or some other technologies up to speed, but it can be done, along with biodiesel.