Why I keep my BBC

[TexasT]

so, let's do some math. Your problem included the $4/gal gas , 20k miles/yr and 30% better full efficiency. You don't in your dreams think that your custom supercharged v6 will only cost $2k more than my BBC but just for argument sake let's just imagine.

My truck gets 10 mpg yours can get 30% better we'll even give you some to make the math easier and call it 14 mpg. We each travel our 20K miles.
Mine used 2000 gallons or $8000
Yours used 1429 gallons or $5714
Great we made the money back in a year.
Then comes the payment on said truck. Mine's paid for and has been for 5 years. Is yours going to be able to still be towing in that time? What about the insurance on the new truck? The difference is not just in carrying cost and upfront but over all. Yours still probably won't tow what I have reliably.

Next problem is where does one obtain this mythical truck?

Not really an issue as I'm not droppin' coin on a new one, from a fascist company. I am a GM guy from way back. My uncles and grandfather worked at the Janesville plant and all retired from there. Still not gonna support fascism.

Say our new trucks are the same size and have the same power...if my turbo V6 truck get 30% more MPG then your new BBC truck but mine cost 2k more, gas is $4.00 a gallon, and we both drive 20k miles a year how long will it take before my truck is a better investment.. not long right, so cost really isn't a factor when comparing new buys... which again is a reason the BB is dead

 

[TexasT]

Really not an issue as the Chinese will soon rule the manufacturing sector.

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/showpa ... ycats.aspx

Click on the slide show. They ain't afraid to copy anything.

 

[CaStylin]

Then comes the payment on said truck. Mine's paid for and has been for 5 years. Is yours going to be able to still be towing in that time? What about the insurance on the new truck? The difference is not just in carrying cost and upfront but over all.

Keeping your paid for truck is a good idea and I don’t what you to give up your BBC because in my opinion there is no need to buy a new truck if your old one is working in not in need of continus repair. My point was there is no longer a need for GM (or any other company) to make a new BBC when you can produce a truck of the same size with the same power but better MPG… you originally said

I guess the bottom line is I'll never buy another wrong wheel drive. I will never buy a four cylinder car. I can't pull my trailers with a prius or any of the other vehicles the foreign mfgs offer. It is beginning to look like I will never buy a new vehicle again.

And then went on to say

it won't pull my trailer or haul my family in comfort. My Chevy does what I need it to. They chose not to build new ones with a bbc so, yes, I doubt I'll buy a new vehicle

So your argument was a power and space argument and not because of the financial mathematics of buying a new truck. GM no longer needs the BB to push the needed numbers, which is why they chose not to unnecessarily continue to build it

Yours still probably won't tow what I have reliably.

Why not, towing is just a combination of truck structure and TQ, if the trucks structure does not change then its just a matter of producing the same TQ, with a supercharger producing high TQ numbers is not a very hard thing to accomplish... Doing it with a smallest turbo will also produce the same result

Next problem is where does one obtain this mythical truck?

Hopefully out of the new line of GM trucks… Getting 16+ MPG out of a truck while maintaining power is not unrealistic by any means. GM started to dabble in turbos with the cobalt over the couple of years, letting the new cobalt hit the marker in ’08. As an example a turbo took my 200hp/160tq Chevy impala to 300+hp and 300tq. That’s a 50% gain. This was a simple upgrade with at market price cost 2k; seeing they don’t have to by new piping then they will just have to pay whole sale price for the turbos

Not really an issue as I'm not droppin' coin on a new one, from a fascist company. I am a GM guy from way back. My uncles and grandfather worked at the Janesville plant and all retired from there. Still not going to support fascism.

so you would let GM Die? Lets its works feed off of government assistance? Let is supplying companies die as well? Let the chine import markets have free reign on the American car Market which would not help the American society at all?

 

[CaStylin]

Really not an issue as the Chinese will soon rule the manufacturing sector.

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/showpa ... ycats.aspx

Click on the slide show. They ain't afraid to copy anything.

the chinese is known for buying car designs from countries that dont import there brand of cars... this is nothing new

 

[TexasT]

Then comes the payment on said truck. Mine's paid for and has been for 5 years. Is yours going to be able to still be towing in that time? What about the insurance on the new truck? The difference is not just in carrying cost and upfront but over all.

Keeping your paid for truck is a good idea and I don’t what you to give up your BBC because in my opinion there is no need to buy a new truck if your old one is working in not in need of continus repair. My point was there is no longer a need for GM (or any other company) to make a new BBC when you can produce a truck of the same size with the same power but better MPG… you originally said

I guess the bottom line is I'll never buy another wrong wheel drive. I will never buy a four cylinder car. I can't pull my trailers with a prius or any of the other vehicles the foreign mfgs offer. It is beginning to look like I will never buy a new vehicle again.

And then went on to say

it won't pull my trailer or haul my family in comfort. My Chevy does what I need it to. They chose not to build new ones with a bbc so, yes, I doubt I'll buy a new vehicle

So your argument was a power and space argument and not because of the financial mathematics of buying a new truck. GM no longer needs the BB to push the needed numbers, which is why they chose not to unnecessarily continue to build it

Yours still probably won't tow what I have reliably.

Why not, towing is just a combination of truck structure and TQ, if the trucks structure does not change then its just a matter of producing the same TQ, with a supercharger producing high TQ numbers is not a very hard thing to accomplish... Doing it with a smallest turbo will also produce the same result

Next problem is where does one obtain this mythical truck?

Hopefully out of the new line of GM trucks… Getting 16+ MPG out of a truck while maintaining power is not unrealistic by any means. GM started to dabble in turbos with the cobalt over the couple of years, letting the new cobalt hit the marker in ’08. As an example a turbo took my 200hp/160tq Chevy impala to 300+hp and 300tq. That’s a 50% gain. This was a simple upgrade with at market price cost 2k; seeing they don’t have to by new piping then they will just have to pay whole sale price for the turbos

Not really an issue as I'm not droppin' coin on a new one, from a fascist company. I am a GM guy from way back. My uncles and grandfather worked at the Janesville plant and all retired from there. Still not going to support fascism.

so you would let GM Die? Lets its works feed off of government assistance? Let is supplying companies die as well? Let the chine import markets have free reign on the American car Market which would not help the American society at all?

gm has been turbocharging engines for much longer than their dabbling in '08. Buick has had the technology and used it in the eighties. Oldsmobile had a factory turbo in the early 60s. Power adders are nothing new from gm. You might notice my avatar. I'm a big fan of the turbo, but why add the complexity? My next truck will most likely be a 01-06 Suburban powered by an 8.1L. Last of the BIG blocks. I don't need the hassle of unreliable new technology. I want to put gas in and change the oil and pull the load with the A/C on. I want it to go several hundred thousand miles. I think this is very attainable with what I have. With a turbo you add wastegate complications. The need for higher octane fuel to turn up the boost. More frequent oil/filter changes. I'm not sold on a supercharger going the distance. Nothing else comes close to fitting my needs. I'm just not a diesel kind of guy.

I would let them die. As I pointed out in another thread, gm has been poorly run for the better part of thirty years. The chinese have already taken most of the manufacturing, why is the auto industry any different? The fact that they have a strong union?

 

[TexasT]

Really not an issue as the Chinese will soon rule the manufacturing sector.

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/showpa ... ycats.aspx

Click on the slide show. They ain't afraid to copy anything.

the chinese is known for buying car designs from countries that dont import there brand of cars... this is nothing new

They are also known to copy, and copy very well, many successful products.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

GM was the first company to mass produce turbocharged cars in 1962, with the Oldsmobile Jetfire and the Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder. As for me, I do not want government restrictions on what I can buy or build. So long as it has wipers, headlights and brakes I should be able to do whatever I please. I may choose to build a hybrid car or a big car, but the choice should be mine, not the lying scum in the EPA or Obama administration.

My next project car will actually be small with the goal being a car capable of seating 4 adults, and running low 13's or high 12's in the 1/4 while being capable of 30+ city MPG, and having A/C. All I need are a old Mini, a Civic Type R or Si engine (B16B2), a set of motorcycle carburetors off a 1300cc sport bike, and the electric A/C compressor from a Prius. I figure a 1200lb car with 170hp should do the trick. I do not want the government telling me I can't build such a thing either. If I succeed, I will have the ultimate pizza delivery weapon.

 

[CaStylin]

GM was the first company to mass produce turbocharged cars in 1962, with the Oldsmobile Jetfire and the Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder. As for me, I do not want government restrictions on what I can buy or build. So long as it has wipers, headlights and brakes I should be able to do whatever I please. I may choose to build a hybrid car or a big car, but the choice should be mine, not the lying scum in the EPA or Obama administration.

You are correct, GM has used turbo's in some of its cars that where meant to be sporty but ended that real part of the era with Buick Grand National, and failing at a turbo attempt with the GMC Syclone and GMC Typhoon (IMO both nice cars but didn’t have the market backing). It has been 15 years with out the use turbo by GM, and even then they where added for power and not efficiency increases. They used the same size motors and just added a turbo. The turbo cobalt SS on the other hand uses smaller engine then LS cobalt, but gets more power and the same fuel efficiently

I’m guessing you are less then 50 years old so you have been dealing with CAFE and safety restrictions since you have gotten your license (if not less then 50 you have delt with them much of your driving span)... so what’s the big deal now?... nothing has changed in a progression out side of the norm regardless of the party in control. Buy what ever you want, no one is saying you can’t buy a car from the 60’s (I just bought on last week) it is the market that determines what cars are available, not the government. As you can clearly see, GM should be dead because the market didn’t like their product and preferred the more efficient cars/trucks more. It is illogical to blame the government for GM’s needed change in production type. If GM where to stay the same then it would be destined to fail in the same manner as before… why would anyone company or and one for that manner make the same mistake twice if they know/knew where the error was With or with out the help of the government GM would have to change its product to even become a viable competitor in the current car market.

 

[TexasT]

I’m guessing you are less then 50 years old so you have been dealing with CAFE and safety restrictions since you have gotten your license (if not less then 50 you have delt with them much of your driving span)... so what’s the big deal now?... nothing has changed in a progression out side of the norm regardless of the party in control. Buy what ever you want, no one is saying you can’t buy a car from the 60’s (I just bought on last week) it is the market that determines what cars are available, not the government. As you can clearly see, GM should be dead because the market didn’t like their product and preferred the more efficient cars/trucks more. It is illogical to blame the government for GM’s needed change in production type. If GM where to stay the same then it would be destined to fail in the same manner as before… why would anyone company or and one for that manner make the same mistake twice if they know/knew where the error was With or with out the help of the government GM would have to change its product to even become a viable competitor in the current car market.

With the rules and regs the government imposes, I think that the vehicles produced as well as the rest of things produced in this country are impacted. The requirements of safety, fuel economy and pollution controls impacts the products being produced. Why do you think the manufacturing has become uncompetitive with overseas competition. If you think it is just the wages I would disagree. This might have some part but importing these products cost quite a bit, too. Our own regulations is partly to blame. If the costs to comply weren't so high producers might never had even thought about seeking cheaper alternatives.

GM will never be the producer of vehicles it once was. They have lost their edge. They ran themselves into the ground and now the government has taken over. The only thing they ever ran well was the Panama Canal and they gave that away.

 

[CaStylin]

With the rules and regs the government imposes, I think that the vehicles produced as well as the rest of things produced in this country are impacted. The requirements of safety, fuel economy and pollution controls impacts the products being produced. Why do you think the manufacturing has become uncompetitive with overseas competition.

It is not logical to believe that the reason why GM is not competitive in the current market because of regulations if all cars imported have to abide by the same rules and regulations if there cars are to be sold in the US. By that standard alone the two auto makers are on equal footing in the terms of cost to abide by regulation.

If you think it is just the wages I would disagree. This might have some part but importing these products cost quite a bit, too. Our own regulations is partly to blame. If the costs to comply weren't so high producers might never had even thought about seeking cheaper alternatives.

I don’t think its your wage at all… no one (will almost no one) buys a new car just cuz. Keeping a working investment is a good thing, but again our regulations are applied to the vehicles that are imported as well. There is a cost to adapt regardless of what industry your are in, companies that survive know that this funding is necessary and apply this funding and able to adapt move forward. This was not the case with GM, GM ignored the 1970 fuel scares, ignored that they where losing market share to cars with better MPG, ignored the overall need to adapt and produce something to get ahead of the curve instead of on the tail end of it.

GM will never be the producer of vehicles it once was. They have lost their edge. They ran themselves into the ground and now the government has taken over. The only thing they ever ran well was the Panama Canal and they gave that away.

Maybe, maybe not, I can say that there old ways hurt them bad and with out a new plan and new productions that they wont last even with government backing