Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
MY93SHO

GM engineers took public tours of Dearborn

Recommended Posts

Not surprising in the least bit. I'm pretty sure most manufactures expect this. Breaking down competitor vehicles probably happens a lot too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the GM engineers found was difficulty with Ford installing doors, they didn't get to look that deep. I'm sure they'll learn a lot more from buying an F150 and taking it apart.

 

As long as we're on the subject, I'm a bit puzzled by their 2.7 liter inline four. From what I've read, it won't be the "bread and butter" engine for the GM twins. I guess I don't understand this logic. The 2.7EB Ford has done wonders. If GM was putting this much engineering into a new line of engines for the twins, you'd think they do more work on an engine that would be a big seller. Or maybe I just read into it wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're on the subject, I'm a bit puzzled by their 2.7 liter inline four. From what I've read, it won't be the "bread and butter" engine for the GM twins. I guess I don't understand this logic. The 2.7EB Ford has done wonders. If GM was putting this much engineering into a new line of engines for the twins, you'd think they do more work on an engine that would be a big seller. Or maybe I just read into it wrong...

 

Good point 92merc sir. Only the midgrade LT and RST models will be available with 2.7 liter turbo. I thought GM would at least make it an option for more trim levels. I guess full size pickup truck buyers really like V8 engines.

 

2019-chevy-silverado-1500-engine-lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And considering the same displacement Ford is pulling 325HP and 400 flt/lbs vs. the GM 310 and 348, the GM falls short in the torque department. Which is probably why it isn't in more vehicles. But I'd call that a failure of planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... armed with stopwatches and trained eyes, the GM engineers believed they saw problems.

“They had a real hard time getting those doors to fit,” Tim Herrick, the executive chief engineer for GM truck programs told Reuters.

Is door fitment during vehicle assembly still a challenge for Ford F-150? Did Ford have that problem with the previous generation F-150 with steel doors and cab?
Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not buying it. Door alignment is ALWAYS a challenge. Same thing with hoods, deck lids, and tailgates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And considering the same displacement Ford is pulling 325HP and 400 flt/lbs vs. the GM 310 and 348, the GM falls short in the torque department. Which is probably why it isn't in more vehicles. But I'd call that a failure of planning.

 

I4 single turbo vs. V6 twin turbo. Not exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with GM's 2.7 I-4 T is that GM is not looking to replace its V6 sales,

they are still very much in the mind of adding engines. What we see with the

2.7 EB V6 is a shift in F150 buyers who would have once bought 4.6 or 5.4 V8s.

 

GM does have two very good TT V6s but we would be forgiven for not knowing that

because they continue to be captive to low selling Cadillacs. To me this exemplifies

the difference in philosophy between GM and Ford's delivery of technology.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the GM engineers found was difficulty with Ford installing doors, they didn't get to look that deep. I'm sure they'll learn a lot more from buying an F150 and taking it apart.

 

As long as we're on the subject, I'm a bit puzzled by their 2.7 liter inline four. From what I've read, it won't be the "bread and butter" engine for the GM twins. I guess I don't understand this logic. The 2.7EB Ford has done wonders. If GM was putting this much engineering into a new line of engines for the twins, you'd think they do more work on an engine that would be a big seller. Or maybe I just read into it wrong...

2.7 I-4 isn't in the parts catalog yet. Just the 5.3 and 6.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all surprising that GM engineers are touring Ford assembly plants. Its actually quite common for manufacturers to tour a competitor's plant. That's how things as ubiquitous as bar codes, spread through the industry so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 2.7 I-4 is closer to the 3.3L than the 2.7LEB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Tri-Power" 2.7L 4 cylinder from GM should be part of their medium SUV engine programs....as well as drop it in Camaro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Tri-Power" 2.7L 4 cylinder from GM should be part of their medium SUV engine programs....as well as drop it in Camaro.

There's supposedly more variations of the 2.7 coming into CUVs and cars. IMO the Traverse needs it and would make a good rwd Chevy sedan option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's supposedly more variations of the 2.7 coming into CUVs and cars. IMO the Traverse needs it and would make a good rwd Chevy sedan option.

RWD Chevy sedan? Talk about unneeded. Theyve been there done that, and its not exactly like the FWD sedan market is lighting the world on fire lately either. Theyre better off investing in a RWD Traverse to better compete with the CD6 Explorer. Edited by fuzzymoomoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RWD Chevy sedan? Talk about unneeded. Theyve been there done that, and its not exactly like the FWD sedan market is lighting the world on fire lately either. Theyre better off investing in a RWD Traverse to better compete with the CD6 Explorer.

 

The RWD sedan would probably have worked better if they gave it some style like Chrysler did, instead of making it look like a 90's Pontiac. But I agree that they need to spend serious money on a RWD/AWD utility vehicle real soon! That needs to be an urgent priority and they need a Cadillac platform mate quickly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The RWD sedan would probably have worked better if they gave it some style like Chrysler did, instead of making it look like a 90's Pontiac. But I agree that they need to spend serious money on a RWD/AWD utility vehicle real soon! That needs to be an urgent priority and they need a Cadillac platform mate quickly!

FCAs RWD sedans arent exactly doing great either. They are doing OK despite their age though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCAs RWD sedans arent exactly doing great either. They are doing OK despite their age though.

 

Agreed.

 

I do think much of the slower sales stem from not updating as much as the CUV shift. They would sell at least 25% better in my opinion if people could see that they are new and not look like the cars they're ready to trade in.

 

They could easily have one full size sedan (Charger), one coupe (Challenger) and one CUV (300) off the platform and sell well and be the best profit mix off the full sized RWD platform.

 

So yes, if I were in charge of FCA, the 300 would be turned into the 300 Town and Country CUV.

Edited by atomcat68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed.

 

I do think much of the slower sales stem from not updating as much as the CUV shift. They would sell at least 25% better in my opinion if people could see that they are new and not look like the cars they're ready to trade in.

 

They could easily have one full size sedan (Charger), one coupe (Challenger) and one CUV (300) off the platform and sell well and be the best profit mix off the full sized RWD platform.

 

So yes, if I were in charge of FCA, the 300 would be turned into the 300 Town and Country CUV.

They dont really need to though, that platform was paid for a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They could easily have one full size sedan (Charger), one coupe (Challenger) and one CUV (300) off the platform and sell well and be the best profit mix off the full sized RWD platform.

 

So yes, if I were in charge of FCA, the 300 would be turned into the 300 Town and Country CUV.

The LX will continue on its platform though it will be extensively reworked and lightened, one thing I hear on the 300 is a sportback may come in it's next generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We visited Florida recently (Tampa, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale). I was amazed at the number of Dodge Challengers on the road. And they weren't rental cars (that would have been the Mustang convertibles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LX will continue on its platform though it will be extensively reworked and lightened, one thing I hear on the 300 is a sportback may come in it's next generation.

I hope they continue to build these cars. Although Im a Ford fan, I do like the Challenger and the Charger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We visited Florida recently (Tampa, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale). I was amazed at the number of Dodge Challengers on the road. And they weren't rental cars (that would have been the Mustang convertibles).

 

I recently saw a Challenger that the guy had chopped off the roof and made a convertible out of it. It looked pretty good, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I recently saw a Challenger that the guy had chopped off the roof and made a convertible out of it. It looked pretty good, actually.

 

There is a company that does this. It had two on display at the big Chryslers at Carlisle show held in July. As you said, the cars are a natural for a convertible conversion.

Edited by grbeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the original Challenger sell many convertibles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×