A couple of important GM announcements
Given that Saab’s future is so tied with GM’s good fortunes, it’s prudent to know what’s going on with the parent company and always hope for the best. Good times for GM mean good potential for Saab.
I stop short of cheering for Cadillac in Europe, however. Anyway…..
GM chief Rick Wagoner is to make a couple of announcements today and I’ll be reprinting them here as today’s got that sort of “watershed moment” feel to it.
UPDATE: Both releases are now published. This first one details GM’s latest plans for bolstering their liquidity and shedding a bucketload of corporate weight in the next year or so. The second one summarises their corporate turnaround so far.
Bob Lutz has also taken the opportunity to have his say on the situation. Interesting reading. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but it’s interesting reading nonetheless.
——
2008-07-15 GM to Bolster Liquidity by $15 Billion through 2009
* Operating and related actions to generate approximately $10 billion in cash improvements
* More than 20 percent reduction in salaried employment cash costs
* Dividend on common stock suspended
* Asset sales and capital market activities to raise $4-7 billion of additional liquidity
DETROIT - General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) today announced it is taking further steps to adapt its business to rapidly changing market conditions, marked by the weak U.S. economy, record high fuel prices, shifts in consumer vehicle preferences, and the lowest U.S. industry sales volumes in a decade.
“We are responding aggressively to the challenges of today’s U.S. auto market,” said GM Chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner. “We will continue to take the steps necessary to align our business structure with the lower vehicle sales volumes and shifts in sales mix. We remain committed to bringing to market great products that target changing consumer preferences for more fuel-efficient vehicles.” Wagoner noted that 11 of GM’s 13 most recent major U.S. product launches, and 18 of its next 19 launches, are cars and crossovers, which are key growth areas.
“Today’s actions, combined with those of the past several years, position us not only to survive this tough period in the U.S., but to come out of it as a lean, strong and successful company,” Wagoner said.
For liquidity planning purposes, GM is using assumptions of U.S. light vehicle industry volumes of 14.0 million units in 2008-2009 which are significantly below trend. Other planning assumptions include lower U.S. share of approximately 21 percent and continued elevated average oil price estimates ranging from $130 to $150 per barrel by 2009. Based on those assumptions, GM is taking actions to further reduce structural cost, and generate cash, with the goal of maximizing liquidity.
At the end of the first quarter 2008, GM had liquidity of $23.9 billion, with access to U.S. credit facilities of an additional $7 billion. While the company has ample liquidity to meet its 2008 funding requirements, it is taking additional measures to bolster liquidity to protect against a prolonged U.S. downturn. The actions include a combination of operating and related actions, as well as asset sales and capital market activities. The cumulative impact on cash through 2009 is projected to be approximately $15 billion.
Operating and Other Actions
Through a number of internal operating changes and other actions, GM expects to generate approximately $10 billion of cumulative cash improvements by the end of 2009, versus original plans.
* GM plans further salaried headcount reductions in the U.S. and Canada in the 2008 calendar year, which will be achieved through normal attrition, early retirements, mutual separation programs and other separation tools. In addition, health care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees over 65 will be eliminated, effective January 1, 2009. Affected retirees and surviving spouses will receive a pension increase from GM’s over funded U.S. salaried plan to help offset costs of Medicare and supplemental coverage. And there will be no new base compensation increases for U.S. and Canadian salaried employees for the remainder of 2008 and 2009.
Beyond these moves, which also impact GM executives, additional actions are being taken. There will be no annual discretionary cash bonuses for the company’s executive group in 2008. With the elimination of the annual cash bonus, combined with GM’s long-term incentives which are driven by GM stock price performance to assure alignment with its stockholders, GM’s executive group will have a significant reduction in their cash compensation opportunity for 2008. For the company’s top executive officers, it represents a reduction in their cash compensation opportunity of 75 to 84 percent.
These benefit changes, salaried headcount reductions and other related savings will result in an estimated reduction in cash costs of more than 20 percent, or $1.5 billion in 2009.
* Additional structural cost reductions of approximately $2.5 billion are expected in GM North America (GMNA). The reductions will be partially achieved through further adjustments in truck capacity and related component, stamping and powertrain capacity in response to lower U.S. industry volume. Truck capacity is expected to be reduced by 300,000 units by the end of 2009, half of which is from acceleration of prior announced actions, and half from new capacity actions.
In addition, GM will reduce and consolidate sales and marketing budgets, with a focus on protecting launch products and brand advertising. Engineering spending in 2008 and 2009 will be held at 2006-2007 levels, substantially lower than original plans. These operating actions, combined with the benefits of the 2007 GM-UAW labor agreement, are targeted to reduce North American structural cost from $33.2 billion in 2007 to approximately $26-27 billion in 2010, a reduction of $6-7 billion.
* GM is revising its capital spending plan and reducing approximately $1.5 billion in expenditures versus prior plans. Capital expenditures are now estimated to total $7 billion in 2009 versus prior plans of $8.5 billion (these figures do not include the $1 billion in capital spending planned in both 2008 and 2009 in China, which is self-funded by the GM joint ventures, to support growth in that market). A major part of the reductions is related to the delay of the next generation large pickup and SUV program, as well as V-8 engine development and associated capacity.
Spending for non-product programs will also be significantly reduced, while powertrain spending will be increased to support the development of alternative propulsion and fuel economy technologies and small displacement engines. The revised 2009 capital spending plan is higher than the average capital expenditures in 2005-2007, excluding large pickup and SUV-related spending. Excluding China, GM expects capital expenditures to run in the $7-7.5 billion range beyond 2009.
* Aggressive actions are being taken to improve working capital by approximately
$2 billion in North America and Europe, primarily related to the reduction of raw material, work-in-progress and finished goods inventory levels as well as lean inventory practices at parts warehouses.
* GM will defer approximately $1.7 billion of payments that had been scheduled to be made to a temporary asset account over the balance of 2008 and 2009 for the establishment of the new UAW VEBA.
* The GM Board of Directors has decided to suspend future dividends on common stock, effective immediately, which is expected to improve liquidity by approximately $800 million through 2009.
Asset Sales and Financing Activities
In addition to the operating changes and other actions, GM expects to raise additional liquidity of $4-7 billion through asset sales and financing activities.
* GM is undertaking a broad global assessment of its assets for possible sale or monetization, which is expected to generate approximately $2-4 billion of additional liquidity. The company believes there is significant liquidity potential from asset sales, without impacting the strategic direction of the company. Outside advisors are currently engaged in evaluating alternatives. A strategic analysis of the Hummer brand is underway, and GM is continuing to focus on profit improvement initiatives across all remaining GM brands.
* GM will continue to opportunistically access global markets to raise additional liquidity. The company is initially targeting at least $2-3 billion of financing. The company has gross unencumbered assets of over $20 billion, which could support a significant secured debt offering, or multiple offerings, that would far exceed the initial target. Examples of such assets include stock of foreign subsidiaries, brands, stake in GMAC, and real estate.
Actions outlined today comprehend the anticipated impact of second quarter results, which the company plans to announce in the near future. GM anticipates it will report a significant second quarter loss, driven in part by the previously disclosed negative impact of the American Axle and local union strikes in North America, as well as the continued weakness in the U.S. auto market and adverse vehicle segment mix.
In addition, the company expects to record significant charges or expenses related to its previously announced hourly attrition program in the U.S., the recently announced North American truck capacity actions, valuation of GMAC stock, lease assets, Delphi recoveries, the American Axle settlement, the Canadian labor contract, and others.
GM is highly confident that the initiatives announced today, in conjunction with the current cash position and its $4-5 billion of committed U.S. credit lines, will provide the company with ample liquidity to meet its operational needs through 2009.
“The actions announced today are difficult decisions, but necessary to respond to the current auto market conditions,” said Wagoner. “Even under conservative planning scenarios, GM is well-positioned to withstand the U.S. market downturn and emerge a stronger company. We have a solid position in the rapidly growing emerging markets, a global operating framework that allows us to respond to changes in the U.S. market, a commitment to technology leadership, and an ever stronger and competitive product line-up.”
2008-07-15 GM Fact Sheet: GM Turnaround: Actions and Accomplishments
GM announced operating actions, potential asset sales, and financing activities totaling approximately $15 billion
* Announced plans for internal operating and Board of Director actions to generate approximately $10 billion in cumulative cash improvements by the end of 2009
- Further reductions in truck capacity and related component, stamping and powertrain capacity
- Reducing sales and marketing spending, and holding engineering spending
- Reducing U.S. and Canada salaried headcount in 2008
- Beginning in 2009, eliminating health care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees over 65, partially offset by pension increases
- No base compensation increases for U.S. and Canada salaried employees and no annual discretionary cash bonuses for the executive group
- Revising capital spending plans
- Targeting working capital improvements, driven by inventory reduction
- Deferring payments into the UAW VEBA trust until 2010
- Suspending dividends on common stock
* Announced additional plans for potential asset sales and financing initiatives to raise additional liquidity of $4-7 billion
- Broad global assessment of assets for potential sale or monetization
- Strategic analysis underway for HUMMER
- Plan to opportunistically access global markets for capital
Previously Announced Cost Reduction Activities
* Announced an additional $4-5 billion in cost savings by 2011 driven by the implementation of the 2007 GM-UAW contract
- Includes independent healthcare VEBA scheduled to begin in 2010
- 19,000 participants in 2008 attrition program
* Announced additional structural cost savings of more than $1 billion by 2010
- Announced that production will cease at four North American truck plants and shifts would be eliminated at two others
* Achieved $9 billion structural cost reduction from 2005-2007 in North America
- 2005 health care agreement
- North American capacity reductions of nearly 1 million units
- 34,000 participants in 2006 hourly attrition program
* Spending for U.S. hourly and salaried legacy pension and health care will decline from annual average of $7B over last 15 years to less than $2B per year in 2010
* Structural cost reduced from 35% of revenue in 2005 to 30% in 2007; targeting reduction to 25% by 2010 and 23% by 2012
Product Excellence
* Numerous prestigious industry awards
- Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Silverado 2007 North American Car and Truck of the Year; Chevrolet Malibu 2008 North American Car of the Year
- 2008 Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Malibu and Corvette Car and Driver “10 Best” cars, and Automobile Magazine “All Stars,” Motor Trend Car of the Year
* Strong car and crossover sales increases (U.S., June CYTD)
- Saturn Aura (up 21%); Buick Enclave (up 291%); Pontiac Vibe (up 28%)
- Chevrolet Malibu (up 31%) - average transaction prices up more than $4,000 and residual values up 11 points
- Cadillac CTS (up 34%) - average transaction prices up more than $8,000
* Upcoming products
- 18 of the next 19 major launches will also be cars and crossovers, including:
+ New midsize Buick sedan,
+ New CTS coupe and sport wagon,
+ Midsize crossovers for Cadillac and Saab,
+ Compact crossover for Chevrolet,
+ New midsize car and wagon for Saab
+ Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Solstice hardtop; G8 sport truck
+ Chevy Volt
Revitalized U.S. Sales & Marketing Strategy
* Retail share stabilized near 20%
* Incentive spending reduced by 24% from 2004-2007
* Reduction in daily rental sales of nearly 200,000 units 2005-2007
* Exterior styling cited as top reason for purchase
* Average transaction price up 3%
* Introduced GM channel strategy:
- 73% of Buick-Pontiac-GMC sales through aligned dealers
- Reduction of 635 dealerships from December 2005 to June 2008
Quality
* Industry’s best 5-yr warranty coverage program - confidence in GM products
* 89% reduction in recalls 2005-2007
* New vehicle launches performing at record warranty levels
* Chevrolet Malibu ranked highest in initial quality according to J.D. Power & Associates in the midsize car segment and was the highest-ranked domestic vehicle
–
More from this category
More from this author
- Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Thursday Snippets - rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated, for now…
- Let Saabs be Saabs
- Nordic adventure in Åre, Sweden
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- zippy on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Beren Erchamion on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Beren Erchamion on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- BrianL on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Ken B on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- SaabLance on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Kroum on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Adam on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- joemama on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Dippen on Thursday Snippets - rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated, for now…
“+ New midsize car and wagon for Saab”
That’s the 9-5? So it will stay the same size as now?
““+ New midsize car and wagon for Saab”
That’s the 9-5? So it will stay the same size as now?”
Only in the US would the 9-5 be described as “midsize”. From a Euro perspective, I assumed that was referring to the 9-1…
Well it’s clear GM had to do something to try to improve their situation. Two moves do seem a little shortsighted though.
First, cancelling the employees’ pay rises, giving them a pay cut in real terms, can only be bad for morale and will underline to the workforce that they are working for a company in trouble. The employees are the greatest asset of any company, and they are the people whom the shareholders will be relying on to deliver the turnaround they want.
And second, engineering spending - by which I assume they mean R&D - is being held. GM’s statement shows they realise the car market is going to change rapidly over the next few years. They are going to need plenty of new products to be competitive, but by holding back on the R&D they are missing a great opportunity to get ready for the future they themselves can see coming.
99, I think the vast majority (if not all) of the R&D cut will relate to SUV and truck development that they’re suspending indefinitely. They seem to be spending in the most important areas like new light engine development, etc.
Well, an 89% reduction in recalls in a BIG step in the right direction. That means quality is up.
The fact that Saab was listed in the new vehicle category is positive!
Thanks for the info, Swade.
Well that is some interesting reading. Being one of those ‘GM’ guys it is nice for me to see GM getting back into the business of making quality cars again after all these years of being force fed light trucks and SUV’s.
And it sounds like Saab is still being supported (good news since I won’t be going back to other GM brands), so hopefully future products from the division are as exciting as the Turbo X launch has been for Saab fans this year. As a 9-3 owner, I am big fan of that car and like what it has done for the 9-3 range of vehicles.
And even without dividend GM stock is certainly tempting at these price levels as well based on this plan.
Listing SAAB is a positive! I am also pretty sure that the R&D cuts will be with the trucks and SUV development. It was just irresponsible to make such big inefficient vehicles. I think they are learning from their mistake. I’m not sure how
*Beginning in 2009, eliminating health care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees over 65, partially offset by pension increases-
works but? Yeah, an interesting read! I do think that the small displacement engines becoming their focus is ironic! They have had SAAB in their back pocket for 18+ years now and what has been their focus? Right sizing, small efficient displacement engines! Good Opportunity guys, run with it!!!
I’m flabbergasted by how current GM Management still has their jobs. They’re the only ones on the planet who couldn’t foresee the rise in petroleum prices and downturn in truck and SUV sales. I feel like Waggoner and Lutz have nobody to blame but themselves for the position the company finds itself in.
They refused to pursue diesel technology for N.A. when all the German marques were licensing AdBlue from Mercedes-Benz, saying that the additional cost of diesel engines couldn’t be offset by sales. Now I’m reading that Volkswagen (not exactly a premium marque) is selling-out of its Jetta TDI models in the U.S. and BMW is just about set to debut the 335d here, which will get an estimated 35 miles-per-U.S. gallon combined as compared to the 20 miles-per-U.S. gallon combined the gasoline version gets. That’s almost double the fuel economy. With fuel savings like that the diesel premium will pay itself off in short order.
Then there’s hybrids. GM sat on their hands banking on the hydrogen and ethanol future laughing-off Toyota’s and Honda’s foray into hybrids, claiming nobody wanted to buy them (it’s called “diversifying your options”, guys). Now they’re trying to play catch-up by introducing two-mode hybrids that make a tank-size SUV yield 21 mpg instead of 16 mpg while costing USD50K+. There’s probably a heck of a lot more profit margin in there than selling someone a small, fuel-efficient car or hybrid, but you have to find enough customers willing to pay that kind of money for that kind of vehicle, which is getting harder in this economy. The AutoblogGreen post titled “GM Hybrid Sales Almost Non-Existent In First Quarter” would lead me to think that it’s not going well.
Does Saab do their own engine development anymore (I mean outside of ancillary stuff like turbo and ethanol technology), or are they at the mercy of GM supplying them with engines from other GM marques? Does Saab get R&D financing from GM? I would guess they do as that’s how they fund BioPower and XWD development (though that was a partnership with Haldex). Is the SVC project still getting funding?
BTW, it seems a bit disingenuous to be touting increased sales of the Pontiac Vibe in that press release. It’s a re-badged Toyota Matrix.
“BMW is just about set to debut the 335d here, which will get an estimated 35 miles-per-U.S. gallon combined as compared to the 20 miles-per-U.S. gallon combined the gasoline version gets.”
Even then, the 335d is thirstier than the 318i and 320i petrols… Want top-drawer economy from a 3-series? They ought to be looking at importing those and the 318d and 320d.
Adrian: I think if people’s first priority is fuel economy they’re not going to buy a BMW, they’re going to buy a Honda or Toyota. When people spring for a BMW they’re paying for the image, which includes performance. “Ultimate Driving Machine”.
Adrian: wait a minute… the 318i and 320i petrols get better fuel economy than the 35 mpg (U.S.) 335d?
The 2.0T Saab 9-3 only has a best-case (manual transmission-equipped sedan) combined mpg of only 23 mpg (U.S.) combined?
Interesting, R&D spending is frozen, while ‘powertrain spending will be increased to support the development of alternative propulsion and fuel economy technologies and small displacement engines. ”
Makes me wonder what exactly does GM consider R&D?
Regarding 1985 Grippen’s question, GM develops engine ‘families’ which covers the basics such as block design, lubrication, cooling, etc… Each marque may then take a basic design and adapt to their own needs. The Saab 2L turbo is the GM LK9, part of the Ecotec family; while the 2.8L V6 is the LP9, part of the High Feature V6 family.
The best resource I’ve seen on GM engines is at:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/08car.htm
smoke_jaguar4: thanks for the info, I guess I’m just jealous that Saab isn’t even getting the best in technology GM has to offer now. Saab’s 2.0T should feature the direct-injected Ecotec found in the Solstice/Sky and the V6 should be direct injected as well. I know they can’t source the same direct-injected V6 that Cadillac has because it has quite a bit larger displacement (a 2.8-liter V6 is pretty small displacement, so I’m surprised the fuel consumption numbers aren’t better out of the 9-3 Aero).
I know you mention there are engine “families” but when all’s said and done the Ecotec engine is an Opel design and the High Feature V6 is a Holden design.
The 2.3T is the last of what could be considered a “Saab” engine (I know, it was originally designed by Triumph, but evolved as Saab) and this is the last year you’ll be able to get that engine in the 9-5.
I remember hearing that Saab was going to get the 2.9-liter diesel powerplant found in the European Cadillac CTS for the next-gen 9-5, but looking at those 9-5 engine output numbers posted here yesterday I guess that info was false?
Saab should have direct injection engines with VVT&L, cylinder shut-down, mild hybrid, and all the other advanced goodies GM’s other marques get, IMHO. It’s supposed to be one of GM’s three (soon to be two, probably) “premium” marques.
Gripen, yes. The 335d is thirstier (42mpg, 177g/km CO2) on the official UK government “combined” figures than the 318i (44mpg, 152g/km) and 320i (43mpg, 156g/km) - and they’re all figures for autoboxes. The 335d is auto-only here, the other two would probably sell more here with manual boxes, with correspondingly better figures. Imperial gallons, of course - 4.5 litres to your 3.8 liters per US gallon. Our miles are the same length, though.
Figures from http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=1345&page=3
When it comes down to it, the 335d is a massively overpowered “halo model”, and is correspondingly thirsty. I’d put good money on the next generation of 3-series having an M3d.
As for BMW not being bought for economy - they’re streets ahead of the competition here - and marketing that heavily. They’re doing some very clever “tinkering” around the edges, with the primary aim of getting the all-important CO2 figure down. Most European car taxation is CO2 based, both the actual road tax and the tax you pay on your company car (few new 3-series will be bought privately, most will be company cars, especially diesels). Of course, there’s always the counter-point, which is “Exactly what happens when all that tech goes pear-shaped?” - for example, some engines have electronic computer-controlled OIL PUMPS in order to reduce mechanical drag. Great. But. When did a mechanical oil pump last suddenly stop working at speed? When did a computer-controlled electric motor last do that…?
What is the MPG for the TTiD 9-3?
TTiD is 50mpg, 149g/km with a manual box or 42mpg, 177g/km with an auto.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=780&page=3
Adrian: thanks again for the info. I tried to search that site you provided the link to for comparable Saab fuel economy numbers, but couldn’t navigate my way to them. So BMW must just blow Saab away in fuel economy in the U.K., right? I thought Saabs were supposed to have smaller, lighter, turbocharged four-cylinder engines to compete with the power of six-cylinder engines and best them in fuel economy? Sounds like Saab’s engine technology can’t compete anymore.
@1995 Grippen: The 9-3 Aero CAN get good mileage. I get 27 - 28MPG every tank full going back and forth to work and 32 to 34 MPG on the HWY using mid-grade. Granted that is not as good as the wife’s 9-3 2.3T that gets 29 MPG & 35 MPG.
Wow, thanks! Yeah, I’d buy that if it were available in the states!
Are they making any effort to do that? SAAB/GM, it would be a shame if VW can do it and they can’t.
Steven: I know, EVERYONE says that the U.S. EPA’s numbers are flawed and everyone has anecedotal evidence that their Saab gets much better fuel economy than the EPA tested. However, I use the EPA’s numbers because though the tests may be flawed they test everyone by the same yardstick. If the test is not fair for Saab it’s equally not fair for BMW or Audi. The only way I know of to compare apples to apples objectively is to use the EPA’s numbers.
Tudon: are you referring to selling diesel Saabs in the U.S.? No. GM has decided it’s too expensive and not worth their while to make the Saab TTiD U.S. emissions requirements compliant.
“Wow, thanks! Yeah, I’d buy that if it were available in the states!”
Don’t forget we get bigger gallons. Bearing in mind the general preference in the US for autoboxes, that 42mpig is “only” 35 mpug.
Compare to BMW’s 320d (52mpg, 144g/km) and 325d (44mpg, 169g/km) - both with autos. Or even the 330d (42mpg, 176g/km)
Saab don’t really have any “engine technology” any more. The diesels are Fiat engines, common with Vauxhall/Opel, although I believe Saab’s use of the twin-turbo is currently unique - probably until the Insignia comes out. The petrol v6s are completely irrelevant, in sales terms - few of the 9-3s rivals are even available with petrol six-pots in the UK (the second biggest global market for Saab, very close behind the US).
I think the TTiD is still Euro4 and not going to get that mileage if it ever came to the US. The current US 50 state diesel emission requirements are quite a bit tougher than Euro4, depending on what Bin the manufacturer chooses for their engine.
Euro 4, effective 2005:
NOx = 250 mg/km (.40 gm/mi) diesel; 70 mg/km (.11 gm/mi) petrol
PM = 25 mg/km (.04 gm/mi) diesel (no standard for petrol)
US EPA Tier 2, effective model year 2007:
NOx (gm/mi) = .02 (Bin 2); .03 (Bin 3); .04 (Bin 4); .07 (Bin 5); .10 (Bin 6); .15 (Bin 7); .20 (Bin 8).
PM (gm/mi) = .01 (Bins 2-6); .02 (Bins 7-8)
Just look what happened to the new VW Jetta TDI when it came to the US. VW had a ton of glossy brochures at every US auto show since Dec 2007 touting 50MPG+ HWY and just a few months back said 60 MPG might be possible, Then the EPA tests come out to 41 MPG HWY. Granted that may be some “issues” with the current EPA test with regard to real work diesels as well as turbo engines, but that is a big drop getting the engine to be 50-state legal. It believe that “same” the VW 2.0 TDI gets 58mpg in the UK or 48.3 MPG US.
That really pisses me off. Europeans get the TTiD at 50MPG and we can’t get it here in the US.
COME ON ALREADY!
Well, Gripen does bring a valid point to the discussion on engines. When the UAW wasn’t striking against GM they were walking around with signs that said ‘pushrods forever’… I know a lot of guys at GM powertrain that do the training for GM and they were screaming and kicking years ago when the General decided to slap a set of DOHC heads on the old pushrod 3.lL V6 and re-christen it with a 3.4L displacement.
The Gen III and IV small block V8’s aside (they are rather impressive), GM has never really done well with small displacement sophisticated engines, especially with the four cylinder variants. They have always been somewhat noisy and been unable to ‘sing’ the song of a Honda VTEC motor racing to the redline. They have never been the worst, but they are not the best.
Bottom line, the 2.0L Ecotec in the 9-3 should have direct injection and it should also have a six-speed automatic available as well. That should have been on sale a year ago when the 9-3 exterior was freshened.
However, I will say the current DI 3.6L V6 and the (Saab variant) 2.8L are really nice engines in my opinion. The 2.8L in my 9-3 loves to rev and has been returning a respectable 24mpg average this summer driving season. I cannot complain about that, and I won’t. More impressive was GM’s initial decision to bolt them to six-speed transmissions rather than grab something old out of the corporate parts bin.
Bottom line is that if GM does not start doing better in a few years there will be little left to reorganize. The new Malibu is somewhat proof that ‘if you build it, they will come’… Import buyers are simply not interested in an ancient pushrod V6 engines chained to a four speed slush-box, no matter what you wrap it in.
GM needs to start winning back those young affluent import buyers, as their ‘pushrod’ customer base dies off a little more each year.
Hold on now, I have a turbo 3.8 L “push rod” V-6 engine that will STILL make you wet/crap your pants (your choice).
Steve: Would that be a ‘3.8L SFI Turbo’ living under the hood of a “G” body? I have a lot of respect for that motor, and they definitely are fun to drive in a straight line. However my 9-3 would make up for lost ground very easily if the road got even the least bit twisty.
I am just saying that GM has been painfully slow updating some of its engines to meet current buyer demands. They are getting there, but they are paying in market share now because of their inability to get it together years ago.
Like I have said a few times, if it were not for Saab GM possibly would have lost me as a customer. Trying to continue to keep me interested with clumsy Pontiac G6’s or boy racer Impala SS’s might have worked in my 20’s – but I have seen the light and moved on.
“I am just saying that GM has been painfully slow updating some of its engines to meet current buyer demands. They are getting there, but they are paying in market share now because of their inability to get it together years ago.”
It’s not the engineering divisions, though - the cars you want are already available in other countries. It’s entirely the sales and marketing divisions (with a hint of federal emissions regs thrown in, in the case of the diesels).
Quite simply, they _choose_ not to sell the smaller engined versions in the US market.
Sort of like BMW and the 1-series.
When did 1 Gallon stop=1 Gallon? I thought that despite conversions etc. it equaled the same. If our gallon is bigger wouldn’t that mean that we would get a few more miles for the extra space? You will have to forgive me, I’m American. Here 1 gallon is a gallon, a mile a mile,etc.
2-don: One U.S. gallon is equal to roughly 1.2 Imperial gallons, so we’d get fewer miles (the length of the mile is the same) per gallon here in the U.S.
The best way to calculate fuel economy IMHO is to use liters-per-100-km, a metric used in Europe, but most of us Americans aren’t used to dealing in that metric.
Thank you Gripen, that is new to me!
Gripen,
“One U.S. gallon is equal to roughly 1.2 Imperial gallons”
T’other way round.
1 US gallon = 3.8 liters
1 Imperial gallon = 4.5 litres
1 US gallon = 0.85 Imperial gallons
“so we’d get fewer miles (the length of the mile is the same) per gallon here in the U.S.”
But you’re right with that bit.
Adrian - I’m not sure whether Saab is the only GM division using a twin turbo version of the Fiat 1.9 Diesel, but it seems that Fiat have created a twin turbo version themselves. It can be seen in the Lancia Delta (although not in the UK as the relaunch has been postponed a year).
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Lancia-Delta-CAR-review/?&R=EPI-6184#
Judging from the stats on this page it seems that the figures are comparable to our own TTiD.
99 - Thanks for that. I tend to forget about Lancia… (even though I’d _love_ a Thesis)
I’ll be surprised if there’s not a TTiD Insignia.