When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
And back to our OT... the LS is capable of pretty good fuel mileage, so I guess that has cut into oil profits and driven crude prices back up. Or has anyone else's gasoline jumped 20 cents a gallon in last week or so?
What energy crisis are you nuts that was a sham just like it is today! Big oil making profit at a captured audience which boils down to fixing prices.
Huh you think the unions are making more money today and gas is cheaper than your so called energy crisis. You are a union basher and really have no grasp of what big oil does.
The simple fact is the energy crisis caught the US auto industry with it's pants around it's ankles (where the unions put them). The US didn't know how to build anything smaller than an inline 6, the japs couldn't build anything bigger than 2 litres. By the time the americans figured it out, the japs had come the other way and were producing better and better big cars. Now they've globalized so much that there's no such thing as a domestic car anymore.
GM only made it's problems worse in trying to buy it's competition worldwide. They'd have been better off in the long run to not try and save the money by consolidation platforms, but by running their companies independently but in discrete markets. But by that time, it was already far too late. Olds and Pontiac should have been spun off decades ago. You'll remember that the other american factories had to do the same market cutting .. loosing us the Merc and Plymouth brands forever.
LOL you have no grasps of what big oil does!! Energy crisis yes several blame the unions but they were wrong. Look at today how cheap gas is compared to 1975,76 . Now look how it is creeping up again!! MONOPOLY, CAPTURED, AUDIENCE,NO CHOICE is what happened then and now.GM is run by dummies period.
What energy crisis are you nuts that was a sham just like it is today! Big oil making profit at a captured audience which boils down to fixing prices.
As someone who drove around looking for a gas station that was open during the shortages of 1974, I can tell you that it was very real at the pump. Sure, there was plenty of oil in the Mideast, but not at the gas stations where I lived.
I think my union comment is being misunderstood. GM willingly gave the unions what they got when the times were good. But when they suddenly came under assault from an international industry that wasn't paying unskilled labour $15/h and benefits for life, the union didn't accept that standing firm was a death sentence. GM paying employees to stay home and such ...
Locally, we're going through something similar. The civil servant's union negotiated all manner of retirement benefits long ago ... the gov't signed, but never funded it all. Now it's all coming due and they gov't is reneging on the affair. The workers are pissed, but when the amount they were promised is published and what it'll cost taxpayers today it tallied, they're not getting any support. Same thing happened with the auto unions. Yes, the factories shouldn't have made promises without getting their funding straight, but the unions aren't blameless either
I would agree that there were provisions in contracts that would have been better had they been renegotiated, but I do not believe that making cars profitably and paying a fair wage with decent benefits and work rules are mutually exclusive.
I am certain that workers at BMW, Audi, and VW are paid well and work under good conditions, and nobody is pointing to those companies as dinosaurs driven to extinction by their unions.
Management may have given away more than was prudent in order to placate union leaders and avoid work disruptions, leaving them unable to cope with the lean times, but if Management had made sound business decisions in terms of designing and building quality cars, and offering good cars that were good on gas, there would not have been any lean times.
Look at the number of people who still advocate buying American, even when American quality isn't competitive with Japanese and European quality - if the American offerings had been better, the Japanese would never have gained more than a toehold in the US market. Heck, if the US manufacturers had responded to VW with a well-designed, high-quality small car in the sixties, there may never have been a chance for any foreign cars to gain any real traction.
You guys make some good points! You guys fail why the energy crisis was a sham! The cost of gas was regulated by who!! Who was shutting down refineries! Who was making money by creating shortage.The car companies created their own problems much like they do today!! Nothing has changed there and it isn't the unions. You guys fail to understand before unions the work environment was not safe.What do you think caused regulation for safety for workers wasn't the companies. Now why is it that price of gas is lower than in 1974,75 after how many years did big oil rake in record profit and doubled it tripled it and so on with billions of dollars. Go back to when the gulf platform in the gulf got messed up by a hurricane about the same time a refinery was due for general maintenance.Funny how that created a rise in gas from around a $.89 to $2.50 .Then what happened next is everyone got use to high prices so wait the public didn't get to upset why lower it!! Then big oil decided hey less refineries more excuses to raise prices in the future so they shut them down because they did pay to upgrade them reducing output.They run mom and pop small refineries out of business period in the 1970's. They have used every trick in the book since the 1970's .The market is flooded with oil and gas why?Answer to shut down the small companies that sprung up.Guess what it is working look out for what comes next!!! The prices are rising again. Don't get me started with how blind people are and the government spending that is out of control!! Wake up America!!
The original 70s gas crisis was OPEC. The oil-producing countries in that cartel were pissed over US involvement in Middle East, specifically its support of Israel, and decided to limit sales to the US refineries. In other words bring 'em to their knees economically. That mindset continues today. Wholly political, with a little good old American investor greed mixed in.
Like Joe P, I roamed in search of gas stations in the early 70s hoping to get the daily $5 limit before they ran out. I also remember them selling gas to even numbered license plates one day, then odd numbered plates the next (I have a reversible even-odd pump placard that hung on the pumps back then). And there I was, 17 years old with a 66 442 whose built Toronado 425 and 3.73 gears got 8 mpg downhill with a tailwind. When I first put that car on the road Sunoco 260 was 36 cents a gallon. By end of that year it was 75 cents a gallon, and I was making a buck-fifty an hour pumping gas and working in a country store.
But, these manufactured fuel supply crises did prod carmakers to build more powerful and fuel efficient engines like the LS in the same package. I still don't like yanking out a perfectly good OE engine to stuff one in a car just to do it or as pointed out in an earlier post, to follow the herd.
Last edited by rocketraider; Feb 13, 2015 at 12:10 PM.
The original 70s gas crisis was OPEC. The oil-producing countries in that cartel were pissed over US involvement in Middle East, specifically its support of Israel, and decided to limit sales to the US refineries. In other words bring 'em to their knees economically. That mindset continues today. Wholly political, with a little good old American investor greed mixed in.
Like Joe P, I roamed in search of gas stations in the early 70s hoping to get the daily $5 limit before they ran out. I also remember them selling gas to even numbered license plates one day, then odd numbered plates the next (I have a reversible even-odd pump placard that hung on the pumps back then). And there I was, 17 years old with a 66 442 whose built Toronado 425 and 3.73 gears got 8 mpg downhill with a tailwind. When I first put that car on the road Sunoco 260 was 36 cents a gallon. By end of that year it was 75 cents a gallon, and I was making a buck-fifty an hour pumping gas and working in a country store.
But, these manufactured fuel supply crises did prod carmakers to build more powerful and fuel efficient engines like the LS in the same package. I still don't like yanking out a perfectly good OE engine to stuff one in a car just to do it or as pointed out in an earlier post, to follow the herd.
LOL you might think that but this country has plenty of oil to refine into gas! Opec my rear!!I started driving when gas was 14.9 cents a gallon. Summer blend winter blend my rear!! Just reasons to take your cash out of your pocket!!
We had plenty of it back then too but you had (and have) to get the rabid environmentalists out of the way. That crowd is a big reason oil prices are expensive and volatile.
Summer and winter blend is no big deal; you need different Reid vapor characteristics for hot and humid vs cold and dry weather. Now, having a different fuel blend for every damn city on the map? THAT is ridiculous, but it's what you get when a rogue agency is calling the shots. And we get gasoline formulated for the Piedmont Triad area of NC which E-P-A classes as a high-pollution area, so I routinely get 3-4 mpg worse fuel mileage than I do if I can get gas sourced from a different tank farm. But, I have to drive minimum 60+ miles round trip out of the way to get it.
You know what would be really sweet ... if someone took it on to start casting aluminium 455s. Take that block and give it all the updates of the LS and market that.
You know what would be really sweet ... if someone took it on to start casting aluminium 455s. Take that block and give it all the updates of the LS and market that.
The block is not why the LS makes a lot of power. It's the heads. I wish someone would start making Olds heads with LS chambers and ports.
The block is not why the LS makes a lot of power. It's the heads. I wish someone would start making Olds heads with LS chambers and ports.
Well, of course, it's not just the heads, because the heads have to connect to other things, like the manifolds.
The Olds head design puts some of the runners in bad places, like putting two exhaust runners together in the middle, so a better set of heads would have to have a better set of runners, which would require a better set of manifolds.
But one reason why the heads are laid out as they are is the head bolt pattern.
A better set of heads, with better runners and manifolds, would probably need its head bolts in different places, which leads to the need to design a better block to accept the new head bolt locations...
But one reason why the heads are laid out as they are is the head bolt pattern.
A better set of heads, with better runners and manifolds, would probably need its head bolts in different places, which leads to the need to design a better block to accept the new head bolt locations...
Sorry Eric, but the LS motors have the same "four bolt" head bolt pattern as an Olds motor (note that in both photos, exhaust is up):
It isn't the head bolt pattern that's driving the port arrangement. I'll also point out that the traditional SBC has had the paired center exhaust ports forever, and that hasn't stopped anyone from building different heads for it.
If they built an oldsmobile today it probably would have looked similar to the recent Pontiac GTO but with a different front headlight a different taillight, same engine with oldsmobile insignia plastic engine covers and some cheap olds badging in the interior. And of course a 30,000 mile limited warranty for 45 grand plus tax tile and shipping. A real collector!
Down here in New Zealand about 98% of all V8 motored cars are Holden Commodores.It's for this reason, commonality that I don't like them much even though they are powerful and fuel efficient.
I recently talked to someone who said that their 6.2 litre (GM) Holden Commodore was using 8 litres of fuel per 100km! His car has the "knock off 2 cylinders while cruising" facility like the modern Chrysler 300C "Hemi" has/had which may partly explain this fuel frugality in a 270kw plus car.
To give some perspective my '65 Cutlass with it's original slightly warmed 330 V8 uses 22 litres per 100km with approx 70% highway use.That's 15.6 - 15.8 miles per US gallon.I would be lucky to get 200 miles on a full tank - looking at the gauge.
BTW it is a common belief down here that these later model LS engines are Chevys as Holden stopped using their Australian built engines some years ago.
The 2 door "Monaro" Commodore version was rebadged as a Pontiac GTO for the US market and as a Vauxhall in the UK - another old but not venerated brand.An instance of GM doing the "world car" thing you could say.
The block is not why the LS makes a lot of power. It's the heads. I wish someone would start making Olds heads with LS chambers and ports.
Well, the Rocket Racing heads have symmetrical ports like the LS. And an LS intake could be mated to a set of Rocket heads with a little work. Chambers can be modified, it's aluminum. Hmmmmm........
Well, the Rocket Racing heads have symmetrical ports like the LS. And an LS intake could be mated to a set of Rocket heads with a little work. Chambers can be modified, it's aluminum. Hmmmmm........
Well, the Rocket Racing heads have symmetrical ports like the LS. And an LS intake could be mated to a set of Rocket heads with a little work. Chambers can be modified, it's aluminum. Hmmmmm........
Port SPACING is irrelevant. It's the internal port shape that's important.
Don't like swaps in muscle cars. Guys at my shop keep telling me to do one in my 68 442 conv. I said NOPE!!!! Building original 400G yep I am nuts. Gonna cost more build 400G than a 455, but it's original engine and that's what is going back in it.
Don't like swaps in muscle cars. Guys at my shop keep telling me to do one in my 68 442 conv. I said NOPE!!!! Building original 400G yep I am nuts. Gonna cost more build 400G than a 455, but it's original engine and that's what is going back in it.
I agree especially with a genuine 442, best to use the original engine.I know that the 400 was a downsized (for 1965) 425 and I would have thought that the 400 is essentially the same as the 455 "big" block.Is that not the case? If I am right then you could overbore the 400 to 455 or maybe even larger.
Also, why is it more expensive to rebuild a 400 than the 455 engine?
I agree especially with a genuine 442, best to use the original engine.I know that the 400 was a downsized (for 1965) 425 and I would have thought that the 400 is essentially the same as the 455 "big" block.Is that not the case? If I am right then you could overbore the 400 to 455 or maybe even larger.
Also, why is it more expensive to rebuild a 400 than the 455 engine?
The 1965-67 400 uses the same crank as the 425. The 68-69 400 uses the same crank as the 455. The only differences are the bore and thus the pistons.
The reason why the 400 is more expensive to build than the 455 is solely due to piston cost. 455s are much more popular, so piston manufacturers sell more of them, reducing cost. There is absolutely NO other differences between the rebuild cost of a late 400 and a 455. Same goes for the early 400 and 425, though in that case the 400 may be less expensive. You can use more common 350 Olds pistons in the early 400. The stock 4.057 bore of a 350 is a nice overbore on the 4.000 bore of a 400, and compression height is the same.
The 1965-67 400 uses the same crank as the 425. The 68-69 400 uses the same crank as the 455. The only differences are the bore and thus the pistons.
The reason why the 400 is more expensive to build than the 455 is solely due to piston cost. 455s are much more popular, so piston manufacturers sell more of them, reducing cost. There is absolutely NO other differences between the rebuild cost of a late 400 and a 455. Same goes for the early 400 and 425, though in that case the 400 may be less expensive. You can use more common 350 Olds pistons in the early 400. The stock 4.057 bore of a 350 is a nice overbore on the 4.000 bore of a 400, and compression height is the same.
Only problem with that is 400G in a 68 442 is a 3.870 bore. I will be taking it to a 4.000 bore if sonic test turns out good. And yes pistons are the only difference.
Just feel the need to revive this post as the title caught my attention.
What is everyone's current feeling? Have opinions changed at all.
I too am tired of opening every issue of Hot Rod, or looking at every feature I see online, only to see an LS under the hood. It does get old, but there is no denying the strengths of the LS platform. Not just how plentiful they are, but also how strong they are, and the fact that if you open up the ring gaps and do a cam with springs and retainers, you can get a reliable 800hp with a homemade turbo kit.
I've been struggling internally with the LS swap dilema myself. I know that I could get a Gen III LQ9 or even better, a Gen IV LY6, or L92 pulled out of a wrecked SUV. That later 6.2L bone stock will produce more power than the highest output 455. An L92 with a truck intake, cam from an LQ4 to delete the VVT(for testing purposes) will net you 460hp and 445ft/lbs.
Do a Summit Racing stage4 cam kit with springs, retainers, and the needed gasket kit and that will get you all the way up to 570hp and 500ft/lbs without even having to remove the heads or intake, and still using stock manifolds. Long tube swap headers should net you another 12-20hp across the board.
That's on an engine out of a junkyard. Yes, the L92 is probably the most popular and one of the most expensive engines for an NA swap from the junk pile for many reasons, but that's exactly why I'm using it for this example. So, even with that being said, you can find a complete L92 from intake to oil pan with wiring harness, ECU, throttle pedal, sensors, and accessories for $3500 on the high-end. Lets be really liberal with our pricing, and add another $3000 for the cam, springs, trunion upgrade, adapter mounts, headers, oil pan, custom tune, fuel system and accessory brackets.
That gets us to a total of $6500 for 567hp that, depending on driving habits and transmission, will last you 100,000 miles and get you 20+ MPG. Plus, could be upgraded to far more power NA or with boost.
How much would it cost to have a 455 built to those same power levels? Plus, remember in this scenario, you're not having to deal with a machine shop or engine builder.
Now, factor in the reliability of having a factory assembled engine using OEM sensors and fuel injection components. Plus an all around stronger design and ubiquitous parts availability at your local GM dealership or auto parts store. Think you could get almost any true hard part for a 570hp 455 from Pep Boys? What if one of your custom length pushrods was bent, a lifter went bad, aluminum roller rocker came loose and was chewed up. Just all things to think about.
Personally the lack of aftermarket parts availability and good engine builders that really know Oldsmobile engines has convinced me to do an engine swap. No, I'm not following the herd to LS. I'm at least keeping it somewhat period. I just happen to have a built 439 big block Chevy with all forged internals, AFR CNC Oval Port Heads, and a custom grind hydraulic roller cam. It was built to turn 6000RPM all day long in my boat, and has just sitting at the front of my garage while we've had three kids. It even has a custom built Pro Systems carb.
My 400BBO will be saved should I ever want to put it back in. Eventually I'll also put a Holley Terminator or HP standalone MPFI system on the BBC. But the carb should suffice for now.
I think the fact that you could actually get a BBC in a 1968 A-body makes the Mark IV a more "respectable" choice than the LS. If I didn't already have that engine, I would probably be going with and LS.
I vote for rebuilding the 400 and staying true to the Olds spirit. Back in the '80s I remember seeing a few BB Chevs in Oldsmobiles and I thought it was blasphemy then, still think so now. Really no different than an LS swap. I currently own an LS7 powered '15 Z/28. Fastest and most balanced vehicle I've ever owned BUT I wouldn't even think about a Chevy transplant in my Olds just like I wouldn't install a 455 into a '60s Chevelle or Camaro. The Olds motors may not be the most cost effective way of going fast but they are VERY impressive when you open the hood at a car show and see an engine that fills up the bay from fender to fender!
Last edited by Az697175; Jun 11, 2021 at 09:42 AM.
The Olds motors may not be the most cost effective way of going fast but they are VERY impressive when you open the hood at a car show and see an engine that fills up the bay from fender to fender!
With coils, my ls1 is actually WIDER and TALLER than a 455 (as in: the original 11 inch booster and A/C box will no longer fit with the engine installed). Some food for thought that few seem to mention whenever this topic is discussed. The LS (especially any aluminum block version) is MUCH lighter than even a small block Olds let alone a big block Olds. Also, if Oldsmobile was still building performance cars in the late 90's / early 2000's, what do you think would have powered them? Of course the answer is the LS series, just as the SBC became the GM corporate engine in the 80's. While I agree that an original number matching 442 (or any rare olds) should retain its original engine, bashing anyone who installs an LS in any olds does not make sense to me. I would never consider dropping an LS in my w34 toro, but properly done, an LS swap is just as fun to drive and look at as any big block olds (maybe even more so). Understand when I say this I currently have an LS1 swapped vista cruiser, a number matching 68 W34 toronado that I recently restored, and a 72 holiday coupe I am currently building as a 71 w30 clone with a 455 and 4 speed. All are fun cars and a blast to drive but for different reasons.
With coils, my ls1 is actually WIDER and TALLER than a 455 (as in: the original 11 inch booster and A/C box will no longer fit with the engine installed). Some food for thought that few seem to mention whenever this topic is discussed. The LS (especially any aluminum block version) is MUCH lighter than even a small block Olds let alone a big block Olds. Also, if Oldsmobile was still building performance cars in the late 90's / early 2000's, what do you think would have powered them? Of course the answer is the LS series, just as the SBC became the GM corporate engine in the 80's. While I agree that an original number matching 442 (or any rare olds) should retain its original engine, bashing anyone who installs an LS in any olds does not make sense to me. I would never consider dropping an LS in my w34 toro, but properly done, an LS swap is just as fun to drive and look at as any big block olds (maybe even more so). Understand when I say this I currently have an LS1 swapped vista cruiser, a number matching 68 W34 toronado that I recently restored, and a 72 holiday coupe I am currently building as a 71 w30 clone with a 455 and 4 speed. All are fun cars and a blast to drive but for different reasons.
Your car looks great and I agree 100%. All this LS bashing is childish. To each is his own, I don't car if you put a Fiat engine in your car as long as you enjoy it and it's on the road, and not sitting somewhere rotting away.
It's reasonably cheap, it's available thru GMPD, and it has a warranty. Plus some folks think it's cool, or more to point they've been led to believe it's cool based on all the damn magazine articles and "hotrodding" (term used VERY loosely) TV shows.
I used to think 350 Chevy crates were the most boring engines on the planet, but I'm fast beginning to think the LS has taken that crown.
Reality of today.
take a 350 olds to your engine machinist and have it rebuilt or get a quote for it.
Then look at what a low mileage ls take out cost. efi, starts every time, no tinkering under the hood every 20k miles giving it a tune up.
No having to crank the crap out of it, after it sits for a few weeks like a carbed engine that the fuel in the bowl goes into thin air, and you have to wait till the bowls get refilled before it fires off.
Break down, parts are at the local parts store. unlike any parts for most older long out of production engine families.
Like it oe not, building a olds, buick,amc,etc engine and then installing efi is not cheap at all.
For those that are into cars but never worked on them, a drivetrain that needs basicly nothing, and runs 100k between tune ups. starts after sitting for a week or a winter season. and any tech at a garage can work on it. it ideal.
Some enjoy working on the old week end car. some rather just start it and go cruising on the week end without any fuss.
What does it cost to build a 425 honest hp 350 olds with real port efi. that stat and idle, cruise and not need a bunch of care every season?
I know that to machining my 350, get the good pistons a member here had a piston supplier make, resize the rods, grind the crank/polish, balance, roller hyd cam set up, alum heads and port efi, is 4 times what I can buy a 6.2 ls3 for with low miles. with harness and ecu. 3500.00 4500.00 for a 6.2 harness,ecu and transmission or 12k+ for a roller cammed alum headed efi olds 350 .
7 grand difference so people you don't know can say, they didn't put a damn ls in it.
put a 4.8 vortec ls based truck engine in for under a grand, And it have more power than my 75 came with, spend 1200.00 more on a turbo and a tune and laugh at 455 bbo at will.
It is easy to say. keep your amc/build/olds, all amc/builk/olds. when you are not the one paying the bills to build it.
Sure you don't need a hyd roller cam, or efi. or the hp they bring, the less wear because of not washing the cyl walls on cold starts.
I know about what the machine shop bill on the short block will be, the roller cam and supporting parts, and port efi. It is a lot ofcoin to just be able to say, it has an olds engine in it.
Don't just include the motor in the cost comparison, definitely not the whole story. Also motor mounts, the right accessories, oil pan, headers and transmission. Also a wiring harness and an ECM reprogram. You also probably want something better than the factory cam. The 4L60E is barely worth fooling with anything over stock with a noticeable 1-2 drop and the 4L80E gearing is less than ideal in my opinion.
Don't just include the motor in the cost comparison, definitely not the whole story. Also motor mounts, the right accessories, oil pan, headers and transmission. Also a wiring harness and an ECM reprogram. You also probably want something better than the factory cam. The 4L60E is barely worth fooling with anything over stock with a noticeable 1-2 drop and the 4L80E gearing is less than ideal in my opinion.
The ls is a drop in, with mounts and headers oil pan clears on a 6.2 and front dress. The base camaro 6.2 is 427hp all day every day, and the 4l65e did just fine.
Yes the 7004r 1st to 2nd gear split is not ideal, but it is that way for epa ratings.
I am looking at a 9k mile,2019 6.2 and 6 speed manual harness and ecu for 4500.00 for another project that is a Chevy .
455hp and 455ftlb. And the Lt1 should fit in the engine bay without any issue, getting the shifter to play nice with the cars center colsole without hacking it will be more of a chore. That is if the 6speed will fit the tunnel.
I am researching that now. I am thinking the g body will need a 5spd as the 6 might be to big to fit without cutting up the car.
We’ve built a few olds race motors we did switch my sons bb olds to a ls and it’s almost bullet proof its
a 77 cutlass 3400 pounds 10 inch tire carbureted stroked 6 liter factory alum squareport heads no nitrous or turbo runs 10.50 quarter we can hot lap it run 2 classes in same day sometimes double enter it we make a pass and sometimes right up the staging lanes for next one it’s stout I could not run my olds motors like that not saying you can’t just I could not do that to mine . Now we love olds out street cars still have bb olds in them also this car is still street legal
We’ve built a few olds race motors we did switch my sons bb olds to a ls and it’s almost bullet proof its
a 77 cutlass 3400 pounds 10 inch tire carbureted stroked 6 liter factory alum squareport heads no nitrous or turbo runs 10.50 quarter we can hot lap it run 2 classes in same day sometimes double enter it we make a pass and sometimes right up the staging lanes for next one it’s stout I could not run my olds motors like that not saying you can’t just I could not do that to mine . Now we love olds out street cars still have bb olds in them also this car is still street legal
Let me know the next time you're at Edgewater. Would love to watch you guys race.
GM's failure (and it has utterly failed and gone bankrupt, and been brought back by Uncle Sam) was due to the shortsightedness of its management and their utter inability to see the obvious writing on the wall regarding fuel economy and quality. It had nothing to do with the unions, who built the cars exactly the way that GM told them to.
You may disagree, but I think most would agree that some of the best cars made these days come from Germany. All German plants are unionized.
When Management is oriented toward making a quality product (as was always the case in the former Axis countries), then their unions are strongly interested in helping them them do that.
When Management is oriented toward sucking up every possible penny (Ford's calculations on the long-term costs of their known-defective exploding Pinto gas tank design, for instance), and has no interest in hearing from the shop floor, the unions work as hard as they can to look out for their own.
- Eric
History is repeating itself. g.m. brass is killing off cars/sedans. And giving up on econoboxes all together.
Ford is no better, One spike in fuel cost and their ship is sunk.
The unions don't design, plan or give the green light to the crapboxes, the brass does.
Never have.
How many car models did they in the 80's drag out, then get right, then instantly kill?
The money wasted on re engineering these things only to kill them soon after.
The b body caprice, 94-96 impala, then killed it, Fiero, the quad4, and on and on.
Then the marketing missteps.
John moss built a iirc 1995 monte carlo on a 4th gen camaro floor pan, and even hot rod has a poll begging them to build a 2 door rear drive v8 car. in 2004 we got it. they market it as a GTO. if you put a 1995 chevy monte carlo and a 2004-06 gto side by side. ya. same car basicly.
What happen, people cried fowl, looks to much like a g/p in the front, and a colbolt in the rear. G8, same hate.
retro truck, people loved the show truck /concept, so gm built it, crickets.
The 2014 up SS. crickets, the camaro, cry'n about being able to see out the back, why because they could not find anything else wrong with it. In every case they think the oem's can build a carbon copy of a 1967 camaro, or a 1966/68 gto.
The regulations and safety b/s will not allow it.
G.m. needs to design 1 top notch small economy car. that the drivetrain will go 100k without much of anything and last 200k or more.
without the rest of the car falling apart. When the next fuel price spike happens no one will be buying crew cab trucks or big suv's.
Looking at g.m.s model line up. they again are repeating history with too many models all fighting for the same buyer pool.
How many dam crossover, small suv's does one company need to make?
But when g.m. is solidly in the red again, it won't be the brass that gets blamed it be the line workers.
Last edited by Grayghost; Jun 12, 2021 at 06:42 AM.
Will do Rick we go there every few weeks we will be at Kil-Kare next weekend 3 day race my son is in Columbus at national trails this weekend I’m not at that race things going on
