The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
...Hummer marketing director Mark Hernandez said acceleration is not crucial for most SUV buyers...
...A growing chorus of critics say the midsized H3 is handicapped by an underpowered engine and is painfully slow when merging onto a freeway or passing...
..."To pass anyone you have to floor it," said John McElroy, host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit,"...
..."Moving it is a lot to ask of a 3.5-liter twin-cam motor that makes just 220 horsepower and 225 lb.-ft. of torque," wrote AutoWeek critic Andrew Luu. ...
GM assembles the H3 at a plant in Shreveport, La., alongside the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsize pickup trucks. All three models are powered by the same inline five-cylinder engine. But the H3, at 4,700 pounds, is about 700 pounds heavier than the pickups...
...Mark Williams, the editor of Motor Trend's Truck Trend magazine, said the H3 is sluggish on the highway but performed quite well on California's treacherous Rubicon Trail...
...Hernandez says GM is prepared to pack more power in the H3, if consumers demand it.
"We found very quickly we could have put an F-14 jet engine in it and somebody would still say you're a little slow on power," Hernandez said....
...A growing chorus of critics say the midsized H3 is handicapped by an underpowered engine and is painfully slow when merging onto a freeway or passing...
..."To pass anyone you have to floor it," said John McElroy, host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit,"...
..."Moving it is a lot to ask of a 3.5-liter twin-cam motor that makes just 220 horsepower and 225 lb.-ft. of torque," wrote AutoWeek critic Andrew Luu. ...
GM assembles the H3 at a plant in Shreveport, La., alongside the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsize pickup trucks. All three models are powered by the same inline five-cylinder engine. But the H3, at 4,700 pounds, is about 700 pounds heavier than the pickups...
...Mark Williams, the editor of Motor Trend's Truck Trend magazine, said the H3 is sluggish on the highway but performed quite well on California's treacherous Rubicon Trail...
...Hernandez says GM is prepared to pack more power in the H3, if consumers demand it.
"We found very quickly we could have put an F-14 jet engine in it and somebody would still say you're a little slow on power," Hernandez said....
"GM engineers would have preferred to give the H3 a more powerful engine, but in order to make the business case to build the vehicle alongside the Canyon and Colorado it was more cost-effective for the same engine to be installed in all three vehicles."
Instead of making a vehicle that performs well out the box, GM felt the need to save a few bucks, and end up getting slammed in the press for an incredibly dumb move, with the prospect of "maybe" fixing the problem in the future!
Word that's going to get out is that the H3's a slug. People are going to test drive the thing, and find out it's a slug. The thing weighs 4700 bloody pounds! But is moved by 220 horses and 225 lbs ft of torque. I'm sure people at GM are aware that people want something that can move into traffic with ease.
Once again, GM's engineers who actually know what the hell they're doing get over ruled by morons who don't.
Needless to say, I think someone should be canned for this. This is simply assinaine, if true!
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-200229.htm
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Root cause:
The Voice of the Customer does not get translated into action.
Solution:
Engineers need to be assigned to the marketing groups to attack these issues before they happen, fight marketing's corner against the bean-counters and other engineers, and finally to ensure that the correct things are compromised (should compromise truly be necessary) in pursuit of the requirements.
This is the very same root cause that results in poor fit and finish in a brand-new Corvette's interior, that results in a Cobalt SS not having a decided power advantage over the SRT-4 Neon, that got us a glass-jaw 10 bolt instead of the more appropriate G-body 10-bolt or a 12-bolt.
The lesson has not be learned.
It will not be learned until the organization enables itself to do so through the internal training of superior engineers and the cutting of red tape and nonsense in the development and improvement process through accenting the Voice of the Customer in clearer and more direct terms.
The Voice of the Customer does not get translated into action.
Solution:
Engineers need to be assigned to the marketing groups to attack these issues before they happen, fight marketing's corner against the bean-counters and other engineers, and finally to ensure that the correct things are compromised (should compromise truly be necessary) in pursuit of the requirements.
This is the very same root cause that results in poor fit and finish in a brand-new Corvette's interior, that results in a Cobalt SS not having a decided power advantage over the SRT-4 Neon, that got us a glass-jaw 10 bolt instead of the more appropriate G-body 10-bolt or a 12-bolt.
The lesson has not be learned.
It will not be learned until the organization enables itself to do so through the internal training of superior engineers and the cutting of red tape and nonsense in the development and improvement process through accenting the Voice of the Customer in clearer and more direct terms.
Last edited by PacerX; Jun 1, 2005 at 11:44 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Remember last week or the week before the story behind the Colorado development? This is directly linked to it.
Recap in a nut shell:
To save money or the relationship, GM had Izuzu develop the Colorado chassis. GM engineers wanted the I-6, Izuzu designed it for the I-5 and still gave it to GM with a butt load of problems. Thus the I-6 won't fit in the Colorado let alone the H3
I think on status alone any Hummer should have the best powerplant available. I think the Colorado should get the I-6 to compete with the 250-260 hp V6s in it's class.
But noooooo, second rate is fine with us
Recap in a nut shell:
To save money or the relationship, GM had Izuzu develop the Colorado chassis. GM engineers wanted the I-6, Izuzu designed it for the I-5 and still gave it to GM with a butt load of problems. Thus the I-6 won't fit in the Colorado let alone the H3
I think on status alone any Hummer should have the best powerplant available. I think the Colorado should get the I-6 to compete with the 250-260 hp V6s in it's class.
But noooooo, second rate is fine with us
Disciple
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Canadian Driver concurs ...
IMO the I6 and I5 are less than ideal anyway from a packaging perspective. Isn't there lots of room in between the fenders for V's? Instead they push the drivetrain into the passenger compartment?
Seems to me the H3 is screaming for a DOD aluminum 5.3.
IMO the I6 and I5 are less than ideal anyway from a packaging perspective. Isn't there lots of room in between the fenders for V's? Instead they push the drivetrain into the passenger compartment?
Seems to me the H3 is screaming for a DOD aluminum 5.3.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Unrelated, but did anyone catch the amazing Lienert couple's review of the CTS-V in the same edition of the Detroit News today? I'm shocked by the stupidity....complete with Anita sitting in her beauty shop, having her hair done while trashing the V. I am not joking.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Looks like the majority of thier gripe was from the interior..
I still hate those two though.. You just have to remember, that their reviews have VERY strong personal bias. IOW, I don't like their taste in cars either.
I still hate those two though.. You just have to remember, that their reviews have VERY strong personal bias. IOW, I don't like their taste in cars either.
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
Unrelated, but did anyone catch the amazing Lienert couple's review of the CTS-V in the same edition of the Detroit News today? I'm shocked by the stupidity....complete with Anita sitting in her beauty shop, having her hair done while trashing the V. I am not joking.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
The 3.5L 220hp/225tq engine is fine for a 3300lbs.-4000lbs. Colorado, but is a little light for a 4700lbs. rig. I doubt the H3 with the I5 is a slug (compared to other SUVs), thanks mostly to the 4.56 gearing. (I hear H3 is faster than H2)
The I6 would have been nice for both trucks but would have really been nice is a 285HP 4.8L V8 standard in the H3 and optional in the Colorado.
The I6 would have been nice for both trucks but would have really been nice is a 285HP 4.8L V8 standard in the H3 and optional in the Colorado.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 411
From: Harrisburg, NC/Jacksonville, FL
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
People bashed the H1 for getting awful gas mileage and criticized it for not being practical at all.
So GM makes a smaller Hummer and puts a smaller engine in it that gets much better gas mileage and is a lot more practical and it gets criticized by the press too.
So basically nothing GM does can please the media. But i do agree they could have put a more powerful engine in there, but its still a nice SUV.
So GM makes a smaller Hummer and puts a smaller engine in it that gets much better gas mileage and is a lot more practical and it gets criticized by the press too.
So basically nothing GM does can please the media. But i do agree they could have put a more powerful engine in there, but its still a nice SUV.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,531
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Well, they can always put in an optional engine, though I suppose that would be pricey. Someone over at gminsidenews was saying that at least one other engine was planned for this truck.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,022
From: Newhall, CA USA
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
V8, V8, V8. It should have a 300 HP 5.3 V8. Period.
What do you want to bet it's smaller and lighter than the I-5?
What do you want to bet it's CHEAPER than the DOHC I-5?
What do you want to bet it would get better mileage?
What do you want to bet it's smaller and lighter than the I-5?
What do you want to bet it's CHEAPER than the DOHC I-5?
What do you want to bet it would get better mileage?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,276
From: Chattanoga & Franklin
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
I do not understand why they couldn't get things right the first time instead of saying, "maybe we'll fix it later"
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by centric
V8, V8, V8. It should have a 300 HP 5.3 V8. Period.
The 3.5L I-5 is barely good enough in the 3300lb colorado/canyon let alone the 4700lb H3.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
I think we will see the 5.3 rushed into the H3 using the moniker Alpha.
