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
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by Chrome383Z
I don't think they should abandone HO V8's either, but again: BASE MODEL.
With DoD in a V6 you could have insane gas mileage and still enough power.
With DoD in a V6 you could have insane gas mileage and still enough power.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy. Right sized engines give better fuel economy. You are going to need probally something with about 280-300 lbs/ft of torque to effectively move that much weight efficiently.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
Last edited by guionM; Jun 2, 2005 at 12:37 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 188
From: Tampa, FL
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by guionM
We are talking about a HUMMER, not the base engine in a budget Chevy 4X4.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
To think I was so excited about the news of the H3 last year because I was tempted to trade-in my Grand Cherokee for that, and then finding out it only has an underwhelming engine to push it along.
most of my driving here is not open-space highway at constant 70mph, but a fair bit of stop-go and slowdown-accelerate traffic. An underpowered engine with low TQ would require you to step on the pedal more heavily to get the thing going with the flow of traffic,
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!
Originally Posted by guionM
We are talking about a HUMMER, not the base engine in a budget Chevy 4X4.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy. Right sized engines give better fuel economy. You are going to need probally something with about 280-300 lbs/ft of torque to effectively move that much weight efficiently.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy. Right sized engines give better fuel economy. You are going to need probally something with about 280-300 lbs/ft of torque to effectively move that much weight efficiently.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,043
From: Shelbyville, IN
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by guionM
We are talking about a HUMMER, not the base engine in a budget Chevy 4X4.
(Granted this is all theoretical because Chevy doesn't have a DoD V6, but probably could fairly easily.)
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by gab
it's true you "got to plan ahead when makng passes in any vehicle" but for the price I'm paying for the H3, I WANT to be able to pass comfortably (think merging with freeway traffic, think trying to pass a very slow vehicle in front and having to accelerate quickly to pass so you dont get in the way of another vehicle coming up on the left). I don't think the high HP (like 260, 325, etc) is necessary but certainly higher TQ would be mandatory, and you don't get the higher TQ from less cylinders and smaller engines. Even though my Grand Cherokee only has 235HP, it has 295ft-lbs of TQ, and I find it quite exhilarating to accelerate from stop and it has plenty of oooommpphh to accelerate at freeway speeds. I don't accelerate to 90mph or more, so higher HP is not as critical for my needs as having higher TQ. I do agree with you that it should compete with what's available, and in that price range, I'm going to be cross-shopping the other SUVs with V8's. Agree too that H3 has nice bold designs that I would go for, but due to the lack of an optional engine providing sufficient TQ, I would not consider trading in my GC for the H3.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by guionM
We are talking about a HUMMER, not the base engine in a budget Chevy 4X4.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy. Right sized engines give better fuel economy. You are going to need probally something with about 280-300 lbs/ft of torque to effectively move that much weight efficiently.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
You put a small underpowered engine in a heavy vehicle, kiss any fuel economy advantage goopd bye, because most of the time you will be in WOT just to get the thing up to speed. This is the thing everyone discovered in the 80s, you can't simply put a weak motor and expect great fuel economy. Right sized engines give better fuel economy. You are going to need probally something with about 280-300 lbs/ft of torque to effectively move that much weight efficiently.
The 5.3 is the engine that is SUPPOSED to be in the H3. Engineers want the engine because it produces the THE SAME FUEL ECONOMY as the I5 in this application.
The ONLY reason the I5 is in the H3 is because some bonehead came to the conclusion that it saves GM money due to the fact they don't have to do assembly line modifications as far as powertrain instalment or testing. This person/persons convinced those who make these kind of decisions (based on the OLD GM mentality), and decides that "Later" if customers demand it, then they can go back and make the case for it.
That's the story.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 627
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by 94_Z28_ragtop
I'm sure they wouldn't figure it out. It's too similar to the word "Incentive" and they already have that one covered! 
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by falchulk
I really think you are overdoing it here. The combo is a great base for the h3. You are into one kind of performance when this truck is geared towards another.
This engine makes 290 lbs/ft of torque for a 4232 lb vehicle.
Chevy Tahoe has a 5.3 V8.
It's 400 pounds heavier than a H3, and has 295 lbs/ft of torque.
The H3 has a 5 cylinder engine (one more than a 4).
It has a mere 225 lbs/ft of torque pulling 4770 lbs.
This engine isn't exactly a performance engine in a 4000 pound Colorado, especially with 4 wheel drive.
We AREN'T talking performance here, and it's not me blowing things out of proportion. We are talking a vehicle that's a slug by writers who have driven other SUVs.
Judging by every automotive writer's report so far, they all say the exact same thing.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Actually, the base engine in the Grand Cherokee is the 3.7L V6 from the Liberty. It has almost the exact same output as the 3.5L I5 in the Hummer.
I think the performance of the two will be comparable. The V6 Grand Cherokee doesn't offer much, if any, of a fuel economy advantage over the H3 either, IIRC.
Again, I agree that the H3 should get a small block option to go against the 'hemi' and crush the stronger engines in the XTerra and 4Runner, for example.
I think the performance of the two will be comparable. The V6 Grand Cherokee doesn't offer much, if any, of a fuel economy advantage over the H3 either, IIRC.
Again, I agree that the H3 should get a small block option to go against the 'hemi' and crush the stronger engines in the XTerra and 4Runner, for example.
Last edited by 96_Camaro_B4C; Jun 2, 2005 at 03:09 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by guionM
The base engine in a Jeep Cherokee is a 4.7 V8.
This engine makes 290 lbs/ft of torque for a 4232 lb vehicle.
Chevy Tahoe has a 5.3 V8.
It's 400 pounds heavier than a H3, and has 295 lbs/ft of torque.
The H3 has a 5 cylinder engine (one more than a 4).
It has a mere 225 lbs/ft of torque pulling 4770 lbs.
This engine isn't exactly a performance engine in a 4000 pound Colorado, especially with 4 wheel drive.
We AREN'T talking performance here, and it's not me blowing things out of proportion. We are talking a vehicle that's a slug by writers who have driven other SUVs.
Judging by every automotive writer's report so far, they all say the exact same thing.
This engine makes 290 lbs/ft of torque for a 4232 lb vehicle.
Chevy Tahoe has a 5.3 V8.
It's 400 pounds heavier than a H3, and has 295 lbs/ft of torque.
The H3 has a 5 cylinder engine (one more than a 4).
It has a mere 225 lbs/ft of torque pulling 4770 lbs.
This engine isn't exactly a performance engine in a 4000 pound Colorado, especially with 4 wheel drive.
We AREN'T talking performance here, and it's not me blowing things out of proportion. We are talking a vehicle that's a slug by writers who have driven other SUVs.
Judging by every automotive writer's report so far, they all say the exact same thing.
The H3 is more on the level of a regular cherokee, not the Grand Cherokee. That spot is filled by the liberty now but the ideat to me more suits the non existant cherokee. It costs a little more then the Liberty but its a up market brand. You are looking for too much out of this product. It fits the niche that they aimed for perfectly.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 188
From: Tampa, FL
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by falchulk
The H3 is more on the level of a regular cherokee, not the Grand Cherokee. That spot is filled by the liberty now but the ideat to me more suits the non existant cherokee. It costs a little more then the Liberty but its a up market brand. You are looking for too much out of this product. It fits the niche that they aimed for perfectly.
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2005/vmd11580sp.html
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2005/vmd12096sp.html
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2006/vmd13024sp.html
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2006/vmd11516sp.html
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2006/vmd2942sp.html
http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/2005/vmd11304sp.html
At the end of the day, the H3 will alienate a sector of the market that wants more TQ for their ride.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
One thing GM doesnt understand is that a few dollars saved in production cost dont mean anything when sales are lost because of it.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
Originally Posted by falchulk
The H3 is more on the level of a regular cherokee, not the Grand Cherokee. That spot is filled by the liberty now but the ideat to me more suits the non existant cherokee. It costs a little more then the Liberty but its a up market brand. You are looking for too much out of this product. It fits the niche that they aimed for perfectly.
HUMMER is a high end off-road brand. Any division who's vehicles cost from 40+ large, all the way up to over 100 grand isn't the same brand that would attract Jeepsters.
Because HUMMER is a high end brand, charging high end prices (the H3 isn't starting at the same price as a entry level Cherokee), it's going to be measured by a different yardstick than a $20,000 Jeep.
If we were talking about a heavy duty Chevrolet with a low base price, I'd probally sit down and shut myself up by now. But I believe this is another instance of a good product being lost in translation. A great idea comes up, engineers do up what they think the vehicle should be, and somewhere between there and production, it gets neutered.
I haven't heard anything about someone cutting corners on material quality or assembly short cuts just yet, so maybe I should be happy for small miracles.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,306
From: Jersey Shore
Re: The old GM comes through & screws up a perfectly good vehicle...yet again!
I find no problem with teh H3's I-5. Its not overpowreing, but an H1 and H2 are not overpowering either. I would like to see teh 5.3 V8 as an option, but leave the I-5 as a base for people who want he gas sipper, but monster car. Dont have to make the 5.3 an Alpha model, just an optional engine.
I dont see how GM couldnt have made a business case for this, and thats why I dont think that GM wanted to save some money. They could have set up 355 for a 5.3 and have a special GMC, Chevy and Hummer models, and they would made some decent change off that. I dont see how they COULDNT make a business case. I hope that they werent that near sighted and couldnt see that.
I dont see how GM couldnt have made a business case for this, and thats why I dont think that GM wanted to save some money. They could have set up 355 for a 5.3 and have a special GMC, Chevy and Hummer models, and they would made some decent change off that. I dont see how they COULDNT make a business case. I hope that they werent that near sighted and couldnt see that.
