GM to invest $890M in engines, save jobs

[sabra]

Source: MSNBC/AP

Effort aims to make V-8 engines more fuel efficient

DETROIT - General Motors Co. will invest $890 million at five factories to make its V-8 engines more fuel efficient, preserving or creating roughly 1,600 jobs.

The automaker planned to announce the investments Tuesday at factories in Tonawanda, N.Y.; St. Catherines, Ontario; Bay City, Mich.; Bedford, Ind.; and Defiance, Ohio.

The spending, which has been in the works for a long time, will help GM meet government fuel economy standards that become fully effective in 2016.

Spokesman Tom Wilkinson said the investments will help the company boost the fuel efficiency of its pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and high-performance cars. The new engines will have aluminum blocks, which are up to 100 pounds lighter than the current cast-iron ones on some GM V-8s, and more efficient technology that injects fuel directly into the combustion chambers.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36798818/ns/business-autos/

[ejpoeta]

1. yep heard about 700 jobs here in tonawanda. awesome!

[proudohioan]

2. Great news for Ohio! nt

[Demeter]

3. Doing Well (saving own ass) by Doing Good by Americans

about time, idiots!

[madmom]

4. So, my little town isn't going to dry up and blow away! Yay Defiance!

[Jdub4abluenc]

5. I don't get it? An improved V8 - were is the innovation?

GM is going down the same old dead end road they've been going down since the 50's. Trying to get more efficiency from a V8 engine doesn't sound too innovative. Same old recycle GM BS. What happened to hybrids, electrics, solar, hydrogen, ect....

[flamin lib]

7. Ah! not so.

Hybrids and electrics only save on fuel in city driving. My Nissan Sentra gets better mileage on the freeway than a Prius or any other hybrid. By improving the efficiency of all internal combustion engines as much can be done as introducing a host of hybrids and it can be done short term. Long term we will need to switch to electric, probably serial hybrids, because of the 0 rpm torque of electric motors--that's a whole 'nother post.

Ford will introduce a V6 Mustang rated at 300 HP that the EPA has rated at 30 MPG. Okay, if 300 hp can do that what can 200 do? Or 125 in a compact car?

Yeah, all that other stuff is great for the year 2070 (and we'll get there) but meantime using the existing infrastructure with existing technology to maximize efficiency makes sense.

Now, if they just roll "light trucks" into the CAFE standards we'll see a hell of a decrease in fuel usage.

I'll never understand why a full sized V8 powered pickup truck gets the same fuel mileage as a compact 4 cylinder. Makes no sense.

[CRF450]

13. Less power doesn't always mean better fuel mileage.

"Ford will introduce a V6 Mustang rated at 300 HP that the EPA has rated at 30 MPG. Okay, if 300 hp can do that what can 200 do? Or 125 in a compact car?"

If the engines are using the same number of cylinders their would be very little difference. But in many cases, their are v6 engines that get worse fuel mileage compared to a high powered v8. Usually its the high strung v6's like in the Nissan 370z and other cars that use the same motor. They get worse mileage than a Corvette, and those cars have a much more powerful 6.2ltr v8. I always hear of people getting 30mpg HWY out of a Corvette and I believe it. My 01 6 speed Trans Am has a less powerful 5.7 LS1 v8, and it once got 31mpg on a trip to Georgia. The old Dodge Magnum v6's in the Dakota's were bigger gas guzzlers than the 230hp 4.7 Powertech v8 in my 04 Dakota. I get an average of 15-16mpg in the truck, Trans Am gets me 23mpg average.

Cars could get better fuel mileage than they currently do here, but the engines are heavily restricted with restrictive intakes and exhausts to make them quiet, they're also not tuned for absolute best efficiency from the factory.

[CRF450]

12. As far as v8's go, GM makes better engines than anyone else for the most part.

Their are advantages to the OHV pushrod v8 than the "more advanced" OHC or DOHC engines as many people like to think. They are more compact and lightweight, as the same time they can have a bigger displacement while keeping physical size and weight down. Look at the LS7 v8 for instance. It's all aluminum, it displaces 427 cubic inches, it's GM's most powerful naturally asperated engine at 505hp, it is also very efficient. The engine itself is the same exact size as the 5.7 LS1 in my Trans Am WS6, and for its big displacement it's an extremely light weight, sitting at 450lbs. Engines of that size back in the day weighed 200lbs more easily, and most current v8 are still heavier.

[The Second Stone]

6. Who could have guessed after the 1974 oil spike

that it would lead to greater fuel efficiency research and development 36 years later? Shouldn't they have been doing this all along?

[flamin lib]

8. They did improve mileage for awhile, but when oil prices went

back down it got back burnered and the CAFE standard was never updated. In fact mileage actually decreased for awhile.

The oil price spike wasn't really an oil price spike. The shortage was caused when OPEC jacked up the price and Jimmy Carter said, in more polite southern baptist terms, "fuck you" and banned imports from OPEC countries. At the time the US was the largest importer and as such made OPEC back down. That cartel has never been the same since.

Jimmy Carter, the last president with real balls. Whoda' thought . . .

[flamin lib]

9. This is something I know a bit about.

One key to higher fuel mileage is weight of the vehicle. Modern carbon fiber is as strong as steel and can be formed to very complex shapes and makes very sexy looking automobiles. However, the car industry worldwide doesn't know how to mass produce carbon fiber. It does know a lot about stamping steel and has $billions invested in steel stamping equipment. Even if the technology to mass produce the carbon fiber bodies was readily available it would require a huge and crippling investment in new equipment. It's more cost efficient to repair and update existing steel stamping machines than to scrap the all and replace with CF technology. It would be like telling you to burn your house down to upgrade to a grid neutral one. Yeah, in 40 years it would break even but the up-front investment is more than anyone can reasonably make.

Switching from cast iron to aluminum uses the same manufacturing technology and is relatively easy. Something as simple as using high temp plastics for intake manifolds and radiators gets expensive although it saves weight because of the tooling costs.

Another issue is cost of components. Direct port (or cylinder) injection requires one injector for each cylinder. Throttle body injection only needs one big injector regardless of the engine size but it's less efficient. When you build 10 million cars that's a lot of injectors. Because our society has become cost driven instead of value driven every last dime makes a difference to mass producers.

One of the reasons that Europe and Japan stole all our steel business is that WWII destroyed all their steel mills and they had to start over with the newest stuff while the US muddled along with 18th century equipment--too expensive to replace all at once.

Short answer is that it ain't always as easy as it sounds.

[Dappleganger]

11. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this topic.

[Dappleganger]

10. Are they recalling laid-off union workers?

Sure hope so!