GM with Honda engines and trannys

[hiwayman17]

GM cuts back purchase plan for Honda V6 engines

August 27, 2002





BY ALAN OHNSMAN
BLOOMBERG




Detroit -- General Motors Corp. said it reduced an expected purchase of Honda Motor Co. low-pollution V6 engines and transmissions by almost half because of changes in vehicle plans since reaching an agreement in 1999.

The world's largest automaker expects to buy 50,000 of the engines and transmissions annually in the next five years, down from as many as 90,000 initially planned, said spokeswoman Sherrie Childers-Arb of General Motors' Saturn division. The engines, which meet California's "ultra-low emission" standards, will be used in Saturn Vue sport-utilities starting with 2004 models.

"At the time of the agreement we indicated that 90,000 was a maximum number," Childers-Arb said. "We've firmed up our product plans since this was arranged in 1999."

Neither company provided a value of the agreement. Honda, the world's largest engine maker and Japan's second-biggest automaker, will supply the parts from an Anna, Ohio, plant. Honda last month said it would expand the factory's annual capacity by next year to 1.16 million engines from 1.04 million to meet growing U.S. demand for its cars and light trucks and to supply General Motors.

The engines will help Detroit-based General Motors meet California rules that require automakers to sell vehicles that emit less exhaust pollution. Tokyo-based Honda will supply a total of 250,000 engines and transmissions over the life of the agreement, Childers-Arb said.

"We'll supply whatever number they need," Honda spokesman Ron Lietzke said.

The Nihon Keizai newspaper yesterday reported General Motors' plan to buy fewer Honda engines.

General Motors shares rose $1.48 to $49.40 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 4:16 p.m. Honda's American depositary receipts, which each represent half of an ordinary share, gained 38 cents to $21.98.

[warrmax]

I remember hearing about this. It was hard for me to believe that GM could actually have some decent NEW drivetrains. This is PROOF positive that GM's drivetrain technology is waaayyy behind. (General Motors: We will take Motors from Generally anyone!)

[Slack00]

Whatever.

Yeah, Honda makes a great V8 engine, too; GM should probably buy one of those. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Oh wait!...Honda hasn't ever even made a mass-production V8?... http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/blush.gif ....Hmmm

Hold up, here's some more news: The Chevy 350 V8 is one of the world's best V8 engines, ever! Wow! It gets 350 and 5.7L, yet it meets LEV standards??...AND it gets 20/30 mpg city/hwy?? All for a reasonable production price??? Amazing. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/ooo.gif

Oh, and what's this: The GM 3800 V6 is one of the most fuel efficient V6es, ever? Wow. And its so torquey, too! That raced that engine? How do they do all that? http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/ooo.gif

Oh, lest we forget, there's the new 270hp I6, as strong as many manufacturer's V8's, and smooth as a BMW, to boot?? Wow, that's pretty cool, too... http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif

Yup, there's more...GM is working on the displacement-on-demand idea, which turns off cylinders when you don't use them?? If that's not ten times as more technologically advanced than the overhyped cam profile in a VTEC engine, then I don't know what is! http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/ooo.gif

C'mon people...stop talking out of your corn-holes!

[hiwayman17]

Maybe you need to work for GM...because GM obviously sees the need to buy Honda engines and trannys and to sell Pontiac versions of Toyotas.

[jaje]

the corporate 3800 pushrod v6 best in mpg?...where is your source for these claims?

a gm engine as smooth as a bmw...where is your source for that?...and as powerful as a modern v8...remember its a fairly large displacement 4.2 liter inline 6 that makes 270hp

displacement on demand...it was used before in the 60's or 70's...it did not work well and was dropped

maybe you should take your own advice..."C'mon people...stop talking out of your corn-holes!"

[joeB]

Slack is right about what he wrote, about GM engines being
good, and for the 3800 getting good gas mileage, it does,
though its not very smooth, but it does have alot off good
points like he mentioned. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[joeB]

BTW, What is the best mpg V-6 made today?

[Ko_leos]

That depends on what type of car (obviously can't compare an SUV to a sedan) and market (some markets sell 2.0 V6's, and different emission standards can have large impacts on mpg) you are talking about. Honda's generally rule on MPG and emissions, especially aggregates of fleet. The best I've seen for sedans in the US is 32mpg from say an Impala.

[kazi]

Non-supercharged variant of the 3800 gets 19/29mpg in the Regal LS and 20/30mpg in the Pontiac Grand Prix SE/GT. Good mpg, but I wouldn't call these OHV engines refined. But that's not the best mpg in a V6. The Mercury Cougar 5spd is rated at 21/30mpg, and sometime in October when the new 2003 Accords comes out, the V6 is projected at 21/30mpg in the V6.

[joeB]

What I meant to ask was about 4 door sedans in the mpg
field. Only thing I was trying to say is that the GM
V-6 is mostly reliable, long lasting, and has good torque,
and had good gas mileage for an old engine. I would never
try to compare them to any BMW, Nissan , Honda , Toyota
engines as far as refinement and smoothness though. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif

[Ko_leos]

Like I said, the Impala 3400 v6 does 21/32

[FanaticZ]

thats an interesting argument considering in exchange for those ulev engines, honda was to recieve diesel engines from isuzu, a gm group company. should we start busting on honda now for not designing their on diesel engines in house? it doesn't make sense to try and sqeeze a ton of development cost into short term ulev engines just to meet meet some new regulation in california.

gm has two more engines coming out shortly based off the 4200 i-6==3500 i-5 215hp and a 2800 i-4 170hp.

[NissanSpeed]

Engines does get gas mileage, cars do. Gearing, weight, the driver, draq, engine, and octane all affect mileage.

[kazi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small[/img]In reply to:</font><hr />
should we start busting on honda now for not designing their on diesel engines in house?

[/QUOTE]

Of course not. Honda is making a smarter move than GM. Honda is using a GM to fill a slot (diesel engines) for which it doesn't have anything to fit, yet. GM, on the other hand, has plenty of V6 available in its portfolio that it could've use. The VUE already has a v6 engine. To add insult, Saturn was originally suppose to compete with Honda (Toyota and Nissan too), and to use a Honda engine is a big slap on the face for Saturn fanatics. See it for yourself at www.saturnfans.com/forums (http://www.saturnfans.com/forums) .

[FanaticZ]

i think the deal had to do with meeting a quota. each manuafacturer has to produce a certain number of cars by a certain time with ulev engines (which i don't think gm has) or there would be fines imposed or some sort of punishment.

[Slowmotion]

From business stand point this is make a lot of sense. I am sure that if GM want to build low emission engine they can. But they have to use a lot of engineer and money to make it happen. Why spend $20 on ingredient and couple hours to make a dozen of cookie when you can buy it for $10 at the store.

[Slack00]

Jaje:
Not speaking out of corn-hole....

Since you didn't dispute the LS1, no argument there.

GM V6es:
First v6 to meet ULEV requirements, great gas mileage, too.
www.gm.com/cgi-bin/pr_display.pl?728 (http://www.gm.com/cgi-bin/pr_display.pl?728)

"The widely acclaimed 3800 Series II V6 engine has a long tradition of delivering great performance and fuel economy, and with the improvements for 2000, is an excellent example of our aggressive efforts to reduce emissions and meet California's ULEV requirements," Mueller said.

(Which begs the question...if it meets ULEV, then why are they buying the Honda V6es? I had originally heard that the idea was to trade Honda's excellent four cylinder models for GM V8s....and I thought that was a great idea....this new one of putting Honda V6es into the VUE makes me go http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif )

JoeB, thanks for backing me up. Yes, the V6 is an oldie, but still a goodie. Yes, I agree that its not the refined engine found in a Honda (and thats what sells nowadays)....

Vortec series of engines:
www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/about/index.htm (http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/about/index.htm)

4200 I6 smoothness and power:
www.gm.com/cgi-bin/pr_display.pl?1547 (http://www.gm.com/cgi-bin/pr_display.pl?1547)

"The inherent balance that comes from the Vortec 4200's design allows for a powerful yet refined, smooth and quiet driving experience," said Ron Kociba, GM Powertrain chief engineer for the Vortec 4200 I6 engine. "We have not compromised on this engine. Not only is it the quietest and most powerful engine in its segment, but it also provides V8-benchmarked acceleration and towing capacity."

Vortec 4200 makes Ward Auto World's 2002 10 Best Engines list:
waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_wards_ten_best/index.htm (http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_wards_ten_best/index.htm)

"Good" when describing the 2002 Vortec 4200 is a bit of an understatement. "Creamy"; said one Ward's tester. "Smooth like rabbit fur on the inside of your winter glove"; is appropriate, too.

...also:

Never mind, then, that the Vortec's 270 hp pretty much whips any V-8 truck engine you'd care to name. The abundant power and torque spilling from this excellent design is readily evident, as the Vortec pulls GM's somewhat portly new midsize SUVs with genuine gusto.

Displacement on Demand:
www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/gm_and_the_env/releases/displacement_052101.html (http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/gm_and_the_env/releases/displacement_052101.html)

That's right, 8-25% better fuel economy(!). http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/blush.gif

Right now, GM leads the industry in truck fuel economy

...interesting.... http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif

Twenty years ago, the electronic/computer technology was not developed enough to handle this complex system...today they are:

Displacement on Demand marks a dramatic evolution in this engine technology GM pioneered 20 years ago. In 1981, GM implemented a cylinder deactivation technology that was limited by a cable throttle, mechanically controlled transmission and a fraction of the computer power currently available.

Today's engine computer is a 32-bit machine (versus 8 bit) that has an internal clock that is roughly 25 times faster, 50 times the computing power and 100 times the memory of the 1981 controller. Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) and electronically controlled transmissions are now available, all proven technologies that allow seamless Displacement-on-Demand operation. Together, these devices permit precise engine torque control at all times and more accurate information used by the transmission for shift-point selection and actuator control settings.

Also note in the article some inherent advantages of OHV design, especially in conjunction with Displacement on Demand.

Any more questions?

[Nismo]

As of 2002, GM has no SULEV engines and three ULEV engines: 2.2L I4, 3.8-4.3L OHV V6, and a 5.3L OHV V8. The problem for GM is their ULEV-rated engines are inferior in most respects to the competition, thus the Honda deal. GM wants a better, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and less polluting engine for some upcoming vehicles and, at least for the moment, it's cheaper to buy them from Honda than to try and engineer them in house. Personally, I think this makes a stronger statement about GM's business strategy than its engineering ability--they do not like to spend money on new technology until the old stuff runs out of buyers.

[Nismo]

Slack,
Last I checked, GM's Vortec 4200 is only rated LEV, not ULEV.

[Slack00]

Yeah, I figured they had other good reasons to do the deal (or else they wouldn't be doing it, right?). The Vortec article talked about the engine being the most extensivley tested GM engine ever....which makes me think they weren't exactly ready to shell out for the same kinda money for an equivalent V6...

I never said the Vortec 4200 I6 was ULEV.....that was the 3800 V6.

[jaje]

inline 6:
you mentioned the 4.2 inline 6 is as smooth as a bmw inline 6 (none of the sources show a comparison to such...in fact i think the sources there compare it to the engine it replaces)...i've driven several m3s and other bimmers over the years...i'll have to take a ride in one of the gm 4.2 liters

dod:
i know displacement on demand is now a much more viable option...it didn't know that ohv has an advantage with such...probably b/c less moving parts and a single camshaft

ohv v6 designs:
as for highway miles the 3800/3400 v6 engines aren't bad at 29/32 mpg...but in city theyget 19-21 mpg respectively which is on par with the competition...the problem is power that they don't make b/c of the displacement

the 2003 accord comes with a 2.4 liter 160hp that gets 24/33 mpg (auto...manual gets 26/34) with similar power as the 3400v6 along with ulev or the even better sulev emissions...the revised accord 3.0 will have 240hp and get 21/30 with ulev emissions

it's like gm undertunes their engines to make gas mileage or meet emissions...i find the goal of also increase specific output while making increases in gas mileage and reductions in emissions to be a better strategy (takes less material to make the smaller more efficient engine)

btw...good job on the sources...i didn't want to look them all up...there are a lot of people who post just out of straight opinion and have no sources for their statements

[Slack00]

jaje:

OK OK, the BMW comparison was all mine...it was a qualitative statement that I made, not that any reviewers made.... So I guess I was speaking out of my corn-hole on that one. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

DOD:
Yes, the OHV arrangement offers some advantages in simplicity, but not so much because of a single camshaft; its because they have only two valves per cylinder (reducing the number of solenoids needed) and because OH cams do not provide the room for said solenoids.

I also personally owned GMs renowned V6 engine in a full size, 1989 Buick LeSabre. I was getting 25-32 mpg (real world, not some manufacturer's estimate!). After 208k miles, it was still running like a champ before it got impounded by the Arlington police for unregistered tags...(grr....) I had another car and it really wasn't worth the trouble of inspection, registration, taxes, and the impound and court fees, so I let the tow company have it...

I'll have to find it, but there was a Car and Driver (?) editorial about the writer purchasing the same car (well, I think it was an Oldsmobile) as a winter vehicle and being very very surprised that it got such good gas mileage....A lot of readers poured mail in...about half of it said, "that's impossible!" and the other half said "me too." I think it was in this article where I read a selected letter that said the GM V6 was designed for fuel economy and torque (for its day...which actually started sometime after the gas crunch....).

I understand exactly what you mean by GM "undertuning" their engines....but there are more dynamics in play than you might think. True, Honda (and other imports) have taken one direction, domestics, another. But this is not based upon marketing so much as it was government regulation. Remember, in their home markets, Asian consumers are taxed on engine size (heavily, I might add). Perhaps this is a significant reason why they try to squeeze their small engines for every bit of power....The only other alternative is to slap on some rediculously sized turbos.

In America, however, there is no regulation on displacement. That offers a huge power and driveability advantage, because (iirc) torque is largely a function of displacement. And it has been said that Americans "buy horespower but drive on torque." But, environmental issues are becoming a regular pressure. So, the logical approach is to build big engines with a lot of torque and reduce specific output to increase gas mileage and lower emissions. This is why many engine tuners still prefer GM products: all they do is uncork the engine. Witness monstrous beasts such as the Hennessey Vipers and Lingenfelter Corvettes and such. And those are just the professional engine tuner companies.

Another factor that domestic engine designers have concentrated on (in the past, at least) is dependablity. Complexity adds cost and reduces reliability. Hence, OHV and "simple" designs. Although Japanese manufacturers also build a dependable engine, engine life is not their major concern: again, in Japan, I know that they have strict regulation on engine age...thats why there is a plentiful supply of perfectly good used engines over there, iirc. This is yet another factor that allows the Japanese manufacturers to max out their engines. Of course, now they get around it by making engines specifically for the American market, so these rules apply only for engines that are also sold in Japan. But, from an economics standpoint, it's still not worth the development costs of a huge engine unless it can be used in a large number of applications. Hence, Honda's reluctance to build a V8.

[FanaticZ]

you're right, the 2003 california regulation had to do with zev engines. could have sworn i read gm was buying engines for emissions, anyways i was looking for the reason why gm would want honda engines when they DO have ulev engines and it came down to honda being the largest manufacturer of engines and gm wanting to buy engines.

http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/motorcitymusings/43053/article.html

Unlike General Motors Corporation and nearly every other automaker, Honda Motor Company takes its middle name very seriously. So much so that the company doesn't really care what the motor is supposed to go into. A car? Sure. A motorcycle? Easy money. A lawnmower? Done. A generator? No problem.

If it runs on gas, Honda can make it.

And that's where the payoff is for Honda. It has concentrated its expertise on gasoline-powered engines. But if it wants to grow its sales in Europe -- and it does -- it needs to offer buyers diesel power. Rather than go through the time and turmoil of learning how to do diesels, Honda is going to get them from a GM affiliate -- Isuzu.

So that settles that. Honda gets the diesels it needs for Europe. GM gets the gasoline engines it needs at a cost it can afford. And the debate over which is better, a torquer (pushrod) or a twister (overhead-cam) engine, is finally laid to rest. Right?

Well, not really. GM instigated that debate as a way of making the public believe it was getting its money's worth from older-design GM's pushrod engines. All the while, General Motors was investigating various ways of economically making overhead-cam engines to compete with the rest of the world.

In the end, GM decided the best way was to let somebody else do it.

And why not? The bottom line is, General Motors is not in the business of making motors. It's in the business of making money.

[kazi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small[/img]In reply to:</font><hr />
And why not? The bottom line is, General Motors is not in the business of making motors. It's in the business of making money.

[/QUOTE]

If I was representing GM, I would be embarassed. All business is out to make money. But that statement just says, Honda excels at making motors, while GM excels at finding the cheapest method and selling it for as much as they can. http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/blush.gif

[Irie_eyes]

"a gm engine as smooth as a bmw...where is your source for that?...and as powerful as a modern v8...remember its a fairly large displacement 4.2 liter inline 6 that makes 270hp"

"But the real story here is just how GM got the new Vortec 4200 to actually outmuscle and outperform V8 engines of larger displacement. The answer rests firmly in technology, as GM engineers employed all the latest know-how to come up with a six that delivers the power and capability of a V8 with the smoothness and fuel-efficiency of an I-6. "
"From a pure competition standpoint, GM's Vortec 4200 inline six has already proven itself a winner. In its first three sanctioned off-road races, the race version of this engine topped all V8 competitors to capture first place at the SCORE 500 in Baja, Mexico, the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb in Colorado, and the Best in the Desert Nevada 2000 Race. "
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/44833/article.html

[Irie_eyes]

I can stay that NO ONE can build a 2-valve, cam-in-block, push-rod engine like GM can.
They do not necessarily use technology on the engine, they use technology to build and design engines.
The Vortec 4200 is a good example of what happens when they use technology on the engine.

[Irie_eyes]

GM's Hydra-Matic Transmission 4L40-E (M90) / 5L40-E (M82) is used in certain BMW 3 and 5 series.