GM Quality Control

[SpoiledMan]

As to most of America, you might keep in mind GM still sells more cars in the US than any other maker.

Take out fleet sales and those numbers go way down.

I am surprised you don't care about the range of power engines make. Do you care about peak power ratings? Do you ever evaluate two companies offerings based on that? Think about how the total power affects acceleration, think about how much time you spend in the 0-4000 rpm range in overall driving vs whatever rpm the torque and power peaks are at. Still think it doesn't matter? Hey, if you don't care, that's cool. But if that's the case, I hope to never hear you call any motor with strong power and good economy "low-tech" or inferior or anything like that.

*You* said I didn't care, not me. I still stand by my feelings that if a Viper were a Honda (maintaining the 8 liter motor) it would have 800 HP!!

 

[imported_Aurora40]

*You* said I didn't care, not me. I still stand by my feelings that if a Viper were a Honda (maintaining the 8 liter motor) it would have 800 HP!!

This is more a discussion for a different thread. You feel specific power matters, some people feel power itself is all that matters. What's displacement? It doesn't come from the middle east, it isn't dug out of the ground, and it isn't rare.



If Honda could drag race, the S2000 would make 1500+hp. If you want to talk specific output, nothing beats a Top Fuel motor, and it's not because they have VTEC.



GM set a naturally aspirated gasoline specific output record in the 1980's with a 2.3L Quad 4 that made over 1,200 hp. Does that change your mind about GM? Honda/Acura doesn't make a single production motor with over 300hp. Can't they just scale up one of their 4-bangers? Maybe they don't know how to do displacement, ehh? If you think they do, and just don't care, has it occured to you maybe other companies don't care about doing specific output?



How many S2000 motors would they have to weld together to get to that power level? What about 400hp? Or 500? Think Honda can make a 500hp motor that gets 26mpg on the highway? Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Think it could pass emissions? Those regulations aren't based on displacement, a 1.6L motor has to be under the same emissions threshold as an 8L monster. And I'll tell you, slapping two 4-bangers together won't yield twice the power. It's easier to have higher specific output as you make the actual power level smaller.



You prefer one style or approach of engine design over another, that's cool. To each their own. You won't see me chiming in when people talk about their Mazda or Nissan or Honda 4-cylinder cars, saying how they are sissy motors. But if you think one design or style is superior to another, you'd better have a lot more than just specific output to lean on. You'd better be able to show fuel efficiency benefits, cost benefits, weight benefits, maintenance and repair benefits, and a similar power or at least acceleration level.

 

[SpoiledMan]

So what was the point of the ZR-1? I guess you also don't think the Z06 wouldn't benefit from variable valve technology? I think you're sadly mistaken.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

So what was the point of the ZR-1? I guess you also don't think the Z06 wouldn't benefit from variable valve technology? I think you're sadly mistaken.

Benefit in what way? In raw power, probably. In a performance-per-cost comparo, probably not. The ZR-1 cost the equivalent of $90k in today's dollars. A Z06 costs $65k (without the dealer gouging). Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade the ZR-1. But when you get down to it, the pushrod LS7 makes more sense.



The ZR-1's LT5 motor weighed about 20 pounds more than the base Corvette motor. This was an all aluminum DOHC motor (one physically smaller than my 4.0L Aurora V8) that weighed more than an iron-blocked pushrod motor. Overhead cam heads are big, they are heavy, and they have higher centers of gravity. The all-aluminum LS1, LS6, and LS7, man you can't touch that kind of power for the weight with overhead cams. But at the time, the LT5 made 50% more power than the base Corvette motor. A little weight is no biggie. And GM hit some dead ends with turbos, they tended to have poor economy, though the torque was unreal. At that time, a DOHC architecture with a dual-phase cam system made sense. With the LSx, it doesn't seem to. They had a world-beater with the ZR-1, and they pretty much have that now with the LS7.



Also don't get me wrong, motors like the LT1 and LS1 would probably never exist if it weren't for the development GM did with the LT5. And with a two-phase cam, the LS7 could be even more of a monster. But that adds cost and weight. Say you had the LS6, 405hp, and you wanted more. You could add cam profiles or maybe DOHC to get to 500hp. Or you could pump up the displacement and dry-sump it. Which is cheaper? Which fits in the body? Would the DOHC motor need a bigger, thus heavier, frame? Would the hood ride higher? Would customers rather have a $65k 500hp pushrod 'vette, or an $80k 500hp DOHC 'vette? I don't know, it depends on the person. But I suspect GM made the right move with the pushrods.



GM hit some limits with the L98 as far as power they could make while meeting emissions and fuel regs. Work on the LT5 opened some doors to create the LT1 and eventually all-new LSx architecture. Now who knows what the limit is. I bet it's more than 505hp, though. But when they hit it, they'll have another choice. New design? New cooling/oiling strategy that allows more compression? Better engine controls? Hybrid? DOHC? Variable valves? Turbos? Who knows what direction they will take or what power will look like. Maybe the power wars will end with customers or regulation, maybe not. But whatever happens, I hope they continue to look at all options and pick the one that makes the most sense from power, weight, emissions, economy, whatever, and not just limit themselves to what is perceived as "high-tech". It is the total package that matters.



But I love my LT5. The motor is smooth, strong, and a screamer. 300 lb-ft by 1,000 rpm, and pulls all the way to 7,200. It's a dream. And 500 crank hp is achievable with stock cams, stock valves, and stock bottom ends. They left a lot on the table with the motor. There's certainly something to be said for appeal. I like DOHC motors. I love the way the Aurora and ZR-1 sound and feel. But, they have to be the right solution. Would the Northstar V8 be better in an Impala SS? Probably not, it's much more expensive, especially with the tranny required, is much bigger, and heavier. And it doesn't gain any power over the LS5. Would the LS5 be the right solution in a Deville? Well, it could be, but probably not.



You can design a great pushrod motor, or a poor one, and you can design a great DOHC motor, or a poor one. It's not the architecture, it's how it is executed and what the design goals are.

 

[Tasty]

What Honda cares about is making engines that get good mileage and make decent power. They can let companies like GM and Dodge worry about making the gas eaters, because people in the market for a Honda are not in the market for a 900 litre gas eating Hemi. We're not really comparing apples to apples anymore when we put a 2.3 Litre VTEC next to a GM small block or a Subie boxster. Let's not forget that this thread started about quality control issues. HOWEVER, anyone that says they want a VTEC or Subie boxster engine over a good ol' GM smallblock to take and tweak however they want is just plain crazy. Look how long those engines have been around, they are bulletproof. It's just that they package them inside utter crap like the Malibu and horrible new Impala.

 

[Scottwax]

Your sister, if she could afford one, would not like to own a Viper, Corvette, Cadillac Sport version of Vette, Mustang GT or Cobra, Chryslar's sports coupe or even a 300C SRT?

All of these vehicles are not "clones" or "grocery getters" but very good transportation.

GMs problem (and other domestics) aren't their halo vehicles but the sedans they try to compete with the Accord, Maxima/Altima, Camry and even the new Sonota with.



The Corvette and the new Caddy's are pretty damn fine cars. The Impala is an improvement but still behind the times in styling. The front end looks like the first generation Lexus ES300s.



I hate seeing what GM is putting out with respect to sedans. I've had a 1971 Chevelle, 1974 Camaro Z/28 and a 1977 Olds Cutlass I swapped a 455 into. I used to only consider GMs, Chevys in particular. Then I got married and my (now ex) wife got a Citation, then we got a '79 Sunbird and an '85 Delta 88. I then got a Celica and haven't looked back. The feel of that car compared to the Sunbird (both were '79s) was like day vs night. More miles on the Celica and it felt as tight as could be. Much better manual shifter and noticably better acceleration out of a 2.2 inline 4 vs the Sunbird's 3.8 V6.

 

[SpoiledMan]

Exactly Scott!! The halo cars are in good standing(for exception, see Cadi SLR). It's all the bread and butter cars that leave lots to be desired in terms of styling, perception and design. I'm no fool and would jump on the chance to have a newer Vette but it's plain out of my range for a "toy" and my detailing stuff doesn't fit too well either. The Trailblazer is a good example of taking advantage of modern technology. The engine got smaller, more efficient, smoother and more powerful. Complete redesign from a clean sheet of paper(needs to carry on in the rest of the passenger cars) and it makes use of variable valve timing and OHC. Yeah, it may cost several hundred dollars per car to add the modern tech to the cars but the benefit will show in the long run. Bottom line is if they were doing more things *right* they wouldn't be in the shape that they're in now. You can blame it on health care, retirement or whatever. This didn't start in the last 10-15 years, this started in the late 70's. It wont be turned around with 2 or 3 good or even great cars. They need to offer *true* competitors to what the import makers are offering. Yet, they seem to motor along as if those companies don't exist. They have to stop making "rental" cars and pay attention to what people like and want. The change to the rear of the Accord(yeah still wrong) was a major undertaking as usually the only thing that will change is lights and bumpers. It was done because of consumer complaints(same thing happened with the BMW 7 too) about the styling. GM needs to take notes from that. If you can't see the writing on the wall then you had better start collecting the ones you like because they will become extinct if they don't get it together.



Scott, I had an '80 Celica and it was one of my favorite cars of them all. It was a hand me down from my older sister and was 8 years old when I got it.

 

[SpoiledMan]

GM set a naturally aspirated gasoline specific output record in the 1980's with a 2.3L Quad 4 that made over 1,200 hp. Does that change your mind about GM?

Honda raced one and dominated F1 with it.

Honda/Acura doesn't make a single production motor with over 300hp. Can't they just scale up one of their 4-bangers? Maybe they don't know how to do displacement, ehh?

Honda is a very conservative company that builds conservative cars.

How many S2000 motors would they have to weld together to get to that power level?

And GM's competitor to this car is???

What about 400hp? Or 500? Think Honda can make a 500hp motor that gets 26mpg on the highway? Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

We'll see when the next NSX comes to market.

Think it could pass emissions? Those regulations aren't based on displacement, a 1.6L motor has to be under the same emissions threshold as an 8L monster.

You're kidding right? Honda *is the* greenest manufacturer on the planet.

You won't see me chiming in when people talk about their Mazda or Nissan or Honda 4-cylinder cars, saying how they are sissy motors.

You won't have to, you said it here and they can just reread this thread.

But if you think one design or style is superior to another, you'd better have a lot more than just specific output to lean on. You'd better be able to show fuel efficiency benefits, cost benefits, weight benefits, maintenance and repair benefits, and a similar power or at least acceleration level.

Displacement isn't free either. It takes weight to build a larger motor. If you can take a smaller one and get more power out of it aren't you ahead of the game? Take the Mustang that went from 5 liter pushrod to 4.6 liter OHC and gained power.

 

[jnmttu]

Can I just say, and hopefully Aurora40 will back me up, Oldsmobile was the closest of GM's divisions to getting the sedan market right before they killed it. The cars looked pretty nice both inside and out, the quality was coming up, and they were finally starting to understand what modern buyers want. I would say that given a few more years, if they had continued on the path they were on, they would have been a serious contender. The Alero was a great car in it's price range, the Intrigue was a good competitor in the midsize market, and the Aurora actually had some "cool factor" surrounding it that is sorely lacking in other GM sedans.



Also, they make different kinds of engines for different people. People who like a lot of torque off the line can buy a car with a small-block Chevy of a VW 1.8T for that matter. I like the fact that my car has a great top-end pull, but that is entirely because of where I drive and how I drive. Honda 4-cylinders don't have boatloads of torque down low (big surprise), however if a 4-cylinder is what you want or need, Toyota and Honda have the smoothest and best ones on the market, kinda the same way that the small-block Chevy is one of the best V8's made.

 

[SpoiledMan]

Can I just say, and hopefully Aurora40 will back me up, Oldsmobile was the closest of GM's divisions to getting the sedan market right before they killed it. The cars looked pretty nice both inside and out, the quality was coming up, and they were finally starting to understand what modern buyers want. I would say that given a few more years, if they had continued on the path they were on, they would have been a serious contender. The Alero was a great car in it's price range, the Intrigue was a good competitor in the midsize market, and the Aurora actually had some "cool factor" surrounding it that is sorely lacking in other GM sedans.



Also, they make different kinds of engines for different people. People who like a lot of torque off the line can buy a car with a small-block Chevy of a VW 1.8T for that matter. I like the fact that my car has a great top-end pull, but that is entirely because of where I drive and how I drive. Honda 4-cylinders don't have boatloads of torque down low (big surprise), however if a 4-cylinder is what you want or need, Toyota and Honda have the smoothest and best ones on the market, kinda the same way that the small-block Chevy is one of the best V8's made.

You won't need him to back you up on this. As I stated before, as soon as something is going right it gets axed just like the Imp SS in '96.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

Honda raced one and dominated F1 with it.



They dominated F1 with a Quad 4? I'm not sure I know what you mean. However in recent history, Honda neither built their IRL motors nor their F1 motors. But of course they don't have to meet any requirements a production motor has to meet, so it's fairly irrelevant.



Honda is a very conservative company that builds conservative cars.



Do you think all car companies should do this?



And GM's competitor to this car is???



To the S2000, none right now. The Solstice would be the closest, but is less expensive and less powerful. The Corvette convertible is closer, but is more expensive and much more powerful. An interesting aside is that the S2000 with smaller motor, smaller tires, smaller everything, gets 20/26mpg. The Corvette, with 163 MORE hp, gets 18/28mpg.



We'll see when the next NSX comes to market.

They can't do it with the current NSX. Here's an all-aluminum car that costs a ton and has a small motor. It gets 17/24mpg. Not 26mpg on the highway, and 280hp is a LONG way from 500. And it's an LEV vehicle. So's my Aurora. So's GM's ancient pushrod 3800 V6 with a supercharger.



You're kidding right? Honda *is the* greenest manufacturer on the planet.



Are you kidding? Do you actually not see how if you take two 2.0L 4-bangers and put them together, you'd lose some power, and emissions would double? As I said, there is no scale for displacement. A 4.0L V8 has to be under the same bar as a 2.0L I-4. The bigger the motor, the more you have to control emissions to meet requirements. The "greenest" thing is as much hype as facts in my opinion. They make small motors that are easier to meet emissions requirements with. And only about 2 years back, GM had the most fuel-efficient vehicles in about 40% of vehicle categories. I can't speak intelligently (I don't like to shoot off with assumptions and guesses with no facts) about the current state, but take a look at some GM cars and some Hondas and see just how different they actually are.



You won't have to, you said it here and they can just reread this thread.



Displacement isn't free either. It takes weight to build a larger motor. If you can take a smaller one and get more power out of it aren't you ahead of the game? Take the Mustang that went from 5 liter pushrod to 4.6 liter OHC and gained power.



Actually, the 4.6L did not gain power for about 4 years over the old 5.0 Ford smallblock. It wasn't until the 1999 MY that it went from 215hp to 260hp. And I seriously doubt it weighs less or is smaller. An engine doesn't have to be bigger to have more displacement. Do you think the block and heads of the 7.4L LS7 are physically bigger or heavier than the 6.0L LS2? I doubt there is any reasonable way GM could have hit a power and weight target they did with the Z06 if they went with a smaller overhead cam motor, no matter who they brought on to do the engineering. Take a look at the sports car scene and tell me how many cars make 500+hp and weigh under 3136 lbs. The NSX is heavier, and the Carrera GT is heavier. There are a few lighter, but look at what it took to do that. Displacement doesn't weigh anything. Displacement is swept/empty space. What takes space and weight is the motor around that. And nothing adds weight like overhead cams.

If you want to have a more critical eye, you might look at some of the things GM does well. They don't do everything well, but they don't do it all wrong either. Nor does Honda or any other company do it all well.

 

[SpoiledMan]

If you want to have a more critical eye, you might look at some of the things GM does well. They don't do everything well, but they don't do it all wrong either. Nor does Honda or any other company do it all well.

Well, Honda's not in trouble now are they? GM needs to do more things right in the bread and butter department but it's clear that you don't see or care about that but only what other companies are doing.



No, Honda didn't race a quad 4 they used their own motor. It's also funny that now that Honda is in the IRL game that nobody else wants to play. When they came and raced against the Illmore's, oops, I meant Chevy turbo 8's in Indy Car racing in the 90's they stumbled at first but then became the dominant force until they stopped development in their last year of participation and Toyota got a title. What year was it that Chevy dominated F1?



No matter where you put the Solstice it's going to likely be in trouble. More power will mean more money and more competition. Right now it will have the cult following of the Miata to deal with.



If you'd like to pick on the oldest Honda motor and it's not even the most powerful then go ahead. Just keep in mind that you're picking on something that was designed in the 80's and saw very little in updates over the years. How about a J series motor? Yeah, all ULEV all the way to 300HP and no forced induction from 3 liters to 3.5 liters. Why should they continue to be complacent with the 3800? Develop it and make it smoother. Have you driven one of Honda's, Nissans or Toyota's V6 cars? You might not want to be seen in a Honda dealer but you can just drive a V6 Saturn Vue. Tell me all about it when you come back and yes, I have driven 3800 equipped cars both SC and atmospheric.



Since I don't see ANY logic in your idea of putting to 2 liter motors together and what you get from that I'll take a pass on that.



IIRC the outgoing 5.0 was as 210HP and the incoming 4.6 was 215. I think the Mustang guys are pretty happy with what the 4.6 became.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

The Trailblazer is a good example of taking advantage of modern technology. The engine got smaller, more efficient, smoother and more powerful. Complete redesign from a clean sheet of paper(needs to carry on in the rest of the passenger cars) and it makes use of variable valve timing and OHC. Yeah, it may cost several hundred dollars per car to add the modern tech to the cars but the benefit will show in the long run. Bottom line is if they were doing more things *right* they wouldn't be in the shape that they're in now.

You'd think by now you'd be checking facts before posting specifics. You can buy a Trailblazer with a 4.2L I-6 with variable valve timing. It makes 291 hp and 277 lb-ft of torque. Or you can get a 5.3L V8 with pushrods and displacement-on-demand. It makes 300hp and 330 lb-ft of torque. Guess which engine is costlier and heavier? It makes it up in fuel economy, though, right? In a 4wd Trailblazer regular wheelbase, both the 4.2L and 5.3L motors get 15 mpg in the city and 21 mpg on the highway. Surprised?



Now which motor do you think is better? I'm sure you'll still say the 4.2 because you think it is "high-tech". You might find a lot of people won't want to give up 9hp and 53 lb-ft of torque in an SUV just to feel better about the technology.



The only reason the 4.2L still sells at all is that GM charges a premium for the V8. It is certainly the premium engine, though if they only used it they'd be able to make a cheaper Trailblazer.



I like the 4.2L. It's a nice motor with good power and very smooth. It's way better than the 4.3L Vortec V6 it replaces. But the problem is that the V8 is also a nice motor, smooth, and with better power. I am glad to see GM offer motors like the variable valve, DOHC Northstar, the 4.2L I6, the "high-feature" V6, the Ecotech. They can learn and try things. But when it comes down to it, these motors are never able to surpass a well-thought-out pushrod motor, the Ecotech being the possible exception (GM never had very good pushrod I4's). As old as the 3800 pushrod V6 is, the 3.6L high-feature motor can't touch it for torque, power, and economy. A blower on an old motor just kicks butt. Imagine if they reinvented the 3800 the way they did the LSx. That thing could make ~250hp naturally aspirated (the 3.9L narrow-angle pushrod motor just about does this), and over 300hp with the supercharger. Quite possibly with the same fuel economy.

 

[SpoiledMan]

The Trailblazer is a good example of taking advantage of modern technology. The engine got smaller, more efficient, smoother and more powerful. Complete redesign from a clean sheet of paper(needs to carry on in the rest of the passenger cars) and it makes use of variable valve timing and OHC. Yeah, it may cost several hundred dollars per car to add the modern tech to the cars but the benefit will show in the long run.

That's *you* taking what I said and making it into something else. No need to check facts. I said it was better than the motor it replaced.



Once they take the time to actually commit and and continue to develop one of the multi valve OHC motors you will see the benefit. The NSX is 3.2 liters with 290HP and the TL is 3.2 liters with 270. Completely different motors and the TL makes the power with much less effort.



Point of it all is that the "Red Tag" specials aren't going to fix the problems. This thread was started on quality control issues. They exist and need to be fixed. We can argue products until we're blue in the face and nothing will change. You're rooted and so am I. I've seen enough to keep my roots where they are for now.

 

[Tasty]

What was Olds getting right? There was a reason GM axed that division, and I think we all know that their dismal sales had a lot to do with it. They sold only about 300,000 cars in 2000 and sales had been on a steady decline since around 1985 when they sold about 1 million vehicles. Five years later in 1990 they sold half as many cars. I think that "well received" sedans only alludes to the buyers that actually walked on to an Oldsmobile lot and liked what they saw when cars like the Aurora were released. If the brand had actually been trending like some in this thread appear to think it was then it might still be around.

 

[autoweenie]

Most of America doesn't care. They care that the car looks nice, runs good, holds value and is reliable over time.

This pretty much nails it. I don't think average person (around the world) looks into power curve, peak torque, 0-60, etc when shopping for a car. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, GM's cars just do not even register on the radar when one is shopping for a new car. Perhaps, it is a perception problem. But for consumers, perception is reality.



I am not going to defend everything that Honda and Toyota make (I owned a couple of Honda's and Toyota's). I personally think their cars are somewhat too utilitarian (with the exception of my 90 Celica). On the other hand, you get a lot of car for the money you pay. But one thing that you cannot deny is that Toyota (to a certain degree, Honda) comes from nowhere and is scheduled to overtake an old vererable company like GM soon. What happens! These Japanese guys must be doing something right. It does not solve anything by saying that consumers do not know anything when they are purchasing a car. I understand the mentality. I am in the hi-tech industry and we have a couple of competitors that are much much larger than us. We (especially the marketing guys) always tells ourselves that we are baffled about the whole situation because our products are superior (or at least competitive) with the big guys. So why aren't we selling that well.



For GM (and Ford), it is the vision thingie. During the boom, they were selling full-sized SUV and trucks very well and with a huge profit per vehicle (as large as $5000 per vehicle). They were willing to cede the sedan markets to the Japanese. Well, guess what. The gasoline is nearly $3 a gallon and the Japaneses, having eaten the sedan lunch, is poking their noses in the truck arena.



Lastly, GM should learn from their functioning divisions. Look at the Vette. This is what I call a product that excites consumer. Is it a best sport car. No. But for $60k, you do get a lot of car with great acceleration, great mileage, and sweet look.

 

[SpoiledMan]

I am not going to defend everything that Honda and Toyota make (I owned a couple of Honda's and Toyota's).

Yep, they all have their share of not so great products.



Spot on Carweenie! :clap:

 

[Setec Astronomy]

But one thing that you cannot deny is that Toyota (to a certain degree, Honda) comes from nowhere and is scheduled to overtake an old vererable company like GM soon.

Out of nowhere? Toyota and Honda have been selling cars here for 30+ years. The first Toyota plant here was the NUMMI joint-venture plant with GM, in the GM Fremont, CA plant, in 1982, I think. The Honda Marysville OH plant was about 1984, IIRC.

During the boom, they were selling full-sized SUV and trucks very well and with a huge profit per vehicle (as large as $5000 per vehicle). They were willing to cede the sedan markets to the Japanese. Well, guess what. The gasoline is nearly $3 a gallon and the Japaneses, having eaten the sedan lunch, is poking their noses in the truck arena.

This is clearly an example of management greed, and MBA management mentality. I'm not sure that they were "willing to cede the sedan market", but they certainly put their heads in the sand telling themselves (and the Board, and the stockholders) everything was ok because they were making plenty of money on trucks. IMO, that kind of thinking is why (seemingly) everything you buy isn't made here. You didn't have to be genius to figure out that cheap oil isn't a given, and you don't need to look far in the history books to see the last time Detroit was "suprised" by a rapid change in gas prices (and resultant change in consumer preferences)...you know that saying, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

 

[Tasty]

You didn't have to be genius to figure out that cheap oil isn't a given, and you don't need to look far in the history books to see the last time Detroit was "suprised" by a rapid change in gas prices (and resultant change in consumer preferences)...you know that saying, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

Too bad future generations forget it or don't care. The light truck/SUV craze could only end one way, and we are witnessing it now. It was a stupid trend really, but one that couldn't be avoided.

 

[jnmttu]

What was Olds getting right? There was a reason GM axed that division, and I think we all know that their dismal sales had a lot to do with it. They sold only about 300,000 cars in 2000 and sales had been on a steady decline since around 1985 when they sold about 1 million vehicles. Five years later in 1990 they sold half as many cars. I think that "well received" sedans only alludes to the buyers that actually walked on to an Oldsmobile lot and liked what they saw when cars like the Aurora were released. If the brand had actually been trending like some in this thread appear to think it was then it might still be around.

You are right about the sales. They were basically non-existent. I think the problem really stemmed from GM's grand plan of brand diversification. Years ago, Oldsmobile was designed to fit the mold of the car your grandfather wanted to drive if he couldn't swing a Cadillac. All of sudden GM says we have cars for all you 40-year olds. We promise it's really good, just your thing. The 35-55 market basically laughed and kept walking. I think some of the design ideas GM was working with at Olds could possibly have been transferred to some remaining divisions with success. Brand diversification is hard to achieve any more on the scale that GM operates on. 3 seperate brands is about the most you can pull off successfully.