That would work. I remember one of GM's first responses to the energy crisis back in the 70's. They put a diesel in a Chevette, but leave it to Detroit to screw up a good idea. They just took a gas engine and modified it to diesel, which doesn't and didn't work.
---Nope sorry...the diesel Chevette was not one of those.
It used an Isuzu diesel engine, and it was and still is one of the most dependable Chevettes ever made, with the engine far outlasting the rest of the car. The Isuzu four cylinder diesel is the workhorse behind approximately 40 percent of the small diesel cars and light trucks manufactured by GM for the rest of the world and it continues to be today as well.
You're thinking of when GM took a couple of their small block and big block gasoline V-8 engines and modified them to diesel.
That's old history too.
Today GM pretty much designed their V-8 diesels from the ground up and they work very well. Unfortunately they're large, and built for tasks that require bone crushing power, not high fuel economy.
The Geo Diesel was also a winner...basically a rebirth of the Chevette, only I don't remember if they stuck with the Isuzu diesel or used two choices. I'll get back to you on that one.
Another innovative idea that they screwed up royally was the Fiero. It was a sporty little car that drew an immediate market, but the manufacture and quality control was terrible. A young lady that I dated at the time bought one of the first. Nice looking car, but even simple things like the door weather stripping was shoddy and whenever it rained it was a disaster.
---The Fiero was another Corvair, that is to say it was subjected to endless committee redesigns in which corporate big brass culture continually cheapened the original design to save a nickel here and a dime there. What started out as a fantastic idea was "dipped in acid" until all the good parts had been
melted away and all that was left was a cheaply designed shell into which the equivalent of "a tractor motor" was dropped.
What you're referring to is a constant in all of General Motors culture...make a revolutionary design, chip away at it until almost nothing is left, bring it to market, let year one owners be the guinea pigs, then slowly reintroduce the parts you chipped away at in response to massive complaints, then finally restore most or all of the original design, and if you're lucky the car will survive and by year four or five will be a very good vehicle.
Corvair had most of its good stuff restored by year three (1962)
but it was killed by Ralph Nader's ignorant book which concentrated on deficiencies found in the first three model years. Had the Corvair 1970 models been made, Porsche was seriously considering withdrawal from the American market, at least for the time being, because Corvair's models outperformed them in 1968 and 1969!
I'm also with Pelosi and the democrats insisting that Detroit shows them their plans for the money before Detroit gets the
dinheiro. I suspect that one reason Congress wants to see the plan is
this.Call me a nationalist, but that money should be spent employing Americans and not Brazilians.
---Believe it or not, Brazil might be the key to our GM problems here at home. Brazil's GM division is currently making some of the most efficient small cars and light trucks in the world, AND the most flexible in terms of fuel choices too.
Take a look at what Brazilians are driving and see for yourself.
The Chevy Aveo, which IS a GOOD small GM car, is a Brazilian knockoff, and is successful at least in its native carioca trim anyway.
Basically if GM is forced to bring the Brazil designs and models HERE, we'd be in very good shape, so let them help Brazil as long as it helps us at the same time and not JUST their pocketbooks. What's good for GM Brazil CAN be good for America, if we force them to work it that way.
Re Pelosi:
Unfortunately no matter how good a CAR idea is, if Pelosi is involved it will be a terrible idea by the time she is finished with it. I agree with her that we need to see a plan before any money is disbursed. I don't want her grubby little fingers anywhere near the nuts and bolts of the plan however.
She will only listen to idiots who pose as automotive experts.
For an idea like this we actually need
an ACTUAL CAR EXPERT, someone who has proven themselves. It's too bad that most of the best ones are either dead or in no mood to tackle a Congressional Committee. I'd love to hear Iacocca's ideas, because he's one of the only car guys to get money from Congress and repay it ahead of time WITH INTEREST.
And I am sure that he would agree that Nancy Pelosi doesn't belong anywhere near the planning table.
