Automotive News, Media & Press - Why GM is #1....

:)

From Cadillac's CUE technology to this! I could see some kids getting angry at their damn windows now!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t4muJvNK-CM

With the way half the country uses touch screens, I could see a lot of people shattering their windows in the first week.

With cops pulling people over for tint, I don't see this working.

its different.


unless its porn i wouldnt be interested lol.

I was gonna say, it damn sure ain't because of their service department.

That's amazing!

Really amazing tech.

That's neat but I wouldn't like my window all smudged up from my 2 year old. And what would a replacement window cost? $1000?

:sack:If ur kid is that screwed up that he can't go a few moments without a computer screen, he'll never amount to a hill of beans. So glad I don't have kidz to deal wit. This technology seems like a complete waste of time. I'm of the computer gen. and even I think its ridiculous. Who will be dunb enough toactually pay for that? I'd rather make my kid read a real physical book. Or use REAL crayons. I'll bet half or more kids today never colored in a coloring book!!!!! And we wonder why our kidz are the slowest compared to other countries. Line em up for the "make :playboy:me stupid" feature soon to be a reality. What a shame, really.

Really? This is what GM is spending all their money on developing? Not lighter chassis, not an answer to Ford's 365hp twin turbo V6 that they can drop into numerous platforms, not a way to get all of the damn plastic out of their interiors? None of that. But touchscreen windows. Yeah. That's it.

Another thing to distract people while driving.

Really? This is what GM is spending all their money on developing? Not lighter chassis, not an answer to Ford's 365hp twin turbo V6 that they can drop into numerous platforms, not a way to get all of the damn plastic out of their interiors? None of that. But touchscreen windows. Yeah. That's it.

Much to the dismay of most of us on here (myself included), the windows are probably much more exciting to your average consumer.

looks like a great way to get a lot of people killed

Really cool tech for sure...

What happened to looking out the window though LOL

Neat technology and i can see it being popular. They could have educational stuff for kids which could be nice. Not against them doing stuff like this i mean whatever they can do to sell cars. All manufacturers use plastics on their interior and GM isn't even close to the worst offender in that department. They need to look at future techs in order to stay ahead and not always follow everyone else. GM comes up with some cool ass stuff for their cars i think and that helps sell stuff.

If ur kid is that screwed up that he can't go a few moments without a computer screen, he'll never amount to a hill of beans. So glad I don't have kidz to deal wit. This technology seems like a complete waste of time. I'm of the computer gen. and even I think its ridiculous. Who will be dunb enough toactually pay for that? I'd rather make my kid read a real physical book. Or use REAL crayons. I'll bet half or more kids today never colored in a coloring book!!!!!I kind of have to agree there.

Really? This is what GM is spending all their money on developing? Not lighter chassis, not an answer to Ford's 365hp twin turbo V6 that they can drop into numerous platforms, not a way to get all of the damn plastic out of their interiors? None of that. But touchscreen windows. Yeah. That's it.

ATS chassis is light.

also, GM has a TT 3.6 that they're testing in a CTS body that will more than likely make its way into the ATS-V. supposedly around 440bhp and similar torque.

As long as they don't put it on the windshield :P

Neat technology and i can see it being popular. They could have educational stuff for kids which could be nice. Not against them doing stuff like this i mean whatever they can do to sell cars. All manufacturers use plastics on their interior and GM isn't even close to the worst offender in that department. They need to look at future techs in order to stay ahead and not always follow everyone else. GM comes up with some cool ass stuff for their cars i think and that helps sell stuff.

This :judge:

Really? This is what GM is spending all their money on developing? Not lighter chassis, not an answer to Ford's 365hp twin turbo V6 that they can drop into numerous platforms, not a way to get all of the damn plastic out of their interiors? None of that. But touchscreen windows. Yeah. That's it.


Guess you been missing on these


http://ls1tech.com/forums/automotive-news-media-press/1538996-2014-cadillac-ats-v-pic.html

http://ls1tech.com/forums/automotive-news-media-press/1552025-spied-america-2014-chevrolet-super-sport.html

& :eek2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QigWHfZS2lc


I think GM doing pretty good imo.....

also, GM has a TT 3.6 that they're testing in a CTS body that will more than likely make its way into the ATS-V. supposedly around 440bhp and similar torque.:nod:

Lookie here:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillac-cts-2014.html

http://www.leftlanenews.com/general-motors-working-on-a-second-larger-twin-turbo-v6.html

Really? This is what GM is spending all their money on developing? Not lighter chassis, not an answer to Ford's 365hp twin turbo V6 that they can drop into numerous platforms, not a way to get all of the damn plastic out of their interiors? None of that. But touchscreen windows. Yeah. That's it.

I highly doubt they spent all of their research money for the year on this alone.

Yes, but that is what, 2 cars? The ATS and the supposed Super Sport. And this techy whiz-bang stuff should be left to tablets and other computers. A car is not a fucking entertainment center. A radio is enough distraction.

And no, I do not think GM spent ALL of their money on this crap. But I bet this kind of tech is not cheap. If they's concentrate on interior development they could cruise above the other US manufacturers and get interiors on par with BMW, Merc, Jag, Aston-Martin, etc.

Maybe I am jsut getting old and grumpy, but I fucking hate this "must be plugged in all the time everywhere" idea. If I wasn't on-call I wouldn't have a damned cell-phone.

ATS chassis is light.

also, GM has a TT 3.6 that they're testing in a CTS body that will more than likely make its way into the ATS-V. supposedly around 440bhp and similar torque.

Testing... awesome. The ecoboost will have been available to purchase in multi multiple vehicles for half a decade by the time this his showrooms.

Testing... awesome. The ecoboost will have been available to purchase in multi multiple vehicles for half a decade by the time this his showrooms.

And I bet the ATS-V is the only car it is available in.

And I bet the ATS-V is the only car it is available in.

probably, but it's not going to be the volume engine of the two. the TT 3.0 v6 that GM is working on will be.

probably, but it's not going to be the volume engine of the two. the TT 3.0 v6 that GM is working on will be.

I guess. But that mentality makes no sense to me either. It's like having the 4.8L and 5.3L engines in the trucks. Really? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have the same engine with say different cams, throttle body sizes, and tune to cover the 30hp-80hp or whatever difference? Why tool up two different blocks and internals for a difference of half a liter?

I guess. But that mentality makes no sense to me either. It's like having the 4.8L and 5.3L engines in the trucks. Really? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have the same engine with say different cams, throttle body sizes, and tune to cover the 30hp-80hp or whatever difference? Why tool up two different blocks and internals for a difference of half a liter?

same block though. the 3.0 and 3.6 N/A engines both share the same block (the 3.0 has slightly smaller bores and a shorter stroke though).

GM has done this for a while now though. the 3.5/3.9 v6's were just different internals in the same block.

same block though. the 3.0 and 3.6 N/A engines both share the same block (the 3.0 has slightly smaller bores and a shorter stroke though).

GM has done this for a while now though. the 3.5/3.9 v6's were just different internals in the same block.

Yes, but what I am saying is it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to have the exact same long block. Just have different cams, throttle bodies, boost and/or tunes to alter the power/torque. It seems redundant and wasteful to have all of that different stuff, AND a different rotating assembly.

Yes, but what I am saying is it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to have the exact same long block. Just have different cams, throttle bodies, boost and/or tunes to alter the power/torque. It seems redundant and wasteful to have all of that different stuff, AND a different rotating assembly.

Perhaps. My only thought would be that perhaps the rotating ASM of the lower displacement motor is cheaper to make somehow. Either QC, strength, or machining.

Perhaps people wouldn't buy a motor they knew was detuned so much. Or GM can get people to spend more for a bigger motor. Try to explain to a customer about cams and they wont understand. They will get that a bigger motor is better though.

Yes, but what I am saying is it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to have the exact same long block. Just have different cams, throttle bodies, boost and/or tunes to alter the power/torque. It seems redundant and wasteful to have all of that different stuff, AND a different rotating assembly.

Not necessarily. That would actually increase your costs in the long run. Instead of selling smaller cheaper motors to the masses, you're just detuning a more expensive engine. Try telling someone the difference between a 3.6 that makes 250hp and the same long block also makes 350hp and they'll look at you like you have two heads. It's a silly idea. No one would buy the 250hp engine, and since it would cost the same to make it, you're going to have a bunch of extra parts on your hands that you can't move because nobody wants them.

Hmmm. I would have thought that just as many people would buy the lower power engine if that is all they wanted. Z28 vs SS, Trans Am/Formula vs WS6, Corvette vs Z06. And all of those have the same engine bottom end. I think the LS6 block had extra breathing windows in the crankcase, but no forged internals and it was still 346".

6 of one; half a dozen of another I guess.

Yes, but what I am saying is it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to have the exact same long block. Just have different cams, throttle bodies, boost and/or tunes to alter the power/torque. It seems redundant and wasteful to have all of that different stuff, AND a different rotating assembly.

before the block is bored out, they all have the same dimensions. they go through two different boring machines for the different engines. so it literally is the same block to start out with.

as i said before, GM has been doing this forever. the 2.8/3.1/3.4 and the 3400/3500/3900 are all based on the same block (the 3400 on up are slightly updated blocks, but still the same basic 60* block).

edit: also, iirc the LS6 is a 6-bolt main block while the LS1 blocks are 4-bolt mains (supposedly there's a few 6-bolt LS1's from the '02 model year).

I meant short block: block, crank, bearings, rods and pistons. Every time the bore is changed or the stroke is changed there is tooling and manufacture for the new pistons, rods and cranks.
In the long run it doesn't matter it appears.

And all LS motors are 6 bolt mains.