How much do you like the new Ranier?????

[Dave@Moon]

I know there are a number of people in the club who are considering the new Ranier for their next purchase or as a tow vehicle. I posted the information below on the AACA side last night, but it's something those of you who are considering a Ranier purchase may want to consider:

[color:"blue"] "I was reading this month's copy (actually it's the "October 2003" edition, although it arrived in July ) of <span style="font-style: italic">Vintage Truck</span> today. It's one of my favorites. On page 10 there's a photo of a new Oldsmobile Bravada. This particular Bravada was having it's engine overhauled.

Let's all hope that this overhaul was being performed under warranty. You see, to perform major engine work there's a rather complex disassembly procedure that must be followed first, [color:"red"]<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">THE BODY MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CHASSIS!!!</span></span> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> In the photo you can see the body raised up on a lift, the chassis on the floor, and the engine on a stand.

Now the 8.8 hour job that is the replacement of spark plugs in a 2001 Z28 was excessive, but this is just amazing. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">You actually have to disassemble the vehicle to get the motor out?</span></span> It's bad enough that the motor can't be repaired in place, and that a full scale lift is required to remove it. Porsche Boxters have had that requirement for a few years now. This sets a new level.

Is there <span style="font-style: italic">anybody</span> out there who sees any rational reason for constructing vehicles that are this difficult to maintain? Can you possibly imagine what this'd be like to deal with in an <span style="font-style: italic">antique</span> car?

Enjoy the Bravada now, there will be no old ones." <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Also I added:

[color:"purple"] "Bear in mind here that we're not talking about some rarified/unusual vehicle or a high-end/high-performance sports model. This is a TRUCK! This is a Trailblazer, Jimmy, or Buick Ranier, too. These things are used to pull heavy loads more often than most any other vehicles, and as SUV's <span style="font-style: italic">(yes, my favorite subject)</span> are often operated in an overloaded manor.

This is not an uncommon sight or procedure. How many people out there do you know whose tow vehicle needed engine work after a while?

Can you imagine that this got by the design approval team unnoticed? Not very likely.

Even from GM's perspective, who has to pay for these jobs under warranty with some frequency, this does not make sense. It looks like a deliberate attempt to make the vehicle as non-repairable as possible.

GM learned <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span> from their run-ins with Ralph Nader, and we're paying for it." <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Like I said, something to consider.

[NTX5467]

Seems like we've seen some of the new 4200 I-6s that had sleeves that moved in their bores and needed repairs, but I know for a fact that the body was not moved from the chassis to get the engine out. That was with some of the early model year Trailblazers. Even a very few engines with bad quality cylinder head castings too. Since then, NO engine problems or any kind.

The reason I know that the body and frame was not fully separated is that our heavy line technician has no facilities to make that happen in his stall. I know the vehicle did not go to the body shop too. Besides, if he'd had to do that, I would have heard comments about it.

Funny how no one talks about the NorthStar engine situation. To remove those engines, it is first necessary to drop the front subframe assembly as you can't even remove the cylinder heads with the engine in the car. YET, this is not that big of a deal and is done with no fanfare--it's just the way it is and there are special tools/dollies for such activities. With the great realiability of those motors, it just doesn't happen that often.

As for the Rainier, it is the only version of that particular utility family that will have the 5.3L V-8 in a short wheelbase version. With a little tuning and aftermarket parts, it could well be a BMW X5 competitor!

As for those posts of alleged engine problems, that's what you get the factory warranty for AND you buy the extended warranty for too. Those things are protection whether you need them or not, just like life or accident/health or car insurance. As for the reason for the body lift to work on the motor, I haven't seen that deal but I would certainly question why it was done that way in the first place.

Sure, GM had some debacles in the past as to serviceability out in the field--and it wasn't limited to any one GM division either. It was widely commented that GM cars were designed to be assembled on the assembly line and not worked on in the field--two very different orientations. That was in the '70s.

I've discovered over the years that all vehicles tend to have certain idiosyncracies as to how to work on them versus how we "want" to work on them. In the end, it's best to know how to do a particular labor operation with the proper tools and environment before starting the job.

What about the large number of late model Ford products that you have to remove the entire instrument panel to change an evaporator core? Something that used to be done from under the instrument panel. Or the fact that you have to drop the fuel tank on late model T-birds (not the current ones) and Cougars to change universal joints? None of these things are everyday situations, but it's just the way things are.

Just as Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus and some other Chrysler Corp vehicles don't have a fuel filter that is external of the fuel tank and easily replaceable. There are some other makes that have this same situation. But, from what the Chrysler parts people tell me, those vehicles have enough capacity in the filter area that they don't need replacement like the smaller filters do.

As for the Rainier, if I was in the market for such a vehicle, I'd certainly buy one. It's always been fun to drive "sleepers" that could whoop up on alleged performance vehicles before they knew what had happened, hehe.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Guest]

As a Mazda Master Technician who regularly handles removal and installation of powertrain components, please let me clarify a few points.

The reality is, across the line - all manufacturers - that powertrains are difficult to remove and tyoically are removed from the bottom. Porsche Boxsters aren't the first Porsche to be done this way - I know that as well since I work next to a Porsche Master technician.

The Rainier will benefit from the earlier introduction of other similar GM models. Like all cars, a certain percentage of motors will be defective from the factory. Modern technicians know this and have the tools to remove and replace them. What really makes us made is to see folks fail to maintain them. I had a Mazda MPV minivan I had to remove and replace the engine because the yuppie owners never changed the oil in 17,000 miles.

Extended warranties rarily help in the case of powertrain failures - which usually occur in the first 15,000 miles. Also most manufacturers know this and are offering longer and longer powertrain warranties as sales gimmicks.

I would buy a Rainier if that's what you want. Show pride of ownership and maintain it and it will "maintain" you. I can't say if these cars will be collectable in years to come but my perspective on the hobby is dismal at best. These SUV's are the transporters of our day no different then four door deans with large trunks and station wagons were years ago. And outside of a handful of collectors, these old body styles are not very popular today.

No, I don't like to remove and replace a motor from our modern Mazdas but when I do, I never get a raised heartbeat or concern. I just tackle it like any other big project and enjoy the results when I am finished.

Bryan Moran

Wildcatr

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I never get a raised heartbeat or concern. </div></div>

Bryan,

I guarentee you that the first person who has to pay your salary and the garage's overhead for a week and a half at $75/hr. to pull their Trailblazer's motor and repair a bad seal (should one appear at your Mazda garage) will find it a "concern".

And pretending you can escape this by buying the extended warranty (as if these costs aren't factored in to it's over 4 digit price and extensive limitations) is a fool's paradise.

This, particularly for a truck, is not good.

[Matt Harwood]

When I worked for a well-known aftermarket Corvette tuner, we did a lot of work on the new C5--we had one two years before they even hit the streets. All the engineers at GM said we had to take the engine out the bottom--essentially removing the front subframe and dropping it all down.

Well, we didn't have the resources to do that to the 20+ cars a month that passed through our shop--it would have doubled our labor hours. So we managed to get the engine out the top just like any other car. It took some practice, but eventually we could swap an engine in just under 2 hours from running engine to running engine, fluids and everything.

I don't think that engineers designing today's cars spend much time thinking about servicability--look at the oil filter location on some cars for instance--they're thinking about how easy is it to assemble. And with the platinum spark plugs, electronic ignition and modern casting techniques, a lot of failures and routine maintenance items have been eliminated from new cars. So the Z28's spark plugs, while a pain in the butt, were not a concern for the designers because the plugs were supposed to last 100,000 miles.

In the past, the cars were <span style="font-style: italic">designed</span> to be repaired in the field. They just weren't reliable enough, the roads and driving conditions were different, lubricants were inferior to today's, etc. The cars had to be easy to fix because a lot of repairs were routine maintenance. So not only did they have to be easy to build, they had to be easy to service and repair. That is part of the beauty, in my opinion, of the older cars.

However, I very much doubt that any engineer would specify removing the body from the chassis to remove an engine, no matter how reliable they believe the engine to be. I can see removing the front sheetmetal perhaps, but pulling the body would have been nixed from the get-go, even by a company as technically incompetent as GM. That would just cost too much and open up too many opportunities for failure in other components. Then there's the liability issue if a mechanic doesn't tighten all the body mount bolts, for example, and there's an accident. Whoooooo-boy, what a nightmare for the lawyers...

Like our friend NTX said, each car is unique in its service requirements. There are a million ways to skin a cat. The trick is, according to my friend Ronnie from the Corvette shop, to find the way that the cat likes. I suspect the Rainier will be the same way.

[NTX5467]

I checked the warranty times for a "engine replace" for the new Trailblazer and Bravada today. Basic time for a 2 wheel drive model is just a hair over 10 labor hours with the 4200 I-6. Even with the add-ons for all wheel drive, rear a/c, and such, the max time was under 16 labor hours.

I checked with our tech who did the engine R&Rs on them. He related that you removed the engine just as in a G-Van vehicle (full size van) by removing the grille, radiator, and related body parts to get the engine out the front of the vehicle. I'm not sure why the quoted group decided to lift the body from the chassis, but I suspect they had a reason that made sense to them at the time.

Just an update of what I found out,

NTX5467

[37sedan_mod47]

I have to chime in here as a design engineer for an automotive supplier. We supply diesel injector pumps and braking components. I design these components from the ground up, so I know a lot of what goes into the creation of many auto compnonets.

The OEMs will do anything to save pennies on a component at their level (assembly line) even if it costs the vehicle owner hundreds of dollars extra to repair. A good example is a fuel pump that we sell to a large diesel engine builder for about $100. The OEM demanded that the pump be as cheap as possible and be "throw away" since it was a few dollars cheaper to build it that way. The problem is that the pump retails for over $500 at the dealer. To make matters worse, the part that fails most often is a 25 cent check valve, which cannot be replaced without destroying the pump.

I have to replace a front bearing hub on my 99 Dodge Ram 4x4. It is a non serviceable unit, so, instead of spending $40 or so on two bearings and a seal I have to buy the complete unit which includes the wheel hub, the spindle, and the outer housing (none of which are damaged or likely to be) at a cost of about $180 at NAPA. This is so Chrysler can save a buck or two on hardware and labor time. My next new car is going to be an old one.

[Guest sintid58]

On almost all front wheel drive cars it is easier to remove the motor from the bottom rather than from the top. (including all front wheel drive Park Avenue's and Le Sabre's). I had a 1984 Chevy Cavalier with a four cylinder and it was dropped down on the front frame, so I doubt that any shop that has worked on cars the past ten years would have that much of a problem doing it today.

[Bill Stoneberg]

You know this has been happening for a long time.

I was, for a while, a Jaguar and British Leyland (Austins, MG;s Triumps etc.)mechanic during the 70's. This was during the time when you got to work on lots of E-type's big Healeys and others.

Two items stick out to me from that time. The first was that it was always quicker to pull the engine on almost any of those cars to change a clutch.

The second was specific to E-types and that was to pull the engine you put it on a lift after removing what was left on the front end after removing the hood and then dropped it down like you would on a VW.

[Guest]

i got a picture of the concept Ranier...It was at medowbrook <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> i think it look better.

Got to park my rice burner right between them! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I checked the warranty times for a "engine replace" for the new Trailblazer and Bravada today. Basic time for a 2 wheel drive model is just a hair over 10 labor hours with the 4200 I-6. Even with the add-ons for all wheel drive, rear a/c, and such, the max time was under 16 labor hours. </div></div>

NTX,

This is the quote from Tom Brownell's collumn in the referenced issue of <span style="font-style: italic">Vintage Truck</span>:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [color:"red"]<span style="font-weight: bold"> ....One of my former students, Jeremy, Van Hoven, sent the accompanying photo of a technician's nightmare and gave me the idea for this "Reflections"topic. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [color:"red"] Look at what the "nightmare" picture shows: an Olds Bravada SUV thats been entirely disassembled so the technician can get access to the engine. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [color:"red"] This Bravada has that much-touted new GM six, whose aluminum block requires a steel plate to hold the crankshaft bearings torsionally rigid. But the plate isn't the issue. To remove the engine for major service, which this truck required, the body had to be seperated from the frame. (Looking closely at the photo, you'll notice that the chassis is still on the shop floor, the engine is disassembled and mounted on a stand in the forground, while the body is suspended on a lift.) </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [color:"red"] Think for a moment about having to do frame-up disassembly to overhaul an engine, and then multiply the number of hours to take apart your truck down to its frame by the billing rate at your local GM dealership. Someone better hope that engine is covered by warranty. </div></div> </span>

Tom Brownell is an automotive author of some renown. I have several of his books in my library. His works include: <span style="font-style: italic">How to Restore Your Chevrolet Pickup, How to Restore Your Ford Pickup, "Old Cars" </span>(magazine)<span style="font-style: italic"> Questions & Answers, Chevrolet Pickup Color History, T^he History of Mack Trucks, The Heavyweight Book of American Light Trucks 1939-1966, The Illustrated Chevrolet Pickup Buyers Guide, The Illustrated International Pickup and Scout Buyers Guide, Dodge Pickups: History and Restoration Guide 1918-1971, </span> and at least a hlf dozen more. I've made a lot of use of his <span style="font-style: italic">How to Restore Your Collector Car</span> myself.

He's generally quite a reliable source of information. I'd be very suprised if he blew this one.

[Guest]

Dave,

All I am saying is that the practice of removing drivetrains from modern vehicles is difficult and requires creative, complex methods for all new vehicles. I do not believe the Rainier will be different. A technician gets paid as some of you know - by the "flat rate hour" meaning if the dealership quotes it will take 17 hours to R & R a Rainier motor, then most heavy service techs will find a way to make that happen or else they have to explain to their wife why we can't go shopping this weekend (but I digress).

Your points are well taken but what's the alternative? What else can we buy that may not present the same possibility? So, if faced with the prospect of purchasinga Buick out of loyalty and desire vs purchasing a Hyundai (I can't believe I even suggested that) thinking their removal of drivetrains are different then the answer is I believe - no difference. The author of your article simply had a vehicle comparable to the Rainier in his article. That does not mean he isn't correct or reputable - he just didn't visit the Lexus shop that day.

Bryan

Wildcatr

1961 Buick Electra 2 door hardtop

1964 Buick Wildcat convertible

1972 Buick Limited 2 door hardtop daily driver

Wife's car - 2002 Mazda Protege

[NTX5467]

I have no doubt as to the reputation or credibility of those involved in the situation with the Bravada. I just know what GM warranty labor time is for that operation AND that our technician did not have to remove the body from the few Trailblazers that we had to remove the engine from for warranty repair (early in their production run). No more, no less.

As to the main bearing support plate which holds the crankshaft main bearings, this is nothing new. The NorthStar V-8 is that way and has been since it first appeared. Prior to that, many high end drag racing engines used similar things, called "main girdles" to reinforce the lower end of the block. Similar in concept to cross-bolting the main caps to the side of the block, as was done in the '60s and still is done today, on certain higher performance engines AND (if I recall correctly) the current LS1 family of GM V-8 engines.

I read a news release where Flint South complete their 1 millionth 4200 I-6 engine last week. That's a bunch!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest 31tudor]

Dave@Moon: blah, blah, blah, blah, SUV's suck, blah, blah, blah...

Me: So what?

[nearchoclatetown]

Dave@moon, I found a new car even you would like. Do a search on punkin chunkin, go to the 2002 results, and check out the Mitsubitchy that got in the way. Can't tell if it was a car or SUV.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave@Moon: blah, blah, blah, blah, SUV's suck, blah, blah, blah...

Me: So what? </div></div>

As long as there are enough people with this depth of understanding, GM & the other auto manufacturers will be just fine no matter what they make or how they make them.

[Guest Skyking]

Dave, your right in a way, but on another token, the more Americans keep buying Foriegn cars, the weaker America becomes......... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, your right in a way, but on another token, the more Americans keep buying Foriegn cars, the weaker America becomes......... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

I didn't advocate buying or not buying any particular brand or type of vehicle. Mr. Brownell did <span style="font-style: italic">sort of</span> advocate the use of older vehicles in preference to new at the conclusion of his piece, which I don't think is a great answer either.

It's my opinion that problems like this (and I feel this is a <span style="font-style: italic">major</span> design problem) need to be exposed to the potential buyer so that they can make an informed decision. If you're going to buy a Ranier to haul groceries and/or two people to church on Sundays (a wasteful practice that statistically describes most SUV buyers), then this bit of information may mean less to you that if you're intending to tow a 30' boat with it on a regular basis (a far more appropriate and rarer need/use). At least (if you read the forum or <span style="font-style: italic">Vintage Truck</span>) now you know.

Uh Oh. Did I just open up the SUV can of worms that Mr. Tudor wanted me to?

[NTX5467]

(Wonder if everyone that has bought a front wheel drive car for the past decades cares about how hard it is to remove the transaxle for repairs/rebuild, AND takes special tooks to do, when compared to a modern rear wheel drive car? Or if someone DIDN'T buy a torque tube configured Buick because it took much more work to R&R the transmission in those cars?)

With just a little effort, there are many vehicles (USA designed and otherwise!) that have labor operations for particular repairs that look like nightmares to the uninformed. On the other hand, you might not believe how some make a major situation out of a simple repair. On the earlier Rolls Royces, you HAD to have intimate knowledge of where all of the hidden fasteners were just to do minor body work on the car as the ones you could see were only about 1/2 of what was there.

Then there were the '40s (?) Chevys where it was easier to remove the front sheet metal of the car if you needed to do a valve job rather than "fight it" by not taking it off? Or the old "bore only 5" rebuilds on the 6 cylinders because the cowl got in the way of mounting the boring bar to the block? Did anyone NOT buy those cars or trucks because of those things?

Sure, GM has had their share of vehicles "designed to assmeble" (and not quite as easy to work on in the field as other brands), but that didn't stop people from buying them. The people who worked on them knew the flaky things and adjusted their work operations and/or bought new tools to compensate for it.

I've experienced the "50,000 mile spark plug" on the mid-60s Pontiac 389s. I know about the Chevy Monza V-8 spark plugs too, plus the "behind the fender" blower motor location on my '77 Camaro and alternator replacements on the cammer 3.4L Chevy Luminas. These are things the normal owner doesn't know or apparently care about--that's why they pay mechanics to do their work for them OR buy the extended warranty OR just figure that all vehicles are the same. Another reason they make ratchet extensions and u-joints, plus air ratchets to speed things up.

I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holiday weekend!

NTX5467

[Guest Straight eight]

What are the changes from the Olds Bravada? If the Rainier is just a Bravada, has only the name plate and grille changed? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> [color:"blue"]

[bkpage]

I sat in a new Ranier yesterday. It felt real comfortable and looked nice, especially compared to my F150 and my wifes Sable. However, it did feel kind of small, but maybe that is because I had just gotten out of my 62 Electra. It doesn't matter much, it is way out of my price range.

Brian