GM/Isuzu to Invest $60 million at Duramax Plant

DuramaxEngines02 II

GM announced Wednesday that the company will invest $60 million along with Isuzu in their joint-venture plant that makes the turbo-diesel 6.6-liter Duramax, the engine used in Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Heavy-Duty pickup trucks, as well as in full-size Chevy Express and GMC Savana vans.

The DMAX Ltd. plant has been open since 2000 and has produced nearly 1.6 million engines but is in need of upgrading to meet more stringent EPA requirements by 2017 and again in 2025. GM owns 60 percent of the facility and Isuzu the remaining 40 percent; the investment will retain 500 jobs at the Moraine, Ohio plant, as well as improve the emissions capabilities of the engine.

To read the complete press release, click here.

 

DMAX exterior II

 

Comments

And guess where that $60 mil is going to be recovered from. PRICE INCREASES! Is anyone else getting tired of the money wasted on the global warming scam?! (And it IS a scam.)

Scam? What are your sources to prove that? A large IS dosnt count as a source...maybe in hillbilly land but not in the real world. Grow up

I recently had a debate over this with someone, so I copied my argument here:

I don't have experience in climatology, but I do have experience in agronomy and zoology so I know well how the scientific method works. I am amazed that I can't find a single article in a scientific journal that gives evidence for C02-caused global warming. I am still undecided as to whether or not it is real, but leaning towards no. I just want one of these so-called scientists to explain in detail how C02 is responsible for such a large amount of warming, especially since at times in Earth's history C02 levels have been 4 times what they are now. C02 is actually a very weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is MUCH stronger as a greenhouse gas and found in MUCH greater quantities in the air. It seems that even quadrupling the amount of C02 in the air would have a relatively small impact on warming given that C02 is such a weak greenhouse gas that is present in such small relative amounts in the atmosphere. The amount of water vapor fluctuates a lot more, is a lot stronger as a greenhouse gas, and seems to have a relatively small effect on the average yearly air temperatures, so why does c02 cause such a large rise in temperatures? Again I am still open to the idea of c02-caused global warming, I just want to see some hard data showing how C02 could cause such warming. It seems that a scientific study proving this would be fairly easy to conduct, and I am amazed that the thousands of scientists have yet to perform such a study that I am aware of. Yes C02 has risen the last 100 years, but there is no evidence that it is causing global warming. Additionally there are multiple other possible explanations as to why global temperatures have risen. There seems to be much greater evidence that fluctuations in solar activity are to blame. A statistical analysis of the so-called evidence for man-made global warming shows that causation due to increases in C02 levels is unlikely.

It would be nice to see some dmax engine modernization.

In the 70's it was global cooling. Whatever the Left can con up to control the population with they will use. Climate change is normal and there is absolutely no proof that it is man-made. That doesn't suite the Leftists so they choose to lie about it. Of course lying is there SOP.

@Beebe - the oceans of the world are a huge "carbon" sink. CO2 disolves in water and combines with H20 forming carbonic acid H2C03. The carbonic acid can then break down releasing Hydrogen atoms H. That increases the acidity of the oceans. These chemicals then react with substances that contain sodium, calcium, Magnesium, and potassium etc.

I found this site that explains it. I'm more familiar with this process in the human body than in the oceans.

http://www.blueworldtv.com/images/uploads/lesson-plans/Lesson_plan_webisode41Acidification.pdf

For the facts on climate check out www.climatedepot.com and www.cfact.com. Unbiased truth found there.

@Jim Myers
I do think your view is quite flawed.

Without the pollution and FE regulations that have come into play over the past 40 years you would not have seen the improvements in the motor vehicle as we had.

Pickups are a little behind cars in the use of this 'leading' technology. This has always been the case.

If people had your attitude the major vehicle manufacturers would just increase cubic inches with carby's and we'd still have drum brakes all round.

I do believe the improvements in the motor vehicles have improved reliability and economy.

I'm not against regulation, only uncompetitive regulatory practices.

Competition drives innovation, not gov't regulation.

I've heard the ocean acidification theory before. It is nothing more than a theory, and a very flawed one at that. All of the websites above are unreliable at best. Anything that presents a theory as an incontrovertible fact is a bad source. That is the problem with these debates. THERE IS SO MUCH MISINFORMATION AND LIES that are presented as facts. In agriculture it is just disgusting how much misinformation there is about monsanto, pesticide use, gmos, etc. But that is another debate for another time. But as far as ocean acidification, there are a few sources (although no proof of reliability) saying ph levels have changed in a few specific areas(like .1 to .3 on the ph scale). But there is no evidence that it is caused by c02. Seems very unlikely actually given the increases in c02 levels in the air and the increases it would take to change the ph of the ocean. It takes a hell of a lot of hydrogen atoms to change the ph of something a significant amount. That is something I became well aware of in my agronomy research as soil ph levels are important in agriculture-also nearly impossible to control except for temporarily in something small like a garden.

@JBob
Someone who finally agrees with me!

Competition where everyone plays by the same rules (regulations) is great.

Just like football. If it was a free for all, everyone would not tackle and use a 50 cal to bring down the opposition to get a hand on the ball. This is an over the top analogy, but you get the drift.

We need regulation to protect use from the unscrupulous. But the regulation needs to be audited and enforced. Like a referee's or umpire's job is in sport.

The ocean acidification theory would also be rather easy to prove with a relatively simple experiment, but has a reliable study been done?

@Beebe
It appears that both sides of the Carbon debate are spinning and lying to protect their own interests. Who can be trusted?

Look at Al Gore. The guy is preaching for money. Here's an interesting link from Australia to show how much Gore lies.

http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-gets-rebuked-a-second-time-over-film-rights-to-firestorm-tornado

http://www.examiner.com/article/australian-outback-bushfire-spawns-amazing-fire-tornado?no_cache=1352560439

But, also the redneck alarmist are just as bad. I think erring on the side of caution, somewhere in the middle is the best stance to take.

This will give us the best of both worlds. If change is needed we are in a better position for change. If change isn't needed we have improved our lives considerably.

My problem is the billions of dollars being spent, by us, on something that is totally unproven (global warming). What a joke. I mean the pro global warming so called scientists in England were caught in the scam and the Left is still trying to force it down our throats.

Re: Climate Change
The world's climate has changed innumerable times during the many millions of years that historical data reveals.

Human interaction with the environment on a large scale is a recent phenomenon, in historical terms--less than 1000 years.

If human use of fossil fuels caused recent spells of warming, how do we account for warming that occurred prior to the human era? Seriously.

Warming is caused by the big bright and hot ball in the sky! and imagine that! the Sun has cycles, and all through history there has been warm and dry times, and cold and wet times, just recently they have discovered settlements under the ice that has melted, telling us there were humans living in areas that have been covered under ice for thousands of years! For humans to have had any influence on the weather is just someone's agenda to get money! Its seems like there are more folks raising money over the climate, than raising the temp!

I wonder, after reading this, where all of the GM guys are who say that the newer D-Maxs are of GM design?

Wow this article about a Duramax Diesel engine plant has gone viral on global warming. Interesting indeed. The jury will be out on climate change for some time. The fact that the whole global warming principle is based on 200 years of recorded meteorological history on a planet that is billions of years old should be indication enough that there's not enough info to work with. Might as well look out the window and predict the weather for the next ten years. Good luck with that.

@Beebe - I'm not pro-global warming but then again I'm not naïve and assume we don't have any effect on climate.
Estimates for CO2 production in the USA alone are in excess of 7 billion tons.
Ever wonder where the tread on your tires went when it comes time to replace them?

I do believe that more research needs to be done.

Changes in pH are not linear but on a steep curve. A small numerical shift will cause a huge change in Hydrogen ion levels. A 0.1 pH shift in the ocean is huge. Human beings live at a pH between 7.35 and 7.45. That is a very narrow range. The earth does not have the ability of the human body to buffer pH by breathing and/or renal regulation.

Back on topic - I hope this means a new Duramax is on the way.

I'll weigh in on the climate thing.I believe it's mostly all bulls**t.Climate/weather is cyclic,period.Yes we do add co2,but not near as bad as other countries/continents.I'm glad we did get cleaner burning more fuel efficient engines from this and that is a good thing.If what we are doing is so bad,what caused the different ice ages....dinosaur farts?

More and more vehicles on the road and all pollute to some degree. I for one have no problem with the mandates.
For anyone that disagrees with me just google China pollution.

@dale

Why use a hammer when a fly swatter will do?

@ToxicSludge - actually....... methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Kind of surprised they didn't at least 'try' to spin this as an investment to improve the engine. It sounds like all the money will be spent in ways to neuter the engine so it meets EPA demands.

@ Lou bc: Yup it sure is.There are certain members of congress,(true geniuses) that actually tried to pass some sort of bill about ........cow farts some years ago.Of course if we outlaw congress,we would go along way to reducing greenhouse gases from all the bulls##t,lies and hot air from those gasbags ;}>

@ToxicSludge - if the ice caps melt, sea level will go up by 100 feet by some estimates. That would put the capitals of the USA and Canada under water................................

I can see why those political types are afraid of warming ;)

I hate the global warming thing. It's a distraction from something that the liberals COULD actually talk about with pollution, and that's just the obvious immediate effects. Salt Lake City has the inversion problem trapping all the pollution in the valley in the winter. LA had a terrible smog problem, but is doing better. So I'm all for cleaner air. I'm not all for the global warming propaganda. It's hypocritical for Obama to talk about driving more fuel efficient cars, when using a 747 using 5 gallons per mile to do it. Oh that doesn't include the Boeing C-17 that follows, which presumably uses a similar amount of fuel. Then there's the presidential limousine, which gets 9.6 mpg and the fleet of black Suburbans that follow, each getting 13-15 mpg. So probably 10 gallons per mile in the air, 1mpg on the ground combined.

@lou
No real science behind the ocean acidification theory, or man-made global warming. That is why I am doubtful. REAL scientists know that they are nothing more than theories at this point. You can debate and debate and debate, but at the end of the day it doesn't stand to real scientific scrutiny as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. At least not yet. And no .1 to .3 is not a "huge" change in ph levels. All plant-life that I have ever studied can survive in soil and water ph swings of at least 3 whole units. Most of them closer to 6 or 8 units. I have participated in a peer-reviewed study on the subject. Ph within the body has little to do with ph outside the body.

the ratio of c02 in the air contacting the surface of the ocean to h20 that comes in contact with the air would be incredibly small.

It is good to see this investment for Moraine, OH. This area has been very hard hit by the recession especially with the closure of the GM plant that made Chevy Trailblazers. The entire area including Dayton has been in a continual downward spiral with the closure of the NCR headquarters that moved to Georgia and the closure of Delphi. You can drive for blocks and blocks and see boarded up businesses and homes along with the empty land where Delphi and GM had their plants.

As for the debate on global warming it is an enjoyable discussion even if it is off topic. I would like to add that where would we be if we had no environmental regulations. Even China realizes they have a severe problem. Diesels in the past have been very dirty and the new regulations have helped considerably. The real topic would be is how much regulation is needed and what is the point where additional regulations will be more harmful than helpful.

HOw much cleaner do these things need to be and when does it stop???

Right now I can put my face up to the tailpipe on my 2012 Duramax and it doesn't smell any different than the air coming out of the back of my clothes dryer.

The EPA will never stop I guess...

@sandman--Your diesel is clean because it is newer and if you keep the filters changed it will stay clean. I hardly notice the diesel fumes on the municipal buses which are maintained on a regular basis. Much of the problems from diesels come from those who do not properly maintain them. I am still glad there are some regulations otherwise we would have pollution on the scale of China.

When the scientists that are pedaling the BS that climate change is a lie are employed by the same group that pedaled the BS that smoking was good for you they do lose a lot of credibility.
It is good to see an deisel engine being made in the US not like the nazi lovers engine that is made in Mexico

I sure would like the Republicans to explain to me why they complain about the EPA regulations they wrote, the 2010 regulations were passed in 2004, you remember that was a republican president house and senate.
You should at least be proud of what you did or if not then shut-up about it and stop complaining. Blaming other people for what you did? Be proud, admit it.
Just a thought!

@People fight over left and right. This is the down fall of the two party system. More fighting then problem solving going on. Another problem is it's basely who ever is richest battle to be come president. No common since normal working man or woman can run for president, because they or we the people can't afford it, cost to much. So we are stuck with rich raised on a silver spoon bunch of jack a#$, that don't know their a#$ from a hole in the ground, run their mouth off like BAFO telling us what to do and how to live and what to buy.

@Lou BC--After this winter I am ready to get out the aerosol cans and have more cows fart if it will warm things up. Also melting the polar ice caps would solve the gridlock in Washington. Just kidding, I couldn't resist. You did hear that Al Gore's latest conference on Global Warming was cancelled due to a huge snow storm. The entrance was iced up.

@johnny doe--I will tell you what to do. Get out some aerosol cans and start spraying. It's cold outside and we need to warm things up.

@Beebe - a small change in the pH yields a huge shift in acidity. That is true whether it is inside the body or outside the body.
CO2 enters the oceans through direct absorption at the surface but also by absorption of CO2 in water vapour in the air. Every body of water has the capability to absorb CO2.

Thanks for the information.

As always, you are a thoughtful blogger.

@Jeff S - funny. I've been lucky. The Rocky mountains seem to have done a wonderful job of keeping the deepfreeze out of my back yard. We've had cold weather -20C to -30C just in the last week or so. It has been relatively mild up until now.

@Beebe - a small change in the pH yields a huge shift in acidity. That is true whether it is inside the body or outside the body.
CO2 enters the oceans through direct absorption at the surface but also by absorption of CO2 in water vapour in the air. Every body of water has the capability to absorb CO2.

Thanks for the information.

As always, you are a thoughtful blogger.

@Jeff S - funny. I've been lucky. The Rocky mountains seem to have done a wonderful job of keeping the deepfreeze out of my back yard. We've had cold weather -20C to -30C just in the last week or so. It has been relatively mild up until now.

I Give G.M some credit for building that Japanese engine in the U.S. Hopefully they are union employees.

@Hemi V8

I wonder why someone buying a truck would care if union workers made or assembled the parts--curious. Help me understand.

Lou BC--We have had temperatures -19 F off and on for weeks which is unusual for Cincinnati and N KY. This morning it was 1 F and it was a high of 19 F. We have had about 37 inches of snow since the first of the year which is higher than our yearly total. I realize you are probably use to more snow than this but this is been bad especially when the road salt supplies are close to running out. The next week or two will be a continuation of the same.

@papa jim--I think Hemi V8 is glad that there are some more jobs in the US and being union jobs they are at a livable wage. Moraine, OH could use this bit of good news since that area has been very hard hit by the recession. There was talk of closing that DMax plant when GM sold off their remaining interest in Isuzu and then they had decided not to keep a joint venture between Isuzu and GM on diesels. This is very good news for these workers.

@ Jeff S - We have had a fair amount of snow and that is affected by which part of town one lives in. Slightly North gets more snow than the south west part I live in.

I do sympathise. Geographically we are prepared for long cold winters and you guys aren't. Our building codes address those issues. New houses are built with 2x6 walls for the extra insulation value. Most parking lots have plug ins for block heaters. Our city has a massive snow clearing budget.

@Jeff S
Apart from wondering what Hemi V8 was thinking, speaking for myself, I don't care where it's from or who made it. If I'm buying a truck I want the best bang for my buck--it's my money after all!

Trade unions have promoted economic protectionism for union workers and their employers. I don't like protectionism.

My latest truck is a Chevy that was built at a US plant with union workers--it's the best truck I've ever owned. My last truck was a Ford built at a union plant and it was the biggest disappointment of any new truck I ever bought. A wash!

@Lou and Jeff S
After reading some of the comments I do think both sides of the debate on climate change has merit.

I really don't mind the FE improvements, I don't mind the reduction in pollutants or CO2 as this equates to better FE.

What disappoints me is how the tax dollars are appropriated to certain ideas. All countries seem to feather the wrong nests in trying to tackle climate change.

I do think it could have been done differently and much cheaper to achieve good results.

The problem is for a country to make the necessary changes would disrupt certain industries, so they need to be protected. In the shorter term this will work, but they have become reliant on this money.

So the end result is unviable and inefficient industry and the loss of jobs and wages. User pays is the best way to go to fix this kind of problem. That means no subsidised CNG, EV, hybrids, windmills, solar panels, etc.

We should have used existing technologies and energy that is available, like gas for home and industry, just this move alone would have saved the US much money.

WTF does global warming got to do with GMs Diesel engine?
FYI it was above freezing in Edmonton Alberta on Xmas,,
In times past used to be minus 30 or so,,dont wanna believe world is warming up,,makes no diff to me..LLL
Not so sure another diesel is really needed,with all the added expense in costs,emissions hardware and price of diesel being same as gasoline,one would need to drive
100.000 miles a year to justify its extra price!
I'd rather see hybrid electric drivetrain in trucks ala Volt..

@Big Al--Instead of direct Gov. funding of alternative energy sources it would be better to give businesses and individuals credits for buying cleaner and more efficient vehicles. Companies could earn tax credits by developing and making more efficient vehicles and individuals could earn tax credits that would directly go against their tax liability for trading or junking of older less efficient vehicles and buying new cleaner more efficient vehicles. Make this a permanent program which you could apply to any vehicle 10 years old or older. Just one idea, but I do think programs that give businesses and individuals a financial incentive to buy cleaner and more efficient vehicles, appliances, heating and cooling systems, and etc. would be much better than direct subsidies.

@Lou BC--You would be much better prepared for the bitter cold weather in Canada than we are in most of the US. Block heaters are not that common and are considered an option. I myself would pay extra but they are not that easy to find unless you order from the factory.

@papa jim--I see both sides of the union and nonunion labor debate. You are correct most consumers don't really buy on that basis. More lower paying jobs have been created that jobs with a sustainable wage. It is hard to sustain an economy on low paying jobs. It doesn't matter how inexpensive a product is if you can't afford it.

@Jeff S

I like your spirit but you should really stick to what you know!

Brazil, Russia, India and China have all shown vast improvements over US economic growth during the last 10 years.

They did it without paying anything close to American wages.

Americans for generations have arrogantly assumed that their traditions, their superior systems of education, and their devotion to hard work, made them deserving of a better standard of living.

Two generations of American politicians and labor leaders have changed all that.

Go to Washington and watch your elected representatives bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of foreign companies and investors so they'll do business here. It will make you sick!

At least in part, Bebee is right; water vapor is having more of an effect than CO2 itself. Evidence is available right here in the US and more specifically in the northeast if you look at temperatures in the month before and after the attacks of 9/11/01. For one week after the attack, civil aviation was grounded and temperatures fell by as much as 5°F from forecast, day and night. The reason is that those high-flying jets leaving vapor trails create a kind of blanket in the upper atmosphere, reflecting heat back down to the ground. This is NOT so-called 'chemtrails' that some conspiracy theorists try to claim are an intentional effort to poison us. That's a completely different argument.

The simple point is that there are multiple agents that affect climate change and mankind is definitely ONE of those agents. We have polluted our atmosphere through so many different kinds of gaseous and particulate matter that we were quite definitely killing ourselves with them and even with all the pollution control laws in place we have only managed to somewhat clean our air. As long as we insist on ICE engines of any type and flying at altitudes above 20,000 feet, we will continue to affect our atmosphere.
Even if we did eliminate all of those factors, the simple fact that we're crowding millions of people into a few tiny square miles of land raises the temperature in that area by some small but measurable amount--proven by the fact that city temperatures tend to average 3° to 5° above the surrounding suburbs which average another 2° or so over the outer rural areas. True, some of this is due to the concrete and tarred roofs absorbing heat, but packing all those bodies with their 78° skin temperature ( ± ) creates another heat source.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com