Want a long reply Ted? It's raining outside.. so here's my 2 cents..
I've worked inside Chrysler engineering and some time in the Viper group, and inside Ford Motor Company, all in Michigan, and only been to GM as a supplier inc. the Corvette tech center, all within my career, so my perspective may be different from some of you guys.. if it's worth anything, that's great, if not.. no big deal...
As I look back and review what I have been exposed to.. GM has engineering resources far beyond Chrysler and Ford. There are many factors. Such as.. putting out a car such as the Viper with such as small engineering team and budget compared to the Corvette team is something to be proud of. The folks designing the Corvette probably has 3 times as many designers and engineers and quite a bit more for a budget. The budget defines your allowance on building prototype parts, testing, mule cars, new parts vs. carryover, analysis (FEA & CFD), etc.. Ford is between these two. Viper rules for ROI (return on investment). I've worked in the Mustang engineering group also, you guys may think I'm full of bs eh'. Ford intended on using an IRS rear on the S197 Mustang but didn't have the budget, so they went to a straight axle. Sure, for you die hard straight line drivers wanting to go fast off the line, that's great, but it's not for going around corners. Wheel hop is a challenge with a multi link IRS drivetrain, no doubt about it. Getting the half shafts horizontal at launch, bushing deflection / compliance (in engineering), etc.. I heard it all..
GM builds rock solid V8s, you can't argue that Ted. Corvettes are pretty good cars, and we're talking about this century, even the late previous century, the LS1 motors are quite stout. Decent mileage for a V8, better than Chrysler and Ford. Mind you GM likes to open up the piston fit, add coatings, etc.. while Chrysler focuses only on workarounds such as MDS, yet GM now has their own variant of this also...
So who likes to outsource work? This is another factor.. Many companies do not design their parts, it's sent out. GM designs more of the stuff in-house. Chrysler sends out much more relying on suppliers to design their parts, and Ford again is in between.
Another factor is experience, that's a big one. For example, Chrysler will let a long term engineering fellow retire while not capturing their knowledge. At Chrysler, there is a dept / resource called EBOK (Engineering Book of Knowledge). This is a method to capture best engineering methods, and it hasn't been in place for very long. In other words, new engineers can make the same mistake as their predecessor. The extreme opposite is Toyota and Honda. I have friends who work at Honda in Ohio and Toyota in Michigan. They claim their job is boring because every task is by the book, such as one fellow I know was assigned to design new control arms, they gave him a big book, this is his guidline (i.e. be a robot). The book included all of the contacts for all of the folks related to the design, chassis, body, etc. and how to design the part. Chrysler is working on this, as well as GM and Ford, but again GM is leading this.
Facts:
IT = cost, Honda barely has a IT department, not using a very complicated design data exchange system, they use the telephone to contact eachother. It's hard to explain if you're not an engineering person. Basically if you designed a part, and this part affects another part, how do you communicate that your part has changed and you need to contact that person to tell them? Chrysler, GM and Ford use a computer based system to broadcast updated designs to the other person, in other words, no worries to tell anyone (via telephone or email) that you made a design change, the computer system will inform the others who need to know once you save your new / changed design on the server. GM, Ford and Chrysler rely on software to communicate internally. Sure it sounds great, but it's a bandage on a lack of ability to communicate and defined processes. This costs an enormous amount of money as well as more IT folks. Honda and Toyota doesn't need the software or the IT people, it's already defined how to communicate (in the book). This software and IT support budget consumes the engineering budget. GM has the best setup (compared to Chrysler and Ford), they use a system called Teamcenter, Ford recently implemented this (but a hybrid setup, not as refined as GM), and Chrysler is struggling to sort their system out. Regardless, they are all relying on software to resolve design communication whereas the Asian competitors overseas do not require this. So we have Chrysler spending lots of money in IT to solve problems, GM is sorted out, and Ford is up and running. IT is a bottom feeder, they consume the budget to design a car. Toyota and Honda doesn't utilize this level of IT support.
Validation = engineering cost, for example Honda may build a mule car for testing, the chassis dept. will get this specific car and use it, then once they are done with it they'll pass it on to the electrical team, and so on... whereas Chrysler will build a mule car for each team, this can amount to many cars, consuming the engineering budget. GM, Ford and Chrysler spends way too much on prototypes and mule builds compared to Honda and Toyota.
Horsepower = reduced reliability, add more and it causes more stress on components.
Carryover = less cost. Viper again is very impressive with less carryover than the Corvette, Chrysler doesn't use that powertrain in any other platforms. Ford and GM can share this with trucks and other cars regarding Mustangs and the past GT.
Fuel consumption = analysis, for structural analysis (requiring an optimized design with the least amount of material) to attain the lightest chassis possible. Example I can share, one design decided to have more glass, this resulted in more exposure to sun in the cabin, which resulted in a larger capacity a/c system, which resulted in more power needed, which resulted in a larger fuel tank to meet the 1 tank to the amount of distance travelled. In the end, it affects packaging, they had to make more room for a larger fuel tank just because there were bigger windows.
Toyota and Honda beats everyone in this engineering challenge today and GM is getting up there with them. Chrysler needs more of an engineering budget as well as Ford. The cutbacks only reduce this effort to catch up. The less you buy, the less the final poduct will mature, this is a fact. It's not possible for a smaller group to compete with a larger engineering team. The rest being Europe, they are kind of in between the Asians and North America in the sense of generalizing.. yet I can be specific about each company if needed, I worked with most in my career.. Germans tend to over complicate the design, more parts = cost. England tends to spend less on serviceability, etc.. as well as the Italians along with more handforming, there's all sorts of opinions that I can spew, yet there's an ideal car that can be designed with a piece of every company, they all have something that is better than the other. China pumps out a very cheap and thinned out copy of whatever they can get their hands on, good luck surviving a crash in one of their cars..
Innovation is supreme in North America, I worked with some of the best I'll ever meet in my career. Give them a budget and they'll smoke the competition.
Final fact:
Problem = corporate management.
