General Motors in the red.

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

My sister had an Accord some years ago, I recall she said the dealer told her some large number of screws that were used on Hondas, which cut down on rattles.

My 1986 Buick Somerset was the worst car I've had for reliablity. The 1992 Mazda 626 was best. No repairs in 9 years outside normal maintenace except a broken power antenna cable which I repaired myself. The Mazda dealer was BAD, though. 2001 Infiniti I30t has been good, but the (leather) driver's seat is cracking at the seams. Two repairs, both under warranty -- the dashlight rheostat went bad in the first few months, and the emissions system threw a fault code that they reset and hasn't happened again.
 
I've always been a GM guy myself, along with the rest of the family but some of the latest offerings have been pretty dismal. I can't stand GM's obsession with front wheel drive, while the rest of the world is going back to rear drive.

I did make the mistake of going with Hondas earlier in my driving life. I can't see what all the hype is with Hondas being so reliable. I owned a 1978 Honda Civic and a 1985 Prelude. Both of these cars had terrible electrical gremlins. Honda body work is terrible, with crappy paint jobs, poor rust protection, and the fact that they start falling apart after about 100K on the dial. Interiors are just as bad, with cheap plastic materials that fall apart, and upholstery that disentegrates by the stitching. Dyes used in the fabrics fade after about 6-8 years too. The Prelude was constantly overheating, and the battery would never stay charged. Both of the cars too had annoying carburator problems, and would never stay tuned up properly. Starting them on a cold morning took an act of congress!

On the flip side of the coin, I have known of many people why own GM cars that are supposedly terrible vehicles that are great. Personally, I own a 1988 Astro van with 300,000 miles on it. Yes, the van is starting to look a little shabby now, but it is still reliable, and runs great, and outlasted the Hondas by twice their age! GM developed one of the simpliest and reliable EFI systems in the market that this van is equipped with. Dad owned one of the Oldsmobile Diesel cars, and it was a great vehicle that took him many miles. I also own a Chevette, and I can honestly say, that car is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the same year Honda Civic when it comes to being properly engineered for Americans and the way they drive. The Chevette has a 4 speed overdrive automatic, computer controlled carb, full-side seats, and real shocks...the Honda had none of these! Why do I have a Chevette? It runs, handles good, gets great mileage, and I can depend on it to start and run everyday...can't say that about the Hondas I owned!!!

My thought into why Japanese cars are good "out of the box" is the taxing structure in Japan is different than it is here. In Japan, vehicles are taxed more as they get older. Here in the USA, cars get taxed less as they get older. Most Japanese cars rarely ever get older than 6 years in their native country. Because of this, the vehicles are not really designed to run over that time frame. They are however designed to be perfectly maintence free before that period, which means normal service parts, like shocks, are replaced by struts, which can give higher mileage, but are harder and more expensive to maintain. Interior materials do not need to be of high quality because the vehicle will not last particularly long.

This is in stark contrast to European vehicles, which in the past, were based on tried and true designs. They did it right the first time, and use the platforms for many years. Europeans held onto their cars the longest, so they typically wanted vehicles that were easier to maintain. With vehicles that were standardized, this was not a problem. Due to European driving habits too, utmost reliability was a major issue. Handling must be impeccable too, because the vehicles are driven over 100 mph at times, and at others, asked to navigate the narrow, twisty roads of ancient cities. Most European cars have leather interiors because they last a long time. Their paint jobs are extremely thick and frequently look brand new even though the car may be several years old.

Unfortunatley, Mercedes is falling into the style trap by attempting to sell their cars based on snob appeal and clout, versus substance like durability, handling and power. This is probably the reason why they are doing so bad today. They have alienated their longtime buyers by selling bling, instead of a trustworthy vehicle they can pass onto their children. Take a look at how many 240D's and 300D's are on the road. These models went out of production back in the early 80's. Around here, these cars are all over the place, and most look and run just as good as they did when they were new. The reseale price reflects it too, with these cars going for almost $4000 on the used lot...Try that with a Honda or Toyota!!!
 
White goods on wheels

I have always wondered why auto manufacturers shy away from making "boring" cars, despite the fact that vehicles like these end up getting sold by the millions. A look at the top selling automobiles over the years shows many vehicles that are hardly exciting...like Ford Taruses, Honda accords, Toyota Camrys, Volkswagen rabbits, etc.

There are two types of automoble buyers out there. One that buys cars because they are exciting, and another that buys cars because they need transportation. The thing about the former is that while they may frequently buy exotic cars, they also will buy the practical cars too for daily transportation. The lion share of car buyers buy cars as an appliance. They are looking to get a job done...get them from point A to B, and not much else. "Appliance" or "white goods" cars have a few attributes that make them popular. They are rock solid reliable, unpretensious in their styling, efficient, and comfortable....basically put, they get the job they were intended to do very well.

Despite the fact that you don't hear of too many people over the years in wanting vehicles like these, they sell well, and more importantly, they pay the bills of the automotive companies! Why is GM doing so bad? My thought is that they don't really have any "white goods on wheels" in other words, cars that fit these basic requirements. GM spends way too much time creating gawdily styled vehicles that are just too flashy for the person that just wants to get to work reliably. Because they are spending so much effort on styling, they neglect the engineering, so their latest cars have glaring engineering mistakes that make them unreliable, sloppy, and clunky. I thought they got it right with the Malibu, but they ended up putting that cantankerous, rough, 60 degree V6 engine in it tarnishing what could be a decent vehicle.
 
Not so fast you Saturn lovers!

Unfortunatley, Saturn has been assmiliated into the rest of GM, and is now sharing bodies, engines, and other components with the rest of GM's divions. The Ion is the last of the true "different" saturns that were uniquely engineered. It, of course is based on the original SL/SW/SC design. The bigger Saturn LS sedan is based on the Mailbu, and contains a good ol Chevy V6. The Vue is nothing but a Pontiac Vibe. GM continues to assimilate other corporate design elements into it's line. In fact, the unique Tennessee plant Saturns were born in has been axed in GM's cost cutting plan, and Saturns will be made in the same dingy assembly lines as all their other junk.

Basically the Saturn nameplate is nothing but a replacement for Oldsmobile.
 
I have to say that if there is any reason I like GM and the other American car companies, it would be only because of their history, and the Fact that they are American. There is really nothing else for me to like about them. The quality of American cars seem to be inferior to foreign ones, and the foreign companies are always the first to offer cutting edge technology, such as hybrid models. Of all the cars I see around here, only about 10 percent are American.

In my lifetime, I can only think of one American car my parents have owned: A 1995 Ford Taurus wagon. My dad bought it used in 1997 from a friend to replace his aging 1987 Subaru. He absolutely hated the Taurus, and it proved to be a mechanical nightmare. That was the last American car he had.

Of all my family, both immediate and not so immediate, I can't think of any who own an American car. All of my immediate family has Toyota's. My dad has a 2001 Rav4, my mom has a 2002 Avalon, and I have a 1996 Corolla.

My corolla was originally purchased new by my grandfather, who later gave it to my mom. Last year, when my mom got the Avalon, I was given the Corolla. In almost ten years and 134,000 miles, it has needed little more than regular maintenance, and in the time I have had it, I have done nothing more than change the oil. It has been such an economical and reliable car. I am not even sure that I would replace it even if I had the money.

so anyway, that is my rant. I am not wishing bad on GM or the other American car companies. I hope that they can all pull through. However, I am convinced that one thing is for certain: If they can't start building reliable cars like the foreign companies are doing, their sales will always be down.
 
Here's a fun test

Next time one of your co-workers goes on about how great their Toyota is, ask them if they ever test drove a Buick. Or a Pontiac. I will bet almost 100% of the time, they will say no, or that, hey, that is a grandpa car!

I would further be willing to bet that if you masked off the front end of a Toyota Camry and a Buick equivalent, took off the badges, and gave them to people to drive, you would have probably an even split among people which they liked the most.

Small sedans all basically have the same gumdrop shape (except the horrendous Nissan line that all look like a beetle of one form or another) and all have around the same power.

What the foreign car manufacturers have been able to do is to make import buying "cool", and domestic buying uncool. I will bet that most people buying Camry's have never even sat their butt in a Buick. Don't tell me about Buick quality, it rates very high, google on the quality tests if you don't believe me.

If people worry so much about GM having problems, they should at least take a car for a drive and do a real comparison, and not worry about what their friends think of their rides.

I admit as I mentioned before that GM makes alot of boring cars. But don't tell me a Toyota sedan is some sort of stallion to drive compared to a similarly equipped Buick.

You don't have to get a Malibu, but there are Saturns, Buicks. The Cadillacs are great cars and doing great. There's the Pontiac G6, the Corvette, and the Pontiac Solstice looks like great inexpensive fun. In short, there are alot of things to at least look at from GM.

The "third rail" that no one ever wants to talk about is the fickle car buying public, and the shading of the automotive journals. A great example of this was something I pointed out before, with the Pontiac Aztek. Everyone jumped on the "ugly Aztek" bandwagon, but when Honda came out with its Element POS and then the Scion "things" appeared, not a word about how ugly they are.

So in addition to GMs financial problems, union issues, EPA issues, they have to battle a fickle public and an automotive press that thinks anything that Honda creates is a masterpiece and that Detroit makes lousy cars.

So we wonder why GM has troubles? Who would WANT to be in that crummy business?
 
Kevin Kevin Kevin, the Element and Scion are ugly but there isn't a word in the English language to describe the Aztek. All I can come up with is ugly squared LOL
I guess there goes my ever driving your Fleetwood :(
 
Harking back to my 93 Camry, the father of a co worker bought a 93 Chrylser Intrepid that same year. He was a retired old guy. Just prior to trading off my Camry in 99 I got a ride in it, what a rattle clap trap that car was by then. Seats were all mushy and spongy too, and it had half the miles my Camry had. No thanks.
My dads 87 Corolla, numerous cross country trips to CA and BC in its day, then passed down to sister, nieces, nephews etc is still on the road running fine, some rust. His 92 Accord went to sister in 94, she's put a kazillion miles on it driving from the country to the city daily, now my other sister and her boyfriend have it and it still runs like new. The only troubles it has had were with the a/c, other than that it's smooth driving. I drove it 2 years ago when I was home up to Niagara Falls and it still drove like a new car.
Just out of interest Kevin, since I haven't darkened the doors of a GM dealership in a few years, I will make a point of stopping at one in the next couple of days and see if there looks to be any improvements, no test drive, just want to see if the interiors look better than the Playskool look of the last few years.
 
Pete cool....

Do that and let me know your findings. And of course you can drive the Cadillac, why would you not?! Take a look at that Solstice, I have not had a chance to look at it yet, but it looks really nice.
 
The big 3

Everyone around here had mini vans and suv's. Mostly those mini van things. I'll save that for another thread. We or I should say my partener wanted a new chrysler 300. So we ended up with one. The car looks nice and has alot of nice features. The sound system absolutly rocks! However its not the easyest car for tall people to drive. Not to mention the gas milage is awful. The window stacker said 17-24, the car barly averages 19. Thats not much better than we get in the escalade. I looked at several different cars for my self, camry, maxima, FX, and ended up back where I started with another caddy. I have been extreamly happy with the service at the dealer and 4 caddys later im back for more. I gave up trying to buy something that was "suppose" to last because it either doesnt last or I dont keep it long enough to matter. 2-3 years is usally my limit so I figured I might as well be comfortable in it instead of being stuffed in it.

I'm curioust to here from other tall or large memebers that passed or bought a car because of how they fit in it.

Scott
 
The big Three

Ive always suspected that companies such as Toyota are much more streamlined in their corporate structure. it seems the Big Three have too many executives drawing huge salaries. Does anyone here know more about this? also, does anyone dissagree that american engineering is NOT what it used to be? a lot of people would rather turn their heads at the Toyota threat or take an arrogant, invincible attitude. it is this arrogant attitude that will be GMs downfall. instead of pointing fingers there needs to be a renewed emphasis on engineering and quality. if consumer reports was lying about their reliability surveys they would have been sued (and defeated)long ago. i get the impression that some people will buy an inferior product simply because its "american". and thats noble, its a sorry shame than manufacturing across the board is leaving the united states. i think the big car companies should be held accountable for making a good product. i also think the unions have not always been the best thing for american manufacturing. i think the person who suggested that GM will intentionally go bankrupt hit the nail on the head! not noble. any comments?
 
I think it's a whole lotta things wrapped up in one big mess. Although I'm not a staunch unionist I don't believe that union workers today intentionally set out to perform poor quality work. I believe it to be the opposite but they are mired with poor decision making and designs from above. I work for a railroad and started at the very bottom moving on up thru management and I still hear it from coworkers who joined straight at the management level all this looking down at the actual union workers who make the trains runs. The unionized workers are more proud of the company than any non union person I've yet to meet. I sometimes have to remind them that yes I was one of those down there as well at one time. Snobs is all they are and like I like to say, they wouldn't know a train if it ran over them but they'll talk like they could go right down to the track and run the train themselves. Another thing I remind them, the whole floor could miss a month or more of work and the trains would keep running, probably better.
Now the other thing that Japanese have that I still don't think has caught on is what's it called "kaizan" or continuous improvement. The strive for perfection whereas the Big 3 just accept mediocrity and offer factory rebates and such to entice people to buy a lesser quality product. As we know it's failed miserably, a majority of people want quality and are willing to pay that extra, especially when it comes to their choice of car. Of course there will always be people who will settle for less either for financial reasons or patriotic, but they too are a diminishing number. You can only be taken so much then it's time to vote with your wallet.
 
The last GM cars I really got excited about would probably be like the 77 Monte Carlo. After that the cars changed a lot and they've never really been the same to me. I know they had some deplorable cars in the 80s and I can't speak to their quality since as I really don't know anyone who's owned one. My first car was a '74 Nova which of course I loved.

I had horrible luck with a Chrysler product in the 80s and I've never really gotten over that, though once again I can't speak to their overall quality.

We always had GM growing up (generally Buick Electras) which were nice cars. My Dad always kept a pickup as well as his vehicle to drive to work, and for that he always preferred Ford. In about 1990, they switched to a Ford Taurus that was a fairly good car for a long time, and they've since had 2 Toyota Camrys, although there were years my father never would have even considered a foreign brand of car.

After my errant Chrsyler product breathed its last about 1987, I gave up driving altogether for several years. Then I had an older Toyota Celica and have had Ford/Mercury products since. At the moment I have a 99 Mercury Mystique which is a wonderful car both practically and dependability wise. It's comfortable, economical and an ideal size for me.

I plan to drive it for at least another 5 years barring any major changes, and will probably get something similar when it comes time again. I do like the new small sedan Ford/Mercury has, I forget the name, as well as the 500, that being perhaps more car than I really need.
 
Bankrupt

I did say that I think G.M. wants to go Bankrupt.

But since I have owned many G.M. cars, it does make me sad to see where the company has gone.

My cars:
1962 Chevy II
1968 GTO Convertible
1961 Cadillac Coupe de Ville
1969 VW Convertible
1978 Cadillac Seville
1980 Cadillac El Dorado Biaritz
1979 Buick Riviera
1985 Lincoln Mark 7
1989 Mercury Cougar
2001 Chevy Camaro
2003 Ford Crown Victoria

I owned these cars in the above sequence, I wish I still had some of them, the 1969 GTO, for instance would be quite valuable. The only cars I bought new were the VW Convertible and the Camaro. The others I bought used, I think it does save money. I never had a lot of trouble with any of the cars, even the 80's G.M. cars which were supposedly the worst. But there were things that wore out such as radiators and water pumps. Some Toyota and Honda owners tell me that those items last longer in thier cars.

And historically, G.M. was quite inovative. The had many firsts, probably brought to the market before the technology was perfected. Things such as air-suspension, fuel injection, air-bags (put in some Cadillacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles in the 1970's), variable displacement (cylinder shut-off, the V-8-6-4, in the 1991 Cadillacs)

Most news reports indicate that the current G.M. vehicles are reliable. I just think that their line is more of a "rolling white goods" than, say, Chrysler. I keep harping back to Rear-Drive, but you should have a choice. If I want to buy G.M. I would need to spend at least $30,000 for a Cadillac CTS.

I just look at what the Steel and Airline industry have done, almost all went Bankrupt, dumped thier pension and health care obligations, and went on stronger industries. That is probably the only way for the domestic manufacturers to compete.
 
Diesel engines.

Another big mistake GM made is waiting too long to introduce the Duramax diesel to their pickups and vans. With the Diesel craze beginning in the early 1990's. All three of the USA automakers offered diesels in their pickups. The problem, however is that the GM 6.5 liter diesel was lackluster in performance. When Dodge introduced the 5.9 Cummins in their pickups in 1986, they really had a lot of takers. Then in 1994, Ford offered the 7.3 Powerstroke in their pickups and vans (which I'm a proud owner of). It seems like Ford and Dodge were selling all of the pickups. GM should not have waited so long to introduce this option. I know that GM also had a big problem with their 5.7 liter diesel that was offered in their cars (my mother had one of these for a while), and instead of introducing a better diesel for their cars, they shucked the whole idea altogether. I am 6'8" tall, so I cannot stand Saturns. I hope that the USA automakers don't start stooping to cars made in China, because I will not buy them again if they do.
 
After the earlier fiasco with the diesel engines, they're going to have to get it right for people to trust them again. I can't stand the sound of them so wouldn't own one personally, and they tend to come on larger cars than I would likely purchase anyway.

I remember in the late 80s, I think, a Cutlass or something similar with a diesel engine, still had the window sticker and all that brand new, just go up in flames in a McDonald's drive in.
 
I remember taking one of those diesel Cutlass's out for a test drive way back when at the dealership in Vancouver. Talk about a bone shaker. Even after a good warmup on the hiway when it came time to park the car in a slot slowly it was like riding a bucking bronco it was shuddering so bad like a gas car ready to konk out. And that's the car they were letting people test drive. I can still remember the car, it's the only Cutlass I've ever driven, white C Supreme loaded with a dark blue interior. I bought a Volvo.
Then when it came time to trade in the Volvo in 93 I thought I'd give Chrysler a look-see because I really like the look of the new New Yorker or LHS than the Concorde. Off we go for a test drive, pretty warm day so I switch on the a/c, after about a minute, nothing yet, the salesman tries fiddling with it but it never did work.. Enough for me. Around that same time I hit another Chrysler dealer and they had a nice loaded Concorde, white again, so I agree to go for a test drive. Get in the car with the salesman, won't start, the excuse being it's been sitting, after a mechanic comes and gets it going we're off. As we're entering the freeway the check engine light comes on but we carry on eventually returning to the dealership, he says to take the back street in, so I turn to go that way, come to a 4 way stop to make a left, proceed into my turn and the car craps out right in the middle of the intersection but it quickly restarted. Parked the car and told him not a chance in hell I would buy one. That's when I bought my Camry. If they can't even get their demo's working properly what does that say.
 
Its only American Diesels that suck

Diesels in the rest of world, show very little appreciable difference to their petrol cousins. To do this though, the diesels have become fully electronic and very complex, but if their emissions can meet the Euro III and IV standards, they must be doing well.

When we upgraded our Toyota Landcruiser earlier this year, we test drove the Turbo diesel to compare to the V8 Petrol. The power might be less, but the Torque is much higher, and available accross a wider rev range.

It started with no rattle, no vibration when cold, and ran just like the Petrol version does. Fuel Ecconomy averages 11.5L/100km vs the Petrol at 20L/100km.

If the US manufacturers started importing diesel technology from their European or Japanese cousins, I think the bad image that diesels have in the US would dissappear.
 
mpg conversion

To convert Liters per 100 Kilometers to Miles per Gallon:

235.2209/DIN

11.5L/100km = 20.45 mpg Diesel engine
20L/100km = 11.76 mpg Gasoline engine (petrol)

It's easier for me think in these terms, just as it's easier for the rest of the world to use the L/100km.

I use this conversion when I surf the European G.M. sites or the Holden (G.M.) Australian sites. Interestingly enough, the European G.M. sites offer many different cars than are available in the U.S. Many really cool cars are available in the smaller sizes, still made by G.M. Too bad they are not smart enough to realize what they have. Same goes for Holden, they have lots of good Rear-Drive platforms, including my favorite, Station Wagons. Looks like G.M. may have to use Holden for their new Camaro platform, because they don't have anything that is adaptable in production here in the U.S.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top