GM = bankrupt

[opebo]

This thread is hilarious and repulsive for the usual reasons - idiotic devotion to the fiction of the 'free market', and complete ignorance about automobilies.

Sam Spade wants to spit on GM cars because the company is 'government owned' at the moment.  Sam Spade doesn't understand economics and engages in simple-minded Archie-Bunkeresque knee-jerk reactions.

As for those who love to jump on the bandwagon to say that GM cars are 'crappy products', like States, well, you're simply wrong.  For the last 25 years or so, my family have mostly purchased cheap second hand GM products, and have essentially motored for free relative to income.  These products have always been largely reliable, and even if they have been very slightly less reliable than an equivalent Toyota, they're much cheaper to fix and buy than said Japanese products.  And of course GMs are overall much more reliable than Fords (check out the Taurus).  And Chrysler, forget about it - the last decent Chryslers were the K-cars and K-car spinoffs.

There are a few exceptions - we've owned quite a few Grand Marquis and Town Cars - full sized Fords are roughly as good as or nearly as good as full sized GMs.  Obviously certain vehicles are to be purchased regardless of reliability - we always bought lots of Jeep Grand Wagoneers simpy because they were so damned nice, even though they were certainly less reliable than an equivalent GM.

It is true that GM products have been in decline since around 1996 or 1998, but many are still reasonable values and they're certainly better than the equivalent Fords.  Bankruptcy really tells us nothing about product quality - there are many other factors at work.  Anyway it is ridiculous to contemplate shuttering such a large and historic company because of a mere ten bad years.  Keep in mind that most of what is wrong with 'american industry' is caused by poor government policy, not any error on the part of management.

Thus we come to the root of the problem with the childish reactions posted in this thread - few here seem to understand that the 'public'/'private' dichotomy is a false one, and that economic disasters such as the destruction Michigan, GM, and the well being of the american working cass don't 'just happen', they are utterly and completely political imposed by a ruling class.  And quite intentionally and with malice aforethought I might add.

[opebo]

How on earth can a new car 'be reliable'?  Or another way to put it - how can one know whether a car has proven to be reliable when it is new?

You have to look at the history of cars at least 10 years old or so to determine much about reliability and certainly to know anything at all about durability. 

For example, a new Ford (like the Taurus of the past decade or two), may have much 'better' 'fit and finish' than, say an equivalent GM.  But as the history of the twenty years have shown, Tauruses (along with most other Ford products) are enormously more troublesome than the GM.  The particular massive and costly failing tends to be the transmissions - which are the weak point on any car.

To go back to the point that 'success' in the 'marketplace' has nothing to do with the quality of products - just take a look at Walmart, or Fast Food.  If anything we can say that 'success' over time equals a dimunition of quality and service.

[opebo]

lol

You're so brainwashed your unwilling to even go out and observe your own community, deadman.

Of course in fairness 'the marketplace' which is giving us worse and worse products and services is responding to a rapidly declining standard of living.  The specialty producers for the elite are still producing quality, its just beyond the means of the 99%.

[opebo]

Not really.  The best way to know how vehicles that have actually been tested - have been on the road for a decade or two - is to check out www.carsurvey.org or www.epinions.com.

[opebo]

Right...and we're talking about quality now, not in the '80s.

Right, and I'm making the point that we will have no idea what the quality was until the product is tested on the road for at least a few years.

That said, I think it is a given that the newer cars will be more troublesome due to excessive and growing complexity.

[opebo]

The Ford 4.6, while better than most modern engines, is still absolute crap compared to the Chevrolet '5.7' (350).

[opebo]

The Ford 4.6, while better than most modern engines, is still absolute crap compared to the Chevrolet '5.7' (350).

Not really considering the 4.6 is used in everything from police crown vics to the  Land Rover ( or was). I've personally never been a fan of the 4.6 due to its performance and cost to modify, but that's a hot rod guy talking.  Far as reliability and practicality goes, its doing pretty well.    The old 5.7 Chevy 350 ( not the LS1-LS6 etc) are the most overrated motors of all time.  Give me the 5.0 HO anytime. Better engineering and reliability.

Interesting.  I'm no huge fan of the 350, I just don't like the unneccessary complexity of the overhead-cam style engine, like the 4.6.  My personal favorite over the years has been the Oldsmobile 307, which I had in various Olds, Buicks, and Cadillacs.  Nice and smooth, and a 300,000 miler easily.   Other engines that really impressed me way back when were the Cadillac 472/500 - what a wonderfully huge powerplant!  My '73 deville was a joy to drive, and handled great.  And the Pontiac 400 - I had a 70s grand prix once that I didn't really like (I prefer four doors), but it just would not die no matter what.  I had the 302 you mention in several Grand Marquis and Town Cars, but it was really noticably less powerful than the GM V8s..

[opebo]

Opebo, your ignorance is showing. The Ford Taurus was the most popular and well made cars Ford ever put out.

It is one of the most unreliable mass-market cars ever: http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/ford/taurus/

You'll find that while some people had good luck, a huge percentage of the reviews on there are very negative, while if you click over to the reviews of, for example, the Buick Lesabre or Century, or other equivalent GM cars, the percentage of positive reviews is far, far higher.

Taurus not only had the bad 3.8 lietre v6, it had lots of terrible transmissions and various smaller problems, including electrical.  But it all comes down to transmissions - a big expense.

[opebo]

carsurvey is not a legitimate source for data regarding the reliability of a car.  It's a voluntary thing so only particular people are going to leave comments, it's incredibly limited, and based on the opinions of those will little to no car knowledge.

And yet the results are precisely what you would get if you surveyed local mechanics.  There is no 'legitimate' source for data regarding the reliability of a car, but word-of-mouth, and anecdotal experience is far more useful and accurate than anything you're going to get from something like consumer reports.

[opebo]

and anecdotal experience is far more useful and accurate than anything you're going to get from something like consumer reports.

Now that is comedy gold.

Think about it, deadman.  Consumer reports measures things like the 'initial quality' of a vehicle - for example the 'fit and finish'.  These things are of basically no consequence in the real world.  Who cares how closely your body panels fit together as longas they stay on for 30 years?

Even if a 'consumer reports' type of agency or publication were to go back and study the 'reliability' of cars 10-20 years old, they are unlikely to form as useful a body of knowledge as that found on carsurvey.com and the like.  For one thing they tend to look at the wrong things - they may say, well, your Chevrolet broke more times than that guy's Ford, thus the Ford is better.  However, in practice, as perceived by the owners, the Chevrolet may be much loved and the Ford much despised simply because the more numerous repairs on the Chevy were very low cost, while the few repairs on the Ford were always the transmission going out or the heads exploding (this by the way is a pretty accurate assessment).   Another key factor is - did the needed repair leave the driver stranded - because non-stranding malfunctions are not going to bother people nearly as much.  Stranding infuriates us all.

These reports also tend to value driving characteristics that aren't in fact of any importance to most drivers in the real world, such as handling, and underate such characteristics that are in fact absolutely vital over the long haul, such as softness of ride or lack of vibrations during excelleration.  In general most evaluatoins of the consumer reports type heavily overweight characteristics that foreign cars do better and underweight what american cars do (did) well.  Why do you think people kept buying Buicks and Chevrolets for decades even when people like those on this forum thought they were 'all junk' - the reason was that they liked them.  They liked smoothness, quiet, torque, simplicity, quiet, and room, and couldn't care one whit about handling or fit and finish. 

The point being that any attempt to be scientific about this information inherently is prone to error because one must make assumptions, which always warps the information in trying to study it, while, taken in total, the owners impressions are, on average, going to be correct.  If 70% of owners loved their old Buick, and 60 percent of Ford owners hated their Taurus, you'll find that your chances are a lot better with an old Lesabre.

[opebo]

Have you ever even read a Consumer Reports......anything?  Do you have any idea what data they use or how they get it?  Your post makes me thinks you haven't and don't.


The part where you claimed CR "tend to value" handling and what not realy threw me for a laugh.

Why is that?  Are you saying they make no value judgements?

[opebo]

Ok, so I took a look at 'Consumer Reports' (admittedly I hadn't seen it in years), and here's what they consider good used car values'

Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Small cars/wagons
2004 Honda Civic Hybrid Sdn Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $20,650 $8,375 59%
2005 Subaru Impreza WRX Wgn Auto AWD 4 Cyl Turbo 4doors 51,000 25,545 12,200 52
2006 Toyota Matrix XRS Hbk Man FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 40,000 19,250 11,700 39
2007 Toyota Corolla CE Sdn Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 33,000 15,105 10,100 33
2008 Mazda Mazda3 Mazdaspeed3 Hbk Man FWD 4 Cyl Turbo 4doors 20,000 22,440 18,050 20
 
SUVs
2004 Hyundai Santa Fe Base Utility Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $18,799 $6,425 66%
2005 Toyota Sequoia Ltd Utility Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 51,000 41,605 17,250 59
2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca Base Utility Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 32,395 15,250 53
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander ES Utility Auto RWD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 21,370 10,325 52
2008 Honda Pilot VP Utility Auto 2WD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 27,595 17,600 36
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Family cars
2004 Toyota Avalon XLS Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $30,605 $10,875 64%
2005 Honda Accord Hybrid Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 51,000 30,140 13,625 55
2006 Nissan Altima SE-R Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 29,650 15,600 47
2007 Mercury Milan Base Sdn Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 23,670 12,675 46
2008 Ford Fusion SE Sdn Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 23,660 14,500 39
 
Luxury/Upscale cars
2004 Acura 3.5RL Sdn w/Nav Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $45,600 $11,375 75%
2005 Lexus GS 430 Sdn Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 51,000 47,975 17,175 64
2006 Lincoln Town Car Signature Ltd Sdn Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 40,000 44,920 16,400 63
2007 Volvo S60 Base Sdn Auto FWD 5 Cyl Turbo light pressure 4doors 33,000 30,885 15,800 49
2008 Infiniti M35 Sdn Auto RWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 43,050 25,450 41
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Minivans
2004 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $24,490 $9,275 62%
2005 Toyota Sienna CE Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 5doors 51,000 23,425 10,275 56
2006 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 25,345 12,925 49
2007 Toyota Sienna LE Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 5doors 33,000 25,830 14,725 43
2008 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 25,860 17,725 31
 
Sporty cars
2004 BMW Z4 Rdstr 2.5 Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 66,000 $33,600 $13,250 61%
2005 Nissan 350Z Track Cpe Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 51,000 34,600 14,750 57
2006 Honda S2000 Convt Man RWD 4 Cyl 2doors 40,000 34,050 18,125 47
2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata Convt Man RWD 4 Cyl 2doors 33,000 23,390 13,800 41
2008 Porsche Boxster Base Rdstr Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 20,000 45,800 35,900 22
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Pickup trucks
2004 Toyota Tundra SR5 Access Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 2doors 66,000 $25,395 $11,050 56%
2005 Subaru Baja Sport Utility Auto AWD 4 Cyl 4doors 51,000 23,145 15,550 33
2006 Honda Ridgeline RT Crew Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 27,700 14,925 46
2007 Honda Ridgeline RT Crew Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 27,800 16,050 42
2008 Toyota Tundra Base Reg Cab Auto 4WD 8 Cyl 2doors 20,000 27,540 17,550 36

Obviously you'ld be crazy to take advice from these people.  Of course there are a few decent cars in the list (Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Corolla), the list includes Nissans, Hondas, and for gosh sakes Volvos!  Subarus even.  Its just silly.  The Honda minivan? Ford Fusion?  I suppose, in fairness, most cars of the last 5 years or so are horrible, but still..

[opebo]

Unscientific, but still thread appropriate link. Ten cars that seem to last forever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Saabs are atrociously unreliable money sinks.  Volvos a little better but not much.  Newer SUbarus are no good, though obviously some of the very old ones (seventies and early eighties) weren't bad.  Still, they were much worse than a Toyota or Datsun of the same era.

There really is no need to keep reiterating that you know nothing about cars, your point has been very well made by this point.

No, deadman, you merely espouse the conventional wisdom - Japanese and European cars good, American cars bad.   It is rather obvious that I know much more in detail about automobiles than you, but I would never be so offensive as to characterize you as a know-nothing.  You just know very little and tend to accept what you read in the media a bit too redily.  Its ok, you can afford to waste money on the wrong cars - no problem.

[opebo]

And you know your anti-conventional wisdom is correct because of all your years getting your fingers greasy?  All the years studying automotive theory at Uni?

I'm a cheap bastard from a long line of cheap bastards.  I come from the kind of family that recieves $200,000/year in income and considers any car over $5,000 'expensive'.

[opebo]

Deadman, the best engine for normal passenger car use, as an engine and aside from other issues, is an inline six cylinder:

[opebo]

Only if it's in a "boxer" configuration like all good hearted inline 6s.  (Subarus and Porsches)

No, no, those aren't 'inline'.  Inline is the configuration where all the cylinders are in a line.  Then you also have Vee and boxer configurations.  The inline six is superior to the boxer or V, though the V has considerable advantages in compactness.

The advantage to the six in-line is its imperturbable smoothness - it is naturally 'in balance', and thus smooth and quiet.

And yes, jmfcst, your slant six is a great example of these - 'slant' just means its an inline six tipped over a bit.

And regarding aluminum earnest - one of the worst innovations in automotive history.  Cast iron is the durable material for engines and heads.

[opebo]

...and "boxer" just means its an inline six (or four) tipped all the way over.

Not so, a Boxer six would be one in which there are three cylinders on each size, 'opposed' as it were.  And a Boxer Four would have two on each side.  These are great engines for certain purposes (basically rear engined sporty cars), don't get me wrong, but they are much rougher-running than an inline six or even a V-8.
Boxers:




Inline six: