Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





GM News, New Models and Market Share

1102610271029103110321051

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    Wild variations in quality don't surprise me one bit as when you have a tolerance for low quality and wide tolerances, you get wide variances in durability and reliability.

    The big 3 are obviously the masters of accepting anything and everything without regard to QC or QA.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    edited February 2013
    Wild variations in quality don't surprise me one bit as when you have a tolerance for low quality and wide tolerances, you get wide variances in durability and reliability.

    Ironically my BIL works for a tool and die company in Michigan that sells tooling and dies to the big 3 and most of the transplants.

    He still claims the dies he sells to the Asian plants (Honda and Toyota) require far tighter tolerances than the domestic makers, he should know as he works in sales. I have no way to verify, but that's what he keeps telling me.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    The big 3 are obviously the masters of accepting anything and everything without regard to QC or QA.

    I won't diss on GM here since I haven't sampled any in a while. But having Fords I'd say that's pretty much the case overall. I think their reliability has improved overall but quality and fit-n-finish still leave a lot to be desired.

    As I've mentioned in the past my wife's '11 Taurus looks like it was assembled by 8 year olds.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    Some manufacturers may avoid publishing service bulletins because they prefer their heads in the sands and to not acknowledge known issues.

    Not my experience in the slightest.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    I tend to look for vehicles I own (LOL), but still...would that one thing affect so many vehicles to change an entire category, or worse yet, the entire overall score, for that one year of vehicle versus the year before or year after? Personally, I don't think so. I think it's comical to see CR say "Avoid the (fill in the year), but OK to buy the year before and after". Nothing will really change my mind on that. Of course, I do believe running improvements are made in subsequent years and new problems arise with new technology installed. And no, I still don't believe a 2011 Juke is much worse than average while a 2012 is much better than average. I mean, do the 'smell' test.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    I might add, dieselone, that it looks like you're looking at a NHTSA website, not an Alldata site of GM and Ford service bulletins. There may be earlier bulletins with a different number where the number you are showing is an updated or revised number. NHTSA's website originates with customer complaints to NHTSA, and is not all-inclusive, correct?
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    I got it from Automd. The alldata sight wanted a membership.

    Also, if there is a TSB that usually means the problems affects quite a few vehicles.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    ...and there are always a lot of service bulletins out there.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,775
    I think it's comical to see CR say "Avoid the (fill in the year), but OK to buy the year before and after".

    I don't, because there is a spectrum of problem levels, and there has to be SOME cutoff between "avoid" and not. So it's not surprising that any year to year variation could put something on one side one year, but not on another.

    And yes, I know you won't change your mind. But some people will understand this point of view and feel differently. :P

    Of course, I do believe running improvements are made in subsequent years and new problems arise with new technology installed.

    So then you admit changes in reliability can occur, and since there has to be some boundary between "avoid" and not avoid, you agree with my point even though you won't admit it! :shades:

    And no, I still don't believe a 2011 Juke is much worse than average while a 2012 is much better than average.

    Don't forget that "average" is compared to other models". So one model year may have better or worse vehicles to compare to - a competitor could have switched from a very problematic model to a much better redesign, or the opposite. But I know that doesn't change *some* opinions, either. :surprise:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    Carlos le cost cutter Ghosn had them design a part tha lasts just beyond the 12 month adjustment period.

    Then he hired lawyers to write the fine print on their warranty.

    LOL
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    Of course, I do believe running improvements are made in subsequent years and new problems arise with new technology installed.

    So then you admit changes in reliability can occur, and since there has to be some boundary between "avoid" and not avoid, you agree with my point even though you won't admit it!


    Yes...when there is a major technological change (e.g., engine, trans, etc.) in a vehicle in its cycle, I admit that. However, I can't believe that a 2009 Cobalt equipped exactly like my '08, would be any more or less reliable. Incidentally, I work with a guy who has had more than one Cobalt equipped just like mine (except no ABS)--he puts high miles on them. He and I have similar real-world experience, no matter the year...because there weren't any true significant changes made to the car through the years.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    To get an idea of what sample variance can do, check out Fuelly.com.

    Same exact car, but the average mpg can fluctuate 10% or more even with a large sample and comparing same-generation cars.

    '10 Cobalt gets almost 30 mpg while the '09 gets 28.

    '10 Malibu gets 24.4 mpg while the '09 gets 26.4.

    Did the 2010 Malibu get a major downgrade? I doubt it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Up a whopping 47%!

    As they say "it's the product, stupid".

    Amen. :shades:
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,400
    He still claims the dies he sells to the Asian plants (Honda and Toyota) require far tighter tolerances than the domestic makers, he should know as he works in sales.

    So, which ones cost more? The "Little 3" are obviously trying to cut every little penny where it should actually be investing more dollars.

    More signs of "Old GM". :cry:

    Thank you for the insight on the tools and the true view of the TSB's defining quality variations.

    BTW, did I mention the 2003 Denali I traded had to have the rear diff. changed? I met the salesman at the local store and he said the manager was madder than Hell! Apparently just another thing wrong with that GM Lemon!

    Regards,
    OW
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    He and I have similar real-world experience, no matter the year...because there weren't any true significant changes made to the car through the years.

    I'm sure someone out there has had a Cobalt lemon. Seems like many have had varying problems with their Cobalts on the forums. You'd think everyone would have the same experience with their Cobalts as you have. That's simply not the case. Some cars have problems and some do not. I don't doubt for whatever reason more problems could crop up in '09 vs. an '08. It's possible, we can debate the likelyhood, but you simply can't say it's not a possibility.

    I don't know what issue was with CR and the Juke. But the only difference I saw was the electrical system was rated solid black in '11 and solid red in '12. Major engine was average in '11 and 1/2 red in '12.
    I don't doubt the '12 could be better than the '11. Why do many claim to avoid the first model year of a vehicle? They seem to be the most trouble some anytime you look up the ratings. That must mean some minor changes are made in subsequent years to improve them. Well except for intermediate steering shafts. I think it took GM over 10 years to take care of that issue;)

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've worked in a few service and parts departments and have seen first hand how a part or component that hasn't appeared to change have varying degrees of reliability and quality over the course of its production life. That's why you see recalls and TSBs for certain years of a product that hasn't appeared to change in many years and sometime you need a serial number besides a model and year to get a replacement part.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,528
    edited February 2013
    >Seems like many have had varying problems with their Cobalts on the forums.

    As the import fans like to point out, the small problems get over emphasized on internet forums and the problems are really as common nor as great as a few posters make it seem, e.g.,toyota sludge, transmission problems in Hondas, and on and on. My Cobalt has been absolutely great and pleasure to drive.

    I saw a comment in another discussion about the GM discussion commenting about the "tone." That's exactly what I had said way back about someone coming here seeing the constant kvetching and negative posting repeating over and over would not want to participate. It just never ends repeats and continues where it wouldn't be allowed in other topics.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    edited February 2013
    As the import fans like to point out, the small problems get over emphasized on internet forums and the problems are really as common nor as great as a few posters make it seem, e.g.,toyota sludge, transmission problems in Hondas, and on and on. My Cobalt has been absolutely great and pleasure to drive.

    I wasn't mentioning the Cobalt forum to highlight problems or degrade GM or any manufacturer. Since Uplander was mentioning the Cobalt and simply used it as an example, what I believe about varying reliability would apply to any vehicle.

    In general, I believe forums tend to be a bad way to evaluate reliability/quality. Next time you buy a router, monitor, TV, washing machine, snow blower, or whatever, do a brief search through forums or reviews on various retail websites. You'll find negative reviews on about everything.

    I recently purchased a Panasonic 65 inch plasma TV. The reviews on Cnet and other home theater type sites rave about this TV. Considering it's not a cheap TV I read through many forums and customer reviews. I was almost didn't buy the TV with so many posts complaining about image retention, buzzing, and DOAs. Well I went ahead and bought it and couldn't be happier. I've had no such problems and the TV has an incredible picture.

    I haven't bothered posting a positive review though, but if my TV was giving me problems, I'd be more likely to.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Summary: Gm: 2011 cadillac cts. There is a wine or hum noise coming from the rear differential assembly and there is a procedure to fix it. *rm

    I know a guy that had this problem and he said it was covered under warranty and he said the fix was not very simple.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    As the old saying goes...."Provide an excellent product or service experience to a client and he'll tell a few close friends, but provide a negative product or service experience to a client and he'll tell everyone he meets".

    I firmly believe that's true.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    edited February 2013
    However, I can't believe that a 2009 Cobalt equipped exactly like my '08, would be any more or less reliable.

    Should raise the question on "any" model of any auto manufacturer. Cobalt, Civic, Corola, Camry, Altima, etc. from year to year. Auto manufacturers do not divulge to the public anything regarding how, why to what extent they may alter specifications, tolerances of parts and components. Neither do they divulge when they might change sourcing, suppliers, of these parts and components. Are changes made to lower costs and thus might compromise reliability when safety is not an issue? Are changes made to consolidate functions and eliminate some pieces or parts? We on the outside will never know.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    edited February 2013
    But...back and forth from year to year? I find it hard to believe in real-world applications.

    I believe that problems tend to crop up in the first year of production, but as I've said here before, in forty years of looking at CR's, I've never once--til now--seen a car go from much worse than average to much better than average in one model year--this is overall--before. I'm an auditor, so that is why I'm skeptical of the hard-nosed reality of those ratings.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    I don't get Consumer Reports, but I'd be curious to see how the fuel system rankings on the BMW E9x, 335 series is shown. For the first few years of production, BMW had horrible reliability in its HPFP (high pressure fuel pumps). BMW finally seemed to have that problem resolved after 4-5 years into the model production, and it extended the warranty on that component for the previously affected models.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,775
    I'm an auditor, so that is why I'm skeptical of the hard-nosed reality of those ratings.

    Again, (tired of saying this) don't forget that the CR methodology compares the vehicle to its competitors of the same year. So a vehicle could stay exactly the same, but change color if the competition got much worse or much better year to year.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    I don't get Consumer Reports, but I'd be curious to see how the fuel system rankings on the BMW E9x, 335 series is shown. For the first few years of production, BMW had horrible reliability in its HPFP (high pressure fuel pumps).

    Looked in the April 2011 issue. Could not find model "E9x". But, they did show a category for 330i, 335i and for years 2007,8,9,10 they show full black circles under "fuel system". For years 2005,6 they show full red circles. So, obviously, the change BMW instituted in 2007 model year was a huge mistake by their engineering management.

    So, did CR accurately reflect what BMW owners were experiencing in their 2007-2010 (BAD) and alternatively the good experiences with the 2005-6?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    edited February 2013
    I know, tlong--I'm also tired of saying this:

    That is true, but then they write "models to avoid" when it may not be a model to avoid or more troublesome than the same model, the years around it. But they don't present it that way.

    I can't even say when I've noticed variances in their reporting like this, but I definitely have.

    The simple fact that CR says in the text about the Juke, 'we expect average reliability', tells me they can't place hard reliance on their survey results for that model, or they'd have a 2011 in their 'models to avoid' and 2012 in their recommended models. I don't know; maybe they do, but I think it's odd the text just said 'average'--almost as if they were embarrassed by sample error in that particular case.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    edited February 2013
    But...back and forth from year to year? I find it hard to believe in real-world applications.

    Seems to happen with data presented on Truedelta too. Not at all uncommon to see reliability change from year to year. The 07 Cobalt is rated more reliable than the 09.

    Could it be sample error? It certainly could be, but I don't doubt reliability can have variation from year to year.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,942
    edited February 2013
    The models tend to be a bit older but you can also compare notes by picking a model here (Used Cars > Appraisal > Reliability). Sometimes there are JD Power ratings but the Identifix ones are broken down by types of problems. Sometimes they jump around from year to year but generally they bunch together.

    You can click on a year with a problem mark to find out what the problem is and the repair cost. Try the '06 Chevy Cobalt for example. "Reliability Ratings by Identifix is based from repair shop-reported issues. Though this data may be for years prior to model you are researching, it exposes how reliable this model platform has been historically." No recurring problems reported after '06.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,310
    Funny, that methodology really gives a clue about specific vehicle faults. Still don't get CR, I can get better info off of general car boards. How something performs relative to others is something odd to stand on. A Lada is better than a Chery.

    And from previous posts, I remember something from marketing about a happy customer tells 3 people, while an unhappy customer tells 9 people. Might skew things.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2013
    So, did CR accurately reflect what BMW owners were experiencing in their 2007-2010 (BAD) and alternatively the good experiences with the 2005-6?

    Thanks for looking that up.

    The Ex label is for different models of the 3 series...E90=4 door sedan, E93=convertible, etc.

    The 33x nomenclature identifies the turbocharged models for the year range being discussed. When CR finally starts listing the 2011-2012 models, look for an improvement in the rating for those 2 years (after the problem was finally rectified).

    Based on what I know about the year range in question, I'd say CR was "dead-on" in its analysis of the fuel system segment.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,535
    Was the 2007 a new model?
Sign In or Register to comment.