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

1103710381040104210431051

Comments

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Let's just remember the Optima was recommended. The Malibu or Impala was not.

    I would enjoy just seeing you actually write yourself, that 'in the low price class, the base Malibu outscored the Optima'.

    The entire reason the Malibu wasn't recommended...BTW, wasn't "NOT RECOMMENDED" as you posted...was that there is no repair history on it at all. That's it. It tested better than the base Optima. Try and say that. ;)
  • steverstever Ex Yooper, just arrived in New MexicoPosts: 40,550
    edited February 2013
    The timing belt on my Quest is original. 182,000 miles. The interval is 105k. Some guy supposedly went 300k on his.

    And yes, I have towing, and it's a non-interference engine.

    To make up for the deferred maintenance, I did the Outback one early (miles wise anyway. :shades: )

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • steverstever Ex Yooper, just arrived in New MexicoPosts: 40,550
    "GM reported January sales of 310,765 vehicles in China, up 26 percent from January 2012.

    Last year, GM sold more than 2.8 million vehicles in China."

    GM's January sales hit 311,000 vehicles in China (Detroit News)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • berriberri Posts: 4,189
    I do think they need to understand the extra costs associated with timing belt-driven engines before making their purchase.

    I think you also need to consider the typically higher 3/5 year depreciation hit and maintenance costs on many Detroit vehicles vice Toyota or Honda too. The current Kiplingers Magazine has their annual auto section and it seems to support the projected extra maintenance and generally higher depreciation on many F, C and GM vehicles. But on the positive side, some of them are getting much closer. Personally, when I shop I want at least a grand better price on a domestic than a Honda or Toyota to help compensate. Funny, but ironically Toyota 7 yr extended warranties around here tend to run toward a grand cheaper than Ford or GM sponsored ones. Coincidence?
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,752
    ..argument falls apart, however, by the fact that GM hasn't been building turd diesels for 35 years.

    Just lots of other turd products. It's the company, not the subsegment of diesels. There's been a pattern there for far too long.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,752
    edited February 2013
    GM reported January sales of 310,765 vehicles in China, up 26 percent from January 2012.

    Wow, that's quite an increase! I guess their reputation doesn't preceed them.

    Given the looks of some of the Buicks they sell there, maybe the should start exporting the Chinese ones to the US!

    (ducks before fintail responds to this one...)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Just lots of other turd products. It's the company, not the subsegment of diesels. There's been a pattern there for far too long.

    Again, not at all my experience....but what would I know, I've only owned 13 in 32 years (and yes, more than one at a time).

    But, we trying to get the other to understand is the proverbial 'talking to a wall'.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2013
    Your argument falls apart, however, by the fact that GM hasn't been building turd diesels for 35 years. The Olds diesel you brought up hasn't been built for 30 years or darn close.

    Once again, you went after the wrong guy.

    But, since you broached the subject... you know why those diesels weren't replaced by newer models?

    It's because they were so horribly abysmal that it tainted the domestic auto diesel market for years and years afterward. When diesels finally started showing up again, they were import engines that belched clouds of smoke... Think Isuzu... Which added a couple more decades to domestic resistance to diesel powered cars in the US market.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,752
    Again, not at all my experience....but what would I know, I've only owned 13 in 32 years (and yes, more than one at a time).

    Truly glad you've had good experiences. But you are probably atypical:

    1 - you're going to buy GM due to long loyalty
    2 - you aren't fazed by nicer interiors and so that area doesn't affect you
    3 - you're more about low cost/value that most buyers

    Still, you've had great reliability plus a good dealer. But one person is not a statistical sample, either. The market en masse obviously does not share your experiences.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I know whom I responded to; you both basically have the same opinion and it was your post which was the first to bring up the history of the GM Oldsmobile diesel in relation to this new Turbo Diesel.

    The only thing the V8 Olds Diesel (a 350 V8 which was converted to a diesel) and this new Turbo Diesel have in common is the word 'diesel'. It's like saying, 'man, the trunk floor of those first Mustangs was the top of the gas tank, so I'm afraid that's the way the current Mustang is".

    Reallllllyyyy tenous connection.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    YOu're wrong about that, they have another thing in common: they're built by the same company. Which means people will base their opinion of that engine or that Mustang on their experience and history with the company.

    Incidentally, that means you'll think it's wonderful and many others will think it's garbage. ;)

    Remember, just like you, others base their opinion of GM on their history of experiences with it. That's why you don't get anywhere saying they should ignore their experience and pay attention to your experience instead. That's not the way to overcome the challenge of winning back customers. Which is why GM doesn't have a bunch of Uplanderguys parading around on TV saying "My experience with GM has been great, buy a GM!" :shades:

    Oh and I'm sure your response will be something along the lines of people criticizing GM with much less experience with it than you...at which time I will re-refer you to the paragraph above. ;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    I think a very distinct difference is people need to move on from their 1995 or older experiences.

    It's much like someone here telling me that no one who had anything to do with beheading POW's is building Toyotas now. No one who had anything to do with the Olds V8 Diesel is building Cruze Turbo Diesels now.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I think a very distinct difference is people need to move on from their 1995 or older experiences.

    I think a very distinct difference is people need to move on from their 1975 or older experiences.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Hey, we agree on something! Maybe that means Vegas and the '71 motor mount recall won't be mentioned here again! And if you move "'75" up to "'78" we'll have the Olds Diesel V8 covered.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Two of my favorite fairly-recent Chevy commercials were the Dad whose son found his '65 Impala (true story), and the elderly couple who turn about 30 the second the doors close on their new Camaro.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,372
    The entire reason the Malibu wasn't recommended...BTW, wasn't "NOT RECOMMENDED" as you posted...was that there is no repair history on it at all. That's it. It tested better than the base Optima.

    Try looking at the Malibu historical analysis from CR...far more black spots than the Optima. Try writing that. ;)

    Again, the Optima was recommended for 2013...the Malibu wasn't. Where is Chevy in the mid-size market? Tell us all!

    A little too late and badly designed enough to warrant an "Opps: Re-Do". Get ready for enormous rebates!

    Go Chevy! :lemon:

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,372
    Who is going to behead the Executive at GM for rushing the '13 Malibu?

    Why its those idiot customers who go elsewhere to shop! :P

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Stay focused on the current car, OW. Vaunted CR felt, apparently, the lower-priced model was better engineered than the lower-line Optima. My guess is that next year it'll be 'recommended'.

    In the meantime, at least people with short back-seat riders should see some excellent buys before the CR hangers-on find out!

    I don't buy CR, but thumb through it for free. What is your take on Hyundai's black dots and why do you think that Kia (apparently) is better when they are the same company? Honest question.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    There were plenty of bad Fords along the way from the Model T to the 1965 Mustang. Fords were pretty antiquated through 1948 compared to their competition. The first 1949 Fords were pretty shoddily built. The 1957 Ford was so flimsy the doors would pop open over bumps.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,190
    >elderly couple who turn about 30 the second the doors close on their new Camaro.

    Now that's something that would be marketable. I wonder what the haters would find to kvetch about on that option? Probably something else from 30 years ago. ;)

    That's equivalent to the Prius type commercials with the happy little people acting like flowers and blooming as the wunderbar Prius drives past saving the earth, the atmosphere and AlGore's livelihood! ;) ;)

    I could see me in a nice all white Camaro convertible like one I saw around my area. I don't recall if it even had the two black stripes on the hood.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Given how much of the competition uses timing belts, I see it as a non-issue. I don't think I've had a car in the last 20 years WITHOUT a timing belt. If a car is otherwise reliable, then every 80K or so you just take it in, spend $400, and you're done for another 80K. Just like a big brake job or something, not such a big deal.

    I agree 100%. It's not a big deal.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    I've only had one Chysler vehicle and it turned out to be one of the best cars I ever had. I still wax nostalgic about it to this day. Heck, a new 300-C is at the top of my car-shopping A-list. Make mine red!
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,190
    >The 1957 Ford was so flimsy the doors would pop open over bumps.

    I had one of those as a first car. I didn't have doors pop open. But I recall it had started to show signs of salt rust thru in the headlight area where dirt was trapped in the fancy shaping to make the emulation of an eye and eyelid... Of course the transmission failed and I was given a replace of another well-used but nice Ford Fairlane intermediate size car.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    My B-I-L was one of the first people I was aware of to buy the new 300 when it came out in '04 or '05 ('05 model I think). It's "Cool Vanilla" in color and is a Hemi. He stores it in the winter but has enjoyed it. I think the original 300 styling has held up well too.

    One small, unique trim feature I like about the interior of his is the tortoise-shell inserts in the door trim. Unique, way more so than plastic wood or whatever else.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I'm from a GM family, but I'd take a '57 Ford over a '57 Chevy today (assuming I couldn't sell for a profit ;)) anyday. Great styling of the Ford IMHO. And, it's lost on most people that Ford actually outsold Chevy in '57...'59 too.
  • I agree with you tlong. I've had a few cars with belts and never had a problem. Plus, I find belts to be quieter than chains. I guess the negative backlash with belts was back when they were recommended being replaced at 60k, then 75k and then 90k. I think Honda has uppedthat to 105k, maybe even more so ya 5 - 6 years down the road, replace it? No biggie, because the water pump probably needs to be replaced by that time too...

    Thing is, if I could get a quarter for every time I read some negative post about how Honda engines are junk because they use belts and GM doesn't I'd be rich...

    Now this new Cruze has one, wonder what they'd say...

    Ya, total silence... :sick:
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    Why should I? My 1995 and prior experiences with GM have been phenomenal! I absolutely loved my older GM cars and still can't get enough of my drop-dead gorgeous 1989 Cadillac Brougham. My perfect car would be one that looks like my 1989 Brougham but encompasses today's performance and technology.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    I absolutely love the father and son 1965 Impala commercial. The 1965 Impala was one of the most beautiful cars ever built.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,970
    I had one of those as a first car. I didn't have doors pop open.

    I've heard stories about the doors popping open on rough roads as well, but it could be an old wife's tale. However, I've heard it was on mainly the 4-door hardtops, which were one of the looser body styles. My grandparents had a '57 Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop, their first brand-new car. They kept it until 1961, when they traded on a new Galaxie 500 4-door hardtop. Granddad said it was a nice car, and one of my uncles remembers driving it when he was young...he said he liked it alot.

    But I recall it had started to show signs of salt rust thru in the headlight area where dirt was trapped in the fancy shaping to make the emulation of an eye and eyelid

    That was a sore spot for Chrysler products, as well. They didn't have a full lining in the wheel well, so mud and slop would get thrown off the top of the tire and accumulate in the spot inside the fender above the headlight bezel, and underneath the top of the fender.

    Of course the transmission failed and I was given a replace of another well-used but nice Ford Fairlane intermediate size car.

    I've heard that transmissions could be a sore spot on Fords of that era. I have a great-uncle who once had a '58 Ford, and he burned up the transmission within a year. But, I take that story with a grain of salt...my Granddad (on my Mom's side, not the Ford-buying Granddad on my Dad's side of the family) said that he got it stuck in the snow and tried to rock it out, and that's what fried it.

    I think the '57 Ford is a decent looking car except for one detail...those bulging headlights. I just never liked that jutting look. In some colors though, it seems to tone it down. I actually prefer the '58 Ford better, because the quad headlights fill out those fenders better, and they don't seem to jut out as much.

    The '57 Chevy is the one everybody seems to love these days, but it's been an icon for so long, that I've gotten tired of it. My favorite low-priced car from '57 is actually the Plymouth, but I end up seeing a ton of them at the Carlisle Mopar show, so they're starting to seem a bit common to me as well. '57 Fords don't seem as commonplace, although there's always a good turnout of Skyliner retractables at the Carlisle Ford show.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    You can thank Stephen King and John Carpenter for the popularity of the 1957-59 Plymouth! Before the book and the movie, I didn't even know what a 1958 Plymouth looked like.

    I'm kind of biased toward the 1957 Chevy as two of my cousins had them in that popular turquoise color. Theirs were slightly modded wearing Cragar wheels. There was even a neighbor down the block who had a black one when I was a kid.

    If there is one car I would want from 1957 - it would be a 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham.
Sign In or Register to comment.