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

1155615571559156115621576

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    100K is GM's powertrain warranty on everything they build BTW.

    Didn't they put an expiration date on SAAB's getting the 100K warranty after the bankruptcy?

    I think you had to buy it pre-bankruptcy to get the right warranty.

    These are minor issues in the grand scheme of things. I'm more worried that a car without brake pads could make it to the dealership without being caught.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,701
    You're familiar with the concept of a customer for life, we all know this. The polar opposite is to LOSE a customer for life. GM unfortunately did this a lot, and faces a huge challenge in trying to win back some of the customers they've lost.

    I think the problem with the "not buying a '65 Mustang if you had a bad Model T" argument is that it's not about one vehicle, it's about a pattern. One bad experience usually doesn't ruin a reputation unless it's extremely severe. But a bad situation followed by 10, 20, 30 years of poor performance with only occasional fits of brilliance is a pattern. So the analogy about the Mustang isn't really correct, unless there were continuous turds along the way. ;)
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,701
    Timing belt? This is 2013 guys....timing belt? Really GM? This was a mistake, you've just handed ALL of your competition something to beat you over the head with.

    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.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    I have no issue with a timing belt as long as it lasts at least 85,000 miles for interval maintenance.

    How's the gas mileage and HP/torque ratings?
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,258
    For GM, I like "We are Professional Grade" (although I'm not sure I believe that about the product in a lot of cases)


    Well, there is plain GM junk and then you can upgrade to "Professional Grade" junk. :)

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,258
    edited February 2013
    I guess a lot of folks "Wouldn't really rather have a Buick" anymore. ;)

    Regards,
    OW
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    Yes, getting an extremely severely bad ownership experience from a Chrysler vehicle was one thing, but having them "STEAL" my tax money without permission was entirely another thing 13 to 14 years after the original purchase mistake.

    So a bad situation followed by poor performance, followed by a bankruptcy and second bailout, indeed fits your pattern.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,448
    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.

    On the surface I don't have a problem with a timing belt, either, for the reason you stated.

    What I'm curious about is the lifetime of the belt. If (yes, IF) the car has a 100K warranty, but requires the belt to be serviced at the owner's expense while under the warranty period in order to keep the warranty valid, then its theoretically a hidden costs to owning the car... One that a car equipped with a timing chain does not require.

    Some may see that activity as just normal maintenance, but I see it differently. All cars require oil/filter changes, etc., but not all cars require timing maintenance.

    Now, I'm not suggesting potential buyers avoid any car with a timing belt, but I do think they need to understand the extra costs associated with timing belt-driven engines before making their purchase.

    Replacing a timing belt can be expensive...
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,448
    You're familiar with the concept of a customer for life, we all know this. The polar opposite is to LOSE a customer for life. GM unfortunately did this a lot, and faces a huge challenge in trying to win back some of the customers they've lost. These are churned customers, not just dissatisfied in many case but deeply betrayed. They're the ones that look at you funny when you say that GM has gotten better. They're the ones you have to prove it to. And it's gonna be hard.

    I agree.

    Ask any seasoned sales professional/marketing specialist which is less expensive and more efficient: keeping an existing customer or getting a new customer.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,361
    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.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,361
    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. ;)
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,974
    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: )
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,974
    "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)
  • berriberri Posts: 4,004
    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: 4,701
    ..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: 4,701
    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: 7,361
    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: 3,448
    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: 4,701
    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: 7,361
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.