By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
This is only one man's experience, but in all cases, I've owned SAAB's and Volvo's concurrently, and for over 40 years.
We have a couple of techs who have been working on Just Volvos and Saabs for close to 40 years.
Comparing like to like so FWD Saab to FWD Volvo the cars that are being made now are pretty close but the Volvos are a bit more reliable.
Now if you go pick say a 1999-2002 S80 T6 and compare that car to a 1999-2002 9-5 with the 2.3 turbo neither car is going to be all that great but the Volvo is going to be worse. That T6 was not a very good motor and the GM 4 speed trans behind it was GARBAGE. The 9-5 was a better car for those years as long as you got the 4 cylinder and not that stupid V6 with the asymmetric turbo.
Move up a few years to a 2006 S80 with the 2.5T and a 2006 9-5 with the 2.3T and both cars have improved incredibly but the Volvo improved more.
Compare a 2009 or 2008 new body S80 to a 2008 or 2009 9-5 and the SAAB is just blown away. The build quality on the Volvo is much, much higher and reliability is probably about equal maybe a slight edge to Volvo.
You can do the same drill with the S60 and a 9-3 or a S40 and a 9-3.
Now Volvo has more AWD models so that added AWD complexity probably brings the scores down some but not a huge amount. With the exception of some weird transmission problems with the new 6 speed autos in the XC70s when they launched we haven't had an AWD problems since late 90s early 2000.
I mean, if I bring a vehicle in for repair & it's not repaired correctly the first time, resulting in a return visit, it means the vehicle wasn't repaired correctly not that's it's less reliable.
The one that put me over the top was the latest supposed statement by someone (won't mention their name) that the BO administration was using OnStar to track your every movement so that's why GM was bailed out. I'm thinking, if you have a celly you already can be tracked.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd be looking into a new set of tires before Thanksgiving.
4 year old tires with 60K on them are due for replacement.
At this point, it has met my standard for reliability, and yet I am still hoping to get well past 150K miles before that first repair is needed. I have reasonable confidence it will do so.
The Chevy Volt will only be a game changer for GM if former ToyHon-loving hybrid fans defect in droves to try out a new electric Chevy. Apart from that, it will only be one of several like models by mid-2011.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This 2010 Saab 9-5 Aero, what kind of prices in the U.S. would a person be looking at for one of these? I know there's three different engines offered that I know of and auto and manual tranny's, but what kind of price range is this pup gonna be going for MSRP in the States?
Note the little neon blue and red Saab insignia on the wheel hub centers. Tis a beautiful new sedan IMO for 2010, but, and it's a big butt, I don't think I'm gonna dig the price for this baby.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I swear, the GM sites I visit this is a very common scenario. These guys have like 3 or 4 vehicles and are always either trading up or looking to replace. No wonder they believe the reliability and quality are on par with the imports, they don't keep their vehicles long enough! :P
No car should be junkyard-ready by 50-60K miles, unless it's been abused or is a total POS. But it's probably fairly common for a car to have at least one problem by that time. Heck, my 2000 Intrepid had several.
My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima needed a new transmission at 35,000 miles. :surprise: However, the car has at least 300,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has more than made up for the failing of tranny #1.
However, I don't think my uncle's '03 Corolla really needed anything other than maintenance in its first 60,000 or so miles. However, the 30K mile service probably wasn't cheap. He missed the 60K mile service and didn't get that stuff done until around 75K.
I have a friend with a 2006 Xterra, which is up to around 52,000 miles now, and it hasn't needed anything other than regular maintenance, plus it got recalled for something or other. However, he takes it back to the dealer, and I'm sure gets up-sold on various stuff that it doesn't really need. I'm impressed that the Xterra is still on its original tires. It's a small vehicle, but it's heavy, so I figured that it would chew through those tires relatively quickly.
So, now that I really think into it, maybe it isn't so common for a car to have issues in its first 50-60K miles!
That depends on the tires. My 01 Pathfinder easily made it to 50k on the first set of Bridgestones. My current 07 Expedition is close to 60k and the original Continentals and still have quite a bit of tread. My BIL's 06 Ram 2500 came with Michelin LTX tires and he has 90k on them and they are finally down to the wear bars.
When I owned a 98 SVT Contour, I only got 25k out of the original Goodyear Eagle GSCs, that really sucked as I drove 30k miles year back then. My wife's GP has 54k or so and the Goodyear RSAs are shot, and will be getting tires in the next week or so.
But yes, I'd expect any car to go 50-60k w/o any problems other than routine maintenance. Buddy of mine has an 05 Grand Caravan which he just spent some $$$ on a new steering rack at 70k miles. I guess that is not the end of the world, but disappointing regardless.
Now I've owned/seen some vehicles be very troublesome early which turned out to be very reliable, and others that started out reliable and began falling apart after 50k miles.
But, IMO, just because a car can make it reliably to 200k, doesn't mean it's a great car. I've been around lots of reliable cars that I wouldn't pay a penny for. Mainly the domestic company cars my wife has had. Most reliable but completely sub par in all other areas.
My 2000 Suburban was the worst offender I've owned. I'm not kidding when I say from about 45k miles to 95k miles it cost me close to $1000 every 10k miles in non routine maintenance repairs. It ranges from a failed transmission to HVAC controllers and everything in between. After that ownership experience GM means Garbage Motors to me.
Don't I find the same acclamations on the foreign car sites! It's interesting how people view things differently. But I certainly disagree that there's some negative about GM owners having had no problems to 60K miles while it's a feature for some of the Honda fans to post that. Of course, if you check the Odyssey thread now you'll find transmissions that don't make it to 100K and Honda is graciously paying half of a huge overpriced tranny, sometimes twice before 100K. Transmissions seem to have been a Honda feature for regular replacement at 60K service interval. Or we can look at the Honda AC compressors that are failing. Check the thread here for that feature.
Since "1's" are needed. My 93 leSabre checked great up to 150,000 when my wife made me trade it. My 98 leSabre has 170,000 approx on it. I've replaced upper intake manifold on it and I have replaced brake pads several times--I guess that's a negative? :P Volvos and Japanese cars don't need brakes? I recall lots of posts about Accords requiring early brake replacements. Check threads here on Edmunds.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, one of my former supervisors had a 1992 Civic that never needed rear brakes, at least. The engine blew up before it got to that point! :P However, he did mostly highway driving, but started neglecting the car as it aged. I think it finally blew at around 190,000 miles.
I'm still impressed that he got that kind of mileage out of the brakes, but I guess highway driving can do that for you! Plus, it had a manual transmission, so that probably helped prolong brake life.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nah, we just open the door and drag our feet along the pavement - Fred Flintstone brakes. It's a little rough on the shoes.
I'd identify brakes as not one of Honda's better points. I do end up replacing pads and rotors earlier than other cars.
I love how every rumor gets stuff added on to it as it evolves. The latest one I heard to the Onstar rumor was that they will use it to listen in to your conversations, with a warrant I am sure they can do that anyway, and there are new special tires on the way that will be required on all GM cars. These new tires have special wires in the sidewall that will be used to transmit information to transponders in the road. :confuse:
My old Bonneville never needed rear brakes for the entire time I owned it.
I got it at 90,000 and sold it at about 150,000.
It got new rear shoes a little while before I bought it. I did have to replace the rear brake lines because they were rusted and blistered about about 130,000 miles.
No clue what the new 9-5 will be priced at. I would imagine it would be priced in the same range as the current 9-5 so 35,000-45,000.
An honest answer.
And I'd consider that maintenance although not lasting long enough for most people. If someone is happy with the car that happens to, it's just a moderate extra expense.
But I disagree with someone else's implying all foreign cars are wunderbar and GM cars are maintenance nightmares that don't last over 60,000 K without major work.
Last I knew, all cars had their wheels put on one lugnut at a time. None were assembled by divine intervention.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We'll have to add that cost of shoes to TOC in Edmund's listing of Total Cost of Ownership!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Anyway though, cars sure have come a long way. I remember on my '68 Dart, I used to go through front shoes every 10-15K and rear every 15-20K.
This is especially true on a FWD car that is relatively light where only 30-35 percent of the weight is on the back axle. Those back brakes aren't doing much when you step on the brakes hard and most of the weight transfers to the front axle.
It just hit me though, he didn't actually say that he drove his Corolla...I just presumed he did. Watch this be the day he took his Silverado! :P
My Intrepid's front disc brakes are pretty easy to change, but thinking back, I remember some of the older cars, like my '89 Gran Fury, '86 Monte Carlo, and '79 Newport, seemed harder to get to.
Yes, exactly so. I'm willing to put up with Honda brakes because I find the overall package to do the job very well.
Andre - be my guest on brake shoes. I remember doing them years ago on an old nova. What a pain!
Well, one thing I've learned is that sometimes GM can make things needlessly complicated. For example, I had to change a headlight in my '85 Silverado last night. Took 8 different screws of two different types to get to the damned thing (four torx-thingies holding the plastic trim in place, and four phillips screws to get the metal trim off that actually holds the headlight in) What the hell is the purpose of those Torx thingies anyway? What? Flat-head and Phillips screws arent good enough?!
The last time I had to replace on of those style headlights was on my '79 Chrysler. I think it was only like 2-3 screws and it came right out, although to be fair, that car has hidden headlights, so all you do is make sure the headlight covers are down, and there's no extra trim around the headlights to have to remove.
Another example...power window motor went in said '79 Chrysler. I was able to replace it in under an hour. Power window motor failed in the truck. Part of the procedure involved wrestling with the window glass to take it out, and pulling apart the lift mechanism. Oh, and there's a warning in the owner's manual about how if you don't do some certain thing serious injury could occur. I forget what it was, but I gave up on it by that time, and ended up paying my mechanic to replace it.
And yet another example, although fairly minor. On my '68 Dart, if you need to take off a window crank, all you needed was an Allen wrench. With my '67 Catalina and most other crank-window cars, you have to get a special tool to pop a clip that holds the crank in place. However, I learned that if you take a thin, flathead screwdriver, and stick it in the right place, you can pop that clip. Still kinda annoying, though. But, I guess the window cranks with the hidden clip have a more finished look than those with an allen wrench bolt right in the middle!
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if GM managed to find a way to make the brakes bitchier on an old Nova, than they were on an old Dart! :P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've seen many things written about that car but never anything so positive.
Or positive at all!
I know many who drove Town Cars to high miles, my dad put over 250k on a 92 Crown Vic with very few problems. Those were mainly in town miles too.
THAT was exactly my point. All the "models" from Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab are being shed.
As of now, all GM has are the 900 series BOF's, the 4 (soon to be 3) lambda variants, and the 3 Theta variants. Basically, I think the entire premise of GMC is to allow more access to the GMT 900's through more dealers. In other words, the Caddy/Buick dealers that have GMC can offer what is essentially a Chevy Truck. I would, however, drop the Acadia, especially if Cadillac gets a Lambda based Escalade.
I'm not sure how many miles it has on it. Probably somewhere between 180-200K. A few years back, he was doing an easy 150-160 miles per day, if not more. But nowadays I think it's down to 90-100 per day, and he had to cut back to 3 days per week because of health problems. Overall it's been a good car. My mechanic, who specializes in Mopars, even swears by Corollas. Whereas the Mopars sometimes get sworn at. :P
I think the two most expensive repairs he had were the water pump and catalytic converter, but both of them were well north of 100,000 miles.
Now his '97 Silverado, in comparison, has been a bit of an embarrassment. Two transmission rebuilds, one around 70K, the other around 108K. Brake work galore. Water pump. Some other odds and ends I'm probably forgetting. And now, the fuel pump or whatever stranded him today. And while it's only a sample of one on one, comparing it to my '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since new, the '85 has been the better truck!
Yes, but none of those brands except Hummer HAD any of the BOF trucks! So as a percentage of the total number of GM models, BOFs make up more of the total of GM offerings now than they did before S, P, H, and Saab took their final bow.
There is no need to continue the GMC line of light-duty passenger vehicles when there is so much overlap with Chevy, and what with gas prices and new CAFE rules and whatnot, GMC is just a boat anchor on the company.
On the Toyota side, it is inscrutable to me that Toyota decided in the last 18 months to revise and continue both the Land Cruiser and 4Runner lines as BOF trucks. They will soon be in a class of one, but not for the right reasons, and it will hurt them in the long run.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
For the record my GMs have never had a catalytic converter go bad, I haven't replaced a water pump since my 1980 Cutlass 260 cu. in.
1981 Skylark
1985 Skyhawk
1987 Century
1989 Century
1993 leSabre (150K)
1998 leSabre (currently 170K)
2003 leSabre (currently 100K)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That pretty much describes my '00 Suburban, an embarrassment! No question those l460e transmissions are junk. I don't have enough fingers to count all the people I know that have had these transmissions rebuilt at low miles, I know serval guys who've had them rebuilt 2-3 times by 100-150k miles. My transmission guy had one die in his 06 Tahoe at 2,500 miles. Pathetic considering how long it's been around.
Now the brakes were about the only area I didn't have a problem, yep the fuel pump. Another well known GM problem with the trucks. You can hear most late '90s thru early 2000 model GM trucks coming down the road with how loud those fuel pumps whine, well until they don't anymore and your stranded. Been there, done that. Is it any wonder that so many people describe their GM ownership experience in past tense?
Though Detroiters cringe at the mere mention of this, Toyota and Honda still have the most reliable models on the market. Of the 48 with top reliability scores, 26 are from those two companies, based on consumer surveys turned in and tests the magazine performs.
Ford isn't far behind. About 90 percent of its products have "average" or "better reliability" and the Fusion/Mercury Milan beat the Accord and Toyota Camry for the second straight year. GM had 20 of its 48 vehicles score "average." Chrysler, well they're not even in the same ballpark right now.
That's not good enough for the long haul.
What will truly make a difference is when you can sell your used Ford or GM car for a third of the purchase price.
Then we'll know that reliability not only matters, but it also pays.
At the end of the day, that's where we are, like it or not.
Regards,
OW
What will truly make a difference is when that 2-3 year old certified GM or Ford car you bought for 2/3 the list price means you only lose half as much in depreciation.
Heh, come see my Wildcat. That's ALL there is.
Well, I don't think Dodge Darts were particularly known for their brakes. Plus, with that mildly hopped-up 318, "power braking" was too much fun to pass up. I'm sure that contributed to some premature wear. Plus, all that stop and go pizza delivery driving.
I think what Pletko was saying was that if you wait a year or two, you can get an almost-new GM car for 2/3 the MSRP. Sometimes even less.
Hey Andre, what was the original MSRP of the 1988 Buick Park Avenue?
My old car encyclopedia says the original MSRP was $19,494. I knew a guy at work who had one, before I knew him. He paid something like $22K for it, but it had leather and a sunroof. I just remember him carrying on about how he only got $5K in trade for it, 4 years later, when he got an Acura Integra.
Yeah, those Park Ave's have horrid resale value. Granted they had extremely overpriced MSRPs too. I just check on autotrader, our local Buick dealer has an 03 PA with 41k miles and they are asking $11,900. Sad considering our local Honda dealer has an 03 Civic EX coupe with 69k and they are asking $10,500 LOL.