Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
The Current State of the US Auto Market
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Just wait a while, though.... There's always a competitor sitting out in the wings wanting to "one-up" the leader...
Counting my GM card rebate, about $5,500.
As a consumer, I consider that a good thing. As an armchair auto executive....well, I don't ever pretend to be one of those.
http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/grand-cherokee/2012/long-term-road-test/wrap-up.html-
They're not even calling it a recall, though.
I'd be pretty miffed if I got something I thought would be low maintenance and then they tell me I had to service it more frequently.
It's not even about the cost, it's the extra visits.
The main editor, Tom something, with the beard, bought a Durango Hemi for his wife, and he absolutely loves it.
The other one owns an X3.
Now I should find a link...hang on...
Gabe Shenhar (X3) and Tom Mutchler (Durango):
http://youtu.be/d-s2_NoAFqE
Not exactly the Japanese name brand party you might expect.
In the overall scheme of things, that's not a huge difference. The EPA lists annual fuel costs for the Malibu at around $2100, compared to $1950 for the Camry and $1850 for the Accord CVT (15K miles per year, 55% city/45% highway). But, you can bet that when people cross-shop these cars, they focus on those fuel economy numbers.
As for as fit and finish, quality, and such, I think the Malibu is okay. The interior might be considered a bit over-styled and busy, but I think it's decent quality, at least.
They're not even calling it a recall, though.
I'd be pretty miffed if I got something I thought would be low maintenance and then they tell me I had to service it more frequently.
What would yank my crank is if there's already engine damage, even though one followed the manufacturer's recommendations to the letter of the law, but not enough damage YET to indicate a premature failure.
I suspect we haven't seen the end of this one yet...
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130405/CARNEWS/130409904
GM began updating the software in December after noticing warranty claims for worn-out balance chains. The chains link the crankshaft and the balance shaft -- "just like the chain on your bicycle goes from the pedals to your back wheel" -- and make noise when they're worn, Adler said. The company declined to disclose the number of claims.
Product investigators found that recalibrating the oil-life monitor will help the chains last longer, Adler said.
The monitor "tells you when you should change your oil. It might be 5,000 miles, it might be 7,000 miles. It's going to vary based on how you drive your car," Adler said.
"Those intervals between oil changes were longer, but now they're going to be a little shorter because we have to find the right balance between how long the parts last and how much lubricant the vehicle needs."
Adler said the program is not a recall because it does not involve a safety issue.
Hyundai's still the recall 'winner' this week.
I posted this elsewhere when it was posted by ateixera, but I never trusted the 'oil life monitor', ever. I was a religious 3K mile changer, but am probably up to 4K miles now. I wonder why the 2.4 Malibu isn't in the 'campaign'?
My dealer does use partial synthetic in my Malibu--unlike my Cobalt--and says GM says to do that in '11 and newer cars. I've never checked in my owner's manual; I need to do that I guess.
Apparently this issue isn't chronic enough for CR to have dropped their "Recommended" rating for the Equinox and Terrain. I still don't like the looks of the Equinox.
I don't see why they couldn't do something about the FE. Take Mazda, a tiny company by GM standards. Their Mazda 3 engines weren't very efficient so they came up with a variety of improvement technologies, labeled it "SkyActiv", and now the Mazda 3 is among the best. GM should be able to do that if they had some focus.
Of course not. Did you read the review in the link you posted? This is a copied quote and explains why Edmunds would have a much better experience with a Chrysler product than the typical consumer:
Resale and Depreciation:
Jeep supplied a $62,880 Grand Cherokee SRT8 to us for the purpose of testing.
Trust me, Chrysler didn't provide this specific vehicle for the purposes of honest scientific testing, but for marketing reasons.
Time to pinch yourself. Do you think Chrysler's handling of this long-term test vehicle was any different than any other manufacturer's, and do you think Edmunds doesn't list things that go wrong with their long-term vehicles?
You talk about 'keeping it real', but I see a lot of lala land.
There are very few cases where this might make a difference, sort of like the flaws in many other brands of cars that are not GM. If a car is not requiring synthetic, the oil life monitor is geared for regular oil. If someone is using the basic oil and runs it fully to the 0% on the monitor AND if that driving is a lot of cold starts and short drives that don't help the oil purge the contaminants with heat, then that might affect the timing chain. But if someone is using partial or full synthetic oils, their oils probably outlive the monitor by 50% even with short drives. The one real key is the one oil change per year requirement.
On the 3800 in my 03 leSabre, I run my Pennzoil Platinum synthetic to 40% or maybe 30% when it was summer and several long trips of 3-6 hours one way were involved. On the last Blackstone lab analysis, 8000 miles was suggested instead of the 6500 - 7000 mi, based on contaminants. Earlier an additive analysis had also indicated sufficient additives left at the end of the 7000 mi approx on that oil change.
On the Cobalt which is a 2.2 engine, it had about 3-4 thousand miles on synthetic, but the 1 year requirement popped up and required an oil change. The oil life monitor was saying 70% IIRC. Most of that driving was trips of 15 miles for son's commute to his internship during the summer. So that oil wasn't worn out other than by time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Maybe not hand-built, but certainly hand quality assured and controlled, something I'm sure other Chrysler's coming off the line never receive (unless done by a drunk who's high).
Do you think Chrysler's handling of this long-term test vehicle was any different than any other manufacturer's,
Yes, I think Chrysler is more willing to commit fraud than other manufacturers, they have a history of doing so.
I have no idea how Edmunds normally gets their long term testers. I thought they went out and purchased them randomly like everyone else, but I guess if someone offers you a free 65,000 dollar car, it's hard to resist.
I thought Edmunds did normally do like CR and purchased untainted product, but I could be wrong.
CR does buy theirs, but I'm not aware of any long-term tests they've done like Edmunds and the mags do pretty routinely.
If you really believe Edmunds is in some conspiracy with Chrysler in that their testing is different or the acquisition of the vehicle is different than other manufacturers, well....what else can be said. Best to leave it there I think.
Some we buy, some are furnished by the manufacturers. The loaner ones have a disclosure at the bottom of the review somewhere.
Back to GM, I bet the real problem is their "proprietary" Dexos oil. :P
(I know Busiris was waiting for me to get that shot in there, lol).
In the long term tests, the disclaimer saying whether the car was loaned or purchased is usually at the bottom of the Introduction.
Of course, any make/model can be perfect or a disaster. Edmund's experience with one LT vehicle doesn't mean much of anything. Stats and customer sentiment both show Chrysler has had more awful than average stuff out there for a long time.
What is the rationale for proprietary oil? It's bad enough when makes have proprietary fluids like coolant, etc.
Looking online verifies what the dealer told me, that this started with '11-model vehicles. Funny that the 'campaign' includes '10-12 models, which would span Dexos/non-Dexos use.
Same with the one poster here about his Jeep.
Oh no, don't get me started.
That reminds me, the Outback needs some Subaru branded nitrogen in the tires.
(The long term JGC SRT8 just wrapped up and drivers were pretty happy with it, especially after the run flats were swapped out. No hiccups in 23k miles).
Is that nitrogen imported from Japan?
Made in the USA?
Or just bottled in the USA after being imported?
Do they threaten that they will void the warranty if Subaru brand nitrogen is not used?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh no, don't get me started.
I run into that with our water craft. I do use Yamalube 10w-40 4W which is their watercraft 4stroke oil. Supposedly it has an additive package to deal with a marine environment. The stuff is nearly $10/qt, but the Waverunner has a dry sump oil system which I can only change about 3qts at a time and I only do it once a season, so it isn't a big deal. It is amazing how 1,052CC 20v 4cylinder can run 8k rpm all day long and not break a sweat.
With our boat it's the same type of deal. Sure it has a Chevy 350 in it, but Mercruiser specifies their own oil, Mercury MerCruiser Full-Synthetic Engine Oil, 20W-40, NMMC FC-W rated. Which I guess is a low sulfur oil for protection of the catalyst. Prior to the Catalyzed engines, Merc never recommended synthetics. But marine engines can and sometimes do burn oil. Ours burned over a quart over the first 20 hours of use. I only have 30 hours on it now, hopefully with being broke in, oil use will drop.
But like the waverunner, I only change the oil once a season, so I don't mind paying for the manufacturers oil even if it is a scam. At least if something breaks during the warranty period, they can't tell me I didn't use the proper oil.
Yes, and what's cool is your tires will glow in the dark;)
The warranty issues are a concern, in spite of Magnuson-Moss.
My problem is that I upsell myself with coffee, brownies or Hershey bars for watching the oil drain.
I looked at an "LZ", which must be what the old "LTZ" was called. It had the 2.5, but had a very nice two-tone leather inside and sunroof. About the only thing I saw that it wouldn't have had is the Turbo engine. Sticker was just a hundred or two over $30K. An almost exact duplicate of our '11--color, interior material and color, and options--a 1LT--stickered at $25.2K, about $600 more than the sticker of our '11. I'm almost certain both of these are lower than earlier '13's I've looked at. I didn't notice/look at any of the lowest-priced LS models.
As said previously, I saw a Fusion Titanium (I don't know what engine) that stickered at $35K, a month or so ago. That is a good bit more than the Malibu, in percentage dollars, considering especially Ford saved on Mexican labor.
Just an observation.
Just stumbled on this blog about Malibu space versus everybody else. Interesting observations, including the comments below, as such comments always are, both pro and con:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/10/just-how-spacious-is-the-2013-chevy-malibu/
Another observation--and you heard it here first--I saw where Chevy will be offering a "Hot Wheels" Camaro. That wins my award for dumbest marketing of a sports car. Would anyone be more compelled to buy a Camaro because of a 'Hot Wheels' edition? Supposedly, the car doesn't need much to sell well....why this?
(I know Busiris was waiting for me to get that shot in there, lol).
I dunno... Which is better? Change your oil with a brand name synthetic that, on the surface, meets the obvious needs of the car (correct weight, etc.) every 3-4 K miles, or run the manufacturer EXACT spec'ed oil, but change it strictly by the on-board computer's notification (sometimes 12-15 K miles or more)?
I'd like to see a long term study on that exact process, but if I absolutely had to guess, I'd say the better option of the two would be changing the oil every 3-4 K miles, assuming a "normal" driving environment.
But, like I always tell folks, when in doubt, run the lubricants that fully meet the manufacturer's specifications.
I did notice my gas mileage jump up 1 mpg with an oil change when I took it down to zero %. I was trying to get to that first 50 degree day in March. I think it was about 8500 miles to get to 0%.
I come across this a lot in the IT world. Now when we evaluate we account for that since it affects operating costs.
You'd have to take content into consideration. I think the Fusion has a few options not available on the Malibu such as AWD, active park assist, and adaptive cruise control which add thousands, AWD is nearly $2k alone.
A Platinum Fusion starts around $30k. I bet option to option the Fusion and Malibu are similar in price.
I agree. I went to the Chevrolet site and used the "build" option. I selected the most expensive base model (2LTZ, I think it was) and added every available option. The price totaled up to a tad less than $34 K, and that was before the $2500 discount figured in at the end.
I do think the Titanium has more available options...
Can one really risk that kind of mileage between changes? :surprise:
You probably spend more than you would doing conventional changes at 5k.
I seem to recall some ridiculous cost per quart. Anyone?
Can one really risk that kind of mileage between changes?
I own 3 BMW products, and I don't follow the "suggested" interval. IMO, oil/filter change costs just aren't that significant.
Lots of owners do follow the recommended change intervals, though...
I pay $6.70/qt. at my local BMW dealership, and right at $10 for the filter/o-rings, etc.
I'd pay more if I bought name brand oil at Walmart.
I can't say anything about what other dealerships charge...
You know how it goes, people love to complain.
Your Walmart must charge more for oil than Walmart close to me. I think $5 quart in 5 qt. containers is typical for synthetics.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,