I'm curious: I wonder if Ford/GM have 'full' listings on the Tokyo Exchange or if they use the equivalent of ADRs since they may (or may not) comply with the Japanese disclosure rules or Japanese accounting standards?
I do not know off hand, but imagine they have the equivalency of ADRs and do not comply with Japanese standards.
Perhaps if ALL exchanges and ALL countries had the same disclosure rules/accounting standards, this wouldn't be an issue.
Until Sarbanes-Oxley, I think the world - or at least the G8 - was going that way. SOX as the WSJ likes to call it, is scaring foreign companies away from the NYSE and also encouraging some domestics to go private.
Those workers will never work again, is what you are saying? Will not look for work elsewhere if a GM plant should close? And they will live under a bridge somewhere, and then become criminals?
No, you misread what I was saying, I was responding to the statement made earlier that all the GM employees are idiots, and deserve to be out of work.
If GM and Ford have the right cars, people will buy. I would NOT count on people buying domestic out a sense of charity. I see some domestic cars on the road, which are not rentals. Some cars being sold these days. Those which are less than inspiring in looks or engineering are still slow to sell
I still don't understand it. so I guess someone needs to explain it to me. How are accords and Camrys more exciting/inspired than chargers and impalas?
I still don't understand it. so I guess someone needs to explain it to me. How are accords and Camrys more exciting/inspired than chargers and impalas?
I'll answer this one. I'll take it.
The 2007 Camry is inspiring because you can smoke any domestic V6 powered vehicle from 0 to 60 MPH and still get better mileage doing it. The 3.5L V6 in the Toyota is awe inspiring in its execution of high power (269 HP) and high gas mileage. The 2.0L Turbo 4 from Audi/VW is also awe inspiring in its power and economy mix (200HP & 207 lb/ft of torque with 25/31 gas mileage). Honda is able to get 244 HP from 20/29.
My biggest factors when deciding what car I want to drive are 1) Reliability 2) Power vs.(and) gas mileage abilities (high in both gives great value) 3) Price 4) Handling/steering/safety
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I work for an Acura dealer. The factory warranty is 4 years or 50k full coverage and 6 years or 70k on powertrain. Please check the manufacturer's website for information.
That is still an excellent warranty for Acura!!! I'd like to see a domestic come out with a 4Yr/50K and 6 year/70K powertrain warranty!!!
No way in hell they could do it, because their warranty repair costs alone would make their cars more expensive (for comparable models) than the imports. No more price advantage, no more sales, period (because they certainly don't sell on being superior, only cheaper, and with rebates).
I think Acura is headed in the right direction with that fantastic warranty, and they should have Honda match it. Also, I really wish my new 2006 Audi had that Acura warranty. I almost got the TSX instead of the A3 because of that, but I decided I could gamble since the Audi warranty is still solid at 4/50K.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
andres is right on. Own an 05 Avalon (22/31 EPA), the car is every bit as big and comfortable as Impalas, 300s, and even 500s (except trunk size) and will easily take measure of any of those cars in both power and economy . It is easily the most fuel efficeint large sedan available and also one one the most powerful. I get 27 mpg overall, in a 3600 lb. car that runs 6 sec. 0-60s and damn near 100 mph for a quarter. Yes, you can go ahead and put V8s in the 300 and Impala and maybe be marginally quicker but not without paying dearly at the gas pump. And, even though the Avalon has had some minor 'teething' issues they pale to what GM and Chrysler are experiencing. The 2GR V6 that Toyota (and Lexus) is now using pretty much across the board, is, as you say, awe inspiring - and unfortunately (for GM/Fords/Chrysler) well ahead of any of the 'Big 3' technical & manufacturing capabilities. There is nothing new here, Detroit has never been able to manufacture a technologically competitive smaller displacement engine.
Given modern drivetrains easily make it to 100k without any maintenance, the 6/70 drivetrain is more a merketing gimmick than anything else.
Tell that to a chump who's had to rebuild their domestic transmission at 65,000 miles and had to pay much dinero to do it. Also, the car was in the shop for almost 2 weeks. but were talking thousands these days for tranny repair.
Not so gimmicky when you get the bill!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The 2.8 currently in the CTS is an earlier version of the 2.8 twin turbo in the Saab Aero.
The current CTS gets 18/27. Not bad for an rwd luxury sport. Don't know how it can be dissappointing. For instance, the BMW Coupe with the 2.5 (a significantly smaller vehicle as well) gets only 19/28.
Sport tuned cars lose on mileage. No surprise there.
The next gen CTS with the twin turbo will probably have those numbers bump up around 20/29 or so.
Most drivetrains WILL last 100k miles without any problem..
But warranties aren't for repairs that you expect. They're for the ones you only have a 5% of needing. Nineteen owners of the same vehicle will say "my car's perfect!" but what if you're the twentieth?
The expectation, realistic or not, is that 1 in 1,000 Toyotas may go bad, but 1 in 50 Dodges will. Why? Because it sounds like 1 in 5 Caravans of certain years failed. Warranties are basically insurance, and insurance is based on history - and history is not on certain companies' side.
The worse a company's history, the more important that insurance is to consumers. Look at Hyundai...
if the 3.6 in the CTS is the best Detroit can do - you make my point. How is 17/26 competitive with 22/31 or 20/29 in things like Toyotas and Hondas, and for that matter, how do you explain that Toyota or Honda product leaving that CTS a zip code or two behind. Turbos have their own kind of problems - why not build an engine that doesn't need to be force fed to produce usable power, and avoid those attendant durability issues. As far as Ford goes, would be willing to bet that this much hyped 250hp+ engine is just that, 'hype' - if and when Ford can actually get the engine in real cars (supposedly 2008) it will have its more than its share of problems. Toyota will already be getting 350 hp out of their 3.5 - a reincarnation of the Supra also due that year. Lexus is already getting 300+ on the IS350 (same basic engine as the Avalon/Camry - RWD, of course), Honda on the RL, and Nissan on the G35/M - so 255 on a CTS is good? And we haven't even talked about the VW 3.6, the MB 3.5, or about any of the BMW straight 6s - also fine engines that make Detroit products/designs look silly.
For one thing the price. You can get a lot more HP, with better gas mileage elsewhere. Paying over $30K for the CTS you would expect a decent engine. Maybe they should drop the Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai 3.8V6 in there And the car I sat in a couple weeks ago, had seats with no lumbar support and no telescopic steering column to make seating adjustment correct. It is like they are treating the CTS like an econo car. Even the Mazda3 for $14K or so, has telescopic steering and decent seats. It is like they don't really try too hard to make the best product. And if they are, then they simply have failed. -Loren
The people making the decisions are not German. their quality has gone to hell because they are doing what chrysler has done for years, outsource components to outside contractors, like the ABS control systems and electronic throttle systems
The older models, maybe, but the new models are getting much better. The Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS and the big GM SUVs are quite competitive in this area.
The design of the American cars needs a lot of improvement, and they seem stuck on specialty cars which they can't get the pricing right. See links below.
Two weeks? Sounds more like some import with hard to find parts. Either that or it was a REALLY LOUSY shop. I only had a transmission fail once on 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis LS @ 78K miles. I had it back in two days and the repair was $1,070. I never had a GM tranny fail me. From my experience, GM powertrains are darn near bulletproof.
Two weeks? Sounds more like some import with hard to find parts. Either that or it was a REALLY LOUSY shop.
My guess is a really lousy shop. My uncle had to have the transmission "overhauled" (a kinder way of saying "rebuilt" I guess) a few years back in his 1997 Silverado. He took it back to the dealer, as he had an extended warranty on it. I'd say that sucker was in there for AT LEAST two weeks! I wonder though, since the rebuild was free, if that's one reason why they took their time?
Anyway, the tranny went out again just a couple months ago (reverse, 2nd, and 4th got taken out), and I took it to a local shop, which had rebuilt my '79 Newport's tranny years ago. I dropped it off on a Sunday, but couldn't find their key drop as they had remodeled, so I ran the keys by on my lunch break on Monday. They had the sucker ready to go on Wednesday.
Oh, and if it makes ya feel any better, they had a Honda Accord in the shop, getting a new tranny. It was a '98-02 coupe. I thought that was almost poetic justice, considering how people rave on about how bulletproof they are. :P But at the same time, to drive home the point how troublesome GM's 4L60E or whatever it's called can be, they also had a Suburban in there of about the same vintage as my uncle's truck.
As for tranny failures in general, I've personally had two of them. First was a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, around 62,000 miles (but 11 years of age). It didn't fail completely, but would hold the gears too long and over-rev the engine. The shop said they could probably fix it for about $150-200, but couldn't guarantee the problem wouldn't come back, or just rebuild it for around $675. The second was a 1979 Newport, which lost all gear motion around 230,000 miles. Ironically, within walking distance of the transmission shop!
Now a buddy of mine, who used to have a '98 Tracker, needed major work on that thing's tranny about every 20,000 miles, but thankfully it had a 60K mile warranty on it, so the first three times were free. It started acting up again around 86,000 miles, and we got the transmission shop to get it moving again for about 60 bucks, but they said the tranny was on its last legs. It went out again around 92,000 miles, and the dealer said, vaguely "anywhere from $1-3K". I called around, found a junkyard that had a tranny out of a wrecked '95 Sidekick with 55,000 miles on it. It was about $1100 total to get it installed, and he never had any more problems. He traded it about 2 weeks ago, with 134,000 miles, on a new Xterra.
if the 3.6 in the CTS is the best Detroit can do - you make my point.
Not really. The CTS is a luxury sport rear wheel drive vehicle. It is heavier and larger than the CamCords and tuned for the aggressive driving people in this segment want. The cars the 3.6 is properly compared with are the Mercedes, BMWs, Infiniti and Lexus. And it compares well with all of them.
The CamCord appliance cars should be compared with other appliance cars. The 3.6 tuned for appliance driving in the Saturn Aura will no doubt be much closer on mpgs.
Bad comparison.
Lexus is already getting 300+ on the IS350 (same basic engine as the Avalon/Camry - RWD, of course),
Look in the news: The '07 3.6 tuned for the Cadillac and other will have 300 hp or thereabouts, and better mpgs as well.
And we haven't even talked about the VW 3.6, the MB 3.5, or about any of the BMW straight 6s - also fine engines
If you use your appliance to luxury sport comparison criteria on the German engines that you use for the CTS 3.5, you will find all the Germans coming up short.
But then the idea is to mix and match the criteria wherever it suits your bias, isn't it?
Turbos have their own kind of problems - why not build an engine that doesn't need to be force fed to produce usable power, and avoid those attendant durability issues.
Turbo reliability issues is a story that went out in the 1980s. BMW, MB, VW, Volvo, Saab all use Turbos to great effect.
The people making the decisions are not German. their quality has gone to hell because they are doing what chrysler has done for years, outsource components to outside contractors, like the ABS control systems and electronic throttle systems
So you are saying that the German head of the North American division, who in turn reports directly to the German head of Daimler Chrysler has nothing to do with decision making?
What do all these German management people in the North American division do with their time, make Weiss beer in their basements while watching Oprah?
***I find it hard to believe that people would actually think that the Big 3's history of reliability problems doesn't stem from the fact that they DESIGN the vehicles to fail after 3 years, meaning they DESIGN the vehicle to last about 3 years or 36K miles. After that, you are on your own, and sh** out of luck. ***
I have found quite the opposite true. I have had Ford transmissions replaced at no charge at 45k, 9k out of warranty.
As for Honda, it was difficult to get them to repair paint issues on a NEW car (under 10k)without the involvement of an attorney (which significantly sped up the process). Also, they refused a post warranty adjustment on an engine that failed at 45k despite receiving all required maintenance.
generally true - turbos have gotten much better, BUT all other factors equal the normally aspirated engine will outlast a turbocharged one - there is a reason that rods and pistons generally have to be strengthened, and then you have the additional mechanical complexities added of the turbocharger itself, the intercooler, and the waste gates. A corollary of Murphy's Law - the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to break. Superchargers working at higher pressures are, of course, worse.
Turbo reliability issues is a story that went out in the 1980s. BMW, MB, VW, Volvo, Saab all use Turbos to great effect.
Hahaha, you make a very bad point here listing these car manufacturers!!! You just made a list of the all-time reliability bloopers reel. When people think of reliable and dependable, the last cars they think of are BMW, MB, VW, Volvo, and Saab.
Now..... BMW and Audi have come a long way in recent years. MB has gone the way of Chrysler (bottom of the pits). VW is right there with them. Volvo & Saab continually compete for some of the most unreliable cars on the market.
Speaking of turbos though, I hope they have come a long way, but.... Toyota and Honda don't use them, and that has got me worried. The most reliable companies are not using turbos.... hmmm....
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
As for Honda, it was difficult to get them to repair paint issues on a NEW car (under 10k)without the involvement of an attorney (which significantly sped up the process). Also, they refused a post warranty adjustment on an engine that failed at 45k despite receiving all required maintenance.
Maybe Honda legitimately noticed you were neglecting and abusing the car to make the engine fail at 45K?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Now..... BMW and Audi have come a long way in recent years. MB has gone the way of Chrysler (bottom of the pits). VW is right there with them. Volvo & Saab continually compete for some of the most unreliable cars on the market.
None of which mean a thing unless you can show the turbos had anything to do with these auto's reliability rankings in the time period discussed.
None of which mean a thing unless you can show the turbos had anything to do with these auto's reliability rankings in the time period discussed.
A Volvo sales manager admitted to me the reason they had a lot more 2.4's than T5's is because Volvo buyers didn't like turbos because they like to drive their Volvo's for 200K plus. Sounds like poor prior experience with Volvo turbos. I've read about sludge issues in VW/Audi's 1.8T. And overall poor reliablity has everything to do with a turbo car if that car is getting very poor reliability results. Chances are high that if a car had poor quality control... all components of that car are at risk for failure.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So, if a person has a problem with a Honda it is their fault. Problem with any car you do not like or own, it is the manufacturers fault.
I didn't say that, but you do like to twist and take things out of context. And by the way, I did own a Big 3 car in the Nineties, and I did have those problems exactly as described around 37K, 45K, and 65K. All three of the biggest problems you can have with a vehicle occurred. Probably the 3 worst things that can happen other than complete engine failure. But so many more little things when wrong that were expensive to fix too.
I believe you can have a problem with a Honda, it is possible, though much less likely and infrequent than you would with a Dodge, let's say.
I believe the problem could be the manufacturers fault, but I also believe that the Honda dealer most likely would have fixed his problems w/o too many questions had they not found "abusive evidence."
The problem isn't the breakdown itself..... but WHY the dealer didn't cover it!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
A Volvo sales manager admitted to me the reason they had a lot more 2.4's than T5's is because Volvo buyers didn't like turbos because they like to drive their Volvo's for 200K plus. Sounds like poor prior experience with Volvo turbos. I've read about sludge issues in VW/Audi's 1.8T. And overall poor reliablity has everything to do with a turbo car if that car is getting very poor reliability results. Chances are high that if a car had poor quality control... all components of that car are at risk for failure.
Translated:
I have no idea what the reliability history of turbo engines are, cannot find anything to back me up, so I will throw in a personal anecdote then a whole lot of rot and say that makes my point.
Consider this, a car has bad suspension components. They break down a lot. The car is rated as not reliable. This says nothing about the reliability of the engine.
By the way, Toyota normally asipirated engines had sludge issues. How does forcing air into an engine induce sludge in your mind?
CTS is not in the same league as German and Japanese luxury cars. Sorry, not a terrible car in most ways, but not up to the same class as those you mentioned. Not with cheap interiors, no telescopic steering, poor seating, and .... nope, not in the same class. Good for a Cadillac as far as handling. -Loren
you sure think a lot of the CTS - but, in no way, competitive to things like BMWs, Lexus etc. other than the RWD and some sporty pretensions. And overpriced, you'll find a lot more 'luxury' features on Camrys and Accords for thousands less. And, BTW, look up the weights, the Camrys/Accords do weigh about 200 lbs. less than the Cadillac, are the same size, and can come with more for less money. And, of course, that Camry/Accord will have more value 2 or 3 years down the road than the Cadillac that initially costed more. As noted by m1miata, the CTS is an 'economy car' relative to what you can get in the Camry/Accord for $25-30k. But, you are also right in the sense, that these cars are not comparable, but if you really think the CTS is equal to things like G35s (same price range) than I guess you haven't driven one. As for Detroit's neverending engine promises - the 2GR Toyota engine is already direct injected as I think are the Honda and VQ Nissan engines. And if GM can scrape enough money together, maybe that 3.6 can get 300 hp 4 years later? Ford's doing the same thing with the Fusion/500, rushing a car to market with inferior powertrains on a promise of a competitive engine several years down the road. By then, whatever engine that is won't be competitive anymore - the US mfgrs. simply don't have enough money to stay with Toyotas/Hondas/Nissans of the world in product development. You would think, however, that they could keep up with little 'ole' Hyundai though, or maybe just go ahead and buy engines from them! As far as these 'appliances', which I do grant you labor under the disadvantages of FWD, I will wave as I pass that gas station that you had to stop at and later in my rearview mirror because unless you spent $50k+ on the CTS-V, that is where you will stay!
This Mustang pricing craze is way out of hand. Even a basic Mustang seems to be closer to $20K, with some V6 in the $25K range. Ummm, that is a truck engine V6 producing 210HP, which is OK, but nothing worth the pricing. Look at the jump from the past model which was sale priced in the $16 to $17.5K range for years. And is any GT worth $35K? Really now, the car is improved and with it comes some expense, but they are really piling on the retail prices. The interior is not all that expensive. It is good, solid, sharp looking (thanks to those that styled the 1969) car, but I think they will start sitting on the lots now. Gas prices are high,and the engines get mediocre at best gas mileage at best. I think the $3K off deals are coming soon. -Loren
Believing that Turbos are FINE (reliability wise) because companies X, Y, & Z (known for the worst reliability in the industry) use them, is a bad argument. End of story!
It's equivalent to saying the oil McDonald's uses to cook their food is healthy because McDonald's uses it, and it seems to work fine (people keep buying their fries).
Now if you said restaurant companies like Soup Plantation, Sweet Tomatoes, or Fresh Choice were using that same oil to cook their food, then you might have some credibility.
Find me some "reliable car companies" that have been using turbos successfully for more than 5 years (and have not had reliability issues).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
GM just drops the model name because the associated vehicle was a failure. We can start with Corvair, then Vega, Citation and X cars, Aztek, Fiero, Alero, Bravada, Chevette, Cimarron, Catera, on and on and on and on and on.........
And the Corona, Cressida, MR2, Celica, Toyopet...
I also question bringing up Oldsmobile names when the whole brand was discontinued, not for being a failure but for lacking the product differentiation. From a sales standpoint, the Corvair was hardly a failure, nor was the Chevette (although it was a miserable car).
Isn't using a turbo another way of saying, we just could get any more power out of old Nellie, so we slapped a blower on her?
Maybe GM could just have Hyundai make up some 3.3 and 3.8 V6s for them? Just kidding. Seriously, it seem to me a couple to three V6 engines would do. All these companies get into so many different engines. Why not perfect a couple to three?
Yeah, it probably was caused by the shop being lousy, having a slow mechanic, or MOPAR being slow to deliver parts and pieces.
It wasn't a hard to find import car or hard to find import parts. It was a plain old Dodge, and the transmission mechanic mentioned "I wish they still didn't use these ancient 3 speed autos anymore, when will they ever stop using them?" I know he said it half-heartedly, as I'm sure Chrysler has made many a transmission shop rich.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
3 speed autos anymore, when will they ever stop using them?" I know he said it half-heartedly, as I'm sure Chrysler has made many a transmission shop rich.
Heck, around 2000-2001 or so, the Neon had the most reliable tranny of any Mopar badged product around! Just about all of the other cars and the minivans were using a 4-speed automatic that tended to be troublesome, especially once you got into the higher torque engines and higher GVWR vehicles, of which the minivans then had two strikes against them. And even in trucks, the 4-speed automatic they had been using was nowhere near as durable as the old Torqueflites of days gone by. But the Neon 3-speed automatic wasn't too bad. After all, it dated back to the 1978 Omni/Horizon, so Chrysler did have a bit of time to work the bugs out. :P
The CTS in its current form is a good Pontiac Grand Prix. Make the 3.6HF the base engine, sell it for $26k, then offer a 325hp Northstar V8 for $31k. The CTS is nowhere fancy or high-tech enough to deserve the Cadillac badge.
Comments
European and Japanese seem to make seamless cars.
I do not know off hand, but imagine they have the equivalency of ADRs and do not comply with Japanese standards.
Perhaps if ALL exchanges and ALL countries had the same disclosure rules/accounting standards, this wouldn't be an issue.
Until Sarbanes-Oxley, I think the world - or at least the G8 - was going that way. SOX as the WSJ likes to call it, is scaring foreign companies away from the NYSE and also encouraging some domestics to go private.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Will not look for work elsewhere if a GM plant should close? And they will live under a bridge somewhere, and then become criminals?
No, you misread what I was saying, I was responding to the statement made earlier that all the GM employees are idiots, and deserve to be out of work.
I still don't understand it. so I guess someone needs to explain it to me. How are accords and Camrys more exciting/inspired than chargers and impalas?
I'll answer this one. I'll take it.
The 2007 Camry is inspiring because you can smoke any domestic V6 powered vehicle from 0 to 60 MPH and still get better mileage doing it. The 3.5L V6 in the Toyota is awe inspiring in its execution of high power (269 HP) and high gas mileage.
The 2.0L Turbo 4 from Audi/VW is also awe inspiring in its power and economy mix (200HP & 207 lb/ft of torque with 25/31 gas mileage). Honda is able to get 244 HP from 20/29.
My biggest factors when deciding what car I want to drive are 1) Reliability
2) Power vs.(and) gas mileage abilities (high in both gives great value)
3) Price
4) Handling/steering/safety
I'd like to see a domestic come out with a 4Yr/50K and 6 year/70K powertrain warranty!!!
No way in hell they could do it, because their warranty repair costs alone would make their cars more expensive (for comparable models) than the imports. No more price advantage, no more sales, period (because they certainly don't sell on being superior, only cheaper, and with rebates).
I think Acura is headed in the right direction with that fantastic warranty, and they should have Honda match it. Also, I really wish my new 2006 Audi had that Acura warranty. I almost got the TSX instead of the A3 because of that, but I decided I could gamble since the Audi warranty is still solid at 4/50K.
I'd like to see a domestic come out with a 4Yr/50K and 6 year/70K powertrain warranty!!!
Per Edmunds, Cadillac and Lincoln are 4/50 warranty and 4/50 Drivetrain.
Given modern drivetrains easily make it to 100k without any maintenance, the 6/70 drivetrain is more a merketing gimmick than anything else.
The actuarial data on drivetrain repairs would not make much of an accounting difference on leases and sale pricing for either.
I almost got the TSX instead of the A3 because of that, but I decided I could gamble since the Audi warranty is still solid at 4/50K.
So the Audi guaranty is solid at 4/5o, but Cadillac and Lincoln at 4/50 cannot touch it? An explanation, perhaps?
The 2GR V6 that Toyota (and Lexus) is now using pretty much across the board, is, as you say, awe inspiring - and unfortunately (for GM/Fords/Chrysler) well ahead of any of the 'Big 3' technical & manufacturing capabilities.
There is nothing new here, Detroit has never been able to manufacture a technologically competitive smaller displacement engine.
GM 3.6 VVT OHC currently in the Cadillac, soon to be in the Saturn Aura.
GM 2.8 twin turbo vvt OHC in the Saab Aero, and soon in the CTS with others to be announced.
The forthcoming Ford 3.5 vvt OHC, to launch in the Edge and quickly follow in a number of other Fords.
Tell that to a chump who's had to rebuild their domestic transmission at 65,000 miles and had to pay much dinero to do it. Also, the car was in the shop for almost 2 weeks. but were talking thousands these days for tranny repair.
Not so gimmicky when you get the bill!
My GM drive trains have lasted with no problems - my nephew still has my Saturn SL with 180k and only fluid changes.
The current CTS gets 18/27. Not bad for an rwd luxury sport. Don't know how it can be dissappointing. For instance, the BMW Coupe with the 2.5 (a significantly smaller vehicle as well) gets only 19/28.
Sport tuned cars lose on mileage. No surprise there.
The next gen CTS with the twin turbo will probably have those numbers bump up around 20/29 or so.
But warranties aren't for repairs that you expect. They're for the ones you only have a 5% of needing. Nineteen owners of the same vehicle will say "my car's perfect!" but what if you're the twentieth?
The expectation, realistic or not, is that 1 in 1,000 Toyotas may go bad, but 1 in 50 Dodges will. Why? Because it sounds like 1 in 5 Caravans of certain years failed. Warranties are basically insurance, and insurance is based on history - and history is not on certain companies' side.
The worse a company's history, the more important that insurance is to consumers. Look at Hyundai...
As far as Ford goes, would be willing to bet that this much hyped 250hp+ engine is just that, 'hype' - if and when Ford can actually get the engine in real cars (supposedly 2008) it will have its more than its share of problems. Toyota will already be getting 350 hp out of their 3.5 - a reincarnation of the Supra also due that year. Lexus is already getting 300+ on the IS350 (same basic engine as the Avalon/Camry - RWD, of course), Honda on the RL, and Nissan on the G35/M - so 255 on a CTS is good? And we haven't even talked about the VW 3.6, the MB 3.5, or about any of the BMW straight 6s - also fine engines that make Detroit products/designs look silly.
-Loren
their quality has gone to hell because they are doing what chrysler has done for years, outsource components to outside contractors, like the ABS control systems and electronic throttle systems
-Loren
http://tinyurl.com/pgaul
http://www.fastlanenews.com
I do like the quote from GM about wanting only to compete on the merits. Good to see them shying away from flag waving.
That's great! Maybe I won't have to listen any longer to "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet" on the radio.
My guess is a really lousy shop. My uncle had to have the transmission "overhauled" (a kinder way of saying "rebuilt" I guess) a few years back in his 1997 Silverado. He took it back to the dealer, as he had an extended warranty on it. I'd say that sucker was in there for AT LEAST two weeks! I wonder though, since the rebuild was free, if that's one reason why they took their time?
Anyway, the tranny went out again just a couple months ago (reverse, 2nd, and 4th got taken out), and I took it to a local shop, which had rebuilt my '79 Newport's tranny years ago. I dropped it off on a Sunday, but couldn't find their key drop as they had remodeled, so I ran the keys by on my lunch break on Monday. They had the sucker ready to go on Wednesday.
Oh, and if it makes ya feel any better, they had a Honda Accord in the shop, getting a new tranny. It was a '98-02 coupe. I thought that was almost poetic justice, considering how people rave on about how bulletproof they are. :P But at the same time, to drive home the point how troublesome GM's 4L60E or whatever it's called can be, they also had a Suburban in there of about the same vintage as my uncle's truck.
As for tranny failures in general, I've personally had two of them. First was a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, around 62,000 miles (but 11 years of age). It didn't fail completely, but would hold the gears too long and over-rev the engine. The shop said they could probably fix it for about $150-200, but couldn't guarantee the problem wouldn't come back, or just rebuild it for around $675. The second was a 1979 Newport, which lost all gear motion around 230,000 miles. Ironically, within walking distance of the transmission shop!
Now a buddy of mine, who used to have a '98 Tracker, needed major work on that thing's tranny about every 20,000 miles, but thankfully it had a 60K mile warranty on it, so the first three times were free. It started acting up again around 86,000 miles, and we got the transmission shop to get it moving again for about 60 bucks, but they said the tranny was on its last legs. It went out again around 92,000 miles, and the dealer said, vaguely "anywhere from $1-3K". I called around, found a junkyard that had a tranny out of a wrecked '95 Sidekick with 55,000 miles on it. It was about $1100 total to get it installed, and he never had any more problems. He traded it about 2 weeks ago, with 134,000 miles, on a new Xterra.
Not really. The CTS is a luxury sport rear wheel drive vehicle. It is heavier and larger than the CamCords and tuned for the aggressive driving people in this segment want. The cars the 3.6 is properly compared with are the Mercedes, BMWs, Infiniti and Lexus. And it compares well with all of them.
The CamCord appliance cars should be compared with other appliance cars. The 3.6 tuned for appliance driving in the Saturn Aura will no doubt be much closer on mpgs.
Bad comparison.
Lexus is already getting 300+ on the IS350 (same basic engine as the Avalon/Camry - RWD, of course),
Look in the news: The '07 3.6 tuned for the Cadillac and other will have 300 hp or thereabouts, and better mpgs as well.
And we haven't even talked about the VW 3.6, the MB 3.5, or about any of the BMW straight 6s - also fine engines
If you use your appliance to luxury sport comparison criteria on the German engines that you use for the CTS 3.5, you will find all the Germans coming up short.
But then the idea is to mix and match the criteria wherever it suits your bias, isn't it?
Turbo reliability issues is a story that went out in the 1980s. BMW, MB, VW, Volvo, Saab all use Turbos to great effect.
their quality has gone to hell because they are doing what chrysler has done for years, outsource components to outside contractors, like the ABS control systems and electronic throttle systems
So you are saying that the German head of the North American division, who in turn reports directly to the German head of Daimler Chrysler has nothing to do with decision making?
What do all these German management people in the North American division do with their time, make Weiss beer in their basements while watching Oprah?
I have found quite the opposite true. I have had Ford transmissions replaced at no charge at 45k, 9k out of warranty.
As for Honda, it was difficult to get them to repair paint issues on a NEW car (under 10k)without the involvement of an attorney (which significantly sped up the process). Also, they refused a post warranty adjustment on an engine that failed at 45k despite receiving all required maintenance.
http://www.media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.co- m/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=25970
Hahaha, you make a very bad point here listing these car manufacturers!!! You just made a list of the all-time reliability bloopers reel.
When people think of reliable and dependable, the last cars they think of are BMW, MB, VW, Volvo, and Saab.
Now..... BMW and Audi have come a long way in recent years. MB has gone the way of Chrysler (bottom of the pits). VW is right there with them. Volvo & Saab continually compete for some of the most unreliable cars on the market.
Speaking of turbos though, I hope they have come a long way, but.... Toyota and Honda don't use them, and that has got me worried. The most reliable companies are not using turbos.... hmmm....
Maybe Honda legitimately noticed you were neglecting and abusing the car to make the engine fail at 45K?
None of which mean a thing unless you can show the turbos had anything to do with these auto's reliability rankings in the time period discussed.
So, if a person has a problem with a Honda it is their fault. Problem with any car you do not like or own, it is the manufacturers fault.
A Volvo sales manager admitted to me the reason they had a lot more 2.4's than T5's is because Volvo buyers didn't like turbos because they like to drive their Volvo's for 200K plus. Sounds like poor prior experience with Volvo turbos. I've read about sludge issues in VW/Audi's 1.8T.
And overall poor reliablity has everything to do with a turbo car if that car is getting very poor reliability results. Chances are high that if a car had poor quality control... all components of that car are at risk for failure.
I didn't say that, but you do like to twist and take things out of context.
And by the way, I did own a Big 3 car in the Nineties, and I did have those problems exactly as described around 37K, 45K, and 65K. All three of the biggest problems you can have with a vehicle occurred. Probably the 3 worst things that can happen other than complete engine failure. But so many more little things when wrong that were expensive to fix too.
I believe you can have a problem with a Honda, it is possible, though much less likely and infrequent than you would with a Dodge, let's say.
I believe the problem could be the manufacturers fault, but I also believe that the Honda dealer most likely would have fixed his problems w/o too many questions had they not found "abusive evidence."
The problem isn't the breakdown itself..... but WHY the dealer didn't cover it!
And overall poor reliablity has everything to do with a turbo car if that car is getting very poor reliability results. Chances are high that if a car had poor quality control... all components of that car are at risk for failure.
Translated:
I have no idea what the reliability history of turbo engines are, cannot find anything to back me up, so I will throw in a personal anecdote then a whole lot of rot and say that makes my point.
Consider this, a car has bad suspension components. They break down a lot. The car is rated as not reliable. This says nothing about the reliability of the engine.
By the way, Toyota normally asipirated engines had sludge issues. How does forcing air into an engine induce sludge in your mind?
-Loren
As for Detroit's neverending engine promises - the 2GR Toyota engine is already direct injected as I think are the Honda and VQ Nissan engines. And if GM can scrape enough money together, maybe that 3.6 can get 300 hp 4 years later? Ford's doing the same thing with the Fusion/500, rushing a car to market with inferior powertrains on a promise of a competitive engine several years down the road. By then, whatever engine that is won't be competitive anymore - the US mfgrs. simply don't have enough money to stay with Toyotas/Hondas/Nissans of the world in product development. You would think, however, that they could keep up with little 'ole' Hyundai though, or maybe just go ahead and buy engines from them!
As far as these 'appliances', which I do grant you labor under the disadvantages of FWD, I will wave as I pass that gas station that you had to stop at and later in my rearview mirror because unless you spent $50k+ on the CTS-V, that is where you will stay!
Shoot, you could probably maintain your Accord like a Pebble Beach Concours classic and the Honda dealer would still accuse you of neglect and abuse.
-Loren
It's equivalent to saying the oil McDonald's uses to cook their food is healthy because McDonald's uses it, and it seems to work fine (people keep buying their fries).
Now if you said restaurant companies like Soup Plantation, Sweet Tomatoes, or Fresh Choice were using that same oil to cook their food, then you might have some credibility.
Find me some "reliable car companies" that have been using turbos successfully for more than 5 years (and have not had reliability issues).
And the Corona, Cressida, MR2, Celica, Toyopet...
I also question bringing up Oldsmobile names when the whole brand was discontinued, not for being a failure but for lacking the product differentiation. From a sales standpoint, the Corvair was hardly a failure, nor was the Chevette (although it was a miserable car).
Maybe GM could just have Hyundai make up some 3.3 and 3.8 V6s for them? Just kidding. Seriously, it seem to me a couple to three V6 engines would do. All these companies get into so many different engines. Why not perfect a couple to three?
-Loren
It wasn't a hard to find import car or hard to find import parts. It was a plain old Dodge, and the transmission mechanic mentioned "I wish they still didn't use these ancient 3 speed autos anymore, when will they ever stop using them?" I know he said it half-heartedly, as I'm sure Chrysler has made many a transmission shop rich.
Heck, around 2000-2001 or so, the Neon had the most reliable tranny of any Mopar badged product around! Just about all of the other cars and the minivans were using a 4-speed automatic that tended to be troublesome, especially once you got into the higher torque engines and higher GVWR vehicles, of which the minivans then had two strikes against them. And even in trucks, the 4-speed automatic they had been using was nowhere near as durable as the old Torqueflites of days gone by. But the Neon 3-speed automatic wasn't too bad. After all, it dated back to the 1978 Omni/Horizon, so Chrysler did have a bit of time to work the bugs out. :P