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
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"CR's reliability info is presented to make it look like many models (mostly American) are unreliable but when you read what they say it becomes evident that even cars with "average" ratings are reliable but they dont want readers to get that impression because that would make their ratings somewhat pointless. CR proves that generally speaking, Japanese vehicles are the most reliable but it doesnt prove that domestic vehicles are unreliable. If CR is so scientific why cant they just provide a problems per vehicle number? Why play around with the circles and graphs? They dont tell you PPV because if people saw how low the numbers were they would start to realize that most cars these days arent problematic and CR would become irrelevent. I'm not making this stuff up, people have looked into all this."
CR has a graph in the beggining pages of their new car reliability mags of how reliable or how unreliable cars are if you really want to look into detail about CR's reliability ratings of different cars.
As far as CR being biased towards Japanese makes they rated the 04+ Nissan Quest terrible in reliability for 04, 05, and 06 model years. CR still rates the Quest mini-van at least below average in reliability right now currently. BTW, CR did like the Focus as their best compact car tested until the new Civic came onto the market. Also, CR like the Caddy STS a little bit better in their tests than the Lexus GS or Acura RL
Also, CR reccomends cars with an "average" reliability rating if the model scores high enough in their tests.
CR didn't rate the 07 Camry best in class I know they rated the Accord best in class but they also rated they also tied up the Altima with the Accord score wise in their testing of mid-size cars.
CR never rated the 03 Corolla best in class. its one of the top compacts that they tested but it didn't score better than the Civic, Mazda 3, or Ford Focus I don;t think.
CR gave a very lukewarm on the current Lexus GS as well and as I mentioned a post before they ranked the Caddy STS ahead of it scorewise.
CR looks for the best rounded vehicle drivability wise while C and D looks for the most exciting car to drive.
In the current issue of CR VW was the best brand tested score wise and Mercedes was one of the best brands tested score wise from what I hear in CR tests. Your right about the reliability though that CR rates German cars badly though.
Why are you saying the tranny problems in the Avalon, ES, and Camry don;t get noted but at the same time your're saying CR describes the Avalon;s tranny as punchy? What does one have to do with the other in terms of a car having a tranny problem amd the tranny being punchy? I'm not trying to pick on you but I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.
BTW, from what I've seen the tranny problems in the 02-06 ES 330/350 did get noted with an average reliability mark(white circle) for some of the model years of the 02-06 ES 330/350(not sure what model years exactly) for the trouble spot of "transmission" from the year ago issue of CR anyway. I don;t have the current issue of CR yet.
These CR morons OBVIOUSLY haven't driven a LaCrosse. My girlfriend's LaCrosse, as well as my Park Avenue which also has a 3800 V-6, delivers outstanding fuel economy!
CR doesn't use that at all for the Camry. For the Avalon that quote is "The 268-hp. 3.5 liter V6 feels smooth, punchy, and quiet." I take that as positive meaning quick and eager to go.
For the Toyota ES the quote is "The V6 and six-speed automatic ransmission make a punchy powertrain." Going on..., "The ride is very comfortable."
That sounds positive to me.
Thanks for pointing out I may have misread their language. Odd, isn't it, that nothing was said in the Camry blurb where problems currently are greatest... .grin.
I know how these would have been written if it were Ford and especially if they were GM cars...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Since CR's results are not really disclosed in detail we wont really know what problems there were with the Cobalt's sound system. I know that JD powers counts "annoyances" as problems and thus people are allowed to list poor fuel economy as a complaint on the H2 even though its not a reliability issue. I assume CR is the same way and thus people can document design flaws as problems. Even if the Cobalt has stereo issues we have no idea what percentage of Cobalt's had such problems since CR wont tell you the problem rate. For all we know 5% of Cobalt's may have had problems and that was enough to earn it a below average rating.
With a 169hp four cylinder standard that gets the same mileage as the Accord, an optional 252hp V6 with 6 speed, 18" wheels, stability, good handling, good looks, etc. I would say it is close. Your statement is an opinion not supported by any fact. Sorry.
"The Aura is a very good effort, definitely the closest competitor. The engine is thrashy. We don't know its reliability yet. "
The Aura is the same as the G6 and Malibu under the skin so we basically do know its reliability. If the Aura was a Toyota CR would predict the car would have at least average reliability since its based on existing models. Since its a GM CR will say the car is "all new" and act like the parts in the car are unproven. Neither engine in the Aura is thrashy, especially not the 3.6 and if you are making a statement like that its apparent you arent being objective. Check the facts.
"The '08 Malibu looks very promising. I can't judge if it is better than Accord/Camry from pictures, can you? "
To me its better than the Camry. The Aura is far cheaper than the Camry comparably equipped and the Malibu is likely to be cheaper than the Aura. Since it will be cheaper and it looks better inside and out I would take the Malibu.
City or highway? The old 3800 was typically fitted with massively loafy overdrive gearing which gave it good highway mileage, but the lower gears were greedier and I think that was CR's complaint.
250hp, 406 ft-lb. Uh huh. :shades:
I want to see these two carmakers go head to head with their hybrid programs. And also work on 50-state diesels for a whole range of vehicles. I am tired of the low mileage in the American fleet. It's high time for both of these carmakers, the two biggest in the world, to be giving us real-world 50-mpg cars and 40-mpg small trucks. And from there, sky's the limit.
As things stand, I suppose the best we can hope from the hybrid programs is a plug-in Prius and a street-ready Volt by the year 2010 or so. Still seems a long way off. :-(
I wonder if either will be a real-world 100 mpg vehicle. I bet the battery technology doesn't advance fast enough to make that a reality by 2010.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The battery tech is already here, but they don't have the correct paradigm to make good use of it.
Shoot, GM could build a sedan with equal or better quality than a Lexus LS, give it the performance of a Ferrari, price it like a Hyundai Accent, have the resale value of a Bugatti Royale, a pallet of gold bullion in the trunk and a stack of $100 bills in the glove box and CR would still find fault with it.
You are changing the argument. You specifically said that Consumer Reports rates every Toyota as best in class, thereby insuating that the magazine's reviewers unfairly rate Toyotas highly. And I proved you incorrect with its capsule reviews of two Toyotas in the latest issue.
Just as it's best not to characterize another poster as an "import lover" or "GM hater" based on honest criticisms of GM and its offerings, it's best to actually read the magazines before complaining about the ratings of various vehicles.
1487: CR rated the new GM SUVs lower than the 5 year old Sequoia and almost every other import SUV they've tested. What are they smoking? The rest of the automotive press has almost unanimously said the GM SUVs are best in class.
Not all of them. Car & Driver rated the new Cadillac Escalade below the Mercedes GL 450, Infiniti QX 56, and Audi Q7 4.2 Quattro in its October 2006 issue.
1487: The Aura has gotten nothing but praise from the press but CR pronounced it average at best and said it couldnt hold a candle to the Altima or any other Japanese sedan in that class. Did you see the Aura's score compared to the Accord/ Altima/Passat? The Aura was so low you would've thought it was one of the worst midsizers in class. People who love imports regard CR as gospel while ignoring the fact that they dont even like domestic vehicles that get GREAT reviews from other sources. The Fusion is the only exception.
You have distinguish between initial reviews and the results of comparison tests. Many times the buff books will give a new vehicle a positive write-up in the initial review, but it will still place it below competing vehicles when the comparison test is performed.
Consumer Reports specializes in comparison tests. It rarely reviews only one vehicle, especially if there are plenty of competitors in that segment.
Also remember that few vehicles are really bad today. It's more like "good, better, best," as opposed to "bad, mediocre, great."
Even a vehicle that scores in the middle of the pack today is good by historic standards.
"Not all of them. Car & Driver rated the new Cadillac Escalade below the Mercedes GL 450, Infiniti QX 56, and Audi Q7 4.2 Quattro in its October 2006 issue. "
I meant best in class amongst traditional SUVs. The GL and Q7 are crossovers. As for the QX56, that makes no sense and C&D was really reaching on that one. The QX has been an also ran for a few years now but I'm not surprised that C&D liked it better.
"You have distinguish between initial reviews and the results of comparison tests. Many times the buff books will give a new vehicle a positive write-up in the initial review, but it will still place it below competing vehicles when the comparison test is performed. "
Dont patronize me. I know the difference between an initial road test and a comparison test. The Aura XR was compared to the camry by autoweek and prevailed. It hasnt been compared in any other magazines yet. Stop making excuses for CR. As I said other publications/shows have praised the car and they said it was garbage. something doesnt add up and its pointless to try and defend their thrashing of teh Aura and the ridiculously low score they gave the car in their test. It was amongst the lowest scoring cars in the class in CR and FAR below the Fusion which is no better than the Aura. Again, how can you defend a magazine that wont even reveal how it scores vehicles? How did the Altima beat the Aura by 20 points in that comparo?
You really need to do some research before spouting the same old talking points on Consumer Reports.
Have you even looked at the 2007 results? Didn't think so.
Please read this article and report back to us here on what you think it's saying...
Consumer Reports: Which Companies Make the Best Cars?
It's one thing to be a fan and defend your team, but you have to be careful that you don't uhm, guard your team's backside so closely that you can't see anything
Please give us some specifics after review the article...
If you were comparing equally optioned models i stand corrected, but I doubt you were.
Exactly. So often the Japanese proponents can't see their Camry is almost as poorly "styled" as the last one. The powertrain has clear problems that shows up for many drivers but not all. And a year later on this model, exclusive of the ES and Avalon model's problems, they haven't fixed it. :lemon:
I just sat in Accords, again, this week. Hard seats. They felt like lawn chairs with pads on them. The interior is all hard plastic except for some rubbery cloth stuff on the back end of the armrest. I got into my Buick and felt all around. Instrument panel soft, door sill soft, armrest soft, knee pads soft... Soo uplifting and that's an 03. Things haven't changed much since I drove Accords in 03 when I was shopping. :shades:
Yes, sometimes people are blinded.
As for CR, if they were to tell how many reports were returned, random survey methods be damned, for each model car, they'd have some validity. But they just want to say they got 2 million or something.
What else is humorous is the link to their website is to material that subscribers have to pay extra to access!!!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
what is the torque curve like for the V6 from toyota? I'd like to see the horsepower and torque graph. It's nice to claim 397.5 horsepower, but I just saw a problem in my freshman's Algebra II book about the function for horsepower being related to bore on a 6 cylinder motor. So tweaking for high horsepower rating must be coming from somewhere else that's decreasing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Global fight with intriguing results
Last year was a tough time to sell American cars. Ford lost $6.1 billion in North America in 2006. Chrysler built thousands of vehicles that even some of its own dealers didn’t want. And the percentage of car buyers who bought American nameplates continued to fall, to 54 percent from 66 percent in 2000.
At the same time, sales of cars from Japan and Korea rose sharply. With both Ford and General Motors slumping, 2007 could be the year that foreign carmakers sell more cars in the U.S. than Detroit does.
To shed light on why some automakers are thriving while others are spinning their wheels, Consumer Reports dug deep into its own data to show the highs and lows for major carmakers. We analyzed how vehicles performed in a battery of CR’s road tests, coupled with reliability histories based on more than 1.3 million vehicles, representing 250 models. We huddled with CR’s team of expert auto engineers and interviewed business analysts who follow the industry closely.
Here’s what we found:
No carmaker does everything right. Volkswagen builds vehicles that perform very well in our testing but vary in reliability. Despite very good reliability, not all Toyota models score well.
Just because a car is Japanese doesn’t mean it’s a great car. Honda,Toyota, and Subaru make consistently reliable cars, but other Japanese automakers have mixed results.
U.S. automakers build some good models. But many vehicles are mediocre, and even the best seldom rise to the top of their categories against stiff competition.
Some automakers’ vehicles consistently do well in important areas such as handling, braking, or fuel economy, which weigh heavily in our Ratings.
We think consumers should focus on buying the best car for their needs, no matter who builds it or where it is built. The automakers that typically do best in our Ratings tend to build well-rounded vehicles that appeal to a broad audience. “Buyers want impeccable quality, reliability, basic space for what they have to do, package size, good performance, and good fuel economy,” says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a consulting group in Ann Arbor, Mich.
TEST RESULTS VS. RELIABILITY
If the only things that mattered to a car buyer were performance, comfort, and safety, Volkswagen would be at the top of the heap. Its Volkswagen and Audi models do well in handling, braking, and standard safety features. But few VWs have decent reliability.
Mercedes-Benz is an even more striking example. Its cars have the fourth-highest average test score at 77. They handle well, are nicely finished, and ride comfortably. But none has good-enough reliability to be recommended. By contrast, Toyotas have been very reliable, but some models such as the FJ Cruiser SUV and Yaris subcompact were disappointing in our tests.
Cars from Detroit automakers range across the lot in reliability. Ford has a number of good cars that did well in our survey, but about a quarter of the Ford products we have tested had below average reliability. GM also builds some vehicles that did well in reliability, but about one-third of the tested GM vehicles were rated below average.
While our surveys show that reliability of new American cars and trucks has been getting closer to the levels of Japanese vehicles, Cole says there is a limit to easy improvements.
Overall we recommend a much smaller percentage of U.S. cars than Japanese makes (37 percent vs. 80 percent), mainly because their reliability is hit-or-miss, not consistent like that of vehicles from some Japanese companies. We do not recommend models with below-average reliability. American vehicles tend to be more reliable than those from Europe. The consistently high reliability of some Japanese companies, such as Honda, Subaru, and Toyota, allows us to recommend their new models.
THE JAPANESE MYTH
Honda and Toyota are lauded for their reliability and have built a number of high-rated models, including 7 of our 10 Top Picks. But we found that not all Japanese cars excel.
“Honda and Toyota are really on a pedestal,” says James Rubenstein, an automotive analyst at Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio. But other Japanese makers, such as Nissan, Mazda, and Mitsubishi, have struggled to build high-quality cars consistently.
Nissan’s lineup, on average, actually scores above Toyota’s in CR’s tests, 75 vs. 70. Nissan also produces several of the most reliable cars in our survey, including Infiniti sedans. But three Nissans--the Armada,Titan, and Infiniti QX56--were among models with the most reliability problems in our survey; all are made in the same plant in Canton, Miss. Ford vehicles, in comparison, have slightly better reliability in our survey than cars from Nissan.
Mazda vehicles test well, but reliability has been hit-or-miss. For example, it took several years for all versions of the Mazda6 to come up to average reliability. The average Mitsubishi scores only a 60 in CR’s testing and has average reliability. Mitsubishi’s Eclipse sports coupe scored too low in our road tests for us to recommend it. Though every manufacturer has recalls, even Toyota has taken some heat over its 10 recalls of 657,000 vehicles in the past year, although that is not a factor in our reliability Ratings.
HOW U.S. MAKERS STACK UP
In our testing, we found that some recent models from Ford and GM are competitive with the better Japanese or European models. For example, the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and Cadillac CTS scored well in our tests. The Fusion/Milan has excellent reliability.
Even so, American cars seldom lead their categories against excellent competition. Consider the Ford Five Hundred and its siblings, the Ford Freestyle and Mercury Montego. They all scored well in our testing and are recommended models. But the Five Hundred and its siblings “didn’t have any styling or features or technology that the Japanese hadn’t had for years,” says David Healy, an auto-industry analyst with Burnham Securities.
Ford’s chief engineer, Paul Mascarenas, says that when redesigning its models, Ford is now using competitors’ vehicles as its benchmarks instead of just improving on its own outgoing models.
A contrasting case is GM’s Chevrolet Impala. Although updated last year, the car has a dated platform and engine. Interior materials improved, but the rear seat was cramped for such a large sedan, and fuel economy was mediocre.
One big hurdle that U.S. manufacturers face is cost. They “have to take billions out of new car development or marketing to cover the legacy costs” for retiree benefits, says Jim Hall, a vice president at the AutoPacific consulting group.
Limited development budgets are a particular problem, given the recent competitiveness of value-priced models from Korean manufacturers Hyundai and Kia.
HIGHS AND LOWS
The areas where many U.S. cars fall down
The areas where many U.S. cars fall down are many of the same ones that we consider most important, such as reliability, fuel economy, braking, and handling.
General Motors, the largest automaker, has had some hits and misses, judging by the 42 models we have tested. The Chevrolet Avalanche and Corvette rank near the top of their classes in our testing. But lackluster products such as GM’s outdated minivans and compact pickups counter their good scores. Many GM vehicles wind up with mediocre test scores because of subpar braking, emergency handling, and real-world fuel economy. On the plus side, fit and finish of GM models has greatly improved.
Ford’s cars consistently handle well and ride comfortably, and its trucks and SUVs have good interior space and utility. But braking, refinement, and fuel economy are typical complaints.
Chrysler has the lowest test scores after Suzuki, at 51. Several new Chryslers, including the Sebring and the Dodge Caliber, have noisy engines, bad visibility, and cheap-looking interiors. One of our engineers likened sitting in a Caliber to being in a plastic ice cooler.
Some companies with smaller lineups consistently design well-rounded vehicles. All the Hondas we tested were reliable, and most had smooth, refined engines and transmissions, good fuel economy, handling, fit and finish, and crash-test scores. Almost all suffered from road noise. Mazda also has a smaller lineup, and all but one had good handling and braking in our tests. Most were noisy.
Like GM,Toyota has a large lineup, increasing the challenge of producing consistently excellent vehicles. Eight other automakers had higher average scores, leaving Toyota just mid-pack in this respect. While tested Toyota vehicles are very reliable and most have good fuel economy, they lacked agility in our testing.
THE TECHNOLOGY DIVIDE
Technology that aids fuel economy also sets automakers apart. Higher-tech multivalve engines, improved fuel injection, and diesel or hybrid technology improve efficiency but add cost. Some carmakers have also adopted expensive yet efficient five- and six-speed automatic transmissions to improve fuel economy and performance. But domestic automakers have been using older four-speed automatics. While 69 percent of GM models are still available with four-speed automatics, only 33 percent of Toyotas are. Four-speeds are in 39 percent of Ford’s lineup and 64 percent of Chrysler’s. All models from Audi, BMW, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Volvo have at least five speeds.
Mascarenas says Ford, which has advanced five- and six-speed transmissions and CVTs in much of its lineup, will have higher fuel-economy targets, evident in its lineup, by the 2009 model year.
When we compared fuel economy vs. acceleration, BMW, Honda, Mazda, and Toyota were top performers. Chrysler, Ford, GM, Hyundai, and Subaru vehicles had the least performance per gallon.
“U.S. automakers pay lip service to fuel economy, and there is some drift in that direction,” says Healy. “But it is not a stampede.”
Bob Lutz, General Motors’ head of global product development, acknowledges that “there has been this perception that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not forthcoming with new technology.” He says GM has pushed cylinder cut-out technology that disables half an engine’s cylinders when power demand is low. Most of those engines, however, are in large vehicles with unimpressive fuel economy. (Honda and Chrysler also use the technology.)
CAN DETROIT CATCH UP?
Hall, at AutoPacific, says that from the 1970s to the ‘90s, Detroit’s attention was focused on finance, sales volume, debt repayment, and other factors--everything but customers. “The domestics are trying to fix three to four decades of not caring about the product,” he says, “and that’s not going to be turned around overnight.”
For American carmakers to catch up, they can no longer afford to merely improve on their older models, experts say. They must build better cars than Honda and Toyota.
“There’s been a big change in attitudes at those companies,” says Rubenstein. “It took them forever to own up to the fact that they weren’t competitive. Now they’re trying to buy enough time to finish fixing it.”
GM's biggest problem is with the multitudes of former owners who have been burned by them in the past. For decades, GM made some really poor vehicles in terms of quality and reliability. Former owners of those are really hesitant to buy another. If that is what you mean by blinded, I agree. Many have turned to Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus, and getting them to consider GM product again will be difficult (evidenced by Honda and Toyota's repeat buyers #'s).
Add to that really poor styling on the majority of their cars, and it's not looking pretty for GM (or US auto makers in general). For every stylish, desirable GM (Corvette, Solstice, G6), there are several duds Aztec, GTO, Malibu, Impala...
If GM can get quality up and improve their styling, they may do OK. I won't be holding my breath though.
I have had bad experience with GM in past, and, I will carefully read Edmund's review before buying another GM. Aura got a good review. But I even didn't know "Aura was a car" till I went to the autoshow. To me Accord or Camry represent long-running trusted nameplates. And, Aura represents a newbie. Also, Aura is more expensive. Aura XE costs more than Camry LE. I know V6 vs. I4, etc. etc. But I am not ready to pay more for an Aura, particularly when I am skeptical about how well Aura can hold its value. Probably, Aura will do a better job than what Malibu has done so far. Still, can it beat Camry?
Anyway, GM seems to be making some efforts in improving products. GM just needs to lower the prices a bit. Bye the way, I like Ford's pricing better. Fusion is nicely priced. Edge is bit expensive, overpriced by at least $3K --- I guess Ford is leaving some room for rebates, cash backs, red carpet leases, etc.
But this makes me chuckle - it is one of the big wars GM carries on with itself, isn't it? On the one hand, they would have you believe that the OHV "high value" motors are "just fine", durable, low cost, etc etc. But on the other side of the cubicle wall, a different salesman is telling some other customer about how much infinitely better the DOHC "high feature" motor is in the model they are looking at!
Can both be true?! :-P
This can be applied directly to the marketplace right now - if I have $20K to spend on a new midsize sedan, I can get the Aura XE with its "high value" V-6 (with 4-speed auto) and use more gas, or I can get the new Camry with its "high feature" 4-cylinder (and 5-speed auto) and use less gas. Both are the same price, in this scenario the optional engine is out of the question financially in both cases. So I can have the engine GM itself says is better in many ways, along with more speeds in the transmission, for the same money. If I go with the "high value" GM engine, where do I see my increased value? Both cars cost the same. I get a bit more power and a consequent drop in fuel economy for the same price, not to mention less gears. And that's before I have ever compared the relative characteristics of the two motors in operation.
Well, Camry sales are through the roof, and according to some other poster here, Aura sales aren't doing so good (I do not personally know if that is true or not - is it doing poorly compared to the old L-car, or to GM sales projections, or what?). Maybe the market has made its choice on that score.
If you can squeeze your wallet up to the $25K point and can get into an XR, I don't know why you would ever go for the savings and buy the XE with the cheaper motor, which powertrain acts cheaper in almost every way and gets about the same mileage. I expect the Aura XR to sell better than the XE, even though it is several thousand dollars more.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't know of any actual Camcord owners that ACTUALLY worry about this, or any other breakdowns when they own a Camcord. Gets you from A to B better than anything else out there.
Being as the 07 Camry V6 is known to smoke even BMW's 3 series sedans in straight line acceleration, I'd wager that the torque curve is plenty adequate on Toyota's amazing 3.5 V6.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Apparently some of the Camrys exhibit the hesitation problem and others don't. That has to be the ultimate in lack of consistency.
But I actually suspect it's more a factor of driving style of the individual whether it shows up and also the adaptation of the transmission parameters and motor control computer to the driver.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
CR doesn't tell the dealer to sell them the one they want tested!
I just read Consumer Reports' report on the cars of 2006 and the upcoming (and arrived) 2007 models. After poring over their extensive "objective analysis" it became increasingly clear that they favor Japanese manufacturers over domestic. All, I repeat, all of Honda's models received their recommendation and a near 100% or 100% reliability rating. I have researched numerous consumer reviews on nearly all available manufacturers out there and Honda was not without complaint and issues.
To be fair, CR did dog plenty of other Japanese manufacturers but they were for mostly minor problems so the spotlight would primarily remain on Toyota and Honda. In contrast to the treatment of Japanese cars, however, the domestic vehicles were glossed over and regarded as second class vehicles. For example, the Saturn Aura, despite winning the 2007 North American Car and Truck of the Year award, was knocked for minute, niggling considerations that were not ever levied against cheaper offerings from Toyota and Honda.
Consumer Reports has just thrown away any shred of remaining credibility with this overwhelming pro-Japanese propaganda. This is in conjunction with an incredibly fishy handing over of all car of the year designations from Consumer Reports to the Japanese auto makers. If I'm not sure what detergent to use or what household appliance is best for the money, I'll consider their opinion...er...objective evaluations. Given their overwhelming love for Toyota's vehicles, they seem to be very competent at choosing appliances.
When it comes to real cars and real purchases of those vehicles, however, I'll hedge my bets with my own experience, knowledge and the wealth of more objective information available.
GM didn't lose so much ground to the Japanese because of CR, or the automotive press. GM lost ground because it built inferior products that didn't match consumers wants and needs. Although its products have improved greatly (how close to Honda/Toyota is debatable), there are many who were burned by GM products, switched to Japanese, and won't ever go back. Add in customer retention, and GM has its work cut out for them.
My family is a good example of why GM has a hard road to hoe. My family was an American only family. My parents, grandparents, etc. In 1990 my Grandfather bought a Mazda 929S after being Mr Cadillac for decades. He never went back to Caddy after that. I was the next defector when I bought a 95 Civic EX. My parents thought I was nuts..right up until they drove it. A year later they both owned Honda's and can't believe how reliable they are. My wife had two American cars, then bought a Toyota. It got totalled last month so we're car shopping again. She refuses to even consider an American car.
It seems to me that so many people are caught in an endless loop of saying that GM stinks, a habit that was carried over from when it was actually valid. With each passing day, however, GM is picking up steam and learning how to do things that maintains longterm success. I believe that when GM brought over some of their European offerings to Saturn in the US, they were the first to do something I think all members of the Big 3 need to do. I could probably go on and on, probably telling you all things you already know, but the point is that GM is poised to compete with Honda and Toyota in the truest most real sense possible.
I simply get irritated when sources like Consumer Reports allows themselves to maintain unprofessional beliefs that are no longer applicable to GM as a company. The reputation GM earned in the 80s and most of the 90s is no longer truly applicable today, in the new millennium, in the year 2007. As far as I'm concerned CR is stuck in the past and because they are the auto-buying bible for many people, their behavior is even more reprehensible.
With a 169hp four cylinder standard that gets the same mileage as the Accord, an optional 252hp V6 with 6 speed, 18" wheels, stability, good handling, good looks, etc. I would say it is close. Your statement is an opinion not supported by any fact. Sorry.
I drove the G6. Given the statistics cited, sure--it's comparable to the Accord. Of course, if a driver is interested in not just hp and straight line acceleration, then other factors come into play. For the inexpensive hp junkies, G6 is a great buy. For those who like quality interiors, tight, taut handling, excellent ergonomics and control touch, and world-class smooth engines, the G6 falls woefully short. Sort of like the ipod - more features at a cheaper price, buy other music players. But the integrated package - it's world class.
The Aura is the same as the G6 and Malibu under the skin so we basically do know its reliability.
Skin can have blemishes too, so reliability can be affected by the skin. In this case - fit, finish, rattles, some electronics -- all part of the different skin. Not to mention midstream changes of production suppliers, etc. Time will tell.
If the Aura was a Toyota CR would predict the car would have at least average reliability since its based on existing models. Since its a GM CR will say the car is "all new" and act like the parts in the car are unproven.
CR has clearly stated that it does this because Toyota has an excellent track record of introducing new models that are reliable from the start. GM does not yet have that track record.
Neither engine in the Aura is thrashy, especially not the 3.6 and if you are making a statement like that its apparent you arent being objective.
The smaller engine is much rougher than the Accord, even Honda's I-4. Perhaps not thrashy compared to the worst out there, say an older Taurus or the base engine in the Grand Cherokee.
"The '08 Malibu looks very promising. I can't judge if it is better than Accord/Camry from pictures, can you? "
To me its better than the Camry. The Aura is far cheaper than the Camry comparably equipped and the Malibu is likely to be cheaper than the Aura. Since it will be cheaper and it looks better inside and out I would take the Malibu.
Most drivers await an actual feel and a drive before deciding on superiority. Others may not. Certainly purchases can be planned on prices before they're actually announced, as well. Risk takers can be admired, society (and GM) needs them!
Any thoughts as to why they would lie?
To be entirely honest, I can't say why they would try to offer information as they do. I know that it's easy to throw around accusations without evidence; what they offer in their magazine speaks for itself. My only guess for their justification is that while CR does not carry advertising dollars from other companies, there are plenty of other ways a company could "influence" their results. I'm sure I don't have to get into specifics, but that could include any number of kickbacks or "gifts" and so on. Perhaps it is even possible that CR is trying to garner favor with the increasingly larger crowd of pro-import readers by supporting their unfounded allegience in their publication. I believe that would explain their implied bias to some extent. Again, I don't have any evidence of that one way or the other, except what I have seen from them. I really wish that I could give you a better answer.
That's probably closer to the truth now than anyone will admit. Follow the money trail. Imagine Car and Driver not testing the latest hotest car that 99% of us wouldn't drive to work and back. Imagine them testing a base Lucerne for practicality. Or a base Accord 4-cyl auto. Or a G6. Lots of those around the hood here. But that's not the people who buy the magazine. Naaah. Isn't going to happen. They'll test and stroke the cars that I don't even know exist because they're not transportation I would want or need.
Someone asked earlier about how they buy their cars. If they listed where they bought cars once per year, every year, I would find it interesting. I can go back to the LaCrosse that seemed to have low mileage figures, and they never repeated the purchase or test with the different motor. If that were a Honda or Toyota the ifs, ands, buts, would have been crossed with a follow up.
How do they pick the dealers. Do they go back to the dealer with a car for checks: "This car got low mileage on a run. Is something out of kilter?"
I can recall CR has not liked GM since the 70s. Perhaps some old issues from the library would make interesting reading. The concept of "green" and "environmentalism" has always been in their liking. Perhaps it's just the corporate philosophy.
Reading the auto issue was enough. I cancelled the subscription I had entered a few months ago. I'll check anything I care about at the library. My money will not support them for a year just to see if I get a questionnaire.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM also builds some vehicles that did well in reliability, but about one-third of the tested GM vehicles were rated below average.
While our surveys show that reliability of new American cars and trucks has been getting closer to the levels of Japanese vehicles, Cole says there is a limit to easy improvements.
Overall we recommend a much smaller percentage of U.S. cars than Japanese makes (37 percent vs. 80 percent), mainly because their reliability is hit-or-miss, not consistent like that of vehicles from some Japanese companies. We do not recommend models with below-average reliability.
So, am I reading something wrong here?
1.) 66% of GM vehicles are average or above for reliability?
2.)They do not recommend below average vehicles.
3.)Due to this poor reliability CR only recommends 37% of them (ok they said domestic but it must be close to that).
That said you guys are assuming facts that are not yet in evidence. Can you imagine how many people would have to be in on this to keep is a secret since the 70's? How many staffers has CR turn over since then? How many staffers have the auto magazines turned over since then? And a none of those people have taken their 15 minutes of fame to blow this lid off of this? How come there is not another consumer group gathering millions of points of data that shows the opposite of CR?
You don't go from nearly 50% market share to 25% because your products are better and people are just stupid. You go from 50% to 25% because you have made mistakes. The flip side of course is you don't gain it back overnight when you fix the problem. I for one thing GM is on the verge of gaining share back, but it is a slow process. I do think Toyota today is more focused on its customers that GM was in the 70's and 80's. This will make the battle that much harder - but again we as consumers come out as winners as these companies do battle to offer us more for less.