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
Check Edmunds site for more information about the best half-ton in the land. Toyota will clean up the HD Class when they get around to it. Be careful what you wish for.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=119281/pageNumber=1
Good night.
DrFill
Yeah but when did Chevy have top marks for customer serice? like never. You forgot Toyota's luxury always got top marks for customer service for a few years there and I know Saturn always gets top marks for customer service as well.
"You know that to be a fact? The Altima and Impala havent been reliable? Fusion? They have been aroung longer which is a credit to them, but that doesnt mean they are the only reliable cars on the road."
Yeah but the Fusion hasn;t even been out that long to gauge its reliability yet in my opinion even though in CR rates it great for reliability. As for the 2006 Implala and the 02-06(last gen)Altima(4cyl) they rate in CR as average in reliability and the 02-06 Altima(V6)rated above average in reliability.
And what on earth happened with the Aura? I really was expecting more o the same scores as say the Fusion and Camry, though I see the Power- train Mechanical number is higher than the Camry = a good thing.
Loren
Check Edmunds site for more information about the best half-ton in the land. Toyota will clean up the HD Class when they get around to it. Be careful what you wish for.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=119281/pageNumber=1
Good night
It bores me as well. Motor Trend and Car & Driver both chose the Silverado over the Tundra in head to head comparisons. What's your point? When Toyota does 'get around to it' and build's HD's and Diesal's we can talk, although there are rumour's that they may have cancelled the program. Do you know if this is true?
By the way drfill, you always bring up the 6-speed vs 4-speed argument. Toyota only has the 6-speed on the 5.7 models. GM has 6-speeds on all HD models, both the 6.0 V-8 and Duramax Diesel versions. GM sells approx. 250,000 HD pickups a year, which means they sell way more 6-speed pickups then Toyota. My biggest beef with the Tundra is the 4.7, which does not belong in a pickup. That engine does not even have a chain (i.e. belt driven). Toyota should make a smaller version of the 5.7 to replace the 4.7.
Compare the torque figures then get back to me. The V8 makes about 53 more lb-ft than the Nissan V6. No replacement for displacement. The G35 coupe is slightly faster than the Impala SS in spite of weighing a few hundred pounds less and having a manual tranny.
anyone being honest can tell the difference between the two cars. They share length and wheelbase but are totally differnt otherwise. Try looking at the cars for more than 10 seconds before making such statements. I would concede that Stevie Wonder wouldnt know the difference between the two cars though.
i was talking about V6 engines and the old 3L camry engine did not have VVT. It made the same hp since the 1992 camry came out more or less. I think it went from 188hp to 194hp, that was not due to VVT. I was aware that the 4 cylinder engine had VVT since it got 158hp. As I said, most last generation import cars did not have VVT V6 engines. I'm not even sure if the Altima with 240hp had VVT.
Dr. Fill, you can pretend you know everything there is to know about the midsize car market and explain how the Camry is God's gift to the midsize market but if you think the Tundra has leapfrogged the competition, I would suggest that you have never owned a truck. The Tundra is a solid full size truck, but it is far from the class leader. When they pony up and offer an HD, Diesel, a real frame and can sell it on merit without massive rebates, let me know. I can't wait to see how big the rebates will be when the new 2009 F-Series and Ram debut along with the dual mode hybrid GMT900's."
excellent response. Right on point. I pointed out numerous deficiencies in the Tundra before and he never responded. He always comes back to the same points: 6 speed, 4 piston calipers and slightly larger cabin.
Cadillac, Saturn and Buick typically do well in dealer satisfaction surveys. Chevy and Toyota typically are not at the top. Dont see your point. Last time I checked Lexus is a different brand from Toyota and they provide a totally different dealer experience.
"Yeah but the Fusion hasn;t even been out that long to gauge its reliability yet in my opinion even though in CR rates it great for reliability. As for the 2006 Implala and the 02-06(last gen)Altima(4cyl) they rate in CR as average in reliability and the 02-06 Altima(V6)rated above average in reliability. "
good enough for me. If you bother to read CR's details about auto reliability you will see that cars keep getting better and the gap between "good" and "average" is actually quite small. If a good car has 1 problem per year and a "below average" car has 1.5 problems per year I will not be unhappy with the "poor quality" car such as Impala or Altima. BTW, one more reason I have no respect for CR is that they rate cars diffently based on engines. In most cars with two engines there are no substantial differences between models other than engines and possibly wheel/tire packages. I would love to hear CR's explanation for why they get different ratings for the same car depending on engine.
I have been trying to figure out for some time why he is incapable of acknowledging the Tundra has lost more comparisons than it has won. He keeps mentioning the Edmunds comparo but ignores the others. He also has failed to mention Edmunds didnt even have pricing when they crowned the Tundra #1 which is kind of ridiculous. Even Edmunds conceded the powertrain was really the main benefit of the Tundra, other than that its pretty much equal to the Silverado.
Toyota can claim exclusive rights to 6 speed for another year but GM trucks and F150 will have 6 speed next year in half ton models. I have heard nothing about a hybrid Tundra but I do know a Silverado hybrid is coming in late 2008.
OK genious, where do you get our info. That is flat out incorect. My MIL has an 05 Camry v6. It has VVT right on the engine cover. Both the 3.0 and 3.3v6 have had vvt for several years. Just look it up. Autosite, Consumer. wikipedia, here is the specs from internet autoguide for a 2005 Camry XLE:
2,995 cc 3 liters V 6 front engine with 87.4 mm bore, 83.1 mm stroke, 10.5 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder 1MZ-FE
Unleaded fuel 87
Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 28 and EPA city (mpg): 20
Multi-point injection fuel system
18.5 gallon main unleaded fuel tank
Power: 157 kW , 210 HP SAE @ 5,800 rpm; 220 ft lb , 298 Nm @ 4,400 rpm
Also, Nissan's 3.5vQ has had vvt since it's 2001 inception. I should know. That engine was in my '01 Nissan Pathfinder.
Well, anyone being honest can see the similaraties as well. I'm not trying to bash the car. The previous Malibu was horribly ugly, so the 08 is a drastic improvement in about every way.
Lots of people have a similar opinion as me. Just follow this link at Autoblog.com. A whole discussion on how similar the two cars are, along with the g6.
autoblog
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121824
We can all be fans, and pick and choose the best truck. But the people's vote is all that matters, and it seems they aren't impressed with this brand new truck. GM didn't expect this.
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svtruck.asp
DrFill
"idiot"?? Page 7 of July 23, 2007 issue of Autoweek lists Raynal as Executive Editor. Perhaps 62vette could give his credentials re writing about and "testing" vehicles.
The other day a friend - without any prompting by me, I swear! - remarked that when he is waiting to turn on to a road, he dreads seeing a Buick coming down that road, as he knows it will be slow drive behind it.
But, they might go to Caddy. Saw a real old guy getting into his new looking DTS, burgundy color with tan padded roof and white wall tires, at a big box store yesterday.
Hey, did you mention torque anywhere in your previous post? I was merely following your train of thought...
What's slightly faster? 0.5 seconds? I don't have the exact figure for Impala SS's 0-60 time but both the G37 and the 306HP (only!!) IS350 are running at the low 5s (R&T has the IS350 at 4.9 secs :surprise: ). By the way, like you said, this is achieved by engines put out MUCH lower torque than the SS V8. Which makes me wonder what's the point of those low output V8s (around 300HP) when the high feature V6s can do the same task with better efficiency? :confuse:
Don't do that. That train has many stops. :P
More information on the relative abilities of the SS. Slightly slower than 4.9.:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=107952
A V6 Camry will smoke it up like a blunt. :surprise:
DrFill
RTs 4.9 0-60 was on a preproduction model. A later retest netted something like 5.5, IIRC.
It's really not a fair to compare an Impala SS with a IS350 or G37. For one, FWD will always have a disadvantage due to weight shifting off the front wheels when launching. Also, flywheel torque/HP is not the tell all. You need to get that power to the ground. The Impala is saddled to a 4speed. An extra gear or two can make a huge difference.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=4462
DrFill
Not that I would get a slushbox....
DrFill
I agree, it would be hard for me to buy that type of vehicle with and auto.
Loren
P.S. Something tells me the new Malibu rendition will be the winner of the bunch. At which point the G6 & Aura become redundant.
It did. Nissan has had some form of variable timing on their DOHC V6s since the 300ZX back in 1990.
Might that have anything to do with the number of Chevy dealers compared to the number of Pontiac or Saturn dealers?
R&T's 4.9s was on a PRODUCTION model. All the previous tests before that was on PREPRODUCTION models.
Since this is a GM's forum this will be my last post about IS350 and G37.
Loren
Maybe something Detroit may consider.
Are they using these on stock cars?
Loren
HUH?????? A quote from YOUR LINK, BUB:
So it's thirsty, but it's also quick. With its traction control active you can throw a brick at the accelerator and the Impala SS will rip to 60 mph in 6.4 seconds and bound through the quarter-mile in 14.4 seconds at 97.5 mph. Although that's quicker than a Camry or Accord, it's about two-tenths slower than the last Charger R/T we tested
Loren
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=109710/pageId=692- - 78
DrFill
Here's Car % Driver's link:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12242/2007-chevrolet-impala-ss.html
Base price: $28,655
0-to-60-mph time: 5.6 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph
MUCH Quicker.
IMO, the 3.8 and 3.9 shouldn't exist, it's neither very powerful or fuel efficient. The 3.6 will cover those applications and GM could tune it to each individual vehicle, instead of having a completely different powerplant. Just think how many resources could be saved in the parts department alone.
How is Saturn the same line of car that Chevy was? Can you please explain more to why you think Saturn is the same car line as Chevy?
Edmunds tested the Camry at 6.0, and the Impala at 6.4.
How does that make Impala faster?
Did Gagrice send you over here? :lemon:
DrFill
Loren
GM when brilliant, is making a CTS, which has no comparison. It is something to buy which is sporty and less expensive to own than is the BMW, and does NOT have to out drive a Bimmer to hit the mark.
What are you talking about the CTS is something that the Japanese are not building? In terms of exterior styling no the Japanese are not building anything that looks like the CTS but on the other side of the coin you don;t think anybody crosshops a CTS with a Acura TL or Infinti G35?
I;ll agree with you on the Vette the Japanese don;t build anything like that.
Well, that 3.5 is actually an inline-5, not an inline-6. There's also a 2.8 4-cyl. Both of these engines are derived from the 4.2 inline-6, just with a cylinder or two removed. I think they're also designed more for torque, so they work pretty well in the truck applications where they're used. But then GM also has the 4.3 V-6, which is used as the base engine in big pickups, and I see a bit of overlap there. I guess they could ditch that 4.3 and use the 4.2 inline-6 in its place.
The 3.5/3.9 are also basically the same engine. One just has a different bore and/or stroke from the other. The 3.9 is basically a copcar engine, and GM spread it to some civilian models to get more use out of it.
Isn't old Buick 3.8 on the way out? I think the only cars that use it anymore are the base LaCrosse, base Lucerne, and the Grand Prix.
I think the 3.6 DOHC is a relatively expensive engine, and therefore merits a bit of premium-car status, so GM isn't going to put it into too many cars for the masses.
Oh, and as for too many V-6es, Chrysler was guilty of this for awhile. They have the 2.7 and 3.5 for cars, and they're both totally different designs. Minivans use a pushrod V-6, in 3.3 and 3.8 liter versions.. There's a 3.7 SOHC that's used in trucks. And just recently, they came out with a 4.0 version of the 3.5 car engine. So far I think only the Pacifica and Nitro R/T use it, but it may end up in other applications.
I agree with ya, though. GM (and Chrysler too) could probably stand to drop an engine or two. Personally, I'd like to see Chrysler get rid of its 2.7 DOHC V-6, and just replace it with either a lower-output 3.5 or a different displacement version, such as the 3.2 they offered for a few years. My Intrepid has a 2.7, and while it's not a bad engine, and mine has been pretty reliable, it's overmatched in something like a Charger/300/Magnum, it's prone to sludging if you slack off on maintenance, and it's expensive as hell to replace when it breaks.
I know in GM's case, the Colorado/Canyon have too narrow of an engine bay to take a V-6 engine, which necessitates the 2.8/3.5 inline engines. And I believe its engine bay is too short to accommodate the 4.2 inline-6. So I at least see some justification there. I kinda wish GM had based the Colorado/Canyon on the Trailblazer platform, which may have resulted in a more substantial truck, rather than just forcing us to accept something that was originally slated for the Taiwanese market.
Performance:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.7
0 - 45 (sec): 4.4
0 - 60 (sec): 6.5
0 - 75 (sec): 9.1
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.6@97.3
30 - 0 (ft): 31.1
60 - 0 (ft): 124.0
Quote from Car and Driver link on '07 Impala SS:
Base price: $28,655
0-to-60-mph time: 5.6 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph
Edmunds 6.4 sec for Impala SS was for '06
I knew the 3.5 was 5cyl, don't know why I put I6. Anyway, I've always heard the Colorado platform couldn't accomodate a v engine. Isn't the Hummer H3 based off the same platform? Yet, Hummer managed to shoe horn the 5.3 in the H2 either for this model year or next.
doesn't sound too good. They're not the only one either.
Toyota has now told me the tranny is bad and needs to be replaced. the trannys are backordered and they want to see my tranny to see what the deal is.
Translated: trannys are backordered. a lot of these are needed for repacing the failures.
Translated: they want to see my tranny to see what the deal is. They don't know what's going wrong. Probably just a snap ring. Or maybe it's the supplier's fault?
Did they use the Camry transmission in the truck? So much for the great powertrain compared to Chev and Ford trucks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
By the way, why would this post end up on the GM board is beyond me. ESPECIALLY the poster started a new thread on the GM board to post about Toyota is double beyond me.
:confuse: :confuse:
As you can see, I am super ubber confused.