Funny you should mention that. I went to test drive a VW Passat in 2005. The battery was dead.
I think most cars will run a battery dead if not run occasionally. Remote sensors and misc setting in the car probably draw x amount of power with the ignition off. I know my BIL installed a switch on the battery of his Corvette so he could quick disconnect it when he doesn't drive it or his battery would would go dead in about a month or two.
Heat will kill a battery real quick. I've talked to people in Nevada that are lucky to get two years too, regardless of make.
Considering how hot it can get under the hood of a car, would it help things much to relocate the battery to the trunk? I guess a trunk can get pretty hot too, though. I was thinking of this about a week and a half ago, when my '76 LeMans left me stranded at the liquor store in 95 degree heat. It had been okay that morning, but that evening, I left work around 6, and it was still brutally hot. It started, but not easily. I should have gone straight home, but didn't. When I got ready to leave from the liquor store, the car just had it, and wouldn't start. Turned over really slow and strained, and wouldn't fire up. It never overheated, but it still got brutally hot under that hood, and the battery felt pretty hot.
I left it, and two hours later came back, after sunset, and it fired right up. I'm sure part of the problem was also some heat soak to the starter motor, but I'm sure the battery itself was stressed out. So in a case like this, would moving it to the trunk make any difference?
Could be the heat then. My sister says she is lucky to get two years in Phoenix.
Heat kills batteries. Lately, I've been getting 3 years out of them - 2 years used to be the norm, you could set your calendar by them failing in exactly 2 years, but they seem to have improved lately. At least, the original Lexus and Ford batteries have been lasting longer. But the heat really takes a toll on them.
The battery to my 2002 Cadillac Seville was under the back seat. Maybe that explains why I never needed to change it in over 6 years? I traded it in with the original battery still in it.
The battery in my grand cherokee is under the hood like normal and I replaced the original one in around Dec 2005 or Jan 2006. It was a 1998 built at the end of 1997 so about eight years old when it died.
batteries are a commodity so when GM started outsourcing union jobs, the division making batteries suddenly had to make a low cost superior product to get the next GM parts contract. At that time, battery quality zoomed past GM vehicle quality to attempt to allow survival of ACDelco Systems, and then Delphi. Given the birth of a new company in '98 where 75% of the inherited workforce has a 30 and out pension and they already have 29 years accumulated, Delphi still went into BK despite any quality leaps.
There are so many variables regarding batteries, it is hard to say how much is the fault of the batteries themselves.
Heat: For the most part, the problem with heat for traditional batteries is that the water evaporates. If you maintain the battery properly with distilled water, it should give about the same life as in cooler climate. The biggest problem is that the water added to a battery is usually not that clean. Some people just add tap water. Some people use distilled water, but let dust or dirt get into the battery which means they just wasted the cost of the distilled water.
Vibration: Merely running the motor, which causes vibration will theoretically weaken the plates over time. But the big problem is drop damage when handling.
Bad charging/discharging: Up here in the cold north, we tend to help each other boosting run down batteries. Doing that wrong will cause a sudden surge of power in the low battery and a sudden drain of the boosting battery. Either can cause damage.
If your battery dies from misuse, how can you tell how good the battery might have been?
I just don't get how GM could get that car so wrong it had awesome potential and was good looking.
It's elementary...the accountants were directing the show, as usual. Sometimes they butcher the exterior aesthetics, sometimes they destroy the performance....and sometimes, both!
"GM" and "car wrong" are the ultimate anti-oxymoron: they absolutely belong in the same sentence. Learn to accept this and you will get why GM is where it is today. :shades:
Easy, Bob Lutz thought like one of his beancounters and went for a cheap, affordable car for the masses. Good plan actually, and the sharp looks are probably what sold it. But strip those away and you've got a clunky, poorly assembled econobox with an ill fitting, clumsy convertible top, a wretched manual tranny yanked out of a Colorado pickup truck, terrible ergonomics and terrible blind spots whether the top is up or down. Add to the fact that if you want a weekend getway with the thing, you either need to decide whether you are taking a suitcase or a passenger because both of them won't be able to join you for the ride unless you keep the top up which begs the question, why bother having a convertible in the first place? :sick:
I was one of those who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Saturn Sky and came away utterly disappointed. Even the promise of a cheap, affordable roadster for the masses went out the window as soon as you check off the box to include a stereo and A/C. :shades:
No loss. The Kappa was a typical overpromise, under-deliver product, just like many in GM's past. :sick:
One thing and one thing alone killed it. Just check out the weight. It's hideously heavy. If you drove it, there was no comparison between it's heavy and delayed feeling compared to a MX5.
And California, of all states, grants the biggest exemption:
".....California is also granting CO2 exemptions to these companies, but it applies to all the vehicles they sell and will be in effect for the next seven years. Remember, this comes from the state that loudly proclaimed it was finally going to force Detroit to do something about CO2 emissions. Can you imagine the uproar if GM, Ford and Chrysler asked California for the same exemptions?"
You didn't really think all those Hollywood wonks drove a Prius did you? The whole exemption is typical "Liberal do as I say, not as I do" BS. The People that run CA have always hated Detroit automakers. This latest should not come as any surprise. Remember Obama was just over making deals with Merkel in Germany.
Its only seven years. Hmm that is about the end of Barry's 2nd term.
What, you think CA actors is the only one doing it? Have a look at what our humble representatives (of either party) drive sometimes. Or the Wall Street tycoons and big corporates in NY. You should see the Westchester county area sometime...Porches, Maseratis, lots of big BMWs brought to you by the letter "M," high-end Jaguars, etc. Think they're looking to buy Caddys and Lincolns? If they wanted them the emmisions regs would have an exception for them too.
If you can afford your very own lobbyists (or your very own congressional seat) then the law doesn't apply to you. The other side of it is that Detroit can't even build supercars and halo cars that compete either: if they could the rich would want them, and there would hence be exceptions in the emissions regs for them. :shades:
Maybe that's the way to go if GM wants to make money, when you get down to it...
GM has been a target of the elitist in CA and the Federal Government since the 1960s. When GM built the Corvair, it was a good attempt at competing against the VW imports. Next thing you know that wonk Nader is making money destroying the Corvair because a few people do not know how to drive in a safe manner. I'm not saying the Big 3 did not give people like Nader ammunition. It was so much easier to hit a target in the USA than one in Europe or Japan. The only reason I picked out the elites in CA as that is what I see. I was driving back through Laguna Beach not long ago and was amazed at how few Domestic or Japanese vehicles I saw. I have never seen so many Range Rovers or G500s on one stretch of highway. All mixed in with Big BMW and Mercedes. I was really out of place with my cheapo $50k Sequoia.
I was driving back through Laguna Beach not long ago and was amazed at how few Domestic or Japanese vehicles I saw. I have never seen so many Range Rovers or G500s on one stretch of highway. All mixed in with Big BMW and Mercedes. I was really out of place with my cheapo $50k Sequoia.
like I said, try driving through Westchester County, NY one day. Similar view. It isn't the LA elite weenies. TO be honest, it's probably everyone with gobs of money. Especially since gobs of money can go to gobs of lobbyists. And Infinitis, Lexuses, and Cadillacs are just too "pedestrian" because too many of those commoner-people drive them.
Well, if you read the article, it clearly points out that they are after a larger market share with this as opposed the old version. I'd assume that, while they did come up short w/ the new SRX that to appease those customers they might want to consider the new CTS Sportwagon.
This says it all:
".....Preferring more sales to moral victories, Cadillac has reconstituted the SRX for 2010 as a slightly smaller, mellower crossover. Say goodbye to the options — like the magnetic suspension, the V-8 engine and the third-row seat — that had the SRX nipping at BMW’s heels. Instead, Cadillac’s product planners have trained their jealous eyes on the popular Lexus. In some ways, it’s hard to blame them."
The next statement sums up your point:
".....What is blameworthy is how Cadillac has gone about the transformation."
I'd agree that using the basic underpinnings of the Equinox is NOT a smart move. However, if it appeals to customers, then it will sell. Traditional SRX buyers may like the CTS wagon. If not, then those sales may be lost to the Germans.
Shoot, regardless oh how wealthy I am, I will still drive a Cadillac or Buick. Heck, if it would upset my elitist snob neighbors, I'd thunder through their enclaves in a massive 1958 Buick Limited or maybe a 1958 Oldsmobile, whichever one they'd find more offensive.
I always thought of the SRX as a CTS wagon anyway - at least a wagon of the older version. It had the same center stack. I rode in an SRX once. SUVs aren't my bag, but if I were to get one, the SRX would be at the top of my list.
The sad part is, that when Caddy came out with the Sixteen concept a few years back, and everyone wondered if it would make it's way into production, it was laws like this that scuttled any idea of it being built. And that car fits into that category perfectly;
a hand built $200,000 car that may sell 1000 units in a good year.
Ironically, the Corvette doesn't seem to be bit by these laws
Hey, I kow where you can get a 1958 Super 4 dr for $1000. It needs work but should run and drive. Hey, lets get it and take a cross country drive, pick up Gary and cruise through Laguna beach :P
I do think that this is why Caddy's change of philosophy; why sell a top notch SRX (in current form) if nobody buys it? They can "go with the flow" and make a crossover like the 2010 SRX, and leave the CTS wagon for the "enthusiasts"
The article also points out the fact that in early October you can order the 2.8 turbo engine w/ 300 hp. That should make up for a lot of the complaints about sluggish power.
The 'Vette is actually fairly fuel-efficient for such a powerful vehicle, mostly because of it's comparatively light weight. Unfortunately, that technology doesn't seem to filter down to the rest of the GM vehicles much.
Hey, I kow where you can get a 1958 Super 4 dr for $1000. It needs work but should run and drive. Hey, lets get it and take a cross country drive, pick up Gary and cruise through Laguna beach
Could I tag along with my 79 5th Ave? The one with the 360 and no muffler? That should be good for a few upturned noses among the elite crowd. :shades:
They are going after Lexus/Toyota who has their own perception problems but the RX has been developed over many years and I doubt the new SRX will steal many sales. We will see.
I just don't see GM making any bold new decisions destined to grow sales, particularly at Caddy, vs. the competition. Perhaps that will change.
If you saw the back seat, we could slide the 5th Av in sideways, ride 3 in front, and pull it out in Cali. w/o missing a beat (gotta be fuel conscious, can't be driving 2 cars out there when one will do)
".....I just don't see GM making any bold new decisions destined to grow sales,"
Oh I see it growing in sales, as it is a more traditional CUV than the previous generation. Where the sales come from?? I dunno. If they do defect from Lexus, is it good enough to keep them when trade in time comes?? I dunno.
They need to stop doing that kind of thing. Drivetrain should have been shared with the CTS line up not the Saturn Vue for gawd sakes. What's wrong with these people?
It's sad, the Catera (which was actually a German Opel) was a decent car until GM got their hands on it. They cheapened the interior aesthetics, exterior, decide that's not needed in the engine to cut costs. etc.. The CTS was the result of the Catera's flop, however the Catera could have been an addition to the CTS, for those that didn't want all the super flash of the CTS
Cooter, "Edmunds.com has not test driven the 2010 Buick LaCrosse. Please check back later for more up-to-date information." Did I mention trying the Contact Us link?
I parked next to a newer STS the other day. A couple with two grown teenagers were camping out of it. My '97 Outback looked cramped compared to it - the Caddy must have a huge trunk to hold their tent, pads, bags and cooking gear. Unfortunately the family took off on a hike and didn't get back until after sunset so I didn't get to chat them up about their ride. It looked right at home in the primitive forest service campground though.
Comments
I think most cars will run a battery dead if not run occasionally. Remote sensors and misc setting in the car probably draw x amount of power with the ignition off. I know my BIL installed a switch on the battery of his Corvette so he could quick disconnect it when he doesn't drive it or his battery would would go dead in about a month or two.
Considering how hot it can get under the hood of a car, would it help things much to relocate the battery to the trunk? I guess a trunk can get pretty hot too, though. I was thinking of this about a week and a half ago, when my '76 LeMans left me stranded at the liquor store in 95 degree heat. It had been okay that morning, but that evening, I left work around 6, and it was still brutally hot. It started, but not easily. I should have gone straight home, but didn't. When I got ready to leave from the liquor store, the car just had it, and wouldn't start. Turned over really slow and strained, and wouldn't fire up. It never overheated, but it still got brutally hot under that hood, and the battery felt pretty hot.
I left it, and two hours later came back, after sunset, and it fired right up. I'm sure part of the problem was also some heat soak to the starter motor, but I'm sure the battery itself was stressed out. So in a case like this, would moving it to the trunk make any difference?
Heat kills batteries. Lately, I've been getting 3 years out of them - 2 years used to be the norm, you could set your calendar by them failing in exactly 2 years, but they seem to have improved lately. At least, the original Lexus and Ford batteries have been lasting longer. But the heat really takes a toll on them.
Heat: For the most part, the problem with heat for traditional batteries is that the water evaporates. If you maintain the battery properly with distilled water, it should give about the same life as in cooler climate. The biggest problem is that the water added to a battery is usually not that clean. Some people just add tap water. Some people use distilled water, but let dust or dirt get into the battery which means they just wasted the cost of the distilled water.
Vibration: Merely running the motor, which causes vibration will theoretically weaken the plates over time. But the big problem is drop damage when handling.
Bad charging/discharging: Up here in the cold north, we tend to help each other boosting run down batteries. Doing that wrong will cause a sudden surge of power in the low battery and a sudden drain of the boosting battery. Either can cause damage.
If your battery dies from misuse, how can you tell how good the battery might have been?
Outside of the Turbo Ecotec and good looks, these cars were flawed from the start. Maybe they'll get the next iteration right.
Regards,
OW
All they had to do was copy the Miata but give it a bit more power with that great ecotec engine.
It's elementary...the accountants were directing the show, as usual. Sometimes they butcher the exterior aesthetics, sometimes they destroy the performance....and sometimes, both!
Regards,
OW
I was one of those who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Saturn Sky and came away utterly disappointed. Even the promise of a cheap, affordable roadster for the masses went out the window as soon as you check off the box to include a stereo and A/C. :shades:
No loss. The Kappa was a typical overpromise, under-deliver product, just like many in GM's past. :sick:
2009 Saturn Sky: 2932 lbs
2009 MX5: 2592 lbs
Oops.
Regards,
OW
Steve, I've asked. Where's edmunds review?
The Future of Caddy
The Escalde becoming another Lambda?? 3-Series fighter? SRX that is still second-rate? Bigger CTS?
Hmm...
Regards,
OW
And California, of all states, grants the biggest exemption:
".....California is also granting CO2 exemptions to these companies, but it applies to all the vehicles they sell and will be in effect for the next seven years. Remember, this comes from the state that loudly proclaimed it was finally going to force Detroit to do something about CO2 emissions. Can you imagine the uproar if GM, Ford and Chrysler asked California for the same exemptions?"
Wasn't second rate in C&D's last comparison;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/07q2/bmw_x5_vs._acura_mdx_cadill- ac_srx_m-b_ml350_lexus_gx470_volvo_xc90_vw_touareg_land_rover_lr3-comparison_tes- ts
It is now...
2010 SRX comes up short
Regards,
OW
Its only seven years. Hmm that is about the end of Barry's 2nd term.
If you can afford your very own lobbyists (or your very own congressional seat) then the law doesn't apply to you. The other side of it is that Detroit can't even build supercars and halo cars that compete either: if they could the rich would want them, and there would hence be exceptions in the emissions regs for them. :shades:
Maybe that's the way to go if GM wants to make money, when you get down to it...
like I said, try driving through Westchester County, NY one day. Similar view. It isn't the LA elite weenies. TO be honest, it's probably everyone with gobs of money. Especially since gobs of money can go to gobs of lobbyists. And Infinitis, Lexuses, and Cadillacs are just too "pedestrian" because too many of those commoner-people drive them.
This says it all:
".....Preferring more sales to moral victories, Cadillac has reconstituted the SRX for 2010 as a slightly smaller, mellower crossover. Say goodbye to the options — like the magnetic suspension, the V-8 engine and the third-row seat — that had the SRX nipping at BMW’s heels. Instead, Cadillac’s product planners have trained their jealous eyes on the popular Lexus. In some ways, it’s hard to blame them."
The next statement sums up your point:
".....What is blameworthy is how Cadillac has gone about the transformation."
I'd agree that using the basic underpinnings of the Equinox is NOT a smart move. However, if it appeals to customers, then it will sell. Traditional SRX buyers may like the CTS wagon. If not, then those sales may be lost to the Germans.
a hand built $200,000 car that may sell 1000 units in a good year.
Ironically, the Corvette doesn't seem to be bit by these laws
We'll see....
Could I tag along with my 79 5th Ave? The one with the 360 and no muffler? That should be good for a few upturned noses among the elite crowd. :shades:
I just don't see GM making any bold new decisions destined to grow sales, particularly at Caddy, vs. the competition. Perhaps that will change.
Regards,
OW
keeping spending in hometowns being embraced in some areas of U.S.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/smallbusiness/grassroots_stimulus.smb/index.htm
Probably the Olds
Let's load 'em up and go!!!!!
Oh I see it growing in sales, as it is a more traditional CUV than the previous generation. Where the sales come from?? I dunno. If they do defect from Lexus, is it good enough to keep them when trade in time comes?? I dunno.
Regards,
OW
I parked next to a newer STS the other day. A couple with two grown teenagers were camping out of it. My '97 Outback looked cramped compared to it - the Caddy must have a huge trunk to hold their tent, pads, bags and cooking gear. Unfortunately the family took off on a hike and didn't get back until after sunset so I didn't get to chat them up about their ride. It looked right at home in the primitive forest service campground though.
I did, like you suggested awhile back. Still no response. Maybe they are busy flogging it??? No??? :shades:
Odd as Edmunds is one of the first to test drive new models.
Regards,
OW