British Rover - I know you're a salesperson with experience selling both SAAB and Volvo, but my experience supports CR's list. I've owned SAAB's and Volvo's since 1968, and I've had far more problems - in all areas - with Volvo than SAAB. Heck, there was a time with each Volvo that I had to replace the exhaust system almost every year which is absolutely ridiculous. And, the SAAB engines have been far more reliable, with fewer glitches, than the Volvo engines (I mean the real SAAB engines - the naturally-aspirated and turbo Inline 4's and not the GM-sourced V6).
This is only one man's experience, but in all cases, I've owned SAAB's and Volvo's concurrently, and for over 40 years.
I am going by the hundreds of years of shop experience we have back there.
We have a couple of techs who have been working on Just Volvos and Saabs for close to 40 years.
Comparing like to like so FWD Saab to FWD Volvo the cars that are being made now are pretty close but the Volvos are a bit more reliable.
Now if you go pick say a 1999-2002 S80 T6 and compare that car to a 1999-2002 9-5 with the 2.3 turbo neither car is going to be all that great but the Volvo is going to be worse. That T6 was not a very good motor and the GM 4 speed trans behind it was GARBAGE. The 9-5 was a better car for those years as long as you got the 4 cylinder and not that stupid V6 with the asymmetric turbo.
Move up a few years to a 2006 S80 with the 2.5T and a 2006 9-5 with the 2.3T and both cars have improved incredibly but the Volvo improved more.
Compare a 2009 or 2008 new body S80 to a 2008 or 2009 9-5 and the SAAB is just blown away. The build quality on the Volvo is much, much higher and reliability is probably about equal maybe a slight edge to Volvo.
You can do the same drill with the S60 and a 9-3 or a S40 and a 9-3.
Now Volvo has more AWD models so that added AWD complexity probably brings the scores down some but not a huge amount. With the exception of some weird transmission problems with the new 6 speed autos in the XC70s when they launched we haven't had an AWD problems since late 90s early 2000.
I remember watching "Autoline Detroit" a few years back and one of the guests was from CR. He stated the reliability ratings on vehicles tested also included the number of times they were in the repair facility for the same repair. This stood out to me (and still does) because I felt it skewed the rating negatively if the person had to take the car back multiple times for a repair due to incompetence, misdiagnosis or lack of repair.
I mean, if I bring a vehicle in for repair & it's not repaired correctly the first time, resulting in a return visit, it means the vehicle wasn't repaired correctly not that's it's less reliable.
I'm with you, I'm at the point I don't even want to watch or read the news.
The one that put me over the top was the latest supposed statement by someone (won't mention their name) that the BO administration was using OnStar to track your every movement so that's why GM was bailed out. I'm thinking, if you have a celly you already can be tracked.
After purchasing a new 2004 GTP for our daughter's college graduation, I liked it so well I purchased one for myself. 50,000 miles and 3 years later when I traded the car in, neither of us had problem one with either car. The sport ride was a lot different than the Cadillac DTS that replaced it- but this was to be expected. I used to be a Pontiac man and am sorry they are no longer- in terms of style, quality, and ride- I have been quite pleased with every Pontiac I've owned. Even though I've downsized now to a Chevy Malibu ( and Buick Enclave), it bothers me the direction the government seems to be pushing hard for- everything is green, green, green and small- and for families with transportation needs plus the safety factor of a larger automobile- I for one prefer larger with something around me. But I do like the 37 MPG on the highway in my 4 cyl. Malibu!
Every person who owns either a domestic or foreign make has their own negatives and positives with their own individual experiences. I've owned plenty of domestic (GM) cars with well over 50,000 miles on them- including a 2006 Cadillac DTS with over 60,000 miles, original tires, immaculate condition, and not 1 problem. Absolutely the best riding car I've ever had. Even though its not politically correct to say so, the recent models GM has come out with is hard to understand why they don't sell more cars- including the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, Chevy Malibu, Buick Enclave, Cadillac CTS, and even the 2010 Chevy Equinox. I have either test driven or owned every one of these just mentioned.
Well I hear you. But again, some people may be looking for more trouble-free miles from their rides. I am at 127K miles in my current commute car, and it has never needed a repair. Insurance and maintenance are minimal costs, and it has taken me to my destination every time I have turned the key.
At this point, it has met my standard for reliability, and yet I am still hoping to get well past 150K miles before that first repair is needed. I have reasonable confidence it will do so.
The Chevy Volt will only be a game changer for GM if former ToyHon-loving hybrid fans defect in droves to try out a new electric Chevy. Apart from that, it will only be one of several like models by mid-2011.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
since you sell new Saab's, I got a question for ya.
This 2010 Saab 9-5 Aero, what kind of prices in the U.S. would a person be looking at for one of these? I know there's three different engines offered that I know of and auto and manual tranny's, but what kind of price range is this pup gonna be going for MSRP in the States?
Note the little neon blue and red Saab insignia on the wheel hub centers. Tis a beautiful new sedan IMO for 2010, but, and it's a big butt, I don't think I'm gonna dig the price for this baby.
No offense at all intended, but 50 thousand and even 60 thousand miles is not much. Add a "1" in front of that and ya, that is impressive. Even then, any vehicle from any manufacturer should not be destined for the junkyard...
I swear, the GM sites I visit this is a very common scenario. These guys have like 3 or 4 vehicles and are always either trading up or looking to replace. No wonder they believe the reliability and quality are on par with the imports, they don't keep their vehicles long enough! :P
No offense at all intended, but 50 thousand and even 60 thousand miles is not much. Add a "1" in front of that and ya, that is impressive. Even then, any vehicle from any manufacturer should not be destined for the junkyard...
No car should be junkyard-ready by 50-60K miles, unless it's been abused or is a total POS. But it's probably fairly common for a car to have at least one problem by that time. Heck, my 2000 Intrepid had several. Around 35,000 miles, I had to have the power lock actuator in the driver's door replaced, under warranty thankfully. Around 45,000 miles, the power assist for the passenger side mirror stopped working, and the rubber seal around the driver's door opening started to shrink up. And around 51,000 miles, the thermostat housing needed to be replaced. Oh, and I ran through my first set of tires at 30,000 miles! I also had the transmission serviced at 30K (owner's manual didn't call for it until 50K, but I didn't want to take a chance). I also had the spark plugs replaced when they did the thermostat housing, because I didn't believe that they really could go 100,000 miles. And new front brake pads at 39K, rear brakes at 51K (same time as the spark plugs and thermostat housing).
My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima needed a new transmission at 35,000 miles. :surprise: However, the car has at least 300,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has more than made up for the failing of tranny #1.
However, I don't think my uncle's '03 Corolla really needed anything other than maintenance in its first 60,000 or so miles. However, the 30K mile service probably wasn't cheap. He missed the 60K mile service and didn't get that stuff done until around 75K.
I have a friend with a 2006 Xterra, which is up to around 52,000 miles now, and it hasn't needed anything other than regular maintenance, plus it got recalled for something or other. However, he takes it back to the dealer, and I'm sure gets up-sold on various stuff that it doesn't really need. I'm impressed that the Xterra is still on its original tires. It's a small vehicle, but it's heavy, so I figured that it would chew through those tires relatively quickly.
So, now that I really think into it, maybe it isn't so common for a car to have issues in its first 50-60K miles!
I have a friend with a 2006 Xterra, which is up to around 52,000 miles now, and it hasn't needed anything other than regular maintenance, plus it got recalled for something or other. However, he takes it back to the dealer, and I'm sure gets up-sold on various stuff that it doesn't really need. I'm impressed that the Xterra is still on its original tires. It's a small vehicle, but it's heavy, so I figured that it would chew through those tires relatively quickly.
That depends on the tires. My 01 Pathfinder easily made it to 50k on the first set of Bridgestones. My current 07 Expedition is close to 60k and the original Continentals and still have quite a bit of tread. My BIL's 06 Ram 2500 came with Michelin LTX tires and he has 90k on them and they are finally down to the wear bars.
When I owned a 98 SVT Contour, I only got 25k out of the original Goodyear Eagle GSCs, that really sucked as I drove 30k miles year back then. My wife's GP has 54k or so and the Goodyear RSAs are shot, and will be getting tires in the next week or so.
But yes, I'd expect any car to go 50-60k w/o any problems other than routine maintenance. Buddy of mine has an 05 Grand Caravan which he just spent some $$$ on a new steering rack at 70k miles. I guess that is not the end of the world, but disappointing regardless.
Now I've owned/seen some vehicles be very troublesome early which turned out to be very reliable, and others that started out reliable and began falling apart after 50k miles.
But, IMO, just because a car can make it reliably to 200k, doesn't mean it's a great car. I've been around lots of reliable cars that I wouldn't pay a penny for. Mainly the domestic company cars my wife has had. Most reliable but completely sub par in all other areas.
My 2000 Suburban was the worst offender I've owned. I'm not kidding when I say from about 45k miles to 95k miles it cost me close to $1000 every 10k miles in non routine maintenance repairs. It ranges from a failed transmission to HVAC controllers and everything in between. After that ownership experience GM means Garbage Motors to me.
>swear, the GM sites I visit this is a very common scenario.
Don't I find the same acclamations on the foreign car sites! It's interesting how people view things differently. But I certainly disagree that there's some negative about GM owners having had no problems to 60K miles while it's a feature for some of the Honda fans to post that. Of course, if you check the Odyssey thread now you'll find transmissions that don't make it to 100K and Honda is graciously paying half of a huge overpriced tranny, sometimes twice before 100K. Transmissions seem to have been a Honda feature for regular replacement at 60K service interval. Or we can look at the Honda AC compressors that are failing. Check the thread here for that feature.
Since "1's" are needed. My 93 leSabre checked great up to 150,000 when my wife made me trade it. My 98 leSabre has 170,000 approx on it. I've replaced upper intake manifold on it and I have replaced brake pads several times--I guess that's a negative? :P Volvos and Japanese cars don't need brakes? I recall lots of posts about Accords requiring early brake replacements. Check threads here on Edmunds.
Volvos and Japanese cars don't need brakes? I recall lots of posts about Accords requiring early brake replacements. Check threads here on Edmunds.
Well, one of my former supervisors had a 1992 Civic that never needed rear brakes, at least. The engine blew up before it got to that point! :P However, he did mostly highway driving, but started neglecting the car as it aged. I think it finally blew at around 190,000 miles.
I'm still impressed that he got that kind of mileage out of the brakes, but I guess highway driving can do that for you! Plus, it had a manual transmission, so that probably helped prolong brake life.
Never put rear brakes on my previous 3 Buicks, Century, LeSabre, LeSabre. The 1998 has 170,000K on rear brakes. I guess that's a good feature too. I'll have to write a note to Consumer Reports. :P
Oh I heard that one too. I actually included it in my post originally but deleted that part out before I posted.
I love how every rumor gets stuff added on to it as it evolves. The latest one I heard to the Onstar rumor was that they will use it to listen in to your conversations, with a warrant I am sure they can do that anyway, and there are new special tires on the way that will be required on all GM cars. These new tires have special wires in the sidewall that will be used to transmit information to transponders in the road. :confuse:
Relatively light weight FWD car with rear drums means that they car doesn't need brakes in the back very often.
My old Bonneville never needed rear brakes for the entire time I owned it.
I got it at 90,000 and sold it at about 150,000.
It got new rear shoes a little while before I bought it. I did have to replace the rear brake lines because they were rusted and blistered about about 130,000 miles.
No clue what the new 9-5 will be priced at. I would imagine it would be priced in the same range as the current 9-5 so 35,000-45,000.
>I'd identify brakes as not one of Honda's better points. I do end up replacing pads and rotors earlier than other cars
An honest answer.
And I'd consider that maintenance although not lasting long enough for most people. If someone is happy with the car that happens to, it's just a moderate extra expense.
But I disagree with someone else's implying all foreign cars are wunderbar and GM cars are maintenance nightmares that don't last over 60,000 K without major work.
Last I knew, all cars had their wheels put on one lugnut at a time. None were assembled by divine intervention.
I was actually impressed at the time to get 39K out of my Intrepid's first set of front pads, and 51K out of the rear. That was back when I delivered pizzas, so a lot of those miles weren't exactly gentle. It has disc brakes in back, though. Would drums last longer back there?
Anyway though, cars sure have come a long way. I remember on my '68 Dart, I used to go through front shoes every 10-15K and rear every 15-20K.
Drums/shoes almost always last longer then discs/pads which is a good thing because they are so much harder to change out.
This is especially true on a FWD car that is relatively light where only 30-35 percent of the weight is on the back axle. Those back brakes aren't doing much when you step on the brakes hard and most of the weight transfers to the front axle.
Some of you guys will love to jump on this. I just got a call from my uncle, with the '03 Corolla. It broke down and left him stranded at the doctor's office. He thinks it's just the fuel pump though. He's having it towed to my mechanic.
It just hit me though, he didn't actually say that he drove his Corolla...I just presumed he did. Watch this be the day he took his Silverado! :P
For some reason, I never had an issue with changing drum brake shoes. I guess I just did it so often with my '68 Dart, that it got to the point I could do it in my sleep!
My Intrepid's front disc brakes are pretty easy to change, but thinking back, I remember some of the older cars, like my '89 Gran Fury, '86 Monte Carlo, and '79 Newport, seemed harder to get to.
And I'd consider that maintenance although not lasting long enough for most people. If someone is happy with the car that happens to, it's just a moderate extra expense.
Yes, exactly so. I'm willing to put up with Honda brakes because I find the overall package to do the job very well.
Andre - be my guest on brake shoes. I remember doing them years ago on an old nova. What a pain!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Andre - be my guest on brake shoes. I remember doing them years ago on an old nova. What a pain!
Well, one thing I've learned is that sometimes GM can make things needlessly complicated. For example, I had to change a headlight in my '85 Silverado last night. Took 8 different screws of two different types to get to the damned thing (four torx-thingies holding the plastic trim in place, and four phillips screws to get the metal trim off that actually holds the headlight in) What the hell is the purpose of those Torx thingies anyway? What? Flat-head and Phillips screws arent good enough?!
The last time I had to replace on of those style headlights was on my '79 Chrysler. I think it was only like 2-3 screws and it came right out, although to be fair, that car has hidden headlights, so all you do is make sure the headlight covers are down, and there's no extra trim around the headlights to have to remove.
Another example...power window motor went in said '79 Chrysler. I was able to replace it in under an hour. Power window motor failed in the truck. Part of the procedure involved wrestling with the window glass to take it out, and pulling apart the lift mechanism. Oh, and there's a warning in the owner's manual about how if you don't do some certain thing serious injury could occur. I forget what it was, but I gave up on it by that time, and ended up paying my mechanic to replace it. With the NYer, once you got the door panel and trim off, it was just three bolts, unplug the harness, and it came right out.
And yet another example, although fairly minor. On my '68 Dart, if you need to take off a window crank, all you needed was an Allen wrench. With my '67 Catalina and most other crank-window cars, you have to get a special tool to pop a clip that holds the crank in place. However, I learned that if you take a thin, flathead screwdriver, and stick it in the right place, you can pop that clip. Still kinda annoying, though. But, I guess the window cranks with the hidden clip have a more finished look than those with an allen wrench bolt right in the middle!
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if GM managed to find a way to make the brakes bitchier on an old Nova, than they were on an old Dart! :P
Me too. That was my last GM product since. Every door panel came loose, oil leaks in the engine, very disappointing. had the car for 5 years - only about 45K on the clock. Its going to take a lot for me to go back.
Since many have posted messages about car lifetimes and problems which has differed from the original title, GM News, etc... I'd like tor elay a few of my experiences. I'm driving 40 years, had a number of company cars for business use over that time. 1972 Chevy Malibu, 1974 Malibu, 1977 Malibu (with a straight 6 - GM's answer to the gas crisis) what a POS that was; 1980 Chevy Citation with a v-6 [one of the American cars with front-wheel drive] that was very good car. driving on slippery roads in the NYC area - passing everybody who still had rear wheel drive; 1984 Buick Skylark - it was OK; 1988 Bonneville, very good car - wuith the great 3.8 V-6 engine, until about 55K- started to deteriorate rapidly (although my neighbor had the same Bonney for at least 12 years); 1986 Subbi Wagon with Turbo - 110 horsepower - very good solid car - trouble free for 5.5 years then traded in for a 1992 Bonneville - it was OK; then onto 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee - was good accept you could NOT steer that SUV straight without making constant steering adjustments, but tranny leaks and failure at 95K; traded for a used 2001 Pathfinder - great vehicle, but the front transfer case was damaged [i think by my son stuck in mud at UMASS] at 110k - had to trade it in. Now have a Mazda 3 - it's good car, but small and the MPGs are not that great; also have a 2007 Honda CRV - very good vehcle for its intended purpose(trouble fee at 23k0 ; nad a 2007 InfinitG35X - That's the best of the lot !!!. For what's it worth: having been a ton of Lincoln Town cars - many if not all with at least 200K - up to 325K - all of the drivers say the same thing: No Problems !!! Some changed the oil every 2 weeks; chnage tranny fluids more frequently, but aside form one or two, original engines & maybe 1 tranny replacement. Those cars are TANKS... Sorry for the babbling on...
it was my uncle's '97 Silverado that left him stranded, not his Corolla. Sucks either way, but I was kinda rooting for the Corolla...just to show that they are mortal, after all!
But doesn't your uncle's Corolla have like 200K miles by now? I would say after 150K all bets are off for all makes and models, although you would hope that the drivetrain (engine internals, transmission, and axles/driveshafts) would make it to 200K at least before needing expensive repair.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
wow, almatti, you said that the chevy citation was a very good car. I've seen many things written about that car but never anything so positive. Or positive at all!
Would have to agree on the Pathfinder and Town Car/ Crown Vic platform. I too had an 01 Pathfinder and it was probably one of the best built vehicles I've owned. Just rock solid and in a totally different league than my 2000 Suburban which felt like a wet noodle after driving back to back. Unfortunately, the newer Nissan's don't seem as well put together.
I know many who drove Town Cars to high miles, my dad put over 250k on a 92 Crown Vic with very few problems. Those were mainly in town miles too.
".....All those trucks are not smart for Toyota either. "
THAT was exactly my point. All the "models" from Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab are being shed.
As of now, all GM has are the 900 series BOF's, the 4 (soon to be 3) lambda variants, and the 3 Theta variants. Basically, I think the entire premise of GMC is to allow more access to the GMT 900's through more dealers. In other words, the Caddy/Buick dealers that have GMC can offer what is essentially a Chevy Truck. I would, however, drop the Acadia, especially if Cadillac gets a Lambda based Escalade.
But doesn't your uncle's Corolla have like 200K miles by now?
I'm not sure how many miles it has on it. Probably somewhere between 180-200K. A few years back, he was doing an easy 150-160 miles per day, if not more. But nowadays I think it's down to 90-100 per day, and he had to cut back to 3 days per week because of health problems. Overall it's been a good car. My mechanic, who specializes in Mopars, even swears by Corollas. Whereas the Mopars sometimes get sworn at. :P
I think the two most expensive repairs he had were the water pump and catalytic converter, but both of them were well north of 100,000 miles.
Now his '97 Silverado, in comparison, has been a bit of an embarrassment. Two transmission rebuilds, one around 70K, the other around 108K. Brake work galore. Water pump. Some other odds and ends I'm probably forgetting. And now, the fuel pump or whatever stranded him today. And while it's only a sample of one on one, comparing it to my '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since new, the '85 has been the better truck!
All the "models" from Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab are being shed.
Yes, but none of those brands except Hummer HAD any of the BOF trucks! So as a percentage of the total number of GM models, BOFs make up more of the total of GM offerings now than they did before S, P, H, and Saab took their final bow.
There is no need to continue the GMC line of light-duty passenger vehicles when there is so much overlap with Chevy, and what with gas prices and new CAFE rules and whatnot, GMC is just a boat anchor on the company.
On the Toyota side, it is inscrutable to me that Toyota decided in the last 18 months to revise and continue both the Land Cruiser and 4Runner lines as BOF trucks. They will soon be in a class of one, but not for the right reasons, and it will hurt them in the long run.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
>two most expensive repairs he had were the water pump and catalytic converter, but both of them were well north of 100,000 miles.
For the record my GMs have never had a catalytic converter go bad, I haven't replaced a water pump since my 1980 Cutlass 260 cu. in. 1981 Skylark 1985 Skyhawk 1987 Century 1989 Century 1993 leSabre (150K) 1998 leSabre (currently 170K) 2003 leSabre (currently 100K)
I had to replace a cat converter on a 2000 Taurus at around 70K and an 85 Mercury GM at about 80K. Of course, now they're stealing them while your car is parked outside or in a lot. Never held a GM or Mopar that long to know because they required so much repair work before then that that I ditched them. I'm still very reluctant to buy a GM or Chrysler product based on too many problem vehicles, and dealers that frequently couldn't fix them right. I'm going to have to see 3 or more solid years of durability and reliabilty improvement before I sink $25K or more into one. There are too many better risk alternatives out there right now.
Now his '97 Silverado, in comparison, has been a bit of an embarrassment. Two transmission rebuilds, one around 70K, the other around 108K. Brake work galore. Water pump. Some other odds and ends I'm probably forgetting. And now, the fuel pump or whatever stranded him today.
That pretty much describes my '00 Suburban, an embarrassment! No question those l460e transmissions are junk. I don't have enough fingers to count all the people I know that have had these transmissions rebuilt at low miles, I know serval guys who've had them rebuilt 2-3 times by 100-150k miles. My transmission guy had one die in his 06 Tahoe at 2,500 miles. Pathetic considering how long it's been around.
Now the brakes were about the only area I didn't have a problem, yep the fuel pump. Another well known GM problem with the trucks. You can hear most late '90s thru early 2000 model GM trucks coming down the road with how loud those fuel pumps whine, well until they don't anymore and your stranded. Been there, done that. Is it any wonder that so many people describe their GM ownership experience in past tense?
Thanks for your insights! Nice feedback. I still think GM and Chrysler are on the bottom in terms of reliability. Here's another way of saying it.
Though Detroiters cringe at the mere mention of this, Toyota and Honda still have the most reliable models on the market. Of the 48 with top reliability scores, 26 are from those two companies, based on consumer surveys turned in and tests the magazine performs.
Ford isn't far behind. About 90 percent of its products have "average" or "better reliability" and the Fusion/Mercury Milan beat the Accord and Toyota Camry for the second straight year. GM had 20 of its 48 vehicles score "average." Chrysler, well they're not even in the same ballpark right now.
That's not good enough for the long haul.
What will truly make a difference is when you can sell your used Ford or GM car for a third of the purchase price.
Then we'll know that reliability not only matters, but it also pays.
At the end of the day, that's where we are, like it or not.
What will truly make a difference is when you can sell your used Ford or GM car for a third of the purchase price.
What will truly make a difference is when that 2-3 year old certified GM or Ford car you bought for 2/3 the list price means you only lose half as much in depreciation.
The last time I ever did a brake job myself was almost 20 years ago on my yellow beater 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency. I hate changing the rear drums with all those springs that can going flying and stuff!
I could've got a third of the original price? Really? Hey Andre, what was the original MSRP of the 1988 Buick Park Avenue? I think I got ripped off when I sold it to those kids! Getting 1/3 or the original price after 21+ years just shows you how awesome GM cars really are!
You go through brakes a lot faster in the city, but even then, they lasted me a lot longer than 15K - 20K miles!
Well, I don't think Dodge Darts were particularly known for their brakes. Plus, with that mildly hopped-up 318, "power braking" was too much fun to pass up. I'm sure that contributed to some premature wear. Plus, all that stop and go pizza delivery driving.
I think what Pletko was saying was that if you wait a year or two, you can get an almost-new GM car for 2/3 the MSRP. Sometimes even less.
Hey Andre, what was the original MSRP of the 1988 Buick Park Avenue?
My old car encyclopedia says the original MSRP was $19,494. I knew a guy at work who had one, before I knew him. He paid something like $22K for it, but it had leather and a sunroof. I just remember him carrying on about how he only got $5K in trade for it, 4 years later, when he got an Acura Integra.
My old car encyclopedia says the original MSRP was $19,494. I knew a guy at work who had one, before I knew him. He paid something like $22K for it, but it had leather and a sunroof. I just remember him carrying on about how he only got $5K in trade for it, 4 years later, when he got an Acura Integra.
Yeah, those Park Ave's have horrid resale value. Granted they had extremely overpriced MSRPs too. I just check on autotrader, our local Buick dealer has an 03 PA with 41k miles and they are asking $11,900. Sad considering our local Honda dealer has an 03 Civic EX coupe with 69k and they are asking $10,500 LOL.
Comments
This is only one man's experience, but in all cases, I've owned SAAB's and Volvo's concurrently, and for over 40 years.
We have a couple of techs who have been working on Just Volvos and Saabs for close to 40 years.
Comparing like to like so FWD Saab to FWD Volvo the cars that are being made now are pretty close but the Volvos are a bit more reliable.
Now if you go pick say a 1999-2002 S80 T6 and compare that car to a 1999-2002 9-5 with the 2.3 turbo neither car is going to be all that great but the Volvo is going to be worse. That T6 was not a very good motor and the GM 4 speed trans behind it was GARBAGE. The 9-5 was a better car for those years as long as you got the 4 cylinder and not that stupid V6 with the asymmetric turbo.
Move up a few years to a 2006 S80 with the 2.5T and a 2006 9-5 with the 2.3T and both cars have improved incredibly but the Volvo improved more.
Compare a 2009 or 2008 new body S80 to a 2008 or 2009 9-5 and the SAAB is just blown away. The build quality on the Volvo is much, much higher and reliability is probably about equal maybe a slight edge to Volvo.
You can do the same drill with the S60 and a 9-3 or a S40 and a 9-3.
Now Volvo has more AWD models so that added AWD complexity probably brings the scores down some but not a huge amount. With the exception of some weird transmission problems with the new 6 speed autos in the XC70s when they launched we haven't had an AWD problems since late 90s early 2000.
I mean, if I bring a vehicle in for repair & it's not repaired correctly the first time, resulting in a return visit, it means the vehicle wasn't repaired correctly not that's it's less reliable.
The one that put me over the top was the latest supposed statement by someone (won't mention their name) that the BO administration was using OnStar to track your every movement so that's why GM was bailed out. I'm thinking, if you have a celly you already can be tracked.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd be looking into a new set of tires before Thanksgiving.
4 year old tires with 60K on them are due for replacement.
At this point, it has met my standard for reliability, and yet I am still hoping to get well past 150K miles before that first repair is needed. I have reasonable confidence it will do so.
The Chevy Volt will only be a game changer for GM if former ToyHon-loving hybrid fans defect in droves to try out a new electric Chevy. Apart from that, it will only be one of several like models by mid-2011.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This 2010 Saab 9-5 Aero, what kind of prices in the U.S. would a person be looking at for one of these? I know there's three different engines offered that I know of and auto and manual tranny's, but what kind of price range is this pup gonna be going for MSRP in the States?
Note the little neon blue and red Saab insignia on the wheel hub centers. Tis a beautiful new sedan IMO for 2010, but, and it's a big butt, I don't think I'm gonna dig the price for this baby.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I swear, the GM sites I visit this is a very common scenario. These guys have like 3 or 4 vehicles and are always either trading up or looking to replace. No wonder they believe the reliability and quality are on par with the imports, they don't keep their vehicles long enough! :P
No car should be junkyard-ready by 50-60K miles, unless it's been abused or is a total POS. But it's probably fairly common for a car to have at least one problem by that time. Heck, my 2000 Intrepid had several.
My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima needed a new transmission at 35,000 miles. :surprise: However, the car has at least 300,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has more than made up for the failing of tranny #1.
However, I don't think my uncle's '03 Corolla really needed anything other than maintenance in its first 60,000 or so miles. However, the 30K mile service probably wasn't cheap. He missed the 60K mile service and didn't get that stuff done until around 75K.
I have a friend with a 2006 Xterra, which is up to around 52,000 miles now, and it hasn't needed anything other than regular maintenance, plus it got recalled for something or other. However, he takes it back to the dealer, and I'm sure gets up-sold on various stuff that it doesn't really need. I'm impressed that the Xterra is still on its original tires. It's a small vehicle, but it's heavy, so I figured that it would chew through those tires relatively quickly.
So, now that I really think into it, maybe it isn't so common for a car to have issues in its first 50-60K miles!
That depends on the tires. My 01 Pathfinder easily made it to 50k on the first set of Bridgestones. My current 07 Expedition is close to 60k and the original Continentals and still have quite a bit of tread. My BIL's 06 Ram 2500 came with Michelin LTX tires and he has 90k on them and they are finally down to the wear bars.
When I owned a 98 SVT Contour, I only got 25k out of the original Goodyear Eagle GSCs, that really sucked as I drove 30k miles year back then. My wife's GP has 54k or so and the Goodyear RSAs are shot, and will be getting tires in the next week or so.
But yes, I'd expect any car to go 50-60k w/o any problems other than routine maintenance. Buddy of mine has an 05 Grand Caravan which he just spent some $$$ on a new steering rack at 70k miles. I guess that is not the end of the world, but disappointing regardless.
Now I've owned/seen some vehicles be very troublesome early which turned out to be very reliable, and others that started out reliable and began falling apart after 50k miles.
But, IMO, just because a car can make it reliably to 200k, doesn't mean it's a great car. I've been around lots of reliable cars that I wouldn't pay a penny for. Mainly the domestic company cars my wife has had. Most reliable but completely sub par in all other areas.
My 2000 Suburban was the worst offender I've owned. I'm not kidding when I say from about 45k miles to 95k miles it cost me close to $1000 every 10k miles in non routine maintenance repairs. It ranges from a failed transmission to HVAC controllers and everything in between. After that ownership experience GM means Garbage Motors to me.
Don't I find the same acclamations on the foreign car sites! It's interesting how people view things differently. But I certainly disagree that there's some negative about GM owners having had no problems to 60K miles while it's a feature for some of the Honda fans to post that. Of course, if you check the Odyssey thread now you'll find transmissions that don't make it to 100K and Honda is graciously paying half of a huge overpriced tranny, sometimes twice before 100K. Transmissions seem to have been a Honda feature for regular replacement at 60K service interval. Or we can look at the Honda AC compressors that are failing. Check the thread here for that feature.
Since "1's" are needed. My 93 leSabre checked great up to 150,000 when my wife made me trade it. My 98 leSabre has 170,000 approx on it. I've replaced upper intake manifold on it and I have replaced brake pads several times--I guess that's a negative? :P Volvos and Japanese cars don't need brakes? I recall lots of posts about Accords requiring early brake replacements. Check threads here on Edmunds.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, one of my former supervisors had a 1992 Civic that never needed rear brakes, at least. The engine blew up before it got to that point! :P However, he did mostly highway driving, but started neglecting the car as it aged. I think it finally blew at around 190,000 miles.
I'm still impressed that he got that kind of mileage out of the brakes, but I guess highway driving can do that for you! Plus, it had a manual transmission, so that probably helped prolong brake life.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nah, we just open the door and drag our feet along the pavement - Fred Flintstone brakes. It's a little rough on the shoes.
I'd identify brakes as not one of Honda's better points. I do end up replacing pads and rotors earlier than other cars.
I love how every rumor gets stuff added on to it as it evolves. The latest one I heard to the Onstar rumor was that they will use it to listen in to your conversations, with a warrant I am sure they can do that anyway, and there are new special tires on the way that will be required on all GM cars. These new tires have special wires in the sidewall that will be used to transmit information to transponders in the road. :confuse:
My old Bonneville never needed rear brakes for the entire time I owned it.
I got it at 90,000 and sold it at about 150,000.
It got new rear shoes a little while before I bought it. I did have to replace the rear brake lines because they were rusted and blistered about about 130,000 miles.
No clue what the new 9-5 will be priced at. I would imagine it would be priced in the same range as the current 9-5 so 35,000-45,000.
An honest answer.
And I'd consider that maintenance although not lasting long enough for most people. If someone is happy with the car that happens to, it's just a moderate extra expense.
But I disagree with someone else's implying all foreign cars are wunderbar and GM cars are maintenance nightmares that don't last over 60,000 K without major work.
Last I knew, all cars had their wheels put on one lugnut at a time. None were assembled by divine intervention.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We'll have to add that cost of shoes to TOC in Edmund's listing of Total Cost of Ownership!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Anyway though, cars sure have come a long way. I remember on my '68 Dart, I used to go through front shoes every 10-15K and rear every 15-20K.
This is especially true on a FWD car that is relatively light where only 30-35 percent of the weight is on the back axle. Those back brakes aren't doing much when you step on the brakes hard and most of the weight transfers to the front axle.
It just hit me though, he didn't actually say that he drove his Corolla...I just presumed he did. Watch this be the day he took his Silverado! :P
My Intrepid's front disc brakes are pretty easy to change, but thinking back, I remember some of the older cars, like my '89 Gran Fury, '86 Monte Carlo, and '79 Newport, seemed harder to get to.
Yes, exactly so. I'm willing to put up with Honda brakes because I find the overall package to do the job very well.
Andre - be my guest on brake shoes. I remember doing them years ago on an old nova. What a pain!
Well, one thing I've learned is that sometimes GM can make things needlessly complicated. For example, I had to change a headlight in my '85 Silverado last night. Took 8 different screws of two different types to get to the damned thing (four torx-thingies holding the plastic trim in place, and four phillips screws to get the metal trim off that actually holds the headlight in) What the hell is the purpose of those Torx thingies anyway? What? Flat-head and Phillips screws arent good enough?!
The last time I had to replace on of those style headlights was on my '79 Chrysler. I think it was only like 2-3 screws and it came right out, although to be fair, that car has hidden headlights, so all you do is make sure the headlight covers are down, and there's no extra trim around the headlights to have to remove.
Another example...power window motor went in said '79 Chrysler. I was able to replace it in under an hour. Power window motor failed in the truck. Part of the procedure involved wrestling with the window glass to take it out, and pulling apart the lift mechanism. Oh, and there's a warning in the owner's manual about how if you don't do some certain thing serious injury could occur. I forget what it was, but I gave up on it by that time, and ended up paying my mechanic to replace it.
And yet another example, although fairly minor. On my '68 Dart, if you need to take off a window crank, all you needed was an Allen wrench. With my '67 Catalina and most other crank-window cars, you have to get a special tool to pop a clip that holds the crank in place. However, I learned that if you take a thin, flathead screwdriver, and stick it in the right place, you can pop that clip. Still kinda annoying, though. But, I guess the window cranks with the hidden clip have a more finished look than those with an allen wrench bolt right in the middle!
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if GM managed to find a way to make the brakes bitchier on an old Nova, than they were on an old Dart! :P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've seen many things written about that car but never anything so positive.
Or positive at all!
I know many who drove Town Cars to high miles, my dad put over 250k on a 92 Crown Vic with very few problems. Those were mainly in town miles too.
THAT was exactly my point. All the "models" from Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab are being shed.
As of now, all GM has are the 900 series BOF's, the 4 (soon to be 3) lambda variants, and the 3 Theta variants. Basically, I think the entire premise of GMC is to allow more access to the GMT 900's through more dealers. In other words, the Caddy/Buick dealers that have GMC can offer what is essentially a Chevy Truck. I would, however, drop the Acadia, especially if Cadillac gets a Lambda based Escalade.
I'm not sure how many miles it has on it. Probably somewhere between 180-200K. A few years back, he was doing an easy 150-160 miles per day, if not more. But nowadays I think it's down to 90-100 per day, and he had to cut back to 3 days per week because of health problems. Overall it's been a good car. My mechanic, who specializes in Mopars, even swears by Corollas. Whereas the Mopars sometimes get sworn at. :P
I think the two most expensive repairs he had were the water pump and catalytic converter, but both of them were well north of 100,000 miles.
Now his '97 Silverado, in comparison, has been a bit of an embarrassment. Two transmission rebuilds, one around 70K, the other around 108K. Brake work galore. Water pump. Some other odds and ends I'm probably forgetting. And now, the fuel pump or whatever stranded him today. And while it's only a sample of one on one, comparing it to my '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since new, the '85 has been the better truck!
Yes, but none of those brands except Hummer HAD any of the BOF trucks! So as a percentage of the total number of GM models, BOFs make up more of the total of GM offerings now than they did before S, P, H, and Saab took their final bow.
There is no need to continue the GMC line of light-duty passenger vehicles when there is so much overlap with Chevy, and what with gas prices and new CAFE rules and whatnot, GMC is just a boat anchor on the company.
On the Toyota side, it is inscrutable to me that Toyota decided in the last 18 months to revise and continue both the Land Cruiser and 4Runner lines as BOF trucks. They will soon be in a class of one, but not for the right reasons, and it will hurt them in the long run.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
For the record my GMs have never had a catalytic converter go bad, I haven't replaced a water pump since my 1980 Cutlass 260 cu. in.
1981 Skylark
1985 Skyhawk
1987 Century
1989 Century
1993 leSabre (150K)
1998 leSabre (currently 170K)
2003 leSabre (currently 100K)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That pretty much describes my '00 Suburban, an embarrassment! No question those l460e transmissions are junk. I don't have enough fingers to count all the people I know that have had these transmissions rebuilt at low miles, I know serval guys who've had them rebuilt 2-3 times by 100-150k miles. My transmission guy had one die in his 06 Tahoe at 2,500 miles. Pathetic considering how long it's been around.
Now the brakes were about the only area I didn't have a problem, yep the fuel pump. Another well known GM problem with the trucks. You can hear most late '90s thru early 2000 model GM trucks coming down the road with how loud those fuel pumps whine, well until they don't anymore and your stranded. Been there, done that. Is it any wonder that so many people describe their GM ownership experience in past tense?
Though Detroiters cringe at the mere mention of this, Toyota and Honda still have the most reliable models on the market. Of the 48 with top reliability scores, 26 are from those two companies, based on consumer surveys turned in and tests the magazine performs.
Ford isn't far behind. About 90 percent of its products have "average" or "better reliability" and the Fusion/Mercury Milan beat the Accord and Toyota Camry for the second straight year. GM had 20 of its 48 vehicles score "average." Chrysler, well they're not even in the same ballpark right now.
That's not good enough for the long haul.
What will truly make a difference is when you can sell your used Ford or GM car for a third of the purchase price.
Then we'll know that reliability not only matters, but it also pays.
At the end of the day, that's where we are, like it or not.
Regards,
OW
What will truly make a difference is when that 2-3 year old certified GM or Ford car you bought for 2/3 the list price means you only lose half as much in depreciation.
Heh, come see my Wildcat. That's ALL there is.
Well, I don't think Dodge Darts were particularly known for their brakes. Plus, with that mildly hopped-up 318, "power braking" was too much fun to pass up. I'm sure that contributed to some premature wear. Plus, all that stop and go pizza delivery driving.
I think what Pletko was saying was that if you wait a year or two, you can get an almost-new GM car for 2/3 the MSRP. Sometimes even less.
Hey Andre, what was the original MSRP of the 1988 Buick Park Avenue?
My old car encyclopedia says the original MSRP was $19,494. I knew a guy at work who had one, before I knew him. He paid something like $22K for it, but it had leather and a sunroof. I just remember him carrying on about how he only got $5K in trade for it, 4 years later, when he got an Acura Integra.
Yeah, those Park Ave's have horrid resale value. Granted they had extremely overpriced MSRPs too. I just check on autotrader, our local Buick dealer has an 03 PA with 41k miles and they are asking $11,900. Sad considering our local Honda dealer has an 03 Civic EX coupe with 69k and they are asking $10,500 LOL.