The others still make them , though they're kind of hidden. Subaru makes one. Honda's Fit and their CRV qualifies as one as well. Jeep also makes one, though they bill it as a SUV, it's really a Jeep looking wagon. Toyota has the Matrix, still.
I dunno...there's really nothing out there anymore that's even remotely like a full-sized, car-based wagon that has ~90 cubic feet of cargo space and can hold a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor, can seat 8-9 people, tow 5-7,000 lb, etc.
I guess the last one I can think of that was anything like it was the Dodge Magnum. But even that was just a 5-passenger wagon, only had 72 cubic feet of cargo space, and I don't think it could tow very much. It was more of a reincarnation of something in the class of a Volare, Malibu, or Fairmont wagon, than a genuine full-sizer.
So yeah, while they make these little wagons, raised hatchbacks, etc, IMO at least, they're nothing like a '77-96 B-body, or the old Panther, or the old mammoth "intermediates" and battlestar full-sizers that came before.
Yeah, the day of a wagon with full-size SUV capability died when BOF wagons were no longer made. The anti-wagon stigma just pounded in the nails. Pickups got a lot nicer (luxury like with some models), Minivans were/are much better people movers in general.
EPA and safety regulations probably make it prohibitive to build a wagon with any towing ability anymore.
EPA and safety regulations probably make it prohibitive to build a wagon with any towing ability anymore.
For awhile, there actually was a way to make a wagon like that...simply get it classified as a truck! That's what Dodge did with the Magnum. IIRC, the only two criteria to get a vehicle classified as a truck, versus a car, is for it to have a flat load floor behind the front seat, and to have a short enough front/rear overhang that they can take on a ramp without scraping. I forget what angle the ramp is though.
Anyway, the Magnum was only around 205" long, if that, but was on a long 120" wheelbase, so there wasn't much overhang. Something like the old Caprice was around 215" long, but on a shorter 116" wb, and I guess would scrape if you made it go up that test ramp that separates the cars from the trucks.
And now that trucks don't get special consideration for CAFE standards, there might not be any incentive to get a wagon classified as a truck.
I believe Ford will be bringing the C-Max which is a cool looking small wagon to the US in a year or two I believe.
If you're going to call the C-Max a wagon, then you should also call the Mazda 5 a wagon, as it is really a tall wagon with sliding doors, although some people call it a minivan. But it is really more like a wagon. I don't see why door style should be the determinant of being a wagon or not.
If you're going to call the C-Max a wagon, then you should also call the Mazda 5 a wagon, as it is really a tall wagon with sliding doors, although some people call it a minivan.
Good point. I doubt the C-max will be marketed as a wagon.
China has bought up roughly 18% of the stock offering, and this probably will give them a couple of seats on the board...Aren't you glad that China serves as the USA bank????? Is this the kind of "Hope&Change" some of our good citizens had in mind???
Read a road test on the new 2001 Buick Regal Turbo whereas the top end speed was limited by a governor to 150mph.. Now this is a 220 hp 4 banger pulling a 3772 pound car.., maybe it was a 5 mile straight-down hill run..Price as tested was $35,185 a real stretch for a low end Buick..
Now I hope they dump this 220 turbo jobbie in the Chev Cruse and maybe get 175mph and 35mpgs..
GM is a sick company and only survives with Govt "HYPE."
China has bought up roughly 18% of the stock offering
All I've seen are reports that China's SAIC Motors (GM's Chinese partner) purchased 1% of the outstanding shares. Is there some other share buying going on that's not in the headlines?
In local news, my neighbor has a 13 year old Olds Bravada that he's not comfortable driving out of town anymore. And he had some old GM shares. Plus $5,000 in old GM bonds. I don't think his shares are worth anything but he'll be able to convert the bonds into "new GM"stock after the first of the year. If he could dump the bonds today, they'd be worth $1,000 apparently.
So what is he going to do? He already has an order in with his broker to sell the bonds as soon as he can for whatever they are worth. And he went out and replaced the Bravada with a new Ford Edge. He's not happy with GM at all.
I wish your friend good luck with the bonds and stock. If your neighbor has hard copies, the instruments might be sellable as collector's items. "None of the publicly owned stocks or bonds issued by the former General Motors Corporation, including its common stock formerly traded as 'GM', are or will become securities in the General Motors Company ('new GM'), which is an independent company." -https://www.motorsliquidation.com.
My understanding was that once the stuff from old GM was liquidated, the bondholders would get some shares in new GM. (mlive.com)
The WSJ reported on an old GM liquidation sale yesterday in Wyoming MI - "3,000 pieces of whirring, clanging equipment once stamped out frames and other parts here for Chevrolet Suburbans, Cadillac Escalades and other vehicles. The machines were now being sold off for between 10 and 30 cents on the dollar." (link)
GM market share US share: 20% of 11 million vehicles= 2.2 million vehicles sold per year China share: 13% of 17 million vehicles= 2.21 million vehicles sold per year Total 4.41 million Maybe 5 million in a year or two? Honda sells 1 million in the US. don't know what Honda sells in China Our national debt went up $ 10 Billion since my last post (2 days ago). One of those Billion caused by California.
Lutz also said "“I predicted that the [initial stock] offering would be oversubscribed," said Lutz, who was GM’s vice chairman when he retired.
He got 800 shares (the most he could get under an allotment system) and figures if GM is making money in this economic climate, the future looks bright as times get better.
Has GM's recent bankruptcy and IPO influenced your decision to buy a GM product, either positively or negatively? Please provide your brief response to pr@edmunds.com no later than Wednesday, November 24, 2010. Thanks, Jeannine Fallon Corporate Communications Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
GM will likely use the IPO to pay off the government loan as quickly as possible to regain control of its future. And then they will self-destruct and fail again, since government management is honestly the only thing keeping the company alive.
Nobody is going to bail them out the next time.
I give them four years, tops before they implode due to the fact that they haven't solved any of their original underlying problems with their methods of management.
Actually, the real shame is that GM is now making better cars than Toyota and most of the competition. The quailty is better than ever and the engines are among the most reliable - AND have some of the best MPG to power ratings.
But the corporate body that is in charge of those engineers and workers at the factories is a disaster of epic proportions.
Actually, the real shame is that GM is now making better cars than Toyota and most of the competition. The quailty is better than ever and the engines are among the most reliable - AND have some of the best MPG to power ratings.
Well, not according to the latest JDPower ratings IQS.
GM gets in group #3 Overall. (they are grouped, then alphabetical) But let's drill down the numbers a bit.
GM got into group #3 as well for mechanical quality.- same as Toyota and most of the rest of the imports.
My claim mostly concerned drive-train quality, though. GM got in the #2(Buick) and #3 group. Same deal with Interior Quality. So far, it's exactly as reliable overall as any of the imports.
What about features and accessories? Surely GM builds crap. After all, GM always is about stuff breaking and not working, right? They got into the first (5 dot) group. Chrysler, Ford, and GMC there as well. While nobody was looking, the domestics seem to have redoubled their efforts when it comes to quality, occupying exactly half of the spots in that group.
On overall design, they also got in the #3 group - which means basically "same as the imports".(this covers how it drives/fit and finish)
My initial claim, though, was mostly about the engines and powertrain. The next category is Powertrain Design. Reliable is good, but how it drives and how efficient it is are also a big deal(this category mostly covers the transmission as well). Toyota got a "2" rating. Toyotas drive like a taxi, to be honest.(note - the 2 star cars all are fantastic with manual, mind you - just they are miserable with automatics)
As I can see it, the interior and features design/usability is the main area where GM fails. And yes, they are sad, ugly things other than a few exceptions, which are great. But I don't really care that much if the window switches are oddly placed or the dash is a bit odd looking as long as it drives nicely and doesn't break down.
But that really was about *quality*. My statement was "are among the most reliable".
Overall, Buick beat Honda *and* Toyota. :confuse: The rest of Gm (and the Domestics) all got a 3rd ranking - average overall.
If you sort by Powertrain, you see that's where Buick pulled ahead. Cadillac and Chevrolet are in group #3, so it's really a bit of a wash (Scion also got in group #3) Also, what's amazing about the interior and body reliability as well as the accessories is how much the domestics have jumped up the rankings in a decade.
**** But, to be honest, JD Powers is a bit iffy on its statistics. Let's go to a better site like RepairPal. I like them because they actually list all known recalls.
Toyota. Lexus 2009/2010: 1 Toyota 2009/2010: 9 (I'm not counting duplicates to be fair) Scion: 2009/2010: 0 Total: 10
Ford (for fun) Ford 2009/2010: 1 Mercury 2009/2010: 1 Lincoln 2009/2010: 0 Total: 2 (Honda/Acura btw only has 1 for 2009/2010, in case you wondered )
GM builds fine cars now. Finally. But their management is in no way capable of surviving the next decade. Well, at least Ford is also rising up the ranks quickly, so there is some hope at least for a domestic maker to survive.
The dependability study goes back to 07 and Buick's lineup is a bit different since then. Buick's overall IQS has dropped with the new models and I'll bet their dependability ratings will drop some down the road too.
Ford is definitely impressive. Several new and/or updated models while improving overall quality at the same time. That doesn't happen often.
While nobody was looking, the domestics seem to have redoubled their efforts when it comes to quality, occupying exactly half of the spots in that group.
No doubt the domestics have improved in many areas. My initial response was regarding GM being among the best in reliability, and if you go by an overall assessment JD, CU, truedelta, etc, they lag overall compared to Honda, Toyota, and Ford.
Desirability and satisfaction are completely different. I agree that generally Toyota's are boring and stale. I don't particularly like their styling or the way they drive. But outside of maybe a CTS or Lacrosse, GM doesn't have anything that appeals to me either. But I haven't driven either of those cars, so a test drive could quickly rule them out too.
Actually, the data suggests(as I showed above - sort and research the data yourself) that they are all roughly equal now. The idea that GM is somehow behind the rest is nonsense. Well, at least in quality and how they drive.
JD Powers Reliability Survey for Buick: 2005: (2002 data) #2 (Lexus #1) 2006: (2003 data) #3 (Lexus #1, Ford #2) 2007: (2004 data) Tied with Lexus (#2) 2008 (2005 data) #3 (Lexus $4, Toyota #6) 2009 (2006 data) #2 (Lexus #3, Toyota #4) 2010 (2007 data) (data isn't clear as they've changed to "by segment" instead of overall)
*quote* "Seven of the 10 models with the lowest incidence of problems in the industry are from Ford and General Motors, including the 2007 model-year Buick LaCrosse, Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS, Ford Five Hundred, Lincoln MKZ, Mercury Milan, and Mercury Montego....
Of course, this is only three years as JD Powers only tracks 3 years currently. Other sites, though, still rate GM and Ford as vastly improved and easily equal to or better than most of the imports. (Nissan and Mazda, for instance, aren't even close) It's really the "Big 4" now - Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford. Everything else is 7th or 8th place.
The people who are running the company are as daft as ever, though, and it worries me. Despite all of the advances, if the captain is oblivious of the iceberg ahead, it's not going to make any difference at the end of the day.
Seven of the 10 models with the lowest incidence of problems in the industry are from Ford and General Motors, including the 2007 model-year Buick LaCrosse, Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS, Ford Five Hundred, Lincoln MKZ, Mercury Milan, and Mercury Montego....
!/2 of those are gone, outdated, or have been replaced and none of them sold in huge numbers. Actually the only one that is still around in the same form is the DTS. Now the Fusion and 500 have been rated well since their introduction and were introduced with proven powertrains. Ford's 3.5 and 3.7 seem to be among the best v6's available. The 3.5 in my brother's '10 Fusion Sport really impresses me with how smooth it is. I'd say it's close Honda's 3.5 regarding refinement and definitely feel stronger when I've compared it to my dad's '09 Accord v6.
No doubt GM and Ford have improved vastly. If I were buying a new vehicle today, odd are it would be a Ford even though my 07 Expedition has been far from trouble free. Not long ago, I had written Ford off for good and thought I'd never own another.
The people who are running the company are as daft as ever, though, and it worries me. Despite all of the advances, if the captain is oblivious of the iceberg ahead, it's not going to make any difference at the end of the day.
No question, even the guy who led GM through bankruptcy appears to be a crook (Rattner). Add that GM is losing over $500 million a qtr in Europe, so their troubles are far from over.
I wouldn't go that far. Granted, Buick and Chevrolet have improved compared to pre 2008, and their quality is better than Toyota currently, but there are other companies that are still better in those regards, Hyundai, Nissan, Honda, and Ford come to mind.
The IPO would lower Treasury’s stake to 37 percent, or 33 percent with the overallotment option, from 61 percent, the filings showed. The UAW trust’s holdings would drop to 14 percent, or 13 percent with the option, from 20 percent.
Old: 37%+20% = 43% of GM controlled by GM management. New: 33%+13% =54% of GM controlled by GM management.
In essence, this IPO will allow them to gain control of the company again and (most likely) crash and burn again now that there's nobody holding their feet to the fire. No way they're getting a second bailout, though, so enjoy the cars while they last.
Well, I'll give you better than SOME Toyotas and Some of the comp but since trucks are the main product out of the Government Motor Corp., cars are still behind in MOST cases.
Malibu Aveo Impala Lucerne DTS
These obviously have far better choices at competition and the new models are equal or better than some, "miles to go before they fall asleep again" is the reality.
When they go insane like Hyundai, let me know....I see some signs of life but they are not starving artists by a long shot.......
Take the Sonata 2.0T vs all GM cars in it's class....TOAST and blown into the weeds in almost every desirable category is the current reality. Altima, Civic, etc, etc.
The real answer is in no BS delivery. GM is very poor in that category. (read: marketing that reaches the masses)
"Buick and Chevrolet have improved compared to pre 2008, and their quality is better than Toyota currently, but there are other companies that are still better in those regards, Hyundai, Nissan, Honda, and Ford come to mind."
I dunno? You've got to be careful when initial quality survey data is mixed in. I don't think you can really draw strong conclusions without at least 5 or 6 year quality data on a vehicle. Granted, Ford and GM have improved on some of the newer models, but some of the older models aren't great. The brand new Taurus only seems to rate average. For many years D3 seemed a good bet to break down soon after expiration of the factory warranty. Hyundai seems to have improved over the past few years, but I want 5 or more years of data before I'm convinced they are really any better than most of the competition. Personally, I think the improvement of Ford and GM is probably somewhat overblown by recent media events, while the SUA media show has probably made Toyota look worse than it really is. I'm certainly not hearing many people complain about current generation Toyota vehicle breakdowns and I still hear more bitching from D3 owners. However, I don't think Toyota is helping themselves with the vehicle interior and tire cheapening that doesn't send a necessarily good message to prospective buyers (and hence their increase in incentives).
Every GM car that my relatives have had in the last 5-8 years (they've huge GM and Ford fans while I'm solidly European if I have a choice - causes some interesting discussions at get-togethers ) has been reliable as a tank, if also as boring as sin. There's a reason they call Toyota the "Japanese Buick".
But yeah - GM makes great cars that are marketed wrong, sold wrong, managed wrong, and need new sheet metal badly. (ie - that's all design and management at work, not the engineers)
Now as for what I like, I'll honestly take a Mercedes over any of them, reliability non-withstanding. There's no point in driving something without a tingly feeling when you drive it. It's like buying a new axe and settling for the $199 Fender Squier instead of the MusicMan. Life's just too short to settle for bad cars, bad instruments, and bad alcohol. Jellybean is not in my buying vocabulary.
(OK - if I could by *anything* it would be an Aston Martin but I'm not a millionaire) :P
I think that even with the new models, GM is still designing and engineering their vehicles to hit certain numbers (such as mpg) and tick off boxes as offering features and equipment, and lacking the polish of making those things all come together in a vehicle that makes you really want it. CTS (particularly the V) and maybe the Volt (if ignoring the price) are the only ones that don't fall into category in my opinion. Take as an example, the Equinox, clearly engineered to meet an EPA number for the sake of advertising. Achieved via gearing that makes for an awful driving experience. How about losing 1 or 2 mpg EPA and probably getting just as good real world and a better driving experience? Or the Acadia/Traverse twins which although worlds better than the Trailblazer/Envoy still have a lot of the same poor design and build quality (CHEAP plastics inside, rear seats that rock back and forth on acceleration/braking, lack of foot space in rear seat, oxidizing wheels/center caps after less than a year, etc)
I think all of these Initial Quality and Reliability studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Buyers of different brands (particularly luxury vs full line, and in my opinion also domestic vs import) have different expectations of quality. Things that long time GM owners have come to accept as normal are unacceptable to certain other buyers and would be reported as issues/problems on those surveys. Granted I think GM produces on a whole a car just as reliable as most other brands, they're still lacking in the details to someone who thinks there's more to quality than just pieces that don't break or stop functioning. Some people honestly don't notice or care, and that's fine, but some of us do and if GM wants to really be seen as anywhere near the top of the automotive world again, they need to figure that out.
I don't use any of that initial quality BS or other stuff JD Power spews out b/c it means absolutely nothing. They only go and follow vehicles up to the first 3 years of ownership when they are in their newest, most pristine conditions. Plus, the vehicles are all under warranty.
Its been my experience with GM over 30 some years, that for the first 3 years they ran just fine, but shortly after the warranty expiration they began falling apart. This was consistent on model after model. The last straw for me was when my last two Malibu's a 2002 and 2004 began falling apart and needing tows to the dealership before the 3 year warranty period even expired. Most of these vehicles were rated highly for initial quality. Granted GM has improved, but I'm still waiting on long term reliability reports and results on GM products from model years 2008+ which we won't get for another few years. Then they might have something to brag about if that if shown to be good.
It is after the 3 and 4 year mark I'm most concerned and interested in which tJD Power don't test. That is why I put more stock and credibility in CR long-term reliability history charts for each vehicle. They have listed a much more accurate (% chance) of getting a problem or non-problem vehicle. Granted I'm not saying that they are 100% accurate since their colored circles only indicated the likelihood or chance of getting a problem or non problem vehicle from that model year.
Well, I'm heading toward the 22 year mark with my 1989 Cadillac Brougham and it is still going strong!
Back in that era, GM's RWD cars tended to be like a fine wine...they'd get better with age! Often CR would give them bad ratings early on, as they might start acting up sooner than the more "sophisticated", complex cars, but then, as the cars aged, the old RWD brutes would tend to be fairly reliable, as the more complicated cars would start succumbing to expensive repairs.
Just curious, have you had to replace the fuel pump yet? My uncle had to replace the pump in his '97 last year, to the tune of around $1,000, and I know someone with an '05 Silverado that decided not to start yesterday, and he thinks it's the fuel pump.
Kind of a pisser that something that used to be mounted on the front of the engine and fairly simple to get to is now a $1000+ repair when it breaks. :sick: I'm sure that's not a trait unique to just GM, though!
Just curious, have you had to replace the fuel pump yet?
No kidding. I know several people with 90's through '00 1/2 ton chevy SUV and pickups, a fuel pump replacement is a right of passage on those. Fuel pumps and trans rebuild should be sold in value packs..
A friend of mine has a '98 Silvy with around 150k miles on it. He's on his 4th fuel pump and getting ready for a 3rd trans rebuild.
$1000+ is to much to replace the fuel pump. Last year the GM dealer charged my FIL $750 to replace the fuel pump on his tahoe, his actually made to 100k miles.
I got lucky with my Suburban. There was a recall for a wiring harness to the fuel pump, so I the dealer was nice enough not to charge me full labor for the fuel pump. So I got out for around $450 or so. I think that was the cheapest repair it ever had. Unfortunately, I found with my suburban that anything that could break or fail did:(
Last month I had something quite terrifying happen to me on the highway. I was pulling my boat down the interstate for winter storage. I had the cruise set at 65 or so while following a Chevy S10.
Next thing I know the driveshaft from the S10 fell out and was heading right towards me flopping around every which way but straight. It's quite hair raising trying to avoid an object like that while you have cars on your left and a 5klb trailer on the back. I missed it by only a few feet and my wife about had heart attack.
How many miles on these trucks when the pumps failed?
Mine went around 65k or so. In my experience once you past 70k they can go at anytime. Sometimes they'll whine for a while, sometimes you'll get a warning that it's getting ready to go (my FIL's was hard to start when cold), but it seems most people I know that have had the fuel pump go out had it happen when trying to start the engine.
My friend with the '98 changed it himself and what was kind of scary is the pump he pulled out had wires that were essentially burnt and those were inside the fuel tank.
How many miles on these trucks when the pumps failed?
Well, in their defense, both of them had over 100,000 miles. I'd guess my uncle's '97 Silverado has around 125K on it now, and the 2005 I mentioned is probably up to around 130K or so. So, it doesn't bother me so much that the pumps failed, but moreso the fact that they're so expensive to fix! Something that, back in the day, was just a minor repair is now something that could total out a high-mileage vehicle!
As for changing the fuel filters, I honestly don't know. And with the 2005, I don't think he's confirmed that it's the fuel pump yet. Dude got laid off on Friday, and then yesterday morning the truck wouldn't start. He mentioned something about trying to do it himself, so, I figure the ultimate cost will be around $1000 plus whatever he messes up in the process.
My '85 Silverado is still running pretty well, though. It only has around 135,000 miles on it, but old age is starting to get to it. It's rusting out in the rocker panels, leaking a little oil, sounds like it has an exhaust leak. Air conditioner doesn't work. But, it's on the original 305 and THM350C tranny. It's due for new belts and hoses soon, but other than that, I wouldn't be afraid to take it on a long trip. Just not in hot weather, because no a/c and burgundy vinyl seats do not make for a good combination. At least it has a sliding rear window though, which helps a bit, especially on those days when the power window decides to act up. :P
I was hoping to get it back by April 2 of this year, which was my 40th birthday...sort of a birthday gift to myself. Incidentally, that's also Walter P. Chrysler's birthday, so maybe that's why I've usually had fairly good luck with Mopars!
In a somewhat GM-related moment, here's a pic of it from last year, just before it got loaded up on the flatbed. My uncle's '97 Silverado, which is on fuel pump #2 and transmission #3, is in the background. And we had to use my '85 to drag the DeSoto out of the garage, when the rear brakes seized up on it!
Yeap, so that means as usual, nobody else had problem littered, fall apart vehicles from GM. Lemko's vehicles have been picture perfect so everyone's must have been too :P
I'm glad to hear it. It wasn't until I got on edmunds I ever heard of anyone that had problem free GM vehicles. Lemko and you must be in some sort of minority. Everyone in my family, friends, colleagues, etc who had GM vehicles had problems up the whazzoo with them. Typically, right after the warranty period ended no less.
I was the last one in my entire family and circle of friends to leave GM back in 2007. I waited as long as possible but my patience and bank account ran out unfortunately.
I'm glad to hear it. It wasn't until I got on edmunds I ever heard of anyone that had problem free GM vehicles. Lemko and you must be in some sort of minority. Everyone in my family, friends, colleagues, etc who had GM vehicles had problems up the whazzoo with them. Typically, right after the warranty period ended no less
I suspect that Lemko has some GM-perfection pixie dust. Anybody who is considering buying a GM vehicle should contact him about getting sprinkled. I don't know how much he charges. :P
Unfortunately for me, I had to follow a Mercedes into town Monday morning. About 5 miles down a 2 lane road. The stink from the diesel in the Mercedes was horrible. I had to stay back about 500 feet to make it tolerable.
Comments
I dunno...there's really nothing out there anymore that's even remotely like a full-sized, car-based wagon that has ~90 cubic feet of cargo space and can hold a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor, can seat 8-9 people, tow 5-7,000 lb, etc.
I guess the last one I can think of that was anything like it was the Dodge Magnum. But even that was just a 5-passenger wagon, only had 72 cubic feet of cargo space, and I don't think it could tow very much. It was more of a reincarnation of something in the class of a Volare, Malibu, or Fairmont wagon, than a genuine full-sizer.
So yeah, while they make these little wagons, raised hatchbacks, etc, IMO at least, they're nothing like a '77-96 B-body, or the old Panther, or the old mammoth "intermediates" and battlestar full-sizers that came before.
Yeah, the day of a wagon with full-size SUV capability died when BOF wagons were no longer made. The anti-wagon stigma just pounded in the nails. Pickups got a lot nicer (luxury like with some models), Minivans were/are much better people movers in general.
EPA and safety regulations probably make it prohibitive to build a wagon with any towing ability anymore.
For awhile, there actually was a way to make a wagon like that...simply get it classified as a truck! That's what Dodge did with the Magnum. IIRC, the only two criteria to get a vehicle classified as a truck, versus a car, is for it to have a flat load floor behind the front seat, and to have a short enough front/rear overhang that they can take on a ramp without scraping. I forget what angle the ramp is though.
Anyway, the Magnum was only around 205" long, if that, but was on a long 120" wheelbase, so there wasn't much overhang. Something like the old Caprice was around 215" long, but on a shorter 116" wb, and I guess would scrape if you made it go up that test ramp that separates the cars from the trucks.
And now that trucks don't get special consideration for CAFE standards, there might not be any incentive to get a wagon classified as a truck.
If you're going to call the C-Max a wagon, then you should also call the Mazda 5 a wagon, as it is really a tall wagon with sliding doors, although some people call it a minivan. But it is really more like a wagon. I don't see why door style should be the determinant of being a wagon or not.
Good point. I doubt the C-max will be marketed as a wagon.
Read a road test on the new 2001 Buick Regal Turbo whereas the top end speed was limited by a governor to 150mph.. Now this is a 220 hp 4 banger pulling a 3772 pound car.., maybe it was a 5 mile straight-down hill run..Price as tested was $35,185 a real stretch for a low end Buick..
Now I hope they dump this 220 turbo jobbie in the Chev Cruse and maybe get 175mph and 35mpgs..
GM is a sick company and only survives with Govt "HYPE."
All I've seen are reports that China's SAIC Motors (GM's Chinese partner) purchased 1% of the outstanding shares. Is there some other share buying going on that's not in the headlines?
In local news, my neighbor has a 13 year old Olds Bravada that he's not comfortable driving out of town anymore. And he had some old GM shares. Plus $5,000 in old GM bonds. I don't think his shares are worth anything but he'll be able to convert the bonds into "new GM"stock after the first of the year. If he could dump the bonds today, they'd be worth $1,000 apparently.
So what is he going to do? He already has an order in with his broker to sell the bonds as soon as he can for whatever they are worth. And he went out and replaced the Bravada with a new Ford Edge. He's not happy with GM at all.
-https://www.motorsliquidation.com.
The WSJ reported on an old GM liquidation sale yesterday in Wyoming MI - "3,000 pieces of whirring, clanging equipment once stamped out frames and other parts here for Chevrolet Suburbans, Cadillac Escalades and other vehicles. The machines were now being sold off for between 10 and 30 cents on the dollar." (link)
US share: 20% of 11 million vehicles= 2.2 million vehicles sold per year
China share: 13% of 17 million vehicles= 2.21 million vehicles sold per year
Total 4.41 million
Maybe 5 million in a year or two?
Honda sells 1 million in the US.
don't know what Honda sells in China
Our national debt went up $ 10 Billion since my last post (2 days ago). One of those Billion caused by California.
Industry icon Bob Lutz surfaces at Lotus (LA Times)
Lutz also said "“I predicted that the [initial stock] offering would be oversubscribed," said Lutz, who was GM’s vice chairman when he retired.
He got 800 shares (the most he could get under an allotment system) and figures if GM is making money in this economic climate, the future looks bright as times get better.
The man's poison and should just check himself into the nearest retirement home ASAP.
Please provide your brief response to pr@edmunds.com no later than Wednesday, November 24, 2010.
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Nobody is going to bail them out the next time.
I give them four years, tops before they implode due to the fact that they haven't solved any of their original underlying problems with their methods of management.
Failure is Failure, after all...on ALL 8 cylinders!
Regards,
OW
But the corporate body that is in charge of those engineers and workers at the factories is a disaster of epic proportions.
Well, not according to the latest JDPower ratings IQS.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/quality-ratings-by-brand/
Once the GP is replaced, I hope to be GM free for the foreseeable future.
GM got into group #3 as well for mechanical quality.- same as Toyota and most of the rest of the imports.
My claim mostly concerned drive-train quality, though. GM got in the #2(Buick) and #3 group. Same deal with Interior Quality. So far, it's exactly as reliable overall as any of the imports.
What about features and accessories? Surely GM builds crap. After all, GM always is about stuff breaking and not working, right? They got into the first (5 dot) group. Chrysler, Ford, and GMC there as well. While nobody was looking, the domestics seem to have redoubled their efforts when it comes to quality, occupying exactly half of the spots in that group.
On overall design, they also got in the #3 group - which means basically "same as the imports".(this covers how it drives/fit and finish)
My initial claim, though, was mostly about the engines and powertrain. The next category is Powertrain Design. Reliable is good, but how it drives and how efficient it is are also a big deal(this category mostly covers the transmission as well). Toyota got a "2" rating. Toyotas drive like a taxi, to be honest.(note - the 2 star cars all are fantastic with manual, mind you - just they are miserable with automatics)
As I can see it, the interior and features design/usability is the main area where GM fails. And yes, they are sad, ugly things other than a few exceptions, which are great. But I don't really care that much if the window switches are oddly placed or the dash is a bit odd looking as long as it drives nicely and doesn't break down.
But that really was about *quality*. My statement was "are among the most reliable".
Let's see what J.D. Powers says about dependability.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand/
Overall, Buick beat Honda *and* Toyota. :confuse: The rest of Gm (and the Domestics) all got a 3rd ranking - average overall.
If you sort by Powertrain, you see that's where Buick pulled ahead. Cadillac and Chevrolet are in group #3, so it's really a bit of a wash (Scion also got in group #3) Also, what's amazing about the interior and body reliability as well as the accessories is how much the domestics have jumped up the rankings in a decade.
****
But, to be honest, JD Powers is a bit iffy on its statistics. Let's go to a better site like RepairPal. I like them because they actually list all known recalls.
Buick 2009: 0 2010: 1
Cadillac: 2009: 2 2010: 0
Chevrolet 2009: 0 2010: 1
GMC. 2009: 1 2010: 0
Total: 5 for all of GM over the last two years.
Toyota.
Lexus 2009/2010: 1
Toyota 2009/2010: 9 (I'm not counting duplicates to be fair)
Scion: 2009/2010: 0
Total: 10
Ford (for fun)
Ford 2009/2010: 1
Mercury 2009/2010: 1
Lincoln 2009/2010: 0
Total: 2 (Honda/Acura btw only has 1 for 2009/2010, in case you wondered
GM builds fine cars now. Finally. But their management is in no way capable of surviving the next decade. Well, at least Ford is also rising up the ranks quickly, so there is some hope at least for a domestic maker to survive.
Ford is definitely impressive. Several new and/or updated models while improving overall quality at the same time. That doesn't happen often.
While nobody was looking, the domestics seem to have redoubled their efforts when it comes to quality, occupying exactly half of the spots in that group.
No doubt the domestics have improved in many areas. My initial response was regarding GM being among the best in reliability, and if you go by an overall assessment JD, CU, truedelta, etc, they lag overall compared to Honda, Toyota, and Ford.
Desirability and satisfaction are completely different. I agree that generally Toyota's are boring and stale. I don't particularly like their styling or the way they drive. But outside of maybe a CTS or Lacrosse, GM doesn't have anything that appeals to me either. But I haven't driven either of those cars, so a test drive could quickly rule them out too.
JD Powers Reliability Survey for Buick:
2005: (2002 data) #2 (Lexus #1)
2006: (2003 data) #3 (Lexus #1, Ford #2)
2007: (2004 data) Tied with Lexus (#2)
2008 (2005 data) #3 (Lexus $4, Toyota #6)
2009 (2006 data) #2 (Lexus #3, Toyota #4)
2010 (2007 data) (data isn't clear as they've changed to "by segment" instead of overall)
*quote*
"Seven of the 10 models with the lowest incidence of problems in the industry are from Ford and General Motors, including the 2007 model-year Buick LaCrosse, Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS, Ford Five Hundred, Lincoln MKZ, Mercury Milan, and Mercury Montego....
Of course, this is only three years as JD Powers only tracks 3 years currently. Other sites, though, still rate GM and Ford as vastly improved and easily equal to or better than most of the imports. (Nissan and Mazda, for instance, aren't even close) It's really the "Big 4" now - Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford. Everything else is 7th or 8th place.
The people who are running the company are as daft as ever, though, and it worries me. Despite all of the advances, if the captain is oblivious of the iceberg ahead, it's not going to make any difference at the end of the day.
!/2 of those are gone, outdated, or have been replaced and none of them sold in huge numbers. Actually the only one that is still around in the same form is the DTS. Now the Fusion and 500 have been rated well since their introduction and were introduced with proven powertrains. Ford's 3.5 and 3.7 seem to be among the best v6's available. The 3.5 in my brother's '10 Fusion Sport really impresses me with how smooth it is. I'd say it's close Honda's 3.5 regarding refinement and definitely feel stronger when I've compared it to my dad's '09 Accord v6.
No doubt GM and Ford have improved vastly. If I were buying a new vehicle today, odd are it would be a Ford even though my 07 Expedition has been far from trouble free. Not long ago, I had written Ford off for good and thought I'd never own another.
The people who are running the company are as daft as ever, though, and it worries me. Despite all of the advances, if the captain is oblivious of the iceberg ahead, it's not going to make any difference at the end of the day.
No question, even the guy who led GM through bankruptcy appears to be a crook (Rattner). Add that GM is losing over $500 million a qtr in Europe, so their troubles are far from over.
Pay down the loan...Yes. Not enough money to pay OFF the loan. The govt. (us) still own 33-36% after the IPO, if I remember correctly.
I didn't get that impression from the way I read the articles.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-17/gm-ipo-raises-20-billion-selling-com- - mon-preferred.html
From the link...
The IPO would lower Treasury’s stake to 37 percent, or 33 percent with the overallotment option, from 61 percent, the filings showed. The UAW trust’s holdings would drop to 14 percent, or 13 percent with the option, from 20 percent.
New: 33%+13% =54% of GM controlled by GM management.
In essence, this IPO will allow them to gain control of the company again and (most likely) crash and burn again now that there's nobody holding their feet to the fire. No way they're getting a second bailout, though, so enjoy the cars while they last.
Malibu
Aveo
Impala
Lucerne
DTS
These obviously have far better choices at competition and the new models are equal or better than some, "miles to go before they fall asleep again" is the reality.
When they go insane like Hyundai, let me know....I see some signs of life but they are not starving artists by a long shot.......
Take the Sonata 2.0T vs all GM cars in it's class....TOAST and blown into the weeds in almost every desirable category is the current reality. Altima, Civic, etc, etc.
The real answer is in no BS delivery. GM is very poor in that category. (read: marketing that reaches the masses)
Regards,
OW
I dunno? You've got to be careful when initial quality survey data is mixed in. I don't think you can really draw strong conclusions without at least 5 or 6 year quality data on a vehicle. Granted, Ford and GM have improved on some of the newer models, but some of the older models aren't great. The brand new Taurus only seems to rate average. For many years D3 seemed a good bet to break down soon after expiration of the factory warranty. Hyundai seems to have improved over the past few years, but I want 5 or more years of data before I'm convinced they are really any better than most of the competition. Personally, I think the improvement of Ford and GM is probably somewhat overblown by recent media events, while the SUA media show has probably made Toyota look worse than it really is. I'm certainly not hearing many people complain about current generation Toyota vehicle breakdowns and I still hear more bitching from D3 owners. However, I don't think Toyota is helping themselves with the vehicle interior and tire cheapening that doesn't send a necessarily good message to prospective buyers (and hence their increase in incentives).
Circle W! How could you? You are insulting motherhood, apple pie, and Chevrolet.
But yeah - GM makes great cars that are marketed wrong, sold wrong, managed wrong, and need new sheet metal badly. (ie - that's all design and management at work, not the engineers)
Now as for what I like, I'll honestly take a Mercedes over any of them, reliability non-withstanding. There's no point in driving something without a tingly feeling when you drive it. It's like buying a new axe and settling for the $199 Fender Squier instead of the MusicMan. Life's just too short to settle for bad cars, bad instruments, and bad alcohol. Jellybean is not in my buying vocabulary.
(OK - if I could by *anything* it would be an Aston Martin but I'm not a millionaire)
:P
I think all of these Initial Quality and Reliability studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Buyers of different brands (particularly luxury vs full line, and in my opinion also domestic vs import) have different expectations of quality. Things that long time GM owners have come to accept as normal are unacceptable to certain other buyers and would be reported as issues/problems on those surveys. Granted I think GM produces on a whole a car just as reliable as most other brands, they're still lacking in the details to someone who thinks there's more to quality than just pieces that don't break or stop functioning. Some people honestly don't notice or care, and that's fine, but some of us do and if GM wants to really be seen as anywhere near the top of the automotive world again, they need to figure that out.
Its been my experience with GM over 30 some years, that for the first 3 years they ran just fine, but shortly after the warranty expiration they began falling apart. This was consistent on model after model. The last straw for me was when my last two Malibu's a 2002 and 2004 began falling apart and needing tows to the dealership before the 3 year warranty period even expired. Most of these vehicles were rated highly for initial quality. Granted GM has improved, but I'm still waiting on long term reliability reports and results on GM products from model years 2008+ which we won't get for another few years. Then they might have something to brag about if that if shown to be good.
It is after the 3 and 4 year mark I'm most concerned and interested in which tJD Power don't test. That is why I put more stock and credibility in CR long-term reliability history charts for each vehicle. They have listed a much more accurate (% chance) of getting a problem or non-problem vehicle. Granted I'm not saying that they are 100% accurate since their colored circles only indicated the likelihood or chance of getting a problem or non problem vehicle from that model year.
Back in that era, GM's RWD cars tended to be like a fine wine...they'd get better with age! Often CR would give them bad ratings early on, as they might start acting up sooner than the more "sophisticated", complex cars, but then, as the cars aged, the old RWD brutes would tend to be fairly reliable, as the more complicated cars would start succumbing to expensive repairs.
Kind of a pisser that something that used to be mounted on the front of the engine and fairly simple to get to is now a $1000+ repair when it breaks. :sick: I'm sure that's not a trait unique to just GM, though!
How many miles on these trucks when the pumps failed?
No kidding. I know several people with 90's through '00 1/2 ton chevy SUV and pickups, a fuel pump replacement is a right of passage on those. Fuel pumps and trans rebuild should be sold in value packs..
A friend of mine has a '98 Silvy with around 150k miles on it. He's on his 4th fuel pump and getting ready for a 3rd trans rebuild.
$1000+ is to much to replace the fuel pump. Last year the GM dealer charged my FIL $750 to replace the fuel pump on his tahoe, his actually made to 100k miles.
I got lucky with my Suburban. There was a recall for a wiring harness to the fuel pump, so I the dealer was nice enough not to charge me full labor for the fuel pump. So I got out for around $450 or so. I think that was the cheapest repair it ever had. Unfortunately, I found with my suburban that anything that could break or fail did:(
Last month I had something quite terrifying happen to me on the highway. I was pulling my boat down the interstate for winter storage. I had the cruise set at 65 or so while following a Chevy S10.
Next thing I know the driveshaft from the S10 fell out and was heading right towards me flopping around every which way but straight. It's quite hair raising trying to avoid an object like that while you have cars on your left and a 5klb trailer on the back. I missed it by only a few feet and my wife about had heart attack.
I swear GM products have it out for me;)
Mine went around 65k or so. In my experience once you past 70k they can go at anytime. Sometimes they'll whine for a while, sometimes you'll get a warning that it's getting ready to go (my FIL's was hard to start when cold), but it seems most people I know that have had the fuel pump go out had it happen when trying to start the engine.
My friend with the '98 changed it himself and what was kind of scary is the pump he pulled out had wires that were essentially burnt and those were inside the fuel tank.
Well, in their defense, both of them had over 100,000 miles. I'd guess my uncle's '97 Silverado has around 125K on it now, and the 2005 I mentioned is probably up to around 130K or so. So, it doesn't bother me so much that the pumps failed, but moreso the fact that they're so expensive to fix! Something that, back in the day, was just a minor repair is now something that could total out a high-mileage vehicle!
As for changing the fuel filters, I honestly don't know. And with the 2005, I don't think he's confirmed that it's the fuel pump yet. Dude got laid off on Friday, and then yesterday morning the truck wouldn't start. He mentioned something about trying to do it himself, so, I figure the ultimate cost will be around $1000 plus whatever he messes up in the process.
My '85 Silverado is still running pretty well, though. It only has around 135,000 miles on it, but old age is starting to get to it. It's rusting out in the rocker panels, leaking a little oil, sounds like it has an exhaust leak. Air conditioner doesn't work. But, it's on the original 305 and THM350C tranny. It's due for new belts and hoses soon, but other than that, I wouldn't be afraid to take it on a long trip. Just not in hot weather, because no a/c and burgundy vinyl seats do not make for a good combination. At least it has a sliding rear window though, which helps a bit, especially on those days when the power window decides to act up. :P
I have a few words, but none of them are fit to print here on Edmunds. :P
At this point it's all up in the air.
I was hoping to get it back by April 2 of this year, which was my 40th birthday...sort of a birthday gift to myself. Incidentally, that's also Walter P. Chrysler's birthday, so maybe that's why I've usually had fairly good luck with Mopars!
In a somewhat GM-related moment, here's a pic of it from last year, just before it got loaded up on the flatbed. My uncle's '97 Silverado, which is on fuel pump #2 and transmission #3, is in the background. And we had to use my '85 to drag the DeSoto out of the garage, when the rear brakes seized up on it!
Bummer on the DeSoto. May have to inquire back channel....
I was the last one in my entire family and circle of friends to leave GM back in 2007. I waited as long as possible but my patience and bank account ran out unfortunately.
Maybe there is hope for them yet :confuse:
I suspect that Lemko has some GM-perfection pixie dust. Anybody who is considering buying a GM vehicle should contact him about getting sprinkled. I don't know how much he charges. :P