I think the point is GM losing market share, whos gaining that share? Korean car companies.
Not true. GM's market share is trending up. 19.8% in 2009, 19.1% in 2010 with 3 less brands and as of Feb. 2011 20.7%
By the way one of my mechanic's customers has a 2002 Kia Optima, (basically a Sonata) whose entire front end fell apart while driving at highway speeds. He hit a guardrail. The front subframe was completely rusted through. This is a huge problem with early to middle 2000's Kias and Hyundais.
There is a reason these cars are so light. The steel is too thin for even a 10 year durability, much like the Toyota truck frames.
This problem affects domestic brands as well. The Ford Windstar rear axle recall comes to mind, but generally the components are beefier in comparison to foreign models and is the main reason domestics weigh more for the same size car. I think this problem will negatively affect Hyundai's currently improving reputation in the future.
>By the way one of my mechanic's customers has a 2002 Kia Optima, (basically a Sonata) whose entire front end fell apart ... The front subframe was completely rusted through. This is a huge problem with early to middle 2000's Kias and Hyundais. >There is a reason these cars are so light. The steel is too thin for even a 10 year durability, much like the Toyota truck frames.
Some in another discussion were complaining because the Cruze weighed more than what they felt was the weight of the competitive foreign models! I'll take heftier parts over the thin metal of some of the others.
GM is not losing market share. Sales of non eliminated brands were up 47% in Feb. That would be the core 4 of Chev, GMC, Buick and Cad. I bought my GM last Feb and in one week of waiting to pull the trigger there were 13 fewer Malibu's to choose from, last year. That was BEFORE the 47% increase in sales.
Now that we have 10.9% unemployment in our state we all need to consider Hundai?
No it doesn't. Your absolutely right on that one. I was just pointing something out since several members on here, not you in particular, who are complaining about the bad GM stories on here are on the Toyota forums complaining about how bad their products and company are despite even having one.
Interesting point, only problem is, myself and others had mid 2000 model year GM vehicles that had major problems and the last time I checked it wasn't 2024 or 2026 yet, so I'd like to know how we are adding 20 extra years of baggage on top of that, it was not that long ago.
Good point. Some GM fanboys like to say the bad stuff happened 20 or 30 years ago when really they mean 2 or 3 years ago. There really is no real proof that quality has improved for the LONG TERM whatsoever.
Edmunds review of a rickety clackety Rattley recent model CTS's doesn't do much convincing for me of American quality improving.
The only thing that has seemed to REALLY truly improve is the marketing campain which is simply reiterated every decade or two. Something like this "Sorry for the poor quality before, but were newer, different, and better than before, so trust us now."
They just reiterate that in different ways over and over and over again. I think the Thesauraus is running out of options at GM and Chrysler though, so I hope for their sakes they aren't lying for the 10th time and quality really has improved for the LONG term.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The only thing that has seemed to REALLY truly improve is the marketing campain which is simply reiterated every decade or two. Something like this "Sorry for the poor quality before, but were newer, different, and better than before, so trust us now."
I think they really are improving, although they do have problems here and there. But unfortunately, that marketing does work. I have a friend who was telling me I should buy a Chrysler 200. A friend who doesn't even LIKE Chrysler...he's more of a Ford guy.
But, he's originally from Detroit, and evidently he's falling for those "Chrysler 200: Imported from Detroit" commercials.
That being said, I think the 200 is an improvement over the Sebring it's so obviously a restyle of. Better V-6 engine, nicer looking front-end, and I hear the interior's improved, as well. But it's still not enough to get me to buy one. I think I'd trust a Charger or 300 though. Or a Ram.
As for GM, I'd trust most of their vehicles, but they just don't have anything that really excites me right now.
Good point. Some GM fanboys like to say the bad stuff happened 20 or 30 years ago when really they mean 2 or 3 years ago.
Sheesh, I'll give you that some stinkers got turned out by GM less than 20 or 30 years ago, but I think you're swinging the reality pendulum way the other way by saying '2 or 3 years ago'.
It's certainly not statistical, but I had a Camry rental car in Minneapolis a few weeks ago that had 15.9K miles. The car clearly needed control arm bushings by the front end noise on every bump, and on my last day of rental the check engine and traction control lights came on...and stayed on. I expected an ephiphany by renting one.
Also, on an old car forum I frequent, a poster is calmly mentioning his 2005 Honda Pilot that won't start...and it's not the battery...just plain dead. If it were a Big Three, there'd be howls of 'junk' about it. As a Honda, there's virtually no comments about it. My '05 Chevy van, considered the worst of GM, has never failed to start and run in 91K miles.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My '05 Chevy van, considered the worst of GM, has never failed to start and run in 91K miles.
Do you still have that Uplander? I was under the impression that they were actually fairly reliable, but just outclassed in other respects, like handing, interior room, acceleration, fuel economy, ergonomics (subjective), ans so on.
my impression of them was that they're not so hot as new vehicles unless you get one heck of a deal, but as used cars, they're a bargain.
I know the old Venture, TransPort, and Silouette did really bad in crash testing, but IIRC, the Uplander and its clones did really well, which considering they weren't an all-new design, should count for something.
Within the past year I've had a new Malibu and new Traverse as rentals. They both seemed fine. However, I think part of the problem is GM pricing. A lot of their vehicles are priced pretty high compared to some of the competition. I'm not going to seriously consider a Malibu if it cost as much or more than a similar Accord, Altima, Camry, etc. It may be a perfectly fine car, but it doesn't have as strong of a recent quality history and tends to depreciate faster accordingly. GM should be undercutting its competitors right now. If their cars are comparable, then getting people into the driver's seat should be a priority. Down the road if the cars are indeed comparable they will be able to move prices up with an improving reputation. Now you can get into the recent Camry SUA issue, but most people have discounted that based on the latest info. The best way for GM to catch their image and reputation up to Ford and the Asians is to get more buyers into their seats and prove they've caught up. Just saying you're there and pricing like you are isn't going to do it unfortunately. If the product has caught up and is a good deal the government motors rap will also start to fade away, but you can't price and market today like nothing happened in the past and expect to really get ahead. Also, high sticker prices and then big price cuts don't really help a company's image either. It just encourages buyers to continue look at them as a primarily fleet seller.
Yes, we still have the Uplander. I actually think they look better than other vans (although the Venture heritage is especially noticeable from the rear), but I think whatever they did to upgrade the crashworthiness of the Venture, made the vehicle ride a good bit stiffer/rougher than a Venture (of which we had two before the Uplander). It can be pretty punishing on a rough street. However, it has been cheap to maintain. I doubt it has any resale value though. Mine took a $5,000 hit when it was twelve months old, pretty much directly head-on. No injuries in either car, but that was frustrating! (My wife was driving at the time; a teenager pulled out in front of her).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I agree with that. They are putting a fair bit of cash on the hood these days and I don't doubt that if you haggle you can get, say, a Malibu cheaper than a Camry but I don't think that brings folks into the showroom. Not like being able to advertise that you have a less expensive car.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
>I think part of the problem is GM pricing. A lot of their vehicles are priced pretty high compared to some of the competition.
On the other hand, if the price is lower than a supposed competitor that's foreign, the complaining starts about how they should have put more into it. Or it's too cheap, just look at the list price.
No matter what GM does, there are certain folks posting complaining about it.
If I was GM, I'd put an aggressive price on some key improved vehicles and come right out and say we had problems in the past, we've fixed those and we're inviting you to try one out... and we're proving it with a price lower than the competition. So come back and give us another chance, all you can do is save yourself some bucks!
claiming that you know of a few GM vehicles made after 2000 that had major problems is the basis you use to discount the quality of tens of millions of great vehicles GM has sold since then? Who couldn't say that about any brand? Since you specifically had a major problem that makes GM an order of magnitude worse? My neighbor had his Oddysey towed away recently. I haven't had a GM of mine towed since about 1995. Now that JD Power shows most GM brands above average lets never again use JD Power as a judge?
I don't like the apology tactic. Seems like GM or Chrysler tried that before. That's looking back. It's time now to get new product to the dealers and sell cars and trucks. Compare them to the competition. And go for profitability, not quantity.
But when they go for this high sticker price profitabilty they just seem to end up back in the cycle of fleet sales giving the more profitable retail sales to Ford and the Asians. I don't think there are those many people willing to pay top dollar for a GM or Chrysler product right now.
I'd be one of the first to DEFEND GM if someone complained that if GM lowered prices their prices would be TOO LOW. I can't see complaining that prices are too low as ever being a legitimate complaint unless it is substantiated with decontenting or some other reason to complain about a price being too low.
If Audi or BMW lowered all of their prices 50% overnight I might be on the showroom floor the next morning. If they lowered their prices 90% I'd be first in line at 5:00 am. The price can't be too low unless there's some "reason" behind it (like shoddy quality issues or decontenting).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm not going to seriously consider a Malibu if it cost as much or more than a similar Accord, Altima, Camry, etc. It may be a perfectly fine car, but it doesn't have as strong of a recent quality history and tends to depreciate faster accordingly
Thinking your statement is more rant than truth, I just checked and a 2010 4 cyl 5 spd auto Accord will depreciate $8110 in next 5 years and a 2010 4 cyl 6 spd auto Malibu will depreciate $6850 in the next 5 years. Kinda debunks your post that Honda's depreciate less because they are higher quality.
Why is is that everyone thinks that everyone should only consider the J3? As though no other car company need bother to exist. Lucky there are other companies left to choose from. I don't know how, but there are enough unenlightened among us that there just are.
Mid 12's for a 6 yr old basic Accord with 90k miles on it and no warranty? That's the 'from' price according to Edmunds TCO. The Malibu is in the 8's after the $6850 predicted drop. I bought my Riviera with that time and miles on it. Leather, supercharged, sunroof. I doubt I'd pay about $5k more for a base cloth Accord with same miles and age. Edmunds has that pegged as the starting price. I think depreciation will be even more than the $8110 TCO has for the base Accord. I only paid a few thousand more for a new car with a 100,000 mile warranty than I should give for a 90,000 mile Accord with fewer gears in the tranny?
3 year reliability has little or nothing to do with long term reliability
Take a look this Consumer Report chart: car aging
At 3 year mark, GM has twice the problems as Toyota. At 10 year mark, GM still has twice the problems as Toyota. Most of the curves are straight lines from the (0,0) point; the only semi-significant deviation is Nissan.
This chart shows the reliability over time (or aging) curve is linear; thus a study at 3 years should reveal the same relationship among the automakers as at 6 year, 10 years or any other periods. Thus JD Power's study at 3 years is valid.
Is Honda still that far behind that they are using only a 5-speed automatic instead of offering a 6-speed like other good car companies do!
I remember years back when Honda folks were whining that GM only had a 4-speed and was behind the times!!! Heee heeee.
They need to get into the 21st century. I do recall they've had many problems with automatics and still have them in their Odyssey. Maybe they can't afford to update?
If anything, I think that chart shows that in the overall scheme of things, cars are pretty reliable. The way I read it, there's a 70% chance that your 10 year old Honda has had a problem in that year. While there's a 100% chance your 10 year old GM car had one problem, and about a 48% chance that it had another.
However, that chart doesn't mention what type of problem. Are they major problems or small ones? I can think of a lot more than 1.48 problems that my 2000 Park Ave has had in the past year. Fortunately, it's been minor things. Sway bar bushing breaking and needing to be replaced, the switch to one of the map lights in back breaking, rear window defroster failing, the passenger seat losing part of it's up/down range of motion, and the power window in the front passenger door starting to bind up.
Now I'm not happy that any of those problems has happened. But I'd rather have those five problems, rather than one major problem like a chewed-up transmission, failed computer, blown engine, and so on.
On the subject of transmission gears, I've heard some complaining about GM's 6-speed automatic, although I can't recall what the complaints were. I think they were mainly performance-related. However, here's what Car and Driver had to say about the 6-speed, 4-cyl Malibu...
"The six-speed does three things. It improves the four-cylinder’s fuel consumption marginally from an EPA city/highway rating of 22/30 mpg to 22/32 mpg. It helps shave 0.7 second off the 0-to-60-mph time, 2.7 off the 0 to 100, and 0.4 off the quarter-mile. And using the manual mode and the paddles, it’s a sportier drive. We’d be sure to get it because it makes the four-cylinder Malibu a much better car to drive. "
They listed 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec, so that would put the 4-speed at 9.4. And 1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph, whereas the 4-speed would've been 17.1 seconds? 0-100 was 25.2 seconds, so the 4-speed would've been 27.9.
One negative they did say was "Slow, lazy trans kick downs. The 30-50, 50-70 times would be quicker if the trans had more bite." 30-50 was 4.2 seconds, and 50-70 was 6.6.
You pretty much twisted what I said and I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you b/c your entitled to your opinion that GM has made tens of millions of great products but I can completely disagree. This is not just from my own personal experience, considering I was with them for almost 35 years and had consistent problem after problem model, but from multiple family members and friends who all had multiple GM products with problems. So in actuality, I had a dozen and half GM products over the years that had problems, that's a lot more than just having 1 or 2 vehicles from them with problems. The last two fell apart even before the warranty expired and CR long term reliability history charts are pretty consistent with the experience I had.
I never said JD Power can never be used as a judge, in fact, I use them specifically for customer service, brand service, etc which is pretty accurate. What I don't find accurate or convincing is any of their dependability, reliability, or initial quality studies which only test the first 3 years of any vehicle they have. All cars in their pristine condition and working order at that point and tells me nothing about the "LONG TERM" reliability of that product. If I'm going to spend that kind of money on a car, I want to know how its going to last for the long term, not the first 3 years. Why do you think so many non-car enthusiast people use CR as their primary source when buying a vehicle, b/c they have a much better accuracy when they recommend or don't recommend a particular model in their long term reliability charts. Nothing is fool proof though. The best bet is to take your own personal experience and use that as the judge.
What I find comical though is that your sitting here criticizing me b/c only a few dozen GM vehicles I know after the 2002's were bad and that I'm discounting the quality of all the other vehicles but that can be thrown right back at you in that your here basing a few dozen GM vehicles that you know of that were great for you and others you know but completely discounting the quality issues that tens of millions of others have with GM products
Chevrolet is so far behind that they are still using only a 4-spd automatic :surprise: in the Impala. They should start offering a 6-spd auto in it like other good car companies do.
They need to get into the 21st century and have a flagship sedan that is really worth a damn. Maybe they can't afford to update?
FYI! Honda has not had any major transmission troubles since pre 2004 so let's keep that information accurate!
2003: GM releases a print ad apologizing for how badly they suck (no, seriously). ”Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world, twenty years ago, it wasn’t. The hard part [was] breaking out of our own bureaucratic gridlock, learning some humbling lessons from our competitors.”
...
2008: Remember that apology from 2003? GM is hoping you don’t remember it because they’re using it again: “While we’re still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster.”
So basically if you’ve bought a GM car in the past 25 years, they’re really sorry you wasted your money but they’ll do better next time, they promise. Do they really deserve a “next time”?
Chevrolet is so far behind that they are still using only a 4-spd automatic in the Impala. They should start offering a 6-spd auto in it like other good car companies do.
I agree, that they should do this, but at this point, I think the Impala mainly sells to fleet buyers, and the private buyers who want them simply want a large-ish car for not a lot of money.
The Impala is supposed to be Chevy's top sedan, but the Malibu is more modern, better equipped, and in most regards, more car for the money. That's the problem with having too many models, and not keeping them up to date. Sometimes what should be your lesser model ends up being the better choice!
The Impala was last restyled in 2006, but dates back to 2000. And even then, it wasn't all-new. I'm not fully convinced that the 2008 Malibu was all-new either, as there was the Saturn Aura before it, and the older Malibu Maxx and Pontiac G6 have the same 112.3" wheelbase. However, I think GM has put a LOT more effort into the Malibu over the years than they did the Impala.
They need to get into the 21st century and have a flagship sedan that is really worth a damn. Maybe they can't afford to update?
I wonder how hard it would be for GM to put the 3.6 DOHC and 6-speed automatic in the Impala? They used to offer the 3.6 in the W-body LaCrosse from 2005-2008, but only with a 4-speed. My guess is that since the current Impala is on its way out, they just figure why bother. Those who buy them are going to buy them regardless of what engine they have, so why do anything that would jack up production costs?
Any more news about the G8 coming back as a Caprice? If the old G8 is any indication, a Caprice based upon it would be a worthy top-of-the-line Chevrolet. I spent a week in a rental Impala and it came across as a cut-rate version of a low-end 2005 Buick LaCrosse. It is long-in-the-tooth and definitely outdated compared to the Malibu. I do agree with the part of wanting a largish car for not a lot of money - sort of the philosophy espoused by the Grand Marquis. I wouldn't want it to have a six-speed transmission because I don't feel like putting my mechanic's kids through Harvard when it fails.
Thinking your statement is more rant than truth, I just checked and a 2010 4 cyl 5 spd auto Accord will depreciate $8110 in next 5 years and a 2010 4 cyl 6 spd auto Malibu will depreciate $6850 in the next 5 years. Kinda debunks your post that Honda's depreciate less because they are higher quality.
In the past decade I've bought both J3 and D3. My personal experience was more trips to the service department with the domestics. I've yet to see any publication or financial data showing Chevy has a lower depreciation percentage than Honda on a comparable model. You have to be careful in these analyses that the starting price is at least close to the same before applying the precentage. A much cheaper car with a higher depreciation percentage rate bought at high interest rates can yield less out of pocket dollars over 5 years, but it isn't really the same vehicle it is being compared against. If you take this approach, a BMW cost even more. Now, if you're talking buying used vehicles there may be some merit to this because a decent used domestic will likely sell much more cheaply and most of the newer models like Malibu will probably still give decent service and reliability. Peronally, I don't think a lot of used Honda and Toyota's are a good buyer's value.
But that's really not my point. The Malibu I recently rented drove nice and had better seats than my Camry. The Camry has a bit more usable interior and trunk room. On the surface I found them fairly comparable. However, at the auto show a similarly equipped Malibu LT had a sticker almost $1.5K higher than a Camry LE. Ironically, the Buick LaCrosse is taking a succesful value approach to near luxury much like Lexus did against the German's when it first entered the market. But Chevy seems to have gotten somewhat pricey vice its competition. Here's what I see in the ads: A well equipped Toyota Highlander 4X4 with leather out the door under $32K before TTL - cheaper than a leather interior Traverse. A Camry LE out the door at a little over $19K - cheaper than a comparable Malibu. Leather Honda CRV-EXL cheaper than a leather Equinox, etc. Personally, I think this pricing is holding Chevy potential back and if you look at the stats, Chevy isn't doing nearly as well as Buick in market share gain.
Now if you're going to buy primarily based on best warranty and number of auto tranny gears, then you might want to look at the Koreans.
I wouldn't want it to have a six-speed transmission because I don't feel like putting my mechanic's kids through Harvard when it fails.
In my experience, owning a domestic means accepting many visits to a mechanic. I have a feeling I'll be finding out how much a 6speed will cost to rebuild/replace. The 6 speed in my Expedition has started to act flaky. Weird shifting, occasional flaring and slipping during gear changes. At least the 6 speed has made it past 80k miles. The 4 speed in my Suburban only made it to 45k. But the performance difference is enough that I don't want another 4 speed.
I keep hearing how much better domestics are, but I'm not seeing it. My '00 Suburban was flat out horrible and my '07 Expedition certainly hasn't been cheap to maintain, having a variety of issues and my wife's '07 Grand Prix will never win any quality awards either. She should be picking up her '11 Taurus within a week or so, maybe it will be better.
My inlaws bought their first Toyota in '05. A v6 Camry. It has almost 140k w/o any type of problem. Considering my MIL commutes to downtown Chicago every day, it's shockingly tight and rattle free (my wife's GP feels like it has a million miles on it in comparison with all of its squeaks and rattles). My MIL's Camry is still vault tight.
My dad bought his first Honda, an '09 Accord EX-L v6. He has almost 60k on it w/o a single problem. All of my dad's previous domestic cars had some type of problem prior to 60k miles. He did drive his '00 Taurus to 180k w/o any major problems, but it had several small issues and basically died at 180k (I guess that's exceptional for a Taurus).
On the subject of transmission gears, I've heard some complaining about GM's 6-speed automatic, although I can't recall what the complaints were. I think they were mainly performance-related. However, here's what Car and Driver had to say about the 6-speed, 4-cyl Malibu...
The few I've sampled seem overly reluctant to downshift. That's certainly not the 6speed only. My Suburban was the same way. Always had to basically floor the damn thing for a downshift. Drove me nuts.
OTOH, my Expedition has always been quick enough to downshift and it's good at not upshifting to soon when going up grades etc, but one area that it falls short, is down shifting once you've slowed down. Such as slowing down to make a turn. It will still be in 3rd or 4th gear when it should downshift to to 2nd or 3rd. This results in having to wait for a downshift once I've made a turn and want to accelerate again.
I wouldn't want it to have a six-speed transmission because I don't feel like putting my mechanic's kids through Harvard when it fails.
I guess eventually we'll be doomed to 5- and 6-speed transmissions whether we want them or not, as the 4-speed automatic is finally laid to rest, and used cars with them become older and get used up.
But then, I imagine in a decade, there might still be a few old 2010 Lucernes, Crown Vics, and Grand Marquises to choose from! But then, maybe not. The Lucerne doesn't sell as well as the old LeSabre and Park Ave used to, and the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis have been in decline for ages now. So there probably weren't enough 2010's made to ensure a large supply of them still around a decade from now.
I guess eventually we'll be doomed to 5- and 6-speed transmissions whether we want them or not, as the 4-speed automatic is finally laid to rest, and used cars with them become older and get used up.
Is a 5 or 6 speed really less reliable than a 4 speed? I'm sure we all can think of lousy 4 speed transmissions over the years. No doubt the 5 and 6 speeds will cost more to fix but so are other parts of the car. Direct injection for instance. I imagine a high pressure injection pump for DI will make the $700 I spent to replace the fuel pump in my Suburban look like pocket change. The injection pump alone will likely be far more than $700.
Is a 5 or 6 speed really less reliable than a 4 speed? I'm sure we all can think of lousy 4 speed transmissions over the years.
I don't think they're any less reliable (and yeah, I can think of a 4-speed in particular that I'm not too fond of in my uncle's '97 Silverado!), but I just worry about the cost to repair, which will probably go up exponentially compared to the amount of extra mileage you might get out of even a good one.
I imagine a high pressure injection pump for DI will make the $700 I spent to replace the fuel pump in my Suburban look like pocket change. The injection pump alone will likely be far more than $700.
Yeah, that's a good point about EVERYTHING getting more expensive. I think when the fuel pump went bad on my uncle's '97 Silverado a year or so ago, it was around $900. I think the last time I needed a new fuel pump, it was for my '79 New Yorker. I forget how much the total bill was, as they did a few other minor things on it, but I'm sure the fuel pump was under $100, parts and labor. Now that was back around 2002, so I'm sure it would be more now. I guess they'd charge an hour labor, plus the part, plus all the other incidentals ("rags & grease", disposal fees, etc) and get it up to $150-200 nowadays.
I have a feeling the repair costs on current crop of new cars as they age is going to make just about any older car look like chump change! But, hopefully, the parts won't fail as often.
At 3 year mark, GM has twice the problems as Toyota. At 10 year mark, GM still has twice the problems as Toyota. Most of the curves are straight lines from the (0,0) point; the only semi-significant deviation is Nissan
But there is a massive problem with that chart in that cost of repairs and types of repairs are not also factored in. In the end, it's just about a wash. GM and Ford break more often but usually cost far less to actually fix as especially Toyota and Honda have jumped up to premium levels for replacement parts.
Also, the big one - transmissions. My father just had the automatic in his old Park Avenue rebuilt after 12 years and about 150K miles. The shop owner said that eight out of ten transmissions that he was currently fixing(the place actually rebuilt versus swapped) were Hondas. Honda puts transmissions designed for 4 cylinder vehicles in ones with 6s and they tend to die at around 70-80K miles unless they are driven very carefully.
He fixes whatever is sent to him by the local shops and dealers, but his advice was to not get an import with an automatic as it would break sooner and cost almost twice as much to fix. Basically, Ford and GM make the best transmissions. But their interior and accessories fail more/are significantly worse.(the shop owner's words)
IMO, it's a large enough factor that it gives GM and Ford a slight edge over the imports as it basically makes it all a wash. But being as the fact that a dead transmission in a Camry can run $4K to fix, that one-time amount is incredibly problematic. Net slight edge to GM and Ford.
The days of "just buy a Honda/Toyota/etc" are long over - it's anyone's game now.
I hope you realize that the chart you have shows that the J3 had less problems than GM and Chrysler did per 100 vehicles
Of course I did. Since JD Power only does 3 year study; no one else publish this aging chart; so I had to use Consumer Report's chart to show the linear aging curves.
Do I believe in CR's numbers? No; because they only conduct surveys on their paid readers. This defect in survey method does not affect the curve however because even with biased the survey groups, the trend of aging does not change.
So I used the CR chart to support the linear aging; then the linear aging to support JD Power's 3-year study result good for any year (age) also. Did I make it clear?
But there is a massive problem with that chart in that cost of repairs and types of repairs are not also factored in. In the end, it's just about a wash. GM and Ford break more often but usually cost far less to actually fix as especially Toyota and Honda have jumped up to premium levels for replacement parts.
Totally agree. I've noticed that the American cars tend to have small repairs like belts and hosed; Japanese cars tend to have big repairs like engine etc. My theory is that the American cars use large engines, so the engine runs at low RPMs (2000 or so) at the highway speed thus wearing out slower. Japanese cars use small engine to achieve better mpg; but to make high HP from the small displacement engine, it has to run at higher RPMs (3500) at the highway speed thus wearing out faster.
Like I wrote in the previous post, I don't believe in CR's data either; I just use it to support the linear aging of any cars.
Some people on this board believe that American cars are designed to be good for 3 years and fall apart right after warranty. The chart does not show it at all.
Some people on this board believe that American cars are designed to be good for 3 years and fall apart right after warranty. The chart does not show it at all.
It's not what I believe, it's what I've experienced. Both of the 07 domestics in my driveway started falling apart around 3 years and 60k. Just like every one I've owned prior. You name it, transmissions, fuel pumps, a/c compressors, various electrical items etc. I've had it all by 3 years and 70k miles on various domestic cars I've owned over the past 10-15 years. I've not noticed much difference from the mid 90's to 07 and my sample size is about 10 domestic cars during that time. Number 11 will be in a week or two.
My theory is that the American cars use large engines, so the engine runs at low RPMs (2000 or so) at the highway speed thus wearing out slower. Japanese cars use small engine to achieve better mpg; but to make high HP from the small displacement engine, it has to run at higher RPMs (3500) at the highway speed thus wearing out faster.
I don't really think that's the case anymore. Everyone is using 1.8-2.5L 4cylinders and 3.0-3.7L v6's all with 5 and 6 speed transmissions. I don't think there are to many cars sold today that spin 3k+ rpm at 60mph.
I've only gotten rid of one car due to an engine failure and even that wasn't catastrophic. It was a blown head gasket on an '86 Escort. The car had 110k or so and was in bad shape all around. With most of my cars, it's been everything besides the engine that fell apart or felt like it was going to. I've yet to keep a car much past 100k miles.
I was hoping I could keep my Expedition to 120-150k miles, but it's looking like those miles may be extremely expensive. It's been costing me left and right since it past 60k miles a year ago.
I budget about $150 a year to repair and maintain a GM or Ford car or truck. That includes tires. Some are way under that. My '01 Silverado has just had one battery in 9.7 years. Nothing else. Not even a wiper blade or air filter. I rotated the tires myself maybe twice and chaanged the oil when the flashing yellow message said to. My Malibu is still at zero in month 13.
To talk about problems in 3 years running 176 out of 100 vehicles being bad because it is an average score seems like trying to find anything to hang J3 superiority on. Would I really notice a difference in vehicle maint and repair costs these days? Fuel, ins, deprec, interest, and taxes are all bigger factors each by themselves to anyone who actually adds it all up.
Also, the big one - transmissions. My father just had the automatic in his old Park Avenue rebuilt after 12 years and about 150K miles.
Do you know how much that transmission rebuild cost? My Park Ave is approaching the 12 year mark, but I'm only at 69,000 miles. I asked the owner of the local transmission shop, out of curiosity, when I had my Silverado in for a servicing last year, and he said it would probably run around $1800. Not too hideous IMO, but it does kinda make me a bit envious of the old 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatics and Torqueflites that were only around $650-700 to rebuild.
I budget about $150 a year to repair and maintain a GM or Ford car or truck.
LOL, If that's all I budgeted for repairs, I'd be walking. My 07 Expedition is upwards of $1,500 in repairs since it hit 60k miles last year. Spark plug fiasco and coil pack $900, HVAC module $400, and recently a drivers window motor and actuator $470. That doesn't include a brakes all around and a set of Michelin LTX tires at 70k that ran about $1,500. But that's normal stuff.
I spent nearly $6k keeping my Suburban on the road from 45-90k miles. That doesn't include routine maintenance. To many things failed on that POS to type up.
My wife's grand prix hasn't had any mechanical failures yet. She has 83k miles on it and the power steering pump is making horribly loud moans and groans. It gets turned in within the next few weeks for a '11 Taurus. That may be her best fleet car yet.
Since 01, she's had a continual flow of lousy throw away cars. One 01 Impala (crap), an 03 and 04 Taurus (double crap), 06 Ford 500 (not bad, great compared to the previous garbage), 07 Grand Prix (words can't describe how much we hate this car), 2011 Taurus (?) looks good on paper anyway.
The earlier cars she didn't keep much past 40k, the Impala had the usual GM BS. Intermediate Steering Shaft and engine cradle issues and a bad oil pressure sensor, but it was gone by 40k. The two Tauruses were 100% reliable but that Vulcan 3.0 v6 was weak by even 4cyl standards and they were 100% undesirable cars. The 500 was ok. The GP is simply horrible to drive and ride in. NVH is horrible, and fit-n-finish is embarrassingly bad. I'd expect more from Kia. But it has been reliable. I don't know what's up with the power steering. It's making all kinds of noise, but it just needs to last another week.
Do you know how much that transmission rebuild cost?
I'd guess $1,800 would be about the minimum. That's what I paid at an independent shop to rebuild the trans in my Suburban. The dealer wanted over $3k.
I'm sorry if you don't believe CR's numbers then you can't use their chart to support your assumption. That's hypocritical. If there chart is legitimate in your eyes then their data must be as well since that is where they got the information from, duh.
Unfortunately our own person experiences would beg to differ, that might have changed since the restructuring, no way to know since its only been 2 years since the company and products have been revamped.
Wait till we get another 4-5 years from now and then will have data to look at. Jumping the gun way too early.
In trying to think of the ingrained defects in my GM cars and trucks and if they cost me lots of money to fix I can't come up with much. The only Ford I bought has rust now after just 13 years of being parked outside in the rust belt and is noisy to me after being spoiled by the Riv and the Silverado. The Astro needed a simple tranny sleeve kit at 48k. A little over $200 to have that done but they included 5 new sensors and solenoids and a complete fluid flush, filter, and conditioner. Trans has been trouble free since and at 131k now. A poor GM design decision made in 1996 to shave a few bucks and ounces from the tranny. My Cutlass Ciera went through water pumps every 60k but I got the second one free which saved me $13. They probably failed because they were $13 pumps. The 2.8's I had both leaked oil but they were designed around 1981 and the Camaro got 135k out of the original clutch. All 3 4.3's lost a water pump by 80k but never lost the replacement one. The NAPA one I put in the '98 Astro was $70. The Astros need front brake pads every 35k but they run $11 a set . The Buick has expensive taste. It eats mass air flow sensors. The orig went out at 135k and now the rebuilt one went at 180k. This time I got a lifetime warranted rebuilt by Borg Warner for $115. Riv lost starter/solenoid at 165k and Astro lost a rr a/c line at 80k, which at $325 was the most expensive repair I ever did on a GM vehicle I bought new. I just bought new serp belts for the "98 and '99 4.3's for less than $5 each. I am rarely outraged at the price of parts for my GM's.
Comments
Not true. GM's market share is trending up. 19.8% in 2009, 19.1% in 2010 with 3 less brands and as of Feb. 2011 20.7%
By the way one of my mechanic's customers has a 2002 Kia Optima,
(basically a Sonata) whose entire front end fell apart while driving at highway speeds. He hit a guardrail. The front subframe was completely rusted through. This is a huge problem with early to middle 2000's Kias and Hyundais.
There is a reason these cars are so light. The steel is too thin for even a 10 year durability, much like the Toyota truck frames.
This problem affects domestic brands as well. The Ford Windstar rear axle
recall comes to mind, but generally the components are beefier in comparison to foreign models and is the main reason domestics weigh more for the same size car. I think this problem will negatively affect Hyundai's currently improving reputation in the future.
(basically a Sonata) whose entire front end fell apart ... The front subframe was completely rusted through. This is a huge problem with early to middle 2000's Kias and Hyundais.
>There is a reason these cars are so light. The steel is too thin for even a 10 year durability, much like the Toyota truck frames.
Some in another discussion were complaining because the Cruze weighed more than what they felt was the weight of the competitive foreign models! I'll take heftier parts over the thin metal of some of the others.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now that we have 10.9% unemployment in our state we all need to consider Hundai?
Edmunds review of a rickety clackety Rattley recent model CTS's doesn't do much convincing for me of American quality improving.
The only thing that has seemed to REALLY truly improve is the marketing campain which is simply reiterated every decade or two. Something like this "Sorry for the poor quality before, but were newer, different, and better than before, so trust us now."
They just reiterate that in different ways over and over and over again. I think the Thesauraus is running out of options at GM and Chrysler though, so I hope for their sakes they aren't lying for the 10th time and quality really has improved for the LONG term.
I think they really are improving, although they do have problems here and there. But unfortunately, that marketing does work. I have a friend who was telling me I should buy a Chrysler 200. A friend who doesn't even LIKE Chrysler...he's more of a Ford guy.
But, he's originally from Detroit, and evidently he's falling for those "Chrysler 200: Imported from Detroit" commercials.
That being said, I think the 200 is an improvement over the Sebring it's so obviously a restyle of. Better V-6 engine, nicer looking front-end, and I hear the interior's improved, as well. But it's still not enough to get me to buy one. I think I'd trust a Charger or 300 though. Or a Ram.
As for GM, I'd trust most of their vehicles, but they just don't have anything that really excites me right now.
You just hope that Caddy doesn't start using "the Caddy that zigs" again....
Sheesh, I'll give you that some stinkers got turned out by GM less than 20 or 30 years ago, but I think you're swinging the reality pendulum way the other way by saying '2 or 3 years ago'.
It's certainly not statistical, but I had a Camry rental car in Minneapolis a few weeks ago that had 15.9K miles. The car clearly needed control arm bushings by the front end noise on every bump, and on my last day of rental the check engine and traction control lights came on...and stayed on. I expected an ephiphany by renting one.
Also, on an old car forum I frequent, a poster is calmly mentioning his 2005 Honda Pilot that won't start...and it's not the battery...just plain dead. If it were a Big Three, there'd be howls of 'junk' about it. As a Honda, there's virtually no comments about it. My '05 Chevy van, considered the worst of GM, has never failed to start and run in 91K miles.
Do you still have that Uplander? I was under the impression that they were actually fairly reliable, but just outclassed in other respects, like handing, interior room, acceleration, fuel economy, ergonomics (subjective), ans so on.
my impression of them was that they're not so hot as new vehicles unless you get one heck of a deal, but as used cars, they're a bargain.
I know the old Venture, TransPort, and Silouette did really bad in crash testing, but IIRC, the Uplander and its clones did really well, which considering they weren't an all-new design, should count for something.
On the other hand, if the price is lower than a supposed competitor that's foreign, the complaining starts about how they should have put more into it. Or it's too cheap, just look at the list price.
No matter what GM does, there are certain folks posting complaining about it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If Audi or BMW lowered all of their prices 50% overnight I might be on the showroom floor the next morning. If they lowered their prices 90% I'd be first in line at 5:00 am. The price can't be too low unless there's some "reason" behind it (like shoddy quality issues or decontenting).
Thinking your statement is more rant than truth, I just checked and a 2010 4 cyl 5 spd auto Accord will depreciate $8110 in next 5 years and a 2010 4 cyl 6 spd auto Malibu will depreciate $6850 in the next 5 years. Kinda debunks your post that Honda's depreciate less because they are higher quality.
Why is is that everyone thinks that everyone should only consider the J3? As though no other car company need bother to exist. Lucky there are other companies left to choose from. I don't know how, but there are enough unenlightened among us that there just are.
Mid 12's for a 6 yr old basic Accord with 90k miles on it and no warranty? That's the 'from' price according to Edmunds TCO. The Malibu is in the 8's after the $6850 predicted drop. I bought my Riviera with that time and miles on it. Leather, supercharged, sunroof. I doubt I'd pay about $5k more for a base cloth Accord with same miles and age. Edmunds has that pegged as the starting price. I think depreciation will be even more than the $8110 TCO has for the base Accord. I only paid a few thousand more for a new car with a 100,000 mile warranty than I should give for a 90,000 mile Accord with fewer gears in the tranny?
Take a look this Consumer Report chart: car aging
At 3 year mark, GM has twice the problems as Toyota. At 10 year mark, GM still has twice the problems as Toyota. Most of the curves are straight lines from the (0,0) point; the only semi-significant deviation is Nissan.
This chart shows the reliability over time (or aging) curve is linear; thus a study at 3 years should reveal the same relationship among the automakers as at 6 year, 10 years or any other periods. Thus JD Power's study at 3 years is valid.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CIeOCq3yUyE/THXkK9larkI/AAAAAAAAEVQ/Nc7FiobjHvE/s1600/- - car+reliability+(consumer+reports)+2008.jpg
Is Honda still that far behind that they are using only a 5-speed automatic instead of offering a 6-speed like other good car companies do!
I remember years back when Honda folks were whining that GM only had a 4-speed and was behind the times!!! Heee heeee.
They need to get into the 21st century. I do recall they've had many problems with automatics and still have them in their Odyssey. Maybe they can't afford to update?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
However, that chart doesn't mention what type of problem. Are they major problems or small ones? I can think of a lot more than 1.48 problems that my 2000 Park Ave has had in the past year. Fortunately, it's been minor things. Sway bar bushing breaking and needing to be replaced, the switch to one of the map lights in back breaking, rear window defroster failing, the passenger seat losing part of it's up/down range of motion, and the power window in the front passenger door starting to bind up.
Now I'm not happy that any of those problems has happened. But I'd rather have those five problems, rather than one major problem like a chewed-up transmission, failed computer, blown engine, and so on.
On the subject of transmission gears, I've heard some complaining about GM's 6-speed automatic, although I can't recall what the complaints were. I think they were mainly performance-related. However, here's what Car and Driver had to say about the 6-speed, 4-cyl Malibu...
"The six-speed does three things. It improves the four-cylinder’s fuel consumption marginally from an EPA city/highway rating of 22/30 mpg to 22/32 mpg. It helps shave 0.7 second off the 0-to-60-mph time, 2.7 off the 0 to 100, and 0.4 off the quarter-mile. And using the manual mode and the paddles, it’s a sportier drive. We’d be sure to get it because it makes the four-cylinder Malibu a much better car to drive. "
They listed 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec, so that would put the 4-speed at 9.4. And
1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph, whereas the 4-speed would've been 17.1 seconds? 0-100 was 25.2 seconds, so the 4-speed would've been 27.9.
One negative they did say was "Slow, lazy trans kick downs. The 30-50, 50-70 times would be quicker if the trans had more bite."
30-50 was 4.2 seconds, and 50-70 was 6.6.
Here's their url: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q4/2008_chevrolet_malibu_ltz-quick_tak- e
I never said JD Power can never be used as a judge, in fact, I use them specifically for customer service, brand service, etc which is pretty accurate. What I don't find accurate or convincing is any of their dependability, reliability, or initial quality studies which only test the first 3 years of any vehicle they have. All cars in their pristine condition and working order at that point and tells me nothing about the "LONG TERM" reliability of that product. If I'm going to spend that kind of money on a car, I want to know how its going to last for the long term, not the first 3 years. Why do you think so many non-car enthusiast people use CR as their primary source when buying a vehicle, b/c they have a much better accuracy when they recommend or don't recommend a particular model in their long term reliability charts. Nothing is fool proof though. The best bet is to take your own personal experience and use that as the judge.
What I find comical though is that your sitting here criticizing me b/c only a few dozen GM vehicles I know after the 2002's were bad and that I'm discounting the quality of all the other vehicles but that can be thrown right back at you in that your here basing a few dozen GM vehicles that you know of that were great for you and others you know but completely discounting the quality issues that tens of millions of others have with GM products
They need to get into the 21st century and have a flagship sedan that is really worth a damn. Maybe they can't afford to update?
FYI! Honda has not had any major transmission troubles since pre 2004 so let's keep that information accurate!
So did Government Motors in 2004 and again in 2009 right before filing for CH11.
You may or may not be aware that GM is now apologizing for their lack of quality over the years through two-page spreads in major newspapers around the US and on their website.
You can read about their "Road to Redemption" here: http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm
2003: GM releases a print ad apologizing for how badly they suck (no, seriously). ”Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world, twenty years ago, it wasn’t. The hard part [was] breaking out of our own bureaucratic gridlock, learning some humbling lessons from our competitors.”
...
2008: Remember that apology from 2003? GM is hoping you don’t remember it because they’re using it again: “While we’re still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster.”
So basically if you’ve bought a GM car in the past 25 years, they’re really sorry you wasted your money but they’ll do better next time, they promise. Do they really deserve a “next time”?
I agree, that they should do this, but at this point, I think the Impala mainly sells to fleet buyers, and the private buyers who want them simply want a large-ish car for not a lot of money.
The Impala is supposed to be Chevy's top sedan, but the Malibu is more modern, better equipped, and in most regards, more car for the money. That's the problem with having too many models, and not keeping them up to date. Sometimes what should be your lesser model ends up being the better choice!
The Impala was last restyled in 2006, but dates back to 2000. And even then, it wasn't all-new. I'm not fully convinced that the 2008 Malibu was all-new either, as there was the Saturn Aura before it, and the older Malibu Maxx and Pontiac G6 have the same 112.3" wheelbase. However, I think GM has put a LOT more effort into the Malibu over the years than they did the Impala.
They need to get into the 21st century and have a flagship sedan that is really worth a damn. Maybe they can't afford to update?
I wonder how hard it would be for GM to put the 3.6 DOHC and 6-speed automatic in the Impala? They used to offer the 3.6 in the W-body LaCrosse from 2005-2008, but only with a 4-speed. My guess is that since the current Impala is on its way out, they just figure why bother. Those who buy them are going to buy them regardless of what engine they have, so why do anything that would jack up production costs?
In the past decade I've bought both J3 and D3. My personal experience was more trips to the service department with the domestics. I've yet to see any publication or financial data showing Chevy has a lower depreciation percentage than Honda on a comparable model. You have to be careful in these analyses that the starting price is at least close to the same before applying the precentage. A much cheaper car with a higher depreciation percentage rate bought at high interest rates can yield less out of pocket dollars over 5 years, but it isn't really the same vehicle it is being compared against. If you take this approach, a BMW cost even more. Now, if you're talking buying used vehicles there may be some merit to this because a decent used domestic will likely sell much more cheaply and most of the newer models like Malibu will probably still give decent service and reliability. Peronally, I don't think a lot of used Honda and Toyota's are a good buyer's value.
But that's really not my point. The Malibu I recently rented drove nice and had better seats than my Camry. The Camry has a bit more usable interior and trunk room. On the surface I found them fairly comparable. However, at the auto show a similarly equipped Malibu LT had a sticker almost $1.5K higher than a Camry LE. Ironically, the Buick LaCrosse is taking a succesful value approach to near luxury much like Lexus did against the German's when it first entered the market. But Chevy seems to have gotten somewhat pricey vice its competition. Here's what I see in the ads: A well equipped Toyota Highlander 4X4 with leather out the door under $32K before TTL - cheaper than a leather interior Traverse. A Camry LE out the door at a little over $19K - cheaper than a comparable Malibu. Leather Honda CRV-EXL cheaper than a leather Equinox, etc. Personally, I think this pricing is holding Chevy potential back and if you look at the stats, Chevy isn't doing nearly as well as Buick in market share gain.
Now if you're going to buy primarily based on best warranty and number of auto tranny gears, then you might want to look at the Koreans.
In my experience, owning a domestic means accepting many visits to a mechanic. I have a feeling I'll be finding out how much a 6speed will cost to rebuild/replace. The 6 speed in my Expedition has started to act flaky. Weird shifting, occasional flaring and slipping during gear changes. At least the 6 speed has made it past 80k miles. The 4 speed in my Suburban only made it to 45k. But the performance difference is enough that I don't want another 4 speed.
I keep hearing how much better domestics are, but I'm not seeing it. My '00 Suburban was flat out horrible and my '07 Expedition certainly hasn't been cheap to maintain, having a variety of issues and my wife's
'07 Grand Prix will never win any quality awards either. She should be picking up her '11 Taurus within a week or so, maybe it will be better.
My inlaws bought their first Toyota in '05. A v6 Camry. It has almost 140k w/o any type of problem. Considering my MIL commutes to downtown Chicago every day, it's shockingly tight and rattle free (my wife's GP feels like it has a million miles on it in comparison with all of its squeaks and rattles). My MIL's Camry is still vault tight.
My dad bought his first Honda, an '09 Accord EX-L v6. He has almost 60k on it w/o a single problem. All of my dad's previous domestic cars had some type of problem prior to 60k miles. He did drive his '00 Taurus to 180k w/o any major problems, but it had several small issues and basically died at 180k (I guess that's exceptional for a Taurus).
The few I've sampled seem overly reluctant to downshift. That's certainly not the 6speed only. My Suburban was the same way. Always had to basically floor the damn thing for a downshift. Drove me nuts.
OTOH, my Expedition has always been quick enough to downshift and it's good at not upshifting to soon when going up grades etc, but one area that it falls short, is down shifting once you've slowed down. Such as slowing down to make a turn. It will still be in 3rd or 4th gear when it should downshift to to 2nd or 3rd. This results in having to wait for a downshift once I've made a turn and want to accelerate again.
I guess eventually we'll be doomed to 5- and 6-speed transmissions whether we want them or not, as the 4-speed automatic is finally laid to rest, and used cars with them become older and get used up.
But then, I imagine in a decade, there might still be a few old 2010 Lucernes, Crown Vics, and Grand Marquises to choose from! But then, maybe not. The Lucerne doesn't sell as well as the old LeSabre and Park Ave used to, and the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis have been in decline for ages now. So there probably weren't enough 2010's made to ensure a large supply of them still around a decade from now.
Is a 5 or 6 speed really less reliable than a 4 speed? I'm sure we all can think of lousy 4 speed transmissions over the years. No doubt the 5 and 6 speeds will cost more to fix but so are other parts of the car. Direct injection for instance. I imagine a high pressure injection pump for DI will make the $700 I spent to replace the fuel pump in my Suburban look like pocket change. The injection pump alone will likely be far more than $700.
I don't think they're any less reliable (and yeah, I can think of a 4-speed in particular that I'm not too fond of in my uncle's '97 Silverado!), but I just worry about the cost to repair, which will probably go up exponentially compared to the amount of extra mileage you might get out of even a good one.
I imagine a high pressure injection pump for DI will make the $700 I spent to replace the fuel pump in my Suburban look like pocket change. The injection pump alone will likely be far more than $700.
Yeah, that's a good point about EVERYTHING getting more expensive. I think when the fuel pump went bad on my uncle's '97 Silverado a year or so ago, it was around $900. I think the last time I needed a new fuel pump, it was for my '79 New Yorker. I forget how much the total bill was, as they did a few other minor things on it, but I'm sure the fuel pump was under $100, parts and labor. Now that was back around 2002, so I'm sure it would be more now. I guess they'd charge an hour labor, plus the part, plus all the other incidentals ("rags & grease", disposal fees, etc) and get it up to $150-200 nowadays.
I have a feeling the repair costs on current crop of new cars as they age is going to make just about any older car look like chump change! But, hopefully, the parts won't fail as often.
But there is a massive problem with that chart in that cost of repairs and types of repairs are not also factored in. In the end, it's just about a wash. GM and Ford break more often but usually cost far less to actually fix as especially Toyota and Honda have jumped up to premium levels for replacement parts.
Also, the big one - transmissions. My father just had the automatic in his old Park Avenue rebuilt after 12 years and about 150K miles. The shop owner said that eight out of ten transmissions that he was currently fixing(the place actually rebuilt versus swapped) were Hondas. Honda puts transmissions designed for 4 cylinder vehicles in ones with 6s and they tend to die at around 70-80K miles unless they are driven very carefully.
He fixes whatever is sent to him by the local shops and dealers, but his advice was to not get an import with an automatic as it would break sooner and cost almost twice as much to fix. Basically, Ford and GM make the best transmissions. But their interior and accessories fail more/are significantly worse.(the shop owner's words)
IMO, it's a large enough factor that it gives GM and Ford a slight edge over the imports as it basically makes it all a wash. But being as the fact that a dead transmission in a Camry can run $4K to fix, that one-time amount is incredibly problematic. Net slight edge to GM and Ford.
The days of "just buy a Honda/Toyota/etc" are long over - it's anyone's game now.
Of course I did. Since JD Power only does 3 year study; no one else publish this aging chart; so I had to use Consumer Report's chart to show the linear aging curves.
Do I believe in CR's numbers? No; because they only conduct surveys on their paid readers. This defect in survey method does not affect the curve however because even with biased the survey groups, the trend of aging does not change.
So I used the CR chart to support the linear aging; then the linear aging to support JD Power's 3-year study result good for any year (age) also. Did I make it clear?
Totally agree. I've noticed that the American cars tend to have small repairs like belts and hosed; Japanese cars tend to have big repairs like engine etc. My theory is that the American cars use large engines, so the engine runs at low RPMs (2000 or so) at the highway speed thus wearing out slower. Japanese cars use small engine to achieve better mpg; but to make high HP from the small displacement engine, it has to run at higher RPMs (3500) at the highway speed thus wearing out faster.
Like I wrote in the previous post, I don't believe in CR's data either; I just use it to support the linear aging of any cars.
Some people on this board believe that American cars are designed to be good for 3 years and fall apart right after warranty. The chart does not show it at all.
It's not what I believe, it's what I've experienced. Both of the 07 domestics in my driveway started falling apart around 3 years and 60k. Just like every one I've owned prior. You name it, transmissions, fuel pumps, a/c compressors, various electrical items etc. I've had it all by 3 years and 70k miles on various domestic cars I've owned over the past 10-15 years. I've not noticed much difference from the mid 90's to 07 and my sample size is about 10 domestic cars during that time. Number 11 will be in a week or two.
My theory is that the American cars use large engines, so the engine runs at low RPMs (2000 or so) at the highway speed thus wearing out slower. Japanese cars use small engine to achieve better mpg; but to make high HP from the small displacement engine, it has to run at higher RPMs (3500) at the highway speed thus wearing out faster.
I don't really think that's the case anymore. Everyone is using 1.8-2.5L 4cylinders and 3.0-3.7L v6's all with 5 and 6 speed transmissions. I don't think there are to many cars sold today that spin 3k+ rpm at 60mph.
I've only gotten rid of one car due to an engine failure and even that wasn't catastrophic. It was a blown head gasket on an '86 Escort. The car had 110k or so and was in bad shape all around. With most of my cars, it's been everything besides the engine that fell apart or felt like it was going to. I've yet to keep a car much past 100k miles.
I was hoping I could keep my Expedition to 120-150k miles, but it's looking like those miles may be extremely expensive. It's been costing me left and right since it past 60k miles a year ago.
To talk about problems in 3 years running 176 out of 100 vehicles being bad because it is an average score seems like trying to find anything to hang J3 superiority on. Would I really notice a difference in vehicle maint and repair costs these days? Fuel, ins, deprec, interest, and taxes are all bigger factors each by themselves to anyone who actually adds it all up.
Do you know how much that transmission rebuild cost? My Park Ave is approaching the 12 year mark, but I'm only at 69,000 miles. I asked the owner of the local transmission shop, out of curiosity, when I had my Silverado in for a servicing last year, and he said it would probably run around $1800. Not too hideous IMO, but it does kinda make me a bit envious of the old 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatics and Torqueflites that were only around $650-700 to rebuild.
LOL, If that's all I budgeted for repairs, I'd be walking. My 07 Expedition is upwards of $1,500 in repairs since it hit 60k miles last year. Spark plug fiasco and coil pack $900, HVAC module $400, and recently a drivers window motor and actuator $470. That doesn't include a brakes all around and a set of Michelin LTX tires at 70k that ran about $1,500. But that's normal stuff.
I spent nearly $6k keeping my Suburban on the road from 45-90k miles. That doesn't include routine maintenance. To many things failed on that POS to type up.
My wife's grand prix hasn't had any mechanical failures yet. She has 83k miles on it and the power steering pump is making horribly loud moans and groans. It gets turned in within the next few weeks for a '11 Taurus. That may be her best fleet car yet.
Since 01, she's had a continual flow of lousy throw away cars. One 01 Impala (crap), an 03 and 04 Taurus (double crap), 06 Ford 500 (not bad, great compared to the previous garbage), 07 Grand Prix (words can't describe how much we hate this car), 2011 Taurus (?) looks good on paper anyway.
The earlier cars she didn't keep much past 40k, the Impala had the usual GM BS. Intermediate Steering Shaft and engine cradle issues and a bad oil pressure sensor, but it was gone by 40k. The two Tauruses were 100% reliable but that Vulcan 3.0 v6 was weak by even 4cyl standards and they were 100% undesirable cars. The 500 was ok. The GP is simply horrible to drive and ride in. NVH is horrible, and fit-n-finish is embarrassingly bad. I'd expect more from Kia. But it has been reliable. I don't know what's up with the power steering. It's making all kinds of noise, but it just needs to last another week.
I'd guess $1,800 would be about the minimum. That's what I paid at an independent shop to rebuild the trans in my Suburban. The dealer wanted over $3k.
Did I make it clear enough?
Wait till we get another 4-5 years from now and then will have data to look at. Jumping the gun way too early.
I used it to counter YOUR assumption. Since you believe in CR, did you see the trend you claimed that GM falls apart in 3 years in the chart I quoted?
That's what I used it for. Pretty clear.