I know what you mean! I've had many visits to the mechanic with my domestic car too - 22 for inspection/emissions for each year I owned it, and many others for when I was too lazy to change my own oil.
Looks like I should keep my rides indefinitely. My first car had a two-speed transmission that would probably survive a nuclear war. Has Chrysler had a decent transmission since the legendary Torqueflite? Why does everything need to be so complex these days and laden with so many features? What is wrong with something that is beautiful in its simplicity? Heck, even Honda used to have the tagline, "We keep it simple."
Shoot, the last time I changed a fuel pump was on my 148K+ mile 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency and I don't think it even cost $100. I ran up to the Pep Boys on Chestnut near 40th Street, came back and installed it in about 1 hour with my car parked in front of my building.
From my experience, American cars are often still running well after 20+ years and I NEVER needed the warranty. They often survive accidents very well too!
I don't care what the chart shows, I can conjuncture up data to support my claims which you'll just dismiss. I have 35 years of GM products that fell apart after 3 years. I don't need any other proof then that!
Plus, your now trying to twist it to say that you were only doing it to disprove my assumption. You admitted that the chart supported your claim that there was a linear relationship but your using CR data which you repeatedly claim is inaccurate and bias, no the chart data must be inaccurate then. You can't have it both ways was my point.
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.
Wow, I swear we live in parallel universes! A burned-out bulb drives me bananas! I sure as heck won't tolerate all that stuff you described. If any of those things failed, it was late in the car's life and at high miles. I lost one transmission in a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis and the car was 9 years-old. Never lost an a/c compressor and the electrical components have been extremely reliable.
Yeah, and I've had 25 years of GM products that lasted 20+ years. I don't need any more proof than that. Why should I go for something else when GM has been so good to me? That would be like leaving a loving loyal wife for some Vegas showgirl, porn star, or stripper. Who's right?
Sadly, I think both of you are ... I suspect that there were some GM models that were well put together, and others that were not.
Everybody has their own experiences to draw from.
My dad bought new a 1970 Chevrolet C-10 ... and he still owns it. Probably not more than 150K on the clock, though the top end of the engine was rebuilt just before 100K.
OTOH, I had a '79 Pontiac Sunbird with the 2.5L "Iron Duke" engine. Bought it in the spring of '82 with less than 12K, drove it for about 2.5 years and 40K. Continually had trouble with it - heater core, transmission (it was a stick), problems starting in hot weather.
Lately, I've owned a string of Saturns - '03 L300, '05 and '08 VUEs, '06 ION. Mixed bag in terms of reliability.
Would I buy another GM? Probably, if they made something I liked. Perhaps a Cruze hatchback?
LOL, If that's all I budgeted for repairs, I'd be walking.
Yeah, tell me about it! I just added up the expenses I've incurred with my 2000 Park Ave after I bought it, and come up with $513.12, over the course of 15 months and about 13,000 miles.
And other than having the supercharger oil and swaybar links replaced, I haven't had much done other than oil changes, a tire rotation, emissions test, and a few really thorough lookings-over by the mechanic.
Now, I've only had to put about $177 into my '85 Silverado over the past year, but it's only been driven about 3,000 miles in that time, so that's not really a point of reference!
Sadly, I think both of you are ... I suspect that there were some GM models that were well put together, and others that were not.
That's it, exactly. Even though overall reliability has improved over the years, those reliability statistics are still merely averages of data points that could be all over the map. It's hard sometimes to draw just on personal experience, because everybody's personal experience might be different.
For example, I remember my Grandmom's '85 LeSabre pretty well. They bought it brand-new, and it never had any serious problems until the late 90's, and around the 144,000 mile mark. Which, incidentally, is when she gave it to me! It pretty much just needed maintenance up to that point, although to be fair, like any car of that era, it needed more frequent maintenance than today's cars. We finally got rid of it at 157,000 miles, when the brakes went out on it. I could have gotten it fixed, but at that point had too many cars and just didn't need it anymore.
In contrast, my 2000 Park Ave only had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it in December of 2009. I don't have any service records, so I have no idea what might have gone wrong with it in the first 10 years of its life. However, in the 13,000 miles I've had it, I've had to replace the swaybar links. Also had the rear window defroster fail, one of the power windows binds up sometimes, the power passenger seat lost some of its range of motion. One of the map light switches in back broke. The fuel gauge will start bouncing back and forth if you let it get too low.
Now, those are all fairly minor things, so I wouldn't call the Park Ave a bad car. However, none of those things EVER failed on Grandmom's old '85 LeSabre! So, IMO at least, just comparing these two cars, the '85 LeSabre was more reliable than the 2000 Park Ave has been so far. With only 69,000 miles on it, my Park Ave is going to have to go at least another 75,000 miles, almost trouble-free, before I'll call it better than that LeSabre was.
However, I'm sure if you look at reliability data, the typical 2000 Park Ave was a more reliable car than the typical 1985 LeSabre. And I imagine the typical 2010 Lucerne or LaCrosse will prove to be a more reliable car than their 2000 equivalents were, when you look at the reliability data.
I didn't say you should leave GM if its been good to you. My experience completely contradicts yours and I'm entitled to my opinion just like everyone else is. If GM almost bankrupted you on constant repair costs you'd be singing a very different tune, trust me.
Very well put. I'm not the type who wishes GM bad harm or for them to do poorly. I think they have begun going in a good direction.
I just use my bad experience with them to illustrate why they had so many problems for over 20 some years with quality and reliability. I was very happy to see them downsize the divisions after bankruptcy.
But to sit here and say that GM was a great company for the last 30 years is absurd. They had widespread reliability and quality issues on many models, poor customer service, depending on the dealership, some of the highest depreciation values in the industry and much too high fleet sales. This was some of the reasons, of many that resulted in them losing profits, and having to declare bankruptcy. Good companies don't have to do that so to say these problems or personal experiences didn't exist is just absurd.
But I give credit where credit is due, since bankruptcy and restructuring, GM in my opinion has made some smart decisions and seems to be making a concerted effort to improve their company and products across the board. Is there still room for improvement, yes, have we been able to see if their long term reliability issues have improve, no, there hasn't been enough time gone by yet, but they are going in the right direction.
I look at it this way, I want them to have competitive products and do well b/c then that puts a lot of pressure on the German, Japanese, and Korean manufacturers to stay on their toes and make their products competitive. In the end, it only can benefit us consumers with more quality choices when we auto shop!
But to sit here and say that GM was a great company for the last 30 years is absurd.
I've not been in the States long enough to experience GM's past 30 years so I cannot comment on it.
I did read a lot of bad comments on GM. That's why I never had any GM cars before.
But I participated several Cadillac test drive events in the mid 2000s which changed my mind. Cadillac setup 5 or 6 test courses, one for each type of cars, eg, one for BMW 5 and similar, one for BMW 3 and similar, one for luxury SUV, one for convertible, one sporty cars. In each test course, they made all major competitor's models available for test drive. That was great; where else can you test drive BMW 5, MB E, Lexus GS and Cadillac STS all in a 60 min period while the memory was fresh and all on the same course?
I applause GM's braveness to do so (because some may think that it's suicide for them to put BMW side by side) and I walked away with a much improved impression on Cadillac. Later I bought 2 and was very satisfied. I had been a BMW guy before this.
So maybe my personal experience is an example of GM's turning around in the past 5 years?
I'm going to another GM test event later this month.
There was a year or two when the '98 Astro had it's wave of problems at 50-70k. At the time I got concerned but over 13 years now, it isn't too far off the $150/yr avg. Even the most expensive repair it ever needed has averaged out to $25 a year. It just got new spark plugs, wires, cap and rotor for first time. They were 31,000 miles overdue. That first ever complete tuneup averaged out to about $15 a year and I had a mechanic do the plugs and wires for $120 with parts I bought but decided it was too hard to get to them. A nice noticable performance improvement but the original plugs were only .005 additional gap after 131k miles. The dist cap had thick oxidation on the terminals. Still has orig belt and the one replacement battery has been in there since '02.
Last year all I did to it was a $22 windshield wiper control circuit board and oil changes. Some years were even less than that.
I've seen two new Cruze's in two days in the parking lot at work. My first look since I rarely go to the dealership. It's a substantial improvement over the Cobalt. Across the street just got a new Sonata.
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.
$1500. But that was from a place that actually did the rebuilding themselves and didn't send the unit out.(hence the $300 or so difference - the auto shop takes its $300-$500 cut). A transmission in a Camry is $3500. About the same as in a Volvo, which is about exactly the same price-wise for parts as Honda and Toyota now.
My 99 Crown Vic has a lot of little things wrong with it - I guess some people would say it was "falling apart". But it's things like it needs new shocks at $30 each and a part for the cruise control for $25 and a new bumper cover for $60 and... ($700 in small parts, none costing over $60).
The difference is, as the mechanic said, that the interiors are superb on the imports and the domestics just fall apart. But ask any truck driver or construction worker why they buy a Chevy or Ford. Because they don't care if the window doesn't roll down or the radio has one speaker that doesn't work if they had to chose. Because time in the shop for major mechanical failures is time they're losing money. Yes, they start to "fall apart" at 3 years(Ford "leather" anyone?), but they still turn on and still get you across town even at 15-20 years old.
Note - to be fair, old Hondas and Toyotas, especially with manuals are similarly indestructible - the difference seems to be roughly stating around 2002-2003.
My next door neighbor had to have his few year old Oddysey flatbedded away a couple months ago. I have 6 D3 vehicles and none has ever been towed.
The rebuilder specifically mentioned that on the test drive. Most Asian and European manufacturers don't use their own automatic transmissions but have them built by smaller companies. This is because most of their home markets are not selling automatics. So his explanation for it is that Honda builds their own automatic and it's fine, but rather than build a whole new model for their V6 engines, they use the same one that is made for the 4 cylinder models.
As he said, "the bands wear 8 thousandths and they're toast. They can't handle the torque and once that happens, you're done."
8 of the 10 transmissions that he was rebuilding that week were from Hondas. He drives a Honda, but it has a manual. What does that tell you? :P
edit - that said, the manual in an Accord or Civic is to die for. Worlds better than anything under $30K.
The TL weighs a lot less that the minivan does, and it doesn't normally carry 4-6 people in it. If you drive gently and are the only person in it usually, it's fine. My guess is that Honda figured that the average was 2 people and that most Japanese don't put high mileage anyways on their cars - and so they didn't change anything.
But when it does go, you're in for some high cost as Honda is the only source for the transmission and they charge a fortune. even for replacement parts. To add insult to injury, many Honda and Toyota FWD models require lifting the engine up to get at the stupid thing.(same with the #$%# oil pan) My guess is that they normally would fit a manual and the last time you replaced a manual(actual gears and so on, not a clutch) was probably never.
When the black dots appear next to GM cars and trucks more than the J3 and the K's, guess which cars break more?
It is one source. Experience is the biggest. Add the 2 and you tend to stay away from the black dotted models.
My 2003 Denali lost he MAP sensor and power steering pump exploded before 36K. Just a another data point. Total cost to own in repair only = $4,000 and counting. Add the air bag sensor and water pump.
Optima and Sonata are on the top of my list. :shades:
I have had over 12 GM vehicles all of which had to be towed away at some point or another. My last two Malibu's, both had two tow away before even hitting 30k miles. A neighbor three doors down from me had to have his old Cadillac towed away.
I have had over 12 GM vehicles all of which had to be towed away at some point or another. My last two Malibu's, both had two tow away before even hitting 30k miles.
That's kind of shocking. I've had no tows in 7 vehicles since 1985.
So far the Honda is the only vehicle needing a tow in my neck of the woods. I'm 0 tows/ 41 ownership years with current vehicles. I'm that spot GM must have missed when they were trying to make all their cars bad? You make me feel incredibly lucky.
My point is that the Honda owners I've known have had their share of problems.
I've had a tow truck 3 times. First time I remember was with an '85 Tempo that had a CV joint break. Nasty noise when when the 1/2 shaft is flopping around all over, but the car had nearly 100k on it.
2nd time I was with my grandpa in his '92 Buick RoadMaster. It had a starter fail around 60k miles. Not a huge deal, but it did leave us stranded 100 miles away from his house.
3rd time was with my brand new '98 Ford SVT Contour that left me stranded in the middle of no where due to a short to the fuel pump. First and only time I've ever used roadside assistance.
I wasn't with him, but my dad had a starter die early on his '92 Crown Vic at only 9k miles.
When the trans died in my Suburban, I was still able to drive it. Not fun, but it certainly was better than walking. It made all sorts weird noises accompanied with shimmies and shakes. As much trouble as i had with the burb, it's amazing it never left me stranded.
Speaking of towing (which I can't remember a recent episode of) when I was in college my 67 Tempest got towed twice in the same day. I'm in the left lane down on the south end of the Jersey Turnpike with my then girlfriend. Suddenly I have steam pouring out and an engine giving up the ghost. I had to pull on the left shoulder. The trooper calls in the repair guy who replaces the radiator hose that had blown. I get in the car and start it and it goes just long enough to end up in the right hand shoulder. The trooper calls in a tow and off we go. My first experience of a flat bed tow. We were in the car up the truck. The guys pulls just past the toll booth so we can pay the toll on our way off the road (talk about rubbing salt in the wounds!) and takes us to his lot.
Once there he tells us that the car doesn't leave until he get paid for the tow. We were two college kids - no money. We'd have given him all we had on us but that was a no go. The only credit cards I had back then were gas cards. I find an Esso (yeah, just pre-Exxon) within walking distance but it's just the guy there pumping gas. He takes a look at what cards I have and mentions another Esso a few miles away and lets us use his phone. That guy says he'll be right down. He comes and pops the hood and out comes the guy that towed the car in the first place saying he can't even look at the car until he gets his money. The guy from the Esso says "what an *******," reaches into his pocket and pays the guy telling us we'll straighten it out later. He pokes around under the hood and finds that when the hose blew the hot water cracked the coil. He shows us how to run it the way it is and instructs me on how to replace a coil and says do that as soon as I can.
He then says to follow him to the station and he's going to say he got there and the car already ran so we wouldn't get hit with the charge for his time. (I just realized that this would have been the second tow - while we billed that it didn't really happen).
We get to the station and he writes up his visit and the cash he gave the other guy and slips us $20 and bills the entire thing on my Esso card calling it tires.
I must point out that a popped radiator hose was about par for the course for a car of that age and that time. The only bad guys were the first mechanic who didn't stay to make sure he actually fixed it and the clown with the tow lot.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Even more shocking for me. There have been 13 GM vehicles in my family since 1981 and not one tow. Heck, even my wife's LaCrosse that was recently severely damaged in an accident was able to be driven from the scene. Many were very old and/or high-mileage cars as well.
I most certainly had NO car of any brand, foreign or domestic, needing a tow at under 30K miles - even an ex-girlfriend's troublesome 1994 Jetta.
Last car I had towed was my DeSoto, when it got hauled off to the mechanic back in December 2009. I think the last GM car I had to have towed was my '82 Cutlass Supreme. I'd had the transmission rebuilt, and just shy of the 12 mo/12K warranty expiring, the transmission refused to engage. Had to have it towed, and, well, it was a bit embarrasing for the transmission place. Turns out the bolts holding the tranny to the engine had worked their way loose, and the transmission had backed away from the engine! :surprise: I guess it's a miracle the sucker didn't fall out!
My '69 Bonneville had to be towed once, when it died at an intersection and refused to restart. And my '80 Malibu had to be towed when the starter died one night.
As far as cars bought new (well, that my family bought new, at least and then handed down to me) I don't think my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, Granddad's 85 Silverado, or Mom's '86 Monte Carlo ever had to be towed.
My Intrepid did leave me stranded once at work, but I just left it and it started the next day. The only time that car ever saw a tow truck was the day it got hauled away, after the insurance company totaled it out after it got hit-and-runned. :sick:
And I'll confess my other Mopars through the years were no strangers to the tow truck. My '89 Gran Fury was towed once when the fuel pump went out, and then 3 or 4 more times when it went through a rapid succession of crappily-rebuilt starters. My '68 Dart was towed twice that I can recall. Once when the gas tank got punctured, and I put a new one in, but didn't do it right and it stalled out, and again when the alternator failed. My '79 Newport was towed twice (transmission and fuel pump). The fuel pump went bad on my '79 5th Ave as well, but IIRC, I was still able to get that one to the mechanic under its own power.
Last car that was towed from my property was my wife's 1991 Mercury Tracer. She had it parked in front of my garage door and had to have it removed so I could get my car out. Gotta hand it to her how she got ten years out of that Tracer. The paint was atrocious and it was broken every other week toward the end. I told her for the money she was spending on repairs to keep that beast going, she'd have been better off buying a new car. That's when she got her ultra-reliable new 2001 Chevrolet Impala.
I have had to have a GM car towed. Fairly recently. My 1998 leSabre with 180,000 miles--those darn GMs just don't last. The starter wasn't making contact. I kept checking on it where it was parked and it never would crank. Tut I never thought to tap the starter under the engine to see if it made electrical contact. That's all it needed.
Had it flatbedded home and dumped into one side of the garage. After diagnosis and a few days of working fine, I determined it was a problem in the starter. Changed out the starter for a new one. Good for another 180,000 miles.
I was very disappointed in my GM. But I have heard that even those highly touted other cars need replacement parts too--sometimes much more expensive parts.
Once had to have the fintail towed when a transmission cooling line broke on a darkc cold winter's night. That was fun. But, no other issues.
I do know the Tempo once had to be towed when my mother was driving it...I think that horrible computer failed completely, and I want to say her 93 Taurus puked up a starter and had to be towed too.
It's not whether it gets towed or not, especially for minor things. It's things like eating bottom ends, grinding cams, losing a head gasket, and so on - the big bills that we never want to see happen.
Let alone a new engine or transmission. And those just simply cost more for imports now than they do for GM and Ford. Now, true, GM and Ford do break down more, but CR makes a transmission with the same weight as a rear view mirror. I don't care if the car is made out of gold. If the transmissions are rubbish and eat themselves at 60-80K miles more often than not, it should get a massive "black hole" rating.
It's not whether it gets towed or not, especially for minor things. It's things like eating bottom ends, grinding cams, losing a head gasket, and so on - the big bills that we never want to see happen.
Well it's both, actually. If I have a car that keeps breaking down and leaving me stranded on a regular basis, and needing a tow, I'm going to get tired of it pretty quickly!
Now most of my cars have been pretty old, so that can go with the territory sometimes. I think the thing that makes me the maddest is when the same problem keeps popping up, or one that the mechanic can't track dowb. Like when my Gran Fury kept eating those starters. Finally, one of them held up, but I was always wondering okay, how long is this one going to last?
My '85 Silverado used to have a problem with the distributor, but it took me awhile to track it down. It would start right up just fine, but sometimes, get a couple miles down the road, and it would just cut out. It would always re-start, eventually. Well, the distributor was fixed, and damn if it didn't do it again! Second time around, it was the coil. It's been fine since then, and that was almost 7 years ago, but for awhile, I kept thinking okay, how soon before it does it again?
My Intrepid had a problem a few years back where it would just cut out at random. It would re-start every time, and sometimes if I could feel it coming on and feathered the gas pedal a bit, it would keep it from stalling. But it got worse and worse, and eventually refused to start one evening. The mechanic had the car for about two weeks, trying to diagnose the problem. I had to tell him, check the camshaft and crankshaft position sensors, something I was told about on Edmunds.
Yeah, I'd put much more weight on a transmission issue though. But at least, a transmission is usually a one-time deal, and then you don't have to worry about it again for a long, long time.
I think it depends on the hassle. Having a car towed is a huge pain in the butt no matter what breaks. I think I'd rather have one big hiccup now and then than endless nickel and dime stuff.
You are right about the CR stuff...according to their info, the roads should be littered with the rotting carcasses of dead 10 year old German cars. Not to deny some have issues, but their "everything equal" methodology is flawed.
Having a car towed is a huge pain in the butt no matter what breaks. I think I'd rather have one big hiccup now and then than endless nickel and dime stuff.
That's for sure. Also, I can tolorate more issues on a vehicle I like. I put up with many issues with my '98 SVT Contour which I purchased new in '97. I really liked the car. It was quick (for the time) and was one of the most rewarding front wheel drive cars to drive at the time. Even on the day I decided to trade it in, I took the long way to the dealership to enjoy one last flogging through the country side. Though I didn't keep it a day longer after the the extended warranty ran out. It probably would have been cheaper to own a 3 series with all of the problems I had with that car.
On another note, my wife picks up her '11 Taurus tomorrow. I know she's been counting down the days until she could turn in her Grand Prix. It will be a week or so until I can form any type of opinion regarding the Taurus, we'll be on vacation next week soaking in some sun.
Yeah, I have a feeling that Taurus is going to be a night-and-day difference from that Grand Prix. My experience with the Taurus is limited to sitting in them at auto shows. The faults I found with it were mainly subjective. First, it just had a big, bulky feel to it, like it was bigger than it really was, so it might feel a bit unwieldy to drive until you get used to it. And second, it didn't feel all that big on the inside. The small windows, high beltline, thick pillars, high center console, etc, all contributed to a bit of a snug, even claustrophobic feeling. However, I fit in it just fine, both front and rear.
In contrast, I fit fine in the front of the Grand Prix, but have to sit sideways to fit in the back!
I bet the Taurus will seem like a Bentley compared to the GP.
That's pretty much how I feel. She's already referred to it as a "Taurcedes". One of her coworkers has an '11 Taurus who also had an '07 Impala before it. So she's been hearing for a few months how much better the Taurus is to drive every day and she's rode in it a few times.
Yeah, I have a feeling that Taurus is going to be a night-and-day difference from that Grand Prix.
No question. Same would go for the Impala too IMO. The Taurus should be a delight compared to the usual lousy cars she normally gets.
In contrast, I fit fine in the front of the Grand Prix, but have to sit sideways to fit in the back!
while laying on you back;)
I will add, actually getting in/out of the GP is a major PITA. The roof line is low and you pretty much have to fall into it and climb out. But I've beat this dead horse to death. It will be gone tomorrow!!!!
I've not actually sat in a Taurus, but I'm sure it to my wife it will be like a Mercedes. I'm still surprised they offer a Taurus over the Impala for a company car. I'm not complaining, but you'd think they'd want to spend less money. I can't imagine Ford is sells the Taurus to fleets for less money than an Impala. I probably wouldn't buy a Taurus, but I certainly won't be ashamed of it either.
My wife had 4 cars to choose from this year and none were from GM. That's a first. The choices were strange too. IIRC, they were a Mazda 3, Fusion (4cyl), Legacy (4cyl), and the Taurus.
Since each car can only be ordered in base form, the Taurus was by far the best choice IMO. Though the Legacy was an interesting option, with base power it would be a to sluggish IMO, particularly being AWD.
Is that GP the same car as the Impala? On the rental I recently had, at one point I tried to get out of the drivers side at a weird angle, and it was very awkward and difficult. I'm not short, but not terribly tall (6'1"). I never sat in the back, so no issues there.
I remember when I saw my name and the space number on the board and walked over to it...from a distance I could see a Taurus, and I hoped it would be mine. No such luck, one number off.
I think they basically use the same platform, but they used different engines from 06 or 07 to the end of the GPs production. The GP used the 3800v6 versus the Impala using the 3.5 v6 as a base engine.
The Impala doesn't have a roof line that was as sloped as the GP. So someone who is 6' can sit in the back of an Impala w/o having their head resting on the rear window. Rear leg room is horrible in the GP and is improved to bad in the Impala.
Weird too, because my wife had an '01 Impala for a company car that seemed (IMO) to have a lot more room than the 06 redesign. I'm sure Andre knows the details better than me.
When my wife was picking cars in '06, she had the choice of a Ford 500, Impala, and GP. The Impala certainly had more usable room than the GP and the 500 was limo like compared to either the Impala or GP, though it was a boring car. It was great to haul people with though. No one ever complained for leg room in the rear seat, even if I had my seat all the way back.
We were relocated due to her job and she had a new 07 GP waiting for her at her new office. So, she only had the 500 for a year or so as it stayed with her old office:(
I am not going to know how to react to you when you don't have that awful GP to complain about. It might take a few days before I'm convinced that an evil alien hasn't taken over your brain. Bear with me.
given those choices I;d be between the Taurus and the Legacy. I'm very surprised they didn't offer something of a GM model.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Lincoln ranks No. 1 in dependability study Lincoln leads car brands in widely watched dependability study; Toyota loses ground to rivals ap On Thursday March 17, 2011, 2:02 pm
NEW YORK (AP) -- Lincoln took the top spot for the first time in a closely watched survey of long-term vehicle quality.
J.D. Power and Associates says Ford's luxury brand leads its annual vehicle dependability survey for 2011. The study measures problems experienced by the original owners of vehicles after three years.
Lexus is No. 2 in the study, followed by Jaguar, Porsche and Toyota.
Toyota swept seven segment awards, more than any other automaker this year. The brand also performed well in long-term dependability, J.D. Power said.
The Japanese company's reputation for quality came under fire after massive recalls starting in 2009. But U.S. regulators closed their investigation into the No. 1 carmaker last month and concluded that electronic flaws were not to blame for reports of sudden, unintended acceleration.
the 500 was limo like compared to either the Impala or GP, though it was a boring car. It was great to haul people with though. No one ever complained for leg room in the rear seat, even if I had my seat all the way back.
My one complaint about the 500 is that it seemed a little tight on legroom up front for me. The seating position was high, but didn't go back very far, so to me it felt a bit like an old pickup truck. But yeah, that back seat was like a limo!
That might be one reason the new Taurus feels small-ish inside to me. It's the successor to the old 500/Montego, so I just expected it to have comparable interior room, and it didn't quite measure up. I think the front seat of the new Taurus felt better though. Legroom was much improved for my tastes. And while the back seat was tighter than the old 500, it was still adequate.
As for the Impala, I looked up some rear seat stats, and here they are:
So, that explains why the back seat feels like it has less legroom in the newer Impala...simply because it DOES! But the headroom measurement is odd. The '06+ model picked up an inch of headroom, yet feels worse to me. I wonder where, exactly, they take the headroom measurement? Perhaps they take it at some point in the car where the ceiling is higher, but unfortunately, that's not where the typical person's head is positioned?
I've made unfavorable comments in the past about the Impala's back seat being worse than my '76 LeMans, which is really bad, considering the LeMans is a low-slung coupe from that bygone era when cars were styled first, and they figured out how to fit you in them later. Anyway, here are the stats I could find for my LeMans (actually, I used the specs from the '76 Buick Century coupe, as I couldn't find them for the LeMans)
It just amazes me that my old LeMans has almost 5" less legroom than the Impala, yet I don't fit in it any worse. And one advantage to the LeMans is that my feet will fit under the front seat. There's no room under the Impala's seat. So again, I wonder where, exactly, they're taking the measurement for the Impala's rear legroom?
Legroom measurements can be funny, though, and often don't correlate with my actual experience. For instance, my 2000 Park Ave has 41.4", while my old Intrepid only had something like 39.1". However, my knees brush the back of the Park Ave's seat if I sit back there, while there was a bit more room in the Intrepid's back seat. The Park Ave's seat sits up higher though, so that might affect part of the measurement.
Comments
Plus, your now trying to twist it to say that you were only doing it to disprove my assumption. You admitted that the chart supported your claim that there was a linear relationship but your using CR data which you repeatedly claim is inaccurate and bias, no the chart data must be inaccurate then. You can't have it both ways was my point.
Wow, I swear we live in parallel universes! A burned-out bulb drives me bananas! I sure as heck won't tolerate all that stuff you described. If any of those things failed, it was late in the car's life and at high miles. I lost one transmission in a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis and the car was 9 years-old. Never lost an a/c compressor and the electrical components have been extremely reliable.
Sadly, I think both of you are ... I suspect that there were some GM models that were well put together, and others that were not.
Everybody has their own experiences to draw from.
My dad bought new a 1970 Chevrolet C-10 ... and he still owns it. Probably not more than 150K on the clock, though the top end of the engine was rebuilt just before 100K.
OTOH, I had a '79 Pontiac Sunbird with the 2.5L "Iron Duke" engine. Bought it in the spring of '82 with less than 12K, drove it for about 2.5 years and 40K. Continually had trouble with it - heater core, transmission (it was a stick), problems starting in hot weather.
Lately, I've owned a string of Saturns - '03 L300, '05 and '08 VUEs, '06 ION. Mixed bag in terms of reliability.
Would I buy another GM? Probably, if they made something I liked. Perhaps a Cruze hatchback?
Yeah, tell me about it! I just added up the expenses I've incurred with my 2000 Park Ave after I bought it, and come up with $513.12, over the course of 15 months and about 13,000 miles.
And other than having the supercharger oil and swaybar links replaced, I haven't had much done other than oil changes, a tire rotation, emissions test, and a few really thorough lookings-over by the mechanic.
Now, I've only had to put about $177 into my '85 Silverado over the past year, but it's only been driven about 3,000 miles in that time, so that's not really a point of reference!
That's it, exactly. Even though overall reliability has improved over the years, those reliability statistics are still merely averages of data points that could be all over the map. It's hard sometimes to draw just on personal experience, because everybody's personal experience might be different.
For example, I remember my Grandmom's '85 LeSabre pretty well. They bought it brand-new, and it never had any serious problems until the late 90's, and around the 144,000 mile mark. Which, incidentally, is when she gave it to me! It pretty much just needed maintenance up to that point, although to be fair, like any car of that era, it needed more frequent maintenance than today's cars. We finally got rid of it at 157,000 miles, when the brakes went out on it. I could have gotten it fixed, but at that point had too many cars and just didn't need it anymore.
In contrast, my 2000 Park Ave only had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it in December of 2009. I don't have any service records, so I have no idea what might have gone wrong with it in the first 10 years of its life. However, in the 13,000 miles I've had it, I've had to replace the swaybar links. Also had the rear window defroster fail, one of the power windows binds up sometimes, the power passenger seat lost some of its range of motion. One of the map light switches in back broke. The fuel gauge will start bouncing back and forth if you let it get too low.
Now, those are all fairly minor things, so I wouldn't call the Park Ave a bad car. However, none of those things EVER failed on Grandmom's old '85 LeSabre! So, IMO at least, just comparing these two cars, the '85 LeSabre was more reliable than the 2000 Park Ave has been so far. With only 69,000 miles on it, my Park Ave is going to have to go at least another 75,000 miles, almost trouble-free, before I'll call it better than that LeSabre was.
However, I'm sure if you look at reliability data, the typical 2000 Park Ave was a more reliable car than the typical 1985 LeSabre. And I imagine the typical 2010 Lucerne or LaCrosse will prove to be a more reliable car than their 2000 equivalents were, when you look at the reliability data.
I just use my bad experience with them to illustrate why they had so many problems for over 20 some years with quality and reliability. I was very happy to see them downsize the divisions after bankruptcy.
But to sit here and say that GM was a great company for the last 30 years is absurd. They had widespread reliability and quality issues on many models, poor customer service, depending on the dealership, some of the highest depreciation values in the industry and much too high fleet sales. This was some of the reasons, of many that resulted in them losing profits, and having to declare bankruptcy. Good companies don't have to do that so to say these problems or personal experiences didn't exist is just absurd.
But I give credit where credit is due, since bankruptcy and restructuring, GM in my opinion has made some smart decisions and seems to be making a concerted effort to improve their company and products across the board. Is there still room for improvement, yes, have we been able to see if their long term reliability issues have improve, no, there hasn't been enough time gone by yet, but they are going in the right direction.
I look at it this way, I want them to have competitive products and do well b/c then that puts a lot of pressure on the German, Japanese, and Korean manufacturers to stay on their toes and make their products competitive. In the end, it only can benefit us consumers with more quality choices when we auto shop!
I'll bet dollars to donuts that the reason for loosing that tranny was the .29 cent TV bushing failing and not the transmission's fault.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I've not been in the States long enough to experience GM's past 30 years so I cannot comment on it.
I did read a lot of bad comments on GM. That's why I never had any GM cars before.
But I participated several Cadillac test drive events in the mid 2000s which changed my mind. Cadillac setup 5 or 6 test courses, one for each type of cars, eg, one for BMW 5 and similar, one for BMW 3 and similar, one for luxury SUV, one for convertible, one sporty cars. In each test course, they made all major competitor's models available for test drive. That was great; where else can you test drive BMW 5, MB E, Lexus GS and Cadillac STS all in a 60 min period while the memory was fresh and all on the same course?
I applause GM's braveness to do so (because some may think that it's suicide for them to put BMW side by side) and I walked away with a much improved impression on Cadillac. Later I bought 2 and was very satisfied. I had been a BMW guy before this.
So maybe my personal experience is an example of GM's turning around in the past 5 years?
I'm going to another GM test event later this month.
Last year all I did to it was a $22 windshield wiper control circuit board and oil changes. Some years were even less than that.
$1500. But that was from a place that actually did the rebuilding themselves and didn't send the unit out.(hence the $300 or so difference - the auto shop takes its $300-$500 cut). A transmission in a Camry is $3500. About the same as in a Volvo, which is about exactly the same price-wise for parts as Honda and Toyota now.
My 99 Crown Vic has a lot of little things wrong with it - I guess some people would say it was "falling apart". But it's things like it needs new shocks at $30 each and a part for the cruise control for $25 and a new bumper cover for $60 and... ($700 in small parts, none costing over $60).
The difference is, as the mechanic said, that the interiors are superb on the imports and the domestics just fall apart. But ask any truck driver or construction worker why they buy a Chevy or Ford. Because they don't care if the window doesn't roll down or the radio has one speaker that doesn't work if they had to chose. Because time in the shop for major mechanical failures is time they're losing money. Yes, they start to "fall apart" at 3 years(Ford "leather" anyone?), but they still turn on and still get you across town even at 15-20 years old.
Note - to be fair, old Hondas and Toyotas, especially with manuals are similarly indestructible - the difference seems to be roughly stating around 2002-2003.
The rebuilder specifically mentioned that on the test drive. Most Asian and European manufacturers don't use their own automatic transmissions but have them built by smaller companies. This is because most of their home markets are not selling automatics. So his explanation for it is that Honda builds their own automatic and it's fine, but rather than build a whole new model for their V6 engines, they use the same one that is made for the 4 cylinder models.
As he said, "the bands wear 8 thousandths and they're toast. They can't handle the torque and once that happens, you're done."
8 of the 10 transmissions that he was rebuilding that week were from Hondas. He drives a Honda, but it has a manual. What does that tell you? :P
edit - that said, the manual in an Accord or Civic is to die for. Worlds better than anything under $30K.
But when it does go, you're in for some high cost as Honda is the only source for the transmission and they charge a fortune. even for replacement parts. To add insult to injury, many Honda and Toyota FWD models require lifting the engine up to get at the stupid thing.(same with the #$%# oil pan) My guess is that they normally would fit a manual and the last time you replaced a manual(actual gears and so on, not a clutch) was probably never.
It is one source. Experience is the biggest. Add the 2 and you tend to stay away from the black dotted models.
My 2003 Denali lost he MAP sensor and power steering pump exploded before 36K. Just a another data point. Total cost to own in repair only = $4,000 and counting. Add the air bag sensor and water pump.
Optima and Sonata are on the top of my list. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Your point?
That's kind of shocking. I've had no tows in 7 vehicles since 1985.
My point is that the Honda owners I've known have had their share of problems.
2nd time I was with my grandpa in his '92 Buick RoadMaster. It had a starter fail around 60k miles. Not a huge deal, but it did leave us stranded 100 miles away from his house.
3rd time was with my brand new '98 Ford SVT Contour that left me stranded in the middle of no where due to a short to the fuel pump. First and only time I've ever used roadside assistance.
I wasn't with him, but my dad had a starter die early on his '92 Crown Vic at only 9k miles.
When the trans died in my Suburban, I was still able to drive it. Not fun, but it certainly was better than walking. It made all sorts weird noises accompanied with shimmies and shakes. As much trouble as i had with the burb, it's amazing it never left me stranded.
Once there he tells us that the car doesn't leave until he get paid for the tow. We were two college kids - no money. We'd have given him all we had on us but that was a no go. The only credit cards I had back then were gas cards. I find an Esso (yeah, just pre-Exxon) within walking distance but it's just the guy there pumping gas. He takes a look at what cards I have and mentions another Esso a few miles away and lets us use his phone. That guy says he'll be right down. He comes and pops the hood and out comes the guy that towed the car in the first place saying he can't even look at the car until he gets his money. The guy from the Esso says "what an *******," reaches into his pocket and pays the guy telling us we'll straighten it out later. He pokes around under the hood and finds that when the hose blew the hot water cracked the coil. He shows us how to run it the way it is and instructs me on how to replace a coil and says do that as soon as I can.
He then says to follow him to the station and he's going to say he got there and the car already ran so we wouldn't get hit with the charge for his time. (I just realized that this would have been the second tow - while we billed that it didn't really happen).
We get to the station and he writes up his visit and the cash he gave the other guy and slips us $20 and bills the entire thing on my Esso card calling it tires.
I must point out that a popped radiator hose was about par for the course for a car of that age and that time. The only bad guys were the first mechanic who didn't stay to make sure he actually fixed it and the clown with the tow lot.
I most certainly had NO car of any brand, foreign or domestic, needing a tow at under 30K miles - even an ex-girlfriend's troublesome 1994 Jetta.
My '69 Bonneville had to be towed once, when it died at an intersection and refused to restart. And my '80 Malibu had to be towed when the starter died one night.
As far as cars bought new (well, that my family bought new, at least and then handed down to me) I don't think my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, Granddad's 85 Silverado, or Mom's '86 Monte Carlo ever had to be towed.
My Intrepid did leave me stranded once at work, but I just left it and it started the next day. The only time that car ever saw a tow truck was the day it got hauled away, after the insurance company totaled it out after it got hit-and-runned. :sick:
And I'll confess my other Mopars through the years were no strangers to the tow truck. My '89 Gran Fury was towed once when the fuel pump went out, and then 3 or 4 more times when it went through a rapid succession of crappily-rebuilt starters. My '68 Dart was towed twice that I can recall. Once when the gas tank got punctured, and I put a new one in, but didn't do it right and it stalled out, and again when the alternator failed. My '79 Newport was towed twice (transmission and fuel pump). The fuel pump went bad on my '79 5th Ave as well, but IIRC, I was still able to get that one to the mechanic under its own power.
I have had to have a GM car towed. Fairly recently. My 1998 leSabre with 180,000 miles--those darn GMs just don't last. The starter wasn't making contact. I kept checking on it where it was parked and it never would crank. Tut I never thought to tap the starter under the engine to see if it made electrical contact. That's all it needed.
Had it flatbedded home and dumped into one side of the garage. After diagnosis and a few days of working fine, I determined it was a problem in the starter. Changed out the starter for a new one. Good for another 180,000 miles.
I was very disappointed in my GM. But I have heard that even those highly touted other cars need replacement parts too--sometimes much more expensive parts.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do know the Tempo once had to be towed when my mother was driving it...I think that horrible computer failed completely, and I want to say her 93 Taurus puked up a starter and had to be towed too.
Let alone a new engine or transmission. And those just simply cost more for imports now than they do for GM and Ford. Now, true, GM and Ford do break down more, but CR makes a transmission with the same weight as a rear view mirror. I don't care if the car is made out of gold. If the transmissions are rubbish and eat themselves at 60-80K miles more often than not, it should get a massive "black hole" rating.
Well it's both, actually. If I have a car that keeps breaking down and leaving me stranded on a regular basis, and needing a tow, I'm going to get tired of it pretty quickly!
Now most of my cars have been pretty old, so that can go with the territory sometimes. I think the thing that makes me the maddest is when the same problem keeps popping up, or one that the mechanic can't track dowb. Like when my Gran Fury kept eating those starters. Finally, one of them held up, but I was always wondering okay, how long is this one going to last?
My '85 Silverado used to have a problem with the distributor, but it took me awhile to track it down. It would start right up just fine, but sometimes, get a couple miles down the road, and it would just cut out. It would always re-start, eventually. Well, the distributor was fixed, and damn if it didn't do it again! Second time around, it was the coil. It's been fine since then, and that was almost 7 years ago, but for awhile, I kept thinking okay, how soon before it does it again?
My Intrepid had a problem a few years back where it would just cut out at random. It would re-start every time, and sometimes if I could feel it coming on and feathered the gas pedal a bit, it would keep it from stalling. But it got worse and worse, and eventually refused to start one evening. The mechanic had the car for about two weeks, trying to diagnose the problem. I had to tell him, check the camshaft and crankshaft position sensors, something I was told about on Edmunds.
Yeah, I'd put much more weight on a transmission issue though. But at least, a transmission is usually a one-time deal, and then you don't have to worry about it again for a long, long time.
You are right about the CR stuff...according to their info, the roads should be littered with the rotting carcasses of dead 10 year old German cars. Not to deny some have issues, but their "everything equal" methodology is flawed.
That's for sure. Also, I can tolorate more issues on a vehicle I like. I put up with many issues with my '98 SVT Contour which I purchased new in '97. I really liked the car. It was quick (for the time) and was one of the most rewarding front wheel drive cars to drive at the time. Even on the day I decided to trade it in, I took the long way to the dealership to enjoy one last flogging through the country side. Though I didn't keep it a day longer after the the extended warranty ran out. It probably would have been cheaper to own a 3 series with all of the problems I had with that car.
On another note, my wife picks up her '11 Taurus tomorrow. I know she's been counting down the days until she could turn in her Grand Prix. It will be a week or so until I can form any type of opinion regarding the Taurus, we'll be on vacation next week soaking in some sun.
I bet the Taurus will seem like a Bentley compared to the GP.
In contrast, I fit fine in the front of the Grand Prix, but have to sit sideways to fit in the back!
That's pretty much how I feel. She's already referred to it as a "Taurcedes". One of her coworkers has an '11 Taurus who also had an '07 Impala before it. So she's been hearing for a few months how much better the Taurus is to drive every day and she's rode in it a few times.
No question. Same would go for the Impala too IMO. The Taurus should be a delight compared to the usual lousy cars she normally gets.
In contrast, I fit fine in the front of the Grand Prix, but have to sit sideways to fit in the back!
while laying on you back;)
I will add, actually getting in/out of the GP is a major PITA. The roof line is low and you pretty much have to fall into it and climb out. But I've beat this dead horse to death. It will be gone tomorrow!!!!
I've not actually sat in a Taurus, but I'm sure it to my wife it will be like a Mercedes. I'm still surprised they offer a Taurus over the Impala for a company car. I'm not complaining, but you'd think they'd want to spend less money. I can't imagine Ford is sells the Taurus to fleets for less money than an Impala. I probably wouldn't buy a Taurus, but I certainly won't be ashamed of it either.
My wife had 4 cars to choose from this year and none were from GM. That's a first. The choices were strange too. IIRC, they were a Mazda 3, Fusion (4cyl), Legacy (4cyl), and the Taurus.
Since each car can only be ordered in base form, the Taurus was by far the best choice IMO. Though the Legacy was an interesting option, with base power it would be a to sluggish IMO, particularly being AWD.
I remember when I saw my name and the space number on the board and walked over to it...from a distance I could see a Taurus, and I hoped it would be mine. No such luck, one number off.
I think they basically use the same platform, but they used different engines from 06 or 07 to the end of the GPs production. The GP used the 3800v6 versus the Impala using the 3.5 v6 as a base engine.
The Impala doesn't have a roof line that was as sloped as the GP. So someone who is 6' can sit in the back of an Impala w/o having their head resting on the rear window. Rear leg room is horrible in the GP and is improved to bad in the Impala.
Weird too, because my wife had an '01 Impala for a company car that seemed (IMO) to have a lot more room than the 06 redesign. I'm sure Andre knows the details better than me.
When my wife was picking cars in '06, she had the choice of a Ford 500, Impala, and GP. The Impala certainly had more usable room than the GP and the 500 was limo like compared to either the Impala or GP, though it was a boring car. It was great to haul people with though. No one ever complained for leg room in the rear seat, even if I had my seat all the way back.
We were relocated due to her job and she had a new 07 GP waiting for her at her new office. So, she only had the 500 for a year or so as it stayed with her old office:(
given those choices I;d be between the Taurus and the Legacy. I'm very surprised they didn't offer something of a GM model.
Lincoln leads car brands in widely watched dependability study; Toyota loses ground to rivals
ap
On Thursday March 17, 2011, 2:02 pm
NEW YORK (AP) -- Lincoln took the top spot for the first time in a closely watched survey of long-term vehicle quality.
J.D. Power and Associates says Ford's luxury brand leads its annual vehicle dependability survey for 2011. The study measures problems experienced by the original owners of vehicles after three years.
Lexus is No. 2 in the study, followed by Jaguar, Porsche and Toyota.
Toyota swept seven segment awards, more than any other automaker this year. The brand also performed well in long-term dependability, J.D. Power said.
The Japanese company's reputation for quality came under fire after massive recalls starting in 2009. But U.S. regulators closed their investigation into the No. 1 carmaker last month and concluded that electronic flaws were not to blame for reports of sudden, unintended acceleration.
GM is nowhere. :lemon:
Regards,
OW
My one complaint about the 500 is that it seemed a little tight on legroom up front for me. The seating position was high, but didn't go back very far, so to me it felt a bit like an old pickup truck. But yeah, that back seat was like a limo!
That might be one reason the new Taurus feels small-ish inside to me. It's the successor to the old 500/Montego, so I just expected it to have comparable interior room, and it didn't quite measure up. I think the front seat of the new Taurus felt better though. Legroom was much improved for my tastes. And while the back seat was tighter than the old 500, it was still adequate.
As for the Impala, I looked up some rear seat stats, and here they are:
2000-2005 Impala:
rear legroom: 38.4"
rear headroom: 36.8"
rear shoulder room: 58.9"
2006+ Impala
rear legroom: 37.6"
rear headroom: 37.8"
rear shoulder room: 58.7"
So, that explains why the back seat feels like it has less legroom in the newer Impala...simply because it DOES! But the headroom measurement is odd. The '06+ model picked up an inch of headroom, yet feels worse to me. I wonder where, exactly, they take the headroom measurement? Perhaps they take it at some point in the car where the ceiling is higher, but unfortunately, that's not where the typical person's head is positioned?
I've made unfavorable comments in the past about the Impala's back seat being worse than my '76 LeMans, which is really bad, considering the LeMans is a low-slung coupe from that bygone era when cars were styled first, and they figured out how to fit you in them later. Anyway, here are the stats I could find for my LeMans (actually, I used the specs from the '76 Buick Century coupe, as I couldn't find them for the LeMans)
rear legroom: 32.9"
rear headroom: 36.7"
rear shoulder room: 57.9"
It just amazes me that my old LeMans has almost 5" less legroom than the Impala, yet I don't fit in it any worse. And one advantage to the LeMans is that my feet will fit under the front seat. There's no room under the Impala's seat. So again, I wonder where, exactly, they're taking the measurement for the Impala's rear legroom?
Legroom measurements can be funny, though, and often don't correlate with my actual experience. For instance, my 2000 Park Ave has 41.4", while my old Intrepid only had something like 39.1". However, my knees brush the back of the Park Ave's seat if I sit back there, while there was a bit more room in the Intrepid's back seat. The Park Ave's seat sits up higher though, so that might affect part of the measurement.