I've had some luck in avoiding tows. My highest mileage car wouldn't start after stopping for a bite to eat about 4 miles from my house. I waited until I finished eating and then it started. I drove it home to where I had another car. I left it there in the street in front of my house and didn't drive it until I fixed it. I ruled out the battery and took the starter to parts store for free test. It failed with just 168k. The car had a failed shut thermostat I later discovered. Maybe the extra heat off the block shortened the starter's life. I just got the new thermostat but will get it flushed first. Right now I have no thermostat in it. Who knows on 15 yr old cars how long a part underperforms before it finally gives out.
I wonder why it gave me one last start and got me home.
My 19 yr old Astro died once 40 miles from home. I cranked and cranked and no start. I waited 5 minutes and tried again and it started. I drove home 40 miles and parked it in the driveway. It never started again until I put a new temp coolant sensor in it.
Same thing. It got me home and then died. Maybe it's not me liking GM cars. Maybe they like me so they always give me a warning.
I've seen two new Cruze's in two days in the parking lot at work.
Have seen Cruze on the road in last week and its styling is very good, not gimmicky. It definitely has better lines than the new competing car from Ford, which looks too much like boy-racer.
The TL weighs a lot less that the minivan does, and it doesn't normally carry 4-6 people in it.
Had many Hondas, GM Suburban, Nissan Maxima, Acuras, Odyssey over last couple decades+ and have to say that the Suburban auto trans was bullit proof and never failed, worked fine over 14 years of use.
The only trans that did fail was on an 86 Honda Accord. That was at 217K miles, so that was acceptable. Had a Honda rebuilt put in and it was doing fine right up to private sale of car at 247K miles.
Will look at and test drive Enclave and Traverse when ready to replace 2000 Ody. But, still skeptical that GM has turned around their reliability issues.
The Lambdas (and other vehicles with the 3.6) have been blackballed lately for timing chains which prematurely wear in as little as 20k according to the forums out there. Even the GM enthusiasts sites have been critical of the issue which is now in it's 6th year and still being neglected. Then, there are the camshaft issues and water leaks...
The Lambdas (and other vehicles with the 3.6) have been blackballed lately for timing chains which prematurely wear in as little as 20k according to the forums out there. Even the GM enthusiasts sites have been critical of the issue which is now in it's 6th year and still being neglected. Then, there are the camshaft issues and water leaks...
I just don't see how that is possible! Don't GM products last forever, where Honda transmissions all fail and Toyota engines all sludge?!
The Lambdas (and other vehicles with the 3.6) have been blackballed lately for timing chains which prematurely wear in as little as 20k according to the forums out there. Even the GM enthusiasts sites have been critical of the issue which is now in it's 6th year and still being neglected. Then, there are the camshaft issues and water leaks...
Call me curious as I'd like to see links to these sites. GM enthusiasts sites? You mean there are actually GM enthusiasts around? Really? Blackballed you say? By whom?
The issue isn't with the timing gear itself but with the engines wearing apart due to the oil failing. GM is now saying that the oil should be changed every 6000 miles and that you should ignore the oil life reading. The oil won't trigger a change normally until you are almost at 30K miles, which is why the engines are coming apart. But a lot of people aren't getting the memo and many years of the 3.6 engine were already sold with incorrect oil life settings.
Synthetic oil is only 2x as good as regular oil in this application. This would be like asking a normal engine to go 15K before its very first oil change. And to make matters worse, as conventional oil breaks down, it still provides some protection(though sludge is a problem of course). Synthetic simply turns into something almost resembling thick water when it's pushed well past its limits.
Note - you can of course drain out the problematic pure synthetic and run a semi-synthetic, which actually works better. Change at 3-5K miles like normal and forget about it. This also will save you a decent amount of money as well.
Concerning oil again, the Government(tm) has mandated that zinc and phosphorous levels in oil be lowered. What this means is that oil as of two years ago provides far less protection than it did when you old car was new.
If you have an engine that's over 5-6 years old, you absolutely must run high mileage/high zinc oil in it - the only difference aside from the marketing is they are at the maximum the levels allowed, which is still 2/3 what your engine was designed for, but is far better than making a mistake and getting an oil in it that has zero zinc. Do this by mistake and your internal parts wear themselves out in to where the engine needs a major overhaul in as little as 3-4 oil changes. This isn't based upon age but design - and unless the engine was designed for synthetic oil, you should never put it in an older technology engine unless you verify that it has proper zinc and phosphorous levels.
Almost everything domestic is still based upon 1950s and 1960s era designs with a few tweaks over the years. If you have a GM 3.8 engine, find the highest zinc oil that you can and don't use anything else.
This is also the reason that the Porsche Boxster has had so many bottom ends go out. It was designed with oil that has closer to 2000ppm in it, which is more common in Europe. You'd have to use racing oil to get close to that level in the U.S. now.(IIRC the EPA has set the limits to ~850 now and are trying to drop it to 600ppm). The safe minimum is 1200ppm, and even that's too low for many engines.
A nice side effect for them (and CARB and other agencies) is that they know that this will cause older engines to wear out early and force the early retirement of millions of vehicles. This will help us buy more cars and also get rid of older more polluting ones as well. And of course, the science does back the idea that cleaner oil is better for the all important environment.(What? You assume that Big Business and Government aren't friends to this extent?)
Everyone wins except for the consumer who wonders why their car is suddenly running like it's twice as old and won't pass smog any more when it was doing fine 2-3 years earlier(before the changes were sneaked through)
EDIT:What to do? Well, the EPA has allowed high mileage oils to keep it at 1200ppm, though you have to check online concerning each oil as they don't print it on it the label. (major pain I know). Or you can put additives in it. This really is only a major issue in California, where they won't allow any oil change chain or any of the stores to sell the higher level old-style oil at all. They also won't allow the major chains to sell the additives, either. So you have to, yes, break the law and use motorcycle or diesel oil(Rotella is a good choice - comes in gallon+ containers though) to save your engine from dying an untimely death.
Almost everything domestic is still based upon 1950s and 1960s era designs with a few tweaks over the years. If you have a GM 3.8 engine, find the highest zinc oil that you can and don't use anything else.
Does anybody make zinc additives, I wonder? I've had my 2000 Park Avenue's oil changed at the mechanic, but I have no idea what oil they used, other than it was the 10W30 that the engine calls for.
I also did something bad, and let it go about 5800 miles between oil changes! Guess I'd better stop doing that, but the time just got away from me!
GM has added hefty incentives to its cars since the start of the year, offering big rebates to current owners of GM cars, no-penalty early trade-ins for currently leased GM cars and bigger rebates for users of the GM credit card. The result has been a U.S. market share of more than 21 percent, higher than the company has had in years.
Castrol makes a high mileage semi-synthetic formula that's good. IIRC they make a couple - get the highest mileage one - you'll note it doesn't have the newest EPA label on it and says "for classic cars". I use this in my Crown Vic and it runs very nicely. In your case, since you tend to change oil less often that you should, a synthetic blend might give you some extra breathing room.(ie - 5K would be fine in a pinch)
Shell makes Rotella diesel oil, which can also be used in many older V6 and V8 engines(NG for turbos and so on, though, since it's far too heavy). Though, since 2007, it's merely adequate and not good for really old engines(IIRC, it's SL rated, which is OK for any 1985+ or so V6 or V8 design but not nearly high enough for, say, a classic Mercedes or Chevy engine from the 60s)
Motorcycle oil and racing oils are also good, though pricey, and they are almost never multi-weight. It's very tricky to get a proper match with either though it has been done by some enterprising individuals. I live in Los Angeles, so I could probably get by with this trick. But I'd not try this in Chicago where humidity and temperatures are more extreme.
Some synthetics have high zinc in them as well. Most do not and are a disaster since everything is fine until the anti-wear additives run out. Then you're in serious trouble. Unfortunately, again, you have to check online as the auto makers and oil companies are largely lying or not saying anything about this.
Here's the info they won't tell you - that ~800ppm "new" oil has synthetic added to it and/or the same anti-wear compounds.(ie - it's all semi-synthetic now aside from the high mileage branded stuff) What's keeping the oil operating at safe levels are solely these additives and not anything in the oil itself any more. They can't add zinc so they are trying to add other things. Which are having *very* mixed results. They are stuck between the EPA and a hard place while trying to re-invent themselves.
A perfect example of this was the EPA mandating water-based primer. It took manufacturers nearly 20 years to stop having problems with flaking paint. It'll probably take the oil industry another 10 years at this point to fix all of the problems that the EPA is forcing upon them.
Back to the additives: If the additives fail, the oil simply stops providing protection. And wear(and sludge) starts to happen. Not necessarily blown up engine type wear, but I do know that my dad's Park Avenue which used to be smooth as glass running now runs extremely rough. It's just wearing itself lose inside and vibrates like a diesel now. In three years it's gone from perfect to terrible and that coincides with the oil change, because everything else on the car is in perfect condition.(it's clearly internal wear and not timing or valves, which have been checked)
I also had a 1967 Mercedes eat its engine in six months. This coincided with the change in 2007 which quietly happened without anyone initially noticing.
The additives have to be added to the oil(or be in it naturally). Over the counter additives are fairly much snake oil or don't work right. High mileage oil for now gets an exemption to previous SL levels and is at least OK at 1200ppm. But the EPA wants to lower it to 600ppm in a couple of years, which will simply break anything over 10-12 years old. By 2015, there won't be anything older on the road anyways by their reasoning, and CARB will be happy as a clam. Shame, too, since there's no reason most of these V6 engines can't last 20 years or more aside from the fact that they will self-destruct like this.
My old Mercedes:
I used standard 1200-1400ppm oil(which was good, if a bit low) and didn't catch that it was all reformulated to 800ppm. The original design specs called for ~1600-1800ppm oil. The engine ate itself in three oil changes as a result. Worn pistons, valves, cams, bottom end - it just all came apart and lost compression. I loved that car, too. Faced with a $4000 rebuild on a $3000 sedan, I sold it to someone in Germany for $2000 who had a working engine.
Most of GMCs commercial trucks(if you walked onto the typical fleet sales lot) are now Isuzus. They seem to have left GMC to SUVs and consumer-grade stuff, so quality hasn't really improved much.
So you think high mileage oil would be best for my car which is a similar age to your old car?
It had an overhaul almost 15 years ago (valve job, rings, etc), now gets an annual oil change, but has only done ~1000 miles a year for the past 9 years. It runs fine - good compression and power. It doesn't burn too much oil, but I usually just get some basic cheap (but name brand) 10-30 to top it off once in between changes.
L x W x H: 185.3-in x 72.8-in x 66.3-in Legroom F/R: 41.2/39.9 in Headroom F/R: 40.9/39.2 in Cargo capacity (seats up/down): 31.6/63.9 cu ft Base curb weight: 3798 lbs EPA Rating (city/highway): 20-22/29-32 mpg with 4-cylinder 17/24-25 mpg with V-6
2011 Kia Sportage SX :shades: Base Price: $26,490
Powertrain Engine: 2.0-liter Turbocharged I-4 Horsepower: 256 hp @6000 rpm Torque: 264 lb-ft @ 1850-3000 rpm Transmission: 6-speed automatic with overdrive and manual shift mode Drive: Two- or four-wheel
Measurements L x W x H: 175.2 x 73.0 x 64.4 Legroom F/R: 41.1/37.9 Headroom F/R: 39.1/38.5 Curb Weight: FWD - 3311 lbs., AWD - 3466 lbs.
The Terrain with the 4-pot gets the same MPG as the Kia with the 4-pot-T...except that the Kia will toast every performance category the Terrain can sweat out. And the price??????
$11,000 less for the Kia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spanked Big Time! :shades:
Get INSIDE the Terrain, then the Sportage, and you'll see where the extra $$$$ went.
Biggest difference? Interior space and comfort. The Terrain/Equinox brothers are quite simply HUGE for this class of crossover. I'm 6'2", and was perfectly comfortable in the BACK seat of the GM. Plenty of headroom (had at least 1-2 inches between the top of my head and the headliner), and the bottom cushion was longer and felt perfect. I can't say either of those for the Sportage I also checked out.
Interior fit-and-finish, materials, and instrument layout and controls also favor the GM twins as well. The switchgear looked and felt of higher-quality materials, controls were easy to operate and understand, and the seat fabric also looked and felt vastly more durable than the Kia.
I'm neither a Kia or GM fan (more of a Ford and Mazda guy), but I'd choose the GM twins over the Kia, simply because of it's larger size and better interior. As for performance? Please... If you're looking for 1/4 mile times, you're NOT looking at a crossover of any kind, let alone a 4-cylinder.
As for pricing? You may want to re-read your post, since the BASE PRICE of the GMC was LESS than the Kia ($24,995 to $26,490). Where's the "$11,000" less?
Biggest difference? Interior space and comfort. The Terrain/Equinox brothers are quite simply HUGE for this class of crossover. I'm 6'2", and was perfectly comfortable in the BACK seat of the GM. Plenty of headroom (had at least 1-2 inches between the top of my head and the headliner), and the bottom cushion was longer and felt perfect. I can't say either of those for the Sportage I also checked out.
I can't remember how the Kia was, but I do remember sitting in a Terrain and being VERY impressed with the interior room. I'm 6'3", with a disproportionate amount of it in my legs, yet I had more than enough room up front, and in the back. In fact, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not, but it felt like it had more legroom, both front and rear, than the bigger, truck bases Suburbans and such!
That legroom was one thing that impressed me about the old Equinox/Terrain, as well.
You may want to re-read the performance of the V-6 includes 25 mpg hwy while the perforation of the Kia includes 32 mpg hwy.
A bloated boat over 200 lbs additional and $11K more is far too much to pay for the Terrain at the same performance level of the V-6 which is where the price issue lies. The Kia is less for the same power but better fuel economy?
Perhaps you missed that??
BTW, my wife just got a new CX-9 for X-Mas. No More GM. :shades:
No, I didn't miss anything. Your $11K price difference is comparing the Terrain with the V6 (and I'm sure a lot more options and features) than a BASE PRICE on the Sportage. Tack on the options that Kia may (or may not) offer to match the GM, and I'm sure the price difference shrinks significantly.
Perhaps you missed my comments on how superior the GM interior was compared to the Kia, with better materials, fit-and-finish, and operation that has been compared to some entry-lux models. I'm also sure the price difference accounts for some of that too.
Performance isn't nearly as important to the crossover buyer compared to, say, a sports sedan or coupe. And as for the fuel economy, I've seen just about every test or review of the Hyundai/Kia turbo models (including the Sonata and Optima) with combined fuel economy that's no better than other 4-cylinders (and even some V6 models). I've also heard more than one owner say the same thing. You want performance? You'll be using the turbo more often than not, and getting V6 FE numbers accordingly.
Congrats on the CX-9. My mother-in-law just turned hers in (on lease), and after driving it off and on over the past two years, I can say that it's definitely the "driver" of it's class, feeling more like a car behind the wheel compared to a lumbering full-size crossover. It would be my first choice if I were looking for something in that segment.
That said, you can get a top trim 4Runner for roughly the same money as the Terrain. There's no question which is better. GM is pricing its cars a bit higher than it should, IMO, but they really don't have much choice.
I suspect that Toyota and others who have larger cash reserves are absorbing some of the secondary costs to artificially keep their prices down. Similarly to how they essentially sold the Prius for years at cost top gain market share.
I thought that people would only argue for subjective issues; never thought we can draw quite opposite conclusions from the hard numbers.
Please allow me to re-arrange the comparison:
The Kia Sportage SX does not have any significant standard features. So I pick the 2nd up trim level SLE2 of the GMC to compare with.
MSRP: GMC: $26050; Kia: $26490
Engine: GMC: 182 HP; Kia: 260 HP (Kia has more HP because this is the SX trim; other trims, 176 HP; but GM's 2.4L engine is one of the Ward's top 10 engines in the world in 2010)
EPA fuel economy: GMC: 22/32 mpg; Kia: 22/27 mpg (GM has the highest mpg of the class; who cares about 200 lbs more weight; it has no harm to the mpg but improves the safety and stability)
Leg room (front/rear) GMC: 41.2/39.9; Kia: 41.4/37.9 (Kia is 2" short in the rear seat)
I had no idea that zinc was a needed additive. I had let my '96 3.8 SC go a bit long between changes and just put Super Tech 10-30 in it. At 181k and 15 years, it needs a stop leak additive. Does RPM matter? With the SC, 2500 rpms is swift accel.
Regardless of who wins in this contest I think it's great that GM interiors are now being used as an argument in favor of them as opposed to just a short time ago when they were always one the black marks against them.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Chevrolet Equionix/GMC Terrain: 41840 (Equionix: 28281; Terrain: 13559) Honda CR-V: 35435 Ford Escape: 31978 Toyota RAV4: 23758 Kia Sportage: please fill in ____
Id be surprised if the Tuson and Sportage both combined over 15,000 units. Then again, there are alot of burger flippers who need to get to Burger King and back.
Honda CR-V Excellent Ford Escape Average to Very Good Toyota RAV4 Excellent GMC Terrain Below Average Kia Sportage Average
I guess there are a bunch of bankrupt, welfare case, unemployed burger flippers who don't understand the importance of reliability when purchasing a vehicle.
Yes, even if the Kia was the same price as the Terrain, the reliability blood lines of the GMC are quite poor. This is as recent as 2008 as previously posted.
26th out of 34 nameplates is extremely poor, afaic. On the other hand, if you want a slow, over-priced vehicle in the segment that is sure to have problems, You go for that Terrain and Equinox.
If you want great efficiency and performance at great value, Sportage wins hands down. :shades:
On the other hand, if you want a slow, over-priced vehicle in the segment that is sure to have problems, You go for that Terrain and Equinox.
Please don't sneak in different data and message here. Your original post was to compare GMC to Kia; but you did include the Chevrolet Equinox in the last post. Take a look the JD Power chart in your own post; the Chevrolet's reliability is at (or just below) average, sure better than Kia. Since GMC Terrain is a re-badged Chevrolet Equinox, and does not reassemble the rest of the GMC lines (big trucks), so the Terrain should be more of a Equinox's reliability, which is better than Kia.
So your statement should become: if you want a roomy, fuel frugal and refined SUV, and average reliability, go with Terrain or Equinox. If you want a cramped, coarse and noisy, not so good fuel economy, and much worse than average reliability, go with Kia or whatever brand it is.
Just attended another GM comparison test drive event; a quick recap:
Electric/hybrid cars: Chevy Volt is impressive; it's so quite and smooth, and still very fun to drive. In comparison, the Toyota Prius (not available here) is so dull, slow and rattles here and there. The electric generator noise when braking is very audible in Prius but barely noticeable in Volt. I went to Nissan dealer 2 days ago to test drive the Leaf and was told it wouldn't be available for test drive for at least a few months.
Sports cars: I started my Chevy Corvette when the Corvette before me already passed the mid point of the course and I caught up with it at the finish. The pro driver sat next to me told me that it was great and I made her look good too. It was fun.
SUVs: GMC Acadia is more refined and fun to drive than the Acura MDX, and with a lot more space. The twin brother Buick Enclave is in a class by its own; definitely the quietest and best looking luxury SUV of any brand. GMC Terrain is also more refined than Nissan Murano and more fun to drive than Hyundai Santa Fe.
Entry level luxury cars: The Acura TL handles well, although with torque steering in hard accelerations, and too small. Lexus ES is muted but the steering wheel is scarily loose; you can make the car out of control because of no feedback from steering and too light of the steering. The Buick LaCrosse is quieter than the Lexus, as fun to drive as the Acura, a good combination. The Buick Regal handles well but lack of power. The Regal Turbo finally becomes a true sporty car.
Compact cars: Chevrolet Cruze drives the best, follows by Honda Civic although the noisiest in the class. The Toyota Corolla is the worst, feels so thin and unsettled, vibrating at idle, rattling in speed.
Family cars: Again Chevrolet Malibu is the most refined; Honda Accord is the most sporty and the Toyota Camry does nothing bad but nothing well either.
Overall impression: Toyota and Honda really need some new interesting models badly. All the current models are familiar faces. The lines for test driving them were either very short or no one waiting. Without new models even the previous good models would lose sales volume over time.
Terrain is the focal point, as you so adeptly pointed out.
You can pay the same for the less economical, lower performing and less dependable 4-cyl Terrain or for the same cash and get better fuel economy and 40% better power capabilty and higher dependability in the Kia.
Choose wisely, Grasshopper.
Buy from a has-been company that is a proven failure or a company with laser-focused dedication to delivering the best products and proving it.
You can pay the same for the less economical, lower performing and less dependable 4-cyl Terrain or for the same cash and get better fuel economy and 40% better power capabilty and higher dependability in the Kia.
Where did you get the better economy number for the Kia? Here are the official EPA numbers:
Terrain 2.4L, FWD: auto 22/32; 182 HP Sportage 2.4L, FWD: auto 22/31; manual 21/29; 176 HP
Which mpg is better? Which is more powerful?
V6 engines:
Terrain 3.0L: 264 HP Sportage SX: 260 HP
Which one is more powerful?
There's no mpg data for the SX on the EPA website, so no comparison here.
Buy from a has-been company that is a proven failure or a company with laser-focused dedication to delivering the best products and proving it.
Do you know how many times Kia has been through bankruptcies and has been change hand from one company to another?
No BS just deliver
No one blame you if you don't even know it is BS or not, you just need to do some home work.
I can't believe someone who settled for a CX-9 dissing on GM. All I remember when test driving the CX-9 and CX-7 was the over abundance of tire/road noise. So much so that having a conversation at 40 mph was near impossible. Figuring it might be bad tires I test drove another pair of CX-9 and CX-7 and there was that road noise again. All that tells me is there is some major insulation missing.
I bet if she test drove a MDX she would've picked that one. Maybe a RDX.
Maybe it's a New England thing, but if I were considering any of those samll SUV's or crossovers vehicles, I'd be favoring a Subaru Outback or Forester.
But if you test drove other vehicles with the same kind of tires it can be a tire specific issue as well. You'd be surprised how much road noise can come from a poor quality tire. If that tire is used across the board in a model, no matter what one you drive it will still be an issue. Not saying insulation can not be a culprit as well but a poor tire certainly can make it 10x worse then if it had a decent tire on it.
>same kind of tires it can be a tire specific issue as well. You'd be surprised how much road noise can come from a poor quality tire.
Why would someone choose a car from a company where they put bad tires on the cars. Imagine what else they cut corners on that keep it from being a quality auto if they cut corners on tire quality and picked bellowing tires!
Comments
LOL!
Beginning tomorrow, I will be GM free for the first time in like 8 years:)
Ah, good times indeed! LOL I feel better already;)
I wonder why it gave me one last start and got me home.
My 19 yr old Astro died once 40 miles from home. I cranked and cranked and no start. I waited 5 minutes and tried again and it started. I drove home 40 miles and parked it in the driveway. It never started again until I put a new temp coolant sensor in it.
Same thing. It got me home and then died. Maybe it's not me liking GM cars. Maybe they like me so they always give me a warning.
GM intends to turn around European operations, which lost $1.8 billion last year, by 2012 at the latest."
GM Keeps Shuffling Management Deck (AutoObserver)
Have seen Cruze on the road in last week and its styling is very good, not gimmicky. It definitely has better lines than the new competing car from Ford, which looks too much like boy-racer.
Had many Hondas, GM Suburban, Nissan Maxima, Acuras, Odyssey over last couple decades+ and have to say that the Suburban auto trans was bullit proof and never failed, worked fine over 14 years of use.
The only trans that did fail was on an 86 Honda Accord. That was at 217K miles, so that was acceptable. Had a Honda rebuilt put in and it was doing fine right up to private sale of car at 247K miles.
Will look at and test drive Enclave and Traverse when ready to replace 2000 Ody. But, still skeptical that GM has turned around their reliability issues.
GM to lay off workers...
I think those trucks that are produced there are some of the ones with relatively low US content AFAIR from the recent Car and Driver article.
I see Buick as #7. That's a good ways from "nowhere". Hyundai is #10. Not bad, but behind Buick.
I just don't see how that is possible! Don't GM products last forever, where Honda transmissions all fail and Toyota engines all sludge?!
Call me curious as I'd like to see links to these sites. GM enthusiasts sites? You mean there are actually GM enthusiasts around? Really? Blackballed you say? By whom?
Synthetic oil is only 2x as good as regular oil in this application. This would be like asking a normal engine to go 15K before its very first oil change. And to make matters worse, as conventional oil breaks down, it still provides some protection(though sludge is a problem of course). Synthetic simply turns into something almost resembling thick water when it's pushed well past its limits.
Note - you can of course drain out the problematic pure synthetic and run a semi-synthetic, which actually works better. Change at 3-5K miles like normal and forget about it. This also will save you a decent amount of money as well.
If you have an engine that's over 5-6 years old, you absolutely must run high mileage/high zinc oil in it - the only difference aside from the marketing is they are at the maximum the levels allowed, which is still 2/3 what your engine was designed for, but is far better than making a mistake and getting an oil in it that has zero zinc. Do this by mistake and your internal parts wear themselves out in to where the engine needs a major overhaul in as little as 3-4 oil changes. This isn't based upon age but design - and unless the engine was designed for synthetic oil, you should never put it in an older technology engine unless you verify that it has proper zinc and phosphorous levels.
Almost everything domestic is still based upon 1950s and 1960s era designs with a few tweaks over the years. If you have a GM 3.8 engine, find the highest zinc oil that you can and don't use anything else.
This is also the reason that the Porsche Boxster has had so many bottom ends go out. It was designed with oil that has closer to 2000ppm in it, which is more common in Europe. You'd have to use racing oil to get close to that level in the U.S. now.(IIRC the EPA has set the limits to ~850 now and are trying to drop it to 600ppm). The safe minimum is 1200ppm, and even that's too low for many engines.
A nice side effect for them (and CARB and other agencies) is that they know that this will cause older engines to wear out early and force the early retirement of millions of vehicles. This will help us buy more cars and also get rid of older more polluting ones as well. And of course, the science does back the idea that cleaner oil is better for the all important environment.(What? You assume that Big Business and Government aren't friends to this extent?)
Everyone wins except for the consumer who wonders why their car is suddenly running like it's twice as old and won't pass smog any more when it was doing fine 2-3 years earlier(before the changes were sneaked through)
EDIT:What to do?
Well, the EPA has allowed high mileage oils to keep it at 1200ppm, though you have to check online concerning each oil as they don't print it on it the label. (major pain I know). Or you can put additives in it. This really is only a major issue in California, where they won't allow any oil change chain or any of the stores to sell the higher level old-style oil at all. They also won't allow the major chains to sell the additives, either. So you have to, yes, break the law and use motorcycle or diesel oil(Rotella is a good choice - comes in gallon+ containers though) to save your engine from dying an untimely death.
Welcome to California. :sick:
Does anybody make zinc additives, I wonder? I've had my 2000 Park Avenue's oil changed at the mechanic, but I have no idea what oil they used, other than it was the 10W30 that the engine calls for.
I also did something bad, and let it go about 5800 miles between oil changes! Guess I'd better stop doing that, but the time just got away from me!
GM has added hefty incentives to its cars since the start of the year, offering big rebates to current owners of GM cars, no-penalty early trade-ins for currently leased GM cars and bigger rebates for users of the GM credit card. The result has been a U.S. market share of more than 21 percent, higher than the company has had in years.
Castrol makes a high mileage semi-synthetic formula that's good. IIRC they make a couple - get the highest mileage one - you'll note it doesn't have the newest EPA label on it and says "for classic cars". I use this in my Crown Vic and it runs very nicely. In your case, since you tend to change oil less often that you should, a synthetic blend might give you some extra breathing room.(ie - 5K would be fine in a pinch)
Shell makes Rotella diesel oil, which can also be used in many older V6 and V8 engines(NG for turbos and so on, though, since it's far too heavy). Though, since 2007, it's merely adequate and not good for really old engines(IIRC, it's SL rated, which is OK for any 1985+ or so V6 or V8 design but not nearly high enough for, say, a classic Mercedes or Chevy engine from the 60s)
Motorcycle oil and racing oils are also good, though pricey, and they are almost never multi-weight. It's very tricky to get a proper match with either though it has been done by some enterprising individuals. I live in Los Angeles, so I could probably get by with this trick. But I'd not try this in Chicago where humidity and temperatures are more extreme.
Some synthetics have high zinc in them as well. Most do not and are a disaster since everything is fine until the anti-wear additives run out. Then you're in serious trouble. Unfortunately, again, you have to check online as the auto makers and oil companies are largely lying or not saying anything about this.
Here's the info they won't tell you - that ~800ppm "new" oil has synthetic added to it and/or the same anti-wear compounds.(ie - it's all semi-synthetic now aside from the high mileage branded stuff) What's keeping the oil operating at safe levels are solely these additives and not anything in the oil itself any more. They can't add zinc so they are trying to add other things. Which are having *very* mixed results. They are stuck between the EPA and a hard place while trying to re-invent themselves.
A perfect example of this was the EPA mandating water-based primer. It took manufacturers nearly 20 years to stop having problems with flaking paint. It'll probably take the oil industry another 10 years at this point to fix all of the problems that the EPA is forcing upon them.
Back to the additives:
If the additives fail, the oil simply stops providing protection. And wear(and sludge) starts to happen. Not necessarily blown up engine type wear, but I do know that my dad's Park Avenue which used to be smooth as glass running now runs extremely rough. It's just wearing itself lose inside and vibrates like a diesel now. In three years it's gone from perfect to terrible and that coincides with the oil change, because everything else on the car is in perfect condition.(it's clearly internal wear and not timing or valves, which have been checked)
I also had a 1967 Mercedes eat its engine in six months. This coincided with the change in 2007 which quietly happened without anyone initially noticing.
60% of GM is Chevy = nowhere. (16/34)
GMC is in Chrysler-Quality territory...9 from the bottom.
FORD over Chevy says a whole lot of hurtin' for the General!
Buick and Caddy is their only hope except there is a plethora of better values as price is too high vs. comp afaic.
Regards,
OW
My old Mercedes:
I used standard 1200-1400ppm oil(which was good, if a bit low) and didn't catch that it was all reformulated to 800ppm. The original design specs called for ~1600-1800ppm oil. The engine ate itself in three oil changes as a result. Worn pistons, valves, cams, bottom end - it just all came apart and lost compression. I loved that car, too. Faced with a $4000 rebuild on a $3000 sedan, I sold it to someone in Germany for $2000 who had a working engine.
And here I thought the reason for GMC's existence is that they are "professional grade".
It had an overhaul almost 15 years ago (valve job, rings, etc), now gets an annual oil change, but has only done ~1000 miles a year for the past 9 years. It runs fine - good compression and power. It doesn't burn too much oil, but I usually just get some basic cheap (but name brand) 10-30 to top it off once in between changes.
GMC TERRAIN :lemon:
Base Price: $24,995
As-Tested: $37,585
Powertrain
Engine: 2.4-liter DOHC 16-valve 4-in-line
Horsepower: 182 hp @ 6700 rpm
Torque: 172 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm
Engine: 3.0-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6
Horsepower: 264 hp @ 6950 rpm
Torque: 222 lb-ft @ 5100 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed automatic
Drive: on-demand 4-wheel
Measurements
L x W x H: 185.3-in x 72.8-in x 66.3-in
Legroom F/R: 41.2/39.9 in
Headroom F/R: 40.9/39.2 in
Cargo capacity (seats up/down): 31.6/63.9 cu ft
Base curb weight: 3798 lbs
EPA Rating (city/highway):
20-22/29-32 mpg with 4-cylinder
17/24-25 mpg with V-6
2011 Kia Sportage SX :shades:
Base Price: $26,490
Powertrain
Engine: 2.0-liter Turbocharged I-4
Horsepower: 256 hp @6000 rpm
Torque: 264 lb-ft @ 1850-3000 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed automatic with overdrive and manual shift mode
Drive: Two- or four-wheel
Measurements
L x W x H: 175.2 x 73.0 x 64.4
Legroom F/R: 41.1/37.9
Headroom F/R: 39.1/38.5
Curb Weight: FWD - 3311 lbs., AWD - 3466 lbs.
The Terrain with the 4-pot gets the same MPG as the Kia with the 4-pot-T...except that the Kia will toast every performance category the Terrain can sweat out. And the price??????
$11,000 less for the Kia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spanked Big Time! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Get INSIDE the Terrain, then the Sportage, and you'll see where the extra $$$$ went.
Biggest difference? Interior space and comfort. The Terrain/Equinox brothers are quite simply HUGE for this class of crossover. I'm 6'2", and was perfectly comfortable in the BACK seat of the GM. Plenty of headroom (had at least 1-2 inches between the top of my head and the headliner), and the bottom cushion was longer and felt perfect. I can't say either of those for the Sportage I also checked out.
Interior fit-and-finish, materials, and instrument layout and controls also favor the GM twins as well. The switchgear looked and felt of higher-quality materials, controls were easy to operate and understand, and the seat fabric also looked and felt vastly more durable than the Kia.
I'm neither a Kia or GM fan (more of a Ford and Mazda guy), but I'd choose the GM twins over the Kia, simply because of it's larger size and better interior. As for performance? Please... If you're looking for 1/4 mile times, you're NOT looking at a crossover of any kind, let alone a 4-cylinder.
As for pricing? You may want to re-read your post, since the BASE PRICE of the GMC was LESS than the Kia ($24,995 to $26,490). Where's the "$11,000" less?
I can't remember how the Kia was, but I do remember sitting in a Terrain and being VERY impressed with the interior room. I'm 6'3", with a disproportionate amount of it in my legs, yet I had more than enough room up front, and in the back. In fact, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not, but it felt like it had more legroom, both front and rear, than the bigger, truck bases Suburbans and such!
That legroom was one thing that impressed me about the old Equinox/Terrain, as well.
A bloated boat over 200 lbs additional and $11K more is far too much to pay for the Terrain at the same performance level of the V-6 which is where the price issue lies. The Kia is less for the same power but better fuel economy?
Perhaps you missed that??
BTW, my wife just got a new CX-9 for X-Mas. No More GM. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Perhaps you missed my comments on how superior the GM interior was compared to the Kia, with better materials, fit-and-finish, and operation that has been compared to some entry-lux models. I'm also sure the price difference accounts for some of that too.
Performance isn't nearly as important to the crossover buyer compared to, say, a sports sedan or coupe. And as for the fuel economy, I've seen just about every test or review of the Hyundai/Kia turbo models (including the Sonata and Optima) with combined fuel economy that's no better than other 4-cylinders (and even some V6 models). I've also heard more than one owner say the same thing. You want performance? You'll be using the turbo more often than not, and getting V6 FE numbers accordingly.
Congrats on the CX-9. My mother-in-law just turned hers in (on lease), and after driving it off and on over the past two years, I can say that it's definitely the "driver" of it's class, feeling more like a car behind the wheel compared to a lumbering full-size crossover. It would be my first choice if I were looking for something in that segment.
I suspect that Toyota and others who have larger cash reserves are absorbing some of the secondary costs to artificially keep their prices down. Similarly to how they essentially sold the Prius for years at cost top gain market share.
Please allow me to re-arrange the comparison:
The Kia Sportage SX does not have any significant standard features. So I pick the 2nd up trim level SLE2 of the GMC to compare with.
MSRP:
GMC: $26050; Kia: $26490
Engine:
GMC: 182 HP; Kia: 260 HP (Kia has more HP because this is the SX trim; other trims, 176 HP; but GM's 2.4L engine is one of the Ward's top 10 engines in the world in 2010)
EPA fuel economy:
GMC: 22/32 mpg; Kia: 22/27 mpg (GM has the highest mpg of the class; who cares about 200 lbs more weight; it has no harm to the mpg but improves the safety and stability)
Leg room (front/rear)
GMC: 41.2/39.9; Kia: 41.4/37.9 (Kia is 2" short in the rear seat)
Brand recognition:
Who's Kia?
Chevrolet Equionix/GMC Terrain: 41840 (Equionix: 28281; Terrain: 13559)
Honda CR-V: 35435
Ford Escape: 31978
Toyota RAV4: 23758
Kia Sportage: please fill in ____
Honda CR-V Excellent
Ford Escape Average to Very Good
Toyota RAV4 Excellent
GMC Terrain Below Average
Kia Sportage Average
I guess there are a bunch of bankrupt, welfare case, unemployed burger flippers who don't understand the importance of reliability when purchasing a vehicle.
26th out of 34 nameplates is extremely poor, afaic. On the other hand, if you want a slow, over-priced vehicle in the segment that is sure to have problems, You go for that Terrain and Equinox.
If you want great efficiency and performance at great value, Sportage wins hands down. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Please don't sneak in different data and message here. Your original post was to compare GMC to Kia; but you did include the Chevrolet Equinox in the last post. Take a look the JD Power chart in your own post; the Chevrolet's reliability is at (or just below) average, sure better than Kia. Since GMC Terrain is a re-badged Chevrolet Equinox, and does not reassemble the rest of the GMC lines (big trucks), so the Terrain should be more of a Equinox's reliability, which is better than Kia.
So your statement should become: if you want a roomy, fuel frugal and refined SUV, and average reliability, go with Terrain or Equinox. If you want a cramped, coarse and noisy, not so good fuel economy, and much worse than average reliability, go with Kia or whatever brand it is.
How come the such excellent Toyota has to recall 17 million cars in just over one year?
Electric/hybrid cars: Chevy Volt is impressive; it's so quite and smooth, and still very fun to drive. In comparison, the Toyota Prius (not available here) is so dull, slow and rattles here and there. The electric generator noise when braking is very audible in Prius but barely noticeable in Volt. I went to Nissan dealer 2 days ago to test drive the Leaf and was told it wouldn't be available for test drive for at least a few months.
Sports cars: I started my Chevy Corvette when the Corvette before me already passed the mid point of the course and I caught up with it at the finish. The pro driver sat next to me told me that it was great and I made her look good too. It was fun.
SUVs: GMC Acadia is more refined and fun to drive than the Acura MDX, and with a lot more space. The twin brother Buick Enclave is in a class by its own; definitely the quietest and best looking luxury SUV of any brand. GMC Terrain is also more refined than Nissan Murano and more fun to drive than Hyundai Santa Fe.
Entry level luxury cars: The Acura TL handles well, although with torque steering in hard accelerations, and too small. Lexus ES is muted but the steering wheel is scarily loose; you can make the car out of control because of no feedback from steering and too light of the steering. The Buick LaCrosse is quieter than the Lexus, as fun to drive as the Acura, a good combination. The Buick Regal handles well but lack of power. The Regal Turbo finally becomes a true sporty car.
Compact cars: Chevrolet Cruze drives the best, follows by Honda Civic although the noisiest in the class. The Toyota Corolla is the worst, feels so thin and unsettled, vibrating at idle, rattling in speed.
Family cars: Again Chevrolet Malibu is the most refined; Honda Accord is the most sporty and the Toyota Camry does nothing bad but nothing well either.
Overall impression: Toyota and Honda really need some new interesting models badly. All the current models are familiar faces. The lines for test driving them were either very short or no one waiting. Without new models even the previous good models would lose sales volume over time.
You can pay the same for the less economical, lower performing and less dependable 4-cyl Terrain or for the same cash and get better fuel economy and 40% better power capabilty and higher dependability in the Kia.
Choose wisely, Grasshopper.
Buy from a has-been company that is a proven failure or a company with laser-focused dedication to delivering the best products and proving it.
No BS just deliver.
Regards,
OW
Where did you get the better economy number for the Kia? Here are the official EPA numbers:
Terrain 2.4L, FWD: auto 22/32; 182 HP
Sportage 2.4L, FWD: auto 22/31; manual 21/29; 176 HP
Which mpg is better? Which is more powerful?
V6 engines:
Terrain 3.0L: 264 HP
Sportage SX: 260 HP
Which one is more powerful?
There's no mpg data for the SX on the EPA website, so no comparison here.
Buy from a has-been company that is a proven failure or a company with laser-focused dedication to delivering the best products and proving it.
Do you know how many times Kia has been through bankruptcies and has been change hand from one company to another?
No BS just deliver
No one blame you if you don't even know it is BS or not, you just need to do some home work.
I bet if she test drove a MDX she would've picked that one. Maybe a RDX.
Why would someone choose a car from a company where they put bad tires on the cars. Imagine what else they cut corners on that keep it from being a quality auto if they cut corners on tire quality and picked bellowing tires!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,