The "leadership" who sought at all costs to locate to a low labor cost area at any price. The modern models are better, probably a result of better engineering and weeding out some workers. I anyway prefer a German car made in the homeland.
IIRC when MB first opened up shop in that region, they had a hard time finding workers literate enough to follow procedures, and the early batches of cars are among some of the most troublesome in MB history.
Well a lot of other car companies did ok down there. The MB issues were "cheapening out" issues caused by the ineptitude of MB management. Not to mention they took a very successful Chrysler (at the time) and pretty much trashed them, then spit out the carcass and left.
From what I know about some weak engines and transmissions in Mopars of that era - not to mention general fall-apart issues, I'll still take the German steel.
I'd make that bet too. Chrysler perfected the art of building crappy cars long before MB came into the picture.
Seriously, don't you remember the stories of MB having to use pictures rather than words to train new hires on equipment use? Yeah, I am sure that didn't have any impact on the finished product. Corner cutting engineering combined with corner cutting assembly via our treacherous executive classes wanting higher bonuses, and problematic vehicles you will find.
Well, Benz never built a car in most of Chrysler's lower price classes, either. Apples to apples, guys.
I do know it doesn't seem all that long ago that vaunted CR was rating Benz as low as GM's, or worse, for reliability. But here I go, dredging up the old "Reliability and quality aren't the same thing" discussion--although it seems like it is on this board, only if it's about GM.
A longtime friend has an '05 Benz that's an upper model--I wished they used names instead of numbers. I drove it. All the gadgetry doesn't do anything for me (as it doesn't on any car for me). I had to really push the gas pedal to get the car to move, which surprised me a bit. He does love it though. It's dark green. He said it would have been $95K new.
I'm not a 'car as status symbol' guy--obviously--although I've mentioned wanting a new Corvette at some time and that's definitely one of those. Even in old cars, I love Studebakers, even though we never had one in our family. That's far from a status symbol too!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My dad's $35K+ 97 T&C lost its transmission within the first couple months of ownership and had several teething issues in its first 50K miles (but admittedly wasn't bad after that)...MB didn't sink the ship. Chryslers of that era are pretty rare on the roads already. Chrysler didn't sink MB either, huge amounts of issues especially regarding wiring pop up after the early 90s.
Seriously, don't you remember the stories of MB having to use pictures rather than words to train new hires on equipment use?
Maybe they didn't realize those 'bama boys couldn't read German;)
Yeah, I remember. I don't remember the exact details, but it was pretty well documented that MB had one heck of a time finding employees that could properly learn the job.
My dad's $35K+ 97 T&C lost its transmission within the first couple months of ownership and had several teething issues in its first 50K miles (but admittedly wasn't bad after that)...
I don't doubt that at all. I remember our neighbor when I was still living at home ('90 or so) had a T&C that went through 3 transmissions prior to 70k miles. They were nice vans if you could keep a trans operating. Far nicer than the lousy vans GM and Ford sold at the time. Reliability may not been much different, but the design of the Chrysler vans were in a another league.
Corner cutting engineering combined with corner cutting assembly via our treacherous executive classes wanting higher bonuses, and problematic vehicles you will find.
So you're agreeing that MB management fell into the treacherous executive class at that time? :P
Chrysler started cleaning up their quality act around 1996 or so. That's not to say they suddenly became perfect, but the 1995 and earlier models were much worse. The 4-speed automatic was always a trouble spot, but wasn't too bad in lighter models with smaller engines. However, in something like a minivan, which is heavy, and usually powered by a fairly torquey 3.3 or 3.8 V-6 (3.0 Mitsu unit in the earlier years, and that one was fairly torquey for its displacement, too), and you could run into trouble.
One reason that transmission was so troublesome, believe it or not, was because of a misprint in the owner's manual! For years, it specified a transmission fluid type of +7176, when it should have been +9196, or some typo like that. The wrong fluid would make it shift rougher, cause other issues, and would tend to make it fail prematurely. And often, when the transmission was rebuilt, the transmission cooler and lines weren't always flushed out, which would often ensure that the rebuild would fail soon, as well.
The owner's manual also recommended 100,000 mile service intervals on the "normal" schedule, and 50,000 on the "severe". When I had my 2000 Intrepid, I made sure to have the fluid changed every 30,000 miles, which may be one reason why I never had any trouble with it, and it was still acting fine at 150,000 miles when it got wrecked.
A lot of transmissions do seem to go 100K miles or even more without needing servicing, but I'm a bit weary of letting them go that long. I'd probably do a 30K interval, just to be on the safe side.
Mercedes probably introduced some pretty stringent standards and build practices that the UAW probably fought tooth and nail against. I would guess there was some pretty chaotic times trying to mesh the two and the product suffered on both sides.
My 3-speed auto transmission from chrysler in 1995 gave me plenty of issues.
I had the fluid changed at either 15 and 45K, or at 30 and 45K, can't remember, but know I did it regularly and twice before total failure at 60K. I mean the car still ran, but the tranny was definitely on it's last leg and problems get worse, not better by themselves.
Can't figure out why they were using ancient technology in a 1995 vehicle.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The "Dustbuster" vans back then were knocked for their looks and high-mounted rear lights (although the mags complimented Volvo wagons for their identical units, later, of course). At least they didn't look like a regular "van". The composite body panels seem to have held up well over the years (no rust and paint seems to stick to them). The GM vans were first to offer a power sliding door and first to have modular seating. I wouldn't mind a '95 or '96 Chevy version, with the redesigned front fenders and front end, and Buick 3.8.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
CR apparently felt the GX was more dangerous than the Jeep, but to suggest that those Birkenstock wearers at CU are biased against ToyoLex is absolutely comical. This did happen, but only after decades of the reverse. Come on.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
CR apparently felt the GX was more dangerous than the Jeep, but to suggest that those Birkenstock wearers at CU are biased against ToyoLex is absolutely comical. This did happen, but only after decades of the reverse. Come on.
The Camry 6 cyl was also "Not Recommended" after the current incarnation first started having tranny issues when it was first introduced.
Ford is the real USA brand that should stand as the leader of the US Auto Industry...NEVER GM!
Alan Mulally CEO, Ford Lesson:Thrive in the face of adversity; fortune favors the bold. To say the past few years were not kind to the auto industry is a massive understatement. The iconic Ford(F_) brand, like its competitors, was in dire straits. Today, bold moves and shrewd negotiations have made the carmaker not just viable, but profitable again.
In 2006, Mulally leveraged nearly all of Ford's assets to secure a loan of nearly $24 billion. Viewed with negativity and suspicion by investors and industry watchers at the time, the move proved nearly psychic given the recession that soon followed.
That massive loan also served as a catalyst for events that reshaped and saved the car company.
While General Motors(GM_) and Chrysler went bankrupt during the rough economic climate of 2008, Ford was stabilizing. That progress -- which allowed Ford to avoid the necessity of a government bailout -- was aided by such bold moves as cutting loose assets that were not part of the Ford brand, including Jaguar, Volvo and Aston Martin. Even the powerful United Auto Workers union was on board with the changes made under Mulally's watch, agreeing to wage reductions and other concessions.
Last month, Mulally was named 2011 Chief Executive of the Year by Chief Executive magazine, an honor determined by reader-submitted nominations and a review panel of industry leaders.
"The success he showed in the face of incredible difficulty was just extraordinary," said James Turley, chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young. "The foresight he showed throughout the process, the courage he showed in making some tough decisions on popular brands, the global mindset he showed and, above all, the statesmanship he showed when two major competitors were on the public dole shows he was thinking for the good of the country as well as his company and industry."
It's incrediblel how the die-hard GM faithful overlook so many failures at this has-been auto company. The new companies biggest mistake?? Keeping the damaged brand name! :P
The Camry 6 cyl was also "Not Recommended" after the current incarnation first started having tranny issues when it was first introduced.
Not to mention that when you say the word "sludge", what's the first brand that pops into most peoples' minds? Nevermind the fact that the Mopar 2.7 V-6 also had a reputation for sludging, and I think there was a VW engine that did, as well. And I'm sure there are other engines. I think the whole sludge debacle was overblown by word of mouth and the internet though, and in reality probably didn't happen often enough to bring overall reliability ratings down too much.
I have a '98 Ford and a '98 GM. I have owned them a total of 19 years.
The Ford is rusting but the GM is not The GM suspension is 'like a rock' and the Ford is squeaky sounding. The Ford has a very noisy drivetrain compared to the GM. They both run great at 13 years old and 130k plus miles. Cold A/C, good performance, EPA topping mpgs, CD players and power windows still working on both. The GM leaks a tiny bit of oil from the oil cooler lines. The Ford doesn't leak, but doesn't have an oil cooler. From what I know about the Ford, it was very reliable before I got it 6 years ago. It has had fewer repairs than the GM. They both are on their second battery, which is since 2002 in the GM. Basically, the difference is rough vs refined but the rough one has been more reliable.
If I worked for GM today, I would feel better about my job than I did say in 2003 when my job with them was headed to Mexico. Their product line is strong. Everything new since 2008 is competitive. Some of the chains from around their necks are gone and they are used to surviving even with those chains.
Granted I'm comparing apples and oranges a bit since my Expedition is 7 years newer than the Suburban it replaced, but the Expe is far more refined. The powertrain is much quieter and very few squeaks at almost 90k, vs. the Suburban being a complete rattle trap by 50k miles.
As for reliability, the Ford has been cheaper to keep running, but still not as reliable as I'd like. No question Suburban had a softer ride. But that soft ride was a detriment when loaded up as it tended to float and bob all over the place, the rear end would squat far more with the boat vs the Expedition. The Expe seems to handle weight much better. Kind of the opposite that you'd expect with a IRS vs. solid axle.
I have a friend that has a '98 Silverado with a 350. It has around 110k on it. It has held up remarkably well. Outside of a hideous interior, it's still solid. The 350 is a very good engine engine. I wonder if the GMT-800s took a step back in some regards. Because my Suburban never felt as solid as that '98 Pickup. And the 5.3 needs to rev higher to make power. Seemed I was always revving it past 4k rpm to pull the boat etc. Don't need to do that with the 350 or Fords 5.4. In a truck low rpm torque is a huge plus. The 5.3 is probably more reliable than the 5.4, but the 5.4 wins hands down in the torque output.
>probably didn't happen often enough to bring overall reliability ratings down
But it was prevalent enough that Mackabee mentioned that he showed customers how to check for sludge in used toyotas when he was showing one to them.
Too the sludge issue and toyota's lack of handling, then having dealers blame the customers, then grudgingly calling it "gel" and it wasn't their engineering's fault, then issuing a repair to some people set the scene for people to catch on to their lack of proper handling (since 2002) of the latest multiple problems with their cars in the toyota and Lexus marques.
Some friends bought a 29-foot trailer for camping and picked up a 14-year old Suburban to tow it. That's a good statement about durability in a 100,000 mile GM. It is a diesel.
Toyota also lowered the oil change interval to 5,000 miles on most models (can't figure why they say just change the filters at 5k intervals on the 2011 Sienna). Most everyone else is going to 7,500 or more.
Chevy has gone to 10,000 mile intervals. I like that trend a whole lot.
Some friends bought a 29-foot trailer for camping and picked up a 14-year old Suburban to tow it. That's a good statement about durability in a 100,000 mile GM. It is a diesel.
Well, if it's a Diesel, that tells me they at least picked a 3/4 or 1-ton Suburban, and not the more common 1/2 ton. So in their case, they at least got a "real" truck. I think that one used the beefier 4L80E transmission?
Which Diesel was GM using by that time? My uncle had a 1994 Sierra 3/4 ton with the 6.5 turbodiesel, and that thing was so bad that he unloaded it after about 8 or 9 months. He bought it used in the fall of 1996. It had less than 20,000 miles on it, but I swear it had to go in the shop every other week. It was always killing a sensor or switch or some other peripheral thing that would make it stall out or run like crap.
He finally got fed up with it, and traded it around May or so of '97, for the 1/2 ton Silverado V-6 that he still has. Which, I hate to say, is rusting, and has eaten two transmissions.
I think 7500 mile intervals are fine, but the catch is, if you have an owner who misses one, that means the engine will go 15,000 miles on the same oil, which is bad in any car, no matter the oil.
The idiot light works because it reminds people not to miss that appointment with the dealer.
Yeah the 6.5 Turbo diesel never had a good reputation. That's probably why Ford and Dodge owned the diesel market prior to the duramax. Though last I saw Ford still had close to 50% market share in the HD pickup market.
Yeah oil change intervals are getting longer. Just picked the Taurus up from the dealer for it's first oil change at 7500 miles. The oil life monitor still showed 30% remaining, but the maintenance program from the fleet company wants the oil changed at 7500 or by the OLM whichever comes first.
I dunno, I've done that at least once with my van (which is pushing 158k). I think oil is a lot better than it used to be. 10k intervals have been the norm in the EU for what, a couple of decades now? I bet we'll see 15k or longer intervals in another decade.
In GM news, OnStar is going universal Sunday. Anyone can get a unit (for ~$300) and pay the $19 a month fee and get Automatic Crash Response, turn by turn navigation and hands free calling. (consumeraffairs.com)
Buy one and you will soon be utilizing a repair shop..or better yet, start a small operation on your own so you can earn money while you learn..Yesterday I used a small outfit that has 2 GM mechanics with a trillion years of experience mending GM cars..My 2006 Grand Prix GT with 59k miles had 2 collapsed motor mounts, engine front and tranny mounts..Not an easy operation to replace..to date 3 sets of tires, 3 ISS steering shafts, and 5 batteries..I have owned this "piece of metal" since 6/30/07 at which time I traded a 2002 Olds Intrigue showing 120k mi on this Black Beauty which had 4k mi..sunroof, leather, and all the goodies.Local Caddy tradein, great price out the door..Really no complaints for I only use the Buick/GMC dealer on rare occasions and the Chevy dealer for alignment..The small repair shop is also a Tire Rack installer and their balancing skills are great..they do all my oil changes, Royal Purple.
Having owned 34 GM cars over the years out of 53 total cars, I can truthfully say that this supercharged 06 Pontiac is getting to be a "pain." However it is cheap transportation and will stay in the fleet until the Mustang GT is bought, probably the end of this year...
The Michigan area of Flint is a "rat hole" and any GM investment will not change anything.. With the Obama EPA edits and proposed mileage stds will kill all progress..
I remember as a kid back in the the mid 60's that Dodge made a big deal of its RV's at the Chicago auto show for a couple of years. One year I believe GM also did in response.
I guess I'm a little late to the game in terms of extended intervals. I always did 3 months/3K miles on all my cars, mostly because they were used and I was basically paranoid.
My last Mazda6 came with free oil changes for life from the local dealer, so I had no problem sticking with their once-every-3 months-limit that they set (in which I did about 3-4K miles).
For my current 6, I'm running semi-syn, but I'm sticking to 5K oil changes (or the 'severe service' intervals according to the OM). Between the huge extremes in weather in the Northeast, the rush-hour commute, and that I like to drive a little "spiritedly" when it's safe to do so ( ), I'm sticking to the 5K.
Bah, wasting oil. My cars have lived from the colds of Anchorage to the 105+ summers of Boise and use dead dino. My engine internals are clean enough to eat off of. :-)
You think GM engineers are really so bad they didn't consider lubrication factors when they went to a 10,000 mile change interval?
GM Avg. Trans. Price/unit = $33,197 Ford = $34,452
Ford sales are lower as is their market share. Let's see the profits reported for Q1-2. Guess who wins? Who is running their business better? Which CEO is better? Which is more patriotic?
Too bad Ford can't shed the UAW. Perhaps in all good time....
With all the good press Ford got about not taking bailout money, why is Chevy outselling it in cars the past couple months?
Because there is a sucker born every minute;)
Why is the Escape still outselling the Equinox? Probably similar reasons.
Seriously, I'd say the huge amount of Impala fleet sales are a big reason. No doubt incentives too. Who in their right mind would actually want to buy an Impala? Well unless it's dirt cheap.
Add trucks and SUVs and I believe Ford is still outselling Chevy.
>You think GM engineers are really so bad they didn't consider lubrication factors when they went to a 10,000 mile change interval?
I did two oil samples on my 3800 GM motor. I'd have to look up the exact mileages, but both showed more than adequate additive package left to run to the 10,000 miles GM specified for this car with the proper oil--maybe SM?
The oil life minder was both times indicating approximately a 10,000 mile interval. I changed at 6000 and 7000 IIRC. I probably wouldn't run the 10000 even with the synthetic I'm using.
Changing oil earlier than needed is wasting oil. At 3000 it's beyond waste these days. 5000 miles with regular oil is probably extra good care for a motor.
Comments
Well a lot of other car companies did ok down there. The MB issues were "cheapening out" issues caused by the ineptitude of MB management. Not to mention they took a very successful Chrysler (at the time) and pretty much trashed them, then spit out the carcass and left.
I'd make that bet too. Chrysler perfected the art of building crappy cars long before MB came into the picture.
I do know it doesn't seem all that long ago that vaunted CR was rating Benz as low as GM's, or worse, for reliability. But here I go, dredging up the old "Reliability and quality aren't the same thing" discussion--although it seems like it is on this board, only if it's about GM.
A longtime friend has an '05 Benz that's an upper model--I wished they used names instead of numbers. I drove it. All the gadgetry doesn't do anything for me (as it doesn't on any car for me). I had to really push the gas pedal to get the car to move, which surprised me a bit. He does love it though. It's dark green. He said it would have been $95K new.
I'm not a 'car as status symbol' guy--obviously--although I've mentioned wanting a new Corvette at some time and that's definitely one of those. Even in old cars, I love Studebakers, even though we never had one in our family. That's far from a status symbol too!
Maybe they didn't realize those 'bama boys couldn't read German;)
Yeah, I remember. I don't remember the exact details, but it was pretty well documented that MB had one heck of a time finding employees that could properly learn the job.
I don't doubt that at all. I remember our neighbor when I was still living at home ('90 or so) had a T&C that went through 3 transmissions prior to 70k miles. They were nice vans if you could keep a trans operating. Far nicer than the lousy vans GM and Ford sold at the time. Reliability may not been much different, but the design of the Chrysler vans were in a another league.
So you're agreeing that MB management fell into the treacherous executive class at that time? :P
One reason that transmission was so troublesome, believe it or not, was because of a misprint in the owner's manual! For years, it specified a transmission fluid type of +7176, when it should have been +9196, or some typo like that. The wrong fluid would make it shift rougher, cause other issues, and would tend to make it fail prematurely. And often, when the transmission was rebuilt, the transmission cooler and lines weren't always flushed out, which would often ensure that the rebuild would fail soon, as well.
The owner's manual also recommended 100,000 mile service intervals on the "normal" schedule, and 50,000 on the "severe". When I had my 2000 Intrepid, I made sure to have the fluid changed every 30,000 miles, which may be one reason why I never had any trouble with it, and it was still acting fine at 150,000 miles when it got wrecked.
A lot of transmissions do seem to go 100K miles or even more without needing servicing, but I'm a bit weary of letting them go that long. I'd probably do a 30K interval, just to be on the safe side.
Tough enough to drive some to drink, no doubt!
Regards,
OW
Yeah...I guess their reasoning is that it's 4:20 somewhere, eh? :P
I had the fluid changed at either 15 and 45K, or at 30 and 45K, can't remember, but know I did it regularly and twice before total failure at 60K. I mean the car still ran, but the tranny was definitely on it's last leg and problems get worse, not better by themselves.
Can't figure out why they were using ancient technology in a 1995 vehicle.
GM To Invest $328M In Flint Truck Plant (AutoObserver)
Ain't that the way it is. If it's foreign, the supposed unbiased groups love it. If it's a US brand car, it's just not good. :mad:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Both just needed a stability control re-programming.
Perhaps you are applying selective attention?
The Camry 6 cyl was also "Not Recommended" after the current incarnation first started having tranny issues when it was first introduced.
Alan Mulally
CEO, Ford
Lesson: Thrive in the face of adversity; fortune favors the bold.
To say the past few years were not kind to the auto industry is a massive understatement. The iconic Ford(F_) brand, like its competitors, was in dire straits. Today, bold moves and shrewd negotiations have made the carmaker not just viable, but profitable again.
In 2006, Mulally leveraged nearly all of Ford's assets to secure a loan of nearly $24 billion. Viewed with negativity and suspicion by investors and industry watchers at the time, the move proved nearly psychic given the recession that soon followed.
That massive loan also served as a catalyst for events that reshaped and saved the car company.
While General Motors(GM_) and Chrysler went bankrupt during the rough economic climate of 2008, Ford was stabilizing. That progress -- which allowed Ford to avoid the necessity of a government bailout -- was aided by such bold moves as cutting loose assets that were not part of the Ford brand, including Jaguar, Volvo and Aston Martin. Even the powerful United Auto Workers union was on board with the changes made under Mulally's watch, agreeing to wage reductions and other concessions.
Last month, Mulally was named 2011 Chief Executive of the Year by Chief Executive magazine, an honor determined by reader-submitted nominations and a review panel of industry leaders.
"The success he showed in the face of incredible difficulty was just extraordinary," said James Turley, chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young. "The foresight he showed throughout the process, the courage he showed in making some tough decisions on popular brands, the global mindset he showed and, above all, the statesmanship he showed when two major competitors were on the public dole shows he was thinking for the good of the country as well as his company and industry."
It's incrediblel how the die-hard GM faithful overlook so many failures at this has-been auto company. The new companies biggest mistake?? Keeping the damaged brand name! :P
Live Free or DIE!
Regards,
OW
Not to mention that when you say the word "sludge", what's the first brand that pops into most peoples' minds? Nevermind the fact that the Mopar 2.7 V-6 also had a reputation for sludging, and I think there was a VW engine that did, as well. And I'm sure there are other engines. I think the whole sludge debacle was overblown by word of mouth and the internet though, and in reality probably didn't happen often enough to bring overall reliability ratings down too much.
The Ford is rusting but the GM is not
The GM suspension is 'like a rock' and the Ford is squeaky sounding.
The Ford has a very noisy drivetrain compared to the GM.
They both run great at 13 years old and 130k plus miles. Cold A/C, good performance, EPA topping mpgs, CD players and power windows still working on both.
The GM leaks a tiny bit of oil from the oil cooler lines. The Ford doesn't leak, but doesn't have an oil cooler. From what I know about the Ford, it was very reliable before I got it 6 years ago. It has had fewer repairs than the GM. They both are on their second battery, which is since 2002 in the GM. Basically, the difference is rough vs refined but the rough one has been more reliable.
If I worked for GM today, I would feel better about my job than I did say in 2003 when my job with them was headed to Mexico. Their product line is strong. Everything new since 2008 is competitive. Some of the chains from around their necks are gone and they are used to surviving even with those chains.
Seriously?
The Lexus GX only skidded (we saw the videos), the Jeep skidded and hopped sideways. They never released the Jeep videos to the public.
Face it - CR gave Jeep a major break.
I never said they were biased against Toyota, but they gave Jeep preferential treatment is absolute fact.
Notice how CR went after Suzuki, then Isuzu, then Toyota. All treated equal.
Except Jeep.
As for reliability, the Ford has been cheaper to keep running, but still not as reliable as I'd like. No question Suburban had a softer ride. But that soft ride was a detriment when loaded up as it tended to float and bob all over the place, the rear end would squat far more with the boat vs the Expedition. The Expe seems to handle weight much better. Kind of the opposite that you'd expect with a IRS vs. solid axle.
I have a friend that has a '98 Silverado with a 350. It has around 110k on it. It has held up remarkably well. Outside of a hideous interior, it's still solid. The 350 is a very good engine engine. I wonder if the GMT-800s took a step back in some regards. Because my Suburban never felt as solid as that '98 Pickup. And the 5.3 needs to rev higher to make power. Seemed I was always revving it past 4k rpm to pull the boat etc. Don't need to do that with the 350 or Fords 5.4. In a truck low rpm torque is a huge plus. The 5.3 is probably more reliable than the 5.4, but the 5.4 wins hands down in the torque output.
But it was prevalent enough that Mackabee mentioned that he showed customers how to check for sludge in used toyotas when he was showing one to them.
Too the sludge issue and toyota's lack of handling, then having dealers blame the customers, then grudgingly calling it "gel" and it wasn't their engineering's fault, then issuing a repair to some people set the scene for people to catch on to their lack of proper handling (since 2002) of the latest multiple problems with their cars in the toyota and Lexus marques.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Some friends bought a 29-foot trailer for camping and picked up a 14-year old Suburban to tow it. That's a good statement about durability in a 100,000 mile GM. It is a diesel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm not saying they weren't more susceptible to having the problem, but as mentioned above, so were some VWs and Mopars.
Chevy has gone to 10,000 mile intervals. I like that trend a whole lot.
Well, if it's a Diesel, that tells me they at least picked a 3/4 or 1-ton Suburban, and not the more common 1/2 ton. So in their case, they at least got a "real" truck. I think that one used the beefier 4L80E transmission?
Which Diesel was GM using by that time? My uncle had a 1994 Sierra 3/4 ton with the 6.5 turbodiesel, and that thing was so bad that he unloaded it after about 8 or 9 months. He bought it used in the fall of 1996. It had less than 20,000 miles on it, but I swear it had to go in the shop every other week. It was always killing a sensor or switch or some other peripheral thing that would make it stall out or run like crap.
He finally got fed up with it, and traded it around May or so of '97, for the 1/2 ton Silverado V-6 that he still has. Which, I hate to say, is rusting, and has eaten two transmissions.
The idiot light works because it reminds people not to miss that appointment with the dealer.
Yeah oil change intervals are getting longer. Just picked the Taurus up from the dealer for it's first oil change at 7500 miles. The oil life monitor still showed 30% remaining, but the maintenance program from the fleet company wants the oil changed at 7500 or by the OLM whichever comes first.
In GM news, OnStar is going universal Sunday. Anyone can get a unit (for ~$300) and pay the $19 a month fee and get Automatic Crash Response, turn by turn navigation and hands free calling. (consumeraffairs.com)
Having owned 34 GM cars over the years out of 53 total cars, I can truthfully say that this supercharged 06 Pontiac is getting to be a "pain." However it is cheap transportation and will stay in the fleet until the Mustang GT is bought, probably the end of this year...
The Michigan area of Flint is a "rat hole" and any GM investment will not change anything.. With the Obama EPA edits and proposed mileage stds will kill all progress..
My last Mazda6 came with free oil changes for life from the local dealer, so I had no problem sticking with their once-every-3 months-limit that they set (in which I did about 3-4K miles).
For my current 6, I'm running semi-syn, but I'm sticking to 5K oil changes (or the 'severe service' intervals according to the OM). Between the huge extremes in weather in the Northeast, the rush-hour commute, and that I like to drive a little "spiritedly" when it's safe to do so (
You think GM engineers are really so bad they didn't consider lubrication factors when they went to a 10,000 mile change interval?
I change the oil in the Expedition between 4-5k miles per the OLM.
Regards,
OW
Answer: Incentives
Watch GM's profit margin vs. Ford in Q2. All of the pro-GM will not like it too much, I assure you. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Perhaps because Chevy has historically had a higher market share and there are more loyalists than Ford?
Hasn't Ford substantially narrowed the market share gap over the past five years?
GM incentives/unit = $3,284 Ford = $2,531
GM Avg. Trans. Price/unit = $33,197 Ford = $34,452
Ford sales are lower as is their market share. Let's see the profits reported for Q1-2. Guess who wins? Who is running their business better? Which CEO is better? Which is more patriotic?
Too bad Ford can't shed the UAW. Perhaps in all good time....
Regards,
OW
Because there is a sucker born every minute;)
Why is the Escape still outselling the Equinox? Probably similar reasons.
Seriously, I'd say the huge amount of Impala fleet sales are a big reason. No doubt incentives too. Who in their right mind would actually want to buy an Impala? Well unless it's dirt cheap.
Add trucks and SUVs and I believe Ford is still outselling Chevy.
I did two oil samples on my 3800 GM motor. I'd have to look up the exact mileages, but both showed more than adequate additive package left to run to the 10,000 miles GM specified for this car with the proper oil--maybe SM?
The oil life minder was both times indicating approximately a 10,000 mile interval. I changed at 6000 and 7000 IIRC. I probably wouldn't run the 10000 even with the synthetic I'm using.
Changing oil earlier than needed is wasting oil. At 3000 it's beyond waste these days. 5000 miles with regular oil is probably extra good care for a motor.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,