real quality problems started when the designs started emulating Japanese cars! My '85 Celebrity was probably my worst
I don't follow...the Celebrity was big and had large pushrod engines. Doesn't seem very Japanese to me. At the time the Camcords had 4 bangers and were smaller, multi-valve engines. Lighter, smaller, more tech.
Most Celebritys were four-bangers, too. Front-drive. Transverse-mounted engines. Not exactly what Detroit was known for. Don't know if I'd call a 104-inch wheelbase "big".
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>Isn't a car companies mission to make money? Is the SUV and truck market "Sacred ground" that nobody but the Detroit 2 1/2 are supposed to sell?
Exactly right. GM would have been criticized for not selling things that made more profit (happening today). GM would have been criticized for selling things that do have higher profit (happening today).
The hypocrisy is when people criticize GM for selling the larger, higher profit vehicles and DON'T criticize the econobox origination foreign brands which have evolved into large, large cars to compete for the older larger people's market ALONG WITH their movement to trucks and large SUVs. Can we spell h y p o c r i s y?
The same people who criticzed GM for having a stable of SUVs which are large (too large in my personal opinion) don't criticize those buyers of Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, etc., which have poor gas mileage. Instead the blond housewife with her SUV or HUMMER became the arch example of the conspicous user of gasoline at a higher than deserved rate.
That selective criticism is still the result of the negative GM viewpoint.
As for the large repetition of similar models, GM was stuck with a dealer group of 5 different brands to whom they had a responsibility to supply a reasonable group of vehicles to sell. They can't abrogate those contracts at will.
They also were stuck with a UAW setup where they couldn't close down some factories to lower production. Some factories could be switched but they still had to employ those UAW folks (did the President that those folks elected get rid of those UAW contracts?).
Did CR truly rate the 2010 V6 Camry as 'worse than average' in reliability?
I just checked on CU online and indeed the 2010 Camry v6 is rated overall worse than average with a 1/2 black circle. The problems appear to be in squeaks and rattles, power equipment, and audio. All of the mechanicals have solid red circles.
The 4cyl model is rated average overall. Strangely squeaks and rattles in the 4cyl model are rated above average, with body hardware, and audio being average. Maybe a buzzing 4cyl makes rattle hard to hear, or maybe those who buy the 4cyl model are less likely to complain about rattles.
Sometimes I do scratch my head at CU results. Though they are overall in line with what JD Power reports. Looks like the Camry is above average in mechanical quality but below average in other areas.
The same people who criticzed GM for having a stable of SUVs which are large (too large in my personal opinion) don't criticize those buyers of Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, etc., which have poor gas mileage. Instead the blond housewife with her SUV or HUMMER became the arch example of the conspicous user of gasoline at a higher than deserved rate.
I agree with your post other than GM wasn't the only one being picked on. Ford and Chrysler have had their fare share of bad press regarding the same issues.
Remember when Ford made the Excursion? They got all sorts of negative press from the media and tree huggers. In reality that is still a coveted vehicle in diesel form with those who tow heavy loads. No it's not a good daily driver for a soccer mom, but who am I to judge. I still see Excursions on a regular occasion at the lake with huge boats in tow.
Are you kidding? Motor Trend is on every newsstand in every store and in about every doctor's and dentist's office. Has been for decades too.
Yeah, but how many people actually read it to the point it influences their purchasing decision. The Malibu and Cruze have yet to win a comparison test and they have sold well. Same with most of the GM crossovers. They are selling well and still don't fare well in most comparisons. That's not to say they are bad, they just don't place well in most comparisons.
The Explorer has been getting slammed and it's selling well. CU has been reporting negatively on the Camry and it bounced right back and sold over 30k last month.
Most of the time when I'm in an office with a variety of magazines the car magazines are always available. I've yet to see a women reading Car and Driver or motor trend and they are responsible for at least 1/2 of vehicle purchases and their influence is increasing all the time.
I'm from the second half of the 70s. Oldest car I remember in the family was a big 70s T-Bird with a 460 that my mother had until the mid 80s. My mother loved that car, my dad saw it as kind of the end of an era...but it aged very poorly when it hit 10 years old or so, by 1985 it was off the road and literally given away to a hot rodder friend of my dad. Only new car event I remember was when the local small town Chevy dealer got in a new Beretta in 1987. I wasn't excited though, I was obsessing over European cars even then. My dad had hobby cars over the years, usually 60s domestics - but this was in the 90s. I will agree the 50s and 60s automotive scene had a magic that hasn't existed since.
dustbusters pioneered power sliding doors, modular seating, and composite body panels ... give some credit where credit is due
I love power sliding doors, so kudos for that.
Unfortunately, our friends had a Venture and the doors were very problematic. To this day you still hear a lot of complaints on those, but I'll take the risk because they are an excellent feature to have when carrying a sleeping kid.
I rented a dustbuster and drove to Florida with my dad. What I recall is that you opened the windows at your own peril - the buffeting that resulted would knock your ear drums out. A serious aerodynamic flaw, like a sunroof with no vent. I'm talking FRONT windows, too.
fin's comment about the tactile feel of cheap turn signals hit home, reminding me of dad's Olds Custom Cruiser. Left turn? SNAP! Felt like it broke every time. Lots of things on that car sent me running to Ford.
The domestics are certainly better now than at any time in my life. We both grew up during the malaise age, as did many other consumers - this doesn't help perception. It will take more time for the sins of the past to be forgotten.
My friend had a 1982 Malibu Classic and his Mom rented a 1984 Celebrity to travel to Newark airport from Philly. That Celebrity seemed downright petite next to the Malibu. I know I didn't like it. At the time, I was afraid that Chevrolet was going to replace the Caprice with the Celebrity! Aaaagh!!!
Only new car event I remember was when the local small town Chevy dealer got in a new Beretta in 1987. I wasn't excited though, I was obsessing over European cars even then.
Since I grew up an hour from Chicago, going to the Chicago Auto Show was always a big deal for me during the 80's. I'd pass the GM junk, and check out the Mustangs, then I'd march straight to BMW, MB, Porsche, and Ferrari etc.
I've never been a big fan of 50's and 60's cars (granted there are a few I really like). We had a 71 Mustang convertible growing up. I realized quick I preferred spending more time driving vs fixing. Plus I prefer cars that start and stop as well as they turn. Not many domestics from prior to the 80's fit that description. Our Mustang was scary to drive fast in anyway other than a straight line. Plus stopping was more of a concept than a reality.
That Celebrity seemed downright petite next to the Malibu. i know I didn't like it.
In drivers ED I had to suffer through an '86 Celebrity with a 2.5 4cyl (Iron Duke?) The only positive I remember from that experience was being squished in between two cute girls in the back seat. Granted they scared the living crap out of me when they were behind the wheel.
A 460 V-8 T-Bird? It must've been one of the huge 1972-76 models based on the Lincoln Mark IV. They were massive, but I thought they were attractive. I remember really wanting one when I was a kid. I even had the brochure from the local Ford dealer.
Contrary to what many believe, they stopped recommending 7 Toyota models during the SUA investigations (reversed since).
And yes, the v1.0 of the U660E transmission did drag reliability scores below average for the Camry.
Top it off with a gigantic DO NOT BUY on the drift-tastic Lexus GX, forcing a stability control re-program.
What I felt was biased was that the new Jeep Grand Cherokee had the same issue, "hopped and skidded sideways" in their tests, yet no DO NOT BUY stamp on that domestic car. Why?
Oh, and Chrysler was given access to their test track. Toyota hired helicopters to do fly overs to measure the track where the avoidance maneuver was performed. There's no question Chrysler received preferential treatment.
Sienna and 4Runner scored lower in CR tests than their predecessors.
Any how, perhaps the pendulum has swung the other way, but CR has been brutal towards Toyota lately.
If some magazine said porcupines make great petting animals, many would now be sitting at their computers with quills in their hands.
While that's funny. I seriously don't believe for a minute the reason consumers walked, no I mean ran from domestics to the imports is only because it was reported in a rag that the imports were better in a comparison test. The reality is in most cases the imports offered what consumers wanted better than the domestics did.
I've never heard anyone tell me that they bought a car based on an article in a car magazine. Most have been, well, my ______ sucked, so I decided to look at _______ and I really like it, so I bought it.
A friend of mine just bought a F150 with the ecoboost v6. He's an astute successful guy that works in telecommunications. I saw it and asked how him howliked the EB. He responded by saying he didn't know what it was. All he new was that it was a v6. I had to convince him that it was turbocharged as he initially didn't think it was. He just traded in his 02 F150 and wanted a new f150 with the highest tow rating available and that's what the dealer sold him. He was hoping the v6 would be strong enough to pull his 8k lb boat. Man is it. Sweet truck.
At the time, I was afraid that Chevrolet was going to replace the Caprice with the Celebrity! Aaaagh!!!
I'm convinced that GM was planning on replacing the Caprice with the 1982 Malibu, in a move similar to what Pontiac did, but then chickened out at the last minute. If you notice, the '82-83 Malibu, with its quad headlights and eggcrate grille, does bear a strong resemblance to the Caprice, much moreso than any Malibu before ever did.
Pontiac, in 1981, sold around 100,000 full-sized Catalina/Bonnevilles and around 85-90,000 mid-sized LeManses. For 1982, when the LeMans was restyled and renamed Bonneville, it sold around 80-85,000 units, and went downhill from there. The 6000, which was supposed to replace the LeMans as the midsized car, took a couple years to really catch on, as did all those new FWD A-bodies. I forget how many 6000's were sold in '82, but I'm pretty sure the Bonneville outsold it.
I'd imagine a similar thing would have happened with Chevrolet, if they had axed the big Caprice and transferred its name to the Malibu. In the end, I imagine most big-car buyers would have gone on to Oldsmobile or Buick, which were having strong sales even in that bleak period.
The same people who criticzed GM for having a stable of SUVs which are large (too large in my personal opinion) don't criticize those buyers of Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, etc., which have poor gas mileage.
lol, those are exotics built for speed. Nobody criticizes the Corvette either...
I'm glad Chevrolet kept the Caprice around a bit longer. I wonder what my first new car would've been had they done the unthinkable. Maybe an Mopar M-body or a Crown Vic.
Sienna problems occur at frequencies NOT EVEN CLOSE to the other vans.
Don't take my word for it, check the post count in the problems threads. Here are the busy complaints threads:
614 Toyota Sienna Sliding Door Problems 1988 Honda Odyssey Transmission Problems 2011 Chrysler Minivan Transmission Problems 574 Caravan/Town & Country Electrical Problems 399 Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Caravan Door & Window Problems
There is no active Sienna transmissions problems thread at all, and as you can see, we're talking less than 1/3rd of the traffic compared to common issues with other vans.
Even accounting for sales volumes, it's by far the least problematic. Something confirmed by Consumer Reports ratings despite their recent bias against Toyota, and also verified by real-world owner reports on
The Celebrity wagon had 140 cubic feet of interior volume. That was huge compared to Accord and Camry back then.
What engine did it get, the ol' Iron Duke, IIRC? Iron block, push rods, 2 valves per. The Japanese used smaller displacement alloy engines with 4 valves per cylinder.
The Quad 4 didn't come until much later plus the GM bean counters deleted the balance shafts from the early ones thus ruining its reputation out of the gate.
Maybe from a domestic perspective, a buyer would see it as trying to be Japanese. But an Accord/Camry shopper wouldn't even find it close...
I beleive the Big Three fell when they stopped building American cars and started building POOR copies of Japanese and European ones. I don't care for Japanese cars and must certainly don't want a bad copy of what I already don't like.
>I just checked on CU online and indeed the 2010 Camry v6 is rated overall worse than average with a 1/2 black circle. The problems appear to be in squeaks and rattles, power equipment, and audio.
I think "squeaks and rattles" was mentioned as a criticism of GM earlier for some model? The Alero?
What engine did it get, the ol' Iron Duke, IIRC? Iron block, push rods, 2 valves per.
Man those were crude. Ford's 2.3 OHV 4 was bad too. Suffered through one of those in a Tempo.
A girlfriend of mine had a 91 Calais with a Quad 4. Power certainly wasn't a problem, but I remember it sure letting itself known when pushed. If nothing else, it remedied GM's problem of weak 4 cylinders back then.
>lol, those are exotics built for speed. Nobody criticizes the Corvette either...
I understand your point exactly. But why then, criticize the Hummer, 1, 2 or 3? I was behind a Ferrari that came out of a downtown parking garage in Columbus this summer. Probably a government employee leaving work. It had to be getting 8 miles per gallon. I would see that as the sign of conspicuous decadence more so than the Hummer which can at least haul people, kids, soccer team, dogs, etc.
Why the hatred toward the practice, everyday cars as SUVs are in some cases by the tree huggers? Because they were generalized as US brand fortés? I think so.
Maybe from a domestic perspective, a buyer would see it as trying to be Japanese. But an Accord/Camry shopper wouldn't even find it close...
I think that's the problem. Cars like the Celebrity sort of split the middle between traditional domestics and Japanese cars. While they pushed the envelope a bit with regards to space efficiency, transverse FWD, smaller engines, lighter weight, etc, it often wasn't enough to woo the import buyer. Yet at the same time, it would turn off a lot of traditional buyers.
Actually, cars like the Celebrity were trying to go after the Euro crowd moreso than the Japanese...hence models like the Celebrity Eurosport, Pontiac 6000 STE, Cutlass Ciera International Series, and Buick Century T-type. However, I don't think most true Euro buyers were fooled either. For one thing, the Europeans don't exactly use transverse engines and FWD as a hallmark.
Initially the Celebrity used the 2.5 Iron Duke (called "Tech IV" from 1985 onward), with around 92 hp, and a 112 hp 2.8 V-6 with a 2-bbl carb was optional.
The 2.8 actually wasn't a bad performer for the era. My 1985 Consumer Guide clocked one at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds. The Camry in that issue clocked in at 13.4...and cost around $14K. I think the Celebrity was around $11K. That issue tested a couple of Accords, and they did well, but of course, those weren't direct comparisons. In 1985 the Accord was a ~2300 lb subcompact, the Camry was a ~2450 lb compact, and the Celebrity was a ~2800 lb midsize.
I remember one of the Accords they tested was fuel injected while the other was carbureted. One was a 5-speed and one was an automatic, but I can't remember which was mated to which, now.
By the end of its run, GM had coaxed the 2.5 4-cyl up to 110 hp, and the 2.8 had 125. That final year, 1990, you could get the 3.1 enlargement of the V-6 with 135 hp, but only in the wagon.
or the 90's it was stuffing a V8 truck engine into a FWD sedan like the Impala, Lucerne, GP, or Bonneville since the 3800 was the only thing economical that could keep up with the smoother OHC V6's from Honda, Toyota, Nissan and even Ford. GM was way late to the OHC game and even then you had to step up to an Olds Intrigue or Aurora to get it... of course at a premium.
>Oh, and Chrysler was given access to their test track. Toyota hired helicopters to do fly overs to measure the track where the avoidance maneuver was performed. There's no question Chrysler received preferential treatment.
Am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying CU tested Chryslers on a difference slope of track giving the vehicle an advantage. They tested the Lexus on a track slopiing in a way to cause a problem that didn't exist?
It's amazing to see that toyota used espionage to measure the track. Giant PR machine going there as seen during the uncontrolled acceleration from the computer systems and handling thereof.
After all the love CU gave to Honda and toyota through the decades, it's amusing to see the depths toyota went to when the love is withdrawn slightly.
I note in Lutz's book that toyota held a press conference in Japan to try to sway the press against the Volt concept by GM. I don't recall the exact details of it, but it had toyota explaining to the press how an electric vehicle with Li batteries just couldn't be made to work. Curious they didn't hold it here at their "headquarters" for North American operations. It was at the real headquarters IIRC.
While they pushed the envelope a bit with regards to space efficiency, transverse FWD, smaller engines, lighter weight, etc, it often wasn't enough to woo the import buyer. Yet at the same time, it would turn off a lot of traditional buyers.
the Big Three fell when they stopped building American cars and started building POOR copies of Japanese and European ones
Thank you, well said.
I basically was trying to say the same thing.
Heavy/big/iron block/pushrod != compete with Japan's best in the 80s.
Well what are they building today. Everything that is selling well (except full size BOF trucks/suvs) seem to be using european developed platforms. The main difference is the D3 are executing better today.
The Fuison is using a Mazda sourced chassis The Taurus uses a Volvo sourced Chasis The Focus is using a their European C1 chassis designed in Germany.
Seems almost all of GMs new offerings are based of the Epsilon platform which is obviously was developed mainly in Europe.
So I guess what changed is instead of making cheap copies, they've gone to making good versions.
Most people today don't want a B body GM vehicle, myself included. There is a reason they disappeared. Most of the people who desired them are gone.
Man those were crude. Ford's 2.3 OHV 4 was bad too. Suffered through one of those in a Tempo.
That 2.3 was actually the old inline-6 with two cylinders sawed off. It dated back to the old 144/170 units that were used in the 1960 Falcon! Later versions were enlarged to 200 and 250 CID.
I wonder if the old Brazilian 2.3 would have been a better engine to use? It was OHC at least. I think it was first used in Pintos and Mustang II's, but later on in Fairmonts, fox-bodied Mustangs, and an occasional LTD. There was a turbocharged version as well, but I don't think it was very popular. It was advertised as an option for the Fairmont, I believe, but never made it into production there, although I think it did make it into a few Mustangs. The '83-87 era T-bird offered it, with something like 140 hp, and I believe only mated to a 5-speed.
I wonder if the old Brazilian 2.3 would have been a better engine to use? It was OHC at least. I think it was first used in Pintos and Mustang II's, but later on in Fairmonts, fox-bodied Mustangs, and an occasional LTD. There was a turbocharged version as well, but I don't think it was very popular.
good question. I wonder if the taller height of the OHC 2.3 was a problem in the tempo?
Ford did sell quite a few turbocharged 2.3's from '79 to '88 or so. In '86 the Mustang SVO was rated around 210hp or so with the turbo 2.3 and the Tbird Turbo coupes used the same engine as did the Merkur XR4TI.
IIRC the Tbird turbocoupe was rated at 190hp in '87 with a manual, something like 150hp with the auto as was the Merkur.
I had an opportunity to drive an '86 Mustang SVO in the late 80's. Wow that was a fun car for the time. Another friend of mine's mom had a XR4TI. Definitely a different kind of car. I though it was neat, but it probably wasn't one of Ford's better ideas.
That Ferrari is about as likely as the typical Hummer to actually haul a soccer team or go off road. The Hummer represented everything wrong with America, in vehicle form, IMO. It attracted a very specific personality/demographic, too.
Ferrari driver was probably another crony capitalist who inherited and sycophanted his way into success...if you can assume, I can generalize :shades:
I understand your point exactly. But why then, criticize the Hummer, 1, 2 or 3?
Because they were theee #1 symbols of excess and in the case of the H2 it was laughably obese (The H1 was even bigger but not sold publicly). I mean c'mon, Hummers were originally built for the military, maybe that's where they came up with the label "Urban assault vehicle" :P Seriously tho, those things are like school busses. Actually, IIRC, the H2 is actually as wide as one! Even in my wifes old Acura MDX, I felt like I was driving a little CR-V next to that thing.
And the fact that most of them ended up in the hands of "ballers', gangbangers and trophy wives, shod in 30" rims and blacked out windows, ready for cruising the strips of Miami than tackling the dunes of Afghanistan where they belong they became nothing more than a status symbol and yes, a target for the environmental groups.
I lived in a small town hours from any exotic dealer. I still remember seeing my first Ferrari and Porsche 928, and I remember the various MBs and BMWs in the town. I must have been brainwashed pretty young by something :shades: ...wasn't by my parents, with their everyday domestic rides.
I remember that T-Bird with the hood up on several occasions, my dad fixing (or making an attempt) whatever illness befell it. If anything, it shows how far domestics and really all cars have advanced - you don't do that to under 10 year old cars today.
I can appreciate an old cruising car, which is what my dad liked. But I do like something which can stop and steer too.
It's a shame that GM didn't try to evolve their RWD intermediates further, instead of letting them rest on their laurels and slowly fade away.
One thing that annoyed me was how in 1985, GM came out with a much-improved fuel-injected 231 with 125 hp, and used it in the Electra/98 and even as an option in the Century and Cutlass Ciera, but the RWD Regal, Cutlass Supreme, Bonneville G, and Grand Prix were stuck with the old 110 hp 2-bbl carb version.
For 1986, the fuel-injected version went to 150 hp, which was on par with the V-8's in the RWD cars (140 hp from a 307 or 150 from a 305, unless you got the high-output versions)
I guess GM figured that people would buy those old RWD intermediates regardless, so it just wasn't worth it. But I figure there should be some kind of economy of scale realized by making them all fuel injected, versus making some FI and some 2-bbl carb?
Interestingly, for fuel economy purposes, both engines were about the same. A 1987 Regal with the 110 hp 3.8 was rated 21 combined (19 city/24 highway), while a 1987 Century with the 150 (might have even been 165 by then?) hp 3.8 was rated the same 21 (but 18 city/27 highway)
Yep, that's what it was. White on white leather, white vinyl top. Not a good car to have with kids. It was comfortable though, I remember sleeping on the back seat, and I remember draining the battery by playing with the 99 way power seat. I think the hot rodder friend wanted the engine or the rear end. I forget what killed it...I know it had some kind of PCV or emissions equipment issues all the time.
there was little to go wrong with a tiny 4-cylinder, clutch, and fanbelt.
Oh, there's still a whole lot that can go wrong with a car like that. However, yes, forgoing having an AC will avoid AC issues.
What if you want an automatic? From what I can tell, there was not much GM could do correctly in the 90's. What parts were reliable?
As recently as the 2000's, I've heard my brother in law say GM made good engines, but the rest is junk (he had a late model Tahoe he got rid of very recently with well under 100K miles). He said it was getting to that point where it was starting to have a lot of issues. They bought a brand new Tundra early this year for the whole family (he has two kids). He comes from the central valley where domestics still seem to rule in CA. I was actually shocked when I saw he got a Toyota, cause I remember arguing with him about how bad domestics were years earlier.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think the 4-speed automatics that GM used in most of their FWD mid- and full-sized cars of the 1990's was fairly reliable. Once we entered the 2000's though, people started wanting 5- and 6-speed automatics, and it simply became obsolete.
I think the 4-speed automatic used in cars like the Cobalt and Cavalier was similar, but lighter-weight, and I don't recall it being particularly trouble-prone.
I remember the guy who runs the local transmission shop saying that the most common transmission failures he saw were in Ford Explorers, Mopar minivans, and the 4L60E that GM used in trucks. My understanding is that the 4L60E actually isn't that bad of a unit, but simply too light-weight for a full-sized truck. In something smaller, like the old S10 or Trailblazers, I believe it was okay.
I don't know if it's any good in them either. A friend of mine just had his rebuilt in his 04 TB. IIRC he's around 100k miles. That seems to be better than many get.
Overall, I think GM transmissions have a good reputation. But yeah, they took a long time to develop 5 and 6 speed transmissions.
Comments
hands down, no question.
I don't follow...the Celebrity was big and had large pushrod engines. Doesn't seem very Japanese to me. At the time the Camcords had 4 bangers and were smaller, multi-valve engines. Lighter, smaller, more tech.
Exactly right. GM would have been criticized for not selling things that made more profit (happening today). GM would have been criticized for selling things that do have higher profit (happening today).
The hypocrisy is when people criticize GM for selling the larger, higher profit vehicles and DON'T criticize the econobox origination foreign brands which have evolved into large, large cars to compete for the older larger people's market ALONG WITH their movement to trucks and large SUVs. Can we spell h y p o c r i s y?
The same people who criticzed GM for having a stable of SUVs which are large (too large in my personal opinion) don't criticize those buyers of Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, etc., which have poor gas mileage. Instead the blond housewife with her SUV or HUMMER became the arch example of the conspicous user of gasoline at a higher than deserved rate.
That selective criticism is still the result of the negative GM viewpoint.
As for the large repetition of similar models, GM was stuck with a dealer group of 5 different brands to whom they had a responsibility to supply a reasonable group of vehicles to sell. They can't abrogate those contracts at will.
They also were stuck with a UAW setup where they couldn't close down some factories to lower production. Some factories could be switched but they still had to employ those UAW folks (did the President that those folks elected get rid of those UAW contracts?).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I just checked on CU online and indeed the 2010 Camry v6 is rated overall worse than average with a 1/2 black circle. The problems appear to be in squeaks and rattles, power equipment, and audio. All of the mechanicals have solid red circles.
The 4cyl model is rated average overall. Strangely squeaks and rattles in the 4cyl model are rated above average, with body hardware, and audio being average. Maybe a buzzing 4cyl makes rattle hard to hear, or maybe those who buy the 4cyl model are less likely to complain about rattles.
Sometimes I do scratch my head at CU results. Though they are overall in line with what JD Power reports. Looks like the Camry is above average in mechanical quality but below average in other areas.
I agree with your post other than GM wasn't the only one being picked on. Ford and Chrysler have had their fare share of bad press regarding the same issues.
Remember when Ford made the Excursion? They got all sorts of negative press from the media and tree huggers. In reality that is still a coveted vehicle in diesel form with those who tow heavy loads. No it's not a good daily driver for a soccer mom, but who am I to judge. I still see Excursions on a regular occasion at the lake with huge boats in tow.
Yeah, but how many people actually read it to the point it influences their purchasing decision. The Malibu and Cruze have yet to win a comparison test and they have sold well. Same with most of the GM crossovers. They are selling well and still don't fare well in most comparisons. That's not to say they are bad, they just don't place well in most comparisons.
The Explorer has been getting slammed and it's selling well. CU has been reporting negatively on the Camry and it bounced right back and sold over 30k last month.
Most of the time when I'm in an office with a variety of magazines the car magazines are always available. I've yet to see a women reading Car and Driver or motor trend and they are responsible for at least 1/2 of vehicle purchases and their influence is increasing all the time.
I love power sliding doors, so kudos for that.
Unfortunately, our friends had a Venture and the doors were very problematic. To this day you still hear a lot of complaints on those, but I'll take the risk because they are an excellent feature to have when carrying a sleeping kid.
I rented a dustbuster and drove to Florida with my dad. What I recall is that you opened the windows at your own peril - the buffeting that resulted would knock your ear drums out. A serious aerodynamic flaw, like a sunroof with no vent. I'm talking FRONT windows, too.
fin's comment about the tactile feel of cheap turn signals hit home, reminding me of dad's Olds Custom Cruiser. Left turn? SNAP! Felt like it broke every time. Lots of things on that car sent me running to Ford.
Since I grew up an hour from Chicago, going to the Chicago Auto Show was always a big deal for me during the 80's. I'd pass the GM junk, and check out the Mustangs, then I'd march straight to BMW, MB, Porsche, and Ferrari etc.
I've never been a big fan of 50's and 60's cars (granted there are a few I really like). We had a 71 Mustang convertible growing up. I realized quick I preferred spending more time driving vs fixing. Plus I prefer cars that start and stop as well as they turn. Not many domestics from prior to the 80's fit that description. Our Mustang was scary to drive fast in anyway other than a straight line. Plus stopping was more of a concept than a reality.
In drivers ED I had to suffer through an '86 Celebrity with a 2.5 4cyl (Iron Duke?) The only positive I remember from that experience was being squished in between two cute girls in the back seat. Granted they scared the living crap out of me when they were behind the wheel.
Contrary to what many believe, they stopped recommending 7 Toyota models during the SUA investigations (reversed since).
And yes, the v1.0 of the U660E transmission did drag reliability scores below average for the Camry.
Top it off with a gigantic DO NOT BUY on the drift-tastic Lexus GX, forcing a stability control re-program.
What I felt was biased was that the new Jeep Grand Cherokee had the same issue, "hopped and skidded sideways" in their tests, yet no DO NOT BUY stamp on that domestic car. Why?
Oh, and Chrysler was given access to their test track. Toyota hired helicopters to do fly overs to measure the track where the avoidance maneuver was performed. There's no question Chrysler received preferential treatment.
Sienna and 4Runner scored lower in CR tests than their predecessors.
Any how, perhaps the pendulum has swung the other way, but CR has been brutal towards Toyota lately.
While that's funny. I seriously don't believe for a minute the reason consumers walked, no I mean ran from domestics to the imports is only because it was reported in a rag that the imports were better in a comparison test. The reality is in most cases the imports offered what consumers wanted better than the domestics did.
I've never heard anyone tell me that they bought a car based on an article in a car magazine. Most have been, well, my ______ sucked, so I decided to look at _______ and I really like it, so I bought it.
A friend of mine just bought a F150 with the ecoboost v6. He's an astute successful guy that works in telecommunications. I saw it and asked how him howliked the EB. He responded by saying he didn't know what it was. All he new was that it was a v6. I had to convince him that it was turbocharged as he initially didn't think it was. He just traded in his 02 F150 and wanted a new f150 with the highest tow rating available and that's what the dealer sold him. He was hoping the v6 would be strong enough to pull his 8k lb boat. Man is it. Sweet truck.
I'm convinced that GM was planning on replacing the Caprice with the 1982 Malibu, in a move similar to what Pontiac did, but then chickened out at the last minute. If you notice, the '82-83 Malibu, with its quad headlights and eggcrate grille, does bear a strong resemblance to the Caprice, much moreso than any Malibu before ever did.
Pontiac, in 1981, sold around 100,000 full-sized Catalina/Bonnevilles and around 85-90,000 mid-sized LeManses. For 1982, when the LeMans was restyled and renamed Bonneville, it sold around 80-85,000 units, and went downhill from there. The 6000, which was supposed to replace the LeMans as the midsized car, took a couple years to really catch on, as did all those new FWD A-bodies. I forget how many 6000's were sold in '82, but I'm pretty sure the Bonneville outsold it.
I'd imagine a similar thing would have happened with Chevrolet, if they had axed the big Caprice and transferred its name to the Malibu. In the end, I imagine most big-car buyers would have gone on to Oldsmobile or Buick, which were having strong sales even in that bleak period.
lol, those are exotics built for speed. Nobody criticizes the Corvette either...
Don't take my word for it, check the post count in the problems threads. Here are the busy complaints threads:
614 Toyota Sienna Sliding Door Problems
1988 Honda Odyssey Transmission Problems
2011 Chrysler Minivan Transmission Problems
574 Caravan/Town & Country Electrical Problems
399 Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Caravan Door & Window Problems
There is no active Sienna transmissions problems thread at all, and as you can see, we're talking less than 1/3rd of the traffic compared to common issues with other vans.
Even accounting for sales volumes, it's by far the least problematic. Something confirmed by Consumer Reports ratings despite their recent bias against Toyota, and also verified by real-world owner reports on
http://www.truedelta.com/
What engine did it get, the ol' Iron Duke, IIRC? Iron block, push rods, 2 valves per. The Japanese used smaller displacement alloy engines with 4 valves per cylinder.
The Quad 4 didn't come until much later plus the GM bean counters deleted the balance shafts from the early ones thus ruining its reputation out of the gate.
Maybe from a domestic perspective, a buyer would see it as trying to be Japanese. But an Accord/Camry shopper wouldn't even find it close...
That sounds like the beginning of a great story, you gotta learn to embellish a bit more, buddy! LOL
Thank you, well said.
I basically was trying to say the same thing.
Heavy/big/iron block/pushrod != compete with Japan's best in the 80s.
I think "squeaks and rattles" was mentioned as a criticism of GM earlier for some model? The Alero?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Man those were crude. Ford's 2.3 OHV 4 was bad too. Suffered through one of those in a Tempo.
A girlfriend of mine had a 91 Calais with a Quad 4. Power certainly wasn't a problem, but I remember it sure letting itself known when pushed. If nothing else, it remedied GM's problem of weak 4 cylinders back then.
I understand your point exactly. But why then, criticize the Hummer, 1, 2 or 3? I was behind a Ferrari that came out of a downtown parking garage in Columbus this summer. Probably a government employee leaving work. It had to be getting 8 miles per gallon. I would see that as the sign of conspicuous decadence more so than the Hummer which can at least haul people, kids, soccer team, dogs, etc.
Why the hatred toward the practice, everyday cars as SUVs are in some cases by the tree huggers? Because they were generalized as US brand fortés? I think so.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think that's the problem. Cars like the Celebrity sort of split the middle between traditional domestics and Japanese cars. While they pushed the envelope a bit with regards to space efficiency, transverse FWD, smaller engines, lighter weight, etc, it often wasn't enough to woo the import buyer. Yet at the same time, it would turn off a lot of traditional buyers.
Actually, cars like the Celebrity were trying to go after the Euro crowd moreso than the Japanese...hence models like the Celebrity Eurosport, Pontiac 6000 STE, Cutlass Ciera International Series, and Buick Century T-type. However, I don't think most true Euro buyers were fooled either. For one thing, the Europeans don't exactly use transverse engines and FWD as a hallmark.
Initially the Celebrity used the 2.5 Iron Duke (called "Tech IV" from 1985 onward), with around 92 hp, and a 112 hp 2.8 V-6 with a 2-bbl carb was optional.
The 2.8 actually wasn't a bad performer for the era. My 1985 Consumer Guide clocked one at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds. The Camry in that issue clocked in at 13.4...and cost around $14K. I think the Celebrity was around $11K. That issue tested a couple of Accords, and they did well, but of course, those weren't direct comparisons. In 1985 the Accord was a ~2300 lb subcompact, the Camry was a ~2450 lb compact, and the Celebrity was a ~2800 lb midsize.
I remember one of the Accords they tested was fuel injected while the other was carbureted. One was a 5-speed and one was an automatic, but I can't remember which was mated to which, now.
By the end of its run, GM had coaxed the 2.5 4-cyl up to 110 hp, and the 2.8 had 125. That final year, 1990, you could get the 3.1 enlargement of the V-6 with 135 hp, but only in the wagon.
Am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying CU tested Chryslers on a difference slope of track giving the vehicle an advantage. They tested the Lexus on a track slopiing in a way to cause a problem that didn't exist?
It's amazing to see that toyota used espionage to measure the track. Giant PR machine going there as seen during the uncontrolled acceleration from the computer systems and handling thereof.
After all the love CU gave to Honda and toyota through the decades, it's amusing to see the depths toyota went to when the love is withdrawn slightly.
I note in Lutz's book that toyota held a press conference in Japan to try to sway the press against the Volt concept by GM. I don't recall the exact details of it, but it had toyota explaining to the press how an electric vehicle with Li batteries just couldn't be made to work. Curious they didn't hold it here at their "headquarters" for North American operations. It was at the real headquarters IIRC.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They sure as heck managed to turn me off!
Thank you, well said.
I basically was trying to say the same thing.
Heavy/big/iron block/pushrod != compete with Japan's best in the 80s.
Well what are they building today. Everything that is selling well (except full size BOF trucks/suvs) seem to be using european developed platforms. The main difference is the D3 are executing better today.
The Fuison is using a Mazda sourced chassis
The Taurus uses a Volvo sourced Chasis
The Focus is using a their European C1 chassis designed in Germany.
Seems almost all of GMs new offerings are based of the Epsilon platform which is obviously was developed mainly in Europe.
So I guess what changed is instead of making cheap copies, they've gone to making good versions.
Most people today don't want a B body GM vehicle, myself included. There is a reason they disappeared. Most of the people who desired them are gone.
That 2.3 was actually the old inline-6 with two cylinders sawed off. It dated back to the old 144/170 units that were used in the 1960 Falcon! Later versions were enlarged to 200 and 250 CID.
I wonder if the old Brazilian 2.3 would have been a better engine to use? It was OHC at least. I think it was first used in Pintos and Mustang II's, but later on in Fairmonts, fox-bodied Mustangs, and an occasional LTD. There was a turbocharged version as well, but I don't think it was very popular. It was advertised as an option for the Fairmont, I believe, but never made it into production there, although I think it did make it into a few Mustangs. The '83-87 era T-bird offered it, with something like 140 hp, and I believe only mated to a 5-speed.
good question. I wonder if the taller height of the OHC 2.3 was a problem in the tempo?
Ford did sell quite a few turbocharged 2.3's from '79 to '88 or so. In '86 the Mustang SVO was rated around 210hp or so with the turbo 2.3 and the Tbird Turbo coupes used the same engine as did the Merkur XR4TI.
IIRC the Tbird turbocoupe was rated at 190hp in '87 with a manual, something like 150hp with the auto as was the Merkur.
I had an opportunity to drive an '86 Mustang SVO in the late 80's. Wow that was a fun car for the time. Another friend of mine's mom had a XR4TI. Definitely a different kind of car. I though it was neat, but it probably wasn't one of Ford's better ideas.
Ferrari driver was probably another crony capitalist who inherited and sycophanted his way into success...if you can assume, I can generalize :shades:
Because they were theee #1 symbols of excess and in the case of the H2 it was laughably obese (The H1 was even bigger but not sold publicly). I mean c'mon, Hummers were originally built for the military, maybe that's where they came up with the label "Urban assault vehicle" :P Seriously tho, those things are like school busses. Actually, IIRC, the H2 is actually as wide as one! Even in my wifes old Acura MDX, I felt like I was driving a little CR-V next to that thing.
And the fact that most of them ended up in the hands of "ballers', gangbangers and trophy wives, shod in 30" rims and blacked out windows, ready for cruising the strips of Miami than tackling the dunes of Afghanistan where they belong they became nothing more than a status symbol and yes, a target for the environmental groups.
I remember that T-Bird with the hood up on several occasions, my dad fixing (or making an attempt) whatever illness befell it. If anything, it shows how far domestics and really all cars have advanced - you don't do that to under 10 year old cars today.
I can appreciate an old cruising car, which is what my dad liked. But I do like something which can stop and steer too.
It's a shame that GM didn't try to evolve their RWD intermediates further, instead of letting them rest on their laurels and slowly fade away.
One thing that annoyed me was how in 1985, GM came out with a much-improved fuel-injected 231 with 125 hp, and used it in the Electra/98 and even as an option in the Century and Cutlass Ciera, but the RWD Regal, Cutlass Supreme, Bonneville G, and Grand Prix were stuck with the old 110 hp 2-bbl carb version.
For 1986, the fuel-injected version went to 150 hp, which was on par with the V-8's in the RWD cars (140 hp from a 307 or 150 from a 305, unless you got the high-output versions)
I guess GM figured that people would buy those old RWD intermediates regardless, so it just wasn't worth it. But I figure there should be some kind of economy of scale realized by making them all fuel injected, versus making some FI and some 2-bbl carb?
Interestingly, for fuel economy purposes, both engines were about the same. A 1987 Regal with the 110 hp 3.8 was rated 21 combined (19 city/24 highway), while a 1987 Century with the 150 (might have even been 165 by then?) hp 3.8 was rated the same 21 (but 18 city/27 highway)
I think that's probably limited to the PRO Ford guys that wouldn't be caught dead in a GM or Chevy.
Or the PRO MOPAR guys that wouldn't try the other (there might be 3 or 4 out there).
Or the PRO GM guys that never buy or try a Ford.
Oh, there's still a whole lot that can go wrong with a car like that. However, yes, forgoing having an AC will avoid AC issues.
What if you want an automatic? From what I can tell, there was not much GM could do correctly in the 90's. What parts were reliable?
As recently as the 2000's, I've heard my brother in law say GM made good engines, but the rest is junk (he had a late model Tahoe he got rid of very recently with well under 100K miles). He said it was getting to that point where it was starting to have a lot of issues. They bought a brand new Tundra early this year for the whole family (he has two kids). He comes from the central valley where domestics still seem to rule in CA. I was actually shocked when I saw he got a Toyota, cause I remember arguing with him about how bad domestics were years earlier.
I think the 4-speed automatic used in cars like the Cobalt and Cavalier was similar, but lighter-weight, and I don't recall it being particularly trouble-prone.
I remember the guy who runs the local transmission shop saying that the most common transmission failures he saw were in Ford Explorers, Mopar minivans, and the 4L60E that GM used in trucks. My understanding is that the 4L60E actually isn't that bad of a unit, but simply too light-weight for a full-sized truck. In something smaller, like the old S10 or Trailblazers, I believe it was okay.
Ooh, I remember shopping used cars and a Tempo would depreciate like unrefrigerated sea food.
Fortunately those are a distant memory, with the Fiesta and Focus in the current lineup.
I don't know if it's any good in them either. A friend of mine just had his rebuilt in his 04 TB. IIRC he's around 100k miles. That seems to be better than many get.
Overall, I think GM transmissions have a good reputation. But yeah, they took a long time to develop 5 and 6 speed transmissions.