By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And the D3 are so unreliable out here in the uncultured Midwest.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This is the typical arguing tactic of D3 proponents. Yet I never see any posters saying "foreign cars never break down". Do you have a posting example for that, or is this just a ridiculous statement?
All cars break down. Do you disagree that for the last 30 years, there are foreign makes that have been FAR more reliable than the D3?
You're getting your culture from the forums here at Edmunds'. :P
Yeah we have. All I can add is the trouble spots on the cars I've owned have generally matched the trouble areas indicated in CR.
Even without a model change problem areas can be addressed. Ex. My 07 Expedition had a shift flare issue that was resolved for 08 and later. It was a software issue. Also, mine had a coil and spark plug issue that supposedly has been fixed in later years.
The transmission minor is given a back circle. I had to have my trans reflashed to fix shifting issues.
Paint and trim: black circle which my paint is bubbling and the trim is fading ins some areas.
Climate Control System: 1/2 black circle, I had to have a module replaced for the climate control.
Power equipment 1/2 black circle, I've had my window regulator repaired twice.
Drive system gets a 1/2 black circle, but I haven't had an issue there..
Plus, CR's data tends to match other such surveys from what I've seen. Whether it be JD, truedelta etc. At least it has with the vehicles I've owned and researched.
Another example is my dad's 09 Accord v6. The rear brakes needed replaced under 30k miles and he recently had some work done regarding a few squeaks and rattles that have popped up. Looking a CR guess where the black spots are? Brakes & squeaks and rattles.
Regards,
OW
Happy Holidays to All!! :shades:
Reasonable minds can disagree about the wisdom of the auto bailout, but according to analysis by the EPA and Department of Transportation (based on data from the Department of Energy and auto forecasters CSM), the Government’s rescue of GM and Chrysler may not have been the best idea (at least from a market perspective). According to data buried in the EPA/DOT proposed rule for 2017-2025 fuel economy standards, Fiat-Chrysler is predicted to be the sick man of the auto industry by 2025, losing over half of its 2008 sales volume, while GM is expected to improve by only 3%, the second-worst projected performance (after Aston-Martin). In terms of percentages, even lowly Suzuki and Mitsubishi are projected to grow faster than The Mighty General. Ouch.
On the other hand, the proposed rule notes that data will be finalized before the final rule comes out. Besides, the agencies appropriately admit (in as many words) that projecting auto sales so far into the future is one hell of a crapshoot. Still, with the obvious exception of “Saab-Spyker” and with some skepticism about the projection’s optimism about overall market growth aside, these are not the craziest guesses I could imagine. Who knows what the future holds, but it certainly is a bit troubling that the government’s own data suggests the two automakers it bailed out may well have some of the weaker performances of the next 14 years. At least the Treasury could have sold off their remaining GM stock before this report was released
Here's the report. Enjoy.
EPA
Regards,
OW
LOL, oh I know, it would take more than that to make me go away;) Though I'm sure some would like to see me go, on these boards and elsewhere no less:)
You're preaching to the choir! As for an owner of a GM product that is now gone forever, I submit:
Thank God, I have done my duty.
Regards,
OW
Yes, of course, that would be understandable, but it's not unusual for them to say to avoid a year in the middle, while being OK with the years on either side, when the model hadn't changed. Something like that is sample error I'm afraid. Of course, there will be sample error, it's inevitable; it seems like they don't take it into account though.
I can think of 25 million reasons why that is incorrect.
It did not meet specs, so the supplier had to pay $25,000,000.
You used outdated numbers, the new TCH averages 41 mpg EPA combined, a full 10 mpg better, and that easily qualifies as "far more".
Edit: I was wrong. EPA combined for the Malibu Eco is actually 30mpg, so it is 11mpg behind.
Sorry 'bout that.
I disagree with this argument.
First, future CAFE standards will be based on wheelbase and track width, so every Ram truck will not be expected to get the same fuel economy as a Fiat 500.
I'd argue that these new regs hurt Kia more. They make mostly small cars, with an average transaction price of $19k, that ought to tell you something. Their fleet is small!
Well, those small cars will be pushed to new, higher standard far more than any Ram.
CAFE will actually push people in to longer wheelbase and wider cars, and this "grading on a curve", if you will, is going to benefit Chrysler far more than Kia.
Mark my words - automakers are going to be stretching wheelbases like crazy to get some of these breaks.
Even I don't buy into that. It's in your car, your inspection procedures approved it for installation at the dock of the factory; it's ultimately your problem in the eyes of the consumer. If I screw up, it's still my boss that looks bad.
Toyota doesn't get a pass - they still have to take care of all those customers, one by one.
Luckily someone else is paying for it.
Luckily someone else is paying for it.
Not Really
The $25 million that Dana agreed to pay is only a drop in the bucket compared to Toyota's total potential liability. At $13,000 per fix per vehicle it is only enough money for around 2,500 trucks.
Total trucks sold in the affected years:
1995-2000 Tacomas: around 700,000
2001-2005 Tacomas: around 800,000
2001-2005 Tundras: around 600,000
If only 5% are bought back or reframed that would be approx. 100,000 trucks times $13,000 equals somewhere around $1.3 billion.
Yes I do disagree. I think the whole idea that D3 are inferior is mostly myth.
I think there are just as many dissatisfied foreign brand owners.
Consumer Reports? Trash.
My brother bought a 2006 Nissan Altima from a used car dealer for $8K. A
month later it needed a new engine at 80,000 miles. My job took me to an auto repair place about a year ago. Sitting on the floor was an Altima 4 cyl. with a hole in the block where a rod came through. Anectodal yes, but there are many complaints about the Nissan 4 cyl. on the internet which to me indicates a problem. However CR's rating of the engine for 2005 and later Altimas is much better than average. Yet JD Power gives the 2005 powertrain dependability a 2 out of 5. Huh?
My personal experience with Gm, Ford and some Chrysler products has been very good. Out of 15-20 vehicles over the last 20 years or so that I have had use of (personal and business) I only experienced one head gasket failure (fixed under warranty), another one due to overheating
(not the engine's fault) and of course numerous maintenance related repairs, especially on older cars and trucks (alternators, starters, rotors,
heater motors, rusted brake lines and gas tank on one truck, etc.)
Aside from the 2 head gasket failures not one break down, transmission failure or any expensive major repair, and the majority of the business vehicles were bought used and kept to at least 150K miles.
I just compared them. For long term dependability JD power is 3/5 for powertrain, 4/5 overall dependability.
CU is more detailed with ratings broke out for the 4 cyl, and v6. The 4 cyl is pretty much rated above avg with 1/2 red. But is average for engine minor, 1/2 black circle for fuel system, and full black for electrical.
Overall looking at both CU and JD they are very close in their ratings. JD gives 4/5 and CU 1/2 red.
Look through the different vehicle categories rating overall dependability. Out of 20 different classes of vehicles, a domestic was rated most dependable it 7 and I think 2 classes didn't have a domestic so make that 7 of 18.
Let us know what those reasons were. Did all of their customers all of a sudden loose sight with reality? Or is it just you? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
I think they'll get there on them I certainly hope so.
I have to disagreee. My son's cobalt seems very refined to me. It is quiet
and the engine revs smoothly with good power. My cousin's Acura RDX seemed very buzzy to me. My other son is leasing a brand new VW Jetta and I don't think the 2.0 liter has anything over the Cobalt engine. The Chevy definitely has alot more power and is just as smooth in its power delivery.
and did I mention that the seats feel like a couple of pieces of carbord stapled together, which seems like the norm today.
Probably not, that engine is horrible and I can't believe VW is still using it as a base engine.
Agree that the RDX engine is buzzy. Probably Honda's worst engine IMHO. Normally their engines are among the most refined, but not that one.
People on these boards generally have their minds made up already, but the 2.2 used in the Cobalt is quiet and absolutely smooth-idling. It has received comments in that regard by co-workers who ride with me for hundreds of miles, and these guys drive recent Fords, Hondas, and Toyotas.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Never sampled it in a Cobalt but I wasn't particularly impressed with one I routinely drove in a '05 Cavalier. Sure it behaved itself at idle and normal driving, but IMO I wasn't particularly impressed at high rpm. Then again I hated the whole car, it just felt cheap and crude. Granted my daily driver was a Suburban, so going to a 4cyl was a drastic change.
Same with 2.4 ecotec, every single article I've read in various mags say the same thing, when pushed it gets coarse. Whether it's in a Malibu, Lacrosse, Verano, or Equinox. I have briefly driven a friends '10 Nox with the 2.4 and with the a/c on at idle the whole vehicle vibrated. No thanks, that would drive me nuts, plus it seemed sluggish to me.
I pretty much feel the same way about the 3.5v6 in my wife's Taurus. It's quiet and composed during normal driving, but at high rpm 5-6,500 it has a coarseness about it that a 3.5 v6 from Honda and Toyota doesn't have. But it's perfectly fine in normal driving and it is responsive
Now that would't be a deal breaker in itself (as it's far better than her last v6), but just one of many things that add up that would make me prefer one particular car over another.
It's been years since I've sampled a Ford 4cyl so I have no idea how good or bad they are.
A friend of mine is driving his elderly parents' old Lexus SC400. He tells me it was a $45K car in 1995. I ride in it and am completely amazed at how that was a $45K car then. It looks/feels like a slightly stretched econobox to me.
On another topic, the 2.4 in our Malibu idles smoothly and is quiet on acceleration too IMHO, particularly for price IMHO.
I've never been in one of those. Though they seemed far better built than a competing Eldo coupe or Lincoln Mark VIII at the time. Those lincolns in particular where complete junk and still $40k plus. Hardly ever see those on the road anymore.
That year's Continental started at $40,750, while the Town Car was $36,400 for the base Executive, $38,500 for the Signature, and $41,200 for the Cartier.
For comparison, here's Cadillac's 1995 lineup...
Seville base: $41,935
Seville STS: $45,935
Eldorado base: $38,220
Eldorado TC: $41,535
DeVille base: $34,900
Deville Concours: misprinted as $17,570 in my book, which I'm pretty sure is a misprint.
Fleetwood: a steal at $35,595!
Stepping down a notch, here's what Buick was offering in the near-luxury range:
Riviera: $27,632
Park Ave base: $28,244
Park Ave Ultra: $33,084
RoadMaster base: $25,265
RoadMaster Limited: $27,555
RoadMaster Estate wagon: $27,070
Chrysler's most prestigious offerings at the time were:
New Yorker: $25,596
LHS: $29,595
Yeah, they could be loaded up well over $40k, I'm sure big discounts were available. They were basically, a spruced up Tbird. Used the priced dropped like a rock and to pretty much the level they were actually worth.
FWW, my dad ordered a '92 Crown Vic in early 1991 that was fully loaded, the only options it didn't have was dual exhaust with the rear air suspension. It had an MSRP of around $22k or so.
My grandpa bought a new Roadmaster in '92 and I think he paid around $23k for it. I don't know what the sticker was, maybe $25k? I will say I liked the Concours better. The 350 used in 92 was to sluggish and I never liked how the RM drove. Just to soft, and to slow. Actually, I preferred driving the '87 Caprice Brougham LS he had prior.
Of all the big sedans grandpa had, that Caprice always stands out in my mind.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common- s/c/c2/SC400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SC400.jpg&usg=__CtH- Z-44XPwynai0Y2jAcSnL19SI=&h=421&w=569&sz=33&hl=en&start=12&zoom=1&tbnid=ngg8FBqK- fkPH1M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=134&ei=OO71TsP2BYPV0QHhu92uAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlexus%2Bsc- 400%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1
But clean looking to me compared to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_VIII.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8th-Cadillac-Eldorado.jpg
The Caddy, while better than the Lincoln doesn't do any thing for me either.
Regardless, all three were expensive and the SC300 could be have with a manual, which is right up my ally. Though none of them have aged particularly well IMO.
Not at all, I don't think rear seat room was benchmark for a car like a SC 400. It was a lux/premium sport coupe. I'm sure a Cavalier has a more comfortable back seat than a 911, but does anyone really care?
Kind of goes back to my opinion of many GM cars. I don't mind being a passenger in many of them, it's when I get behind the wheel where I'm usually disappointed. Probably could add Ford too.
I've generally liked the steering response/feel in many Fords, but that is changing with electric PS. The electric ps in my wife's Taurus does nothing for me. Hopefully that's an area that will improve, or I'll just have to learn to like it.
That's probably true. From memory those SCs weren't all that big, I wonder dimension wise how they compared to a Mark or Eldo. Those coupes were seemed like bigger cars IIRC.
I knew a guy that owned a premium used car dealer and he got a hold of a SC430 convertible when they first came out. I remember looking at the back seat thinking the only thing you could put back there would be a grocery bag.
I'm sure a back seat of a Camaro or Mustang would be a lousy place to ride to. I remember my wife's Probe had a back seat that I likely would need a chiropractor after getting in and out of. My Neon coupe had a back seat that had far more room. We didn't have kids then, so it really didn't matter, but was the main reason the probe was replaced with a minivan.