Good points there. I would not have wanted to be one of the testers for 1978 car of the year.
Indeed I think Honda and the F-10 were it for FWD cars at that point. I was driving a FWD car at that point but it was a Saab. Now that I think of it I had darned few RWD cars - my 69 Volvo, a 56 Buick Special that I had for fun and a couple of Novas....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Bottom line for me is, I've had 13 new GM's and all have been good cars, and I put a good amount of miles on a car.
Is "good" enough?
So, what other major brands have you had to be able to experience FIRST HAND the qualities, performance, reliability "between" the brands. Have you in your immediate family had 2, 3 or more "different" brands at the same time to make comparisons?
Some of us who have owned GM alongside and same time as foreign brands might say "good" or "ok" about our GM, but then say that our Honda, Acura, Nissan, etc was "outstanding", "excellent" or "far exceeded our expectations and needs".
One of my buddies in college had a 1990 Horizon America. Stripped to the bone, with the exception of an automatic transmission. No a/c. No power assist for the steering or brakes, but honestly, it was light enough that it didn't need it. I think it cost him about $6,000.
I thought the car was a piece, but admittedly, back then I would have taken that attitude about any small car. One of my friends had an '89 Escort that was also a piece, and another had an '80 Accord, and another had an '85 Cavalier. And "a piece" pretty much summed them all up. :P
Looking back though, the Accord did have a few nice things about it. Legroom wasn't too bad up front for such a small car, and it had an interior that, when it was new, was really nicely trimmed. It was falling apart by this time, though. It was also a good highway cruiser. Took forever to get there, but once you hit 80 mph, it was actually pretty smooth and quiet. Less squeaking and rattling than my '80 Malibu, which had to have been a miracle, considering how rusty this Accord was by this time.
As for my buddy's '85 Cavalier, it was relatively reliable, but just a cheap, basic, humdrum car. It had a badge on the back that said "CS", but I don't know what that trim level gave you, because this thing was cheap...plastic slabs for the door panels, panty-thin cloth on the seats that faded from black to purple with age, etc. When it was about 9 years old, with around 110K or so miles on it, it simply wouldn't start one day. He got rid of it, started driving his parents' '86 or so Corolla (or maybe it was a Tercel, I don't remember, but it was a 4-door hatchback), for a few months until its engine sludged up, and then he bought a brand-new '95 Trans Am.
The '90 Horizon got wrecked when it was less than a year old. Not totaled, but my friends' parents took it back from him, he dropped out of college, and ultimately went to some school out of state, and I forget what happened to the car.
My friend with the '89 Escort bought a new Corolla in 1992, and left the Escort for his brothers to use, who were still living at home and in college. Dunno how long it ultimately lasted, but my friend said it was getting pretty crappy by '92. He wouldn't elaborate, though.
It's just not a small town thing. I live in the city and have owned 7 new GM cars and several used ones. All have been great to excellent cars. About the only one I didn't like was the 1999 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan my wife owned about seven years ago.
The Omni/Horizon isn't nearly as bad as it looks. My Mom had a 1987 Dodge Omni and that homely car really could do it all. It handled deep snow and ice better than most 4X4s of the time. Everybody else's car would be bogged-down in deep snow, and the Omni would just effortlessly. cruise down the snow-covered streets. The car was cheap and easy to buy, maintain, and repair.
Ask Mikhail Kalashnikov, the designer of the famous AK-47 rifle. It had very loose tolerances unlike the M-14 and M-16 which needed to be field-stripped and thoroughly cleaned any time a little bit of grit got into it. You could throw a handful of sand into an AK or drop it in the mud and you could pick it up an fire it.
When I was a little kid, my dad had a Horizon with a similar experience. He liked that little car, and drove the hell out of it. I don't remember it ever stranding him. Probably a more entertaining choice than something like a Chevette, anyway.
It had a badge on the back that said "CS", but I don't know what that trim level gave you, because this thing was cheap...plastic slabs for the door panels, panty-thin cloth on the seats that faded from black to purple with age, etc.
CS = Cheap.... well, you can fill in the blank....
You're on the nose about eh 80 Accord. I loved mine but by 167K and being 8 years old the driver's seat looked pretty awful and the body was kind of tired - not a thing wrong with the chassis though.
20 years later they were making more durable interiors for sure. The 00 keeps going and looks fine inside. My daughter is ready to heave it but that's only because of the stick shift on it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Quick story, a friend of mine traded in his 2010 Corvette after 7 mos of use on a Traverse LTZ which has to sticker up in the mid-40s..The Vette had accumulated some 8k miles, however the battery died in his garage, and it wouldn't recharge to start the car..The dealer came out and flat-bedded the car to the dealership..Time to trade..
Entering a Vette, one falls in, however with the Traverse one is forced to climb in and fall out..Nice car but it's a Chevy w/ dual sunroofs, 3 rows of seats and only lacking AWD, however not required in southern Florida..It also has running boards, worthless due to 1/2 size in width.. It's more like a tripping board...
I imagine the first day of ownership it lost at least 35% of it's MSRP..On the plus side, it was comfortable and relatively quiet..WOW!!! I said something positive about Govt Mtrs...time for medication...
While I agree that, if I had only one bailout to give, I would have preferred to give it to those that actually produce a tangible product (like an auto), but I still have difficulty classifying tens of billions of $$$ as "small change".
I guess it's all in one's perspective...
Still, as I have stated repeatedly, this story isn't over yet. It may well have a happy ending, or not... We'll just have to wait and see...
The Vette had accumulated some 8k miles, however the battery died in his garage, and it wouldn't recharge to start the car..The dealer came out and flat-bedded the car to the dealership..Time to trade..
Wow, my Audi OEM battery lasted about 3 years (36) months, and I thought that was bad, but 2 years or less on a 2010 I assume, is really REALLY bad! I'd of been really pissed.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I will give the Horizon/Omni the easy to fix and rugged little car for what it was label.
My problem with it was driving it didn't feel much different from its domestic counterparts at the time despite its FWD. It was OK and if you liked the driving dynamics it was perfectly fine.
Of course the early ones had VW engines so you took your chances....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
These days, you can get enough competitive quotes online via email/web/ and/or over the telephone that you should be able to find a good price without all too much hassle. If your willing to travel a reasonable distance (say up to 125 miles), it helps because not all dealers were created equal when it comes to providing good quotes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I wouldn't ding any vehicle over a battery (unless it's hybrid type battery situation).
Buy a new battery and move on. A car that isn't driven much is hard on a battery.
Plus where was the car located? I've heard from people who live in places like Nevada or Arizona that a battery doesn't have a long life in the brutal heat.
You're on the nose about eh 80 Accord. I loved mine but by 167K and being 8 years old the driver's seat looked pretty awful and the body was kind of tired - not a thing wrong with the chassis though.
Our 86 Suburban top end model had visible wear on the seats and looked raggedy after 14 years and over 80K miles. The dashboard cracked and various trim pieces kept falling off. It served its utility purpose well, but was clearly inferior to the fabric, fit, finish, parts, tightness of our 86 Accord after 14 years and 247K miles. Both garage kept, but Suburban had lousy paint and was rusting. Accord had no rust on exterior, paint was still shining after all the years.
In 1986, Honda was almost an order of magnitude better in engineering, quality of materials, fit, finish, reliability, etc over the Suburban.
Yes, it's "just" a battery, and one can move on..... but the manufacturer deserves a ding, even if it is a small ding, and here's why:
1) They chose the battery, not me.
2) They chose (at least in VW/Audi's case) to make the warranty on "wear and tear" parts like the battery a super short 12 months or 12,000 miles. It seems short lived batteries started to make their appearance right in time for short-lived warranties. Coincidence? I think not.
3) and the final straw.... they don't prorate the original battery for 6, 5, or even just 4 years use. The replacement, oh sure, that one has a 48 month warranty with prorated value on it's lifetime, but the original, just 12 months or nothing.
4) My vehicle was a daily driver. Only excuse you can give the battery (and all excuses are lame and inexcusable) is that I'm in CA, and it does get VERY HOT in CA.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Buy a new battery and move on. A car that isn't driven much is hard on a battery.
If it's just a bum battery I wouldn't worry too much, but I'd also want to get the vehicle checked out to make sure there's nothing in it that's killing batteries.
Even with my rarely-driven older cars, I've often gotten 6-7 years out of a battery, although I did have one fry in three years once. Lately though, I've been losing track because I'll sometimes swap batteries. For example, when the battery in my '85 Silverado died, I took the battery out of my '76 LeMans to replace it. And then I think I pulled the battery out of my '67 Catalina to put in my '76 LeMans, and when I finally did buy a battery, it was for the Catalina!
Those old cars can be hard on batteries too, because they rarely start on the first try. Probably not the best on starters, either...
In 1986, Honda was almost an order of magnitude better in engineering, quality of materials, fit, finish, reliability, etc over the Suburban.
I noticed that when I owned a 01 Pathfinder and a 00 Suburban at the same time. The contrast couldn't have been more different.
We had a washboard gravel road outside our subdivision at the time. I could drive the PF 45+mph w/o issue and I'd drive with one hand on the wheel. In the Suburban, if I went over 20mph, it shook, shimmied, and vibrated so violently, interior parts would fall off and the suspension was so clumsy it took all you had to keep it going straight. Avoiding the gravel road meant driving a few miles out of the way. I would take the long way most of the time with the burb. I'd take the PF on the gravel road anytime as it handled it with ease.
One time the the overhead console with the map lights and rear HVAC controls fell off.
Yeah, the Accords kept getting better and better up until about the 98 version which kind of leveled off. The first couple of generations after the first Accord they would identify what they wanted to improve and just attack it like mad.
I think the only car I ever had where the dashboard cracked was an old Volvo.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I was in an old GMC Jimmy SUV many years ago in Bolivia, South America. We went from Santa Cruz to La Paz, most of which was unpaved dirt roads at the time.
That horrible miserable experience thanks to the GMC Jimmy's loose floaty suspension, terrible performance, vibrating rattling parts, and general discomfort soiled GM for my lifetime. I'm lucky I don't have back issues due to that voyage.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That horrible miserable experience thanks to the GMC Jimmy's loose floaty suspension, terrible performance, vibrating rattling parts, and general discomfort soiled GM for my lifetime. I'm lucky I don't have back issues due to that voyage.
Maybe the new GMT-900's are better, but the GMT-800 and prior were terrible in that regard and I experienced exactly what you described.
We had a trail that cut through a field between subdivisions. I'd use it for a fun short cut. It had it's share of ruts and bumps etc. Once again, I was always stunned how much faster I could drive the Pathfinder vs. the Suburban. The suspension on the PF had far better travel and control. I could drive over ruts and bumps twice as fast and with twice as much comfort. The Suburban always felt like something was going to break and it begged to be driven slow. The PF was a blast and it felt like it could handle anything I could throw at it.
I'm lucky I don't have back issues due to that voyage.
Well, anytime I see a nature documentary, you rarely see them driving a domestic truck. It's either a Rover or Land Cruiser, if a domestic were to be used, it would be a Jeep. I can understand why.
Yes, it's "just" a battery, and one can move on..... but the manufacturer deserves a ding, even if it is a small ding, and here's why:
I understand your point of view.
My POV is a bit different as I have a variety of batteries in a variety of vehicles. 2 Boats, lawn tractor, PWC, RV, golf cart and of course cars. I've seen many batteries die in a variety of ways. Usually it's neglect.
If the owner of the Vette leaves it sitting for more than a month at a time w/o disconnecting and/or charging the battery, it will not last very long.
Yeah. I'd hate to have a battery die after a short life and I have been very lucky in that regard but one bum isn't that big a deal. Now if the car started eating batteries that would be another matter.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Thanks for posting. I've been out there several times. Bendix, then Bosch, owned the track and in 2002 and 2007 they've allowed Studebakers on the track during the International Studebaker Drivers' Club meets in South Bend. In 2002 I drove my own and in 2007 rode with a friend in his convertible on it. Great fun. About 15 miles west of town.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You've truly got to wonder what size of the sample were turbocharged HHR's. I think we probably know. But wasn't the difference not engine, but (supposedly) something else? Personally, I still feel it's normal sample error. Even CR wasn't attributing it to the Turbo, were they?
I didn't think so.
Here is where CR's old habit of listing two columns for different engines would have helped. The last "guide" I thumbed through at the drug store didn't even a total reliability at the bottom by model year, like they used to, just "average" or whatever across all model years...one line entry.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As more "enhanced" cars (think lots of features/electronics) hit the market, battery issues are going to come front and center. It's already a point of contention with the latest series BMWs.
No more simple "swap" with a replacement from Autozone, as these new cars will require battery "registration", which can only be done by the dealer or a very, VERY well- equipped indie shop. Again, BMW is already there.
And, its going to be very expensive!
I see this trend filtering down to the masses over the next few years.
I've tried to find out online, with no luck, what percentage of total HHR production were turbos. My own bet is that it wasn't even ten percent of production, and probably less than that. This comes from how many I've ever seen, either on the road or in a row of new HHR's at a Chevy dealer when I've been looking at cars over the years.
Think back to Statistics class. The most obvious thing is sample error. No one can rationally tell me that the car was this good one year, worse the next year, and back to better the following year, when assembly location, engine, trans, engine assembly location, trans assembly location, and accessories hadn't changed...and then certainly hadn't changed back even if they did. It doesn't pass the smell test.
As I've said, that's OK, even unavoidable, but I only laugh when I see CR say "2007 and 2009 OK, avoid 2008", when I know from frequent looking that they haven't changed, and certainly didn't change back. Improvements from the oldest year, onward, I can believe, but not the flip-flopping.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As more "enhanced" cars (think lots of features/electronics) hit the market, battery issues are going to come front and center. It's already a point of contention with the latest series BMWs.
Yeah, cars are probably at the limits of a 12v system.
I was in a Dr.'s waiting room for over two hours today, waiting for my wife and daughter (good news rec'd, so that was OK). I read their several Motor Trends and Car and Driver, as well as some other boring non-car mags. I was pretty surprised to see Dec.'s Motor Trend having their long-term wrapup of a top-end Infiniti (can't recall the model; if it were a freakin' name instead of a collection of numbers I could). They had some pretty sizeable quality things in the 41K miles they had the car...and it was a top-end model. I'll admit it seems like you don't hear much about Infiniti these days.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
but I only laugh when I see CR say "2007 and 2009 OK, avoid 2008", when I know from frequent looking that they haven't changed, and certainly didn't change back. Improvements from the oldest year, onward, I can believe, but not the flip-flopping.
Well JDpower has similar results regarding the HHR. And JDpower indicates changes were made in 2007 as both Ecotec option gained HP.
06 IQS 2/5 overall dependiblity 3/5
07 IQS 2.5/5 OD 3/5
08 IQS 2.5/5 OD 2.5/5
I couldn't get the 09 model info to come up. But each year changes were made to the HHR according to JD. In 08 Standard equipment changed, a sport suspension was offered, more airbags were added. In 07 more power was added.
The idea the HHR stayed the same from 06 to 09 isn't the case. With manufacturing, any change can introduce variables and variation.
Even if nothing had changed regarding the design of the vehicle, it's likely something changed. Maybe the employees working on the line, a supplier, manufacturing procedures, etc.
There is variation in any process. Nothing is 100% repeatable. Plus everything is built to a certain spec within a defined set of tolerances. All sorts of things can happen within those tolerances with as many parts that are in a vehicle.
As I've said, that's OK, even unavoidable, but I only laugh when I see CR say "2007 and 2009 OK, avoid 2008", when I know from frequent looking that they haven't changed, and certainly didn't change back. Improvements from the oldest year, onward, I can believe, but not the flip-flopping.
I think I might know what's going on there. In those reliability tables that CR posts, for the individual things like engine cooling, paint, a/c, transmission, etc, they assign those little black, red, and clear circles based on what percent of their survey respondents have problems. However, when they assign an overall reliability rating to a vehicle, they rate it compared to all other vehicles, but it has nothing to do with how many of their survey respondents have problems.
It's kinda like taking a bunch of smart kids and making them take a test, but then grading on a curve, so that, not matter how well they do, somebody ends up failing. So most kids get an A+ or an A, but a couple kids get an A-, and, as a result, fail.
So, with your 2007-2009 model example, what might have happened is that, for whatever reason, a lot of 2008 models scored really well compared to 2007 and 2009. So, while a 2008 model of, say, an HHR, might be no worse than a 2007 or 2009 HHR, it still scored a bit low compared all other 2008 cars.
Plus, those ratings can change from year to year. For instance, in the 80's, GM's RWD cars often rated horribly their first few years, as they had more niggling little problems than the competition. But, like a fine wine, they got better with age, and when the competition started puking engines and dumping transmissions and frying ECU's, those RWD cars just kept trudging on.
But wasn't the difference not engine, but (supposedly) something else? Personally, I still feel it's normal sample error
Electrical mainly, but I'm sure a turbo would have several differences in the wiring harness. A check engine light would likely go down under this category (to be honest I'm not sure).
I also think it's in part sample error, and let's remember the differences were small, not red dot to black dot.
Shouldn't be a surprise to see such a small dip when a new turbo SS model comes out, I'm sure that's normal.
The last "guide" I thumbed through at the drug store didn't even a total reliability at the bottom by model year, like they used to, just "average" or whatever across all model years...one line entry
That is a reliability forecast, if you went to buy a new one today.
Nowadays if they lack historical data they will leave it blank and say "New".
No one can rationally tell me that the car was this good one year, worse the next year, and back to better the following year
Part of the disbelief is that you are misinterpreting the data.
It did not go Red, Black, Red, Black.
It went from slightly below average in v1.0, then went up slightly to average (not good, just average). The next year the SS came out, again the numbers dropped slightly, they did not plunge, then went back up to average again.
It's not the roller coaster ride you describe. Out of 5 ratings, the whole time it remained within the 2 neighboring scores. Very little change.
Also, an SS owner is far more likely to beat on their ride hard, put it away wet. You also get younger, more aggressive buyers.
I think US manufacturers converted to 12 volt, negative ground systems around 1957.
Seems like my brother's mid-60's VW Beetle was a 6 volt. Even after most domestic cars converted to 12 volt batteries, for years the ignition systems themselves remained 6 volt. They used a component to reduce the voltage, but I can't recall what it was called at the moment.
We will probably see higher voltage systems very soon in cars, due to the increased electrical requirements of the additional doo-dads we all want...
I see that VW stuck to 6 volts through the 1966 model year. This means my girlfriend's folks had two 6 volt cars back then - a bug and a Karmann Ghia...
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Yeah it does depend on the type of battery. I was going by my Trojan deep cycle batteries in my golf cart. 12.8 is considered a full charge.
According to batterystuff.com. only 30% of starting batteries make it to 48mos. Starting batteries that are discharged is one of several things that will shorten its life.
I bet you work within a stone's throw of a huge number of special honest ethical souls worthy of keeping a guillotine artist working for years :shades: :sick:
Comments
Indeed I think Honda and the F-10 were it for FWD cars at that point. I was driving a FWD car at that point but it was a Saab. Now that I think of it I had darned few RWD cars - my 69 Volvo, a 56 Buick Special that I had for fun and a couple of Novas....
Is "good" enough?
So, what other major brands have you had to be able to experience FIRST HAND the qualities, performance, reliability "between" the brands. Have you in your immediate family had 2, 3 or more "different" brands at the same time to make comparisons?
Some of us who have owned GM alongside and same time as foreign brands might say "good" or "ok" about our GM, but then say that our Honda, Acura, Nissan, etc was "outstanding", "excellent" or "far exceeded our expectations and needs".
Brilliant, but they are out of business.
I thought the car was a piece, but admittedly, back then I would have taken that attitude about any small car. One of my friends had an '89 Escort that was also a piece, and another had an '80 Accord, and another had an '85 Cavalier. And "a piece" pretty much summed them all up. :P
Looking back though, the Accord did have a few nice things about it. Legroom wasn't too bad up front for such a small car, and it had an interior that, when it was new, was really nicely trimmed. It was falling apart by this time, though. It was also a good highway cruiser. Took forever to get there, but once you hit 80 mph, it was actually pretty smooth and quiet. Less squeaking and rattling than my '80 Malibu, which had to have been a miracle, considering how rusty this Accord was by this time.
As for my buddy's '85 Cavalier, it was relatively reliable, but just a cheap, basic, humdrum car. It had a badge on the back that said "CS", but I don't know what that trim level gave you, because this thing was cheap...plastic slabs for the door panels, panty-thin cloth on the seats that faded from black to purple with age, etc. When it was about 9 years old, with around 110K or so miles on it, it simply wouldn't start one day. He got rid of it, started driving his parents' '86 or so Corolla (or maybe it was a Tercel, I don't remember, but it was a 4-door hatchback), for a few months until its engine sludged up, and then he bought a brand-new '95 Trans Am.
The '90 Horizon got wrecked when it was less than a year old. Not totaled, but my friends' parents took it back from him, he dropped out of college, and ultimately went to some school out of state, and I forget what happened to the car.
My friend with the '89 Escort bought a new Corolla in 1992, and left the Escort for his brothers to use, who were still living at home and in college. Dunno how long it ultimately lasted, but my friend said it was getting pretty crappy by '92. He wouldn't elaborate, though.
Ask Mikhail Kalashnikov, the designer of the famous AK-47 rifle. It had very loose tolerances unlike the M-14 and M-16 which needed to be field-stripped and thoroughly cleaned any time a little bit of grit got into it. You could throw a handful of sand into an AK or drop it in the mud and you could pick it up an fire it.
"The best is the enemy of 'good enough!"
CS = Cheap.... well, you can fill in the blank....
You're on the nose about eh 80 Accord. I loved mine but by 167K and being 8 years old the driver's seat looked pretty awful and the body was kind of tired - not a thing wrong with the chassis though.
20 years later they were making more durable interiors for sure. The 00 keeps going and looks fine inside. My daughter is ready to heave it but that's only because of the stick shift on it.
Entering a Vette, one falls in, however with the Traverse one is forced to climb in and fall out..Nice car but it's a Chevy w/ dual sunroofs, 3 rows of seats and only lacking AWD, however not required in southern Florida..It also has running boards, worthless due to 1/2 size in width.. It's more like a tripping board...
I imagine the first day of ownership it lost at least 35% of it's MSRP..On the plus side, it was comfortable and relatively quiet..WOW!!! I said something positive about Govt Mtrs...time for medication...
Happy Motoring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess it's all in one's perspective...
Still, as I have stated repeatedly, this story isn't over yet. It may well have a happy ending, or not... We'll just have to wait and see...
Wow, my Audi OEM battery lasted about 3 years (36) months, and I thought that was bad, but 2 years or less on a 2010 I assume, is really REALLY bad! I'd of been really pissed.
Torque is much closer. 148 to 177. They're in the same ball park.
Yeah, one is on Field level and one is in the parking lot!
Regards,
OW
My problem with it was driving it didn't feel much different from its domestic counterparts at the time despite its FWD. It was OK and if you liked the driving dynamics it was perfectly fine.
Of course the early ones had VW engines so you took your chances....
Buy a new battery and move on. A car that isn't driven much is hard on a battery.
Plus where was the car located? I've heard from people who live in places like Nevada or Arizona that a battery doesn't have a long life in the brutal heat.
Our 86 Suburban top end model had visible wear on the seats and looked raggedy after 14 years and over 80K miles. The dashboard cracked and various trim pieces kept falling off. It served its utility purpose well, but was clearly inferior to the fabric, fit, finish, parts, tightness of our 86 Accord after 14 years and 247K miles. Both garage kept, but Suburban had lousy paint and was rusting. Accord had no rust on exterior, paint was still shining after all the years.
In 1986, Honda was almost an order of magnitude better in engineering, quality of materials, fit, finish, reliability, etc over the Suburban.
1) They chose the battery, not me.
2) They chose (at least in VW/Audi's case) to make the warranty on "wear and tear" parts like the battery a super short 12 months or 12,000 miles. It seems short lived batteries started to make their appearance right in time for short-lived warranties. Coincidence? I think not.
3) and the final straw.... they don't prorate the original battery for 6, 5, or even just 4 years use. The replacement, oh sure, that one has a 48 month warranty with prorated value on it's lifetime, but the original, just 12 months or nothing.
4) My vehicle was a daily driver. Only excuse you can give the battery (and all excuses are lame and inexcusable) is that I'm in CA, and it does get VERY HOT in CA.
If it's just a bum battery I wouldn't worry too much, but I'd also want to get the vehicle checked out to make sure there's nothing in it that's killing batteries.
Even with my rarely-driven older cars, I've often gotten 6-7 years out of a battery, although I did have one fry in three years once. Lately though, I've been losing track because I'll sometimes swap batteries. For example, when the battery in my '85 Silverado died, I took the battery out of my '76 LeMans to replace it. And then I think I pulled the battery out of my '67 Catalina to put in my '76 LeMans, and when I finally did buy a battery, it was for the Catalina!
Those old cars can be hard on batteries too, because they rarely start on the first try. Probably not the best on starters, either...
another way to say it is that they are ONLY, and I do mean only 20% (rounded) apart, as in one engine is 20% torquier than the other. :P
If 20% is in the same ballpark, then I'd like to sell you everything at 20% higher cost than I buy it.
I noticed that when I owned a 01 Pathfinder and a 00 Suburban at the same time. The contrast couldn't have been more different.
We had a washboard gravel road outside our subdivision at the time. I could drive the PF 45+mph w/o issue and I'd drive with one hand on the wheel. In the Suburban, if I went over 20mph, it shook, shimmied, and vibrated so violently, interior parts would fall off and the suspension was so clumsy it took all you had to keep it going straight. Avoiding the gravel road meant driving a few miles out of the way. I would take the long way most of the time with the burb. I'd take the PF on the gravel road anytime as it handled it with ease.
One time the the overhead console with the map lights and rear HVAC controls fell off.
I think the only car I ever had where the dashboard cracked was an old Volvo.
That horrible miserable experience thanks to the GMC Jimmy's loose floaty suspension, terrible performance, vibrating rattling parts, and general discomfort soiled GM for my lifetime. I'm lucky I don't have back issues due to that voyage.
Maybe the new GMT-900's are better, but the GMT-800 and prior were terrible in that regard and I experienced exactly what you described.
We had a trail that cut through a field between subdivisions. I'd use it for a fun short cut. It had it's share of ruts and bumps etc. Once again, I was always stunned how much faster I could drive the Pathfinder vs. the Suburban. The suspension on the PF had far better travel and control. I could drive over ruts and bumps twice as fast and with twice as much comfort. The Suburban always felt like something was going to break and it begged to be driven slow. The PF was a blast and it felt like it could handle anything I could throw at it.
I'm lucky I don't have back issues due to that voyage.
Well, anytime I see a nature documentary, you rarely see them driving a domestic truck. It's either a Rover or Land Cruiser, if a domestic were to be used, it would be a Jeep. I can understand why.
Studebaker Sign
Regards,
OW
I understand your point of view.
My POV is a bit different as I have a variety of batteries in a variety of vehicles. 2 Boats, lawn tractor, PWC, RV, golf cart and of course cars. I've seen many batteries die in a variety of ways. Usually it's neglect.
If the owner of the Vette leaves it sitting for more than a month at a time w/o disconnecting and/or charging the battery, it will not last very long.
I didn't think so.
Here is where CR's old habit of listing two columns for different engines would have helped. The last "guide" I thumbed through at the drug store didn't even a total reliability at the bottom by model year, like they used to, just "average" or whatever across all model years...one line entry.
No more simple "swap" with a replacement from Autozone, as these new cars will require battery "registration", which can only be done by the dealer or a very, VERY well- equipped indie shop. Again, BMW is already there.
And, its going to be very expensive!
I see this trend filtering down to the masses over the next few years.
Think back to Statistics class. The most obvious thing is sample error. No one can rationally tell me that the car was this good one year, worse the next year, and back to better the following year, when assembly location, engine, trans, engine assembly location, trans assembly location, and accessories hadn't changed...and then certainly hadn't changed back even if they did. It doesn't pass the smell test.
As I've said, that's OK, even unavoidable, but I only laugh when I see CR say "2007 and 2009 OK, avoid 2008", when I know from frequent looking that they haven't changed, and certainly didn't change back. Improvements from the oldest year, onward, I can believe, but not the flip-flopping.
Yeah, cars are probably at the limits of a 12v system.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-infiniti-m56s-long-term-road-test-wrap-- up-review
Well JDpower has similar results regarding the HHR. And JDpower indicates changes were made in 2007 as both Ecotec option gained HP.
06 IQS 2/5
overall dependiblity 3/5
07 IQS 2.5/5
OD 3/5
08 IQS 2.5/5
OD 2.5/5
I couldn't get the 09 model info to come up. But each year changes were made to the HHR according to JD. In 08 Standard equipment changed, a sport suspension was offered, more airbags were added. In 07 more power was added.
The idea the HHR stayed the same from 06 to 09 isn't the case. With manufacturing, any change can introduce variables and variation.
Even if nothing had changed regarding the design of the vehicle, it's likely something changed. Maybe the employees working on the line, a supplier, manufacturing procedures, etc.
There is variation in any process. Nothing is 100% repeatable. Plus everything is built to a certain spec within a defined set of tolerances. All sorts of things can happen within those tolerances with as many parts that are in a vehicle.
Oh, swell. Just when I was OK that you couldn't get a car with a 6 volt.....
I wonder when 6 volts went out of he market altogether. I can remember MGs that had two 6 volt batteries...
I think I might know what's going on there. In those reliability tables that CR posts, for the individual things like engine cooling, paint, a/c, transmission, etc, they assign those little black, red, and clear circles based on what percent of their survey respondents have problems. However, when they assign an overall reliability rating to a vehicle, they rate it compared to all other vehicles, but it has nothing to do with how many of their survey respondents have problems.
It's kinda like taking a bunch of smart kids and making them take a test, but then grading on a curve, so that, not matter how well they do, somebody ends up failing. So most kids get an A+ or an A, but a couple kids get an A-, and, as a result, fail.
So, with your 2007-2009 model example, what might have happened is that, for whatever reason, a lot of 2008 models scored really well compared to 2007 and 2009. So, while a 2008 model of, say, an HHR, might be no worse than a 2007 or 2009 HHR, it still scored a bit low compared all other 2008 cars.
Plus, those ratings can change from year to year. For instance, in the 80's, GM's RWD cars often rated horribly their first few years, as they had more niggling little problems than the competition. But, like a fine wine, they got better with age, and when the competition started puking engines and dumping transmissions and frying ECU's, those RWD cars just kept trudging on.
Electrical mainly, but I'm sure a turbo would have several differences in the wiring harness. A check engine light would likely go down under this category (to be honest I'm not sure).
I also think it's in part sample error, and let's remember the differences were small, not red dot to black dot.
Shouldn't be a surprise to see such a small dip when a new turbo SS model comes out, I'm sure that's normal.
The last "guide" I thumbed through at the drug store didn't even a total reliability at the bottom by model year, like they used to, just "average" or whatever across all model years...one line entry
That is a reliability forecast, if you went to buy a new one today.
Nowadays if they lack historical data they will leave it blank and say "New".
Part of the disbelief is that you are misinterpreting the data.
It did not go Red, Black, Red, Black.
It went from slightly below average in v1.0, then went up slightly to average (not good, just average). The next year the SS came out, again the numbers dropped slightly, they did not plunge, then went back up to average again.
It's not the roller coaster ride you describe. Out of 5 ratings, the whole time it remained within the 2 neighboring scores. Very little change.
Also, an SS owner is far more likely to beat on their ride hard, put it away wet. You also get younger, more aggressive buyers.
I think Carlos "le cost cutter" Ghosn has had both good and bad influence on Nissan/Infiniti.
Moving to TN worked out well. Some of the cost cutting on the cars, not so much...
Despite a 12v battery, modern cars use 14.4v system. :shades:
Some auto makers want more voltage, too!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Seems like my brother's mid-60's VW Beetle was a 6 volt. Even after most domestic cars converted to 12 volt batteries, for years the ignition systems themselves remained 6 volt. They used a component to reduce the voltage, but I can't recall what it was called at the moment.
We will probably see higher voltage systems very soon in cars, due to the increased electrical requirements of the additional doo-dads we all want...
According to batterystuff.com. only 30% of starting batteries make it to 48mos. Starting batteries that are discharged is one of several things that will shorten its life.