Seriously, and I mean this, what I find mystifying is that so many people that have a strong dislike for anything and everything GM, find it so appealing to post so regularly to this forum. I mean, really. I dislike Toyotas but never post on that forum. For what? Just to bring those who like them, down? To what end?
And yes, I'm aware there are "fan" forums here.
I feel compelled to post here, largely, as counterpoint to the factually incorrect things I see here, or incredibly slanted things, on a regular basis. Opinions are one thing, and are fine of course, but on here....some of the stuff is...'sheesh' is all I can say.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Maybe we need a New Model and Market share thread?
I have primarily owned GM and Fords. Nobody posts on the Ford forums, so here I am.
what I find mystifying is that so many people that have a strong dislike for anything and everything GM
Well considering my opinion of GM is 100% based on my ownership of several GM products it doesn't shock me at all.
I feel the same way about Ford. Though I do have a slight Ford bias, I fully understand some people won't touch Ford with a 10' pole. They've built a lot of crap, but I'm not blinded by bias and won't call someone a troll or fanboy of another brand because they rightfully have issues with Ford. Heck, I have issues with Ford too.
I guess I have a soft spot for the kind of cars VW offers. They still build drivers cars, well as much of a drivers car a fwd car can be. Sure a base Jetta appears to be pretty lousy. Even the mags rag on it. But OTOH you can buy a Jetta GLI with a 200hp/207 ft-lbs of torque turbo 4 with a manual trans. Ford and GM currently have nothing like that.
The last GLI I drove was a lot of fun. Good power, refined, and best of all, fun to drive. That's what I'm a fanboy of. If it can put a smile on my face while I drive it, I'm a fan. Very few GM vehicles have made me smile.
Seriously, and I mean this, what I find mystifying is that so many people that have a strong dislike for anything and everything GM, find it so appealing to post so regularly to this forum. I mean, really. I dislike Toyotas but never post on that forum. For what? Just to bring those who like them, down? To what end?
I think for me (and I believe I've mentioned this in the past), I saw GM junk in the 70s, GM junk in the 80s and 90s - and I WANTED to be able to buy a US make. It mystified me how a company so clueless could continue to sell the most vehicles. Then that company finally imploded in the 2000's, yet my tax dollars bailed them out. Sort of like my druggie shiftless criminal teenage son (no, not really, just an example), I believe that tough love is a help. Criticize, continue to point out flaws, and say they should be doing better - yet praise where it is warranted, too. I want GM to be successful, not an embarrassment. So I'm here.
I see posters here of two minds - one is like me (tough love), and the others (dedicated love) are saying to their useless son "Oh, but I LOVE him! He means well, he's trying - look, he got a B in that math class so he's much better! And he SMILES so nice at Thanksgiving dinner! He behaved well when I took him to the zoo and the other parents remarked about how NICE he was! That test he took and flunked - well the teacher used a bad grading curve - he's not really THAT bad! I just LOVE him!".
Call it the "tough love" vs. "dedicated love" approaches.
Like you I want them to succeed. There was a 72 Impala early in my driving years - my dad's car - that I loved and fully expected to buy GM cars. Once I got in the market - at that same time - there was nothing in the size I wanted that GM made other than junk. At the time that was the Vega.
As years went on I'd look and be disappointed. I watched as their market share tumbled. I saw them fall off the cliff.
While of mixed feelings on the bailout I'm happy to see them still around and overall am very pleased to see the direction they are going.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
What I find mystifying and unbelievable is that despite so many FACTUAL issues with GM, some fight to the proverbial "end of time" to defend GM. If I had only one issue in my experience with GM, I would be off base always knocking them. But many issues over the many decades I've owned GM and was disappointed gives me the right to post here. When the C-11 was finally announced after the official "begging process" was accepted by the Government, it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their operations, sales and business model was critically flawed for representing the "Sales Leader" for USA Auto.
There is so much to report regarding GM's lack of ownership as the "Sales Leader" in USA Automotive manufacturing history. GM, Chrysler and Ford, but mostly GM allowed the marketplace that exists today.
Now, all of the "fan boys and girls" need to live with the counterpoint. :shades:
Note to the Fans: GM is improving but far from superior.
You're probably right but the one I remember is JD Power dinging Hummers when owners got lousy gas mileage. The H2 wasn't required to have a mpg number on the Monroney because it was so heavy. (just-auto.com)
'Balanced' is saying 'I've ridden and driven in a Cobalt, and I hated it', versus having to pry someone to admit they'd done neither, but just have heard negative stuff about it.
As I've said, in rental cars, I've ridden and driven in a bunch. I'm always expecting an epiphany in a Japanese or Korean car. I'm usually left saying, 'why's the vinyl smell so funny in here?' and/or 'why's that TCS light staying on?' or 'what's that loud clunk up front over bumps?'.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I don't really care for Ford not because of what they currently build but for what they currently do not. Ford had three vehicles on my car-shopping A-list they foolishly dumped: the Crown Vic, The Grand Marquis, and the Town Car. Nothing in Ford's current lineup interests me in the least.
My Grandpop's full-size Chevies were excellent cars. As a result, I always apired to own a GM car. I was not disappointed with my first GM car - a 1968 Buick Special Deluxe, and it was followed-up by one great GM car after another. It's funny how different people's experience can be. Every 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s GM car I had was a gem. I'm really impressed with GM's current lineup. My recent visit to the Philadelphia Auto Show has two already at the top of my list: the Buick LaCrosse CXS and the Cadillac XTS
I have to ask, how is it so much different than Ford?
I'm sorry, but a Crown Vic was a very good car in the '90's. Who would want one today. I really liked my dad's '92 Crown Vic, I liked driving it far more than my grandpa's '02 Roadmaster. But that was 20 years ago and I wouldn't want it today.
In '00 I had a opportunity to buy a fully loaded '94 Grand Marquis with only 20k miles on it cheap at an estate sale in Florida which my wife's grandma was handling.
My wife and I took it on an extended test drive. It was in great shape, but I didn't like how it drove, just slow and sloppy.
The only sedan I currently see at GM which is more appealing than a comporable Ford is the LaCrosse. The Taurus just doesn't measure up really.
I don't see anything special about the XTS. Okay, it has a big LCD display, but it where's the beef? I thought you weren't going to pay $50k+ for a big v6 sedan. At least with the MKS, you can get some guts under the hood, though I'd guess all of the Taurus shortcomings are present.
Cruze might have a slight advantage over a Focus, but personally I'd likely take a manual trams Focus hatchback over a Cruze.
Sonic is definitely more appealing than the fiesta.
From what I've seen so far, I think the new Fusion looks much better than the Malibu, but overall that's likely a toss up, though the Fusion will have a better hybrid option.
Mustang and Camaro are a toss up too, but I prefer Ford's quick, high revving DOHC v8. Just personal preference and would concede these two cars are a wash, while the ZL-1 has the edge so far and the Camaro sells better
Currently the Taurus is nicer than the Impala, but that will likely change when the new Impala is out.
1/2 ton trucks, Ford clearly has the advantage. GM just doesn't have the engine lineup and the GM trucks are dated, though I like the looks of the GMCs. GM's 6.2 v8 matches up well, but good luck finding one on a lot. I've been trying to test drive one for a while and can't find one on a local Chevy or GMC lot. I won't order one without driving it.
Last time I was at a Ford dealer, they had every engine option readily available with a variety of gear ratios. My local chevy and GMC dealers have mostly 5.3 powered trucks with 3.08 rear end ratios, yuck.
HD trucks are a wash IMO, though Ford owns the sales. The GM HD trucks seem to win most magazine comparisons.
I'd say the GM CUVs are nicer than Ford's. I don't like the new Explorer, though it sells well, the lambda's certainly outsell it combined.
Equinox is nicer than the Escape, though the new Escape looks like a huge improvement.
Ford doesn't really have anything to compete with Buick. The Regal doesn't seem to sell worth a damn. The Lacrosse is very nice. I think the Verano will flop. Sales over the past few months indicate Buick is struggling.
Cadillac is certainly ahead of Lincoln. The ATS looks promising, the CTS is in need of some updates.
I'm curious to see what Ford will do with Lincoln, though I have no more desire to own a Lincoln than I do a Cadillac. I have zero aspirations to own either. Though an ATS could potentially change that.
I mourned the day they killed the Caprice. Made right here in Jersey.
As I've gotten older, and the fact that I've been driving BOF SUV's for several years now, there is a part of me that miss those BOF cars.
I haven't ridden in a true luxury car in a long time so it's hard for me to compare. But one thing I notice when going from my Expedition to my wife's Taurus is the excellent road isolation you get with the Expe.
Expansion joints and potholes send shock waves through any mainstream sedans we've had. That's one area BOF vehicles excel. Sure the Expedition rides fairly firm, so you feel the bump, but the shock doesn't go through the vehicle like a tuning fork.
Honestly, I'd bet Lemko would thoroughly enjoy driving a new pickup. They have very long wheelbases that provide a surprisingly smooth ride, plenty of road isolation, the F150 in particular has a super cab that offers room few sedans can match.
The F150 can be configured to comfortably seat 6. Plus with the f150 you can get a 360hp DOHC v8 or a 365HP/420ft-lbs of torque turbo v6. I've seen the F150 with the v6 have 0-60 times in the 6.2-6.7 second range, I doubt the XTS will be any quicker.
I've driven a new F150, it drives surprisingly well. It's quiet, smooth, handles better than you think it would. It's no wonder why people buy them even if they rarely haul or tow anything.
They drive and perform better than any Panther or B body and are more comfortable. The worst thing I did was take the whole family for a test drive of the f150. The kids were complaining immediately in the middle row of the Expedition that the f150 was far more comfortable.
It is, it rode smoother, is more comfortable, and outside of noticing a bit of an extra bounce from the rear, felt like a traditional luxury car many on hear wish the domestics still built. They still build them, but they have a bed instead of a truck;)
Now I'm not saying the f150 or any pickup will be more luxurious than the XTS, they are still pickups. So you get some cheap, but durable surfaces that you won't find in a luxury car. Plus styling and image is completely different all together.
To be fair, the TCS light and front-end clunking was in a Camry with 15K miles, but I also hated the Kia Souls I had this past year. Buzzy-loud engines. One I had was a vitamin-enhanced-urine-yellow-green. The one guy at our office up there said to me, "I want to know if you actually go to the rental car counter and ask for something like that!".
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
LAS VEGAS - (AP) -- General Motors Co. said Saturday that most of its 4,400 U.S. dealers have agreed to upgrade their showrooms over the next four years.
The upgrades include new signs, more modern interiors and lounges with free Wi-Fi. In some cases, dealers might also open cafes or salons.
The company announced its plans at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas.
GM said 3,400 dealers have agreed to upgrades, and 1,000 have been completed.
GM said it also plans to give dealerships more sales and service training and encourage them to do more online marketing. If they meet all the upgraded standards, they'll receive quarterly payments, spokesman Tom Henderson said.
Henderson said 36 percent of GM's stores were built before 1970.
This fine gentlemen says it best and I believe is the most balanced view I've seen.
I have owned many GM vehicles over the years, I am 54 years old and have worked in automotive repair and body paint service. I have seen GM make many mistakes on quality, especially on interior trim and paint quality/ fit and finish. I have owned Honda(1), Toyota (1), Nissan (3), Chevy (3), Pontiac (1) and Ford (4) Vehicles Chrysler A(1). I do not know how many other people who post have had this kind of background. My observation is that GM made vehicles with pride until about 1971 when I watched as the new vehicles began to really suffer, my parents purchased a new 1972 Chevy Chevelle that had a wonderful drive train (spec'd out by a mechanic friend who built drive trains for a living) but the metal spare tire cover did not fit or the glove box door either, the driver rear door was hard to close. Still the vehicle was sold to a family friend and went 250k miles with just basic repair?.
I had trouble with the Honda both motor (fuel delivery issues at 30k) brake and body issues when the cam went flat at 80k miles I sold it/. I found the Nissan quality to be poor in many areas body interior and some engine issues sold them as the fuel economy was not what it was supposed to be/.
The very best vehicle I have ever owned was a 1988 Pontiac 6000 LE'. 30 miles per gallon on the highway often and the engine transmission combo were awesome, power and economy, reliability sold the car with 130K and regretted it ever since, however the interior part quality was marginal, but not that bad when compared to contemporary vehicles of the time!.
The Chevy vehicles I owned had some issues but overall were great cars as they went forever the issue with the post 1971 vehicles from GM I have owned is that I worked around all kinds vehicles and was able to drive most new vehicles over the years, I watched as GM not only did not keep pace but seemed to decline in quality and innovation:. I own a 1995 Toyota 4 runner currently and it has been the worst vehicle so far it needed head gaskets at 45k and now at 125k has a burnt valve/. The Ford vehicles were great to 80k then they needed engines and or transmissions!. Currently have a 1997 Ford F250 HD in driveway given to me by my father and at 125k it needs a transmission, body quality was better than GM though. I also have owned a 1993 Plymouth Voyager no serious complaints as we did not keep it long.
I have seen GM build some great vehicles and some really poor ones as well. In the 60's they had a *** the torpedoes let's build vehicles that kick ***, I read info from GM that said they were trying to adopt that attitude again since 2006 (stop letting the accountants tell them how to build vehicles). Then in 2008 the economy went south and they nearly went under. I hate to hear from friends that have worked with GM engineers that told me how much time and effort went into making their cars fail just after warranty expired. I had a teacher in HS that told me our economy was going to change as other countries became capable of competing with the US, I have seen this as well. The bottom line is that people here in the US have pride in what they do and driving a vehicle that is less than good made here bothers us, because we see our reflection in the paint and people who care want better. I hope that someone at GM is listening and Ford as well, Chrysler is now Italian (owned by Fiat) so it is irrelevant for them (they make some pretty good cars now) . I know that Honda, Nissan and Toyota assemble many vehicles here, but they are still imports to anyone who knows the capability of the people of the US. We have more inside than the rest of the world thinks at this point. Retiring employees at full compensation was a terrible idea, whoever though this up and pushed it through should be neutered.
Don't let us down GM, you can do better, we have seen it. When we look at you we see us.
I hate to hear from friends that have worked with GM engineers that told me how much time and effort went into making their cars fail just after warranty expired.
Do you really believe this statement? Does this fellow live in Detroit? Do you think this one guy has friends (plural) who work with GM engineers? Do you think any engineer would tell a supplier that very statement?
This sounds to me like the old saw, "Detroit knows how to make a 100 mpg car but the oil companies paid them all off". I know guys who still state this today.
On the other hand, I'm certain there has long been cost-containment in mind by engineers, but not only at GM like your quote makes it sound.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>Do you really believe this statement? Does this fellow live in Detroit? Do you think this one guy has friends (plural) who work with GM engineers? Do you think any engineer would tell a supplier that very statement?
Not sure where this comes from, must be a post my filter skips, but it's the age old urban myth. Not credible other than to the gullible. Somehow we're to believe the perfect car companies like toyota and Honda asked their suppliers for parts that last 300,000 miles (transmissions, engines that don't sludge, etc.) and GM, F, and C asked for parts that last 36,000 miles and then fail. Gimmeabreak.
Not only at GM is correct but it is a fact in the auto industry. GM was one of the first to indoctrinate it. :shades:
Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of deliberately planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete or nonfunctional after a certain period of time.[1] Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1]
In some cases, deliberate deprecation of earlier versions of a technology is used to reduce ongoing support costs, especially in the software industry. Though this could be considered planned obselescence, it differs from the classic form in that the consumer is typically made aware of the limited support lifetime of the product as part of their licensing agreement.
For an industry, planned obsolescence stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. Built-in obsolescence is used in many different products. There is, however, the potential backlash of consumers who learn that the manufacturer invested money to make the product obsolete faster; such consumers might turn to a producer (if any exists) that offers a more durable alternative.
Planned obsolescence was first developed in the 1920s and 1930s when mass production had opened every minute aspect of the production process to exacting analysis.[citation needed]
Estimates of planned obsolescence can influence a company's decisions about product engineering. Therefore the company can use the least expensive components that satisfy product lifetime projections. Such decisions are part of a broader discipline known as value engineering.
Alfred Pritchard Sloan, Jr. (May 23, 1875 – February 17, 1966) was an American business executive in the automotive industry. He was a long-time president, chairman, and CEO of General Motors Corporation.[1] Sloan, first as a senior executive and later as the peak of the organization, helped lead (and grow) GM from the 1920s through the 1950s—decades when concepts such as the annual model change, brand architecture, industrial design, automotive design (styling), and planned obsolescence transformed the industry, and when the industry changed lifestyles and the built environment in America and throughout the world.
Between the accountants and engineering for least cost manufacturing, it helped drive GM into C-11 along with all of the other horrible decisions by the management and UAW.
I have no idea on how different components of various cars are designed in terms of MTBF.
But I have a BIL that works for a supplier to Chrysler, GM, Ford, Honda and Toyota. He sells tool and die equipment to all of the above. He claims Honda and Toyota demand tighter tolerances vs. D3 when it comes to dies.
Totally non-scientific, but on the TV show "Extreme Factories" (NatGeo, I think) there have been several programs on car factories. At least 3 on GM... The Corvette, Camaro and Volt.
The Volt episode was on the initial design and prototyping, not general manufacturing.
On both the Corvette and Camaro shows, the assembly lines "tripped" and stopped, requiring an assembly tech to verify an alignment issue between parts. I don't recall seeing any such instances on any other manufacturer's shows.
To be fair to GM, the problems were false, and no action other than a visual inspection was required.
Back in college during the early 90's a good friend of mine was an electrical engineering major. He told me in one his engineering courses, prior to the final exam, his professor made a quick speech about grades. The professor said if you get a D or C in my class, don't worry, GM is always hiring.
Not sure where this comes from, must be a post my filter skips, but it's the age old urban myth. Not credible other than to the gullible.
Even the mechanic who's been working on my '57 DeSoto has fallen into that mindset a bit. It first came up when he said the car needed a new timing chain because the old one is stretching. Now, that's just one of many things the car needs, as it's now 55 model years old. But I was a bit shocked at that, because I'd been told the old Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler Hemis used a double-roller timing chain that was so beefy it made the old fashioned chain-drive axle cars look flimsy. Okay, so maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but the timing chain supposedly was NOT a weak point on those cars.
That's when he said that back in those days, they only engineered cars to last about 3 years, and that's what planned obsolescence was.
Umm, no. Planned obsolescence, with cars at least, meant that they'd come out with some new style after a few years that made your car look old and no longer with-it, so you'd want to go out and buy something else. It didn't mean that your car was going to fall apart in three years! Although, sadly, mainly due to poor rust resistance, but partly because of bad build quality, many '57 Mopars WERE falling apart after three years.
I remember in the early 90's, thinking about buying a '72 Impala convertible with a 350 I found for sale. I asked my neighbor, a Chevy guru, his opinion, and I do remember him saying that one weakness was that the timing chain on them often went out around 125,000 miles.
Okay, so maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but the timing chain supposedly was NOT a weak point on those cars.
Well after 55 years, I'd say anything is due to fail.
I asked my neighbor, a Chevy guru, his opinion, and I do remember him saying that one weakness was that the timing chain on them often went out around 125,000 miles.
I wonder how may vehicles from that area made it past 125k miles? I had a '75 Regal with a 350 2bbl which my grandpa took very good care of and it rarely saw a northern winter. I drove it until '86 with 135k miles on it and it was tired and well worn out. It had 120k miles on it by '83 when he bought an '83 Olds 88.
When I had it, it was basically one problem after another. Electrical issues, trans leaks, starter, alternator etc. My dad finally encouraged me to get something newer as I was always having to borrow his car since the old Buick just wasn't reliable enough to depend on.
During the 70's my dad never had a domestic make to a 100k, granted he didn't drive a bunch either. But they seemed to rust out long before they hit a 100k. He had a '73 Torino which was horrible. IIRC, it needed a valve job by 60k miles and it was fully rusted out by '78. I remember it being only 5 years old when it looked like it was 15 when he sold it for $150.
I just don't remember to many vehicles regardless of make hitting 150k plus back then without significant repairs.
My dad bought a '71 Mustang convertible in '80 or so. It had been fully restored from the ground up. It only had 60k miles on it when my dad bought it. It was a friend of his who did a complete restoration. Within 7 years, it had rusted so bad, you couldn't open or close the doors as it sagged so bad. It was essentially an 8 year old car with 60k miles on it and it was thoroughly worn out. And we bash Hyundai's for being bad? LOL
It's almost unheard of today, to see a car in that bad of shape in 6 or 7 years.
Even after the full restore it was a PITA. I spent more time working on it than driving it. It had a 351 Cleveland and man was it a gas hog, it never got more than 12-14 mpg.
I remember in the early 90's, thinking about buying a '72 Impala convertible with a 350 I found for sale. I asked my neighbor, a Chevy guru, his opinion, and I do remember him saying that one weakness was that the timing chain on them often went out around 125,000 miles.
In my case, it was the timing gear on a 71 Pontiac Firebird 400 that failed with not a super amount of miles on the odo. Driving to work on expressway, suddenly no power. Coasted to shoulder, car would not start. Got a tow to own garage, started to check out and could not figure out what was wrong.
BIL came over, he is very smart on engines, done a number of rebuilds, he figured out that timing was off. We took apart and found plastic teeth on gear were worn out and chain slipped.
Pontiac dealer parts guy said that Pontiac, and maybe other GM brands(?), were putting in plastic tooth gears starting in 1971, then went back to all metal a couple/few years later. Bought new all-metal gear, new chain, water pump, put it all back together. And, it ran fine till sold many years later.
I wonder how may vehicles from that area made it past 125k miles? I had a '75 Regal with a 350 2bbl which my grandpa took very good care of and it rarely saw a northern winter. I drove it until '86 with 135k miles on it and it was tired and well worn out. It had 120k miles on it by '83 when he bought an '83 Olds 88.
When I had it, it was basically one problem after another. Electrical issues, trans leaks, starter, alternator etc. My dad finally encouraged me to get something newer as I was always having to borrow his car since the old Buick just wasn't reliable enough to depend on.
During the 70's my dad never had a domestic make to a 100k, granted he didn't drive a bunch either. But they seemed to rust out long before they hit a 100k. He had a '73 Torino which has horrible. IIRC, it needed a valve job by 60k miles and it was fully rusted out by '78. I remember it being only 5 years old when it looked like it was 15.
I just don't remember to many vehicles regardless of make hitting 150k plus back then without significant repairs.
IMO, it all needs to be put in perspective.
Its not unusual for anyone to exceed 100K miles on a car in a few years now. The 21st Century USA is a "distributed" society, and one can easily rack up thousands on miles by only counting the miles to/from work alone.
Plus, I travel far more for what I define as "pleasure" driving in an amount exponentially more than my father ever did. Riding up/down I-75 is light years ahead of riding old Hwy 41, and while my father would have given a lot of thought before driving up to Atlanta from South GA, due to the time required, no one would give the same trip a second thought now... It can be driven in 2.5-3 hours today.
Some things were incredibly over-engineered on older cars, simply due to the lack of computerized testing capability, along with "if a little does a little good, then a lot will do a lot of good", as in the timing chain example a couple of posts back.
And, quite simply, there were less things to break because cars had less options. Cars rusted away back then in a few years because makers didn't have a good grasp of how metals could be treated to prevent it. It was common to see cars with leaking trunks, tail lights, etc. 40 years ago... not so much today.
Before comptuer simulation became the order of the day, there was a lot of trial-and-error engineering going on, and a lof of it resulted in early "error".
I wonder how may vehicles from that area made it past 125k miles? I had a '75 Regal with a 350 2bbl which my grandpa took very good care of and it rarely saw a northern winter. I drove it until '86 with 135k miles on it and it was tired and well worn out. It had 120k miles on it by '83 when he bought an '83 Olds 88.
I'd imagine, not too many. I remember my Granddad saying that a Chevy smallblock was usually good for about 100K miles before needing a rebuild, and that would get you to around 130,000. He passed away in 1990, but I'd like to think he'd be proud to know that the 305 in his old Silverado is at 137,000 miles and still going strong, and when that truck does get retired, it won't be because of the engine!
He did have to give their '72 Impala's 350 a valve job around the 70,000 mile mark. They sold it to some friends of the family in 1982, with around 100,000. They turned around and sold it a year later, so I don't know how long it ultimately lasted.
Grandmom and Granddad worked pretty close to home though, so it really was hard for them to get up into high miles. Granddad pretty much spent his whole career, after getting out of the Marines in WWII, at a now-defunct plant introduction station about a mile and a half away. This probably isn't anything to be proud of in retrospect, but where he worked gave birth to the Bradford Pear. And locally, because of all that genetic mutation, we get all these annoying wild pear trees that pop up, and after a few years, get thorns on them, and as they multiply they crowd out all the other vegetation. Our federal gov't at work, I guess!
Grandmom's work was a lot more varied. Sometimes down in DC, sometimes in the suburbs. From sometime in the late 60's to 1980, she worked at the now, somewhat infamous Glenn Dale Hospital, which is only a few miles away. But it wasn't until after she retired, and went back to work part time, that she got her longest commute, working at another hospital, that's only about 15 miles away. And by that time, she had her '85 Buick LeSabre.
So, it was really hard for them to get any car up to truly high miles. The LeSabre had 144,000 on it when she gave it to me in 1999, when she had to give up driving. At that point, she had been retired for good about 5 years.
For all the warm, fuzzy memories, back in the day, I think most engines really were tired by around 100,000 miles. I remember hearing that the Mopar Slant six, which came out in 1960, was one of the first engines that truly could go 200,000 miles and beyond with little strain.
Now, the longest-lived GM product I ever had was my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo. It's 305 V-8 was still running strong at 192,000 miles when I got t-boned while delivering pizzas. It would smoke a bit on start-up, and hard acceleration, but didn't make any nasty noises. Fuel economy was around 15-16 around town in "normal" driving, but delivering pizzas, I got more like 14-15. Never did get a chance to take it on a good, long highway run, but I did get about 22 mpg once, on a tankful that did include some highway driving.
But, while that did seem good, I gotta confess that my Mom and stepdad's '99 Altima is still running well, with something like 330,000 miles on it! I ended up driving it on Mother's Day, and I have to say, it seems in better shape at 330K than that Monte did at 192K. Original engine, no smoking, etc. Paint's still nice and shiny, although it's white and non-metallic, while the Monte's was a 2-tone gray-over-silver metallic that was faded and crows-footed by the time I got it. Now, the Altima did lose a transmission at 35,000, replaced under warranty, so there's one strike against it. However, I don't believe for one second that the Monte would have made it to 330,000 without something major failing on it. I'm sure the engine would have needed a rebuild eventually.
330k on the Altima is truly impressive. First 200k+ car I've experienced personally was a buddies handed down '79 Cutlass with a 260v8. It must not have had enough power to strain the internals;) But it went 260k+ w/o major issues.
IMO, two areas stand out which help todays car engines last much longer. One is much better motor oil, and 2) cars today warm up much quicker. Those two areas have a major impact on engine wear.
I believe something like 80-90% of engine wear is at startup and while the oil temps are low. Better oil and quicker warm up time can reduce wear significantly, particularly for someone who drives a lot of short trips.
Also, cooling systems are much better. I can't remember the last time I've had a car overheat, granted a current car engine can't handle overheating like a cast iron block and head engine.
330k on the Altima is truly impressive. First 200k+ car I've experienced personally was a buddies handed down '79 Cutlass with a 260v8. It must not have had enough power to strain the internals;) But it went 260k+ w/o major issues.
I think the Olds smallblock was regarded as the highest-quality, most durable of GM's smallblocks. The Chevy smallblock was actually the weakest! Well, at least until Pontiac came out with the 301 V-8. Pontiac engines were actually "medium" blocks, as Pontiac never did the big-block/small block thing. From the first 287 V-8 in 1955, on up to the 455 that debuted for 1970, they were all the same basic block, although some of the larger displacements, like the 421, 428, and 455 did use a raised deck. And I think there might have been some kind of difference between the 326/350 variants that went into smaller cars, versus the more common 389/400 of the bigger cars.
With the 301, Pontiac tried to lighten the engine as much as possible, and got it down to something like 452 lb. For comparison, a Ford 302 was around 500 lb, a Mopar 318 was around 525, and the Chevy 305 was the porker of the bunch at 575! Chevy gets credit for low reciprocating mass, the parts that actually move, but the block itself was actually very heavy, as initially it was very weak, but rather than redesign, they just added beefing here and there, in a piecemeal sort of fashion.
But, that Olds 260 was a good block and serviced displacements up to 403 CID. One of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme 4-door with a 260. I forget how many miles were on it when he traded in 1999 for a used '95 Grand Marquis. Probably around 120,000 or so. Actually, for only having something like 100-110 hp, I thought it had pretty good kick to it.
Oh, and on the subject of cars improving, that '95 Grand Marquis was pretty tired by 175,000. He had bought it with around 55,000 on it. Its replacement, a 2004 Crown Vic LX, has a bit over 200,000 on it, and seems to be holding up much better.
Oh, and as for my Mom and stepdad's 330K Altima...well, before they retired, they were putting about 130 miles per day on the car, just in their commute to work. They'd ride together, with my stepdad dropping Mom off and then driving on into work. I think that's one reason the Monte lasted so long (179,000 miles when they gave it to me, and I put on another 13K in 3 months delivering pizzas). Before that, they were using an '84 Tempo for their commute, and even that thing made it to around 160,000.
Like you said, most of the wear and tear on a car is when it first starts up and has to warm up. For the most part, as long as it's well-maintained, highway miles are a breeze.
Oh, and on the subject of cars improving, that '95 Grand Marquis was pretty tired by 175,000. He had bought it with around 55,000 on it. Its replacement, a 2004 Crown Vic LX, has a bit over 200,000 on it, and seems to be holding up much better.
My dad put 220k on a '92 Crown Vic. It was definitely a durable car. It had several teething issues the first year, but was basically dead reliable until 150k miles. He nursed it along for the last two years he had it.
I remember he got stuck in a blizzard in '99, he left the CV in the ditch he slid into. It sat there for 2 days in subzero weather with plow after plow piling snow on top of it. It finally got towed on out after 3 days.
I drove him to the towing facility and of course the battery was dead from the hazards being on for 3 days. We opened the hood, and you literally couldn't see anything but snow and ice. We had to chisel ice to get to the batter posts. They shop brought out a battery booster and we hooked it up. I told my dad, there was no way this old car with 180k on it was going to start until it was properly thawed. Well after a few minutes on the booster, dad hit the key and damn car fired up on the first hit of the key. Snow and ice flew ever where and radiator fan sounded like a garbage disposal as it clawed it's way through the snow build up. It missed and chugged a bit, but he drove it to work. He told me is started running fine after about 20 minutes after being warmed up.
He put a lot of miles on back then, so anyone who drives a car 20-30k miles a year should easily be able to hit 150-200k miles w/o much of a problem.
My MIL is pushing 165k on her '05 Camry v6, only failure so far is a front wheel bearing. It's showing very little wear considering it fights Chicago traffic and potholes every day.
I won't have a truck unless I most definitely need one for work. In that case, I'd want the most basic truck I can get - vinyl seats and rubber floor mats. I don't even need a radio. The only things I'd desire in a truck is an engine and transmission strong enough to do the job and perhaps a Rhino-lined bed to keep it from rusting.
One old chestnut I heard is that some local mechanic invented some kind of "magic carbuerator" that allowed his 1955 Buick Roadmaster to attain 65 MPG. Then he was offered a million dollars by some guys from the oil companies so he wouldn't market it.
Lemko, where I lived, I seem to remember Caprices of your vintage coming from Atlanta, GA or Ypsilanti, MI. After the A-bodies were done being built at Arlington, TX, Caprices, Roadmasters, and Cadillac Broughams were built there too.
My '90 Corsica was built in Linden, NJ.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I won't have a truck unless I most definitely need one for work.
I wasn't suggesting that you should buy a truck, but I do think you might actually enjoy driving one more than you think;)
I will say, 20 years ago, I never saw myself as the truck/SUV type. I bought one out of need. Now, for some weird reason I enjoy driving them more than most mainstream cars I've been around. Maybe it's some twisted version of stockholm syndrome;)
I won't have a truck unless I most definitely need one for work.
As dieselone says, you might want to just take out a new Chevy or Ford pickup for a ride.
Had sporty cars for a while such as Mustang, Firebirds, etc, then needs changed and got a Chevy Caprice wagon. Very comfortable, good ride, tremendous utility. Was ready for a replacement for it and went to Chevy dealer. Sales guy asked if we ever considered a Suburban. We said no. We went out for test drive and then liked it a lot. Turns out we had one for 14 years for PRIMARILY its great utility. Engine/trans were very good, but it had some paint, rust problems, other issues.
I hope you can figure this one out. Wikipedia denies they ever made Caprices there but when they switched over to Blazers in 1991 I remember it being from Caprices. Wiki says only Corsicas and Berretas. HAd that been the case it wouldn't have bothered me as much.
Last Blazer rolled off in 2005. I think they've knocked the plant down now. Used to pay Linden $2 million in property taxes.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I agree dieselone, the new trucks are fantastic! My mom is enjoying her Envoy Denali and said it is the 2nd best automobile she has ever owned next her her former Saturn Sky Redline. I think GMC should bring back the Envoy because and promote it more as a true 4x4 like the Exterra or Cherokee. The Terrain is nice and you can get it in AWD but it's more of a city slicker ride. Right now the Cherokee is the only true 4x4 SUV on the mid size made. Sure the Explorer is capable but not nearly as great as the Cherokee. Maybe someday I'll buy a used Cherokee, lol......
Right now the Cherokee is the only true 4x4 SUV on the mid size made. Sure the Explorer is capable but not nearly as great as the Cherokee. Maybe someday I'll buy a used Cherokee, lol......
Yeah, the Grand Cherokees are very nice. It and the 4Runner are really the only true 4x4 midsize SUVs around anymore.
The current Explorer does little for me. It's selling well, but I think there are better choices available.
The main issue with the full-size SUV's and pickups other than FE, is they can be to big to easily navigate in the city or in areas with tight parking facilities. That's not a problem where I live, but I've had issues with fitting down side streets in Chicago when I had the Suburban. Parking was a whole other issue.
If I lived in a large city environment, I'd likely want a smaller vehicle to drive.
Comments
And yes, I'm aware there are "fan" forums here.
I feel compelled to post here, largely, as counterpoint to the factually incorrect things I see here, or incredibly slanted things, on a regular basis. Opinions are one thing, and are fine of course, but on here....some of the stuff is...'sheesh' is all I can say.
I have primarily owned GM and Fords. Nobody posts on the Ford forums, so here I am.
what I find mystifying is that so many people that have a strong dislike for anything and everything GM
Well considering my opinion of GM is 100% based on my ownership of several GM products it doesn't shock me at all.
I feel the same way about Ford. Though I do have a slight Ford bias, I fully understand some people won't touch Ford with a 10' pole. They've built a lot of crap, but I'm not blinded by bias and won't call someone a troll or fanboy of another brand because they rightfully have issues with Ford. Heck, I have issues with Ford too.
I guess I have a soft spot for the kind of cars VW offers. They still build drivers cars, well as much of a drivers car a fwd car can be. Sure a base Jetta appears to be pretty lousy. Even the mags rag on it. But OTOH you can buy a Jetta GLI with a 200hp/207 ft-lbs of torque turbo 4 with a manual trans. Ford and GM currently have nothing like that.
The last GLI I drove was a lot of fun. Good power, refined, and best of all, fun to drive. That's what I'm a fanboy of. If it can put a smile on my face while I drive it, I'm a fan. Very few GM vehicles have made me smile.
Well his post looked pretty balanced to me!
I think for me (and I believe I've mentioned this in the past), I saw GM junk in the 70s, GM junk in the 80s and 90s - and I WANTED to be able to buy a US make. It mystified me how a company so clueless could continue to sell the most vehicles. Then that company finally imploded in the 2000's, yet my tax dollars bailed them out. Sort of like my druggie shiftless criminal teenage son (no, not really, just an example), I believe that tough love is a help. Criticize, continue to point out flaws, and say they should be doing better - yet praise where it is warranted, too. I want GM to be successful, not an embarrassment. So I'm here.
I see posters here of two minds - one is like me (tough love), and the others (dedicated love) are saying to their useless son "Oh, but I LOVE him! He means well, he's trying - look, he got a B in that math class so he's much better! And he SMILES so nice at Thanksgiving dinner! He behaved well when I took him to the zoo and the other parents remarked about how NICE he was! That test he took and flunked - well the teacher used a bad grading curve - he's not really THAT bad! I just LOVE him!".
Call it the "tough love" vs. "dedicated love" approaches.
Like you I want them to succeed. There was a 72 Impala early in my driving years - my dad's car - that I loved and fully expected to buy GM cars. Once I got in the market - at that same time - there was nothing in the size I wanted that GM made other than junk. At the time that was the Vega.
As years went on I'd look and be disappointed. I watched as their market share tumbled. I saw them fall off the cliff.
While of mixed feelings on the bailout I'm happy to see them still around and overall am very pleased to see the direction they are going.
There is so much to report regarding GM's lack of ownership as the "Sales Leader" in USA Automotive manufacturing history. GM, Chrysler and Ford, but mostly GM allowed the marketplace that exists today.
Now, all of the "fan boys and girls" need to live with the counterpoint. :shades:
Note to the Fans: GM is improving but far from superior.
Regards,
OW
You're probably right but the one I remember is JD Power dinging Hummers when owners got lousy gas mileage. The H2 wasn't required to have a mpg number on the Monroney because it was so heavy. (just-auto.com)
As I've said, in rental cars, I've ridden and driven in a bunch. I'm always expecting an epiphany in a Japanese or Korean car. I'm usually left saying, 'why's the vinyl smell so funny in here?' and/or 'why's that TCS light staying on?' or 'what's that loud clunk up front over bumps?'.
I have to ask, how is it so much different than Ford?
I'm sorry, but a Crown Vic was a very good car in the '90's. Who would want one today. I really liked my dad's '92 Crown Vic, I liked driving it far more than my grandpa's '02 Roadmaster. But that was 20 years ago and I wouldn't want it today.
In '00 I had a opportunity to buy a fully loaded '94 Grand Marquis with only 20k miles on it cheap at an estate sale in Florida which my wife's grandma was handling.
My wife and I took it on an extended test drive. It was in great shape, but I didn't like how it drove, just slow and sloppy.
The only sedan I currently see at GM which is more appealing than a comporable Ford is the LaCrosse. The Taurus just doesn't measure up really.
I don't see anything special about the XTS. Okay, it has a big LCD display, but it where's the beef? I thought you weren't going to pay $50k+ for a big v6 sedan. At least with the MKS, you can get some guts under the hood, though I'd guess all of the Taurus shortcomings are present.
Cruze might have a slight advantage over a Focus, but personally I'd likely take a manual trams Focus hatchback over a Cruze.
Sonic is definitely more appealing than the fiesta.
From what I've seen so far, I think the new Fusion looks much better than the Malibu, but overall that's likely a toss up, though the Fusion will have a better hybrid option.
Mustang and Camaro are a toss up too, but I prefer Ford's quick, high revving DOHC v8. Just personal preference and would concede these two cars are a wash, while the ZL-1 has the edge so far and the Camaro sells better
Currently the Taurus is nicer than the Impala, but that will likely change when the new Impala is out.
1/2 ton trucks, Ford clearly has the advantage. GM just doesn't have the engine lineup and the GM trucks are dated, though I like the looks of the GMCs. GM's 6.2 v8 matches up well, but good luck finding one on a lot. I've been trying to test drive one for a while and can't find one on a local Chevy or GMC lot. I won't order one without driving it.
Last time I was at a Ford dealer, they had every engine option readily available with a variety of gear ratios. My local chevy and GMC dealers have mostly 5.3 powered trucks with 3.08 rear end ratios, yuck.
HD trucks are a wash IMO, though Ford owns the sales. The GM HD trucks seem to win most magazine comparisons.
I'd say the GM CUVs are nicer than Ford's. I don't like the new Explorer, though it sells well, the lambda's certainly outsell it combined.
Equinox is nicer than the Escape, though the new Escape looks like a huge improvement.
Ford doesn't really have anything to compete with Buick. The Regal doesn't seem to sell worth a damn. The Lacrosse is very nice. I think the Verano will flop. Sales over the past few months indicate Buick is struggling.
Cadillac is certainly ahead of Lincoln. The ATS looks promising, the CTS is in need of some updates.
I'm curious to see what Ford will do with Lincoln, though I have no more desire to own a Lincoln than I do a Cadillac. I have zero aspirations to own either. Though an ATS could potentially change that.
I do think that's now coming down into the lower end vehicles but the jury is still a bit out.
I mourned the day they killed the Caprice. Made right here in Jersey.
As I've gotten older, and the fact that I've been driving BOF SUV's for several years now, there is a part of me that miss those BOF cars.
I haven't ridden in a true luxury car in a long time so it's hard for me to compare. But one thing I notice when going from my Expedition to my wife's Taurus is the excellent road isolation you get with the Expe.
Expansion joints and potholes send shock waves through any mainstream sedans we've had. That's one area BOF vehicles excel. Sure the Expedition rides fairly firm, so you feel the bump, but the shock doesn't go through the vehicle like a tuning fork.
Honestly, I'd bet Lemko would thoroughly enjoy driving a new pickup. They have very long wheelbases that provide a surprisingly smooth ride, plenty of road isolation, the F150 in particular has a super cab that offers room few sedans can match.
Cadillac XTS vs F150 Supercrew
headroom: XTS 39.0/37.8 f150 41/39.7
Shoulder : XTS 59.7/56.3 f150 65.9/65.5
Hip room : XTS 55.1/54.3 f150 60.5/64.6
Leg room : XTS 42.1/40 f150 41.4/43.5
The F150 can be configured to comfortably seat 6. Plus with the f150 you can get a 360hp DOHC v8 or a 365HP/420ft-lbs of torque turbo v6. I've seen the F150 with the v6 have 0-60 times in the 6.2-6.7 second range, I doubt the XTS will be any quicker.
I've driven a new F150, it drives surprisingly well. It's quiet, smooth, handles better than you think it would. It's no wonder why people buy them even if they rarely haul or tow anything.
They drive and perform better than any Panther or B body and are more comfortable. The worst thing I did was take the whole family for a test drive of the f150. The kids were complaining immediately in the middle row of the Expedition that the f150 was far more comfortable.
It is, it rode smoother, is more comfortable, and outside of noticing a bit of an extra bounce from the rear, felt like a traditional luxury car many on hear wish the domestics still built. They still build them, but they have a bed instead of a truck;)
Now I'm not saying the f150 or any pickup will be more luxurious than the XTS, they are still pickups. So you get some cheap, but durable surfaces that you won't find in a luxury car. Plus styling and image is completely different all together.
The upgrades include new signs, more modern interiors and lounges with free Wi-Fi. In some cases, dealers might also open cafes or salons.
The company announced its plans at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas.
GM said 3,400 dealers have agreed to upgrades, and 1,000 have been completed.
GM said it also plans to give dealerships more sales and service training and encourage them to do more online marketing. If they meet all the upgraded standards, they'll receive quarterly payments, spokesman Tom Henderson said.
Henderson said 36 percent of GM's stores were built before 1970.
I won't comment on any comparison.
Most Dealers to Upgrade
Regards,
OW
I have owned many GM vehicles over the years, I am 54 years old and have worked in automotive repair and body paint service. I have seen GM make many mistakes on quality, especially on interior trim and paint quality/ fit and finish. I have owned Honda(1), Toyota (1), Nissan (3), Chevy (3), Pontiac (1) and Ford (4) Vehicles Chrysler A(1). I do not know how many other people who post have had this kind of background. My observation is that GM made vehicles with pride until about 1971 when I watched as the new vehicles began to really suffer, my parents purchased a new 1972 Chevy Chevelle that had a wonderful drive train (spec'd out by a mechanic friend who built drive trains for a living) but the metal spare tire cover did not fit or the glove box door either, the driver rear door was hard to close. Still the vehicle was sold to a family friend and went 250k miles with just basic repair?.
I had trouble with the Honda both motor (fuel delivery issues at 30k) brake and body issues when the cam went flat at 80k miles I sold it/. I found the Nissan quality to be poor in many areas body interior and some engine issues sold them as the fuel economy was not what it was supposed to be/.
The very best vehicle I have ever owned was a 1988 Pontiac 6000 LE'. 30 miles per gallon on the highway often and the engine transmission combo were awesome, power and economy, reliability sold the car with 130K and regretted it ever since, however the interior part quality was marginal, but not that bad when compared to contemporary vehicles of the time!.
The Chevy vehicles I owned had some issues but overall were great cars as they went forever the issue with the post 1971 vehicles from GM I have owned is that I worked around all kinds vehicles and was able to drive most new vehicles over the years, I watched as GM not only did not keep pace but seemed to decline in quality and innovation:. I own a 1995 Toyota 4 runner currently and it has been the worst vehicle so far it needed head gaskets at 45k and now at 125k has a burnt valve/. The Ford vehicles were great to 80k then they needed engines and or transmissions!. Currently have a 1997 Ford F250 HD in driveway given to me by my father and at 125k it needs a transmission, body quality was better than GM though. I also have owned a 1993 Plymouth Voyager no serious complaints as we did not keep it long.
I have seen GM build some great vehicles and some really poor ones as well. In the 60's they had a *** the torpedoes let's build vehicles that kick ***, I read info from GM that said they were trying to adopt that attitude again since 2006 (stop letting the accountants tell them how to build vehicles). Then in 2008 the economy went south and they nearly went under. I hate to hear from friends that have worked with GM engineers that told me how much time and effort went into making their cars fail just after warranty expired. I had a teacher in HS that told me our economy was going to change as other countries became capable of competing with the US, I have seen this as well. The bottom line is that people here in the US have pride in what they do and driving a vehicle that is less than good made here bothers us, because we see our reflection in the paint and people who care want better. I hope that someone at GM is listening and Ford as well, Chrysler is now Italian (owned by Fiat) so it is irrelevant for them (they make some pretty good cars now) . I know that Honda, Nissan and Toyota assemble many vehicles here, but they are still imports to anyone who knows the capability of the people of the US. We have more inside than the rest of the world thinks at this point. Retiring employees at full compensation was a terrible idea, whoever though this up and pushed it through should be neutered.
Don't let us down GM, you can do better, we have seen it. When we look at you we see us.
Regards,
OW
Do you really believe this statement? Does this fellow live in Detroit? Do you think this one guy has friends (plural) who work with GM engineers? Do you think any engineer would tell a supplier that very statement?
This sounds to me like the old saw, "Detroit knows how to make a 100 mpg car but the oil companies paid them all off". I know guys who still state this today.
On the other hand, I'm certain there has long been cost-containment in mind by engineers, but not only at GM like your quote makes it sound.
Not sure where this comes from, must be a post my filter skips, but it's the age old urban myth. Not credible other than to the gullible. Somehow we're to believe the perfect car companies like toyota and Honda asked their suppliers for parts that last 300,000 miles (transmissions, engines that don't sludge, etc.) and GM, F, and C asked for parts that last 36,000 miles and then fail. Gimmeabreak.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of deliberately planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete or nonfunctional after a certain period of time.[1] Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1]
In some cases, deliberate deprecation of earlier versions of a technology is used to reduce ongoing support costs, especially in the software industry. Though this could be considered planned obselescence, it differs from the classic form in that the consumer is typically made aware of the limited support lifetime of the product as part of their licensing agreement.
For an industry, planned obsolescence stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. Built-in obsolescence is used in many different products. There is, however, the potential backlash of consumers who learn that the manufacturer invested money to make the product obsolete faster; such consumers might turn to a producer (if any exists) that offers a more durable alternative.
Planned obsolescence was first developed in the 1920s and 1930s when mass production had opened every minute aspect of the production process to exacting analysis.[citation needed]
Estimates of planned obsolescence can influence a company's decisions about product engineering. Therefore the company can use the least expensive components that satisfy product lifetime projections. Such decisions are part of a broader discipline known as value engineering.
Alfred Pritchard Sloan, Jr. (May 23, 1875 – February 17, 1966) was an American business executive in the automotive industry. He was a long-time president, chairman, and CEO of General Motors Corporation.[1] Sloan, first as a senior executive and later as the peak of the organization, helped lead (and grow) GM from the 1920s through the 1950s—decades when concepts such as the annual model change, brand architecture, industrial design, automotive design (styling), and planned obsolescence transformed the industry, and when the industry changed lifestyles and the built environment in America and throughout the world.
Between the accountants and engineering for least cost manufacturing, it helped drive GM into C-11 along with all of the other horrible decisions by the management and UAW.
Regards,
OW
But I have a BIL that works for a supplier to Chrysler, GM, Ford, Honda and Toyota. He sells tool and die equipment to all of the above. He claims Honda and Toyota demand tighter tolerances vs. D3 when it comes to dies.
The Volt episode was on the initial design and prototyping, not general manufacturing.
On both the Corvette and Camaro shows, the assembly lines "tripped" and stopped, requiring an assembly tech to verify an alignment issue between parts. I don't recall seeing any such instances on any other manufacturer's shows.
To be fair to GM, the problems were false, and no action other than a visual inspection was required.
Possibly coincidence...
Even the mechanic who's been working on my '57 DeSoto has fallen into that mindset a bit. It first came up when he said the car needed a new timing chain because the old one is stretching. Now, that's just one of many things the car needs, as it's now 55 model years old. But I was a bit shocked at that, because I'd been told the old Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler Hemis used a double-roller timing chain that was so beefy it made the old fashioned chain-drive axle cars look flimsy. Okay, so maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but the timing chain supposedly was NOT a weak point on those cars.
That's when he said that back in those days, they only engineered cars to last about 3 years, and that's what planned obsolescence was.
Umm, no. Planned obsolescence, with cars at least, meant that they'd come out with some new style after a few years that made your car look old and no longer with-it, so you'd want to go out and buy something else. It didn't mean that your car was going to fall apart in three years! Although, sadly, mainly due to poor rust resistance, but partly because of bad build quality, many '57 Mopars WERE falling apart after three years.
I remember in the early 90's, thinking about buying a '72 Impala convertible with a 350 I found for sale. I asked my neighbor, a Chevy guru, his opinion, and I do remember him saying that one weakness was that the timing chain on them often went out around 125,000 miles.
Well after 55 years, I'd say anything is due to fail.
I asked my neighbor, a Chevy guru, his opinion, and I do remember him saying that one weakness was that the timing chain on them often went out around 125,000 miles.
I wonder how may vehicles from that area made it past 125k miles? I had a '75 Regal with a 350 2bbl which my grandpa took very good care of and it rarely saw a northern winter. I drove it until '86 with 135k miles on it and it was tired and well worn out. It had 120k miles on it by '83 when he bought an '83 Olds 88.
When I had it, it was basically one problem after another. Electrical issues, trans leaks, starter, alternator etc. My dad finally encouraged me to get something newer as I was always having to borrow his car since the old Buick just wasn't reliable enough to depend on.
During the 70's my dad never had a domestic make to a 100k, granted he didn't drive a bunch either. But they seemed to rust out long before they hit a 100k. He had a '73 Torino which was horrible. IIRC, it needed a valve job by 60k miles and it was fully rusted out by '78. I remember it being only 5 years old when it looked like it was 15 when he sold it for $150.
I just don't remember to many vehicles regardless of make hitting 150k plus back then without significant repairs.
My dad bought a '71 Mustang convertible in '80 or so. It had been fully restored from the ground up. It only had 60k miles on it when my dad bought it. It was a friend of his who did a complete restoration. Within 7 years, it had rusted so bad, you couldn't open or close the doors as it sagged so bad. It was essentially an 8 year old car with 60k miles on it and it was thoroughly worn out. And we bash Hyundai's for being bad? LOL
It's almost unheard of today, to see a car in that bad of shape in 6 or 7 years.
Even after the full restore it was a PITA. I spent more time working on it than driving it. It had a 351 Cleveland and man was it a gas hog, it never got more than 12-14 mpg.
In my case, it was the timing gear on a 71 Pontiac Firebird 400 that failed with not a super amount of miles on the odo. Driving to work on expressway, suddenly no power. Coasted to shoulder, car would not start. Got a tow to own garage, started to check out and could not figure out what was wrong.
BIL came over, he is very smart on engines, done a number of rebuilds, he figured out that timing was off. We took apart and found plastic teeth on gear were worn out and chain slipped.
Pontiac dealer parts guy said that Pontiac, and maybe other GM brands(?), were putting in plastic tooth gears starting in 1971, then went back to all metal a couple/few years later. Bought new all-metal gear, new chain, water pump, put it all back together. And, it ran fine till sold many years later.
When I had it, it was basically one problem after another. Electrical issues, trans leaks, starter, alternator etc. My dad finally encouraged me to get something newer as I was always having to borrow his car since the old Buick just wasn't reliable enough to depend on.
During the 70's my dad never had a domestic make to a 100k, granted he didn't drive a bunch either. But they seemed to rust out long before they hit a 100k. He had a '73 Torino which has horrible. IIRC, it needed a valve job by 60k miles and it was fully rusted out by '78. I remember it being only 5 years old when it looked like it was 15.
I just don't remember to many vehicles regardless of make hitting 150k plus back then without significant repairs.
IMO, it all needs to be put in perspective.
Its not unusual for anyone to exceed 100K miles on a car in a few years now. The 21st Century USA is a "distributed" society, and one can easily rack up thousands on miles by only counting the miles to/from work alone.
Plus, I travel far more for what I define as "pleasure" driving in an amount exponentially more than my father ever did. Riding up/down I-75 is light years ahead of riding old Hwy 41, and while my father would have given a lot of thought before driving up to Atlanta from South GA, due to the time required, no one would give the same trip a second thought now... It can be driven in 2.5-3 hours today.
Some things were incredibly over-engineered on older cars, simply due to the lack of computerized testing capability, along with "if a little does a little good, then a lot will do a lot of good", as in the timing chain example a couple of posts back.
And, quite simply, there were less things to break because cars had less options. Cars rusted away back then in a few years because makers didn't have a good grasp of how metals could be treated to prevent it. It was common to see cars with leaking trunks, tail lights, etc. 40 years ago... not so much today.
Before comptuer simulation became the order of the day, there was a lot of trial-and-error engineering going on, and a lof of it resulted in early "error".
I'd imagine, not too many. I remember my Granddad saying that a Chevy smallblock was usually good for about 100K miles before needing a rebuild, and that would get you to around 130,000. He passed away in 1990, but I'd like to think he'd be proud to know that the 305 in his old Silverado is at 137,000 miles and still going strong, and when that truck does get retired, it won't be because of the engine!
He did have to give their '72 Impala's 350 a valve job around the 70,000 mile mark. They sold it to some friends of the family in 1982, with around 100,000. They turned around and sold it a year later, so I don't know how long it ultimately lasted.
Grandmom and Granddad worked pretty close to home though, so it really was hard for them to get up into high miles. Granddad pretty much spent his whole career, after getting out of the Marines in WWII, at a now-defunct plant introduction station about a mile and a half away. This probably isn't anything to be proud of in retrospect, but where he worked gave birth to the Bradford Pear. And locally, because of all that genetic mutation, we get all these annoying wild pear trees that pop up, and after a few years, get thorns on them, and as they multiply they crowd out all the other vegetation. Our federal gov't at work, I guess!
Grandmom's work was a lot more varied. Sometimes down in DC, sometimes in the suburbs. From sometime in the late 60's to 1980, she worked at the now, somewhat infamous Glenn Dale Hospital, which is only a few miles away. But it wasn't until after she retired, and went back to work part time, that she got her longest commute, working at another hospital, that's only about 15 miles away. And by that time, she had her '85 Buick LeSabre.
So, it was really hard for them to get any car up to truly high miles. The LeSabre had 144,000 on it when she gave it to me in 1999, when she had to give up driving. At that point, she had been retired for good about 5 years.
For all the warm, fuzzy memories, back in the day, I think most engines really were tired by around 100,000 miles. I remember hearing that the Mopar Slant six, which came out in 1960, was one of the first engines that truly could go 200,000 miles and beyond with little strain.
Now, the longest-lived GM product I ever had was my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo. It's 305 V-8 was still running strong at 192,000 miles when I got t-boned while delivering pizzas. It would smoke a bit on start-up, and hard acceleration, but didn't make any nasty noises. Fuel economy was around 15-16 around town in "normal" driving, but delivering pizzas, I got more like 14-15. Never did get a chance to take it on a good, long highway run, but I did get about 22 mpg once, on a tankful that did include some highway driving.
But, while that did seem good, I gotta confess that my Mom and stepdad's '99 Altima is still running well, with something like 330,000 miles on it! I ended up driving it on Mother's Day, and I have to say, it seems in better shape at 330K than that Monte did at 192K. Original engine, no smoking, etc. Paint's still nice and shiny, although it's white and non-metallic, while the Monte's was a 2-tone gray-over-silver metallic that was faded and crows-footed by the time I got it. Now, the Altima did lose a transmission at 35,000, replaced under warranty, so there's one strike against it. However, I don't believe for one second that the Monte would have made it to 330,000 without something major failing on it. I'm sure the engine would have needed a rebuild eventually.
IMO, two areas stand out which help todays car engines last much longer. One is much better motor oil, and 2) cars today warm up much quicker. Those two areas have a major impact on engine wear.
I believe something like 80-90% of engine wear is at startup and while the oil temps are low. Better oil and quicker warm up time can reduce wear significantly, particularly for someone who drives a lot of short trips.
Also, cooling systems are much better. I can't remember the last time I've had a car overheat, granted a current car engine can't handle overheating like a cast iron block and head engine.
I think the Olds smallblock was regarded as the highest-quality, most durable of GM's smallblocks. The Chevy smallblock was actually the weakest! Well, at least until Pontiac came out with the 301 V-8. Pontiac engines were actually "medium" blocks, as Pontiac never did the big-block/small block thing. From the first 287 V-8 in 1955, on up to the 455 that debuted for 1970, they were all the same basic block, although some of the larger displacements, like the 421, 428, and 455 did use a raised deck. And I think there might have been some kind of difference between the 326/350 variants that went into smaller cars, versus the more common 389/400 of the bigger cars.
With the 301, Pontiac tried to lighten the engine as much as possible, and got it down to something like 452 lb. For comparison, a Ford 302 was around 500 lb, a Mopar 318 was around 525, and the Chevy 305 was the porker of the bunch at 575! Chevy gets credit for low reciprocating mass, the parts that actually move, but the block itself was actually very heavy, as initially it was very weak, but rather than redesign, they just added beefing here and there, in a piecemeal sort of fashion.
But, that Olds 260 was a good block and serviced displacements up to 403 CID. One of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme 4-door with a 260. I forget how many miles were on it when he traded in 1999 for a used '95 Grand Marquis. Probably around 120,000 or so. Actually, for only having something like 100-110 hp, I thought it had pretty good kick to it.
Oh, and on the subject of cars improving, that '95 Grand Marquis was pretty tired by 175,000. He had bought it with around 55,000 on it. Its replacement, a 2004 Crown Vic LX, has a bit over 200,000 on it, and seems to be holding up much better.
Oh, and as for my Mom and stepdad's 330K Altima...well, before they retired, they were putting about 130 miles per day on the car, just in their commute to work. They'd ride together, with my stepdad dropping Mom off and then driving on into work. I think that's one reason the Monte lasted so long (179,000 miles when they gave it to me, and I put on another 13K in 3 months delivering pizzas). Before that, they were using an '84 Tempo for their commute, and even that thing made it to around 160,000.
Like you said, most of the wear and tear on a car is when it first starts up and has to warm up. For the most part, as long as it's well-maintained, highway miles are a breeze.
My dad put 220k on a '92 Crown Vic. It was definitely a durable car. It had several teething issues the first year, but was basically dead reliable until 150k miles. He nursed it along for the last two years he had it.
I remember he got stuck in a blizzard in '99, he left the CV in the ditch he slid into. It sat there for 2 days in subzero weather with plow after plow piling snow on top of it. It finally got towed on out after 3 days.
I drove him to the towing facility and of course the battery was dead from the hazards being on for 3 days. We opened the hood, and you literally couldn't see anything but snow and ice. We had to chisel ice to get to the batter posts. They shop brought out a battery booster and we hooked it up. I told my dad, there was no way this old car with 180k on it was going to start until it was properly thawed. Well after a few minutes on the booster, dad hit the key and damn car fired up on the first hit of the key. Snow and ice flew ever where and radiator fan sounded like a garbage disposal as it clawed it's way through the snow build up. It missed and chugged a bit, but he drove it to work. He told me is started running fine after about 20 minutes after being warmed up.
He put a lot of miles on back then, so anyone who drives a car 20-30k miles a year should easily be able to hit 150-200k miles w/o much of a problem.
My MIL is pushing 165k on her '05 Camry v6, only failure so far is a front wheel bearing. It's showing very little wear considering it fights Chicago traffic and potholes every day.
My '90 Corsica was built in Linden, NJ.
I wasn't suggesting that you should buy a truck, but I do think you might actually enjoy driving one more than you think;)
I will say, 20 years ago, I never saw myself as the truck/SUV type. I bought one out of need. Now, for some weird reason I enjoy driving them more than most mainstream cars I've been around. Maybe it's some twisted version of stockholm syndrome;)
As dieselone says, you might want to just take out a new Chevy or Ford pickup for a ride.
Had sporty cars for a while such as Mustang, Firebirds, etc, then needs changed and got a Chevy Caprice wagon. Very comfortable, good ride, tremendous utility. Was ready for a replacement for it and went to Chevy dealer. Sales guy asked if we ever considered a Suburban. We said no. We went out for test drive and then liked it a lot. Turns out we had one for 14 years for PRIMARILY its great utility. Engine/trans were very good, but it had some paint, rust problems, other issues.
If you have any old paperwork that has that car's VIN on it, we could probably decipher it online and figure out where it was built.
Last Blazer rolled off in 2005. I think they've knocked the plant down now. Used to pay Linden $2 million in property taxes.
That Bimmer had real wood, per the Configurator, not sure how they made it look so fake!
I think you meant Volt, yeah, the back seat is cramped. The Cruze is much roomier.
They also dinged MINI for cup holders on the Cooper model, which is ridiculous, that's bad design, not a lack of quality per se.
JDP's IQ study seemed silly to me after reading about that. At least their Durability study makes more sense.
Just to show how much of a moving target they are, the engines have been replaced with modern Direct Injection units.
Oops.
I was bummed that the Spark was closed. Wanted to see if it has a useful back seat.
The Malibu was also roped off - don't they have enough pre-production ones to let auto show-goers crawl inside? Guess not.
-Rocky
Yeah, the Grand Cherokees are very nice. It and the 4Runner are really the only true 4x4 midsize SUVs around anymore.
The current Explorer does little for me. It's selling well, but I think there are better choices available.
The main issue with the full-size SUV's and pickups other than FE, is they can be to big to easily navigate in the city or in areas with tight parking facilities. That's not a problem where I live, but I've had issues with fitting down side streets in Chicago when I had the Suburban. Parking was a whole other issue.
If I lived in a large city environment, I'd likely want a smaller vehicle to drive.
-Rocky
the ATS ad therefore becomes the most watched advertisement on television in U.S. history.
Timing is everything. If the game had been a blowout, few would have seen it.
Cool ad, too.
Headlights sort of remind me of the Kia Soul, though I'm sure that's just coincidence:
http://images.thecarconnection.com/sml/2011-kia-soul-5dr-wagon-auto-sport-angula- r-front-exterior-view_100323123_s.jpg
Safety pioneer, too:
industry's first center air bag