GM News, New Models and Market Share

stever

My '99 Nissan Quest was assembled by Ford in Ohio. When I tossed the second row of seats I took off the armrests and gave them to my buddy in Boise. They were a perfect match for his seats.

For his older F-150. :-)

ateixeira

When it comes to vehicles on the same platform that aren't identical twins, I'd expect things like fit and finish issues, squeeks, rattles, wind noise, etc to differ.

For example, Mercedes' best model was the E class, but the worst was the E convertible. But a convertible has the complexity of a folding top plus it's an open car with different design challenges (wind noise, visibility, top operation, etc.).

Funny thing is the same happened with Infiniti, the G is their best but the G convertible is their worst.

Avalanche is a versatile truck that deserves kudos for solid overall scores and good reliability to go with it.

dieselone

No one could tell me that the AC system or power window controls would be any different between an Avalanche and any other Chevy truck.

I wasn't talking about that, just those areas in general. Still, an Avalanche will have a higher percentage of auto climate controls vs a Silverado which could have different reliability. The auto climate control failed in my Expedition and wasn't cheap to fix.

I just checked and the Silverado and Avalanche get the same scores on climate control. Looks overall they are scored very close overall with a few minor differences. Like Audio and power equipment which are worse in the Avalanche. But that wouldn't surprise me as a Avalanche is equipped more like a Suburban and indeed the scores are very close to those of the Suburban. Not exact, but not far off either. Squeaks and rattles are rated worse in the Avalanche which shouldn't be to surprising.

Okay, if you think any difference between these similar but different vehicles are strictly statistical vs actual results then okay. I can't say that for sure.

uplanderguy

Well, yes, I would always expect convertibles to be different in the body integrity area than closed cars.

Wait...doesn't CR break out convertibles separately?

Nah, I know they don't.

uplanderguy

I wasn't talking about that, just those areas in general. Still, an Avalanche will have a higher percentage of auto climate controls vs a Silverado which could have different reliability.

What would make you say that? I can't remember when there has been more than one AC system in a line of GM vehicles since the '70's when you could choose between "Four Seasons" (manual) and "Comfortron" (set it and forget it).

The instrument panel is not different between an Avalanche and a Tahoe.

ateixeira

Given they ranked the E and G in that manner, I think we know the answer to that.

dieselone

What would make you say that? I can't remember when there has been more than one AC system in a line of GM vehicles since the '70's when you could choose between "Four Seasons" (manual) and "Comfortron" (set it and forget it).

Meaning dual zone manual climate control is standard on LS Avalanche vs the Silverado where dual zone is not standard. Auto dual zone is only standard on LTZ models which basically you'll see a higher percentage of Avalanches with both dual zone and auto climate control vs a Silverado. Regardless, both systems score similarly anyway.

The instrument panel is not different between an Avalanche and a Tahoe.

I never said they were different.

uplanderguy

I believe you are really stretching here, about the possibility of having more problems in dual zone versus single zone A/C. But we'll agree to disagree.

dieselone

I believe you are really stretching here, about the possibility of having more problems in dual zone versus single zone A/C. But we'll agree to disagree.

Why wouldn't it be possible, doesn't a dual zone require more complexity vs a single zone? Regardless, I've had issues with both as my Suburban had manual controls and no dual zone and it had multiple issues vs. the dual zone auto system in my Expedition that's also had issues.

Plus GM and Ford a fully capable of screwing anything up as I've experienced to many times.

uplanderguy

Again, I can't believe dual zone is much more complex at all, plus dual-zone is available in Silverados. But if nothing else, this whole conversation is useful to seeing that "Silverados aren't as reliable as Avalanches", which is all that CR says, isn't reasonable in such a broad-stroke way to say, since you can get a Silverado with all the large, complex, meaningful mechanical pieces of an Avalanche... or not.

Do they throw 6-cyl. and 8-cyl. Silverados in the same reliability chart? I believe they do. That's got to be more meaningful (in a negative way) than saying, "well, maybe different types of consumers drive an Avalanche than a Silverado". No one will argue, there are many, many complex differences between a six and an eight--versus single or dual-zone AC in the (same) instrument panel.

tlong

I do think if one breathes deep, and steps back from it all, it is somewhat laughable that a 2012 Nissan Z-car is that much better than a 2011. Was it all-new in '11? I seriously don't know.

All these many posts make it appear that people are looking for ways to discredit CR - as if the decision is already made on *faith* that the results couldn't possibly be correct. In science, that flaw is not relying on the data, but trying to use the data to fit one's own strongly held beliefs. Use the data you like, throw out or discredit the data you don't.

We can all agree that CR is not perfect, but don't they *usually* get it pretty correct? It's ok to admit that, too.

dieselone

Do they throw 6-cyl. and 8-cyl. Silverados in the same reliability chart? I believe they do.

No, v6 2wd, v8 2wd, and v8 4wd are all seperated.

Ironically, I checked the f150 and CU breaks it down by 2wd v6, 2wd v8, 4wd v8, and ecoboost v6. For some reason they don't differentiate between a 2wd or 4wd ecoboost. But at least they are not throwing the 3.7 and ecoboost both under v6.

ateixeira

this whole conversation is useful to seeing that "Silverados aren't as reliable as Avalanches", which is all that CR says, isn't reasonable

You mis-used quotations. They did not say that.

Both get the same "Average" rating. So the difference is minor, but when choosing a winner they have to choose one, so they did, however small the difference.

ateixeira

people are looking for ways to discredit CR

Even when I brought them up in a pro-domestic fashion!

SHEESH people!

Learn to take a complement!

dieselone

All these many posts make it appear that people are looking for ways to discredit CR - as if the decision is already made on *faith* that the results couldn't possibly be correct. In science, that flaw is not relying on the data, but trying to use the data to fit one's own strongly held beliefs. Use the data you like, throw out or discredit the data you don't.

We can all agree that CR is not perfect, but don't they *usually* get it pretty correct? It's ok to admit that, too.

I agree. There is nothing CU can report on the vehicles I own or like that would hurt my feelings. The results are what they are unless there is evidence they are purposely manipulating the data.

Going by what I have direct experience with, looking at my 07 Expedition, most of the areas I've had problems with are reflected in the CU reliability chart.

Transmission minor (1/2 black) I needed a reflash to correct weird shifting
Climate system (1/2 black) I had to replace a hvac control module
Paint trim (full black) paint is bubbling and flaking off the tailgate and trim along side windows is fading and looks nasty.
Body hardware is black but I don't really have any issues there
Audio is black, I don't have any real complaints other than on occasion the in dash cd changer will spontaniously eject all of the CDs and give a CD error code.

So all in all, I'd say CU's reliability ratings represents what I've experienced over the 80k miles I've put on it (bought it with nearly 30k miles).

andre1969

Just out of curiosity, how do they rate the Dodge Ram these days? I'd presume they break it out into "V-6" and "V-8". The "V-8" would included both the 4.7 and the Hemi. My mechanic has said that the 4.7's kind of junky and "good for about 100,000 miles" (his words), while he said the Hemi is a great engine.

I'd be curious to see a breakout for reliability for the 4.7 versus the Hemi, but I guess if CR did every permutation available, their charts would really be a mess.

It would've been really bad back in the 1970's, especially once GM did all that engine swapping. With a 1977 Pontiac Catalina for example, there were FIVE different V-8's available...Pontiac 301, 350, or 400, and in California the Olds 350 or 403. But, they simply grouped them all under "V8". As a result, I think Pontiacs tended to score a bit lower on the reliability charts than their brethren, because of widespread use of the unreliable 301.

dieselone

Just out of curiosity, how do they rate the Dodge Ram these days? I'd presume they break it out into "V-6" and "V-8". The "V-8" would included both the 4.7 and the Hemi. My mechanic has said that the 4.7's kind of junky and "good for about 100,000 miles" (his words), while he said the Hemi is a great engine.

I know a guy with a 4.7 Ram and he has north of 150k on it w/o much trouble other than lousy gas mileage.

CU doesn't break out the engines on the Ram, they only list a v8 (online anyway). For '11 and '12, the v8 gets all solid red. The '12 Ram scores well.

I have another friend that has a '12 Ram 1500 Sport 4wd and he loves it. He traded in an '04 Titan (which he also loved and drove to nearly 200k). He drives a lot for work. He's had his Ram about 4 months and he already has 15k miles on it w/o any problems.

dieselone

But, they simply grouped them all under "V8". As a result, I think Pontiacs tended to score a bit lower on the reliability charts than their brethren, because of widespread use of the unreliable 301.

That can't be, it had to be a statistical anomaly and I heard back then the Chevy driving CR workers were biased against pontiacs;)

bpizzuti

trying to use the data to fit one's own strongly held beliefs.

Now you're starting to understand the situation.

uplanderguy

So the Avalanche and Silverado are both 'average', but on their list of most reliable trucks, they picked the Avalanche because it's some decimal point more reliable based in their survey?

I don't know. That's all interesting to look at, but I know people who treat it as the gospel and I think a thinking person cannot do that.

I am pretty sure (though not positive) that recent Malibus just have one column, so if you're looking for a difference between the six and four, you're not gonna find it. To me those differences are far more meaningful than the differences in an Avalanche and a Suburban.

dieselone

Currently, CR shows results for both a v6 and 4cyl Malibu as they do with any car I've checked that offers both. They list the v6 as discontinued but the ratings are still listed.

ateixeira

You gotta pick a winner, right?

They've always been fans of the Avalance. It's a versatile truck, and got good reviews.

Real good. It outscores all other pickups, big or small, by 10 points or more (out of 100, subjective scoring).

When it also proved fairly reliable, why would they hesitate to name it their best? It would have been biased not to.

uplanderguy

Sometimes there are differences between text in their magazines and buyer's guides, and what shows up in the April issue. Last time I looked at one on the newsstand, there was one column for Malibus.

uplanderguy

I guess all this talk about the Avalanche is academic, as it's discontinued.

busiris

"All these many posts make it appear that people are looking for ways to discredit CR - as if the decision is already made on *faith* that the results couldn't possibly be correct. In science, that flaw is not relying on the data, but trying to use the data to fit one's own strongly held beliefs. Use the data you like, throw out or discredit the data you don't.

We can all agree that CR is not perfect, but don't they *usually* get it pretty correct? It's ok to admit that, too. "

That's pretty much how I see it, too.

CR is making judgment calls based upon scientifically imperfect data, albeit the data being about as accurate as it can be, given how its collected.

It's never going to be 100% accurate, and no one should take it as "the gospel truth". Still, it can be very useful in the vehicle selection process, when used in conjunction with other forms of analysis/reviews.

Unfortunately, too many only see a black or white world, and if anything is found (or suspected to be) inaccurate (either real or only imagined), then, for them, the entire evaluation is unreliable.

circlew

Glad to see this fact wasn't missed by the GM fans.

We need to look no further than General Motors’ own figures to learn that GM outsources almost two thirds of its jobs overseas. Less than one in five GM vehicles are manufactured in the United States.

To be exact: GM’s December 31, 2011 annual report shows General Motors of North America accounting for 98,000 of the 207,000 GM jobs worldwide. But 12,000 of these jobs are in Canada and 11,500 are in Mexico. Accordingly, GM has 74,500 jobs in the United States and 122,500 abroad. Almost two thirds of GM’s jobs are in other countries.

How international of GM.

Regards,
OW

stever

I guess all this talk about the Avalanche is academic, as it's discontinued.

Yeah, my nephew was bummed to learn that.

andre1969

I'm a bit ashamed to admit it now, but at the time I took a perverse sort of pleasure in the fact that my Mom and stepdad bought a 1999 Altima because CR recommended it, and it crapped its transmission at 35,000 miles. But, in the long run, that car did prove itself. They still have it, and it probably has about 340,000 on it now. I drove it about a month ago when they came up and I drove them to the train station, and kept the car at my place.

Considering the age and the mileage, it still feels remarkably solid, in body, suspension, and interior.

They also bought a 1991 Stanza based on CR's recommendation, and that one was a bit crappy, although it wasn't until around 90,000 miles.

My stepdad had also bought a 1984 Tempo. Dunno what CR said about that one, but I think they had a Tempo on the cover of their April auto issue that year. It would have been too new to have any reliability ratings published yet.

I think CR rated the 1986 Monte Carlo V-8 "Much worse than Average" when it was new, but my Mom bought one, and it turned out to be a great car. And, like a fine wine, I think it improved with age, according to CR's reliability charts.

Personally, I don't take CR to be the gospel, but I don't totally discredit them, either. Heck, anyone who said that the disadvantages of a 1977 Impala were "not significant enough to mention" can't be all bad. :P

imidazol97

The methodology of CR's surveys leaves reality missing. There are three problems.

First, they should do a mailing of surveys with incentives to randomly chosen owners of all vehicles. Instead they only send them to subscribers, which are a subset of all owners, and then of those subscribers only a subset returns the surveys.

Second, the data for how many surveys were returned from their nonrandom sample is missing along with how many were not returned for each car line. With most poll surveys in this election, the date of whom was surveyed is available. How many of one party, how many of the other, etc.

Last, then the meaning of the survey results, the full circles, half circles, open circles, relative to each other is not defined. The difference between full black circles and open circles, e.g., seems to have changed from what it was in the past years, with the explanation that the number of problem defects (whatever those are defined as) has narrowed. In other words, the bad cars aren't as bad as they used to be relative to the good cars. In essence, CR explained that their bubble system is meaningless or less meaningful today because cars have improved.

CR's information is more anecdotal than it is a survey.

dieselone

I guess all this talk about the Avalanche is academic, as it's discontinued.

Yeah, my nephew was bummed to learn that.

Yeah, the Avalanche is one of those vehicles that kind of gets stuck in between, which I guess is the appeal to some. But in reality, it can't tow or haul as much weight as a 1/2 ton pickup, and it doesn't seat as many as a Suburban. Plus they are expensive. I imagine GM decided not to spend the money to develop a new model along with Tahoe/Suburban/Silverado.

ateixeira

Less than one in five GM vehicles are manufactured in the United States

That's misleading.

What % of GM vehicles sold in the USA are made here? That's far more meaningful.

ateixeira

That is a bummer, you think they'll do a new one when the next Suburban comes out?

stever

Your guess is as good as mine. They definitely have their fans.

Back to CR, instead of searching out the local canoe store, I read CR back in '73 and wound up with a soon outdated aluminum canoe. In its favor, it held its value almost as well as it held on to rocks in the river, and I didn't lose too much the next year when I got a newfangled slippery ABS boat. Never trusted a rating or review of theirs since. :P

ateixeira

meaning of the survey results, the full circles, half circles, open circles, relative to each other is not defined

That's not true, they are clearly defined as:

Black = 40% more problems than average
half black = 20-40% worse than average
white = 20 worse to 20 better than average
half red = 20 to 40 better than average
red = 40% better than average

In reviews the dots have a different meaning, Poor, Fair, Average, Good, Excellent.

These are defined clearly.

If you never read it, how can you make claims about what they say and don't say? At best this is someone else's criticism that you read about and repeated here without verifying it.

In other words, hearsay.

uplanderguy

People like you always like to show these figures, but like your beloved HyunKia, GM is an international company. A simple walk around your nearest Chevy dealer and a glance at the window stickers will show that, other than the Spark, there is not a single GM vehicle sold in North America that isn't built in North America.

ateixeira

I love how people expect every single product reviewed (or with predicted reliability) to behave exactly the same way.

Take 100 cars, JD Powers says a new model will have 85 problems per 100 cars. Some will have no problem at all, most will have 1 problem, some will have more than 1 problem. Heck, some unlucky owner will probably have a bunch of problems.

That doesn't mean JD Powers (or CR, or whoever) was "wrong". A sample size of one is almost meaningless, actually.

So it's not only possible, but likely, that once in a while a product with a black dot will serve its owner well, and one with a red dot will be a lemon once in a while.

It's just that the odds of this happening are low.

I actually kinda like how TrueDelta categorizes its data, they have "lemon odds" and "nada odds", i.e. the chances you will get a lemon vs. the chances of you getting a zero defect car.

Note there is a small chance either can happen with ANY (!) car. It's never zero for both. People can indeed be lucky or unlucky.

It doesn't make the data invalid.

dieselone

I agree. Also the owner can help or hurt their odds by how they treat and maintain their car/truck.

stever

In my case the recommended boat didn't work for its intended purpose (and yeah, I got a shoe keel for whitewater use).

The upshot is that if you want the real scoop, find an enthusiast. If I was thinking about buying a Miata, I wouldn't go to CR. I'd ask you. A Bimmer, I'd bug Roadburner. For vacuums - well, I'd go to FatWallet or maybe Amazon's reviews. Outdoor gear, probably REI.

Consumer's Union does good stuff with product safety and food safety, but I'm underwhelmed by their car stuff and I trust JD Power more on how they do their polling. Or the Identifix stuff Edmunds uses (in addition to JD Power).

busiris

Oh, BMW has some great examples of that point.

Regarding RFTs, with owners living in the same urban location.

A few amass countless damaged tires and bent wheels, while many others experience neither... Yet, they reside in the same area. Drive the same roads. In the same exact model cars, equipped the very same way.

Driving style has loads of input on the quality sensing and physical reliability of any vehicle.

As far as I know, no rating or data collection agency has been able to factor such issues into their ratings equations.

ateixeira

You take mags like that FWIW. They go through the trouble of measuring the size of a cargo box that will fit and real-world ground clearance, things no one else measures. Headlight distance, number of LATCH anchors, etc.

A red dot does not mean a car is infallible and you don't have to change the oil. I think that's really what the anti-import sentiment in this thread is all about. Some of the fanboys of the brands that score well seem to (foolishly) conclude their cars will never fail. They can and will, it's just a matter of time actually.

Neglect on service or maintenance will surely shorten that amount of time. A cared-for Malibu will be more reliable than a neglected Camry. Have no doubt.

It's almost better to look at a good score in quality or reliability as a longer MTF (Mean Time to Failure).

Eventually, though, all cars fail.

ateixeira

Didn't q find 3 damaged rims on his Bimmer?

I've had 2 friends who owned Z3s, and both also had rims damaged, one of them more than once.

Run-flats suck, the ones on the Sienna blow chunks too, the most common complaint by a wide margin is those tires (cost and life expectancy).

stever

I know they live on grants and subscriptions, but if they really were for consumers, they wouldn't sell you a package of car tips featuring the invoice price. They'd send you to Edmunds or Cars.com or KBB. All that kind of stuff is available on the net for free. I'm not going to pay to go online and get it nor am I going to hoof down to the library and hope some info I need is in a recent issue.

Actually they do have ads on their website.

They'd really do better to bend their policy a bit and connect with the enthusiast's sites. Use our buying tips for example. They've had relationships with the Wall St. Journal and Washington Post, per Wiki, so it wouldn't ruin their reputation.

anythngbutgm

Sounds about right. I worked in the Industry and only about a third of the business from Government Motors came from the US.

China and Mexico dominated, easily twice as much as the US... Each.

Meanwhile, they have plants all over the World from Brazil to India to Korea and everything in between.

But it was up to the US taxpayer to pay for their failures... While everything outside was business as usual. :sick:

imidazol97

>Black = 40% more problems than average
half black = 20-40% worse than average
white = 20 worse to 20 better than average
half red = 20 to 40 better than average
red = 40% better than average

Well then, how many problems are "average"? Have they stated that?

>If you never read it

When the heck did I say I near read it in the past?
Obviously from the other post which you promptly "corrected" when I said they do multicar comparisons, I obviously had read it. Why would you make a ridiculous statement like this now that I haven't "read it?"

>how can you make claims about what they say and don't say?

There are lots of things that can be commented on without having actually done same. Since I have read CR at some times in the past as to their automobile coverge (our library gets copies), I am able to comment on them whether you like it or approve or not.

>At best this is someone else's criticism that you read about and repeated here without verifying it.

I don't have to "verify" each item you like to require verification of just because you don't approve.

Please skip reading my posts if they concern you. If you disagree with the comments, feel free to write your own posts without personal attacks on me:
>"someone else's criticism that you read about and repeated here without verifying it. "

:sick: :shades:

iluvmysephia1

but, in a way, I'm starting to warm up a tad to CR. Now, I would subscribe to R&T, C&D, MT and Automobile (I saw an offer from MT I believe where you get 24 issues for a grand total of $11). Sheesh. I should just subscribe to it. As it is I read it at the library or the Coeur d' Alene Hasting's.

But long ago I got irritated at CR because of the continued disrespect for Kia Motors that they showed. That has changed, I have now bought Mitsubishi, but my outlook toward CR magazine has changed. I no longer feel that it ought ta be used as hamster fodder. I don't even own a hamster, nor do I watch anyone else's hamster.

I actually look to the magazine for additional information now. For instance, I had been away from internet automotive (but not magazine automotive information) long enough ta miss all of this Ford reliability squandering that has befallen the Detroit giant of late.

Silly me! backy recommended I pick up CR, read up, and get back ta the Edmunds forum. And I have. Apparently SYNC hasn't been In-Sync (whu-hoo-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw) for it's purchasers, a Microsoft brand Ford has purchased. And then some slippy tranny's in new Focii have dented Ford's reputation. Well.

Now I know. 56% of iluvmysephia1's automotive purchases have been Ford's and one day I may just be back for more. But now I know. Ford quality is slipping. HUMM.

Doesn't seem ta stick for me. Like bug guts sleeked by bug squirt juice and cleared by a Mitsubishi wiper the information doesn't seem ta stick. And several new Ford's have not been evaluated because they're too new. Too. So there. Am I rambling? :shades:

No junebug windshield bug-guts were even thought of in this write-up, either, BTW. The long and short of this is this: If iluvmysephia1 bought American car product new these days it would either be a Fusion, Focus or Fiesta. Not even in that particular order.

circlew

People like you always like to show these figures, but like your beloved HyunKia, GM is an international company. A simple walk around your nearest Chevy dealer and a glance at the window stickers will show that, other than the Spark, there is not a single GM vehicle sold in North America that isn't built in North America.

Exactly. People like you buy from GM built in North America like other people buy from Honda, Toyota Hyundai and Kia built in North America. Just that the GM cars are middling in comparison.

Regards,
OW

uplanderguy

Nice avoidance, circle.

It's OK to admit that GM products sold in North America, are from North America...all but the Spark.

Based on the reporting out there...if someone wished to buy from an American car company because they employ more people in this country than any of the transplants, not to mention suppliers...who would be better than GM to buy from? Even CR is saying that now, basically.

busiris

No question that RFTs have mileage issues.

The point I was making is that if defective RFTs and bent wheels were anywhere as frequent as some would have us believe, BMW would have long ago gone back to GFT's and higher sidewall profile tires.

greg128

I saw an offer from MT I believe where you get 24 issues for a grand total of $11).

Get the one year subscription and then just ignore their attempts to get you to extend it. I have been receiving C&D, MT and R&T for at least 3 years without paying for it. I am sure because I check my Credit Card bill carefully. (sometimes they sneak the charge in without you knowing)

I also received CR for a couple of years without paying for it. They finally realized I wasn't going to re-subscribe so they gave up on me. Fine with me.

The other 3 mags rely on advertisements so they'll do almost anything to keep their circlulation up, even if it means giving them away. Again, fine with me.

iluvmysephia1

humm...I tend ta favor C&D but read them all. Automobile is usually pretty entertaining as well. I'll lightly look into this. Lightly. But carrying a big stick.