Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Regards,
OW
What about this decade? Or do they just last so long that you don't need a modern era car? :P
Per the 1990s and present decade, I had a red 1994 Cadillac DeVille. I also had a white 2002 Cadillac Seville STS and currently have a black 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance.
To be brutally honest, my 1988 Buick Park Avenue is such a dependable car I don't really need the other two.
I think you could infer he felt the older one's would last longer or be cheaper to keep, so rather than trade in the oldest, he traded in the newer for the newest?
He could also say the older one's were worth nothing, and the recent models one's weren't worth much, but he needed the equity to afford the nice new one.
I may be an import fan, but I'm also logical and factually based in my views. That is why CR is the bible, because it's all based on real true life facts and data. And not just 90 days into it, when the car only has 1,000 miles on it.
I don't even think the old domestics were any good, but maybe prior to 1970; who knows. Lemko just has a knack for picking the best models in the best years and getting the best one off the line at just the right time when the UAW workers were not drunk or fooling about that day.
That's the problem with the Big 3, is it's hit or miss.
Ford has shown improvement in CR, good for them... let's see if it lasts 7 years (long term test is 7, not 3). A 3 year test will tell the Big 3 how much they'll have to spend in warranty repairs, a 7 year test will tell me how much I'll need to spend in warranty repairs for 4 years! I prefer the latter test.
It seems that you have quite a bit of overlap in your fleet, meaning you owned quite a few of them at the same time. Could it be you got a lot of "great" service simply because you didn't drive all of them all the time? Were there any one or two that you constantly drove and if so, were they hella reliable? My point is, and not trying to do an "I gotcha" or anything, you may have a high reliability rate simply because you rotated between the cars, actually putting less miles on them, than say someone who just had one or two cars at one time. Also, factors such as miles driven, type of miles driven, weather conditions, etc. can play into that too.
By the way, you have me beat - only have had 6 GMs in my fleet, 8 overall so far.
I had a 1993 leSabre and have a 1998 leSabre. They're from the 90s. I also had an '89 Century.
>What about this decade?
I have an '03 leSabre which is a toned down version of the STS that Lemko had.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Interestingly, the two biggest problem spots on the Gran Fury were the starter and the carburetor. The carburetor was a Rochester Quadrajet, so I can blame GM for that. As for the starters? My mechanic told me it was the same unit used for the Honda Accord! I just find it amusing that the two biggest problem areas on that car were from non-Mopar parts! :P
As another aside, the Intrepid's air conditioning isn't working. And guess what? The Intrepid uses the same a/c components that the Honda Accord does!
The newest GM car I ever had was a 1986 Monte Carlo, with a 305 V-8. My Mom bought it brand-new, and it was still running strong with 192,000 miles on it when I got t-boned while delivering pizzas one summer night in 1998. That was a good car...wish I still had it.
As another aside, the Intrepid's air conditioning isn't working. And guess what? The Intrepid uses the same a/c components that the Honda Accord does!
Even if your mechanic was/is right and they were the same parts that they use on the Accord (from the same supplier and manufacturer at the same plant?), it doesn't mean anything.
It is more likely than not that the Big 3 would purchase the B stock or discards or "return to vendor" parts that came back from Honda as unacceptable or unusable or defective.
I wouldn't put that past the Big 3 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
As for GM cars in the '90's, we've had a 94 Safari, bought new, had a sticky temp lever for the HVAC controls (lubed up) owned 2 yrs (wife didn't like RWD) a '96 Saturn SL2 no problems at all. Owned 3 yrs, traded for a '98 Jimmy (kids getting bigger). Ran that for 5 years and sold it to my BIL who ran it for 3 more. We had 1 problem, the latch ripped off the rear glass. My BIL replaced the cat and the computer. He spent over $1000 trying to repair it himself (no start condition) and it turned out to be a fuse. I also had a '91 GMC truck. Replaced a starter and alternator. That's it. They ran fine. My '99 PK Av Ultra has been fine for almost 7 years. Biggest expense; TIRES ($540). MAF sensor cost $250. Big deal. So, for me, GM cars of the '90's have been hit hit HIT!!!!!!
I'll take "cars that only my grandfather could love" for $100. Just kidding of course...
What a pantload THAT is!!! More than likely the V-6 in the Intrepid is a Mitsu engine. The same Mitsubishi that was in a load of trouble and Chrysler refused to bail out anymore.
Even if you are right, then you can blame DR Z of Daimler for that, HE was in control
Do you have any documentation for that silly allegation.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Make fun all you want, but I've had cars that required minimum of maintenance, didn't have any high priced visits for 30, 60, 90,000 mile required checkups at the foreign car dealers and gave me a good comfortable ride for travel with economical motors.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My '87 Astro (got it used) was 11 yrs old and was the family vacation vehicle. So I broke down and got a new '98 Astro. Zero cost for first 5 years for it, like my '01 truck. I later bought 3 used 90's vehicles. Still have all 4 of them and 170k, 106k, 115k, and 114k are on them. They all are 100% rust free. The '98 just handled 5 adults on 950 mile ski trip with 6 sets of equip, 2 coolers, and luggage for all with room to spare and managed 20 mpg. I didn't even use the roof rack. Last repair was about 4 yrs ago (a/c line).
It's the same age (11) that the '87 was when my wife wanted a new one, but she is still very happy with this one. The van still looks new inside and out. She gets 14 mpg out of it in winter going to the stores and back, a 9 mile round trip. It has lost 90% of we paid for it in depreciation but still looks and runs like new except for a couple hwy mpg.
My favorite from 90's is a '96 Riv which has the most comfortable seats I know to exist. Under $1000 spent besides tires and oil changes to put 82000 miles on it in last 5 years I've had it. Buick was second only to Lexus in initial quality in '96. Buick's only fault was the paint prep that showed up in 10th year when the trade in was less than $1800 anyway. It has 18 cu ft trunk that will fit a 46" by 48" box.
That is what turned me off on the 2007 Cadillac Escalade. ROCK HARD SEATS. The previous models have great seats. I guess they ran out of foam and just use cardboard for their seats. That is also my complaint on the new BMW X5.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idAFLK48614820090220?rpc=44&sp=true
STOCKHOLM, Feb 20 (Reuters) - General Motors' loss-making carmaker Saab Automobile on Friday sought legal protection from creditors to allow it to restructure and seek new funding for continued production.
Faced with mountainous debts, parent GM is itself restructuring, and in a plan submitted to the U.S. Treasury this week it said Saab would become an independent business as of Jan. 1, 2010..
Saab made a loss of about 3 billion Swedish crowns ($340.1 million) in 2008, according to documents filed by the company with a Swedish court. It expects a similar loss this year, blaming falling demand, ageing products, excess capacity and high costs.
"We explored and will continue to explore all available options for funding and/or selling Saab, and it was determined a formal reorganisation would be the best way to create a truly independent entity that is ready for investment," Saab Managing Director Jan-Ake Jonsson said in a statement.
Saab said its reorganisation plans included concentrating production and that it would seek funding from public and private sources during the reorganisation process.
In its court filing, Saab said GM has said it "would not fund further the projected losses of the company (Saab)", but would provide liquidity for the company to pursue a reorganisation.
It was not immediately clear whether GM would cover this year's projected loss.
Saab will hold a press conference on Friday at 1330 GMT. The court will now assess whether Saab's turnaround plan is viable.
AID
Swedish daily Dagens Industri said on Friday that Saab parent GM is prepared to pump in $400 million to help make its Saab car unit profitable if the Swedish state guarantees a further loan of $590 million to Saab.
The aim is for annual sales of 120,000-130,000 vehicles and profitability in 2011 or 2012, the newspaper said, quoting unnamed sources. The firm sold just over 93,000 cars in 2008.
Many analysts believe Saab would need much more money pumped into it to turn it around and question whether the brand has a realistic future.
Sweden said late last year it would provide its vehicle industry with up to 25 billion crowns in aid to help it through the current global crisis.
The government said this week its talks with GM over state aid for Saab lacked a realistic basis, but a senior Swedish official told Reuters on Friday the state had not closed the door to providing loan guarantees to the carmaker.
"That will depend on what the plans look like," said Joran Hagglund, state secretary at the Swedish Industry Ministry.
"If you provide loan guarantees to someone, you must be sure the company has a future."
Saab and Volvo have helped shape Sweden's image abroad with a focus on safety, family motoring and high engineering standards.
However, the current economic crisis has plunged the auto industry worldwide into crisis, adding to problems for carmakers in countries with high production costs like Sweden.
Volvo Cars has been put up for sale by owner Ford Motor Co. .
Saab and Volvo employ more than 20,000 people in Sweden with thousands more jobs at suppliers tied to the two companies. ($1=8.820 Swedish Crown) (Editing by Will Waterman and Simon Jessop)
Nah, Intrepids have always used home-grown Mopar engines. The 1993-97 models had a 3.3 pushrod or a 3.5 OHC. The 3.3 was a good, durable engine, but the early 3.5's could be troublesome. The 3.5 also wasn't a ground-up OHC engine, but rather based on the 3.3/3.8 pushrod. GM did a similar thing with that 3.4 DOHC V-6 they had, which was based on the old 2.8/3.1/3.4 pushrod. I think the GM OHC was a better performer, but Chrysler got the kinks worked out of their 3.5 more quickly.
The 1998-04 models used either a 2.7, which mine has, a 3.2, or a 3.5. The 2.7 is DOHC, supposedly prone to sludging, and VERY expensive to fix when it breaks. But I've gotten about 144,000 miles out of mine, so I'm not complaining. The 3.2 was a smaller-displacement, all-aluminum version of the 3.5. The 3.5 itself went on hiatus for 1998, but returned, in all-aluminum form, for 1999 in the 300M and then for 2000 in the Intrepid R/T. For 2002-04, a detuned version replaced the 3.2. FWIW, the 3.2/3.5 of this generation were considered good engines. The biggest achilles heel of the Intrepid was the transmission. But again, at 144,000 miles, I've never had any problems with mine.
As for the Mitsubishi 3.0, the 80's and early 90's version was pretty bad, but in later years, I believe it was actually a pretty good engine.
And as for why my Gran Fury tended to eat those Honda-spec starters? Well, I do imagine that a copcar 318 is going to put a lot more stress on a starter than a little Honda 2.2 4-cyl, or whatever the Accord's displacement was around 1989. So it's really not Honda's fault. If anything, that really falls on Mopar, for putting in an under-sized part! My mechanic also told me that Mopar did something to the V-8 in those later years, as well, so you couldn't just swap in the older-style, larger starters. But, FWIW, my '68 Dart and '79 Newport, both 318's, ended up eating a starter as well!
Nippon-Denso?
Taking more of a risk with buying GM today with re to parts and service availability, resale value. There is nothing unknown about Lexus, Toyota, Honda, Acura, Infiniti, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes. Lots of info on these cars in Edmunds, car magazines, CR. Annual April car issue of CR will be out soon. Will be interesting to see latest ratings, trends on GM quality, reliability. Are they gaining on or falling behind leaders Honda and Toyota?
An "unknown" quantity might be buying a Chinese Buick if/when it is first imported into U.S. Some Saturn dealers said recently that they might consider selling Chinese and Indian cars. Perhaps they will sell the Chinese Buick, Chinese Chery, etc. Rocky could maybe get an Edmunds poster a good deal on Chinese Buick.
They're unknown to me. I could follow CR's advice, purchase one of these imports, and get burned. My experience tells me to stick with GM.
Haven't actually made it to PA "officially" (just in/out to pick up the '86 Cutlass about 2-1/2 years ago) but heard of the conditions (past couple years you guys were getting all of our snow).
With such great luck with GM cars, why should I risk the unknown?
Understood, if you've had that much luck with GM, why change.
Or the other end of the spectrum, God bless their souls, "1928 Chevrolet, best car ever made. We had to replace the crank bearings every Sunday after church, but Ed down at the junkyard got 'em for us cheap."
Please forgive me ahead of time, but has any of this GM bankruptcy/bail out/solution chatter reminded anyone else of the late John Delorean? Now there's some genuine American folklore. Let's see if I have this right. Flamboyant GM fast-tracking maverick (which at a conservative time in the world's most conservative corporation was anyone who wore anything but a white shirt) couldn't convince the powers to build his rear-engine, possible next-generation Corvette, so he built his own automobile company. (Did GM use his idea anyway when they built the Fiero?) Working too close to Ireland, Murphy's Law soon overtook the Tucker II and being into the Irish or Scottish government for hundreds of millions of dollars and rightfully assuming they employed hit-men, he did the only logical thing to save his company, he ran drugs.
Remember, I apologized ahead of time.
I remember growing up in a Chevy family in the 60's and 70's that the sound of a Mopar starter always brought a laugh
Nah, if GM was running drugs from their cars assembled in Mexico they wouldn't be broke. Hummm, maybe though if the management negotiating team and the UAW was snorting coke every day that would explain this current situation
Regards,
OW
However, I may UN-BAN Ford if they continue to survive without being corporate welfare leeches on society and the government (taxpayers).
I'd make the Ford dealer agree to pay for a rental car everytime I need warranty service, and has to have at least a 4 year 50K bumper to bumper warranty, with an even longer powertrain warranty, or otherwise no dice.
With Chrysler, my buy back price is:
1st warranty repair : $50 rebate and rental car
2nd warranty repair: $100 rebate and rental car
3rd warranty repair visit: $200 rebate and rental car
4th warranty repair visit $400 rebate and rental car
5th warranty repair visit $800 rebate and or return purchase price in full.
JD Powers 3 year
Audi had 2.1 problems per car average and Chrysler/Dodge had 2.4 problems per car. Not much difference... 0.3 problems. Not sure why you're untrusting of Chrysler. Although I believe you said you had trouble with one... right?
A friend has two VW/Audi vehicles. I am waiting for him to have more problems like with his Jetta.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That Jetta will probably eventually start eating light bulbs.
It was replaced with a green VW bug a few years back!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A friend has two VW/Audi vehicles. I am waiting for him to have more problems like with his Jetta.
You know, the thing with GM is that it has no consistency of reputation and the gems are buried within the pile of turds. You never know if the car you get will be one or the other.
With Honda or Toyota, you almost always get a very well put together car that is extremely reliable.
With VW, even though their reliability and customer service tends to suck, their cars are generally beautiful and drive fabulously when working. They also have very nice interiors.
So you can have reliable and boring, or exciting and unreliable. GM is unexciting and often unreliable. The redeeming qualities are very sporadic unless you want to carry 8 people and tow a boat.
For sure. Easy target, like a Fiero with one headlight up. I replaced the left motor on mine only to have the right side go out shortly thereafter. Not being able to run right back for another hosing by Mr. Goodshaft (Johnny Carson's mechanic), I hid my shame by physically lowering the headlight before driving in the daylight. I even kept a special tool under the hood to make the 200 or so revolutions of the little wheel a little easier.
I did, however, manage to crack the secret guideline the parts department uses to establish retail price. "Whatever you can charge with a straight face and then add 10% for the challenge."
Henry Ford never trusted bankers. I don't know how much of this sentiment remains in 21st century FoMoCo, but I wasn't surprised to hear Ford not taking the funds. As far as the government goes, most large corporations know the love/hate relationship there. From Howard Hughes to Dupont, history shows the U.S. Government as a high-maintenance partner. When they need you, you're their boy, when they don't, they'll be investigating you for high crimes.
Compared to other transportation in this country the automakers have made it on much less subsidy. It's kind of built into our state pride. I think the last offer MI received from the federal government was a nuclear waste site. The biggest indirect subsidy to Detroit has always been the highways.
It's not wrong to take unemployment $ when the economy forces you out of a job, and I don't believe the auto-makers caused this recession. What's the alternative, let them dissolve for past sins? I think the finger-pointing portion of this problem is over. We're either in the board-up the windows or the aftermath clean-up portion, depending on who you're listening to.
I guess we agree. VW has a consistency of reputation for problems with its vehicles; that consistency we don't need.
>GM is unexciting
That's a broad brush. Perhaps other people have a different perspective. Sometimes folks get caught in stereotypes from the past and the peer inflence factor. I suggest the CTS is exciting. I suggest the Cobalt is exciting and grossly underrated by some. The Malibu obviously has it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Unless you're specifically talking about the SS version and specifically excluding any other Cobalt variation, I suggest you need to re-evaluate your suggestion. :shades:
The Cobalt is one of the most cramped, cheap-feeling, unexciting, poorly built snoozeboxes on the road..it's as bad as the Corolla in that regard, except without Toyota's warm-fuzzy reputation.
I happen to agree with you on the CTS though, lest you think I'm biased...GM did something right with that, and came close with the Malibu. The problem, as mentioned is that inconsistency...you have gems like the CTS, reasonable rides like Malibu, buried among turds like Cobalt, Impala, and Equinox. THAT is the problem...and problems always get more attention.
The lady that watches our house when we are on vacation was over to dinner last night. She was driving an Aveo. Her Grand Am is in the shop again. It has been in and out for over a year losing coolant. It goes down about every 9 days and the GMC/Pontiac dealer cannot figure out what causes it. They do give her a loaner as she has had so many problems. It has gone out of warranty, but this is a long pre existing problem. I told her a year and a half ago to pursue the Lemon Law. She likes the dealer and does not want to do that. Ironically it is the same GMC dealer that could never get my GMC PU doors to fit tight enough to keep the wind noise out.
PS
I want a Gecko Green Beetle with diesel. I watch the ads all the time for the 2006 model with DSG. I love driving them and they make a perfect errand car. VW is worth the hassles. They are fun to drive.
I tend to agree. I loved my Jetta TDI. Great fuel economy and built like a vault. Mine was 100% reliable for the 35k miles I owned it. Then I sold it for nearly what I paid for it. I'd really like to have another VW diesel.
In my experience, I'd rather own a troublesome VW than a reliable GM product. Very few VW cars compete head to head with GM cars. They are apples and oranges IMO. That's not to say one is good or the other is bad, but I highly doubt very many people will be looking at a Malibu or Impala then go over to VW to look at a Jetta or Passat. The only thing these cars have in common is having 4 doors and FWD.
Daewoo/Holden/Pontiac merge into Holden Brand (3 Brands become 1 brand) These three brands currently sell similar products. Take three regional players and merge them together under the strongest brand which is Holden. This would introduce a new player to the U.S. market and give the former Pontiac brand more vehicles and a new purpose. The internationalization of the auto market requires that these type of brand-mergers become a reality.
GMC and Chevrolet merge into Chevrolet Brand (2 brands become 1 brand) most GMC and Chevrolet Vehicles overlap and are essentially rebadged copies, make it easier and consolidate into the stronger Chevrolet Brand.
Hummer and Saab sold either jointly or separately to a private equity firm or other automaker. (2 brands divested) Hummer and Saab both require huge sums of investment in their product lines, it makes the most sense to sell these two brands either together or separately at market value.
Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn merge to form Opel (3 brands become 1 brand) All of these brands essentially sell similar products. Take these three regional brands and form a strong international player under the Opel brand name. Saturn as a brand in the U.S. has no relevance but the opel logo and insignia could reinvigorate the entire company and product line.
* Possible that Buick as a brand could also be dissolved as they only sell three different vehicles and do not have a strong presence in their operating market. I could see this brand being totally phased out by 2020, the other GM brands would more than make up for the loss in product/branding. This would also allow GM to focus on the core Cadillac/Chevrolet brands and their newly minted international brands of Holden and Opel
Goals:
Reduce duplicative brand management
Reduce duplicative factories producing the same cars under different brand names.
Create strong global players in the automotive business, no more regional brands for GM
Realize economies of scale from consolidation of brand management, advertising, dealership networks.
The above mentioned steps seek to consolidate the GM brand network and dealer network into a more nimble organization. These mergers of core brands eliminate costly dealer-lawsuits from shuttering a brand, while being able to invest in our core surviving brands. The steps outlined above are far overdue and could be the jolt GM needs in order to reinvigorate their core business. The above outlined plan takes 10 brands and marketing strategies and whittles them down to 3 global brands.
The surviving names will be able to receive more attention and investment from GM and will be able to produce more relevant products. By merging brands and product lines the cost to GM can be drastically slashed since most brands carry similar products under different brand names.
The surviving corporate brands would be Buick,Chevrolet, Holden, Opel, and Cadillac, a drastic and necessary shift in response to market realities. I believe the plan put forth is the best way forward for GM and allows it to realize its many core strengths and keep their most prestigious brands. By cutting the brand and dealership network and merging divisions significant synergies and cost savings can be formed it also allows GM to better respond to market shifts and changes in consumer tastes. This way forward plan seems as though the least harsh and one that could provide the quickest results to the company.
This brand consolidation will streamline the entire company allow GM to get rid of non-core factories and duplicative management for its stable of 12 brands and allow the company to better focus on core brands. Toyota does with three brands, what GM attempts to do with 12. GM needs to keep 4 to 5 core brands and then heavily invest in creating a full line up for each of their strength brands. 2-4 good cars per brand does not do well anymore. This is not the 1950’s and GM’s dated brand strategy must go.
There will be immediate and long terms savings goals from factory/management consolidation of these many brands. Since a lot of the brand consolidation mentioned revolves around brands that each sell the same products under different brand name banners the consolidation should be common sense and is long overdue.
In addition to those mentioned steps GM must go through its line up and cut underperformers from production, do you really need 5 types of GMC Yukon’s to choose from? A faster switch to flex fuel automobiles and hybrid power trains will lift the company and boost sales, but GM must also cut most of its behemoth SUVs from the lineup to focus on fuel efficient crossovers. The changes we have experienced with gas prices and the automotive market are here to stay, it is time GM realized that.
I believe if all of the consolidation steps above are taken and GM invests in those core brands and introduces new products while streamlining factories and duplicative management that they will ultimately become a stronger corporation than even Toyota is today.
Would be a huge mistake for GM to try and market new to U.S. brands of Holden and Opel. GM fighting for their life, not time to monkey around with foreign brand names, especially names that sound bland or unattractive as are Holden and Opel.
With due respect to the Aussies and Germans, Holden and Opel are not brand names that would cut it with Americans. To extent that Holdens (G8) and Opels have good cars, if designs brought here, brand names should be present GM brands.
If they would have put a Toyota symbol on it, the public would have rated it 4.1/4
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,