Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I have a very early-build G6 and the two issues I've had are the hot-start problem (only happened once or twice) and some panel "cracking" (temperature swings cause a weird clicking sound on the upper dash when the defroster is on). I think the G6 potentially could be a very reliable car, considering the engine and transmission are old-tech. As happy as I am with my car, I'd still wait til the second year to purchase.
That being said, those little problems may be fixed already. The only area I'm remotely concerned with, incidentally, would be the chassis. For the '04 Malibu, more people than average reported "suspension" problems to Consumer Reports. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I thought that was a bit odd. The G6 is on the extended version of that platform, but it's been fine for me so far, knock on wood.
If you get a G6, I recommend ABS and perhaps Traction Control (i think that's standard in the GT model). Happy shopping!
:shades:
Only the Equinox 3.4L is made in China. All other 3.4L engines are made in USA.
Kurt
(2ZF69) G6 Sedan, (2ZM69) GTP Sedan, (2ZH37) GT Coupe and (2ZM37) GTP Coupe will not be available to order until June 2005.
(2ZH67) GT Convertible and (2ZM67) GTP Convertible will not be available to order until January 2006.
This is from: http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2005&butID=1®ionID=1&divisi- - onID=7&vehicleID=2374&type=0
Loren
http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/explore/onstar_basics/helpful_info.jsp?info-view=tech- - _equip
http://www.onstar.com/us_english/downloadable/en_FAQs.pdf
No Subscription dosen't need hardware upgrade.
The hardware upgrade is free to those that want to use the system.
The unused subscription term is transferable to the next ONStar equipped car. Even if one dosen't get another OnStar equipped car the difference is $170 over the two years or $7 per month.
It may appear to be unreasonable to you or someone else who leases but would it be unreasonable to everyone?
What would be so wrong with naming the G6, the GM G6, and the Cobalt, the GM Cobalt? Or maybe just have the Chevy G6 and name all the cars with the Chevy name other than the Caddy line? Would that steam you - others ?
:shades: Loren
http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelSpecifications/0,,120015||,00.html
http://www.pontiac.com/g6/index.jsp?brand=g6&pagename=specs
How could GM release this engine/gearing combination knowing this???
Thats it folks, GM better do something soon, or else party's over.
The bottom line appears to be that you will not evaluate the facts and would rather stick with your issues. That is fine, it is a free world. Just state that you don't like GM and be done.
DOD is on the way and should boost numbers all around but in the mean time the highway mileage is the only disappointment in this car. I wonder if this is a typo, I hope so.
What kind of real world mileage are people getting in their 3.5L G6s??
Loren
I would like to hear how actual G6 owners actually feel about the car. I really like the styling. And I saw a base model advertised in my local paper for 16k! Since I have a 3k GM card rebate, that would mean quite a car for 13k +ttl. I realize, however, that an absolute base model doesn't have abs. And Consumer Reports says of that model that "The base model lacks agility and tire grip, and the ride is stiff."
Any real life reports out there? How is quality holding up the first few months? Gas mileage?
Thanks!
"Let's look at the facts. If one were to compare March, 2005 G6 V6 retail sales to March, 2004 Grand Am V6 retail sales, the numbers would play at 7,859 to 5,017, 57% in favor of the G6. Even if we took G6 V6 sales versus sales of all Grand Am models for March 2005 versus March 2004, the G6 would still figure at 80% of the total - a solid achievement for a more expensive, less varied line-up.
Certainly, March 2004 represented the latter part of the Grand Am's product life-cycle, but it is also true that the car continued to sell well through to the end, largely because of incentives. With the G6, Pontiac has attempted to pull away from incentivized promotions – and it appears to be working. While the LA Times (among others) confused Pontiac incentives as a whole with those specifically on the G6, Edmunds TMV prices suggest that a base G6 is sold at $20,045 – just $1,255 under its sticker price in a highly-competitive market full of incentives (G6's is up to $1,500 atop the TMV price). A base G6 GT moved at $22,500, $1,425 under its MSRP. Both represent a leap from the Grand Am, and neither seems to warrant the comments made in the LA Times.......
The G6 will be followed this summer by the introduction of a 3.9-liter, 240hp, 245lb-ft GTP model with Displacement-on-Demand, along with four-cylinder (likely the 170hp, 170lb-ft 2.4-liter Ecotec) that will expand the car's fleet sales, and coupé variants of all three. A convertible – which may well be the only folding hardtop in the segment - will follow in the first quarter of 2006. .......
In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their cars, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.
"
"I have never owned a domestic make of car which was trouble free. But miracles may happen, and GM may be making trouble free cars now."
Actually, I was the owner of 3 Honda vehicles. The first, a 1990 Civic, was great. The second, a 1997 Civic, was less exciting, but did the job. I chose it over the Chevy Prizm because the trunk was marginally bigger. The third, a 2000 Odyssey, had good features (fold flat third row seat), but we had very bad problems with the brakes, and the sliding door, which tended to stick so badly that I couldn't even get it to open in some instances (a definite safety issue in my mind). Also, the interior treatment was nothing special. The plastic cover for the jack in the back broke when I attempted to get the jack out. Could be my fault. However, it certainly wasn't over engineered.
In 2003, we purchased a Buick Rendezvous. We love it. We've had virtually no problems with it. I would have to say that, at least in this case, the domestics (and GM in particular) are doing quite well.
The altima V6 does not require premium fuel.
It would suck gas like a V8. You mean to tell me that to get 40 more horsepower out of that engine (same engine as the 3.5L but increased to 3.9L) it would result in 18 city/24 highway. This is the same kind of fuel economy that a 345HP 5.7L V8 hemi engine attains. You have to be stupid to waste your money on that optional engine especially considering how expensive gas is now. :P
was it really cheaper to develop/design the 3.9L then to just simply provide the already available 3.6L OHC? i guess GM considers that engine too high class for the targeted audience of the G6.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/chevrolet/camaro/827/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.left- sidenav..6.Chevrolet*
Yes, I too would not get the 3.9 engine, as the performance to gas mileage ratio is not good. Actually, I think the old 3.8 engine is just fine and you can get 30MPG or better with that engine in just about any car. Whatever the base engine is in the G6 is just fine. It is not a dragster car. If one needs a street racer, go with a pony car, like Camaro SS. The G6 can go zero to a speeding ticket just fine. It is not going to be good enough for the track, so I assume people want the extra power to race on the streets, which is dangerous and illegal, all in one. The car could lose a little fat, but 220# torque is not all that bad. It will be a quick car, though not fast. It could diet a couple hundred pounds, or so. I sat in one of these G6 cars, and could not see any hood out front. Always think I am driving a video game, at some point. Not sure I want electric assist steering. I see they have given up on the 5 sp. on the floor. Guess people are more shiftless these days
Loren
Loren
the 3.6L provides more muscle at all speeds in comparison to the 3.8L. it provides more torque down low (230 @3200 vs. 230 @ 4000) and unlike the agriculture 3.8L, it maintains more torque at higher RPM. sure don't know what's so meager about those torque figures in comparison to the 3.8L. and the 3.6L is more than a little faster than the 3.8L.
i'll take that bet about the 3.9L being considerably faster that the 3.6L. we'll have to see.
the 3.9L has only 11 ft-lb more peak torque (at 2800 RPM, WOW, a whole 400 RPM lower) than the 3.6L. i have a strong hunch more of that torque is maintained throughout the RPM range with the 3.6L.
I can't see how it would only get 24, especially with a 6 speed. Doesn't a Vette get 27?