By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The interiors are different though, that's for sure. My 220SE is loaded with wood and chrome, I've seen W110 cars with little of either.
Sorry for being off topic...maybe 2010 styling will save GM
Mazda MPV 11,090
Kia Sportage 7,204
Ford Excursion 6,682
Ford Windstar 4,550
Mercury Cougar 4,342
Honda Passport 3,691
Honda S2000 3,510
Mitsubishi Eclipse 3,421
Isuzu Rodeo 3,393
Ford Explorer 3,039
Land Rover Range Rover 3,034
Audi A6 2,982
Hyundai Tiburon 2,954
Honda Odyssey 2,825
Lincoln LS 2,753
Jeep Grand Cherokee 2,744
Volkswagen Passat 2,676
Buick LeSabre 2,555
Suzuki Grand Vitara 2,552
Chevrolet Blazer
This was very interesting and very different from JD or CR. I tend to believe this one as being pretty accurate. Interesting, 5 Fords, 3 Hondas, 2 GM's. My suspicions about Fords shows through in this survey.
***Saw a 62 Buick convertible today. Those were nice looking cars. GM needs a classic line of cars...a new one each year starting with a 57 Chev, 62, Buick, 67 GTO, 69 Camaro...The Collector Series!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I wonder if LeSabre is on the list due to the leaking manifold gasket? A friend has his wife's car blow one just past 80K. They used an aftermarket to replace the plastic job in there, which is prone to failure. Appears to also have something to do with 150K mile coolant going bad in half that time, or less. Cost is over $700, and is not backed by GM.... yet, as far as I have heard. If I had the 3.8 V6 or other GM V6 right now, I would at least change the coolant every 50K miles. And consider the cost of finding someone that works at a lower hourly rate to redo the intake manifold gasket. Other than this issue, I am wondering what would cause the LeSabre to emerge on the lemon list.
What on earth happened to the Odyssey ? I thought this was the car people had to have so badly that used ones sold for more than new car list. Maybe not such a smart buy???
Overall, most every car on the road today is ten times better for reliability. How do you see a car having to be towed along the highways? Seems like every decade since the early 1900's car reliability increased at an ever fast rate. Considering how many cars there are today, if these were the 1950's say, you would see a tow truck every five to ten miles. Think of the days of overheating radiators and such. One thing which still seems to occur however is the occasional lemon. And the price makes no difference. Actually, look at expensive vehicles, like the Land Rover -- I would be pretty P.O. to have any problems considering the price.
As for Ford, I don't know what to think about their history. It seems like things go really right, or terribly wrong. And the old stuff, like RWD cars and trucks, seem to be pretty reliable. Surprised to see the SUVs on the list though. Oh well, I am not going to say. F. O. R. D. as I think some, like the Fusion seem to be just fine. Maybe one must be selective here?
-Loren
Guy has a 2002 Montana with 115,000 kms.(70,000 Miles).
Coolant leaking into engine due to gasket manifold,
Extended Autoshield warranty goes to 160,000KM (100,000 mi.) or March 29, 2009.
GM won't pay because he is over GM 100,000 km (60,000 mi. warranty,
Autoshield won't pay because they say GM should have fixed it before warranty was up.
Replacing lower intake manifold gasket cost $1,139.
I DOUBT THIS GUY WILL BUY ANOTHER GM and these gaskets are going to lose a lot of customers, no matter what the styling is like!!!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Doing nothing though is, well getting into a hole too.
Tough times for GM and getting tougher.
-Loren
On my Mercedes, I replace a lot of smaller parts quite often, but it's not like fixing a transmission - these parts are decades old in some cases, so new ones will last far far longer than I will likely have the car. The gasket issue is more like retrofitting an older car from R12 to R134A or replacing a water pump than a recurring "lemon" problem.
(though GM should change the mileage recommendations to 50-60K to be safe, and offer an extended warranty on that specific issue)
Now Ford transmissions and transfer cases are a typical "lemon" issue - my friend ditched Ford for Toyota when his Bronco ate three transfer cases in 40 K miles - all not covered by the dealer. That's the real deal there.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/16/pontiac-g6-convertible-sold-out/
GM will build 17,000 Solstices for the 2006 model year, and 20,000 for the 2007 model year (including the GXP),
The Windstar - probably deserves it. I will say though, I bought an 04 Freestar, and ran it in my business for 50,000 miles with no issues, so seems to be better.
As to the Explorer, how could you all miss it? It was the tire thing! Otherwise, the Explorer is normally a damn tough truck, this coming from a guy who has had 5 of them. The 04 I have now is the worst one I have had, and it's just been transmission issues, all fixed under warranty, but related to the "bad fluid fill" at the factory. I'm not thrilled about it, but not going to leave Ford over it either. I'd try another one. The first Explorer I had was an 94, and I ran it over 140,000 miles before letting it go, and it was worn out, but still running strong at that point. Nothing wrong with it, except it burned a fair amount of oil.
Be interesting to know how many were made. Actually it is a descent looking car if you are looking for that type of thing.
Maybe GM will do better to make niche market cars, sell out of them and just not try to be everything to everybody!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I actually think the '65 Mercury looks good from the sides and rear, but that flat, generic-looking front-end just doesn't do it for me. But everything else, IMO, was the top of its game, style-wise, in 1965.
And even though there was nothing really all-new in the midsized ranks, the Dodges and Plymouths in particular seemed much cleaner and more stylish, the GM intermediates were on a real winning streak, and I think the Comet was a good looking car that year. Although I remember the '65 Fairlane as being kinda clunky looking.
And then in the compact ranks, we had the restyled Corvair, which was a real looker. And the Mustang. The Chevy II was also a decent, if conservative looking car, and the Falcon wasn't particularly hard on the eye. The '65 Dart and Valiant/Barracuda were an aquired taste, though!
Fast forward to today, and I don't think GM makes anything that's really disgusting or makes you want to gouge out your eyes. But at the same time, they just don't make anything that really stirs my soul, or makes me WANT to have it. Now, if its any consolation, there aren't any cars built today that DO stir my sould, or make me want to rush out and buy one. At least, not based on styling. Now there are cars that I might find easy on the eye, or a bit interesting to look at, but when it comes time for me to buy a new car, most likely it's going to be because my current car and truck have either gotten totaled, had a major component failure, or just gotten so high mileage that they're just not worth putting any more money into. There's nothing out there that excites me enough to trade my vehicles before their time.
But then, since styling these days isn't going to do it for me, the auto makers need to do something else to get me into their products. Either a good, reliable product backed by a strong warranty, a comfortable, roomy ride, decent fuel economy, an interior that I can tolerate...or basically, just an acceptable blend of these various attributes.
What exactly is this "bad fluid fill" problem, and has it affected Explorers for a long time? I don't know if this is much to go on, but the transmission shop I deal with has said in the past that the most common vehicles they work on are Explorers and Mopar minivans. And almost on cue, almost every time I've been in there, they'd have an Explorer and a Mopar minivan in the shop! Although the last time I went, when I took my uncle's '97 Silverado in, they had a '98-02 Accord coupe and a Suburban of the same era as my uncle's Silverado. I'm guessing though, that whatever their "most popular vehicle" is probably does change over time, as newer products come out and older ones ultimately get retired.
But, on the flip side, I don't know anybody personally who's had an Explorer and had transmission problems. There's a lady at work who had a Mountaineer, and I know that thing had over 200,000 miles on it. I don't think she bought it new though, and I guess it's possible that it could've had tranny work
What year LeMans did you have, NV? Have any problems with it? My Mom had a '75, and I don't think it was too bad, although it did need a new distributer IIRC. And my Dad wrecked it in '77, and it never ran right after that until she sold it in 1980.
I have a '76, but I guess at this age, anything that's wrong with it is more of an old-age issue, than a GM-specific issue! :P
Think about it, Andre? Which vehicles have been the top sellers in their market segment for decades? Explorers and Chrysler minivans! What is the probablilty that you're going to see one in your shop in that case? The more that are sold, the more you're gonna see, and if you keep them around for years, and both of these vehicles have great longevity - you're gonna eventually bust a tranny. Trannys don't last forever, in any car. There are a lot of cars out there with worse trannys than these two, but the number of them out there is much smaller because of sales.
As the Explorer and Mopar minivan fleets age, your friend is going to have more and more of them in there.
Ford is just no good for 4x4s, just like how Chrysler is. Competant off-road and all, but just can't seem to design a 4x4 system that will last more than a cople of years without something breaking.
His 4-Runner has been bulletproof by comparison and he is genuinely rough with it compared to the Ford which he babied.
Now - well he is a *tad* more agressive and tries to find dirt roads and mud on his way to work up in Portland, OR.
Flint: Minivans Tell the GM, Ford Story
It’s 17 years and they haven’t been able to get them right yet. And they don’t even care!
You want to know what's wrong with General Motors and Ford? Why they lost the respect of Americans, why they are sinking under asea of Toyotas, Hondas, and BMWs? Look at minivans. Right, minivans!
Here's a simple vehicle, invented by Americans. It's a box.
They should be big for our families. They should have the right seating so parents can threaten to go back there if the kids keep fighting. And they should have a good engine, because when mom enters the freeway with the kids she wants to move it fast to mix with the traffic.
It's been 17 years since Chrysler's first minivan and GM and Ford haven't been able to figure out how to build a good one yet. And do they care? Has anyone been fired? Has anyone resigned in shame? Do they CEOs of GM or Ford bang their heads against their walls because they can't build a minivan? No. They never say or do anything. They don't care, either.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Driving_Forces/Flint_Minivans_Tell_the- _GM_Ford_Story.S192.A10544.html
The problem was that Hyundai used the 2.0 I4 clutch on the 2.7 V6 at first, until it became obvious that it wasn't tough enough for the job (the early V6 Santa Fes had the same problem).
That was ingeresting and well worth the time for anyone to read. Really shows the attitude of GM and Ford.
IMO they just gave up on these vehicles. The Asians saw an opportunity to make a better van and went with it.
GM and Ford probably thought the "fad" would blow over and why spend money on it.
I once had a boss, and when any competition started up she would back out of the market....an accountant background and was worried the profit margins would be too slim if there was competition. The start up companies did fine, our company was just left with the one core business, but didn't expand or develop into new areas (2nd time I was downsized out of a job). GM and Ford sound very similar. If you don't take risks and develop new markets your business slowly disintegrates. Old loyal customers leave for various reasons, and you get no new replacements.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
And the idea of the car-based van is nothing new. After all, the original vans were based on car models such as the Corvair and Falcon, and I think the first Dodge vans may have been Dart/Valiant-based. However, these things were more of a cabover design, none too comfortable, and basically took the passenger car and tried to make it more truck-like. In contrast, in 1984 Chrysler took a car-based van, yet tried to make it stay as car-like as possible.
It is pretty sad though, to think of how GM just gives up on markets instead of fighting and staying competitive. They gave up on the ponycar market and the traditional full-sized car market. And you might as well say they've given up on the minivan market. Now to be fair, Chrysler has given up on some markets as well, but being a much smaller company, they had to pick and choose their battles. For instance, Chrysler never was a strong contenter in the ponycar field anyway, and Chrysler didn't depend as much on big cars as Ford and GM did, so it made sense, financially, for them to abandon the ponycar after 1974 and the traditional big car after 1981.
At least Chrysler did keep a watch out though, and somewhat re-enter those markets when the timing seemed right. For example, while few people would call products like the 80's Dodge Daytona a ponycar, just think of all the Mustangs of the time running around with Pinto 4-cylinders, and Camaros with Citation 2.8's or worse, Iron Dukes! And Chrysler did have reasonable success with the newer, "in-between" style of full sized car, with the likes of the Intrepid/Concorde.
I remember reading, years ago, that GM tried to be unique with their idea of the minivan, but after the Astro/Safari failed to dominate the market, and the dustbusters became the butt of many jokes, they just gave up and decided to copy the Chrysler model, just like everyone else.
Once upon a time though, even if GM didn't actually lead, they copied very well and often improved. For example, Ford actually beat GM to markets such as the intermediate (1962 Fairlane/Meteor), the ponycar (1965 Mustang), the personal luxury coupe (1958 T-bird), and the "luxury" version of the mass-market standard-sized car (1965 LTD). And while GM gets credit, with the '64 GTO, of inventing the musclecar, all they really did was coin the term. The formula of a big, high-performance engine in a midsized car was actually used by Chrysler in 1962 with the midsized (yet advertised as full-sized) Darts, Polaras, and Furys. And Chrysler had actually set down the roots of the musclecar way back in 1955 with the C-300.
But GM was not afraid of entering a new market, even if they didn't create that market first. Today though, they seem cautious to the point of starving themselves.
Is GM ripe for a takeover? Possibly by Toyota?
I agree with one of the posts that there's too much duplication. Does GM need GMC? They already have Chevy that produces the same trucks. That might save them some money, if they got rid of GMC.
Why are the percentages so low? I don't think it's quality any more. At one time, yes.
It is product? What constitutes a good product?
Many questions, few answers.
Ford brought out their Ranger based Aerostar (of which I was an uncelebrated owner of a 1987 - the worst car I've ever had). GM brought out their Astro/Safari, which was designed as a delivery panel van originally. They needed a passenger minivan suddenly, and put seats and windows in those things, and amazingly, they are still popular today!
They are tough as nails, but the worst design for people I've ever seen.....
Coolant change interval: 5 years or 150K miles. GM pushes the focus away from the years and heavy on to the mileage, which most people look at. Another area that often gets overlooked is that the system MUST be flushed, and not just with water. You really need to be a flushing kit or the flushing chemical. Just using water doesn't cut it.
But as you said, this is not the way to keep existing or gain new customers. It's highly doubtful my next new car purchase will be a GM product.
This is where I fail to understand the problem. Let's say GM had as much as 60% of US sales in 1948 (just throwing random numbers out here), which amounted to 1 million cars. Is that better than getting 23% of sales today for a total of 2 million cars (again, random numbers, but i'm obviously pointing out that MANY more cars are sold today than 40 or 50 years ago, so the company is still selling MORE cars, regardless of the market share).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I agree. My friend has a 1995 Explorer (Eddie Bauer) with 185,000 miles and still going strong! All it's had is a new tranny (2 years ago), and just this morning the original alternator went out and had to replaced. Even the mechanic was impressed, considering all the "known" problems for that year Explorer.
Given that, it strikes me that, since they've sold off most of GMAC, the only thing left might be a cash stream from replacement parts.
I feel the same way about Ford, too. The only product Ford products that I find at all interesting are the GT (but that's a halo product, not a real car, and I couldn't afford it anyway), the Mustang, and the F-series trucks. Well...maybe Volvo. Mazda has a couple of interesting products.
It's all such a shame.
GM's (and Ford's) problem is that they're NOT selling more cars.
1993: 4.66 million
1996: 4.73 million
1999: 4.97 million
2002: 4.82 million
2005: 4.51 million
Toyota went from 1 to 2 million sales in that time.
But, is it bad to sell 4 million cars? Plenty of successful automakers sell far less than that. Their problem isn't the numbers, its the margins. Their expenses are killing them, not their sales.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Its like winning the lottery for 100 million. Some folks would shake their head and say "gosh, if only it was 200 million," while some would be jumping for joy. Would 200 million be better? Sure. But am I still rich beyond my wildest dreams with "just" 100 million? Yup. But I'm getting off the intended track.
Yeah, of course you don't want to see a downturn in your business, but GM will still be in HUGE trouble even if their sales weren't dropping by a couple of percent. Again, its the margins that are a problem, not the sales.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
When the Astro first came out, my stepdad wanted one. He was an estimator for a local plumbing company called Johnny-B-Quik (hopefully they're ancient history by now...he didn't do so well with them because he was too honest!) and wanted to start his own side business. Only problem was, the Astro, while a neat package, wasn't that much cheaper than a full-sized cargo van, and while it was huge inside compared to a Caravan (Aerostar too I think) it was still a dainty little thing compared to a "real" van. He ended up getting a Chevy cargo van with a 350. Never did start his own business, though. Instead, he went government on us and joined the sanitary commission as a plumbing inspector.
I never knew the Aerostar was based on the Ranger, but I guess that makes sense. Same engine choices. Did the Astro/Safari have anything in common with the S-10?
The problem is that sales for GM and Ford have shrunk faster than their costs.
No, it's both. A mainstream player in an oligopolistic but competitive industry such as automaking can't afford to lose customers to its rivals.
For one, that helps GM rivals to get stronger, which in turn allows their competition to put up a better fight. Toyota has enough cash coming in the door to improve its models, branch into new segments and otherwise mount a stronger battle because of its gain in market share. The auto industry is small enough that you can't lose a sale without helping someone else, who is going to turn that against you.
For another, it raises marketing and promotional costs. It takes more marketing dollars to gain conquests than it does to resell to your existing customer base, which means Toyota could have lower sales costs per unit just because it is cheaper for it to reach into its own base. GM has a tougher time building its brands because it needs to spend more to do it (and if it doesn't spend the money, then it loses further still.)
It probably also harms the dealer network. Strong dealers are going to find GM brands less and less appealing (the profits aren't as great), which means handing a superior retail channel to your arrivals as they move on to sell competitors' brands. GM has to offer not just a good deal to the retail customer, but to its dealers, and cars that don't hold their value and command steep discounts are going to encourage the retailer to look elsewhere for a product to sell.
Giving up fleet sales to Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan and Mitsubishi helps, especially where the product was coming from facilities and labor more expensive to keep than worth.
GM has been losing overall market share while simultaneously increasing fleet sales, which of course concealed the real costs of this loss in market appeal. We'll see whether the recent plan to reduce fleet sales comes to fruition or if it was just gladhanding to the Wall Street analysts who have been demanding the changes.
The market share figures provided above do not distinguish between retail and fleet.
We'll see whether the recent plan to reduce fleet sales comes to fruition or if it was just gladhanding to the Wall Street analysts who have been demanding the changes.
So your theory is that Wall Street Analyists are easily fooled?
GM has been losing overall market share while simultaneously increasing fleet sales, which of course concealed the real costs of this loss in market appeal.
The analysts I respect and GM say the recent problems experienced by the company were the result of at once trying to make vehicles that could easily sell at large volumes to the fleets and vehicles that appealed to the individual consumer. There is no way to address the latter without losing some percent of the former sales.
Throughout this website, I've posted various articles about the fleet sales problem. The basic math:
-Overall GM sales have been falling
-Overall percentage of fleet sales has been increasing (until at least January of this year, which is the last data that I found on the subject)
The net result forces you to conclude that retail sales did fall. If the total gets smaller, but the fleet component is growing as a percentage of sales, that means that the retail sales are falling. No other possibility exists.
And the market share has been falling for many, many years.
The days of GM owning over half the market are long gone.
So your theory is that Wall Street Analyists are easily fooled?
No, I'm dealing with the fact that very little of the fleet data has been released, so we don't really know everything about what has been going on for the last few months. As more comprehensive data is reported and compiled from third-party sources such as Fleet Central, we'll find out whether the walk matches the talk.
Finally someone got a Chrysler mini-van which cost a fortune to keep repaired and running, but at least it was fairly normal for driving.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The ONLY way to stop the onslaught of the Japanese/Koreans is to do what they did. Get out in FRONT of the market curves. SET the market demand, not react to it.
Down with beauracracy, forward with product and innovation.
Scion should've been made by Pontiac, not Toyota.
The 1999 RX300 should've been made for Buick, not the foundation for a terrible copy (Rundevouz).
The Taurus should NEVER have lost it's hold on the US family sedan market! But the 1994(?) redesign ended that model in a hurry.
Listing the hundreds of US manufacturer mistakes and missed opportunities can get boring.
But with more bunt singles like Fusion that the US swears are Grand Slams, there really is little reason to hold out hope.
Chrysler at least has an innovative streak, and a sense of style. More Chrysler 300s are what the US needs.
Now that Toyota is focusing on appeal, and doing a good job at that too, it's only a matter of time.
30 years ago, Toyota was Kia.
Toyota is too strong to take down, but I think the Big 3 have what it takes to fend off the Koreans.
Maybe.
But the Ford 500s, the Lincoln Zephyrs, and Chevy Colorados don't inspire confidence.
DrFill
The thought of Toyota buying some of GM or Ford’s “valuable” assets is far fetch. What Toyota or Honda has done (my opinion) is watching GM or Fords’ pitfall and learned from it.
What I think is that while this upgrade helps the power defficiency, GM is spending money on the wrong engines. The engines are still weak (the FJ Cruiser has 278 lb-ft)and GM should rather have tried to spend the money to a put a 6 or 8 cylinders into these trucks.
ALL minivans ever produced by GM past 17 years were the biggest jokes.
amen.
And, really, its way worse than that. Considering the huge loss GM and Ford each posted last year, just how many vehicles would they need to sell to show a profit? Or even break even? My guess is, with their current selling strategies, no number of sales could show a profit. Which brings me back to my point that the number of sales is NOT the problem.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S