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
In exchange, Isuzu gave Honda the Rodeo, which it rebadged as the Passport. Once Honda had its own SUV (the Pilot), it dropped the Passport.
What does this mean? How do you know this? Are we talking about corporate investors? I dumped Delphi as soon as it was separated from GM. Everyone I knew at GM did the same.
The Delphi/GM financial stuff sort of died away in the media as did most of the investigations. Anyone have any recent articles?
That is cute, looks like a 1955 British Ford Consul (I think).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Rocky
Is that the new Pontiac G10? :surprise:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That Chery looks fine. People will be flocking to dealers that Bricklin set up to snap up this beauty. It will be a status symbol, an in-thing to have. Can just hear Sue coming into office some morning excitedly exclaiming, "I just bought a Chery last night. You have got to see it."
Sue might have bought a Camaro, if it ever did come out, and if it had toned down its cartoonish styling.
Rocky
Brickland? Do you mean Brickyard, as in Indy? What would GM do with a racetrack?
Thanks!
Anthony (in desperate need of a job!)
Rocky
(Where step-dad just recently was hired) plant and the Rochester, NY plant. Unfortunatley 21 of the 29 will either be closed or sold.
I wish ya the best pal. Alot of good folks are struggling finding good jobs beyond Walley World, and the Big 3 of McDonalds, Burger King, Dairy Queen
Rocky
JD Powers has collected data from users.
I have owned nothing but good cars of Japanese makes.
Everyone I know has had a good Japanese car.
GM, Ford and Chrysler would tell you Japan makes of cars are those they target because they are the standard of quality.
The whole World knows this.
Unless you have lived in a vacuum, I assume you know it too.
They are not the only cars in the world which are reliable. This is true. Many a car manufacturer has improved. Actually it is Hyundai in the number three spot as a company. But I suppose you will not believe JD Powers. It is all a conspiracy against GM no doubt. Some vast left wing conspiracy. Wait, wasn't that the right win? Anyway, go ask Hillary, maybe she knows which cars are most reliable.
I stepped into a Lucerne at the auction yesterday, just to be fair (though the exterior just leaves me cold, especially the Acura Legend inspired rear). After starting it up and eventually figuring out how to get the damn A/C working (something anybody over 65 will NEVER figure out BTW), I was hit with the stark, and somewhat nauseating reality, that the dash was a cheap imitation of the current TOWN CAR!!! Right down to the plood design, the 1960's straight across the car architecture with no console, the bench/bucket (read, useless) seat. Even the control panel right in the center was just like the Town Car, except it was all GM Trademarked black plastic. I NEVER thought I'd say I've seen a new dash that looked worse than the current Town Car - but voila! Buick has done it! The Lucerne is destined for Enterprise stickers on the back, IMO.
The LaCrosse at least looks nice on the outside. It's kinda cute. Haven't ventured inside yet...must reserve my vitriolic appraisals for a later date. H
Rocky
Rocky
Chrysler was just like Ford, maybe a tad worse. They are now, however, Daimler. There is no American Chrysler now.
Finally, it just costs too much to make our cars on continent, and compete with less prosperous nations and their manufacturing and labor costs. I don't blame the UAW for getting good wages for their workers. I do blame both management and the Unions for setting up things like this ridiculous Job Bank, and preventing the closing of unneeded plants. Our workers should be paid a fair wage, but just like the rest of us, things happen, and plants need to close, and supply needs to be managed to demand. Thousands of cars sitting in dirt lots in the rain in Michigan is a
BAD idea. No worker is guaranteed a job forever, or a full weeks work if the plant doesn't need to make cars. That stuff has killed them, and needs to be conceded. In the end, it has hurt the American worker, as the companies die.....
Well, you didn't ask, sorry for the rant.
Great analysis. I disagree 150% re: Scion -- I think it was a great idea -- but otherwise, exactly spot on.
Finally, it just costs too much to make our cars on continent, and compete with less prosperous nations and their manufacturing and labor costs. I don't blame the UAW for getting good wages for their workers. I do blame both management and the Unions for setting up things like this ridiculous Job Bank, and preventing the closing of unneeded plants. Our workers should be paid a fair wage, but just like the rest of us, things happen, and plants need to close, and supply needs to be managed to demand. Thousands of cars sitting in dirt lots in the rain in Michigan is a
BAD idea. No worker is guaranteed a job forever, or a full weeks work if the plant doesn't need to make cars. That stuff has killed them, and needs to be conceded. In the end, it has hurt the American worker, as the companies die.....
The wages are about the same for the transplants as they for the domestics, yet that doesn't deter the former from coming here. The benefit costs of the domestics are certainly high, but that didn't make consumers decide to buy different cars.
That being said, benefit cuts seem inevitable as a solution to the problem, as they would free up cash that could be committed to other things. But given GM's long track record of mismanagement, I expect them to waste this extra cash by propping up bad ideas instead of making hard decisions, and that they will be inclined to use any relief created by cost savings to simply make the same old mistakes.
With a new management team on board with the savvy and guts to make tough decisions, I could see the benefit cuts providing a real, much-needed boost, and I would support that completely for the sake of the company. But with the current tired faces running the show, extra resources will just provide them with more gas to drive the car into the wall. Management teams like this don't need more cash, they need less of it, because they need constraints on their spending habits and hard choices that will force them to act intelligently and decisively.
Well, let me explain. If we agree that one of the largest problems GM faces, is the remnants of the Sloan plan, having so many friggin divisions to manage.
They duplicate themselves needlessly, rebadging is out of control, and the dealer network is too expansive to change anything.
If Toyota wants to remain so good at what they do, expanding to another brand could create diversion from their iron-clad focus. It will dilute their intensity and create more beaurocracy. A lean auto-making machine would do better to contain their ambitions to what they do well, as Toyota has done systematically, slowly, but definitely, with continuous progress.
I don't think Scion will bury them. It just seems unnecessary. Two lines, or brands is actually enough. Also, the quality reports on the Scions so far, have not been upto Toyota's traditional excellent standards.
That's what I meant. In this day and age, building perfect cars seems to be a better idea than building a larger variety of cars. :confuse:
The Sloan plan was great, just so long as (a) there was limited competition in the marketplace and (b) the different badges were kept distinct from one another.
GM's primary mistake was allowing the badges to blur together. The increasing competition in the marketplace may have called for some trimming of the total number of badges, but not dismantling the entire strategy of providing a ladder of progression for the customer to climb. If Buick and Chevy had maintained very different images without redundancy, it could be worth keeping both (assuming both were popular and profitable, or could become so). But at this stage, the market sees no differences and keeping both for long is just an incredible waste of effort and money, it would probably be cheaper to scrap the brands than it would to fight to turn them around.
Scion is not a full-fledged badge, but a youth-oriented subset of the full Toyota line. It's the entry-level brand for edgy youth, that will allow them to migrate upward as they get older and more conservative.
Scion runs some risks because older folks have also taken a liking to the cars, which is bad for its brand image. But otherwise, it's a good idea, just so long as the lineup is kept to a minimum, and it remains priced toward the lower end of the market.
If things get to the point that you see Lexus with a rebadged version of the xB, a Scion-rebadged Corolla, or $30,000 Scions being sold alongside Camry's, then things will have changed for the worse, and there will definitely be a problem. But if the lineup is kept small, with designs that tend toward the edgy and eclectic, then I'd say that it's a great idea with lots of potential. Just try to keep the gray hairs away from it.
No matter how hard I try, I can't get any of you guys to tell us exactly what is so allegedly untrustworthy about CR's reliability survey.
There's a lot of ranting and raving on the topic, but never any proof. You might be a lot more credible if you'd provide some factual explanation that supports your position.
I know a guy who did a Thesis on Pontiac once. What had happened to them over the years. The Fiero disaster. It was fascinating. And this was back in the 80's! He predicted that GM would one day die of it's weight someday if they didn't change with the market.
The problem with CR is; they have a constant propensity to report what their readers input.... :P
You would think I was stalking you, lol. I did by the way use the search method and found your very valued tips from the other thread. Thanks..
Regarding this topic:
No matter how hard I try, I can't get any of you guys to tell us exactly what is so allegedly untrustworthy about CR's reliability survey.
Ok, here is an example (I happen to have it sitting right in front of me ).
In the Used Car Buying Guide 2006, it lists that the Toyota Camry, Celica, Highlander, Sienna are all great cars. Very reliable giving them red check marks. Some even got used car best bets or such designations. One would think, ok, these are great cars and should offer great reliablity. A few pages prior (on page 31 to be specific) they have this page with this large box with bold heading that says ," The black death of sludge a costly problem". Where it lists Toyota Avalon, Camry, Celica, Highlander, Sienna, and some other cars (others listed were audi a4, concorde, sebring, interpid, stratus, Lexus ES300, Rx300, Saab 9-3, 9-5, Volkswagon Passat).
As a consumer I find it rather misleading that they put in their actual review pages that the Toyotas of the specific makes models and years are such reliable trouble free cars but then list them under another section as being a "costly problem". How can they be reliable but also a costly problem??
This goes for their reviews of the Honda Oddy in particular. The review and ratings are great, but a little research will reveal that they are plauged with transmission problems. Not even mentioned anywhere in the CR reports. How can they just dismiss that information and not even bring it up. Yet on the flip side they really bash some of the American cars for similar problems, making sure to not only list it in their review but to give the cars no designations and no little red check marks.
I also found when reading the reviews written vs. the ratings vs. their awards that often they don't match. There was one car (and I can't remember which one, but it was a smaller SUV. I will have to look it up and find it again ). The review just bashed the car, it was horrible. The ratings were average not even one red check mark, but somehow the SUV received a BEST BUY award or some such badge of honor. I had to re-read the information again to determine what the heck was up . I immediately thought to myself, did someone not edit this at all. It was a thought that I had several times while looking at cars.
One other thing I have noticed is that from year to year the information about a cars dependability changes. Case in point. Again the Used Car Buying Guide 2006 page 26 lists the worst cars to avoid. This goes through tons of cars by make, model and year. The problem is the Used Car Buying Guide 2005 lists completely different cars. The 06 guide doesn't even list the cars that were listed in 05. If the car was a piece of junk in 05 what made it so great that it left the list in 06????? If its a bad bet its a bad bet.
They list every single car maker on the market except toyota and honda on their cars to avoid lists. Now im sorry but that seems a bit fishy to me. Especially when in the same mag they list the Toyotas as black sludge monsters. SO are they costly problems are not, are they just not worthly of such a blemish because of some other reason.. I have no clue.
Their collection of data about cars is VERY unscientific. They are surveying their customers. This leads to a bias automatically because the surveys were not randomly selected from a large populous. When I had done this survey stuff for the government the phone numbers were randomly generated and we had no clue who or what we were calling. Now obviously CR can't just randomly select anyone because they need specific information about a car, but they could generate a list of people who own the car in question and then randomly select them for questioning. Instead they just send out surveys to their readers hoping some will respond. SOme cars listed didn't even have enough responses to justify any ratings at all. It kind of reminds me of our local newspaper that has polls online. If you get online and can read the poll you can respond to it, but if you can't then tough. Not exactly scientific and certainly a specific type of person is responding to the online poll.
Now just think about this for a second. What type of person is going to read and subscribe to Consumer Reports and what type of expectations are they going to have about certain products vs. someone who does not subscribe to CR??
People are wishy washy and are not giving out objective data to base such recommendations on. They are basing a cars reliablity on someones subjective opinion about the car. In otherwords there are way to many variables that come into play when someone is giving their opinion (especially the tendency to defends ones purchase of a certain make and model of car, or to boast its superiority over everyone elses decisions).
They may ask, how many times has your car been in the shop for xyz repair. People overestimate and underestimate what really happens. This is clearly evident in these forums. Ex. Honda Ody, some people are still claiming their cars are ultra reliable even though the tranny has been replaced multiple times and other major repairs have occurred on their vehicles. But people who drive a GM with a squeaky window are ticked off because their car is a piece of junk. Now, im not saying that either is more or less reliable but using this as an example only. Of the two cars which would you rather have, a constant tranny problem or squeaky window??
I administered surveys for the government as a summer job. People could not even accurately estimate how many miles they drove their car per year. I had responses from people that were just ridiculous. People where getting into arguments about how many miles they realistically drove. Honestly most people are CLUELESS.
When someone asks me at what mileage I had my clutch replaced in my car I actually go look because I don't know for sure. What mileage was your oil last changed at? The hell if I know, I just look at my reminder sticker and get'er done around that mileage. When was the last time your brakes were done? Hell if I know, the last time the indicator starting making a noise I took the car right in. I would have to pull out my receipts to find the mileage. While some people would know for sure, most do not and their guesses at such things are really off.
JD Powers is also the same way. They pull their information from their own customer base.
Each of these, JD Powers and CR, have a certain type of customer that fits into a certain type of category. My guess is mostly older consumers of a higher income base. Im in my 20's and my friends think im a nut for reading such information before buying a car. Most of them would not be caught dead
MSN Autos also gives out information about the reliablity of cars but they get it from a completely different source yet, going as far as to mention what the TSB is and how much the parts and labor for such a repair is if it should occur. Really to date, I have found that MSN Autos gives out the most comprehensive data and doesn't just give you dots filled in certain ways.
Looking at all three however can lead you to a different spot beacuse often times the results do not match. The Kia Sedona is a good example of this. MSN Autos shows no major problems or issues and lists 5 out 5 overall. JD Powers and CR list as junk. Consumers like the van, only wishing it got better gas mileage.
That is my two cents on the subject of CR and other places.
I guess one could pick apart every survey ever made. What then would you go on for information on automobiles.
I see a mention of the Odyssey van. On ConsumerGuides data they show 2000-2003 as having the transmission problems. An extended warranty was issued. Now would that include a second buyer of that auto? I would steer clear of those years. Every maker of automobiles is gonna have a stinker sooner or later. The numbers still indicate Japan makes as having fewer problems. Does this mean you buy only Japan cars, or EVERY car they make - of course not. That would make no sense. Do research on a per car basis. It doesn't hurt though when the manufacturer has a good record, offers a long warranty, and you like the dealership. Add that to your work sheet of finding a car you like and it all adds up. Unless you are unlucky and get a lemon. I never had a total lemon, though my Opel in '73 engine went bad. Most everyone else had good ones - lemons happen. And it was a cool car otherwise. Got a PT now, and it appears to be made pretty good. Kinda coarse big four banger in the guy, and it uses about 1/2 quart or so of oil between changes at 3,000, so I wouldn't say the tightest engine. Just a good econo car to drive while think over getting something else. Great for hauling stuff and easy to fit in parks. Decent cheapie!
So you are in your 20's. That's a good thing - young that is. I traded in my Mustang for the Opel Manta Rallye '73 when 20, then later on bought an Olds. Starfire (roughly designed thing it was), then bought a used Datsun 510 (perfect for reliability, thin on the steel, as in please no one hit me) then to a Mustang- gone is my 20's.... then on to Olds... and ....more and more cars
-Loren
'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
See this.
If you want a ranking of cars from best to worst, then I think J. D. Powers has collected the right type of data to do this. However, JD Powers does not tell you what sorts of problems owners had with their cars.
It is interesting that there is still debate on the issue of which cars are most reliable. The American car manufacturers looked at what made these imports tick, a couple of decades back, and upgraded their own assembly lines. They, the Big Two, have mentioned bringing their cars up to this new standard, or something to the effect of being just as good now, or in other similar wording. Go to the car dealerships, and they will tell you this stuff is just as good now. I could never have owned a car, and never read any reports, and only asked someone in the domestic car industry about the car quality and reliability and guess what? The name of some other car, such as Honda comes up. Kinda gives one the feeling they are admitting a less than stellar past.
While Consumer Reports, and possibly some others may seen to have a bias, real or imagined, they talk of an overall improvement in the industry since the 80's and 90's cars. Overall, few cars now are really bad. This forum is all about GM style, so let's start with a base of GM is middle to good in reliability as an assumption and get to the issue or style.
Style is something which was really important in American cars back when. Could be a very good way to dig out of a whole they are in now financially. The two drop tops, Solstice and Sky, look great. When it comes to sedans under $25K, I think Ford did the better job with the Fusion. The Malibu is too boring, as is the improved Impala, and the G6 is perhaps a decent effort. The coupe looks good. In photos the sedan looks good in a way. For some reason, which is hard to zero in on, when looking at in up close, and personal, I am thinking there is just something a bit off. Like it fails to flow correctly. And some strange feeling like I have seen the car on a Pontiac lot before. On of those deja vu things, I suppose. Really like the lines on the LaCrosse, though it has an even stronger feeling of being around and in this car before. May be a good thing though. LaCrosse is one of their most balanced styles, as the eye follows front to back. The Lucerne, I think looks a bit better sitting in the showroom, than on my computer screen. Overall, it is OK. Some really like those port holes. Well OK, family had a LeSabre of '61 model year, and the port holes looked good on it. Modern cars - maybe.
Can the kids vent the nitrous through those port wholes, if that have a drill.
Style, and a few more RWD cars, can't hurt GM for sales going forward. Taking too long to get there may.
-Loren
Yea nvbanker those shills they have do a good job... wonder why they never mention honda oddessy having about a 50% transmission failure rate??? no input on that one huh?
I agree with pretty much everything you said, sc - but I'm not positive you are correct about the above. Only because I'm a respondent to JD Power surveys online all the time - and I don't subscribe to their services at all. Not sure how they found me, but once I answered one, I'm in the pool now....
Anyway, some responses:
-They are basing a cars reliablity on someones subjective opinion about the car.
That's factually incorrect. Let's look back and look what those red and black circles actually mean.
CR distributes a survey, which includes an elongated question that basically asks about every category that you see in its reliability tables. They count the number of checks in the boxes (respondents check the box if they have a "serious problem", excluding routine maintenance and caused by accidents), and provide a circle corresponding to percentages of those surveyed who claimed a problem.
So the circles are based upon frequency of incidents, not the owner's opinion of reliability, which brings us back to the oil sludge. If very few people experience a specific problem, it will not translate into a black circle. The problem may be drastic and severe for those who experience it, but if it impacts a small percentage of owners, then the reliability ranking can still be very high.
It's good to look at TSB's and recalls, of course. But a TSB issued for a problem that affects very few people will not show up on a survey meant to measure problems that occur frequently.
-Their collection of data about cars is VERY unscientific.
Not really. The reliability survey isn't an opinion poll, but a count of problems. Whether you subscribe to CR or Guns & Ammo (or both), whether you are black, white, yellow or purple with pink polka dots, whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Satanist shouldn't impact whether the water pump continues to operate or if the stereo stops working.
The subscriber base would matter if the survey was focused on the owners' opinions. But the survey doesn't consider owner satisfaction in compiling the reliability data. The questions are not open-ended, but are based on specific parts and features on the car.
One excellent thing about CR is the overall number of responses -- it now gets about 1 million per year -- which should reduce the margin of error inherent in any sample, because it's an unusually high number of data points. (Nobody else in the business can claim numbers close to that.) The other thing that I like is that the survey is mercifully short, which makes it more likely that people will be more inclined to answer it accurately, rather than just filling things in to get it over with.
Each of these, JD Powers and CR, have a certain type of customer that fits into a certain type of category.
Again, that has no bearing on whether the car exhibits certain problems. Age, race, religion, and income levels don't affect the alternator or the ABS system.
As for JD Power, its customers are the automakers It sends surveys to registered owners from lists compiled from Polk, which gets it from state DMV's. For those states where this information is not available, JDP gets it from the automakers themselves. In the case of those states where the automakers provide the data, I suppose it might be skewed in favor of the automaker (perhaps some of the car makers aren't too forthcoming about providing contact details for those who complain on their CSI surveys, I don't know), but otherwise, I don't see a problem here, either. JDP's main problem is that the survey is verrrrrrry long, and I have to wonder whether people go to the trouble of answering accurately as they get to Question 200...
Once you decide on which cars are reliable, the rest of the comparisons begin. Which car has the style is subjective indeed. If you like say the look of the Lucerne, and it passes all your other criteria for car, then that is the best car for you. Some may prefer the Honda, or Hyundai, there is no only car to buy, or only country which can build cars. It is a World market place.
-Loren
It gets its data from a company called Automotive Information Systems, which provides tech support to mechanics. It rates reliability by the kinds of questions that it gets from its clients, which repair cars. (You can read about it here: MSN Autos.) According to this link:
The company operates primarily as a technical support service for professional automotive technicians—service-station operators, independent garage owners, and even dealership mechanics. Subscribers to AIS may telephone the company's specialists for immediate assistance whenever stumped by any automotive diagnostic or repair problem.
I'm not sure I'd put my stock in this, because I know nothing about what has to occur before a mechanic contacts AIS about a problem. (You would think that many of the automakers would provide their internal resources for much of this.) If AIS served as a clearinghouse for all problems, that would be another matter, but that's not what I gather based upon this description from MSN.
-Loren
It's really interior shot of the next CTS. Miles ahead of the current CTS's plastic interior.
OTOH if's not going to be much different than
this generation with a classy interior, then the 08' CTS won't be worth considering for me. I guess as a fan of GM, I can keep my fingers crossed it will deliver the "Gadgetology" and performance and handeling
of the other sport/lux competition like the BMW 3 series, Acura TL Type-S, All new 2007' Infiniti G35, and Lexus
IS 350, Volvo S60
That's the main competition, and all have their trademarks which make them unique, but also very attractive to many consumers.
Rocky
I'm sorry to report that this CTS interior still depresses me from the picture.... Does Cadillac have a problem with colors? I've never seen one that isn't black..
The bottom line IMO is if GM can bump the horsepower into the 300 range and offer gadgets, safety, performance, at a fair price then it could have a winner because the exterior and interior "styling" is very attractive. The "buy american" crowd like me might have something we can finally cheer about if the rest of the car can atleast meet the competition. :shades:
Rocky
I also expect the new CTS, to have features like ventilated seats, adaptive cruise, and swivel front headlamps would be nice along with adptive lighting that dims the brights when it sense a car coming torwards you. Knee airbags would also be a very nice safety feature. A power tilt and telescoping steering wheel should also be addressed and a standard on a car in this segment. A rear view camera with a radar detecting device on the bumper would be also nice. A pre-collision system would be nice also. Of course rain sense and heated windshield washer fluid, heated seats, heated steering wheel, all should be applied to this car.
I'm not saying that GM needs to deliver all of these technologies to make a competitive vehicle, but the more it has to offer the better choice it gives it's customers. The 08' CTS is going to have to do something to make itself stand out in the competitive crowd if it wants to be a elite volume leader.
The 2007' Infinti G35 is going to do it on VALUE and the Acura TL and Type-S, is going to do it on having the only player with FWD, but performs almost as good as a RWD car that can be driven year around along with a good price if the rumors hold true. I know I perhaps left out a few other players like the Suburu Spec B and MazdaSPEED 6 but so far they don't offer the comfort features of the other elite and might be alot more sport, than luxury IMO. They do offer the choice of AWD though and that's something the all new 2009' Acura TL will probably get according to the forums on other websites. This is hat their dealers have heard from the corporate rumor mill. So since this Cadillac CTS won't see a redesign for a good number of years it has to deliver the goods now that will still be competitive when future redesigns take place.
Sorry about my rambling on.
Rocky