Are you in the market for a new or used vehicle and having difficulty finding something in your budget? Or are you finding yourself making trade-offs to find something you can afford (i.e. less cargo space, lower trim level). A reporter from a national news publication would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by this Friday, 11/21 for details.
Comments
My friends with the '05 Benz "big one" (don't ask me what model; has "4Matic" on the decklid) just had $1,600 in repairs at the M-B dealer at 80K miles...including ball joints. Hmmmm.
Sounds like a moderate priced repair for a Benz!
7 year old insanely complex AWD car with a decent amount of miles needing repairs for wear and tear items? Doesn't sound too bad to me. You've gotta pay to play.
Although, Impala has been in nearly-continuous use since 1958. Malibu since 1964. Camaro, 1967. Not sure the Sonic should be called the Chevette or anything though. Corvette is no doubt one of the longest-used names in the industry. Toyota no longer has a Tercel or Supra or Corona, or T100, BTW. VW doesn't have a Rabbit or Scirocco or Dasher. And this without even giving me a headache and spending about fifteen seconds to come up with. GM used Cavalier for 23 model years. Cobalt? Six model years. And I'd buy another Cobalt as a basic-transportation car in a heartbeat (no pun intended). I do think it's a dumb name though...would a car be named 'Molybdenum'?
Well look at it this way. If we want GM to succeed, things have to change. And a lot of things are changing, for the better.
GM will always be able to sell vehicles to its loyalists. It's the GM skeptics that they need to win over. The way this is done is multi-faceted:
1 - Produce ever more reliable vehicles
2 - Produce ever more competitive vehicles (mpg, NVH, features, interior, etc.)
3 - LOOK like a different company. Create the perception that things are really changed.
IMHO they've done better at 2 and still are lagging more in 1 and 3.
For #3, they should have modified their name. They should change slogans. Remember how successful Lee Iacocca was by personally helming the C commercials after their first bailout? I don't see much of any marketing change at GM - not the CEO, not the branding. The same old Caddy slogan for 100 years. Is that going to get anybody new in the door, or just continue to sell to expiring customers?
It cracks me up that people use the term "GM-haters". I wasn't in favor of the bailout, but given that it has occurred, GM TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. BE BOLD AND ACT LIKE YOU ARE TRYING HARD. I just don't see ENOUGH effort. I see more effort from Hyundai/Kia than I do from GM. This is NOT easy. GM has a second chance at life, and many of us are really afraid that they are blowing that chance.
Regards,
OW
$1,600 on a S430/500 4-Matic is like spending $400 on a Cobalt. Not too bad for 80K World-Class Luxury sedan with AWD.
Regards,
OW
One covers defective parts, and the other covers MISSING parts.
Whether you admit it or not, that's a huge difference, not so much in the results caused by either case, but in a total failure of the Sonic's quality assurance program.
And, no, it's not like every Sonic shipped without pads, but some surely did.
Any manufacturer should be taken to tasks for such oversights.
You may see that as GM bashing, but as a shareholder in GM as a US taxpayer I find such a failure as totally unacceptable.
If you can ship 4000+ vehicles missing such a basic safety item as brake pads, what else might these Sonics be shipping without?
Failure is failure, pure and simple.
Somehow, I don't think you would see it as an issue if the car shipped without a brake master cylinder. After all, wouldn' any driver immediately notice the lack of any brakes?
Problem detected during warranty service:- The problem was discovered during a regular warranty service when a customer brought a 2012 Sonic into a dealership and complained about noises coming from the brakes.
So, yes, there actually were missing pads discovered, much to the horror of The Loyalty Group!
Regards,
OW
Yet Civic, Corolla, Accord - all older than I am, and the Camry came out when I was a tot.
Scirocco died off - wasn't renamed (and now exists again in the more developed world). Rabbit and Dasher were US market names for products (Golf, Passat) which have again remained in consistent production since before I was born.
I don't think Cobalt was a bad name, per se, but to kill it off after less than a decade screams poor planning, to me.
Cadillac did a good job in styling in recent years - CTS, DTS, soon XTS. And, there were nicely styled cars through the decades. One that comes to mind is in late 60's, the Eldorado. There are some elements on current cars that seem to link back to that Eldo.
But, always a "but", Cadillac has had some duds. Such as, Catera, Cimaron, Alante, Cadillac Seville about 1980 with bustle back and padded top.
GM has to hold the record for amount of brands and model names tossed in the ashcan. Think of Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn and all of their model names not too mention all those model designations discarded by Buick, Chevrolet and Cadillac.
Cadillac now uses letters such as CTS, XTS but they really had some elegant names in the past. Such as Calais and Deville. Sure was more meaningful than the numbers, letters used today such as 3 series, C Class, TL, A8 by foreign brands.
Shouldn't we expect more from GM?
I'd like to see GM perceived like Apple is in the electronics industry. Undisputed high quality. Earns a premium price due to superiority.
Instead GM is sort of like Gateway. Volume, mediocre products.
AT LEAST GM should be like Toyota. Volume, reasonable prices, but excellent reliability, demonstrated over a decade or more.
Some of us are NOT happy to have the US most visible and large auto manufacturer on life support. Sort of like our kids - are you happy with a kid who gets C's, with a few A's and B's sprinkled through, goes to community college for a year and then gets a plumbing job, or do you want your kid to EXCEL?
Why isn't GM putting this pressure to excel on themselves? I just don't get that. They barely survived. How much of a warning does it really take? And how is this point of view hard to understand?
Good point. Customers want significant perceived value. Value could be any of:
- Refinement, power
- Reliability
- Looks, interior quality
- Versatility
- Efficiency/mpg
- Driveability, handling
- Low cost to purchase
VW has a reputation for poor reliability, yet has high resale. That's because they have had a reputation for good looks, interior quality, and good handling.
Toyota doesn't look good but has high reliability and good mpg.
Honda typically has had high reliability and good handling (but slipping there)
What is the strength of GM? If it's a truck or SUV, it might be versatility. But they need to excel in SOMETHING. Not just in being a US brand.
Bad example, cause you said nearly-continuous.
I'd say far from continuous for that one. Of course, the continuous nature of all of GM's vehicles names is only due to the fact they were bailed out.
The plumbing job would be better in that a motivated kid, after years learning the trade and experience, would start his/her own business.
I'll agree with that. Perhaps not the best example. But the point remains - we should NOT happy with GM being "just ok". They should be a lot better than that. Mediocrity won't get them very far for very long.
Perhaps it's because GM is always the best in a loyalist's view despite the reality. I think GM is changing but only blinders would prevent some from agreeing there is a lot of the Old GM left to tango.
Let's put it this way: It wasn't because some so-called GM-bashers made GM loose market share and go bankrupt. A lot of former customers parted ways a long time ago based on GM products. The dealers, UAW and the parts suppliers all combined with GM the company to make that happen.
Now that they are making far better cars, they are still behind in delivering those 3 points you presented a few posts back...improving but behind.
1 - Produce ever more reliable vehicles
2 - Produce ever more competitive vehicles (mpg, NVH, features, interior, etc.)
3 - LOOK like a different company. Create the perception that things are really changed.
IMHO they've done better at 2 and still are lagging more in 1 and 3.
Regards,
OW
Nah, I like other cars and companies too.
Someone did a comparison of the Acura TL Super Handling AWD and the S4, and it was scary close on the track. I like Acura, they've for the most part fixed their front end design issues.
Lexus is good for comfort and reliability.
BMW strikes my fancy but is a bit pricey.
Infiniti does a good job with the G37.
I like Nissan's GT-R. Porsche works, but again pricey.
My problem with Mazda is their long association with Ford. Ditto Volvo.
Mercedes was tainted by Chrysler (the stink remains).
My guess is that the kind of buyer that would purcchase a Sonic is used to a lot of rattling, squeaking, and other noises from a vehicle and a little grinding and other braking noise woudln't bother them, they are used to putting up with it.
Yet a lot of the Fusion (and the success) is due to Mazda.
Unfortunately, some here seem to see any criticism of GM's post restructuring performance as company bashing.
If it isn't allowed to point out failures in performance, how can any improvement come about?
No disagreement here. It's just when worse performance is pointed out in a competitor, and nothing is said, that is troubling. Plus, much of the stuff posted here is broken-record stuff.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Sonic recall is embarrassing, but it's all about perspective and balance.
Much of the problem issues with GM is broken-record stuff. :surprise:
Advertising, UAW costs, lagging technology, higher prices, highest incentives, highest inventory,etc...
You'd think they would accelerate change much faster.
Regards,
OW
You know if a Cobalt owner reported needing ball joints at 80K, you'd make a comment. Any denial from you on that would be met, by me, with complete knee-slapping laughter.
Neither of my two Cavaliers, at 129K and 112K miles, had had (or needed) ball joint replacement. Just sayin'.
There's a real, rational, well-thought-out discussion of the item at hand. (Head being shaken)
Let's assume that you are correct. You still have to take it in context. This is a GM board. Nissan can fail for all I care - that's not going to help GM much. GM has to help GM. And missing brake pads aren't going to do it. So in that sense, Nissan's failures aren't relevant to GM. GM must try to be the best. They need to win over the skeptics who wouldn't normally buy their products. Nissan is NOT suffering from any current significant perceptions of poor quality, so this recall isn't going to hurt them much. And even if it did, it's not that relevant to GM.
They ought to be. Even if you're a believer of CR, their Armada, Titan, and Quest models, particularly, have had a lot of problem areas.
But then of course, perception lags reality by quite a bit.
My niece has a Quest...I think a 2007. Replacement engine under warranty for oil leaks. Perception...wonderful!
Yes, Mazda was a solid Japanese company that got itself Ford Disease and entangled with the American giant. Mazda was most definitely the "good" half of Ford.
What turned me off to Mazda "and put them on the do not shop list" for me was their lowering of the bumper to bumper warranty (I believe starting in 2005) from 4 years 50K to 3 years 36K. They told me that if Honda and Toyota could get away with it, why couldn't Mazda?
I should have gave him a similar answer as to what Lloyd Benson did to Dan Quayle in the VP debates when he compared himself to Kennedy.
Your viewpoint might be more sensible if Nissan had been bailed out and gone through restructuring.
You consistently have attempted to distance GM from this issue, yet at least one car was indeed delivered with missing pads. Even GM suspects a long running problem, else the recall period would not cover such a long production run.
You like playing both sides of the issue, while at the same time crying about others that do exactly the same thing.
Here's a fact fo you:
GM is NEVER going to succeed long term if it can't keep up with the quality of other manufacturers. GM has been given the rare opportunity of a 2nd chance, and excuses aren't going to "cut it" any more.
Fortunately for GM, they aren't the one making the lame arguments here that it's not an issue.... That's being done by the GM apologists on this forum.
Frankly, that is what I see as a ray of hope for GM.
The old days of "business as usual" are long gone.
That's a pretty good trick. Consumer's Union was founded in 1936. Ralph was born in 1934.
I knew the guy was smart and rich and all, but I don't know many two year olds founding non-profits.
CU and Ralph formed the Center for Auto Safety together in 1970 and they chased GM for pickup truck gas tanks (and Pintos and Firestone and got lemon laws enacted), so you're right about them being in bed together.
Just keepin' it real.
Here's some Cobalt complaints for owners not so lucky as you.
2007 Chevrolet Cobalt Front Suspension Complaints
Regards,
OW
I don't know of a single success story where the subject of failure was consistently given a free pass when errors were made.
After all GM has been through, it SHOULD be held to a higher standard.
Pointing out shortcomings is not the same as be ing disrespectful.
I agree.
It is sort of a principle of limited forgiveness. That's what I'm calling it.
Everyone should have a limit on how many problems and dollars they are willing to tolerate from a manufacturer in their lifetime.
If an old Dodge or GM product had dozens of issues and thousands of dollars in repairs, it may exceed this threshold. Therefore, a buyer will not tolerate a single additional problem from their Chrysler or GM product.
However, they may have owned 3 or 4 Honda's or Toyota's by now, and that reserve of tolerance and forgiveness has not yet been exhausted. It makes sense that someone would forgive a transmission failure that costs them nothing (but loss of use for 3 days), vs. a car company that basically stole and defrauded them of 15,000 dollars.
2 of the most reliable, cost effective vehicles I have owned were Chrysler products. A 1978 Chrysler Lebaron ( 110,000 miles and only needed front brake pads and rebuilt callipers) and a 1990 Plymouth Voyager (transmission died at 77,000 miles but they still replaced it under warranty).
I also had a 1975 Pontiac Astre (Vega) that I put 74,000 miles on with no issues.
I was one of the lucky ones that bought the 1st model year S10 Blazer, which I special ordered loaded... It was red, but should have been painted bright yellow. I saw more problems in 3 years and 28,000 miles than in all my other vehicles combined.
Fluid leaks, water leaks, faulty transmission, rear differential failure... But, it had a really nice interior, which smelled from mold growth due to the leaking passenger floorboard up front, and which still leaked the day I traded it.
Yes, that S10 went a long way towards using up my allotment of GM $$$.
Still, I am very willing to consider GM products. A lot can change in 25-30 years.
Companies don't increase sales by simply being as good as the competition, especially when costs are comparable. GM must hold itself to a higher standard.
Things have improved at GM. The real problem is, nothing they could ever do would be sufficient in the eyes of the three or four on this forum (you know who you are), who have your minds made up already...sadly.
Your niece will not buy another Nissan as I will not buy another GM. Balance.
As promised, I'll let you know when I have a problem with my 2008 CR-V, 2010 CX-9 and 2011 Optima. So far, only one trip to the Honda dealer to fix a tranny re-flash recall. That's all. :shades:
Regards,
OW
I think GM is similar to other manufacturers. Some of its cars are great, some are average, and some are bad and/or unreliable. I am sure there are many people that have had negative experiences with their GM vehicle. I also think that applies to all other manufacturers as well.
I think the perception is that Toyota or Honda are much better in reliability. That might not necessarily be so. At the Auto Beef website out of the 20 vehicles with the most complaints, only 2 are GM's and 6 are Hondas. And at the NHTSA website the latest model car with the most complaints by far (over 1600) is the 2010 Toyota Prius. Many owners seem to lose their braking when going over a rough road. For perspective the 2008 Impala, even with all the publicity about premature tire wear has only 143 complaints.
Also over at the Honda Odyssey transmission failure forum on Edmunds, one of the owners even commented about how CR has given mid-2000 Odysseys a much better than average rating for the transmission (except for 2007). He couldn't believe it considering so many owners have reported not one but multiple failures.