Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
The Current State of the US Auto Market
This discussion has been closed.
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
Maybe we should also avoid buying Fords, too.
Nah.... A sampling of one isn't much of a sampling.
It was only about 4-1/2 years ago the bailouts were still in full swing yet people here seem so forgetful.
I'm sure they failed due to excellent cars and service, and it was negative CR reviews that did them in.
I received a horrible car from Chrysler/Dodge, and lousy service to boot, but I'm sure everyone else received a great car and service, I must of been the sole cause of Chrsyler's two bailouts despite not having purchased until '94. :P
I am glad you stated "on average" to qualify that line above, because I can categorically state that you cannot do that!
Some manufacturers, like Chrysler, specifically design for planned obsolescence after the 3 year 36 thousand mile warranty expires. So a car that was reasonable during warranty can quickly start falling apart.
'95 Neon first 36,000 miles I'd give a White circle/dot to if I was being nice. The next 29,000 miles would get a huge black dot, even if I was being nice. If I was being fair, a black dot wouldn't be enough, I'd have a picture of a big yellow :lemon:
The problem with GM, and this has been their problem since they ceded the leadership role in the 80s, is they resolve their problems by staying with old technology as long as possible. Case in point - how long did they keep their old pushrod engines after everyone else had moved primarily to overhead cams and VVT? FOREVER! Other technology inside just never came, and is barely starting to show up now. Their Nav system was just impossible to figure out and didn't work well if you got a degree in its operation. Practically no innovation in design - the Tahoe/Suburban SUV line remains with a live axle and pull out and store 3rd seats. Ford went to IRS and folding flat 3rd seats in 02 in the Explorer and 03 in the Expedition line, and Nissan followed shortly in the Armada. Toyota is resisting, but I think has finally given in on that as well.
Finally, the greatest example is fuel injection. By 83, most Fords had throttle body fuel injection, and by 86, EVERY engine they made had FI, several of them with multi-port and coil on plug! GM was actually producing their 95 Cadillac Brougham with a 5.0L pushrod engine and a CARBURATOR on it! 10 years behind. :confuse: Most of their FI engines were still throttle body.
They made old technology work, mileage and HP was still good, so one may say, big deal? Lots of people don't care, and don't even know. And those "low information" buyers are the ones who keep GM alive, if barely alive.
It's a good thing that GM is showing hard results. Now let's see if they continue and stay at the top end of the market....or slip into "good enough" targets as in the past.
Not surprised GMC improved as their sales have steadily increased since 2008. Their quality HAD to improved from bottom of the list. Nice to see Chevy improved as well.
They should consider themselves lucky.
As for BMW liability, they'd fight that kind of claim to the death especially if the owner skipped a maintenance.
As for BMW liability, they'd fight that kind of claim to the death especially if the owner skipped a maintenance.
As would every other manufacturer. Example... Chrysler, in its recent refusal to recall for rear mounted gas tanks.
Every manufacturer has the occasional fire. In fact, I'm surprised we don't see many more car fires than we do, since a tankful (10-20 gallons or more) of gasoline is a fairly unstable liquid.
Even Rolls Royce vehicles experience the occasional fire hazard...
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/rolls-royce-recalls-phantoms-for-poss- ible-fire-hazard/?_r=0
Wrong again, and by several years. You also have the displacement wrong.
GM has been making and refining the small block V-8 since 1955. This engine
has been and still is among the best ever manufactured. Because of its relative simplicity and robust nature it is used to this day in all sorts of racing and marine applications. The new Corvette still uses the same basic pushrod configuration, resulting in a car that can stay with the world's best and still get 30 mpg on the road.
I would take that proven engine over for example a DI turbo Audi engine that requires valve cleaning every 10,000 miles. One test showed a loss of 100 hp in a A-8 after that number of miles. It required a teardown of the top of the engine to clean it.
Example of one?
I can top that 100 HP loss easily. How many blown engines do you think GM has produced that didn't even last 36K Miles? I'd bet it is in the hundreds every year, and a blown engine produces 0.00 HP.
Therefore, any GM car with over 100 HP and a blown engine does worse then that sample of 1 Audi A8.
That fact coming from the driver made me very concerned. With Audi, the first service is scheduled for 5K, second for 15K, so at most, 1 skipped maintenance (which she said she didn't skip by the way).
Here is an Audi forum with an extensive discussion about carbon build-up issues:
Audi carbon build-up
BMW has also had some serious engine failures in their turbo models. I remember driving behind a brand new Z-4 ( I think) driven in a very spirited way by an attractive young woman, and was surprised by the amount of blue smoke coming from the exhaust.
Don't forget cheap. That's why they're used in marine environments. Though Mercury Racing now builds their own v8's for their top HP engines and they use DOHC configurations. I read an article that the CEO and head engineer stated they went the DOHC route due to the valve train in GM big blocks not being durable enough for high HP/high rpm use. But we're talking million dollar boats with these engines so cost isn't as much of an issue.
I've got a 300hp 350 in our boat and it is a good engine. It's not something I'd want in a luxury car or sports car (just not smooth enough), but it does have good power. Just doesn't sound or feel good for extended high rpm running. I don't have open exhaust so I get to hear the valve train thrash above 4k rpm.
I thought the carbon build up issue was a problem on the early vw/Audi direct injected turbos and has since been corrected. Is that not the case?
All told it drives much better than the '11 model.
RE: Carburetors. Last year I can recall for carbs was 1990 for GM and 1992 for Subaru.
Honestly Circlew, take a look at GM's financials and you'll see that the bailout bucks are basically long gone. GM is operating on their own revenues and cash flow now. The gov loss is a result of gov "politically motivated" decisions from both Dems and Republicans in the timing of their stock sales, not current GM business practices. You really didn't expect Washington to use business prudence in these stock sales decisions did you?
Honestly, it doesn't really matter since GM=loss any way you look at it.
At the end of the day, we will see if they operate successfully or leverage themselves into trouble again. Competition is great, isn't it?
I suspect BMW will be a bit more gracious than usual in this particular instance, but I also suspect BMW will give this car a real "going-over" before making any decisions.
Either way, whether these isolated fires push down sales is irrelevant, it certainly lost them consideration from one potential customer.
you're setting a tough bar for objects made by human beings. :P
(well okay, human beings and their robot pals).
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
At the end of the day, we will see if they operate successfully or leverage themselves into trouble again.
Exactly - the Government bail out money is indeed gone - long gone, and will never be back. It paid for billions of debt, bad union contracts and legacy costs and wiped them out so they could try to move on. I supported saving the company - just thought, as usual, the government did it wrong. There was a better way to do it, better result, cheaper cost.
Nonetheless, they are here, at OUR expense, while Ford figured it out and struggled through their own pathetic decisions of the past themselves, and paid for their own mistakes. You may not think that matters now, but I do.
The question becomes, can Ford do what they've never actually done successfully before, and maintain an consistent path to prosperity, reputation and performance?
And, Can GM survive after their jump start?
My answer to both? No, they won't. But I'll admire Bill Ford for subordinating his Ego enough to hire a great turnaround guy, and fix his sins without help. And I will consider Ford products in the future. I will not consider GMs.
No problem to keep the jobs in the industry but to call it "General Motors" continues the plague...there is always alternate solutions that were too hard to fathom.
Yet every mistake involving the bailouts provides important insights about what the government can and can't do well during an economic emergency. With luck, we'll learn enough from these mistakes to do it better next time (and there will be a next time).
And when it does happen, I'm sure more mistakes will take place.
There has been a big cost to these bailouts, however. For one thing, they severely damaged confidence in the U.S. government and hardened the impression many people have of crony capitalists dominating decision-making in Washington, at the expense of ordinary people. The bailouts also institutionalized failure by rescuing many firms that should have gone belly up and by sparing investors who should have borne the pain of excessive risk-taking. Market discipline has been lost as a result.
If it happened again, there's a strong case that instead of the hybrid model, the government should either nationalize failed firms and treat them as government bureaucracies, or let them fail and focus on containing the damage. There are in fact new policies meant to prevent companies that are "too big to fail" from collapsing. There's also a good chance they won't work as expected. If they don't, the first principle of the next bailout should that a company that can't pay its own executives probably shouldn't exist.
I'd like to know more about this "magic" fire preventer from toyota. It sounds like a PR release.
My first guess would be something called a fusible link that burns and breaks the circuit when there's a short to ground in a major wire. That would explain the smoke the driver noticed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Certainly the paring down of dealerships and workers these last 10 years or so lends credence to that remark.
I don't really think Washington had a choice on GM, or Wall Street at that point in time, and unfortunately nothing is getting changed by Washington to prevent such actions in the future due to Wall Street's money and power and Congress' love of lobbyists and contributions.
As for the GM bailout, my problem was more the manner in which it was accomplished. I think it should have been on a debt basis where the government eventually got paid back like the first Chrysler bailout. If that wasn't feasible due to the nature of the big banks failing, I think they should have gotten long term GM bonds in exchange for the cash. If that was too big and would have significantly impaired the new GM balance sheet, then the government should have at least gotten dividend paying preferred stock with an agreement that once the dividend payouts and preferred stock value equaled the cash advance the government would pull out. The government could have deferred the first few years of interest or dividends until GM was back on its feet. I think an effective interest free resolution would have been much more palatable to American taxpayers than a loss on the bailout.
Now let's turn to GM - they messed up big too in all of this. After thanking Uncle Sam they began to quickly push for the gov to sell the stock at a loss so they could lose the Government Motors moniker. If the only way GM could continue as a going concern was by having the gov buy common stock, they should have explained that and made a commitment to eventually make the government whole (even if it would take a number of years to accomplish). They should have then used that opportunity to explain how they were going to change from their past and become a quality leader in the industry. They could have started by doubling current owner and new buyer warranties to show they were serious. After all, the big issue consumers have with GM really boils down to confidence in the long term reliability of their product. The ironic part is that had they done that they would probably be in an even stronger position now after Toyota had all of their quality issues with mid to late 00's and now Ford seems to have a number of quality issues.
But for me personally, it's over. My next vehicle purchase decision will be driven by overall value to me based on things like product desirability, cost of ownership and expected hassle free driving and ownership. It won't be driven by the past, nor affected by Detroit or transplants. And in the long term I think that will be true for many consumers.
For me, personally, it's only a matter of time....
But was the real motivation preserving Ford's super class shares where the family can control the company with a minority amount of stock and investment dollars???
You save up front and no need to extend. After trading his (JGC-JunkBox) in, my 'Bro is quite happy with the 2013 and the 2014 is even better.
You save up front and no need to extend. After trading his (JGC-JunkBox) in, my 'Bro is quite happy with the 2013 and the 2014 is even better.
But circle...the '11 Sorento is 'much worse than average' in CR. It's on their 'avoid' list, as is the '11 Optima Turbo.
Balance, man!
Balance, man!
Unfortunately on this forum the GM bashing peanut gallery never left after "GM" was removed from the title. Of course my post will only precipitate a flurry of the usual anti GM drivel.
Yeah, we know GM failed, has lousy vehicles and everyone's inlaws had lousy GM vehicles. Of course Hondas, Hyundais, Kias Nissan's Mazda's VW's, Audis, Toyotas... etc. ad nauseum are much better cars than GM fare and anyone that buys a GM vehicle is a nitwit
2013 Kia Optima SX - CR Recommended (Same care as the '11 :surprise: )
We ALL know how the'13 Malibu did!!! :lemon:
2013 Sorento - CR Recommended as well and scored higher the than Equinox/Terrain.
That's tipping the scales afaic! :P
2011 Malibu LTZ V-6 Loaded 28K miles KBB Private Party Vale = $18,040
2011 Optima SX - 28K miles KBB Private Party Value = $21,344
Which is REALLY on the AVOID LIST?? Keep those blinders focused!
Well, they HAD mostly lousy vehicles but are getting quite a bit better.
...Of course Hondas, Hyundais, Kias Nissan's Mazda's VW's, Audis, Toyotas... etc. ad nauseum are much better cars than GM fare
In general, their were many vehicles from those makes that were quite a bit better than GM vehicles. Of course GM has improved significantly and even has a chance of being a viable business.
...and anyone that buys a GM vehicle is a nitwit
Well that's a judgement call. There were and are a lot of reasons to buy GM. You want to support a US-based corporation (even if they were exceptionally mediocre to poor pre-BK). You needed a big truck or SUV where GM was stronger. Those were a couple of good reasons to buy GM, even pre-BK. But of course some buyers are so loyal to a given brand (not just GM), that their judgement is so clouded that pretty much they'd buy anything from their favored brand. I'm not one of those people for ANY brand.
As an aside, I just spent about 800 miles in a rented 2013 Chevy Impala (old model). It wasn't horrible, it was just exceptionally mediocre. Seemed pretty big on the outside for not that much more room on the inside. The upholstery was actually pretty nice, the engine was pretty refined. It made a weird growl noise on starting and I don't know if that's normal or this engine had a busted motor mount or something (it only had 10K miles on it). The steering wheel looked extremely cheap. The dash shiny plood was the tackiest cheapest looking part of the interior. The controls were relatively easy to use.
It was a basic, mediocre vehicle that did its job but I'd never buy one even if I were looking for that class of vehicle, as there are far nicer choices. I figure if I'm going to live 100-150K miles in an interior, life is too short to have it look like crap. I'm glad GM has come out with a newer Impala as this one didn't do the nameplate any favors.
I must be clarevoyant.
I think the one we drove had an MSRP of around $38K. I know that sounds horribly pricey for a Chevy, but, to quote Eugene Levy, "This is a damn fine automobile". And I mean that seriously.
Usually I gripe about cars not having enough legroom. Yet, this was one of the few cars I've sat in where I DON'T have to put the seat all the way back! It also seemed very well put together, both inside and out, had high quality materials, was vey quiet and smooth, etc.
I think my heart is still set on a Charger, but this thing would come in as a strong contender on my list.
I got out before I got hooked.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Impala felt a bit roomier inside, and definitely had a larger trunk than the last Charger I sat in. And, while the Charger interior is good enough IMO. I do think the Impala (or at least, this $38K Impala) did have a nicer interior.
As nice as this Impala is though, I wonder if it begs the question...why go for a LaCross or XTS? I wonder, back in 1972 for example, if very many people checked out a Caprice and decided that it wasn't worth the extra money for a Catalina, Bonneville, LeSabre, or Delta? In those days, I doubt too many would have cross shopped a Caprice with a 98/Electra/Deville, though.