Calling all GM fans...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

But right NOW, I would say I'm MORE likely to buy a GM than ever before in my life.


Good for you. Let us know how it works out.


I wouldn't necessarily call piston slap a problem worthy of rebuilding the engine. Seriously, our 4.6L Expedition had piston slap for the last 2 years we owned it and you didn't see me crying to ford that they should replace the engine.

Anyway, when I had my Cruze, GM was great to deal with. For 1 it was reliable, and the few "issues" I did have, which included me going to the dealer to get a tcm reprogram, and a Bulletin for a protective screen for the condenser that was only supposed to be for if the condenser gets damaged and has to be replaced. Both times, the dealer went to GM, and GM approved the work under warranty.

We haven't had to go back to the dealer for our equinox, so no comment on that, other than 18k and we haven't had to go back to the dealer. My dad's cruze has around the same as my moms nox, and he hasn't had any issues either.

Neither, for that matter, has my grandmother, who now has in the neighborhood of 30k on her Malibu, again with zero problems.
 
I would probably buy the cruze or equinox.. possibly.

not much else they have is in my set price range or liked.

I did like the equinox for a mini-suv that drives like a minivan

the problem was they said 30mpg and it gets more like 25(2011)

and the fact that the FWD base model cost 1.5k more than my 2011 x-premium package Forrester with AWD.

and the chevy dealers by me are all high pressure with bad service depts. I could tell stories but lets just say from my and some friends/family members experiences I would hesitate to buy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses. I'm happy people have had good results from their newer GM vehicles and sorry to those who haven't. I have not totally defected from GM, it's just most of their current offerings really don't have me interested. Growing up, my mom was a stay-at-home mom and my dad worked hard for us. Even if he did not work for GM, he said he liked how the cars were set up and could easily work on them and would buy a Chevy anyway. If I were to upgrade in a couple years, I don't know what GM car I would buy, if any? Toyota sells so many Camrys that it is not hard to say they are a pretty good car. Maybe I'm just getting older and think the Chevys from my past had more appeal to me? I'll keep researching cars for awhile yet. Thanks guys.
 
Good point!
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I'm not a GM fan, but since you're used to 91 Camry I think you will find the current gen Toyota products to be lacking significantly in overall quality, fit and finish and material choices when compared to the old models. GM, on the other hand made significant improvements over last few years.

In other words, test drive everything and don't assume anything about any brand solely based on past performance, especially a decade or two old. Lots of things changed since then.
 
I almost listed the 5.3’s piston slap as an example in my list of quirks that GM considers normal but are annoying to others.

Piston slap is one of those issues folks either get very upset about or don’t notice. All of the current GM eights do it, particularly on start-up, and it is one of those “quirks” GM considers normal for the vehicle. They probably denied repairing it because, right or wrong, the manufacture considers it a “normal operating characteristic” and the numbers of 5.3s out there with huge miles that have had the slap from new have proven to GM that the issue does not affect longevity. Also, since all of the 5.3s exhibit similar characteristics there is no fix with which you will be satisfied. If they give you a new motor it will likely have it as well. Manufactures rarely rebuild engines; it is cheaper to replace them.

Not attacking anyone. I am one of the folks whom it bothers terribly also so I really do understand both sides of it.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

But right NOW, I would say I'm MORE likely to buy a GM than ever before in my life.


Good for you. Let us know how it works out.


If I do I will... but here in a week or so you'll see a change in my sig, and it won't be a GM ;-) Challenger SRT-8 incoming, 01 Jeep outgoing... if the Challenger that's being transferred in passes my test drive and inspection.

And as for the question about "smallblocks are the wave of the future?" For ME they are- I never want another 4-pooper in my life unless its in a hybrid. But in general: No, smallblock v8s aren't "the future," but they'll always be around. Of course smaller engines and hybrid drivetrains are the way of the future. But the EcoTec is a good 4-pooper coupled to conventional drivetrains if that's what you want, so I think GM has that covered too.


But I agree with Tzu- its just harder and harder to find a car that's really appealing. For me, the Challenger is seriously about the only thing from any manufacturer that grabs me. Oh, the Camaro and Mustang do also and for the same reasons, so throw them in the mix- or count them as all pretty much the same idea. The Viper and Vette are cool, but they're in a class too expensive for my tastes. But as for 4-door daily transportation in a non-luxury class? Life's pretty boring on that front. Just shoot me if I had to drive a Camry, 200, Avenger, Fusion, Malibu, etc. The Charger at least has some style, power, and rear-drive. The new Chevy SS is "interesting," but not all that appealing- I think it suffers from "GTO/G8 syndrome:" It looks so much like other Chevys that it fails to stand apart enough, just like the Holden-based GTO and G8 looked way too much like a Grand Am or G6.
 
I know guys who have been buying GM products for 30 years who swear they will never buy another one. A company is not loyal to you, why be loyal to them?

I doubt I will buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle in the future. What a waste of taxpayer money on those lousy corporations. I don't want to turn this into a bashing thread, but I don't like supporting companies that take American tax dollars when most of their production is overseas. GM doesn't care about you, they care about making a profit.

"American" car manufacturers aren't what they were 40 years ago. I'm sad to say it, but if I ever buy a new vehicle it will probably be a Toyota.
 
Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
I doubt there is any wave of the future regarding internal combustion technology. I think we have taken it as far as it is going to go. It is the cheap and reliable but has never been even remotely efficient from a technical standpoint.


I have to somewhat disagree with you there, and this is something of a pet peeve of mine. EVERYBODY is all convinced that electrics and hybrids are 'more efficient than the gasoline engine.' Well... not really! there, I said it out loud.

Here's what I mean. The theoretical maximum achievable efficincy for a heat engine is right around 50%. And modern gasoline engines are coming darn close to hitting it... so the POWEREPLANT is about as efficient as you can get. So that part of your statement I agree with... what I don't agree with is the implication that there IS something better, at least in terms of using a heat engine.

A Hybrid is a SYSTEM wrapped around the powerplant, and that system boosts efficiency by a) re-capturing wasted energy through regenerative braking, and b) keeping the powerplant (gasoline or diesel engine) running in its most efficient regime.

A technicality, yes, but no matter how you slice it, there has to be a "prime mover" out there somewhere, and if that prime mover is a heat engine, it has a theoretical maximum efficiency that the gasoline engine is capable of approaching.

Now electrics and plug-in hybrids: somewhat different story there, because power generation plants can also be "hybrids" these days. Modern "Co-generation" powerplants are gas turbines turning generators, and then boilers fired by the exhaust heat of the turbine, and then using that heat to spin steam turbines to add more electricity and leaving much less heat waste to go into the cooling towers: a "system" around a different kind of heat engine, but still able to boost efficiency up towards 80% or so. The problem with the way people perceive this is that electric cars are NOT "zero emission / 80% efficiency" they're "put the emissions in someone else's back yard and take whatever efficiency the grid as a whole is operating at." If that other back yard is a co-generation powerplant like I described above- GOOD. But its more likely to be a nasty coal-fired plant that only ticks out 60% efficiency or so, compounded by the fact that the emission controls for a coal plant can suck down as much as 10% of the entire plant's power! So you're back in the ~50% regime when you're talking raw fuel -> coal plant with emission controls -> distribution losses -> charging/discharging battery losses -> the wheels of your Nissan Leaf. And if we add more and more electric cars to the grid, and demand more and more aftertreatment of coal exhaust gasses, we get in a vicious cycle- burn more coal to power more cars, and burn still MORE coal to generate the extra power needed to scrub the coal emissions.


This is just my personal engineering opinion, but I think the math backs me up: Today and for the next 5-10 years, the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWEST CARBON way to drive, is going to be a gasoline or diesel powered hybrid. Putting the "prime mover" right there in the car instead of shuffling it off at the other end of a transmission line helps more than people realize. Especially with so much of the nation's power coming from coal. As we get more co-generation plants on line, more wind, and (maybe?) more nuclear, then pure electrics look better in the overall scheme of things. But not for a while yet.
 
My father was a longtime Chevy buyer...every one a lemon.It started with a 58 Impala that couldnt keep front tires more than a few hundred miles(even had a 1959 Vauxall Victor).He also owned 2 Galaxies in the 1960s,one was great,one was terrible.I have owned 3 GM vehicles (Regal,Camaro,S10) all were really bad.I went Mitsu and Chrysler and havent looked back.I wont do business with Toyota (grinning Akio Toyoda makes me sick),Subaru (Feel the love of all the problems they have...do internet searching),or GM (their business culture is seriously devoid of brains).
 
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I'm sad to say it, but if I ever buy a new vehicle it will probably be a Toyota.


Why Toyota? Do you think that Toyota cares about you? I'm also not happy about GM's bailout, but I can assure you that Toyota would do the exact same thing as GM and Chrysler did. In fact Toyota did go to the Japanese government to secure some government backed loans. All corporations operate under the same set of rules and the rule is to make as much money as possible. Nobody's hands are clean.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/03...ed-bank-for-2b/
 
Last edited:
I grew up around GM cars, mostly B and RWD C Body vehicles, and my very first car was a box Caprice Classic Brougham. I've always had a love/hate relationship as far as GM products go, and here's why.

Drivetrain wise, all the GM products we've had in the family have been bulletproof. The Caprice had it's factory transmission replaced at 678,000 km (424,000 miles) with a new one, for instance. Part of the reason for this was probably because my father would replace ATF at every oil change, which was 3,000 km (1,875 miles). Knowing this, there are quite a few GM products out there I would buy without thinking twice, like I did with my Envoy. But build quality leaves a lot to be desired.

All the cars we've had had the same common issues - falling sunvisors, cracking dashboards, squeaky interiors, inside door handles that would come right off, glass coming off the frame, etc. I briefly owned an '02 Avalanche and I can't say I was pleased with the build quality either, and it's safe to say the same about my Envoy. It's not terrible, I mean I can live with it, but it does leave something to be desired.

My father's always been a GM guy though, and I have a hard time getting my Envoy back from him now that he's driven it.

On the other hand, from a foreign perspective, I've always had a thing for American cars. I know I'm living way back in the past here, but my ideal American car would be body on frame, rear wheel drive with classic American design with generous seating and preferably a column shifter. The only products that really fit the description are not cars, but SUVs - the Suburban and Expedition for instance. When I see Daewoo based products like the Cruze, Sonic, Aveo, etc., I cannot stand looking at the Bowtie they're wearing. To me those are anything but American. Of course, everyone has their opinion and this is mine.
 
The beauty of our country and our market is everyone is free to choose and has multiple options from which to choose.

The Government spends trillions of dollars on whatever they want including sending hundreds of billions to foreign countries in aid. Some of those billions fund foreign despots yet no one complains. I personally disagree with the bailouts but I would much rather the Government spend billions at home to save an American industry and the jobs attached to it than to see it get lumped in with the latest shipment of “please like us” money sent to the middle east so the leaders of those countries can buy more weapons and further subjugate their populations.

The USPS lost $16,000,000,000 last year. That means they spent more last year to deliver junk mail that it cost the government to bail out GM. Not saying it’s right or that I agree just putting it in perspective.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
I doubt there is any wave of the future regarding internal combustion technology. I think we have taken it as far as it is going to go. It is the cheap and reliable but has never been even remotely efficient from a technical standpoint.


I have to somewhat disagree with you there, and this is something of a pet peeve of mine. EVERYBODY is all convinced that electrics and hybrids are 'more efficient than the gasoline engine.' Well... not really! there, I said it out loud.

Here's what I mean. The theoretical maximum achievable efficincy for a heat engine is right around 50%. And modern gasoline engines are coming darn close to hitting it... so the POWEREPLANT is about as efficient as you can get. So that part of your statement I agree with... what I don't agree with is the implication that there IS something better, at least in terms of using a heat engine.

A Hybrid is a SYSTEM wrapped around the powerplant, and that system boosts efficiency by a) re-capturing wasted energy through regenerative braking, and b) keeping the powerplant (gasoline or diesel engine) running in its most efficient regime.

A technicality, yes, but no matter how you slice it, there has to be a "prime mover" out there somewhere, and if that prime mover is a heat engine, it has a theoretical maximum efficiency that the gasoline engine is capable of approaching.

Now electrics and plug-in hybrids: somewhat different story there, because power generation plants can also be "hybrids" these days. Modern "Co-generation" powerplants are gas turbines turning generators, and then boilers fired by the exhaust heat of the turbine, and then using that heat to spin steam turbines to add more electricity and leaving much less heat waste to go into the cooling towers: a "system" around a different kind of heat engine, but still able to boost efficiency up towards 80% or so. The problem with the way people perceive this is that electric cars are NOT "zero emission / 80% efficiency" they're "put the emissions in someone else's back yard and take whatever efficiency the grid as a whole is operating at." If that other back yard is a co-generation powerplant like I described above- GOOD. But its more likely to be a nasty coal-fired plant that only ticks out 60% efficiency or so, compounded by the fact that the emission controls for a coal plant can suck down as much as 10% of the entire plant's power! So you're back in the ~50% regime when you're talking raw fuel -> coal plant with emission controls -> distribution losses -> charging/discharging battery losses -> the wheels of your Nissan Leaf. And if we add more and more electric cars to the grid, and demand more and more aftertreatment of coal exhaust gasses, we get in a vicious cycle- burn more coal to power more cars, and burn still MORE coal to generate the extra power needed to scrub the coal emissions.


This is just my personal engineering opinion, but I think the math backs me up: Today and for the next 5-10 years, the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWEST CARBON way to drive, is going to be a gasoline or diesel powered hybrid. Putting the "prime mover" right there in the car instead of shuffling it off at the other end of a transmission line helps more than people realize. Especially with so much of the nation's power coming from coal. As we get more co-generation plants on line, more wind, and (maybe?) more nuclear, then pure electrics look better in the overall scheme of things. But not for a while yet.



I agree that hybrids and electrics are not all they are cracked up to be. I didn’t intend to insinuate that they where more efficient. I was pointing out that for all of the refinements we have made to internal combustion engines; they still only turn a small percentage of the energy contained in a unit of fuel into mechanical energy.
 
GM has long had a corporate self-righteousness. It served them well in the '50s and '60s but the wheels started to fall off the bus in the '70s.

Honda showed them up when the Big 3 (+AMC) were trying to avoid the 1975 standards. GM had to spend a bundle to develop the catalyst because they wouldn't take advice or design from a "stupid little motorcycle company".

Little more than a decade later, that "stupid little motorcycle company"'s Accord is the most sold car in the US.

GM didn't take the shift to smaller more efficient cars in the US seriously. "We're GM. We tell the consumer what they want! We don't need to take design influence from Japan or Europe."

It gets better with every model GM introduces. US, Korean, European, and Australian designs bringing the best of the world together. Maybe not all the designs are great but they are much better than they have been in a long time.
 
the new SS RWD chevy, based on the holden.... would be worth looking at....

and IMO they did a great job with the volt -

but Ford has really upped their game too.... and they may have an edge IMO since they really have sort of had a cohesive internal goal.... I think GM has borrowed a few pages from the Chrysler book in terms of trying to make "style" and "technology" happen... in a manner that's not always good. Whereas Ford seemed to learn more about QC and integration from the companies they purchased... got smart, then applied it... possibly better than GM is/has.

I grew up Chevy, and after a miserable experience with an escort, hated Ford.

Now the ford products catch my eye first.

I'm so glad I don't need a car right now.

m
 
I wouldn't call myself a GM "fan", at least of their current products, but most of what I've owned in the past have been GMs, and they've all been very good. I had an '84 Cutlass as a first car, and it was a great car. "Dark days of Detroit" my kiester. That car (with its T-Tops and somewhat rumbling V-8) had real class and character. I also had a beater '87 Buick Regal...loved those G-bodies.

My wife had a '97 Saturn SC2 when we married. That car never gave her any issues. I bought my mother's '97 Cadillac SLS and drive that to 150,000 miles or so, then sold it to my brother who drove it an additional 50,000 miles. I sold the SLS to buy a '01 STS. That's when my love affair began to end. The interior was more plasticky...fit and finish was generally poor...refinement was lacking. Even in a top-line Cadillac. The fit and finish and interior material quality on my '95 Nissan truck that I owned at the same time was superior to that of the Cadillac.

So I started looking around. I went through two Toyotas (an '07 Corolla and an '11 Camry) before finding my current ride. I never really would have looked at a Honda, but we bought my parents' 2005 Acura MDX to replace a lemon of an '07 minivan she was driving (brand unimportant, but it wasn't a GM). That Acura really checked all the right boxes for me. Far more engaging to drive than anything of its size that I've driven. The interior quality was very good, and durability was very good as well. The CR-V I drive now is the best car I've owned. I really enjoy every aspect of it. Most of what I like about our two current cars is how nimble they both are. I've never experienced that nimbleness and light-footedness in a GM product before. My brother has a '99 Corvette. It's not nimble. It handles at supercar levels, but it's not nimble...those are two different things to me.

The '12 Malibu we have at work is a real step in the right direction in my opinion. I prefer driving that to everything else we have. I didn't initially like it, but I really like that 2.4L Ecotec. I've come to prefer 4-cylinder engines in general, but that's really a good one. It beats the pants off the Duratech 2.5s in our two Fusion Hybrids, in terms of NVH. I'm very impressed with the 'Bu. I'd still buy something else instead, as I don't think it's at the *top* of its class, but it's pretty darn close.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
GM has long had a corporate self-righteousness. It served them well in the '50s and '60s but the wheels started to fall off the bus in the '70s.

Honda showed them up when the Big 3 (+AMC) were trying to avoid the 1975 standards. GM had to spend a bundle to develop the catalyst because they wouldn't take advice or design from a "stupid little motorcycle company".

Little more than a decade later, that "stupid little motorcycle company"'s Accord is the most sold car in the US.

GM didn't take the shift to smaller more efficient cars in the US seriously. "We're GM. We tell the consumer what they want! We don't need to take design influence from Japan or Europe."

It gets better with every model GM introduces. US, Korean, European, and Australian designs bringing the best of the world together. Maybe not all the designs are great but they are much better than they have been in a long time.
The "BIG THREE" stared at the hoard of VW's being sold to young folks back in the 60's and figured they'd sell 'em a "full size car" next time.
 
I can't say I'm a GM fan either. But some of the nicest-to-own, nicest-to-drive cars I've had have been GMs: My two Oldsmobile Cutlasses in the '90s, and now my Buick Park Avenue. A delight to drive, good fuel economy for the times or the size of the car, reasonable parts, good reliability. No, I'm not determined to be "loyal" to any brand of car. But the current lineup of Buicks, though still overpriced even as used cars, are very attractive.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I wouldn't call myself a GM "fan", at least of their current products, but most of what I've owned in the past have been GMs, and they've all been very good. I had an '84 Cutlass as a first car, and it was a great car. "Dark days of Detroit" my kiester. That car (with its T-Tops and somewhat rumbling V-8) had real class and character. I also had a beater '87 Buick Regal...loved those G-bodies.
....


The G body is the exception. I went to the Arlington GM plant in an off-season football occupational course we all had to take in 8th grade. I saw a Cutlass Salon there and was immediately smitten.
laugh.gif


But compare an '84 Pontiac 6000 2.5 with an '84 Mazda 626. I'll give the Pontiac the 500cc advantage. It will not help. Acceleration, handling, fit and finish, materials...etc.... all go to the 626. (and the Mazda FE is pretty far from a powerhouse.I think the 2.5 Pontiac actually makes more horsepower on paper than the FE 2.0)

Similar stories with an '84 Accord or Camry. (and neither of those were attractive cars at all)

I'll do the same comparison with a Tempo and a MKII Jetta. Same results in favor of the Jetta.

It says something about how "dark the days were" when you can't win a single category vs a MKII Jetta or original FWD 626.

Originally Posted By: meep
...

but Ford has really upped their game too.... and they may have an edge IMO since they really have sort of had a cohesive internal goal.... I think GM has borrowed a few pages from the Chrysler book in terms of trying to make "style" and "technology" happen... in a manner that's not always good. Whereas Ford seemed to learn more about QC and integration from the companies they purchased... got smart, then applied it... possibly better than GM is/has.


Ford sold off their Korean (Kia) and Japanese (Mazda) interests.

I think it leaves a big gap in their design pool. Going to Ford Europe has not served them well in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Chevy Colorado vs. new Malibu build quality?
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
lght1
D
  • Locked
GM ranks their powertrains ahead of Toyota
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
19K
davefr
T
  • Locked
(Sensored!!) GM Dealership woes....
2 3
Replies
54
Views
17K
ram_man
S
  • Locked
GM dealerships are closing in quebec area
Replies
7
Views
2K
Paul56
P
  • Locked
GM Offers Free Oil Changes to Dead Brand Customers
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
34K
Herz
Back
Top Bottom