GM ranks their powertrains ahead of Toyota

Not open for further replies.
May 1, 2004
I am always a bit skeptical of any conclusions drawn from J. D. Power Initial Quality Surveys (90 days), but according to data in an internal GM analysis obtained by Automotive News, GM is currently second only to Honda in initial powertrain quality, followed by Nissan, then Toyota. According to GM's numbers, Toyota was number one last year at 16.1 problems per 100 cars, but crept up to 18.7 this year. I can't imagine major problems within 90 days of ownership, but then again, I'm pretty picky when my vehicles are new, so perhaps there is some concern based on perception. Still, I think manufacturers should place more stock in repair numbers instead of owner reports for any objective conclusions. Based on GM's report, Austin Powers probably made the right choice for shagging potential within 90 days - yeah, baby!
Wait until JB sees this. I personally don't have too much faith in a study put out by GM. Escpecially since all the news about how bad GM is doing. Hmmmm.. [Roll Eyes] However, they do make good engines/transmissions (some of them). Toyota is growing and it remains to be seen if they can stay on top.
Studies like this are pretty much useless to me. I usually keep my vehicles longer than 90 days. I mean Honda has had problems with their automatics for several years now. It usually doesn't show up in the 1st 90 days though.
This is why they will never change. They refuse to see the truth. I.e. they lie so much they believe themselves.
That is almost funny! I guess excessive oil consuption,piston slap,intake manifold leaks,head leaks, noise, vibration,harshness take longer then 90 days for the customer to pickup on!!! Heck GM can not even be counted on to put the right dipstick in their engines!!! They must not count all the vechiles and engines they have to call back before they are sold to rework things like chain tensioners installed backwards etc...... The one that is really bad though is that J.D. Powers is payed by GM to do a lot of internal quality improvment! That makes the repots good or bad seem just a little less crediable to me! I also love how GM was careful to just focus on "powertrains" and "IQ" studys! Like how they left the total IQ2005 results alone!Nothing like haveing the upstart Koreans kick your but in some area's and be nipping at your heels in other areas!
all I know is my saab 2.0L engine is top notch, very torquey from just off fast idle, and can get me just under 40 mpg if I drive it light... And is easy to drive reasonably and get good acceleration, etc (that to me means that i dont need to go over 3500 RPM to get GOOD acceleration and power) I dont see many powertrains like this coming out of other manufacturers, even Honda. To me it says something about 'GM' powertrains. Ive been really happy with my 98 ZR2 as well, though Ill admit there was a slight (without UOA Id have nevr known about it, as coolant level never changed) intake manifold gasket leak. Our corolla and previa have had rock solid powertrains. No issues, no complaints. Neither were sludge monsters either. But, toyota radiators suck, the previa and corolla both had radiator failures too early, and, my GF's 4 runner, which resides in the USVI had a similar thing. In actuality, my GF' acura has had more issues over, say the first 150k than our two MBs and our toyota. though this isnt reflected in any of these studies. nothing significant, just minor things (including radiator), that all cause her to stop in her tracks/breakdown due to some silly thing going bad and needing replacement. Then the car is great again. But $ value and number of repairs - the honda is far worse than at least toyota and MB. Thre MB may not be fair, but the toyota comparisson is. All in all, I think that there is litte difference between GM and toyota powertrains, and if they were both maintained equally, Id venture to strongly suggest that they would last about equally. And each would need certain things, likely different things, replaced on each, toyota or GM. In the old days, Toyota was far ahead. They still have more, more economical vehicle/drivetrain combos, which says something about toyotas ability to put out energy dense, high efficiency powertrains, which means that their engineering be better... (on a side note, see more hondas burning oil with a visible plume than any other make... the second worst? dodge caravans... but that to me indicates something about the longevity/duraility/quality of honda engines, vs. toyotas, which would likely have the same level of care, use, etc., and I don't note (and smell) the same thing). I doubt there is any real significance between 16.7 and 18.1 problems per 100 cars. Id bet also that that 16.7 or 18.1 probles were also spread between only 2 or 3 vehicles; they just were lemon cars and had multple issues, which each counted. JMH
This was an internal study GM prepared for their own use? Most executives expect good numbers from their underlings. Would this be like the third set of books, the real one? You know, the first set for the IRS showing large loses, the second for the stock holder showing large profits, and finally one to base decisions on. I notice many here are finding a way to dismiss anything good about GM. I was happy with the Quad 4 and Muncie made 5 speed in the 92 Grand Am I had for 10 years and 180K. I now have over 60K on my 02 Cavalier with the Ecotec and the Getrag 5 speed. The Ecotec doesn't have the stuff the HO Quad 4 did, but it is smoother and gets better gas mileage. The Getrag is not the delight to use the Muncie box was, but it is still nicer than any Chrysler transmission I ever drove.
Originally posted by steveh: I would love to see the quality of GM vs Toyota powertrains after 200,000 miles.
ask someone driving a 3.8 v6 or 350 chevy powered vehicle, both are at least the equal of anything toyota puts out. conversely ask anyone driving a sludge monster toyota powered car. FWIW GM's problem isn't due to it's powertrains which ARE at the top of the industry.
By the sound of it, GM vehicle owners also rank their powertrains ahead of everyone else.... Happened to be near a Pontiac dealer recently, and popped in to look at the GTO. I just can't believe how untidy and unrefined it is under the hood: wires taped up with electrical tape or poking out from the split looming. Burrs and rust here and there, crudely bent tubing going every which way. Massive, unfinished castings. Stampings rusting at the edges. Just generally a low tech, crude, clumsy looking thing. It drove pretty much the same: like a Mustang GT...
At work, we often have to engage (in)/(con)sultants, as our managers cannot abide by the belief that maybe one of their employees actually has a decent idea. They will tell you exactly what you pay them to tell you.
Originally posted by got boost?: LT1/LT4 is a 1990's design, mine has 300k totally trouble free miles on it.
GM persistently and stubbornly soldiers on with technology that the rest of the world has largely abandoned. The LT1/LT4 is nothing more than a highly modified update, complete with pushrod valve actuation, of the small-block Chevy V8, which can trace its lineage directly back to 1955.
Originally posted by got boost?: FWIW GM's problem isn't due to it's powertrains which ARE at the top of the industry.
While I will be the first to agree with one statement in that article that said something to the effect of "GM's automatic trannys are top notch", their engines leave MUCH to be desired, especially when compared to engines from Toyota and Honda.
Originally posted by Ray H: GM persistently and stubbornly soldiers on with technology that the rest of the world has largely abandoned.
I know of only one car that, in 2001, was still available with a distributor cap. No, it wasn't a GM product.
GM has imo the nicest looking engine compartments .The pushrod engine work very well the engines are compact . Now all G.M. has to do is raise their quality to match Toyota . A couple of people I know have had good luck with their G.M. pickups.I really think a pushrod engine is the way to go for many reasons .
Not open for further replies.