Love/hate relationship. Maintenance on cars.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: AcuraTech


Tell me there's anything more reliable than a moderately tuned Chevy 350ci hooked up to a Turbo 350 tranny.


I think most of the cars from that period (pre-86), of all makes, were similarly reliable. But even the later versions of the 350, the Vortecs, had intake gasket problems.
 
Heh. Death-Cool and plastic gaskets. My 3800-powered LeSabre belatedly has metal intake gaskets and a Death-Clone coolant, so that won't happen to my car anytime soon.

GM cars will run with a lack of maintenance that probably would have felled other cars.

I hear you on maintenance. It's always something with an older GM. Even if it's a minor irritant, it's still something.
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I have owned nothing but GM and Chrysler vehicles since I started buying cars in 1993, and I haven't spent more than $2,000 total in repairs - not counting normal maintenance. My cars have been a mix of new, used and VERY used vehicles. I can't figure out what some people do to cars...

I have never replaced a tranny, any internal engine repairs, alternator, starter, water pump, fuel pump, coil, computer. I guess I have been lucky since I have only had to replace an O2 sensor, and a couple minor body parts on all of my cars combined.


My last 2 GM's were plagued with issues...the 99 was perfect. But all 5 of my Chrysler vehicles were flawless. Only one T&C mini van needed a trans solenoid at 20k which was covered by warranty. Then Chrysler got sold to Daimler and the wheels fell off. If it were never sold to Daimler you would have a very hard time selling me any other vehicle. If they made the old style Durango 3 seater with the 4.7L V8 and the big tires I would buy one in a minute. Best SUV I have ever owned. (3 of them).
 
03 Saturn Ion 1. No options, manual trans, ecotec motor.

I've had the car since around 20k miles.

Paid 6 grand cash for it a few years ago.

I have not had to make one repair on this vehicle. Everything done to it has been wear items, and alignments.

Car now has nearly 70k miles.

Nothing but oil changes, coolant changes, air filters, fuel filters, a new delco battery, new brakes and rotors in the front, 4 spark plugs, tires, oh and one 13 dollar ignition switch.

GM did make some decent cars, some of their non 3800 v6 motors were absolute garbage.

If you keep it simple, get a base car, there is just less stuff to break on the car.
 
Actually it is maintenance. Corrective maintenance as opposed to preventive maintenance.
 
Quote:
Tell me there's anything more reliable than a moderately tuned Chevy 350ci hooked up to a Turbo 350 tranny


Corolla or Civic with 5 speed trans.
 
Originally Posted By: silverrat
1995 Chevy Monte Carlo Z34 SS. I bought it in 01 with 110,000km for $10k.

In the next two years:

-Power steering line two days after i picked it up, dealer fixed free.

-Alternator died. GM charged $300 for new Alt and 4.4 hours book labour. Alt is under the engine, you have to take some suspension apart. So ~$700.

-Transmission slipping. GM dealer rebuilt in-house. $3000.

-Radiator leaks. Replaced rad. $400.

-Intake manifold gasket leaks. Dealer replaced gaskets and did timing belt service, with water pump etc. $2000.

-During test drive after service new tensioner fails and everything has to be torn down and redone. Another week in the shop. Free.

-Driver side power window fails. While it's in they determine alternator is bad again and replace under the previous one's warranty. $200.

At 133,000km transmission starts slipping again....

Lucky for me I had a 3rd party warranty I bought for $1200 with the car. It covered all of this minus $100 deductible, but come on, it was constantly it the shop.

On top of all this I loved it enough to put a stainless catback, rims, spoiler and a new paint job. I was planning on parking it until I could get the tranny fixed again, but my warranty was expired so I sold it off at a huge loss.

To top it off, it was an "early production" model so it had some part compatibility problems.

I know it's not a "nice car" but for a 19 year old upgrading from an 86 Olds Cutlass, it was quite a step up.

Since, I've had an 88,91 and 93 Honda and have maybe spent $1500 on repairs in the last 4-5 years.


Which Monte Carlo SS uses a timing belt? Being you bought it used, it may have been beaten half to death, because GM makes about the best FWD transaxle available. $700 for an alternator? GM alternators are some of the cheapest available rebuilt. An independent mechanic could have saved you $$$. Point is all cars can have issues. Honda had/has trans issues that are more common than GM. I will say that the mid-1990's were a bad time for GM as I had a 1996 S-10 that had its share of issues, but nothing major.
 
Originally Posted By: cousincletus

Which Monte Carlo SS uses a timing belt?


The 3.4 DOHC, gates part #T192.
 
Originally Posted By: cousincletus

Which Monte Carlo SS uses a timing belt? Being you bought it used, it may have been beaten half to death, because GM makes about the best FWD transaxle available. $700 for an alternator? GM alternators are some of the cheapest available rebuilt. An independent mechanic could have saved you $$$. Point is all cars can have issues. Honda had/has trans issues that are more common than GM. I will say that the mid-1990's were a bad time for GM as I had a 1996 S-10 that had its share of issues, but nothing major.


If it was beaten to death by the previous owner, then why did the tranny fail again 20,000km after a full rebuild?


Mine was a Z34 SS with a 3.4 DOHC 24v. Apparently this engine was mated to the same 4T60 non-HD that came with the 3.1s and had problems with the engines increased output compared to the smaller engine. Common problem on these cars. Later ones got the 4T65.

The reason I didn't go to an indy mechanic was because it was under 3rd party warranty and I would be only paying the $100 deductible anyway, so I took it to the dealer and they would give me a loaner car.

Maybe it was a mid 90s thing.
 
Probablly has something to do with the quality of the rebuild of your transmission. Who rebuilt it and what parts were replaced. Did they replace any of the electronics parts? Do you even know what they replaced?
 
Last edited:
Typical late-90's GM quality, the windshield washer hose just blew off in my 99 LeSabre. Typical shadetree repair fashion, there's a proper hose clamp holding on what was held on by compression and friction. GM rubber components never were very good.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: cousincletus

Which Monte Carlo SS uses a timing belt?


The 3.4 DOHC, gates part #T192.


Ya learn something new every day. I had no idea there was a 3.4 with a belt. But I still think the transmission was either beaten and/or not rebuilt right. I guess labor prices are higher up North? Must be a lot more labor to work on the OHC engine (or no one wanted to touch it), because the IM gaskets cost around 500 bucks for a mechanic to do the work around here. It costs about 1800USD to get a GM FWD rebuilt in the Richmond area. Sorry to hear you had so many problems.
 
Last edited:
I think GM's problem is they put all their efforts into power. They put too big a motor into too small a car. Look at the Z28 VS Mustang GT. The Z28 wins is straight line acceleration and loses at EVERYTHING else. aka build quality, handling, styling, paint, ease of maintenance. Didn't you have to drop the exhaust manifold to change the spark plugs.

However it is not just GM who is messed up. All manufacturers are making BIGGER cars MORE powerful. We don't need more power, what we need is manufacturers manufacturing lighter cars with more efficient engines with good safety. We don't need a completely renovated model every 3-4 years.

But I guess this is all a sign of old age as we remember the good old days when gas was a dollar and cars were small and nimble and got over 40mpg. Although that was only a handful of cars that never really sold well in the late 80s/early 90s.

2000lbs
manual steering
DIN radio with 4 speakers
only option "needed" AC
everything else standard and cheap and durable

I like my Saturn but who needs power windows, power locks, and power steering on a two door 2300lb car. Just extra junk to break and leave you stranded. But I do like the interior lights that you can control and not "have" to have them on everytime you open the doors. Useful when listening to the radio and you want to preserve the battery and not attract mosquitos.


All new car equally suck. The bigger is better thing bugs me, but why do they have to make big awkward shaped radios that are almost impossible to fit aftermarket stereos. Are they saying, this is what you get and you better like it cause its all you're going to get.

And with all the 'enhanced' body styling comes enhanced prices on body parts and make it difficult fitting them. And nothing like a good old big V8 FWD car making DIY maintenance consist on taking it to the dealer. V6s are no better.

Ford Festiva/Aspire
Geo Metro
Mazda 323
Dodge Colt
Suzuki Swift
Mazda RX7

All these cars were simple and effective. The RX7 grew out of that and became heavier with more options, but was pure when it came out. The Saturn S was nice when it came out without power steering or AC optional, not standard. Although I don't really like this car it is the last of a dying breed. It is fairly light (although too heavy for me), too many options, too big an engine, too long a wheelbase. The Cobalt is about the best thing we got going now, at least Chevy is trying with teh EFE edition. Well, Honda has the Fit only because they ruined the Civic and tacked on a hundreds of pounds and a $5k fee to have good economy. The Yaris is the only "new" car I would enjoy having, although I'm sure its heavier than it needs to be and has all the options that make a car suck.

Since metals with some technology can be made lighter while being as strong, we should be having lighter cars, with adequate power with all the R&D going into making the car last longer and be more reliable. But I guess there's no money in it, otherwise I see no reason why it isn't happening.

btw, my Aspire fit four adults comfortably WITH a slamming system in the hatch, weighed 2050lbs, no power steering, manual everything with AC and airbags and got T-boned by a semi doing 50mph and I walked away. It also cost very little in maintenance and needed few repairs. It would do 85-90mph and got 40mpg either in town or interstate. The only thing wrong with the car is it isn't made anymore. Was cheap to purchase to boot!
 
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I think GM's problem is they put all their efforts into power. They put too big a motor into too small a car. Look at the Z28 VS Mustang GT. The Z28 wins is straight line acceleration and loses at EVERYTHING else. aka build quality, handling, styling, paint, ease of maintenance. Didn't you have to drop the exhaust manifold to change the spark plugs.


What Z28 or F-body did you own that you had to drop the exhaust manifold to change the plugs. You are not doing it right.
I have had 3 LT1 cars and 3 LS1 cars. Plenty of plug changes. A lot of your post is opinion. Especially when it comes to ease of maintenance. I had a 99 GT in between my LT1 cars and my LS1 cars. I put 89,000 miles on it. It was just as big of pile as any F-body I have had. Build quality on both vehciles is suspect and not why you buy either car in the first place. If that is what you are getting a Mustang or F-body for (unless maybe you get a 2010) you might as well get yourself a Mini Van.

I have never had a spark blug blow out on any of my F-bodies and strip out the threads in the head, like my old 99 GT did. The Opti-spark on the LT1 was a bit annoying. 4th Gen F-bodies and 4.6 GTs have almost identical handling and braking characteritics. With Motor Trend (suspect as well) reporting 66.8 MPH through the cones in a 99 GT and 66.5 MPH for a 99 Z28. Dry skid pad numbers were .86 G for the GT and .85 G for the Z28.
Braking from 60 was on average 2 feet shoter for the GT. That is one source. Some others have them tied or the Z28 doing better.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28


I like my Saturn but who needs power windows, power locks, and power steering on a two door 2300lb car. Just extra junk to break and leave you stranded. But I do like the interior lights that you can control and not "have" to have them on everytime you open the doors. Useful when listening to the radio and you want to preserve the battery and not attract mosquitos.


I had a 1991 Honda Civic CX hatchback. Vinyl interior. Manual steering, power nothing, no clock, and no passenger side door mirror! (it was optional).
 
I don't miss the days of stripped down econoboxes. I just got 34 mpg last weekend in my full size Impala. That's about as good as it gets while still being able to ride in comfort. I have the 3.4 (pushrod) engine. No problems at all yet. All I've done has been tires, battery and brakes. With small cars, I agree you don't need pwr steering. But I like A/C, comfy seats, pwr brakes and a good radio on anything with 4 wheels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom