GMness

[SVT666]

Agreed.

Generalizations like this are idiotic.  Reliability must be looked at on a model by model basis.  Gross oversimplifications of an entire brand based on 10 year old, anecdotal evidence is beyond asinine.

Between my wife and I, we have owned five GM vehicles.  When I met my wife, she had a Saturn that was only 4 years old and was literally falling apart.  I had a 2000 Sunfire that when it was just 6 months old had an electrical failure while I was driving at 60 mph...twice.  I had a GMC truck that was great.  I loved the truck.  Of the 5, we had two that were pretty trouble free.  Otherwise they were disasters.  One thing after another.

My parents' have had another three, two of which they still have, and still have problems with.  The Trailblazer that my parents own has been so problematic (following the catastrophe that was known as the Pontiac Montana), they have sworn off GM vehicles.  My dad can't wait to get rid of the Trailblazer.  He refers to it as "that fucking thing in the driveway".  The Pontiac Montana was worse.  They only gave the Trailblazer a shot because the only car dealer in their town is a GM dealer.  Their Cobalt SS/SC feels like it's had a hard life and is aging really fast.  They baby the thing, whereas my 4 years older Focus feels relatively new in comparison.

In comparison, in the time my wife and I have been together we have owned 4 Fords, and I have had to do wheel bearings on the Explorer and an alternator on the Focus.  That's it.  I've also had a Dodge that was absolutely trouble free the entire time I had it.  Forgive me if I don't trust GM's reliability, but I have reason not to.

[CJ]

What does that have to do with making a car comparable to the competition?

Well, when a car isn't even close to being as good as the competition, then it isn't really comparable.

[2o6]

Well, when a car isn't even close to being as good as the competition, then it isn't really comparable.

Yet again; What?

[ifcar]

I kinda of feel like we've been promised "The New GM" more than a few times in the past ten years, but we still got cars like the Cobalt.

I remember a C/D preview of the Cobalt where GM was boasting about how they reverse-engineered the Jetta and supposedly spent a fortune replicating some of its suspension components.

It was the new GM in that it was a car that could have been quite good if their efforts had been more consistent instead of focusing on a couple of attributes of the car and hoping that would elevate the rest.

[Morris Minor]

It dawned on me today that Cadillac is a bit vulnerable at the moment; it has only one sedan in its lineup (CTS & variants); the XTS won't be out until next month.

[MrH]

Between my wife and I, we have owned five GM vehicles.  When I met my wife, she had a Saturn that was only 4 years old and was literally falling apart.  I had a 2000 Sunfire that when it was just 6 months old had an electrical failure while I was driving at 60 mph...twice.  I had a GMC truck that was great.  I loved the truck.  Of the 5, we had two that were pretty trouble free.  Otherwise they were disasters.  One thing after another.

My parents' have had another three, two of which they still have, and still have problems with.  The Trailblazer that my parents own has been so problematic (following the catastrophe that was known as the Pontiac Montana), they have sworn off GM vehicles.  My dad can't wait to get rid of the Trailblazer.  He refers to it as "that fucking thing in the driveway".  The Pontiac Montana was worse.  They only gave the Trailblazer a shot because the only car dealer in their town is a GM dealer.  Their Cobalt SS/SC feels like it's had a hard life and is aging really fast.  They baby the thing, whereas my 4 years older Focus feels relatively new in comparison.

In comparison, in the time my wife and I have been together we have owned 4 Fords, and I have had to do wheel bearings on the Explorer and an alternator on the Focus.  That's it.  I've also had a Dodge that was absolutely trouble free the entire time I had it.  Forgive me if I don't trust GM's reliability, but I have reason not to.

Blah blah blah, more outdated anecdotal evidence.  My comment still stands.

[SVT666]

Blah blah blah, more outdated anecdotal evidence.  My comment still stands.

I have reason not to trust GM's reliability.  That's my point.

[Raza]

I think they're on the rite track. The expensive flagships are as good if not better than the Germans and the mainstremers are very competitive. I'm hoping next year the C7 will be the icing on the cake!

What expensive flagships are as good as the Germans? 

[SVT666]

What expensive flagships are as good as the Germans? 

He already said he was talking about the CTS-V and the Z06/ZR1.

[TurboDan]

The current Focus interior is decent, albeit a bit busy. Same goes for the Cruze. The Fusion interior is pretty damn nice, though.

If shopping for a mainstream midsize car, I think I'd go for the Fusion once the '13 model comes out. It's just plain good looking, offers a nice interior, and I can't knock Ford's reliability. Truthfully, I would roll the dice on almost any modern car. When they do the reliability surveys, the difference between the best and worst mass-produced brands isn't that much. Modern cars are pretty damn reliable across the board.

[Raza]

He already said he was talking about the CTS-V and the Z06/ZR1.

Oh, I thought he was joking.  The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8? 

[SVT666]

Oh, I thought he was joking.  The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8?  

It's as fast or faster than all of those, but it's certainly not as good.  There's more to these cars than just speed.  You have to live with them every day.  The RS is most likely a little too hardcore though.

[Byteme]

The Focus actually has more attractive plastics than most new cars. It has a nice grain pattern on the dash, soft door panels, attractive finishes, etc.

The cheapness shows through in the poor corrosion resistance.

Really?  It's been years and years since I've seen a car from any manufacturer with rust through, except for some vehicles in commercial service or harsh environments.

But I don't frequent the snow/salt belt either. 

[Byteme]

If shopping for a mainstream midsize car, I think I'd go for the Fusion once the '13 model comes out. It's just plain good looking, offers a nice interior, and I can't knock Ford's reliability.

I think I'd want to see what the next version of the Mazda 6 looks like before making that decision.  But I agree the 13 Fusion looks to be a hell of a nice car. 

[SVT_Power]

Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.

wut



vs.



Now I checked out the interior of the new Malibu a few weekends ago, and the materials did leave a bit to be desired. Compared to the Buick Regal, the fit and finish also wasn't quite there (spent time in both cars over the same weekend. Granted they were both development vehicles, but they were both sell-able VINs).

But to say that the old Malibu's interior is better than the new one is absurd. That old interior looks like it belongs in a car from 5-10 years ago (which the outgoing Malibu is obviously). Had a brand new one as a rental a while back, and I couldn't believe that car was still being sold in this decade.

[SVT666]

I prefer the styling of the [revious Malibu's interior over the new one.  As for materials, I couldn't say except that the nice contrasting colour on the old one was hard cheap plastic.

[LonghornTX]

They have definitely stepped up their game quite a bit and I think they are on the right path. Their new models are definitely class competitive, with some being top picks. However, I am a bit wary of the Malibu, though I haven't seen it in person. In pictures, it just doesn't look good enough, and it seems to be getting mediocre reviews.

[SVT_Power]

But the biggest impression the new Malibu left in me was how composed it was on Michigan's less than average highways. Soft ride as expected but not floaty

[sportyaccordy]

But the biggest impression the new Malibu left in me was how composed it was on Michigan's less than average highways. Soft ride as expected but not floaty

Suspension tuning is not very difficult....

[SVT_Power]

A lot of companies seem to miss that memo on a regular basis...

[2o6]

Suspension tuning is not very difficult....

Yet again; What?

[sportyaccordy]

Yet again; What?

For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately

If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.

[SVT666]

For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately

If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.

Then why do so many get it wrong?

[2o6]

For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately

If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.

I dont want t sound like MrH, but you can't possibly be saying that.



Otherwise automotive mules and testing would be irrelevant.

[CJ]

wut

vs.


Now I checked out the interior of the new Malibu a few weekends ago, and the materials did leave a bit to be desired. Compared to the Buick Regal, the fit and finish also wasn't quite there (spent time in both cars over the same weekend. Granted they were both development vehicles, but they were both sell-able VINs).

But to say that the old Malibu's interior is better than the new one is absurd. That old interior looks like it belongs in a car from 5-10 years ago (which the outgoing Malibu is obviously). Had a brand new one as a rental a while back, and I couldn't believe that car was still being sold in this decade.

The interior of the old one has better materials.  The new one looks better, but the old one IS better.

[Submariner]

Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.

Really? 

It always looked and felt cheap to me.  The center stack too, looked tacked on with the corporate HVAC and radio controls - they just didn't flow with everything else.

The new Malibu, inside and out, OTOH, looks really nice. 

[Submariner]

The interior of the old one has better materials.  The new one looks better, but the old one IS better.

I don't know, bro.  The old materials didn't feel particularly upscale nor did they fit together all that well.  They even look cheaper than what you get in the new car. 

[GoCougs]

I dont want t sound like MrH, but you can't possibly be saying that.

Otherwise automotive mules and testing would be irrelevant.

Yup. Suspension design is engineering, which takes an enormous amount of time to do right. One also has to remember that the chassis itself is a suspension member, which adds to the complexity of the task.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Oh, I thought he was joking.  The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8? 

How can you say the CTS-V is not a flagship? It's the best performing and most expensive vehicle in Cadillacs line up! And the ZR1 IS as good (the only downfall is the interior) as all of the vehicles you listed while being cheaper at the same time......

[CJ]

I don't know, bro.  The old materials didn't feel particularly upscale nor did they fit together all that well.  They even look cheaper than what you get in the new car. 

I've been in both.  The old one's better, somehow.