 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / March 2008Consumer Reports reliability: Buick high, Cadillac low
Consumer Reports reliability: Buick high, Cadillac low. May seem hard to explain, but here goes. Buicks are owned and driven by oldsters. 90% of them have NEVER floorboarded the pedal. They may have a 200 hp engine under the hood, but 90% of the time, they run at less than 25% of maximum power. Run the drive train at such nominal levels and it should not break no matter that the Buick is built to no better standards than a Caddy. Cadillacs are now driven hard, thanks to the performance-enhanced tv commercials. Cadillac doesn't advertise that a 300 hp engine does not run at 300 hp more than a few hours. It will overheat, valves warp, cylinders score, bearings melt out and overtax the transmission, axles and all moving parts. 300 hp means red-line operation at full loading to limit maximum throttle to maximum rated rpm. That might be okay for a few minutes going up a hill, but start racing it like the tv ads and you will have a smoldering hunk of metal in no time flat. Street racing is exactly what the younger Cadillac owners are doing and for that reason, Cadillac reliability is in the dumps. Buicks and Cadillacs are born equal, but in the real world, Consumer Reports has separated the wheat from the chaff. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it What it really shows is CR doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. If you look at their reports as what they actually are, the average of all new cars, not a list of which are good OR bad, you will see ALL cars made today fall within the Statistical AVERAGE 2% failure RATE of all manufactured products. What that report actuallu says is over 98% of all cars sold today are generally trouble free LOL > Consumer Reports reliability: Buick high, Cadillac low. May seem hard to > explain, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it > What it really shows is CR doesn't know what the hell they are talking > about. If you look at their reports as what they actually are, the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use the old "fit and finish" complaint to dump on American nameplates. Been hearing since the mid-80's about how the (then) Big Three was catching up to the Japanese in terms of quality and realibility. "Are we there yet?" Of course, we are, and have been for many years. Mike, as you point out, even Consumer Reports themselves say so. BUT, Somehow, at the same time, they are also saying that The Toyotas and Hondas are still better, they just dont say how. Which kinda renders anything Consumer Reports has to say to be contradictory and thus meaningless, IMO. * Which also reminds me of something a fellow a little older and wiser than I told me, many years ago, when I was espouting the virtues of a new product (a VCR, I think), and using a CR report to "prove" it had to be great. He told me "Son, if God had intended for Consumer Reports to think for you, he wouldn't have given you a brain. > And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use > the old "fit and finish" complaint to dump on American nameplates. > Been hearing since the mid-80's about how the (then) Big Three was > catching up to the Japanese in terms of quality and realibility. As a past owner of 15 GM vehicles and a present owner of Infiniti and Nissan, I can tell you that in my experience GM interiors suck a.s compared to other manufacturers. I think GM has always made a nice motor and the trannies are ok but it's the little things that GM screws up on. I've never had a window motor go out on ANY vehicle other than GM's and they go out like clockwork. Never had any other vehicle that had a intermittent cruise function, but that's just value added, right? GMs rattle and squeak from all that nasty plastic interior that they have never figured out how to properly restrain. I have to drive current GMs for rentals every now and then and they are still horrible IMO....that HHR thing is a horribly ugly POS inside. They don't even use grommets for the door lock knob poking up, just a ragged hole in the top of the door. How much could a freaking grommet cost? I was raised to be a strict GM guy but my eyes finally got opened and GM will never get my hard earned cash again. Infiniti is all I will purchase with my cash. 300 HP, RWD, 4 doors, LSD, 6 speed manual tranny, oh yea G35Sport -b > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nissan, I can tell you that in my experience GM interiors suck a.s > compared to other manufacturers. And as a current owner of nearly 30 GM vehicles I can tell you my experience in GM interiors, exteriors, engines, transmissions, and damned=well any other thing you want to debate about has been nothing other than positive from where I stand. Never owned a bad GM product in 30 years. EVER!! They have ALL been reliable, most have looked good (exception, My old "87 Olds 4-Door looked like a big brown turd, but it just ran and ran and ran for years without any trouble at all (God, how my kids HATED that car!) Most got anywhere from good to excellent gas mileage. Most handled well. Most had anywhere from decent to damned-well excellant perfromance. The trips to the mechanic for work have been VERY FAR AND FEW BETWEEN! I could go on and on about performace, looks, and so forth, but it would be useless to the Amercian bashers who think that all the big three puts out is junk. I guess that makes me a junk collector! > I think GM has always made a nice motor and the trannies are ok but it's > the little things that GM screws up on. I've never had a window motor go [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't even use grommets for the door lock knob poking up, just a ragged > hole in the top of the door. How much could a freaking grommet cost? I am glad I dont have to be forced to have to stoop so low as to have to drive the horrible looking, rusting out ROUNDED (put seams on it and you would mistake it for a baskeball) Pug-ugly Infinity. > I was raised to be a strict GM guy but my eyes finally got opened and GM > will never get my hard earned cash again. Infiniti is all I will > purchase with my cash. 300 HP, RWD, 4 doors, LSD, 6 speed manual tranny, > oh yea G35Sport Good for you. For a whole lot less money, my hard earned cash got me a front wheel drive (OK, I wish it were RWD), never rusted, 10 year old dependable, nice looking 2- door Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. This 240 HP two door has ran door to door with evey Infiniti it has came across. It also gets 30 MPH highway with little trouble, and a little better than than it I baby it. Wonderful black leather interior, lots of extras (absloulty love the heads up display) make me just go back time and time again to but good old GM products, Did I mention that I have NEVER ownwd a bad GM prodcuct in over 30 years, ever????? > -b On Feb 29, 7:56 am, Brent <n...@none.com> wrote: > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nissan, I can tell you that in my experience GM interiors suck a.s > compared to other manufacturers. And as a current owner of nearly 30 GM vehicles I can tell you my experience in GM interiors, exteriors, engines, transmissions, and damned=well any other thing you want to debate about has been nothing other than positive from where I stand. Never owned a bad GM product in 30 years. EVER!! They have ALL been reliable, most have looked good (exception, My old "87 Olds 4-Door looked like a big brown turd, but it just ran and ran and ran for years without any trouble at all (God, how my kids HATED that car!) Most got anywhere from good to excellent gas mileage. Most handled well. Most had anywhere from decent to damned-well excellant perfromance. The trips to the mechanic for work have been VERY FAR AND FEW BETWEEN! I could go on and on about performace, looks, and so forth, but it would be useless to the Amercian bashers who think that all the big three puts out is junk. I guess that makes me a junk collector! I collect junk too. Have an 00 Astro van thats still like new, an 03 Ranger thats just like new, an 03 Ford ZX2 that I got used and is still in good shape. I would buy them all again. I bought a new Dodge Nitro with a lifetime powertrain warranty so that probably makes me a glutton for punishment. The problem with discussing cars in a NG is that generally the type of people that come into a NG are those looking for a cheap or free fix for a problem with a vehicle that they bought used or have run into the ground. They tend to blame the manufacture for problems with one of the few cars that they have ever owned, that most likely were caused by the lack of proper maintenance or abuse by the previous owner(s), or themselves. In the real world people that buy new cars buy another new car in three to four years with 45K to 60K on the odometer. If they have a problem it was most likely corrected under warranty so you will not find them in the NG complaining. Me thinks most of those harping in a particular brand NG no longer own that brand in any event, just there to denigrate ALL of the brands new vehicles for the ONE they owed that was built ten years ago or more. Juding any brand, good or bad, based on one you may have owned is foolish at best When I owned my fleet service stores we provided the proper preventive maintenance for thousands of police, government and corporate fleet vehicles which are generally keep in service for five years or 300K because of federal corporate tax depreciation laws. On overage all manufacture are making great cars and have been for the past ten year. They all make some that are not up to snuff, that is why they all have a warranty including RR, but for the most part they are equally reliable over time. It all comes down to cost and the problem with most imports is they cost more to maintain and when the do need to be repaired the parts cost more. Don't let anybody tell you imports need to be repaired less frequently, our years of records prove otherwise. The reason Ford sells more fleet vehicles than any other manufacture is Ford vehicles have proven to be the most cost effect in terms of the cost of accusation, insurance, maintain ace and repairs as well as replacement costs. No other manufacturer comes close > And as a current owner of nearly 30 GM vehicles I can tell you my > experience in GM interiors, exteriors, engines, transmissions, and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I bought a new Dodge Nitro with a lifetime powertrain warranty so that > probably makes me a glutton for punishment. > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nissan, I can tell you that in my experience GM interiors suck a.s > compared to other manufacturers. It took you owning 15 ???????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtw?????????????????????????????? GM's 15. fifteen FIFTEEN!!! what, FIFTWEEN???????, once again, 15 GM cars to realize they "suck a.s" compared to "other manufactuers?????????????????? I have owned 30 GM vechicles in my lifetime, BECAUSE I know they will do what I need them to do what I need them to do. If they WERE unreliable, it would take me a helluva lot LESS than 15 ownerships to realize that maybe I need to switch brands! 'Course, that's just me speaking!" > I think GM has always made a nice motor and the trannies are ok but it's > the little things that GM screws up on. I've never had a window motor go [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -b >> coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > FIFTEEN!!! what, FIFTWEEN???????, once again, 15 GM cars to realize > they "suck a.s" compared to "other manufactuers?????????????????? I was raised in the rust belt. Imports weren't ever considered. *shrug* I didn't say GM's suck, I said there interiors suck and they do. I challenge you to go test drive a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima and then a G6 and tell me that the G6 is a class leading vehicle. I think GM's are mechanically ok to a point, 100K miles is where they start nickle and diming you. Of course my 95 Z28 dropped it's transmission at 35,200 miles JUST INSIDE of warranty coverage (whew) and I took to dumping GM's at the first sign of trouble. IMO 100K miles is just breaking in a Japanese car. -b You certainly are entitled to your own opinion no matter how convoluted it may be. ;) "Brent" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:47cdb818$0$25957 > I think GM's are mechanically ok to a point, 100K miles is where they > start nickle and diming you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -b > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I didn't say GM's suck, I said there interiors suck and they do. Well, yeah, you DO pretty well say GM's suck. You bash their interiors, and then bascically say that after 100,000 they are unreliable. In my book, that is pretty much bashing them. It CERTAINLY is not an endorement for a GM product! The interiors of ALL my GM products look nice, don't rattle or squeak (sorry, Consumer Reports), and everthing works, from the power windows, to the power seats, to the cigarette lighter to the interior lights, to the radio. > challenge you to go test drive a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan > Altima and then a G6 and tell me that the G6 is a class leading vehicle. While I dont think the G6 has to apologize in any manner to your about mentioned "class-leading vehicles", you are not comparing apples to apples, Pontiac is still making the Grand Prix, at least for now. I HAVE test-driven some of your above mentioned cars, and own two GP's, my newest being an '06. Consumer Reports called the Grand Prix, in an article in the summer of 2006,"mediocre". (Don;t take my word on this, check it out!) I knew, then and there, it must be one helluva car. Bought one soon after the article. Check the specs on the Grand Prix to the cars you mentioned. Compares favorably in any catogory you want to chose. Looks Reliability Gas milage Handling Performance Price. "Course, I knew that all along. > I think GM's are mechanically ok to a point, 100K miles is where they > start nickle and diming you. I've owned my 98 GTP for 10 years. It currently has 107,000 miles. Runs better and gets better gas mileage than when it was brand new. No nickle and diming me here. > Of course my 95 Z28 dropped it's transmission at 35,200 miles JUST > INSIDE of warranty coverage (whew) and I took to dumping GM's at the > first sign of trouble. IMO 100K miles is just breaking in a Japanese car. Ive lost, to date, exactly ONE transmisson out of 30 GM cars I have owned. Ironically, it was on my very first, a 1976 Chevy Nova SS, in which I lost the tranny at 156,000 miles. Most people I talk to, regardless of WHERE their product loyaly lies, tell me that is a pretty good record. Did it really take you 15 bad experiences with GM to think they had a bad product????? > -b > >> coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>> And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -b The Corolla interior is just as crappy as the Cobalt. I think the G6 is about on par with the Altima, and the new Malibu Interior is very nice as well, as good as the Accord. The GTO interior was as nice as the G35 I had, too bad nobody liked the exterior styling, if they had called it something else I bet they would have sold more of them. > The Corolla interior is just as crappy as the Cobalt. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > exterior styling, if they had called it something else I bet they would > have sold more of them. Well, you compare the DeLorean GTO - or any 1st gen GTO - to the soccer mom modern version, and you get the idea. Besides, when you can have a camry look-alike or a 300c, Charger or even a Mustang, what would one choose? Of course, even my wife's car - a Saturn Vue - looks more muscular.  Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org On Feb 28, 6:19 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: > What it really shows is CR doesn't know what the hell they are talking > about. If you look at their reports as what they actually are, the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And don't forget, when all else fails, Consumer Reports likes to use the old "fit and finish" complaint to dump on American nameplates. Been hearing since the mid-80's about how the (then) Big Three was catching up to the Japanese in terms of quality and realibility. "Are we there yet?" Of course, we are, and have been for many years. Mike, as you point out, even Consumer Reports themselves say so. BUT, Somehow, at the same time, they are also saying that The Toyotas and Hondas are still better, they just dont say how. Which kinda renders anything Consumer Reports has to say to be contradictory and thus meaningless, IMO. * Which also reminds me of something a fellow a little older and wiser than I told me, many years ago, when I was espouting the virtues of a new product (a VCR, I think), and using a CR report to "prove" it had to be great. He told me "Son, if God had intended for Consumer Reports to think for you, he wouldn't have given you a brain. CR is a source of information. If you have a brain, you will take such sources into account, and not just dismiss them out of hand because they don't tell you what you want to hear. Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? The manufacturers sure aren't going to tell you, and those magazines, etc. that depend on advertising aren't going to tell you either. We have used CR for many years for most major purchases, and have found CR to be correct in most cases. Are they perfect? No. Is their means of gathering information on products from their readership flawed? Perhaps. Is there any other source of information on long term reliability/cost of ownership out there that's better? Haven't found it yet. It is not at all surprising to me that a GM-focused newsgroup has a lot of people reading it that dispute what CR has to say. The reliability charts and mini-reviews have accurately reflected the problem areas of our last three new vehicles (96 Dodge Grand Caravan - gone now, lots of problems, 02 Chevy Impala - moderate problems, and 06 Pontiac Vibe - no problems whatsoever). Pretty decent track record as far as I'm concerned. Use the information from a lot of sources to your advantage - totally ignoring one of the more objective ones out there just because you don't like what they say or judge it to be "anti-American" is foolish. > Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate > reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? So, you can honestly tell me CR is accurate because of your three purchases? Give me a break. They have been anti-American when it comes to cars for a long time. Anything with an Import (Toyota, Honda) badge on the hood will score better then anything with a GM or Chrysler badge on the hood. <Snip> >> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate >> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <Snip> Yep, just take a look at a Toyota Corolla va a Chevy Prizm. They are both the same car yet the Prizm gets poor marks while the Corolla gets high marks, go figure. >>> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate >>> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the same car yet the Prizm gets poor marks while the Corolla gets high > marks, go figure. I saw the same happen when the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix were first released. The Matrix was better then sliced bread, but the Vibe "needed a lot of work", or some bull like that. People need to be smart when shopping. Test drive as many vehicles as you can. Buy what you like. Buy what you can afford. Just don't buy something *only* because someone else says its good. Check it out for yourself. >>>> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate >>>> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Buy what you can afford. Just don't buy something *only* because someone > else says its good. Check it out for yourself. Point 1: I said "most major purchases" - that includes appliances, cameras, TVs, DVD players, MP3 players, lawn equipment, etc. not just cars. That is more than 3 purchases over the years. We have found their ratings and other information on these products generally accurate, yes. One cordless phone we bought was a disappointment. As far as "giving breaks" is concerned, give me one - you toss out a source of information simply because you can't handle challenges to your belief system? And CR is not the only publication out there that gives domestics the occasional black eye - do you ignore those too? Point 2: They way I remember it, the Prizm and Corolla were always presented by CR as twins, and got similar scores in the reliability surveys from readers. I do not remember reading or seeing a road test type article on them, so I don't know if you are correct or not about that. My mother bought a Prizm, btw, precisely because it was a twin of the Corolla, based on CR information and other research (the car did just fine until she wrecked it) and it was a better deal. Point 3: In the latest car issue, the Vibe and Matrix are also presented as twins and they both get very similar reliability ratings, as I would expect. The problem areas as reported by readers are also similar (not identical) but nearly so. We looked at the Matrix and the Vibe, and found the whole package with the Vibe to be a better value. Point 4: I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that CR is a valid source of information that can be helpful in making a decision, and they are the only source I have found of *consumer-reported* reliability information that I can reasonably trust is not tainted by advertising and other conflicts of interest. If that doesn't matter to you, then so be it. As one who tends to keep cars 10+ years, it is important to me. >>>>> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate >>>>> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > belief system? And CR is not the only publication out there that gives > domestics the occasional black eye - do you ignore those too? You are seeing things that I am not saying. I do not toss out CR on the sole basis that I don't agree with there reports. I toss them out as there reports seem to be swayed in one direction. How can a review be honest if the reviewer goes in with his/her mind already made up? > Point 2: > They way I remember it, the Prizm and Corolla were always presented by CR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > information and other research (the car did just fine until she wrecked > it) and it was a better deal. Good for her. I said nothing about the Prizm or Corolla, however I would tend to believe "Mike"'s "for-certain" reading of the article, as opposed to your "I-do-not-remember". > Point 3: > In the latest car issue, the Vibe and Matrix are also presented as twins > and they both get very similar reliability ratings, as I would expect. > The problem areas as reported by readers are also similar (not identical) > but nearly so. We looked at the Matrix and the Vibe, and found the whole > package with the Vibe to be a better value. I should hope they have corrected there mistake by now. The Vibe/Matrix has been around nearly 6 years. However, you yourself just illustrated one of my points. You said the problem area's are not identical. Well I would agree they wouldn't be identical, from my experience, Toyota-nuts will find a severe problem not-so-severe, when it comes to rating there car. Just take a look around the Newsgroups. When Toyota issues a recall, they are praised by there fans for "doing the right thing". When GM/Ford/Chrysler issues a recall, they are said to have "built crappy cars" by those same people. The fact is, Domestic buyers are usually smarter then Import buyers. Hence why Toyota can get more money for the Matrix then Pontiac can for the Vibe. > Point 4: > I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that CR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you, then so be it. As one who tends to keep cars 10+ years, it is > important to me. It would be important to me too if I knew it was reliable. May I ask how you know CR is a valid source? How did you decide what makes there opinion matter, as opposed to there opinions being "swayed"? >>>>> <Snip> > You are seeing things that I am not saying. I do not toss out CR on the > sole basis that I don't agree with there reports. I toss them out as > there reports seem to be swayed in one direction. How can a review be > honest if the reviewer goes in with his/her mind already made up? There are also two different things to look at here. One is their (or from any other magazine, which also are not always domestic-friendly, as I'm sure you are aware) more in-depth reviews, and the other is owner-reported issues. CR is the only place I am aware of that has a means of collecting owner experiences in a controlled way (not just rants on the internet). Any review should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I find that CR's non-reliance on advertising to be a compelling reason to take them more seriously than many other sources. >> <Snip> > > Good for her. I said nothing about the Prizm or Corolla, however I would > tend to believe "Mike"'s "for-certain" reading of the article, as opposed > to your "I-do-not-remember". I tried to look this up but our issues don't go back that far. I'll concede simply because I can't refute for certain. Likewise the earliest Vibe review was in 2002, and I no longer have that issue. >> <Snip> > I should hope they have corrected there mistake by now. The Vibe/Matrix [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > smarter then Import buyers. Hence why Toyota can get more money for the > Matrix then Pontiac can for the Vibe. If you look at the reliabililty charts in the latest issue for the '06 Vibe and Matrix (again these charts are compiled from owner surveys, not pulled out of the butt of some review-writer), the Vibe is rated worse than the Matrix in two areas - paint/trim and body integrity. Interstingly, these are the two areas where the vehicles actually differ. In the areas that matter, people report the Matrix as a little worse - it scores lower (just slightly) for fuel system, suspension, and brakes than the Vibe does. Other items are the same. Just doesn't look to me like a case of domestic-bashing. As far as recalls go, the domestics just don't have a very good track record. Ford fought fixing the always-hot cruise control switch bathed in brake fluid that burned down people's houses, for example. It's not the issuing of the recall that gives them a black eye in my book. It's the delaying tactics and other cynical corporate-think policies that do that. Before I get miscontrued, I'm not saying that Toyota, etc. are innocent of those things either, but in general they seem to be more on top of the PR if nothing else. >> Point 4: >> I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that CR [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you know CR is a valid source? How did you decide what makes there > opinion matter, as opposed to there opinions being "swayed"? Sure... Big reason: The reliability charts are compiled from owner responses. I have filled out many of these over the years, and I can attest that the questions are quite specific - 'has this vehicle had major repairs to system XXX?', and a major repair is one that if not done significantly affects the use/value of the vehicle or a major system like the A/C. The only subjective one I can recall is "would you buy this car again", which simply relates to overall satisfaction. I've asked before and not got an answer from you: where else does the average consumer have a voice like this, and where else are such reponses compiled and analyzed (so that the occasional Toyota/Chevy/whatever-"nut" gets filtered out) and made available? Second reason is that they accept no advertising. They are not beholden to the manufacturers. Even if the opinion of a review-writer is skewed, at least it is his personal bias and not that of the advertising executives/bean counters who want to preserve their ad revenues. Third reason: The more in-depth reviews in CR that apply to vehicles I've actually owned, rented, or test driven (and I travel a fair amount), have generally been accurate in my experience. Granted, this is subjective. My Impala, for instance, gets a "competent but unexciting" and some knocks for the funky interior with exposed screws and mold lines (it was otherwise recommended, by the way, since it scored average reliability that year, and had excellent safety scores). I just can't argue with either of those assertions! I obviously bought the car anyway, because that kind of stuff doesn't bother me if the price is right (and it was). They don't say "buy a Camry instead of this POS or you're gonna die" or something absurd like that :) I've enjoyed our discussion. >>>>>> <Snip> >> You are seeing things that I am not saying. I do not toss out CR on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > However, I find that CR's non-reliance on advertising to be a compelling > reason to take them more seriously than many other sources. I think it's like any other rating system. It depends on who's rating what. If the reviewer of a Toyota truck is a hard-core GM fan, that person is going to go into that review with bias. The same happens with the owner reports. How are you or I (or even CR) supposed to know if the owners are telling the truth? I have read many articles on the Net and in paper form about auto's, where a hard-core Toyota fan finds certain problems "not so bad" on his/her Camry. However, when that same person tests a Taurus, or Grand Prix, those problems are huge. >>> <Snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > concede simply because I can't refute for certain. Likewise the earliest > Vibe review was in 2002, and I no longer have that issue. I will also have to concede, as I too have attempted to find the article I read about the Vibe/Matrix with no luck. >>> <Snip> >> I should hope they have corrected there mistake by now. The Vibe/Matrix [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > than the Matrix in two areas - paint/trim and body integrity. > Interstingly, these are the two areas where the vehicles actually differ. I don't actually know a whole lot about the Matrix. How do the bodies differ? As far as I know, both cars are virtually identical, except the outside trim, badges, and some other tweaks. > In the areas that matter, people report the Matrix as a little worse - it > scores lower (just slightly) for fuel system, suspension, and brakes than > the Vibe does. Other items are the same. Just doesn't look to me like a > case of domestic-bashing. I will agree that based on the information you just provided, the Vibe does not seem to be bashed at all. But still, the owners who reported to CR rated the Matrix lower then the Vibe in areas where the car is basically identical. Bashing aside, this doesn't seem to be useful information, seeing how, like I said, they are the same car. If the Matrix scores lower then the exact same Vibe, how is that information useful to the buying public? It's the same car. > As far as recalls go, the domestics just don't have a very good track > record. Ford fought fixing the always-hot cruise control switch bathed in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > those things either, but in general they seem to be more on top of the PR > if nothing else. I'll be the first to admit that one of GM's biggest mistakes was the gasket/plenum problem. That problem surfaced on 99% of 3.1/3.4 and 3.8 engines, and GM continued to use the same gaskets (depending on which engine we are speaking of). They did offer an extended warranty, but still. They knew about the problem a good decade before they finally stopped using them. I am a true hard-core GM guy. I won't buy anything else, but I will admit when they make a mistake such as this one. As for Toyota, from what I have read they had a very good line of products for quite some time, however from what I can gather, as a result of the quest to claim the #1 Auto manufacture in the world title they let there quality slip considerably. Engine sludge problems, brake problems, etc. Toyota recalled 2.2 million vehicles in 2005, and was the #1 Auto recaller last year. Then again, I will also admit that no Auto manufacture is perfect. >>> Point 4: >>> I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > only subjective one I can recall is "would you buy this car again", which > simply relates to overall satisfaction. Do you happen to have any survey questions laying around? I wouldn't mind knowing exactly what kind of questions they ask of readers, how they word them, and so forth. As a side note, how many people actually return there questionnaires, compared to the actual amount of people buying said auto? If GM sells 600,000 Chevy Impala's, how many CR subscribers actually fill out the questionnaire and return it to CR? > I've asked before and not got an answer from you: where else does the > average consumer have a voice like this, and where else are such reponses > compiled and analyzed (so that the occasional Toyota/Chevy/whatever-"nut" > gets filtered out) and made available? If you are asking me specifically, I usually look at quite a few sources. Edmunds.com, Autos.msn.com, several newsgroups, local (and also internet accessed) newspapers and newscasts, and many other sources. Some seem bias (CR, Edmunds.com), some not (local newspapers, local newscasts). Some are, as you pointed out, just Internet rants, but I basically do the work CR does, for myself. I take all of the reviews, both positive and negative, all of the "bashing", all of the "praising", put them all together, and then use my own mind to figure out if the vehicles in question are good or bad. I rarely use one specific source, and I don't think it's wise to do so. Basically what I am saying is with the Internet in nearly all homes in Canada and the USA, people have tons of places to write reviews, and read them. Just make sure you still use your own mind to figure out what to do with that information. > Second reason is that they accept no advertising. They are not beholden > to the manufacturers. Even if the opinion of a review-writer is skewed, > at least it is his personal bias and not that of the advertising > executives/bean counters who want to preserve their ad revenues. I can understand that. > Third reason: The more in-depth reviews in CR that apply to vehicles I've > actually owned, rented, or test driven (and I travel a fair amount), have > generally been accurate in my experience. Granted, this is subjective. I can respect that too. > My Impala, for instance, gets a "competent but unexciting" and some knocks > for the funky interior with exposed screws and mold lines (it was > otherwise recommended, by the way, since it scored average reliability > that year, and had excellent safety scores). I just can't argue with > either of those assertions! I obviously bought the car anyway, because > that kind of stuff doesn't bother me if the price is right (and it was). Congratulations on the purchase. I live about 15 minutes from the GM plant where your Impala was built. We are very proud of the vehicles we make, and we even use the Impala as our #1 Police car, just behind the Ford Crown Vic Interceptor. > They don't say "buy a Camry instead of this POS or you're gonna die" or > something absurd like that :) > > I've enjoyed our discussion. So have I. May your Impala continue to give you no trouble for years to come!! >>>>>>> <Snip> > I think it's like any other rating system. It depends on who's rating > what. If the reviewer of a Toyota truck is a hard-core GM fan, that person [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problems "not so bad" on his/her Camry. However, when that same person > tests a Taurus, or Grand Prix, those problems are huge. Sure, personal bias is very hard to totally eliminate. Seems to me though that obectively-worded questions to real owners is one of the better ways of gathering this data, especially since the manufacturers are not going to just hand it over. The methods and the analysis that CR uses would, I think, at least help "smooth out" the occasional brand X fanatic's bogus responses. > I don't actually know a whole lot about the Matrix. How do the bodies > differ? As far as I know, both cars are virtually identical, except the > outside trim, badges, and some other tweaks. From what I've been able to tell the mechanicals are certainly identical (despite a Toyota saleswoman trying to convince me that the Matrix was different "on the inside" and the Vibe was unsafe - had a good laugh at that one). The body sheetmetal is pretty different (not in a bad way IMO - I personally like the look of the Vibe better) if you look closely. I think the Vibe has more plastic trim on it too. > I will agree that based on the information you just provided, the Vibe > does not seem to be bashed at all. But still, the owners who reported to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Matrix scores lower then the exact same Vibe, how is that information > useful to the buying public? It's the same car. The differences were very small in these areas. Top ratings are given if a model has a problem rate of less than 1% in a particular area. The next level is for between 1-2%, and the lowest ratings are for greater percentages. It's pretty narrow, which to me means that, as some on this NG have stated, the overall quality of cars in general is pretty good. But, if you have a model in these ratings that gets lots of black marks, beware. > I'll be the first to admit that one of GM's biggest mistakes was the > gasket/plenum problem. That problem surfaced on 99% of 3.1/3.4 and 3.8 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > recalled 2.2 million vehicles in 2005, and was the #1 Auto recaller last > year. Then again, I will also admit that no Auto manufacture is perfect. Agree. Even CR has stopped recommending the Camry V6 due to, I believe, transmission problems. > Do you happen to have any survey questions laying around? I wouldn't mind > knowing exactly what kind of questions they ask of readers, how they word > them, and so forth. As a side note, how many people actually return there > questionnaires, compared to the actual amount of people buying said auto? > If GM sells 600,000 Chevy Impala's, how many CR subscribers actually fill > out the questionnaire and return it to CR? I don't at the moment. I get one every year; if I remember next time I'll try to post some. The latest issue says that the stats are from 1.3 million vehicles. That's a lot of responses, but they don't say what the response/reader ratio is. > If you are asking me specifically, I usually look at quite a few sources. > Edmunds.com, Autos.msn.com, several newsgroups, local (and also internet [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > write reviews, and read them. Just make sure you still use your own mind > to figure out what to do with that information. Agree there also. I use the other sources as well. It's just that with them, I am very wary of their dependence on ad revenues. >> Second reason is that they accept no advertising. They are not beholden >> to the manufacturers. Even if the opinion of a review-writer is skewed, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So have I. May your Impala continue to give you no trouble for years to > come!! Thanks much. So far so good, generally speaking. A couple things have come up with it, but overall it's been a good car. > >>>>> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate > >>>>> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > a severe problem not-so-severe, when it comes to rating there car. Just > take a look around the Newsgroups. When Toyota issues a recall, they are > praised by there fans for "doing the right thing". When GM/Ford/Chrysler > issues a recall, they are said to have "built crappy cars" by those same > people. Excellant point. I hear it all the time. Toyota did the right thing by their recalls. GM has major problems, and has issued a massive recall. Which one sounds worse? Last year, Toyota recalled more vechicles than it SOLD! If that ever happens to GM, I guess its "Katy bar the door!" The fact is, Domestic buyers are usually smarter then Import > buyers. Hence why Toyota can get more money for the Matrix then Pontiac can > for the Vibe. > > Point 4: > > I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that CR [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If the opinion of those that keep their vehicle the longest is the most important to you then you should look at which vehicles are purchased in the thousands by corporate fleets, not the opinions off those that buy only ONE vehicle on which to base their opinion. To a corporation, vehicle are simply one more of the tools used in their business that they must keep in service for five years or 300,000 miles, which ever occurs first, because of federal corporate depreciation tax laws. Every manufacture foreign and domestic tries to sell to fleets and they all offer around the same discounts, for fleets of five or more, but corpertaions buy very few Toyotas or any other foreign vehicle. The vehicles they buy the most, over and over again, are Ford vehicles and the second choice are GM vehicles. ;) > "80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message >> I saw the same happen when the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix were first >> released. The Matrix was better then sliced bread, but the Vibe "needed >> a work > I agree with your "check it out yourself" statement. My point is that CR > is a valid source of information that can be helpful in making a decision, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you, then so be it. As one who tends to keep cars 10+ years, it is > important to me. >>>> Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate >>>> reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > what you can afford. Just don't buy something *only* because someone else > says its good. Check it out for yourself. Good advice. > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > sources into account, and not just dismiss them out of hand because they > don't tell you what you want to hear. I have a brain,and I use CR as a source of information. Based on 30 years of basically trouble-free useage from my GM products, and bascially the same amount of time spent bashing of the same product by CM, I knew that the Grand Prix was a dammed good car even before I test drove it because of CM's "mediocre" description of the car. Nothing speaks better than a track record! If I were in the market for a new car today, I would probably look real hard at the G-6. CM has stated that it is not a very good car. My biggest complaint is that they should still call it a Grand Am! > Where else can the average shmo get anything close to accurate > reliability/repair information for any product, not just cars? The > manufacturers sure aren't going to tell you, and those magazines, etc. that > depend on advertising aren't going to tell you either. They go far beyond just giving reliablity/repair information. They give you OPINIONS!!! OPIONIONS can be wrong, biased, and, unfortunately, bought. > How do you give repair info on a product that hasn't even hit the market yet???? They Do get to "test' stuff out before it is sold to the public, Cant be too much of a track record for repairs for these type of products, can there???? Of course, if the "testers" don't like them, they can scream "fit and finish", "looks cheap" "rattles". or whatever they want to. Case in point: some 20 years ago, CM was testing some pony/sports car made in America. I think it was a "Vette. but it could have been a firebird or mustang. One of CM's constant gripes about the car was how stiff it was and how rough it felt when it hit a bump. "Duh" Compared to what??????? In the day of the internet, CM's rattling doesnt hold as much water as it did 25 years ago. Of course, the damagae has already been done! > We have used CR for many years for most major purchases, and have found CR > to be correct in most cases. Are they perfect? No. Is their means of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > If I were in the market for a new car today, I would probably look > real hard at the G-6. > CM has stated that it is not a very good car. > My biggest complaint is that they should still call it a Grand Am! That's one hideous car. Ugh. GP is a better looking car than that thing. I still say you should drive the G6, the 'bu, Altima, Accord, Camry and compare them back to back to back. I can't deal with GM interiors. If I was gonna choose any of those I'd say a 6 speed Altima SE-R would be a slick little piece. Course you can't get a manual with GM, not even on the G8. Another reason I don't bother. -b >> If I were in the market for a new car today, I would probably look >> real hard at the G-6. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a slick little piece. Course you can't get a manual with GM, not even on > the G8. Another reason I don't bother. GM is going to be offering a manual in the G8 next year. But please, don't bother. I would rather you didn't drive a GM. > > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> If I were in the market for a new car today, I would probably look [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > That's one hideous car. Ugh. GP is a better looking car than that thing. That's kinda the same way I feel about the Altima and Camry. When I state my opinion about the looks of those cars, I get the phrase from GM bashers, what is it, oh, yeah, "Looks are subjective" Or something like that. I think the G-6 is a dammed-good looking "thing" I will admit, not as nice as the GP. > > I still say you should drive the G6, the 'bu, Altima, Accord, Camry and > > compare them back to back to back. I can't deal with GM interiors. I HAVE driven the G6. A beautiful black, two door GTP. Looked great. Handled well. Had all the bells and whistles. Was pretty fast. Gas mileage was not as good as it should be for that type car. A little pricey, also. Still, over-all, a very nice car. And for the second time, please compare apples to apples. The GP , Monte Carlo, or Buick should be used to compare to the "hideous" Camry. \ > > If I was gonna choose any of those I'd say a 6 speed Altima SE-R would be > > a slick little piece. Course you can't get a manual with GM, not even on > > the G8. Another reason I don't bother. > GM is going to be offering a manual in the G8 next year. But please, don't > bother. I would rather you didn't drive a GM. > The GP , Monte Carlo, or Buick should be used to compare to the > "hideous" Camry. Camry is hideous. And I can't keep track of GM's rebadging, are the GP, Monte and some unnamed Buick all the same car? Monte is only a coupe, that doesn't compare, GP does I guess. No idea about a Buick. They still make those things? BTW: I did have an Olds I liked very much, I was sad to see Oldsmobile go. Buick, who cares, never done anything other than the GN/GNX > GM is going to be offering a manual in the G8 next year. But please, don't > bother. I would rather you didn't drive a GM. How the hell do you release that car without a manual option? That's pure stupidity. >> GM is going to be offering a manual in the G8 next year. But please, >> don't bother. I would rather you didn't drive a GM. > > How the hell do you release that car without a manual option? That's pure > stupidity. This is it's first year of production, and like you said, most GM's don't have a manual, and they still seem to sell great. If you really want the car, wait until next year when the manual will be offered. > What it really shows is CR doesn't know what the hell they are talking > about. If you look at their reports as what they actually are, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all manufactured products. What that report actuallu says is over 98% of > all cars sold today are generally trouble free LOL Aside from the anonymous troll trying to drum up support for some crusade against GM, I found long ago the CR - like the grammy awards - is irrelevant and out of touch. I remember them trumpeting the "new" Toyota Camry as the best overall car some years ago. Being a subscriber back then, I wrote and mentioned that the car was (a) not a midsize and (b) not very reliable or comfortable based on my experiences. They told me it was what they felt and that's all that mattered. I cancelled my subscription right then. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org HARD STEERING--Pontiac Trans am I purchasesd a 2002 Pontiac new and have always experiencd hard steering..Dealer has told me that is the nature of the of the car..It has the high performance package which I don't think has anything to do with it...Any comments on the subject? AllanJones onestal@webtv.net > HARD STEERING--Pontiac Trans am > I purchasesd a 2002 Pontiac new and have always experiencd hard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > AllanJones > onestal@webtv.net I dont know specifically about this car, but I read a similar complaint from a Pontiac owner not long ago who chose the higher performance package and learned to hate it. The expert answer was that it was not practical to de-fit this package. Performance steering systems can be a bit harder to steer and give you more feel of the road. If you could find a similar car to the one you bought and get a test drive, it might help you know if this is something that can be reasonably improved. > HARD STEERING--Pontiac Trans am > I purchasesd a 2002 Pontiac new and have always experiencd hard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > AllanJones > onestal@webtv.net Hard steering is a pretty tough thing to speak to. It's a very subjective thing. What is hard steering? Generally in performance cars or performance packages, the steering is tamed down a lot so as not to provide the same degree of power assist as luxury cars. Should still be able to turn lock to lock with one hand sitting still though. Big fat tires add to that. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.