http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607250362/1148

 

This is no big surprise. Toyota and Honda actually spend money figuring out what people want to buy -- then they build it. GM takes billions of dollars in corporate welfare from the Federal Government, builds a handful of prototypes and then REFUSES to build any of them. Toyota/Honda have hybrids, inexpensive (but fuel-efficient) econo cars, and some SUV choices that get mid-20s for fues efficiency. GM builds mostly huge SUVs and trucks that get 9-13 MPG. Toyota/Honda vehicles can basically be driven forever (as long as you change the oil every 5k miles). GM vehicles are completely shot around 70k miles. Toyota/Honda vehicles have good resale values because buyers know that a used Toyota/Honda will be almost as reliable as a brand-new one. GM vehicles are so reliability-challenged that dealers have to lay a sack of free cash on the hood in order to hook buyers in.

I MIGHT consider a Ford (maybe), but I drive my car too much to have it be in a landfill at 70k miles, so GM is OUT!

 

I'd be amazed if you could find one F-A-C-T to back up some of the poo you are spewing here.

1. What is the "corporate welfare" GM or any other domestic gets from the government. Facts please.<
2. Please post a list of all GM vehicles that EPA rates at 13 mpg or less.<
3. Please prove the GM sells more vehicles in the 9 - 13 mpg range than anything else. I'll give you a start on the math....About 40% of the cars GM sells in the US are Chevrolets. About 90% of the cars Chevrolet sells get 30 mpg highway or more. .4 * .9 = .36. That means at least 36% of the cars GM sells get 30 mpg hwy or better.<
4. 70K? Give me a freakin' break. Do some research before you pull ridiculous numbers like that out of the air. At least look at the figures for reliability for major automakers. You might actually learn something you don't want to learn.

Peace, (or not)

Martin

 

Martin,
I understand your frustration. I think that anti-GM statements should be subject to the same critiques as anti-hybrid statements. Before posting, people should remember their frustrations with misinformation from a CNW Marketing-based article.

As for my own personal GM experience, my old Saturn is still out there running at approximately ~160k miles. (I sold it to a friend at ~125k.) Although I had a few issues with it, it has apparently been quite reliable since I sold it.

 

Dear Martin,

I just logged onto the government's Fuel Economy page. On page 4 of the PDF file, it clearly shows that GM leads in exactly ONE category out of NINE, that being cargo vans. In this category, they score a whopping 15 MPG for the EPA City rating (which makes it 9-13 in "real world" driving.) I am pretty sure that the only reason GM leads in this single category is that no one else make cargo vans.

GM manages to finish second place in exactly one category (with the Pontiac Vibe at 30 MPG, which equates to 24-26 in "real world" mileage).

By comparison, Honda and Toyota have entries in nearly every category, and all of them score at least 21 MPG.

Here's the link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2006.pdf


Just turn to page 4.

I really do research here and there!

 

You research points that have NOTHING to do with the inflammatory and TOTALLY INCORRECT points you toss out like poker chips. You said that GM sells mostly vehicles getting 9 - 13 mpg. Then show as evidence one group of vehicles that the EPA rates at 15 (a little greater than 9 or 13 in most text books) and qualify this by saying you mean "real world". The reason EPA estimates fuel economy is because "real world" for you and the guy next door to you driving the same vehicle can vary wildly. If you had completed your research you would also know that not only is GM NOT the only company selling cargo vans, but we are not even the industry leader on volume. That would probably be DCX with the Ram based vans that they sell, along with the Dodge Sprinter. Ford Econolines are also a heavy player in that group.

I will repeat my point that AT LEAST 36% of that cars that GM sells are capable of 30 mpg highway or more. This clearly contradicts your assertion that most of the vehicles GM sells are SUVs that get 9 - 13 mpg. You can't even find a GM SUV or tuck with an EPA rating of 9 - 13 mpg., let alone back up your assertion that this is all we are able to bring to market. It is very likely that a Toyota or a Honda may get better than that in the same class, but it is still true that despite your "expert" opinion, domestic automakers can and do sell fuel efficient vehicles. Typical tactic for being exposed spewing faulty information. When the facts are challenged, change the question. Go poison someone else's well.

Martin

 

I recall about a week ago seeing an article (though I'm not sure where it is now) that stated a 2-3 year old GM is just as mechanically reliable as a 7 year old Toyota or Honda. Sorry I'm sketchy on the details, but I can't find that article

I know we've all got different opinions about manufacturers. Let's keep it civil.

 

Here's an article on the topic.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/82054

 

I purposefully left out hybrids. When there are multiple versions of the same model, I chose the middle value in order to be fair. The figures quoted are "city" values, since most of us in the real world aren't professional long-distance drivers. Here is more research from the government's website:

Compact cars: GM Optra (22 MPG), GM ION (22 MPG), Honda Civic (30 MPG), Toyota Corolla (30 MPG). Why do Toyota/Honda cars beat GM by 27%?

Midsize Cars: GM Cadillac STS (17 MPG), GM Malibu (19 MPG), Honda Accord (24 MPG), Toyota Camry (24 MPG). Again, Toyota/Honda beats GM by about 25%.

Large Cars: GM Impala (18 MPG), Toyota Avalon (22 MPG) [Honda has no Large Car entry]. A 19% difference between Toyota and GM.

Station Wagons: GM Vibe (30 MPG), [Toyota] Scion xB (30 MPG). Honda has no station wagon. Here, GM and Toyota are tied.

Pickup Trucks: GM Silverado (16 MPG). GM Sierra (16 MPG). Toyota Tacoma (20 MPG). Honda Ridgeline (16 MPG). GM is tied with Honda, but Toyota beats both by 25%.

Cargo Vans: GM 1500 (14 MPG). Toyota and Honda don't make cargo vans.

Minivans: GM Montanna (18 MPG), Toyota Sienna (19 MPG), Honda Odyssey (20 MPG). It's not a huge difference, but GM still loses here.

SUVs: GM Avalance (14 MPG). GM Tahoe (15 MPG). Honda Element (22 MPG). Toyota Highlander (21 MPG). Toyota/Honda beat GM by over 25% here.

Keep in mind, too, that any vehicle that is rated for 15-17 MPG is really going to get 9-13 in real-world driving.

GM Models that are likely to get 9-13 MPG in real-world driving: Silverado, Colorado, SSR Pickup, Sierra, Canyon, K1500, G1500 Van, G2500 Van, Savana Van, Express, Uplander, Relay, Avalanche, Suburban, Tahoe, Trailblazer, Yukon, Envoy. 18 models total.

Toyota Models that are likely to get 9-13 MPG in real-world driving: Tundra, Sequoia, 4-Runner. 3 models total.

Honda Models that are likely to get 9-13 MPG in real-world driving: Ridgeline, Pilot. 2 models total.

Martin: It's not my fault GM only knows how to build huge, hulking guzzlers. These are the facts, as unpleasant as they may be. I think I'll stick to my Civic Hybrid.


As far as GM cars being dead by 70k, my dad was a HUGE Pontiac fan when I was a kid, even though these vehicles were utter pieces of garbage.

Here is what happened to the cars he owned from GM:

Pontiac Fiero: Junked around 50k miles. It had a faulty electrical system that no dealer ever seemed to be able to fix. When you turned the car off, there was always a chance it just wouldn't restart and would have to be towed. It also blew fuses ALL THE TIME. It was so bad that dad kept several boxes of fuses behind the passenger seat (since this clever little car didn't even have a glove box!) It didn't help matters that it needed a front-end alignment all the freakin' time too. It was the first car dad ever owned that was in the shop more time than on the road.

Pontiac Grand Prix: Junked around 70k. It had a problem with the brakes. About every one in ten times, you could hit the brakes and the pedal would freeze. You'd just sail right through the intersection. the car was in the shop every 4-5k miles for brake jobs. It actually needed the brakes repaired more often than it needed oil changes.

Pontiac Grand AM: Junked around 70k. It blew alternators about every 15k. You'd see the battery light illuminate and know you had about half an hour to find a Pontiac dealer for repair.

Compare that with his Ford Ranger XLT: Junked at 210k miles, and needed exactly ONE emergency repair (blew a water pump).

Same diver, same driving situation, wildly different results. I'm sorry that GM builds junk, since many of their cars look pretty cool.

 

You saw it in Consumer Reports this year. I tried to access the article, but the web page demands to be paid up front. Oh well. But I remembered the stats:

3Y GM = 7Y Honda = 8Y Toyota

So what it actually boils down to is this: If you buy a GM on a 5-year loan, you will be LUCKY if the car/truckl outlasts the payments.