Quality of GM products

How many of you think GM just has the worst rattling, cheapest made, poorly built cars on the market?? Ever sat in a cavalier, S10, corvette, camaro, etc, etc.. and pushed on the interior pieces like the plastic dashboard, and door panel and hear them creak and move all around?? i cant stand that. From about 1990-2004 GM quality is just poor. The 2005 GM line is much better in quality though. Hmm, wonder why they killed off the camaro, S10, and cavalier?

How many of you think GM just has the worst rattling, cheapest made, poorly built cars on the market?? Ever sat in a cavalier, S10, corvette, camaro, etc, etc.. and pushed on the interior pieces like the plastic dashboard, and door panel and hear them creak and move all around?? i cant stand that. From about 1990-2004 GM quality is just poor. The 2005 GM line is much better in quality though. Hmm, wonder why they killed off the camaro, S10, and cavalier?

Well I can agree with you that their interior quality wasn't ever no where near the the likes of other cars within their respective classes but, they did have some good cars. It would almost seem that GMs (for the most part) idea that, selling cars less expensive by cutting back on overall expense to make a more affordable car may not of been the best way of getting a good name out for themselves. Now since the market seems to be really leaning torwards better built cars on every level, the market grab has effected GM into drastically changing its approach. Hopfully in the years to come they can make themselves a name with a different meaning. Some of the new models (04'-05') have made some pretty dramatic changes that were desperately needed. Hopfully it only keeps getting better :)

cheapest poorly built cars on the market? because you don't like their interior?

you drive an 88 towncar and you are saying Lt-1 and ls-1 camaros and vettes are crap......

:owned:


I'll go with the germans myself

You know, I have always stood up for my car, a 1997 Camaro coupe V6 5 speed. But, I have had so much go wrong with it. Admitedly, I drive it pretty hard, but I also keep it well maintained. I bought the car used with 73,000 miles back in 2001, and it now has just under 90,000 miles.

Here is a list of everything that has gone wrong. My sun visor fell into my lap when I flipped it down, My power steering pump has blown twice and my rack and pinion was blown once. My front door speakers are blown, I had a rear main seal leak, my drivers side power window quit working, I have an exhaust rattle, one of the heads on the engine cracked and the water pump gave out, my gas peddle broke on the freeway, the throttle linkage to be exact. The car runs a bit rough although I'm not sure it's just the nature of the V6. I may be forgetting something else.

As far as the interior being shit. It does the job, and I have the first year of the refined interior (1997) Overall, I love drving my car and I love how it looks, but in all honesty, I now know why these cars were discontinued. GM must have gotten so many complaints with these cars they just said fuck it and canned em'

I must agree GM cars suck when it comes to maintenance. I've spent $3,000 in repairs in the last 6 months and that was doing all the work myself.

You ask how the hell can he spend $3K? When you have to replace almost every engine component, fuel pump, the entire front brake system twice it gets expensive. By the way my ws6 rim just cracked there goes a few hundred more $$$'s.

As far as interior who really cares. If your girlfriend isn't satisfied with it get another one. Cause when your rolling in a GM sportscar the girls will beg to be with you I don't care if you look like Chris Mathews.

Over all my car is a pain, it's expensive, and really annoying when your rim is cracked and tire goes flat everyday. But I wouldn't trade it for ANY car on the highway.

The only problem i've had with my truck is a oil pan leak and a small lifter tick which i'm taking care of. Besides that this truck is bullet proof.

The only problem i've had with my truck is a oil pan leak and a small lifter tick which i'm taking care of. Besides that this truck is bullet proof.I'd bet you wouldn't use the words "bullet proof" if you also owned a toyota, bmw, nissan, or anything else.

I currently own three GMs, two of which are chevys. I bought them for their style, my familiarity with them, and because I'm a mechanic. Certainly NOT for their reliability.

In total I've owned five chevys and 9 GMs, and I agree with the statement. Chevy is one of the crappiest quality vehicles on the market. I must qualify that statement, though. Since 98, they have been better, but since I have no direct experience with them, I can't say where they fit in to the whole scheme anymore.

The only interior I've found worse than chevy is Dodge. Every time I get in one I just have to laugh at the un realistic grain they try to put on the cheap plastic dash pieces. They look so incredibly crappy, and the dashes squeak, rattle, and shake.

I thought it was funny at the L.A. Auto Show my friend and I sat in an SSR. He was fiddling with the climate buttons and TWO FELL OFF! The doors were misaligned, the hood was wavy and poorly painted, and the body wasn't on straight. I could fit a hand between the right rear tire and the fender, but the other side I could only fit three fingers. My Impala SS is the same way.

Chevydrummer, I fully respect your opinion and I don't intend any flames, but the older trucks are incredibly simple and make reliable packages. (sweet truck, by the way.) Often times the reliability of the trucks (since they lacked extraneous options) boils down to quality engine assmebly and metallurgy/design of mechanical parts. In that aspect, few have topped the germans and japanese in those areas. For their era, your generation of chevy trucks was very reliable and usually gave 100k miles of fairly reliable stock performance, but compression suffers with the poorer metallurgy and older technology after that point depending on assembly, shift, and driving style.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Chevys, but hardly call them reliable by today's standards. I also agree with what you brought up about the 88 town car. Of all the cars to compare for reliability. :) That year of town car ranks right up there with the Triumph Spitfire. :)

This truck does not have the original low compression engine in it. It has a pro rebuilt 350 4 bolt with an rv cam, edelbrock carb and intake, and the original transmission which has been rebuilt w/ a shift kit.

Oh man, the new GM cars are great. Reliable quality vehicles. I know many don't think so. Drive a NEW GM model, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

This statement from a few posts up says other wise.....

I thought it was funny at the L.A. Auto Show my friend and I sat in an SSR. He was fiddling with the climate buttons and TWO FELL OFF! The doors were misaligned, the hood was wavy and poorly painted, and the body wasn't on straight. I could fit a hand between the right rear tire and the fender, but the other side I could only fit three fingers. My Impala SS is the same way.


What about all those quality control issues that are supposed to be dogging the Cobalt?

New GM's are improved over those of old, that's why they are scoring highly in the JD Power surveys, because thier new GM vehicle isn't falling to bits as fast as thier old one, doesn't mean that they are up to the level of Nissan, Toyota, Honda or BMW yet.

This statement from a few posts up says other wise.....




What about all those quality control issues that are supposed to be dogging the Cobalt?

New GM's are improved over those of old, that's why they are scoring highly in the JD Power surveys, because thier new GM vehicle isn't falling to bits as fast as thier old one, doesn't mean that they are up to the level of Nissan, Toyota, Honda or BMW yet.


I figured you would reply to this saying you're an Asshole towards me and GM.

Any fucking vehicle has problems when first coming out of production. Next, none of those problems with the Cobalt have been confirmed. The only thread I've seen was started by a son of a trucker. Thats says a lot for the reliability of the information.

Also, its funny that Buick, and Cadillac are right up on top and have beaten Nissan, Toyota, and Honda in quality. Hate to burst your bubble jackass.

Oh that thing about the SSR, thats simply over exxagerated. No fucking automaker would let a vehicle like that be on display, and I've never seen a vehicle that bad off. Hes full of shit, sorry to say.

This statement from a few posts up says other wise.....




What about all those quality control issues that are supposed to be dogging the Cobalt?

New GM's are improved over those of old, that's why they are scoring highly in the JD Power surveys, because thier new GM vehicle isn't falling to bits as fast as thier old one, doesn't mean that they are up to the level of Nissan, Toyota, Honda or BMW yet.

This is true for the most part. I honestly think the Cobalt will be a good car (especially the SS). Of coarse they are playing ball in a very tough crowd, but seeing how their cars were in the past, things can only get better. Yet is the keyword (hopfully :biggrin: ). Hypothetically speaking......how would everybody react if newer lines of GM cars were actually outscoring their competition? IMO I would have to read it at least a dozen times over again and punch myself a few times just to check and see if I was hallucinating.

I figured you would reply to this saying you're an Asshole towards me and GM.

Any fucking vehicle has problems when first coming out of production. Next, none of those problems with the Cobalt have been confirmed. The only thread I've seen was started by a son of a trucker. Thats says a lot for the reliability of the information.

Also, its funny that Buick, and Cadillac are right up on top and have beaten Nissan, Toyota, and Honda in quality. Hate to burst your bubble jackass.

Do me a favour and drop the attitude, did you even READ what I what I wrote about the quality survey? It measures peoples satisfaction against what they EXPECTED, people are happy because thier CTS' transmission isn't breaking or the electric haven't gone catastrophic, like it did in thier last DeVille or Seville, or whatever it was they had, doesn't mean that things haven't gone wrong, just means less went wrong than they expected. If someone buys a BMW or an Infiniti and a small niggle develops, they are more pissed off because they were expecting better from a distinguished brand.

As for the SSR thing, I give curtis73 a hell of a lot more rcredibility than I do to you (Your GM can do no wrong attitude is silly)

Do me a favour and drop the attitude, did you even READ what I what I wrote about the quality survey? It measures peoples satisfaction against what they EXPECTED, people are happy because thier CTS' transmission isn't breaking or the electric haven't gone catastrophic, like it did in thier last DeVille or Seville, or whatever it was they had, doesn't mean that things haven't gone wrong, just means less went wrong than they expected. If someone buys a BMW or an Infiniti and a small niggle develops, they are more pissed off because they were expecting better from a distinguished brand.

As for the SSR thing, I give curtis73 a hell of a lot more rcredibility than I do to you (Your GM can do no wrong attitude is silly)


Think about it Jimmy, the SSR would no way be like that at an autoshow. If it was you would here more than one idiot bitching about it. The press would be all over it. Just because its a GM and they are shit and Imports rule. NEWS FLASH THATS NOT TRUE. I'm sick of the GM bashing ona Import Biased board. I'm sick of you're GM bashing, and you're talking about me being biased, I've never heard you say anything good about GM. OH wait except the Corvette is cool, but even a 4 year old thinks that. I'm not going to drop the god damned attitude. Thank you very much.

Its funny that you didn't mention that Mercedes. BMW, and all those other manufacturers are getting worse with quality and reliability as GM and Ford are getting better and better. You are a uninformed idiot at times and it makes me laugh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :loser:

The Surveys measure how many problems per 100 vehicles their are, it doesn't compare them to cars gone past as much as to other manufacterers. For example if Cadillac had 105 problems per 100 vehicles, and Lexus had 104 problems per 100 vehicles. That doesn't mean that Cadillac had 105 problems this year and 110 problems last year. It means Cadillac has 105 problems this year compared to Lexuss 104 problems this year. I would hate to tell you but Cadillac is doing pretty well considering where it was in the 80's. GM is making the biggest come back of any automotive manufacturer, and you can't argue none of that. Its redicoulous to say that the only reason that GM is doing so well in the recent surveys is because people are expecting more problems with GM than say Honda. Its just plain stupid.

Oh that thing about the SSR, thats simply over exxagerated. No fucking automaker would let a vehicle like that be on display, and I've never seen a vehicle that bad off. Hes full of shit, sorry to say.

I'm not full of s#!t. I just went to the bathroom an hour ago. :) I also have several years experience in corporate sales for GM, Nissan, Volvo, and Honda. I helped develop corporate service and sales strategies for all of the above. So I guess you could replace the "full of s#!t" line with "this guy doesn't write snot and sunshine, he's actually been there." I would hope that those who know me on this forum have come to know that I don't lie or exaggerate in my posts. I also hope that they know I don't have any brand loyalty whatsoever. Each vehicle represents its own strengths and weaknesses, I'm just saying that GM from about 1978 to 1998 has been the second worst in reliability. That is documented fact according to Consumer Reports, NADA, and several other reliable resources. Combine that with market elasticity (see below) and it makes GM rank slightly above Yugo.

Instead of reposting redundant info, read my post on just such a topic from a few weeks ago concerning the reliability ratings of cadillac vs. bmw....

Caddy reliability is improving, meaning that owners are pleasantly surprised and don't take their cars in for that drivetrain vibration or loose weatherstripping. On the other hand, BMW owners are used to darn near perfection, so they take their 7-series back because the floormats don't stay in place. We call it reliability elasticity in the biz and its a well-known dynamic. The reliability ratings are based on problems per miles. I use reliability ratings as much as the next person, but you have to bias them against the clientele. Even within the BMW line the 7 series gets a bad rap. Why? The type of owner who buys a $60,000 750iL is different from the person who buys a 318 hatchback. The 750 owner expects far more from his/her car and the frequency of warranty claims is much higher despite the fact that they actually have fewer "problems" mechanically. An extreme example of this is my father and his 88 chevy pickup. While under warranty the shackle bolt fell out of the leaf spring. Instead of taking it in, Dad just put a new bolt in and kept driving it. That is a major failure, but his response was just, "its a truck" and since he could repair it in 10 minutes instead of three days at Mr. Deadwrench, it never made it to the record books. Contrast that with BMW owners claiming warranty repairs for "a poor exhaust sound." (which was a true claim from our garage)

What it boils down to is that even if the Caddy were rated higher in reliability, that does not make it a more reliable vehicle. The two new CTS's that I've driven both had exhaust rattles and one had a brake light on. They may have been isolated incidents, but given the expectations of Cadillac owners (and GM owners in general), a CTS would seem far more reliable than what they drive right now.

Its all perspective and it depends on if you're looking up to the Caddy or looking down to the 3 series.

I'm just getting tired of the misconceptions about BMW. I used to HATE them until I got actual experience with them. Now I think they are one of the greatest vehicles ever created; light years ahead of anything GM ever made including the best Caddy. I might compare a CTS to an E46, but its nowhere near a new Bimmer.

An excellent example of this elasticity is at the Tire Rack website. Take a look at the customer reviews. I get a kick out of a person who buys Z-rated rubber for his SUV with 26" wheels, then says, "these tires are great in the snow." They are terrible in the snow, but they are new tires, and compared to the bald 16" ribbed rubber that was on there, it does better than he expected. A huge difference.

I'm not full of s#!t. I just went to the bathroom an hour ago. :) I also have several years experience in corporate sales for GM, Nissan, Volvo, and Honda. I helped develop corporate service and sales strategies for all of the above. So I guess you could replace the "full of s#!t" line with "this guy doesn't write snot and sunshine, he's actually been there." I would hope that those who know me on this forum have come to know that I don't lie or exaggerate in my posts. I also hope that they know I don't have any brand loyalty whatsoever. Each vehicle represents its own strengths and weaknesses, I'm just saying that GM from about 1978 to 1998 has been the second worst in reliability. That is documented fact according to Consumer Reports, NADA, and several other reliable resources. Combine that with market elasticity (see below) and it makes GM rank slightly above Yugo.

Instead of reposting redundant info, read my post on just such a topic from a few weeks ago concerning the reliability ratings of cadillac vs. bmw....


Uh uh, so what you're saying is when you went to the show, the SSR did not have rippled paint, the knobs did not fall off, and the Wheels were not uneven. What you're saying is you took a GM vehicle from the 1980s, thought about the stuff that went wrong with it, than decided to combine it into a bunch of problems on one new GM vehicle. See you to are living in the past. The fact is that SSR didn't exhibit any of those problems. I can see your nose growing from here.

You're post about Cadillac Reliability is bullshit. Yes I said it again. You know what I do in my free time, I go and test drive as many vehicle that I can. You know what some of the "major" problems were that I found with the recent CTS that I drove. I scratched Mirror ( this could have been put their at the factory or some other test driver could have scratched it), lets see, I also found a spot of *gasp* mud on the interior carpet. I know thats going to get points off the reliability survey. Some Cadillac owners now are EX BMW owners, or EX Mercedes owners, and they fill out that little survey just like they would with their BMW or Mercedes. You don't see 70 year old grandpa going down to his local dealer and ordering an Escalade or a CTS-V, no you see 30 and 40 something year old Doctors, and lawyers who would normally drive BMWs down there looking at those. People expect just as much from a Cadillac or any other GM brands as the would the equivalent Import. Whoo Hoo, you're grand father or whatever he is, replaced a bolt in his 80s truck by himself. Thats good, when you're Honda CRV blows up you're not as lucky, or when the wheel falls off your Tundra. It comes down to Cadillac and the rest of GM for that matter are improving quality and some are already past the import competitors. All the surveys and all the tests get conducted the same way on GM products as they do on BMWs, Lexus, and Mercedes. You're little theory is flawed.

You're little theory is flawed.Hmm. the funny thing is that I helped write the theory for the industry. I guess you're smarter than the entire automotive world.

If you want to continue thinking that your GM is the best thing in the world, then I'm glad you've found happiness within your mediocrity. But in general, this is a forum where people ask questions of their fellow enthusiast and we don't need to hear ramblings from a fanatic. Please stop hiding in your anonymity and let us know your superior engineering background... unless you're basing your entire theory on your "test drives" of new vehicles.

Don't talk to me about "test drives" when I probably spent 100 hours in the seat helping design the vehicle you just "tested" for three miles.
Uh uh, so what you're saying is when you went to the show, the SSR did not have rippled paint, the knobs did not fall off, and the Wheels were not uneven. What you're saying is you took a GM vehicle from the 1980s, thought about the stuff that went wrong with it, than decided to combine it into a bunch of problems on one new GM vehicle. See you to are living in the past. The fact is that SSR didn't exhibit any of those problems. I can see your nose growing from here.
Umm... yes, it had rippled paint, and the knobs DID fall off. You're right, the wheels weren't uneven. I never said the were. I said the BODY was not straight which has been a GM problem for about 20 years. My 96 Impala SS has that problem as well, but you probably didn't read that in my last post. I'm not thinking about a GM from the 80s, I'm talking real time cars up until 1998... which I said in my original post. If you take the time to read my posts you'll find that I clearly demostrate my experience and outline that with which I don't have experience. That way no one is confused with my opinion/advice.

Jeez, you'd think people would read before they anonymously open their ass to talk.

Now the problem is, you've opened your mouth and recklessly defended something passionately without proper research. That means (just like buickmastermind, thesilentchamber...who has fully redeemed himself, and others) you will now defend your point to the end regardless of how ridiculous it becomes in order to save your "forum dignity."

Let's see how far "gonenuts" will go with his anonymous indefiability.

78-98 gm has had the 2nd worst reliability? so your saying brands like hyundai, kida, daewoo, etc are all rated higher?

anyways i'm out of that bracket my trucks a 76 so ha...lol

78-98 gm has had the 2nd worst reliability? so your saying brands like hyundai, kida, daewoo, etc are all rated higher?

anyways i'm out of that bracket my trucks a 76 so ha...lol

Before I opened my mouth to respond, I double checked this statistic. My sincerest apologies... that was a stat pulled from an article published by J.D. Power and Associates, and it referred to one segment of reliability; drivetrain, and the years were 73-96. GM was kept out of the bottom spot by Rover. :)

I'm not sure where they fall into overall reliability for those years, but I'll try to find out.

Umm I didn't really read much of this thread, but I just wanted to say (besides GM kicks ass) - Cadillac in the last few years has completely OWNED every company when it comes to quality. Cadillac has beat every single company in the market in quality, except Lexus (which only beat them by 1 point). The new CTS, SRS, SRX, CTS-V, and XLR totally kick everyone's ass on quality while still staying relatively low priced. I am at the Lansing Grand River plant nearly every day, where the CTS, SRS, CTS-V, SRX, and soon to be STS-V are made, and I can tell you - GM, especially after converting to Lean manufacturing, is obsessed with quality. Every single product coming out of LGR is nearly flawless. They kick stinkin ass.

you say GM has beat every company in quality except Lexus?? no one could ever convince me in 100 years that Cadillac builds better quality cars than Honda or Toyota. Having owned an 02 Accord and currenty an 04 Highlander, there is no way... Cadillac now as a $70,000 STS??? Are they stupid?? Dont they know that BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, etc.. has cars in that price range? Do they really expect to sway someone looking at an S-Class or 745i to a STS?

Umm I didn't really read much of this thread, but I just wanted to say (besides GM kicks ass) - Cadillac in the last few years has completely OWNED every company when it comes to quality. Cadillac has beat every single company in the market in quality, except Lexus (which only beat them by 1 point). The new CTS, SRS, SRX, CTS-V, and XLR totally kick everyone's ass on quality while still staying relatively low priced. I am at the Lansing Grand River plant nearly every day, where the CTS, SRS, CTS-V, SRX, and soon to be STS-V are made, and I can tell you - GM, especially after converting to Lean manufacturing, is obsessed with quality. Every single product coming out of LGR is nearly flawless. They kick stinkin ass.
Should have read the thread them, would have explained a lot to you.

Well GM is definatly improving in the quality of their cars. My family has owned only one GM car and it was a 2003 Trailblazer. I gotta say, the car was great. We had no complains at all. We go rid of it because gas prices were getting ridiculous. I HATE GM cars and sedans (except for cadillac), but GM's trucks and SUVs OWN! :iceslolan

GM trucks dont own ive had a few and they are not that great, Ford and Dodge have the best trucks on the market. Caddys have greatly improved, my uncle recently bought a 2002 STS and it is made of a better quality than a few benz's ive ridden in. I recently sold my 92 lumina just because i got tired of it and need a new car. That lumina was the most reliable car ive ever had, i didnt put more than 1,500 into the car since i got it in 1998 and it just keeps going and going.Ive had my experiences with forgein cars, i had a 87 toyota 4runner and a 94 honda accord (what a cheap peice of junk). The toyota ran nice but the body was shit, the metal rusted very easily. The accord, well the accord had no power whatso ever and it was cheaply made not to mention it drove horribly. I have to say GM has improved greatly with their automobiles. MY88 they have a 70,000 range for the rich people that want all the goodies attached, they have lower models for the people who want a nice car for a reasonable amount of green. plus since caddilac is getting into the performence range now with the cts-v and the sts-v these yupps in there beamers and other european rides better watch their mirrors, there might be a caddycreature lurking the dark.

I love that stereotype that only "Yupps" drive European cars, it's like saying only geriatrics drive Cadillacs or like me saying every American is narrow minded because a select few piss me off.


Newsflash, Young Urban Professionals also drive Cadillacs, so do the stunna big ballas y0! Shit didn't I just see Chingy driving an XLR on a music video this morning? Why I did!

And do I think that any "v" model Cadillac has what it takes to beat an RS6, E55 or the new M5? HELL NO! If Holden HSV's can only get close yet far, then I don't see how Cadillac plan on beating them.

well where i live yupps are the only ones drivin european rides. oh and i dont listen to "chingy" so that means i dont watch his music videos so therefore i wouldnt see him driving a xlr. I did some reaerch and found some things out... Ok the E55 benz has a hefty pricetag of 81,520 and makes about 469hp with 516lbs of tourqe. ok the powers nice but the price tag is outrageous, do you have 81,520 to spend on a car, and another thing i noticed is that the E55 is supercharged and intercooled. Now is the CTS-V supercharged, no it isnt so thats the only way a E55 is going to beat it, so if we are going to compare it with anything compare it with the STS-V. Now to move on to the BMW M5, nice car and all has aggresive styling, but again with the price, i havent seen some real numbers but im guessing over 70k comparing to the previous M5 which was around 68k. Yes the BMW does have the hp with 500hp and 383lbs of tourqe. Ok so it may be a bit more powerful but it has less tourqe than the CTS-V, also they go from 0-60 in the same amount of time also jsut for the info guy the M% isnt in the same class as the CTS-V. I couldnt find much info on the RS6 so ill have to wait around on that 1. Now lets take a look at the CTS-V, pricetag of 49,000 which is moderate, the CTS-V carries the 400hp LS6 with 395lbs of tourqe. Runs the the 1/4th in 13.0. also while doin a compariosn on www.kellybluebook.com the cts-v was worth more for the money, it came with more options and other things for a smaller pricetag than the E55 and the M5. if you think you can prove me wrong, then do so.

how can they make 400hp car so affordable?
gotta be skimping somewhere

what do you mean pots?

Every modern car company is basically the same no matter what ya own- it's gonna cost $$$ to fix it and to buy parts for it, more so than pre-computer driven, emissioned up vehicles. Foreign or domestic, the bottom line is- bend over at the parts counter or when it needs repair you can't do. And there's less and less YOU can do without screwing up the emissions and/or having a computer to diagnose the problem. Lot of the stuff you just don't want to even do anymore since you don't have 8 hours time for bolt turning to replace an buried alternator on a transverse mounted V-8 anyhow. Whether you ultimately need a starter, alternator or whatever for a Mercury, Buick or a Toyota you're gonna pay up the ass!
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Tantrum.gif

I've owned a ford(crap), chrysler(a little better than the ford), and now 2 chevy's. My 97 is one tough sob. 115,000 miles and the biggest problem I have had was my door handle breaking. Would buy a new GM in a heartbeat.

I have an 86 also that I bought for $500. It is a 4x4 w/ over 200,000 hard earned miles. I bought this truck for one reason, to beat the crap out of it and am extremely pleased with how solid of a vehicle it is. Lots of mods to come.