GM Sucks

[CamaroSSBoy346]

Yeah, i own a Camaro. But anymore, GM really "sucks" in general. GM hasnt made anything "good" or worth owning IMO since the Camaro (02). Sure, they got the 50K Covette, but not everyone can really afford the C-5. Then theirs the GTO, which is really a holden (durh) I guess GM is learning slowly with the revised avalanche, but they still have all their other FWD "Sports" cars. They dont make the Cavy Z24 anymore, their GA GT gets beat by Civics, The monte Carlo "SS".. I guess their may be hope for the GTP GP. Gm has got a new head-manager (i guess thats what its called) who is 50+ years old. Hopefully that will change and all these cars that are supposed to be attracting "young" kids, and will bring back some RWD cars, and resemble cars of yester year. Thanks for letting me rant.

[YogsVR4]

Rant on! But, I suggest the Cadillac line is looking pretty sweet.

[Jimster]

Cadillac.......... the Seville and Deville are outdated, wafty and horrible, the Escalade, ESV and EXT are among the worst SUV's on sale, the XLR is FAAAAAAAR overpriced and the CTS Is an average (and ugly) 3-series clone

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Rant on! But, I suggest the Cadillac line is looking pretty sweet.

Cadillac is looking really good. They've grown by leaps and bounds. I can't wait for the XLR-V.

[MagicRat]

GM's product line up does have some bright spots, but overall, GM has been an absolute disaster for 25 years. As recently as 1980 they had 49% of the North American car market.

Now they have 28 %. The buyers are voting with their wallets and GM sucks, in the market place. Their only strong suit is trucks and that may not last. I wish it were not so, as I grew up on GM (and AMC!!!)

[Aaron_03]

I think they are slowly turning around, and I expect more RWD cars in the near future. I hope so.......everyone needs some good competition, or we're screwed!

[tigermiata]

Originally Posted by Aaron_03

and I expect more RWD cars in the near future.

I just got this month's R&T and they mentioned that the Pontiac Solstice's platform (Kappa?) will be used in cars from various GM divisions. One cannot fault rolling out a whole series of small-bore RWD cars! This approach, rather than let the Solstice live or die as a low-volume specialty car, might mean it could survice the next bean-counter's purge of the line-up.

My vote is for that copy of the 1954 Corvette Waldorf Nomad I saw in the magazine; it's been a long time since we've been able to buy a 2-door wagon.

[justacruiser]

"Cadillac.......... the Seville and Deville are outdated, wafty and horrible, the Escalade, ESV and EXT are among the worst SUV's on sale, the XLR is FAAAAAAAR overpriced and the CTS Is an average (and ugly) 3-series clone"

Actually if you look at them on their company sites, the CTS has more for the buck of everything than the M3 does. As for quality, I posted this next bit in another thread, but it'll do here as well:

Check out the initial quality press release for mid size luxury cars from JD power:

http://www.jdpower.com/cc/auto/rele...rch.asp?CatID=1

"The study shows that the initial quality gap between Domestic, European, Japanese and Korean brands continues to narrow. While Domestics trailed their European and Japanese counterparts by at least 19 PP100 five years ago, Domestics and Europeans are now equal, and both trail the Japanese by 9 PP100. Korean manufacturers have demonstrated substantial five-year improvements in initial quality. In 1998, 116 PP100 separated Korean brands from the Europeans, which led the industry. By 2003, the quality gap between the Koreans and the industry-leading Japanese fell to 26 PP100."

In the number of problems per 100 vehicles it goes,
(Lexus is the best by a longshot, Caddy is number 2)

1. Lexus = 76
2. CADILLAC = 103
3. Infiniti = 110
4. Acura = 111
8. BMW = 118
14. Audi = 132
14. Mercedes Benz = 132
24. Volkswagen = 143

Industry average is 133 problems per 100 vehicles, which means Volkswagen failed to meet average and Audi and Mercedes barely squeaked by. Chevrolet, scored right above Mercedes and Audi.

That was initial quality, when you first buy the car, now check out the dependability study...

"Other notable performances in the 2003 results include Subaru and GMC, which both performed considerably better when measured at three years in VDS than when they were measured at 90 days of ownership. At the other end of the spectrum is Mercedes-Benz, which experiences the largest quality gap between initial quality and long-term quality measurements. Also deteriorating more rapidly than the average vehicle are Audi and Volvo."

"The 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study is based on responses from more than 55,000 original owners of 2000 model-year cars and light trucks. The study covers 147 specific problem symptoms grouped into nine major vehicle systems. For the first time, the study reviews models at three years of ownership instead of the historical four- to five-year period in order to better support manufacturer product improvement efforts in next-generation replacement models."

Once again, this is in problems per 100 vehicles, but over a 3 year period in this study:
1. Lexus = 163
2. Infiniti = 174
3. Buick = 179
6. Toyota = 201
7. Cadillac = 209
13. BMW = 262
26. Audi = 318
26. Mercedes = 318
(Yes folks, Merc and Audi scored worse than Dodge)
28. Volvo = 330
32. Volkswagen = 391

I would say anyones bias against Cadillac should be more on looks, (although I think they all look awesome), rather than quality and certainly price, because Caddy, owns, BMW in both of those catagories. In the years since Lutz came to GM, it's changed a lot, for the better in most cases. It'll get better in the future I'll bet.

[Ground Rat]

The GTO shouldn't be a letdown, and the monte carlo SS now has a s/c. Chevy needs to do something better with the silverado ss, but you can get it s/c from the factory, many people don't know this. The XLR is good looking and powerful. The avalanche still looks gay though.

[MagicRat]

The Monte Carlo and some other FWD lines are a good example of GM's problems.
They still use the 3.8 L pushrod V6, when most everyone else has hemispherical 4 valve OHC or DOHC engines for years.

Now the 3.8 is a great high tourque, indestructable engine (I have one and its fine) , but it does not have the performance or appeal of the others.
This is one problem, but typical of GM's non competive product line.

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

The Monte Carlo and some other FWD lines are a good example of GM's problems.
They still use the 3.8 L pushrod V6, when most everyone else has hemispherical 4 valve OHC or DOHC engines for years.

Now the 3.8 is a great high tourque, indestructable engine (I have one and its fine) , but it does not have the performance or appeal of the others.
This is one problem, but typical of GM's non competive product line.

WTF?? Pushrod > OHC.

[Mr Payne]

Originally Posted by Jimster

Cadillac.......... the Seville and Deville are outdated, wafty and horrible, the Escalade, ESV and EXT are among the worst SUV's on sale, the XLR is FAAAAAAAR overpriced and the CTS Is an average (and ugly) 3-series clone

XLR is overpriced? How so? I'm not sure how you can make that argument without relying on perceived "prestige" differences between brands.

[justacruiser]

Actually the XLR is about 10-15K cheaper than the car it's competing against, (Mercedes SL500), and comes available with more options, the same standard equipment and more power, all at a cheaper price. Once again, the Caddy owns...

[MagicRat]

Hey ground rat,

You said"WTF?? Pushrod > OHC."

Apparently not even GM agrees.
I have 8 cars with pushrods and I tell you overhead cams are better breathing, especially at higher revs with more efficient combustion chamber shape, for more power and better fuel economy.
Pushrod engines are cheaper to make and provide more low end torque. Now if that is what you want, great. Pushrods are better, in trucks, farm tractors etc.
But for todays marketplace, for cars, OHC is superior.
Even GM thinks so. Have you seen their newer engine designs?

[Jimster]

The CTS, just reeks of cloned 3 series, with a dash of IS200 added for that oriental flavour and more for the buck?? than an M3??? You'd better mean the CTS-V, because any other CTS looks over priced when placed next to a 3 series or G35, especially the G. What does a CTS cost??? About $30,000 in base form?? What does the CTS offer that a 330i doesn't??? I can assure you that the 4-5k premium for a 330i is more than justified- especially since the Caddy has to be specced up to the BMW's dynamic standards normaly (Which=$$$$$$$$$$$$)

I know I'd sooner have a G35, IS300, A4 or 3 series.
I'd refuse to drive around in something so shamelessly ugly as a CTS, you get all the same stuff in the end.

And why are VW being shown as a Luxury manufacturer???? The side is undeniably let down by the Mexican Golfs, Jettas and Beetles, and these are by no means a luxury car. I reckon the Passat and Touareg on thier own would yield much better results.

Caddy does not "own" BMW in value or quality- your figurees you posted tell me that. Cadillac have more or less a humble advantage in quality, not that I ever used quality as any argument, I'd sooner gouge my eyes out than drive a Toyota, but that doesn't stop them being of the highest quality in the world.

and the XLR, how could it be anything but overpriced??? It's slower than a Z4, slower than a Boxster S, yet neither of the two are exactly Spartan and are both ultra-refined cars that will let you have enormous amounts of fun.......All the XLR offers that they don't is stupid little gadgets nobody needs and more power. So why anyone'd want one is beyond me, it, like all Cadillacs, is also ugly. But that's my subjective opinion.

Does it even have a manual option???? And yes, I do think a Merc SL500 is far overpriced as well. Same situation as the XLR, except not ugly. Of course the SL55 AMG is a big exception to that, since it's a damn good car and worth every penny over the XLR/SL500, but thats getting off the topic.