Anyway, its obvious what happened: GM has always designed their cars to last about 3-4 years - the rational is that after three years, the new upgraded model would come out, and nobody would want the old one.
I don't believe that one bit. That means a 2002 GM car is going to be falling apart? As I stated above, I drive my '79 DeVille around daily... hell, my '89 Oldsmobile with 131k miles that i paid $500 is a daily driver, that car has not a single issue besides underbody rust... which any daily driver NY car that is 17 years have..... 17 years.... a 17 y/o GM car that was never treated special or have really low miles, still be a daily driver. I do not have a single quality control issue with that, or any of my cars.
And then, Honda/Toyota/(Datsun/Nissan) came over here, and they built cars that lasted, that spent more time in your garage than in the mechanic's, and that were (generally) cheaper. Not to mention they looked hella good compared to the American boxcars of the 80s (K cars, J bodies, etc.). I mean, the Mazda RX7, Toyota Supra, Datsun 240Z, etc. were affordable cars that LOOKED GOOD.
built cars that lasted? how about built cars that rusted out? ANY import from the 70's and 80's is plaqued with serious rust issues... back int he 70's you'd be lucky if your new Honda lasted 3 years. You are comparing mega-cheap econo cars (K and J) to some high end imports.... how about we compare the RX-7, Supra and 240Z to say.... oh a Buick Grand National or a Ford Mustang 5.0? now all of a sudden they look like junk and their performance is even worse. The 80's was a bad decade for all cars... but to me atleast there were some pretty nice cars form the Big 3, even if performance was low.
And even the regular bread and butter cars weren't too shabby either, the Mazda 626 (with its ossilating A/C vents and automatic seatbelts ), the Toyota's and Hondas.
yeah they were nice until you crashed into a full size GM/Ford/Chrysler RWD boat... now you are dead and the Delta 88 needs a new front bumper.
American cars broke down, they were ugly, they were inefficient, they used stoneage technology (OHV engines, hell they still force them on Pontiac today...), they were just behind the times.
thats all realitive, I think the first gen RX-7 and Supra is ugly, there isn't a single import from the 70's or 80's that I like at all.... except the 70's Toyota Land Cruisers... those were just cool.
Stoneage technology? you mean OHC right? OHV? but OHC is OLDER then OHV... so how is OHV...I am lots....
I will choose an OHV engine over OHC/DOHC *ANY* day. They are far superior IMO.
Of course, there were exceptions - like the Ford Taurus, and the Cadillacs of 1992, the Fox Mustang, etc. but overall, American cars sucked. I mean, why get a Cavalier when you could get a Civic?
Because you could get a 3.1L V6 and a convertible in the Cavalier.
And yes, Consumer reports seems biased, because we like American cars, but the fact of the matter, is that they aren't biased, they're just BRUTALLY HONEST. They say things that we don't want to accept, even though we know they're true.
yeah.... no... they are BRUTALLY BIASED.
Of course, American cars have gotten better, And Consumer Reports has reflected this; they recommened the STS, CTS, and the Escalade this year (I think...) in the '06 CR Buying Guide. But, although they've gotten better, they're still behind Jap cars. They're introducing 10 year old-technology in their new cars, and the Japs are 10 years ahead. It sucks, but...What can you do? When you have incompetent leadership, like Bill Ford or Roger Smith or Rick Wagoner, what can you do?
10 year old technology Japs are 10 years ahead... what?
I *HOPE* you are not talking about VVT.
Did you know the first Cadillac in 1904 had variable intake valve timing....WOHA.... I guess its the Japs that are behind... come on now.
I'll tell ya one thing... VVT is only used on the imports 4 and 6 bangers because they offer NO low end torque at all! they NEED the VVT to try and gain that back. Why is GM picking up VVT? because of debates like this "GM is old tech" *that is that Motor Trend and Consumer Reports tell you* a DOHC VVT engine is no better then a simple pushrod. GM isn't behind anybody.
the C5 Z06 had 405hp and would get 20mpg around town and 30mpg on the highway and run 12's all day in the 1/4.... *from an old tech pushrod* Where is Japan now? You know where they are? building 2.0L turbo charged high revving DOHC 4bangers that get *LESS* fuel milage then a NA V8 Corvette... while making about half the power.... come on, who is REALLY behind the times now? Hell the C6 Z06 has 505hp and runs [email protected]
in the 1/4, fuel mileage figures can't be off that much from the C5.... so it'll e interesting to see what this will get.
ANother thing, that play pointed out, is that GM doesn't know what they consumers want. I mean, we want a Pony car, and GM is putting out things like the HHR and giving brands like Pontiac a minivan. Now, why would you want to buy a sports car from a company that also makes a (mediocre BTY) minivan?
Pontiac has had a minivan for awhile now.
BTW Pontiac brought back the GTO 2 years ago.
Pontiac is coming out with the Solstice.... 2 seater, RWD convertible, manual... yeah its a 4banger, but next year it'll become supercharged putting out 260hp or so..... whats Honda have? the S2000? good luck revving that toy up to 8,000RPM to get moving.
The new Pontiac G6..... have you seen the Coupes? you can get the GT with the 3900 V6 (yup, sweet pushrod) and a 6spd manual...... I guess this is a boring car too.
Ford scored a HUGE hit with the new Mustang..... Honda dosn't have anything anywhere near it.
Chrysler is putting the Hemi into everything... their full size family sedan (300C) is running low 14's/high 13's in the 1/4 mile.
Where was GM in the 90's? what about our Cadillac Northstar? Where was Honda's limp-home mode? run out of coolant, 4 cylinders shut down, engine lives and you get home. Cadillac had 295hp in 1993.... Honda had.... 180? Oldsmobile was doing great in the 90's dosn't it SUCK GM had to kill them despite Olds in its final year with the Alero (Grand Am) Shilloette (Venture) and Bravada (Blazer) STILL sold more then Saab, Saturn and Isuzu.... *combined* The Oldsmobile Aurora? that was a kickass car, the 2nd gen Aurora is soo nice. The Oldsmobile Intrigue was a very nice advanced car and you could get 2 amazing engines... the 3.5L DOHC Shortstar or the 3800 Series II.
Thats another thing, the 3800 Series II s/c is a BEAST of an engine... IMO far better then what Honda has to offer.
you want to REALLY talk about GM beating Honda at their own game....
how about the Quad4 of the 80's? yeah they are known for headgaskets... but it was the same situation as the early N*... lack of maintenace.
in 1989 GM had 160/180/190hp versions of the Quad4. They were DOHC. the 160hp was the base version, 180hp was high output, and 190hp was the rare W41 used in the Cutlass 442. All these could be had with a 5spd manual. All of these actually had some low end torque... about 160ft-lbs across the line of all 3 versions... more then Honda.
Honda didn't get 190hp until what? 1994 in the Prelude? and even then, it was a low volume car.
So really, WHAT does GM have to keep up with?
How about the Pontiac Fiero? What about the Oldsmobile Toronado with the touch screen computer inside the car to run radio, climate control, navigation, calender, system monitor on the car etc.... come on now, this stuff was amazing that the imports simply didn't have.
I can go on and on... but really the fact is, GM's quality was never as bad as people make it out to be, and GM has NO catching up to do at all. in fact it's Honda that has to catch up how? they don't have a single V8. They build a joke they call a Ridgeline and try to market here as a real tough truck... real trucks are not unibody with low torque transversly mounted V6 and AWD.... come on now.