GM vehicles...why does everyone hate them so much?
 

I am really curious about this one.

I happen to love GM vehicles, but I do like other cars as well. What I dont understand is why so many people absolutely hate GM. I drive a 97 Camaro Z28, so my experience is mostly with performance oriented vehicles, and it seems like in that crowd, imports lovers are especially against GM cars. I dont know how many of my import friends have sorta looked down on my car because its a Chevrolet....and then I proceed to blow them away (accceleration and handling, by the way).....after which my favorite response---> "Its just a Chevy." :D

Seriously tho, if you are going to say "Because they are pieces of shit" dont even bother posting in this thread. I dont want to hear about it. That is a completely unsubstantiated claim. VALID REASONING ONLY. If you want to say "Because I dont like they way they look"...OK I can understand that.

Honestly, "I dont like the way they look" is the only reason I can see to hate GM, at least from a performance standpoint. Maybe "Well my cousins sisters boyfriend drove a Chevy for a couple years and it was a piece of shit" lol

I dunno...help me out on this one guys....

i dunno....the only other big reason i hear is because they are "cheap POS's". Well, hardly a reason, just an uninformed opinion in my mind. Most people seem to hate their interiors though. I dont know about you....but i have noticed every single car manufacturer out there who makes a car under 25k seems to pretty much all have the same cheapo interiors. Some use a cheap sray-on type that looks good, but peels. Some use fake leather crap...and some prefer hard plastic. Either way, seems to me like its not just GM with horrible interiors these days.

I have always found the GM interiors to be lacking just a little more than everyone elses. The interiors are quite functional and utilitatarian and that's about it.

Same goes for Ford. The Dodge/Chrysler is only slightly above but not by much.

The japanese and euro cars, while they may have a bit more "design" behind them, can also be very plain, but doesn't have that cheap look to it for some reason.

Moving onto bodystyle.... I've not liked an American GM product in many many many years.

I'm not a big fan of the engineered failure aspects. I have family members who have designed and worked extensively on old model GM vehicles (read: buicks) and I know for a fact that they are designed to fail precisely after a certain amount of miles. Kind of like a lightbulb.

Oh, and I dont like having two keys to drive my car. I like one. :P

edit: thats not to say that things havn't changed in either the key aspect or the engineered failure. I believe that a lot of changes have occured in an effort to make GM able to compete with some of the 'foreign' designed cars (foreign questionable as the global economy has brought us all a little bit closer together).. I'm not as knowledgable about their current reliability, but I probably wouldn't buy one. Reliability and performance are my main concerns for vehicles, and my last purchase was a toyota. (Was for the woman, she only needed reliability :-D)

I like GM also but I'm more into the older models. The new models I would like to own from 2000 to 2004 is the checy S-10, Silverado SS, 2004 GTO, any year Corvette and if they build it the new Nomad.

But some of the sedans are nice like the new Malibu.

i find the malibu and the cavalier to appear cross-eyed, the interiors are cheap looking and they use the same dials and knobs in all cars, they keep the exterior looking the same for too many years.

why can't people say they are pieces of shit if that is thier opinion and they can state it if they want too.

Working at a GM dealer for several years I can say the older GM vehicles (pre mid 90's roughly) were well below foreign competition in terms of quality. GM has made huge leaps and bounds in that department though. Also, GM isn't as high tech as far as variable valve timing, multi cam emgines, hybrids and other technologies, although that too is starting to change. The only possible knock on GM now is styling and interior, although even that is improving now. Once GM's reputation begins to improve, then their resale value will improve, which will help get rid of any valid gripe naysayers have about GM.

GM has the best quality of any other domestic company. Brands such as Buick have been top ranking in JD Power for several years. They have indeed come a long way and in a few years they will be hands down the best cars on the road.

and to Cynthetiq: I don' tknow how you can say that you haven't liked a GM product in body style in many years?

Think of all the cars/trucks GM has built and to not like one of them is just rediculous. Corvette, hummer, Saab, CTS, Cadillac, pontiac. THere are just so many different stylesa nd different cars that not liking one proves your ignorance.

I like the new Cadillacs and the Corvette. I think that the rest have uninspired or downright ugly styling, and the interiors are horrible, at least on the lower end cars. We have had some different rentals, and the Corolla is much nicer than an escort zx2 or a chevy cavalier. I do like Fords more than Chevys. I like the ford focus, and I thought the Taurus was much nicer than the Chrysler Sebring. I don't need or want an suv, and the hummers look cool, but are less functional than a suburban that you can get in a diesel. And the new Chevy pickup truck thingy, I saw it at the DC auto show, and it is hideous. Plus, all of that go fast look, and it takes about 7 seconds to hit 60 mph because it weighs about 4000+ pounds. I could never buy that. For that money, give me a ford lightning so I can at least use the back and still haul ass. I would like to buy a American car, but I cannot afford a cadillac or a corvette. Plus, the Firebird/Camaro is now discontinued. I want the new Dodge Magnum srt-8, when it comes with the supercharged hemi. SWEEEET!

By that logic I'm just going to go ahead and say that everything except GM is a piece of shit. Sound reasonable? No. Thats my point. It doesnt add anything to the conversation to just say "its a piece of shit," so to answer your question, no they cant (or shouldnt) just "say what they want to" because thats not at all what I asked for.

Sorry but that is a rumor. And illegal to boot. And as an engineering student I'd even go as far as to say that it isnt possible.

I have just one on my 97 :D

Its been my experience that foreign vehicles require just as much maintainence as domestics. In fact, its a fact :p (I've worked on a few hundred cars over a few years time, as a credential :D )

As usual, I will completely agree with you Peryn :D You make a good point that while yes, some (or many, depending on who you talk to) GM interiors are cheap, the same is generally true across the board for all manufacturers in a certin price range.

Valid opinion, thank you for not saying "they piece of shit" and leaving it at that lol. I happen to agree with you about some of the cars.


Why does that matter? Just because they are discontinued doesnt mean every single one disappears off the planet...

You can buy a used 01-02 Camaro/Firebird/TransAm with less than 15k miles for around $15,000 to $17,000. It doesnt get any cheaper than that for the performance.

Camaros and all the other GM "performance" cars just don't appeal to me. I find all of them to be ugly vehicles with uninspired and boring styling. Cavaliers are a horrible attempt to compete with cars popular on the import scene.

Bad30th,
I was just saying that they took one of their best-performing cars and got rid of it. Remember, I was the one who was surprised to see how well camaros and mustangs performed in autocrosses.

Where is Ashton, he should weigh in on this thread any second now.

I still don't understand how mustang so heavily outsold Camaro/Firebird throughout the past decade. Through the 90's, I think Camaros were better looking and seemed to have better performance, but Mustangs clobbered them in sales. I'm not against Mustangs, but I tend to look at performance first, especially if I were getting a pony car. Now Mustangs have gotten pretty good looking, and their SVTs are pretty damn fast.

I know...i wasnt bashing you.

I honestly think the reason that Mustangs outsold F-Bodies is due largely to Gm's shitty advertising campaign.

Think about it. How many Ford commercials do you see with Mustangs in them. How often does.did Ford offer special dealson brand new Mustangs? How many ads were there in the paper for the Mustang?

Shitloads.

Now think about how many commercials, ads, or special deals there were on F-Bodies....

I saw Zero. None. Nada. Not even a picture of a Camaro in the auto dealer pages in the newspaper lol.

So what does appeal to you? Just curious.

Haha, dont listen to those Import ricers, there's nothing wrong with GMs.

None of those idiots know what the fuck they are talking about, they even thought it was impossible that a Cobra could go 160.

I never really understood why people hate interiors so much. It really bothers you that a panel gap is a little too large? I've only ever been in two cars with noticeably poor interiors - an early 80's chevy nova and a new mazda protege. The mazda was better, but it was also 20 years newer.

I don't think the interiors on even the lower end GM cars are all that bad. Cavaliers for instance look cheap inside, but the seats are reasonably comfortable. Much more expensive A4's and SLK's I've been in looked really good, but I couldn't stand sitting in them. (I'm not stating that these cars are comparable to the cavalier in other ways btw)

Ok ok here is my stance how I feel about GM vehicles. There are some aspects of GM that I just fucking hate and yet there are some that I really love. I hate all chevy engines. They have poor designs of how they are laid out (I'm talking about small block and big block v8s) and the only reason its the v8 that survived out of the many divisions of GM is that they where the most produced and sold the most. I love older buick cadillac, pontiac and olds engines beautiful designs and built (back in the day cadillac had some of the best quality) I do hate the olds 307 though...it's a super weak engine and it's cousin the 403 had a short production run so some of the internals for that engine can cost a pretty penny. Today I hate pretty much any engine that gm makes besides the 3.8 (one of the greatest engines I can think of for terms of reliablity and power) and the cadillac northstar. The northstar is a product of cadillac making up for their mistakes in the 80's...I sadly owned one of those shitty 4.1 v8s......THe worst new engines I hate are the damn 3.1's and 3.4's fucking christ how ass backwards can you make an engine????? I've fixed 3 3.4's that have had bad intake gaskets....it's bullshit i tell yah. Now I kinda hate GM for having most of their stuff made in mexico but assemble in the USA, compared to how most honda's and toyota's are more american made. Granted gm has made some mistakes..(aka the quad 4 and their notoriously shitty head gaskets) but what car company hasn't?

another unfounded opinion. not all people like *ricers* albiet Subaru is a Japaneese company i don't consider them in the *ricer* catagory as the civic, accord, integra etc are. exactly the thing bad30th did not want, saying theydon't know what the fuck they are talking about is the same as someone saying they don't like GM because they are shit.

not trying to start anything but that is the same thing.

I don't give a shit about the interior..I like them....its more of the exterior that I want to look nice!

dude...you're telling me that a '68 Camaro is a pile of shit because its a Chevy and a '68 Firebird is not because its a Pontiac? :hmm:

How bout a Pontiac Tempest and a Chevy Chevelle? :hmm:

Designed by basically the same people lol sorry....


Hmm...I'm gonna have to go with....outperforming every other manufacturer out there in comparable price ranges. Thats why they sold the most. Honestly, I'd rather have a better performing, more complicated engine than a lesser performing simple engine. Thats why everyone is going to DOHC designs....better performing, but more complicated.


I dont understand your logic here....have you owned EVERY engine? Probably just that 3.8 and the Northstar, huh :D

Let me think of a few....

4.2L inline 6: 275 hp 275 lb-ft of torque. Out of a 6 cylinder. As much or more than V8 competators. Those are BMW I6 numbers.

5.3L V8: 295 hp 330 lb-ft torque.

6.0L V8: 345 hp 380 lb-ft torque.

LT1 V8 (from back in '93 even): 275 hp 325 lb-ft torque.

LS1 V8: 350 hp 375 lb-ft

LS6 V8: 405 hp 400 lb-ft

I could go on.... :D

I really dont think you can argue those numbers, but hey...if you hate power, thats cool :D hehe just kiddin



I agree....worst engine EVAR.

Mine's assembled in Canada, eh? :p

good point :cool:

thank you just trying to keep things civil

I love GM's powertrains. They are for the most part smooth, torquey, and reliable. Like a lot of people here, my main beef with GM is the hideous interior design.

I've been looking at some sportier midsize cars lately. I intended to drive a Grand Prix GTP, but after 5 seconds of sitting in the car I just left. There's no way I'd spend $30k on a car with such an atrocious interior. It was totally outclassed by everything else I looked at in its price range.

rogner--it's standard engineering practice to design parts with a certain lifespan in mind. Any manufacturer does it. Things don't last forever, and it's foolish for a company to spend extra money designing a component to last 200k miles if the rest of the car will typically be dead at 100k. A friend of mine designs wiring and electrical connectors for a supplier to various car companies, and it's the same thing. They're designed to last the expected lifetime of the car, in the environment they'll be placed in. No more, no less.

Simple. I like Fords!
For shear power the late 60's early 70's Dodge and Plymouths were faster. Their styling appealed to less people though.
It is all in the eyes of the owner.

I like those cars personally....but the thing i don't like about chevy engines are how they are engineered (spark plugs under the exhaust manifolds, distributor through the intake etch...granted they did make some nice special engines for the vette...

Lots of my friends have owned all varities of GM engines....3 of my friends own 3.4's and they have all had intake problems....I'm not saying any thing foreign is junk I like most foreign stuff....GM could take some lessons from them ;)

now are you talking about the in block cam 3.4 or the DOHC (quad cam) 3.4?

I ask because i know the in block cam 3.4 is a derivative of the 3.1, which is a piece...and I have heard that there was a recall or something on the DOHC 3.4...i have also known people who have had problems with it.

See now theres an honest answer! hehe

I like some Fords too, just depends on which ones you're talking about. :D

Lately, they seem to be paying more attention to profit than to quality. Take, for example, the plastic intake manifold on the 3100cc (3800?) that breaks after 80,000 miles, causing a bunch of damage.

The engine in my '97 Buick Century is the 3100 with the aluminum manifold. It's unrefined, lacks low-end torque, and produces less power than it should be producing for the fuel economy it gets. The automatic transmission shifts sluggishly, and the gearing drops the engine to well below the torque band on upshifts.

I think that they could work this out fairly easily, and without costing them much, so I dont' think they're really doing what they should as a car manufacturer. I also suppose my complaints come from the fact that I'm one of three poepl in the country who is under age 60 and drives a Buick Century, but I think they could do better.

LOL that was funny:lol:

i owned a 92 century with 333,000 km on it car didn't owe mw anything it went all over Ontario and the US i got the car when i was like 17 or 18 not exactly a pimpin ride.

People hate GM because they shot themselves in the foot.

For YEARS they made piles of stinking crap. They ran ads last year ADMITTING they made piles of stinking crap for years, and begging their customers to forgive them and give them another chance by trying the new stuff, but the jury is still out on whether that will work or not. the 80's and 90's saw GM products that were sloppily put together, the fit and finish was atrocious, the reliability was crap, the attention to detail was nonexistant, the paint on several of those years was junk that peeled in as few as 5 years, every GM brand was a direct clone of every other GM brand (hint: this is why Plymouth was killed off - Chrysler didn't want to make the same mistake). And as has been mentioned, their interiors have lately been acres of cheap looking gray plastic. Before that, even the upgraded cars (lumina Euro comes to mind) were widely known as having hellish red interiors that made it look more like a 70's porn club than a nice car.

Now, the jury is still out on whether the current GM products are crap or not. They haven't been around long enough to establish good reliability ratings. I will say, however, that the fit & finish on the ones I've been in lately has seemed to be better, although many of them still sport cheap-looking interiors. The company has promised that their products will be better than they were. Hope that's true, because they make some cool things and I'd hate to see them go belly up because they can't compete with the quality manufacturers out there.

See this is my point...I've had many a conversation with my friends (who drive Toyotas, Dodges, Hondas) about interior quality, and we all agree that the interior in my car is just as nice as any of these.

I dunno, maybe its because I look more at the performance of a car than the all important interior, but i really dont think so

my friend owned a tacoma it had the worst interior i have ever seen grey drab plastic just terrible. performance is definitely more important than interior but i do like a comfortable seat that can make up for a bad interior.

I'll call BS on your "engineered failure" all day.

Before my '02 Silverado, and my WRX that I had, I had an 87 Pontic Grand Am parked in the garage, with a rebuilt engine 1 time in 287,000 miles. It never had a starter, 1 alternator, and the only thing that EVER failed in the entire car was the fuel gauge. I replaced the CV Joints, as they finally went bad at 226,000 miles. It started every morning, including in the winter, and people know how had Alaskan winters can get. I'd still have it right now if I wouldn't have been rear ended.

I guess the "engineered failure" was coming up soon, eh? Glad I got rid of that thing! :rolleyes:

I love my truck, except the leather seats that have cracked in our cold spell up here. The interiors are carbon copys, everything bolts in, they look cheap, but they are functional and the truck rides and drives much better then my wifes Dodge.

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

I must concurr with Kurant... Engineered Failure??? I am not necesarily a GM guy but as far as the Buicks go, My Grandfather was given his company car when he retired; an 91 Le Sabre. The car is admiddetly no looker, but its got 330,000 on the clock an still going.

Now if the demographic that buys Buicks and Pontiacs used just happens to be trailer park trash that neglect oil changes and drive drunk, then failure might occur.

And, as far as the perfomance aspect, Buick did partner with Mclaren ASC to build the GNX, a giant in the international motorsports world...

Referring to several experiences on Ricer forums...

still afew bad people doesn't mean they are all that way.


here's what you originally posted now does this mean all people who like imports because thats what it looks like and if so that is unfounded because i doubt you have spoken to everyone who likes imports.

again not flaming but that is what it looks like.

Well I like imports, and I believe a cobra can go 160. Am I a freak? ;)

I hate all new GM's.

I love just about any GM from 70 on back.

Bit of a paradox eh?

Let me explain.

I own a 1997 Buick Park Avenue with a 3800 type K motor in it. (The suposedly bullet proof 3.8 right)

Well, let me tell you it is anything but bullet proof.

It features the famous plastic intake manifold previously mentioned on this thread. It cracked at 122,000 km or about 65,00 miles and DESTROYED the engine. The engine had to be replaced.

I did the work myself and i can tell you i have never seen a bigger POS part in my life than this plastic intake manifold. Bottom line, it's cheap and easy to make.

The dealers are changing these things 2 and 3 times a day. The dealer i went to told me that he usually keeps 5 or more of these things in stock. What does that tell you?

Make a long story short, I ended up suing GM in small claims court over this one. I can't reveal how much i got, but let's just say, it was worth it to sue the bastards.

I can't tell you how poorly GM treated me right from the dealer on up. Only when the court of Ontario told them to show up at such and such a time did they stand up and take notice.

Fuck GM, I will never ever ever buy one of their overpriced underdesigned pieces of crap in my life.

Unless it's a 65 vette. Now that's a piece of art.

Other problems with my car:

Leaky trunk (sometimes as much as 10" of water in it

Burned out dash lights all over the car (irreplaceable)

Rear window defroster that caught on fire (antena module and wiring harness actually)

Rear rotors that continually warp.

Heated seat that no longer heats ($1,800 for new heating elements)

Fuel gage that doesn't work anymore (fixed - sending unit)

Third alternator

Alarm sounds as i am driving down the street.

Clunky transmission

Leaky power steering pump.

Water pump failed.

A/ C compressor main bearing failed.

Cracked up leather seating.

Front wheel bearing gone

Holes in stainless steel muffler

Power door lock switch that fell into door

etc, etc,

That's why i hate GM

Poorly engineered, poorly designed, poorly built, unreliable, every time i get in the car i wonder if it's going to end up on the hook again.

The one thing that comes to my mind with any domestic vehicles (not just GM) is that the resale value of foreign vehicles are better than domestic.

me too

American cars are pretty hit and miss for reliability. My dad had a '90 Sable. Popped a head gasket at 95k miles (good ol' 3.8), within about the next 10k miles everything that could break did. Power steering pump, water pump, fuel pump, starter, auto climate controller, speed sensor, etc. Then it started making an ominous loud clanking sound when it was started and occasionally on a 2-1 downshift. My theory is that the torque converter ballooned and messed up the crankshaft thrust bearings, because the ends of the flywheel bolts were all smashed up.

My dad's '90 Ranger was pretty decent until the heads on its 2.9 V6 cracked at 60k miles, which leaked coolant into the oil and killed the bearings over the next 5k miles until it had no oil pressure to the top end.

On the other hand I beat the hell out of my '88 T-bird on a daily basis. I have the boost cranked up to 18 psi, shift at redline all the time, etc, etc. 105k miles on original everything including turbo, and it just won't die.

A friend of mine has 220k miles on his '86 Buick Riviera. Only time it ever left him stranded in the 100k miles he's had it was when he thought the engine lost oil pressure, but it turned out to be water getting in the sending unit connector. He had a few other Rivs, they were just as good.

My parents had 90 or so olds Toronado. Ran great with the 3.8 until at 170,000 miles their indash touchscreen computer went bellyup, taking a lot of functions with it. Engine and tranny never quit, but they could not find a replacement computer for the car. They had to get rid of it.
I know everyone is slamming the interiors of GM, but have you ever been inside a Cavalier? The dash is concave and their is one bizarre defroster square in themiddle of the dash to defrost the windshield. In my mind, that is one of the ugliest designs I have seen.

You could have summarized all this complaining with..."I owned ONE GM product, and it sucked, so they all suck." :rolleyes: lol

...in your experience. In MY experience, imports suck ass in the reliability department. I owned a Nissan which was horribly unreliable, and friends/relatives of mine have owned Toyotas, Hondas and Mazdas and all left them stranded far more often than any of the GM vehicles I've owned.

So I'm just going to go ahead and make a blanket statement that 'Imports are pretty hit and miss for reliability.' :rolleyes:

What's with the paint on the hoods of GM cars? It only seems to last for a few years.........

Really, no, i was just using my latest example. The 97 Park Avenue, bought brand new, one owner. Supposedly the premiere Buick with the "bullet proof" 3.8

I have also owned:
90 Z28 (Piece of Shit)
88 Lesabre (pretty good car)
82 Regal (poor car, but it was a bad era for cars)
77 Monte Carlo (great car!!)
70 Delta 88 with 455 Rocket. Inherited this little gem with 18,000 miles on it (great car)
82 Chevy Citation (not the most reliable, but cheap and easy to fix yourself
80 Pheonix (1980 motor trend car of the year, but had more bugs in it than the fish house at the cottage)

So you see, you shouldn't be so quick to jump to uninformed conclusions.

My parents owned:

64 Pontiac Strato Chief
67 Impala
73 Olds 88
80 Grand Prix
85 Riviera
97 Grand Prix.

So, i have been around GM's all my life. I have also owned a ford ranger (97), and my 75 Triumph TR6 (still own it, it's my "reliable car")

GM engineer the worst cars on the road right now in my humble opinion.

The problems I listed with my park Avenue are all very real, including the death of the engine by poor design.

My wife on the otherhand owns a 98 Camry with 228,000 km on it and it has had a new radiator put in it and a tune up, and some brake pads. That's about it.

Man, my dad has a 74.5 Triumph Tr6 and it's been running perhaps 20% of it's life. It's gone from one problem to the next.

They have a design flaw where they will forever leak oil. Needless to say it's hella fun to drive and I'd love for my dad to completely rebuild it, but the parts for an old import aren't too cheap.

At the moment, we've got a Ford,Chevy, Olds, and a Mercury in our driveway. Have also had Chevy silverado, another Ford truck, a Caddy,and a Ford Aerostar in the past.

The chevy is a 96 conversion van, and I want to smack whatever designer thought they could make an engine compartment nearly vertical so they could shorten the front end. When it comes to repairing and replacing parts, it's a pain in the ass since the only thing really accessible is the battery and oil fluid. Anything else and you've gotta try and dig down through a couple feet of metal and plastic, with no finger room whatsoever.

The only beef I've had about my olds is when GM thought they would try and make the car smart with a key identification system that was connected to the starter. Certain days, the car would just decide it didn't like my key and wouldn't start. So you'd keep trying, and end up killing the battery in the process. Once we pulled the system, no probs whatsoever.

This summs it up for me:

The same turn signal stalk, HVAC controls, and radio are present in the Cavalier, and the Grand Prix GTP.

My point being, the same crappy switch gear is spread across the whole GM product line. It's damn near inescapeable, no matter how much you spend.

Also, when I turn the key off, the radio, headlights, etc. should be off. I can't figure out why GM figures it should all stay on until I open a door.

The TR6 is a fantastic fun car. Almost should be illegal they are so much fun.

Shouldn't leak that much oil. You are basically talking a 30 year old car here, so odds are you have some brittle main seals, or gaskets.

I have restored my TR6 from the frame on up. It's a very simple and fun car to work on. I have a British cam in it, a 10:1 head, totally done out head for that matter as per Kas Kastner's book on Triumphs.

Parts are readily available, and very cheap in my eyes. Far cheaper than my buick.

You can get a complete body shell from the Roadster Factory in Armagh Penn. for about 7 grand i think.

Carpets - all original WOOL sets for 399 US. Compare that to a carpet set for a new car. You'll be looking at well over a grand.

If you want every TR6 part under the sun, or any other Triumph part check out the Roadster Factory.

http://www.the-roadster-factory.com

I highly reccomend this place. The owner is a triumph nut, and he loves the cars. His work is his passion.

For perfomance, you can order from Triumph Tune in England. Actually, I think they go by Moss UK now, having been bought out. They have all the parts you could ever want to make that baby rock.

^^^ dang that was on topic

Dude ALL vans are like that...unless its a craptacular mini-van, which are still hard to work on.


This really bothers you? I mean, you're serious? :D

sorry, should have reserved it for a PM i guess.

I'll put us back on topic.

GM cars are all the biggest pieces of shit ever to hit the road of late.

The are poorly engineered, poorly built, lack styling, redundant (they all look the same), their interiors are lame, and GM has the worst record when it comes to customer service.

GM is entirely geared to creative thinking when it comes to building cars on the cheap. It's all about squeezing every penny out of the production process. If they have a choice between part A made of plastic that will fail after 90,000 km or Part B that is a superior quality and will last forever, but costs a dollar more, they (GM) will elect to use the cheaper part EVERY TIME.

They are more worried about strategic locations for coffee cup holders, and power points than engines or tranmissions.

I would reccomend that anyone considering buying a GM think long and hard about it.

How's that?? :)

Mercedes, Audi, VW all do it also.

It's a popular thing now, apparently. It's just a radio. :rolleyes:

Actually it was quite shitty.

Exactly what I asked people NOT to post. :mad:

Thanks for playing tho....

Anyone else have anything actually useful to share?

Dear Bad30'th.

You asked why people hate GM's and I told you why I hate GM's in serveral posts.

You just don't like my answers. You obviously are horny for GM's and that's fine.

But I am not.

I have owned several, and the latest and greatest is testament to why GMs are terrible.

They used to be good, but not any more. GM is a company ruled by accountants, not engineers. The days of Harly Earl and Zora Duntov are gone forever.

At GM, it's all about producing cars on the cheap and it shows in their product.

Here:

www.gm-v6lemons.com

www.gmjunk.com

People are writing websites about how terrible GM's quality is these days.

Here's a link to a web petition signed by 5,000 people with v6 intake manifold problems.

FIVE THOUSAND.......

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...d.cgi?GMcnsmrs

Maybe you could show me a similar website, or petition for Toyota, or Nissan, or Audi, or BMW, etc, etc.

You asked the question, I stated an answer. You just don't like it.

seems like no matter what you say if it is something bad about GM it has to be wrong even if you actually put in a reason so there is not much use posting because whatever it is will be wrong. you asked for opinions yet when someone gives you an opinion you get confrontational.

Good info James although i don't know if it will do any good.

I never said there was anything wrong with people who like imports, but it's the ricers that get on my nerves, there are quite a few import cars that I would LOVE to have.

You know, the idiots who put the big 20 pound steel wings on back, paper mache ground effects, that kind of stuff.

i understand now but when you refer to them as "import ricers" it sounds like you are talking about everyone who likes imports. I agree with the wings when they are put on cars that don't suit them. In my hometown we have a guy with one on an Avenger that looks like a shopping cart, also someone with one on a Celica that looks horrible.

No, actually, you just said that they are pieces of shit...no wait here it is...you said "GM cars are all the biggest pieces of shit ever to hit the road of late." And then you went on about their poor engineering. You stated your point earlier.

Actually I dont have a problem with your answers at all. I have a problem with anyone who says a car is "a piece of shit," with no real backup. You dont like GM products. Thats cool. To each his own. Your first two posts were informative. The third was basically your opinions about GM engineering. Thats cool too I guess.


Thats great. So is every other automotive company. Money makes the world go 'round, cheif.


People are also making websites about shit like this---> www.dolphinsex.org

So what...... :p

lol guess I wont be buying one of those :cool:

Or one of these --->http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=40942
:eek:

Just a quick search...
http://www.petitiononline.com/03Accord/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/44ndone/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/acura/petition.html

See...everyone sucks :p hehe

Never said any of it was wrong, just not what I was asking for.

And I am not getting confrontational at all. I enjoy discussing/debating/whatever as long as the things people say have some sort of valid backup. I think that many people (myself included sometimes) get very defensive (and for some this also means offensive) when their views and beliefs are challenged.

When I comment on what someone says, I'm trying to gain a greater understanding of where they are coming from.

To be brutally honest, I sorta like that GM is so universally hated by owners of other brands. It keeps the GM vehicles I want to buy at a lower price....and I just LOVE leaving your more refined cars in my dust, wonderful interiors and all !
:eek: hehe

Well when I had a 91 Civic and a 94 Integra, they both had the same stalk. Surprise surprise, so did the 92 Legend. A turn signal stalk does not make or break a good car just because it's shared across cars.

GM's problems are (at least they were. . .the jury's still out on the new stuff 'cause it hasn't been around long enough to get reliability data) much deeper than sharing parts amongst its cars. Hell, almost ALL manufacturers do this - even Ferarri and Porsche.

As for reliability data, I don't tend to listen to the "well I owned a Ford Excess and it broke so all Fords suck" argument. I tend more to look at established reliability patterns as reported by numerous owners - i.e. the ratings in Consumer Reports for one. They're quite telling, especially if you look at the used car ratings - that gives you a good picture as to how the car will hold up. Amazing how many GMs got ultra crappy ratings and how many Hondas got perfect reliability marks.

I own several cars, both Japanese and American. IMHO ANY car should be able to make it to 150k if you take care of it. Well my Plymouth is at 125k, and I'm not at all convinced it'll see 150.

My Honda, on the other hand, is at 250k and counting and still runs just like it did when I bought it new, and it's never had anything but routine maintenance done as far as repair. Oh, and it's had a turbo for 120,000 of those 1/4 million miles, and I didn't build the engine up either, so it sees 9lbs of boost on bone stock internals routinely and hasn't suffered a bit from it. You can't get results like that with a crappy engine design.

Wow what year and engine is in the turbo Honda?

1988 and it's the D16A6 (1.6L, 105 hp stock, found in 1988-1991 civics and crx's among other things)

Man no other car industry can beat the oold Chevelle, Firbirds and Camaro's of the 70's, 80's and even 90's

the ricer losers only complain cause their cars suck compared to REAL, hotrod american cars. im more into the old, classic cars, i dont think its all GM, but most all new cars that are "cheap", nothing beats good ol steel and raw power. its all opinion though, but when it comes down to facts, get a real car, not one powered by a 4cylinder washer motor.

i liked this little quote here alot, i thought id post it

"The American Muscle Car" while todays modern computer controlled squeaky clean cars may approach the performance numbers put up 35 years ago, they will never duplicate the rush generated by 400-plus cubic inches fighting for traction through period bias-ply tires. Pity todays car enthusiasts who think variable valve timing is the hot set up"
-Bruce armstrong

I assume by ricer you mean any import driver. Most muscle car fans do.

Actually, those of us with a clue can appreciate both kinds of cars, and think that people who call us losers just because we drive a japanese car are idiots. Just because you choose not to have something doesn't mean you don't appreciate its good points.

Of course, we don't complain much either. And we're not dumb enough (remember, I'm talking about the import drivers with a clue here) to compare 1990's import technology to 1960's American technology.

Comparing a 1990's economically-minded sporty import to a 1960's muscle car built in an era when good fuel economy was anything over 1 digit is insanely stupid. First off, even if the imports wanted to build a classic muscle car, they couldn't. Emissions laws and CAFE fuel economy requirements would prohibit it.


But as long as you're insisting on comparing old American with new import, let's not forget that General Motors actually called the corvair a super fast sports car in its ads, and that they did this in response to the imports gaining more and more of a foothold with American buyers. Ever driven a corvair? I have, and a sports car it's not.

The Japanese established a track record of building reliable cars that didn't guzzle gas, and that were affordable. They're continuing that tradition today.

American cars established a reputation of building cars that lost their paint and started falling apart before the car mags could get through a 30,000 mile test.

Whether they're doing so right now, today, is something we won't know until a few years from now when we can look at the average reliability, but the damage has been done.

As far as 4 cylinder motors are concerned. . .Well, there are lots of 4 cylinder cars out there that will beat the holy hell out of a muscle car in just about everything but straight line acceleration (and I'll put a turbo MR2 or an S2000 up against a muscle car in any category and they'll come out on top more often than not).


The bottom line should be what YOU like to drive. What's the point of bashing others because they don't drive the same kind of car as you? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

im not bashing anyone,"ricers" being the stupid kids, who take a complete POS and put stickers, an oversized useless wing, and an annoying exhaust tip, and say its fast, i DISLIKE those people. for good reasons.(and whats even worse is they show up at the CLASSIC car shows here in town, bleh) i dont mind a REAL, done up, foreign car. its just not my taste.

But it all comes down to O P I N I O N, thats all it is.

i didnt mean to offend you Shakran in anyway, sorry if thats what you thought.

Lets not talk about pure performance, imports vs domestics.

For the money, domestics win, hands down. Anyone who wants to argue that is an idiot. But I know someone will lol


This, I completely agree with :D

none taken. It's pretty hard to offend me actually. OK, so you're one of the ones that actually knows what a ricer is. That's refreshing! And for the record, I agree with you that the kids hopping up their hondas with fartcan tips and wings that rival a 747 are pretty stupid.





let me make sure I know what you're saying. You're saying that if you measure a car as dollars per performance, the domestics win? I suppose that depends on how you define performance. Let's compare convertibles.

The S2000 does 0-60 in 6.4 seconds. 1/4 mile comes at 14.6 seconds at 100mph. Mileage is 20/26.

the Corvette does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, and the 1/4 in 13.9 at 105mph. Mileage is 17/25

The S2000 costs $32,000 if you're dumb enough to pay MSRP.
The Corvette costs $51,000.

IMHO, $19,000 to shave 0.8 seconds off of my 0-60 time is not worth it, especially when you consider that the S2000 beats the hell out of the corvette in the twisties. And to add insult to injury, the S2000 has an electric top, the corvette a manual.

Now, that's not to say the Corvette isn't impressive, because it is. Very. But dollar for dollar, the value's in the S2k.

Where did you pull this from? The corvette driver must have had a few hundred pounds of lead bricks laying around. Standard corvettes do 0-60 in 4.8 or so. And if you opt for the Z06 option instead of a convertible (same price), you get 0-60 in around 4.2. A corvette will also pull hard throughout its rev band, whereas an S2k has no torque under 6000 rpm, and requires constant shifting. The people I've known who've driven the S2k say that this gets annoying very quickly.

I respect the Honda, but it does not compare in any way to corvette. I know they handle very well, but I wouldn't say that it would "beat the hell out of" a vette in the corners. A corvette will beat an S2k on any course except possibly a very low speed autox. The vette clearly has a lot more power though, so its hard to compare "handling" directly.

I was comparing convertible to convertible, not convertible to special super edition. If I wanted to compare the Z06, I'd have chosen the mugen SS2200, the more powerful variant of the S2000. As for the 0-60 numbers, i took the conservative side of both cars. The S2k has been reported to do it in 5 seconds as well but I suspect that was done by a pro driver launching at 5 or 6k rpm, which most of us would never do.

umm no actually lets go ahead and compare the BRAND NEW 2003 or 2004 S2000 to, oh, i dont know, say a Camaro Z28 made A DECADE AGO.

You say 14.6 out of the S2000? Ok. How about a 14.0 out of a 1994 Z28? Did I meantion that was 10 YEARS AGO? And the Camaro costs less in 94 dollars, AND in todays dollars.....no contest.

And a note about "the twisties" as you put it..... ANYONE who actually calls real driving (road courses, autoX, rally) "the twisties" has OBVIOUSLY never actually raced "the twisties," other wise you wouldnt be saying "the twisties" like all the little ricer kids do....youd be referring to an actual motorsport competition.

That being said, let me let you in on alittle secret about S2000s ......for your average driver, they are EXTREMELY difficult to drive well, let alone to their limit. Trust me, I have seen MANY an S2000 running around the track bouncing off their rev limiter because they are afraid to shift out of their anemic little powerband. A professional driver, or at least one with EXTENSIVE S2000 racing experience might be able to drive the S2000 well, depending on the course.

The Z28 on the other hand....ANYONE car drive this car fast on a road course or AutoX.

Why you ask?

P O W E R B A N D

Its fucking huge. Just pick a gear, at almost any speed, and you are in or near the powerband.

Can you say 305 lb-ft of torque at 2200 rpm? I know the S2000 cant :lol:

By the way....did I meantion I am talking about a 10 year old car here? :p

The Corvette is the same way....torque for days = MUCH easier to drive fast.



And heres some food for thought....

Results of the recent Solo2 Nationals (autoX, not sure if this is this year's or last...)

For each class, cars can only be modified to the sames standards. For instance, stock allows new tires, new struts, front roll bar, and brake pads. Thats it. Here are some examples of stock cars and their top times on the course.

Super Stock
02 corvette zo6 113.04
03 corvette zo6 113.048

B stock
01 honda s2000 113.921
00 honda s2000 113.493

C stock
99 mazda miata 107.798
99 mazda miata 109.441

D stock
03 bmw 330ci 118.062
01 acura integra type r 118.346

F stock
95 chevrolet z-28 109.497
89 chevrolet 350 iroc-z 109.863

G stock
01 toyota celica gt 112.963
85 honda crx si 113.828

I have highlighted the Camaros and the S2000s.....lower numbers are faster :p :D

Did I mention that the Camaros are 9 and 15 years old???

I have more more thing to whine about with GM cars...

I love em.. I do... and I always will

but the 700R4 transmission... was a JOKE and a MISTAKE.. that is the biggest piece of this on the car... (f-body's and std 2bolt v-8's had em)

but its been replaced now with the 700R4e and the new 2005 vette.. wow... lets just say SPLOOGE!

LS2- A new all-aluminum 6.0 L V8 delivers 400 hp at 6000 rpm and 400 lb.-ft. of torque at 4400 rpm.

New chassis with longer wheelbase

Standard short-throw six-speed manual transmission

Standard Active Handling

New, larger Goodyear Eagle F1 Extended Mobility Tires with tire-pressure monitoring system

Available Magnetic Selective Ride Control with Sport and Tour modes

Available Z51 Performance Package with unique springs, dampers, stabilizer bars, tires, cross-drilled brake rotors, unique transmission, and heavy duty steering and transmission coolers

http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/C6_preview/

I dont mind GM, been driving em since I have started driving and they served me fine. I agree the VIN K upper intake problem is a BIG problem and its due to the EGR inlet into the upper intake manifold failing , the corrective measure is a 180 T stat. In particular the 3800 pushrod engine is the best engine designed in recent GM history. And the Supercharged L67 found in Bonnevilles, Grand Prix GTP and the Buick Riv (also in SOME Olds LSS's and Buick PA's) is an amazing engine...powerful, torquey, and dependable, the M90 Eaton blower on the Series II L67 makes these GM cars true sleepers.

As for design, every car company has their flaws, but the mid 90's Riv, the 95-99 Aurora, 97-03 GP, the Bonneville, The Seville STS, these are but a few examples of some well designed GM cars...gotta love the HUD as well.

I find the interior on my Aurora hard to beat...in any car...

Decide for yourself
http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...50_23_full.jpg

I'd take the interior of a Benz or a BMW or Subaru anyday. no offence I like the Aurora its one of the few GM cars I do like. But the interior while very functional still looks the same. The interior is the same as every GM it just looks cheap.

Once again beautiful car and I meant no offence.

The reason why I hate GM is because most of their cars are pug fugly.

With all due respect, a 180 thermostat won't make any difference whatsoever.

The exhaust stream leaving an engine at highway speed is 700 degrees celsius i believe. It's enough to make cast iron exhaust manifolds glow red and heats the EGR valve to such a point that GM has 1/8" thick piece of steel wrapped around the thing.

All this gets blasted into a piece of plastic.

Eventually, the plastic cracks from thermal fatigue and break down of the plastic material.

The obvious solution is an aluminum intake manifold again, but that costs a bit more money than a plastic one.

A cheap solution would be to pipe the EGR stream in at a different location, away from the throttle body water ports. Preferably through removable piece that can easily be replace, or better yet features a ceramic heat sync collar.

Will GM do this??

NO FREAKIN WAY.

Gm isnt the only company producing plastic intake manifolds....

But the corvette has a way higher top speed!

Yes, i know that.

Ford had to recall their Crown Vics with plastic intake manifolds.

And Mercedes briefly experimented with them before switching to magnesium.

I don't know if any Japanese use plastic intake manifolds or not.

mazda comes to mind...damned if i can remember the car tho....

How does the plastic not melt??


or is it just a cover?

I don't know about these new cars....I own an 82 so its all Cast-Iron

No its not a cover...the intake is made entirely of plastic.

There are many plastics and plastic polymers that have a melting point far higher than any temperature an intake will ever reach...

That is as bad and Dodge makeing bearing out of plastic!

well not the bearings but the collar that holds the bearing is plastic on some Mini-Vans!

if the melting point of the plastic used is far enough above the actual temperatures reached, then it is actually a good idea. Weight savings, heat transfer, ability to injection mold, etc.

Plastics arent always bad, and there are more plastics used in aerospace and transportation than I am sure you'd be comfrtable knowing about, given most peoples misconception that all plastics melt at low temperatures.

Well I can assure you that THIS plastic is JUNK. It can not handle what it is supposed to do and will crack over time. In my case, the intake maniold cracked and i had to replace the entire engine after 65,000 miles.

Replacing engines due to cracked intake manifolds does not come under the heading of normal maintenance.

Here's a link that shows the problem.....

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/eb110112.htm

Here's a link to consumer affairs....

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automan/plastic.html

Here's a link to the news that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating the plastic intake manifolds for exploding under backfire and causing engine fires....

http://www.pulse24.com/News_Features...5-001/page.asp

As far as "weight savings" goes, a typical plastic intake manifold weighs 4.5 kilograms, verses 12.7 kilograms for aluminum. Over the lifetime of the car, this weight savings will save the automobile owner $7.91 in gasoline. Roughly a Big Mac Combo and a Sundae at McDonalds. Of course, the new engine you will need to buy will run you in the area of $5,000.00, but hey, you did get that Big Mac Combo and Sundae for free!

I am sure you want back up, so please click on this link the EPA in the USA who did an extensive study comparing aluminum and plastic intake manifolds. Pan down to page 24 at the bottom of the page so you see i am not pulling these numbers.

Another interesting tib bit in this EPA report is on page 18 where they grade the manifolds. Read the structural marks.

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/60...A600R99023.pdf

Here's a guy who almost got scortched...

http://www.cartrackers.com/Forums/li...Lemon/395.html

GM has a very big problem on their hands.

There are millions of these pieces of junk engines on the market (all 3800 type K built between 96 and 2003) In 2004 supposedly they have altered the design.


THE ONLY REASON THAT GM IS USING PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS IS THAT THEY ARE CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP TO BUILD. Again refering to the EPA study, page 18, you will note that plastic intake manifolds cost half of what an aluminum manifold costs.

If when i bought my buick they said to me, "Hey, you can have the car for X and get a cheap plastic intake manifold that will crack and destroy your engine at 65,000 miles costing you $5,000 hard earned dollars, or pay $100.00 more and get an aluminum intake manifold that will last forever"

Wonder what I would have done?

Dude calm down....I'm not saying that this particular plastic intake is the best design ever....obviously its flawed. I am agreeing with you....if that many people are having a problem, its flawed. You are right.

As far as weight savings goes.....dropping ANY weight from the front of a car (especially a FWD, and probably with the exception of a Mid engined car) will help EVERY aspect of its performance.....acceleration, braking, handling, weight distribution....everything. Guys go thru hell to save a few pounds here and there. I know your average person only cares about gas mileage, which is why you mentioned only that. But I could give a shit about gas mileage. Weight savings is important.

We wont even talk about the advantages of a plastic intake for heat transfer and improving power...

My point about the intake is that GM is not the only company doing it because its "CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP".....Mazda, Ford, I'm sure a few others are starting to.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt be surprised if, in a few years, maybe 10 or 20, I dont know, that EVERY new vehicle will have a plastic intake manifold. Why? Because car manifacturers are ALL looking to save money. And because, when properly designed, plastic will outperform aluminum (for an intake manifold).

When car manifacturers started making aluminum manifolds (and heads :eek: ), people had the same agrument.....aluminum cant stand up the the heat produced in an engine, it cracks, it warps....same exact shit.

But why did the manufacturers do it? Cheaper(:eek: ), lighter(:eek: ), and better heat transfer properties.....same exact shit.

And yes, there were problems with the first aluminum intakes and heads, but obviously, they did get worked out. So will plastic.

I agree with you.

But GM treats people with the plastic intake manifold problem like crap.

And aluminum costs a lot more than cast iron too by the way.

I still love the old GM's though. Anything from about 70 on back is truly a classic. It's the new GM's i hate.

I would love an old vette, or Camaro, or GTO, or firebird, Chevelle, etc, etc. Those cars were truly impressive designs for their time.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=40942

Honda treats their customers like crap too. Its sorta universal, I think.

I love the old chevs to....I have been looking for a 70's or 80's camaro.....more because they are nicer and not all plastic.

Does GM stanbd for General Motors comp? cause if it does then my dad has a safari from them and i must say it hasnt turned out to be a bad acar.

yes, GM = General Motors