tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post5646862754266457824..comments2023-09-29T06:58:20.125-07:00Comments on Badtux the Snarky Penguin: On GM and HummersBadTuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-43039030298047003192009-06-07T09:33:04.508-07:002009-06-07T09:33:04.508-07:00The Jeep YJ was built in Canada. So there :-).
Y...The Jeep YJ was built in Canada. So there :-). <br /><br />Your dealer was an asshole. On the other hand, defects do happen, regardless of the car. As do design defects -- Honda, for example, had a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Odyssey" rel="nofollow">bad case of the exploding transmissions</a> in the period 1999-2004 that afflicted the Odyssey, Accord, and other cars. The Jeep YJ was by and large a very dependable vehicle, unlike the 2000 Honda Odyssey, which was a piece of shit.<br /><br />- Badtux the Car PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-10869953964856572792009-06-03T04:16:10.599-07:002009-06-03T04:16:10.599-07:00BadTux: While the parts are more expensive, they ...BadTux: While the parts are more expensive, they don't have to be replaced as frequently. (I am on my third Subby). On the other hand, my last (absolutely, positively last American car) was a Jeep YJ -- I bought it brand new. At 26k, the dealer was trying to convince me that it was normal for the master cylinder to be replaced (it was leaking). At 26k! After a phone call to Chrsyler head office and mention of "hidden defect", they paid for it. What a load of crap! No sympathy for these guys...Southern Quebechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275618707597791415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-49771170636769322102009-06-02T20:36:43.132-07:002009-06-02T20:36:43.132-07:00You hit the nail on the head when you said "M...You hit the nail on the head when you said "Most of GM's automotive line other than Cadillac is today what Japanese cars were back in the 1970's". GM is 40 years behind the competition AND they have a higher cost structure.<br /><br />As you know, I'm no fan of GM-not because of blind hatred but because I've experienced the problems first hand with GM cars (I've owned four). They were all 'okay' cars until they reached the 90-100k mark and they all failed predictably. They were nothing special-about as boring as the Toyotas of today.<br /><br />I had a 1982 Toyota truck-nothing special-except for the reliability. It had 500k miles on it when I sold it for $800 to a friend starting a lawn care company. It had a 5 speed manual and I could light up the tires in the first two gears at 400k miles. At 100k, I couldn't even start two of my GM cars. The cars were driven and serviced with the same level of maintenance. The best part? I paid twice as much for the GM products as I did for the Toyota truck.<br /><br />The problems of GM today are the same problems Durant had in the '20s when he ran the company-too many products, too much diversity and no focus on anything in particular.<br /><br />It's possible to design a car to a price point and still make it a good car. GM has great designers-they just need someone to tell them what GM wants to be when it grows up.<br /><br />I just sold a 7 year old Nissan that still has more technology than brand new Chevys (not to mention that it runs like brand new with 100k miles) and replaced it with a Mazdaspeed3.<br /><br />I sincerely hope both GM and Chrysler succeed. As a taxpayer, I don't want to 'own' stock in either company.The Anteaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12026190694995112468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-60682557424944406912009-06-02T19:49:04.586-07:002009-06-02T19:49:04.586-07:0011 year old honda for me.
lots of cosmetic proble...11 year old honda for me.<br /><br />lots of cosmetic problems, but the engine and structure still goes great.<br /><br />when i sell this one and get a new one, it will be a honda again.skippyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962670107823271639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-8643549191958238452009-06-02T16:33:00.579-07:002009-06-02T16:33:00.579-07:00The Volt has a range of 40 miles (or so), and will...The Volt has a range of 40 miles (or so), and will be expensive 30K or more. Once upon a time, there was an electric car that had 100 mile range, 60 MPH capable, all the bussers & whistles of a 'real' car, made possible by an innovative battery developed by a subsidiary of the manufacturer. That eas back around 1990, and guess who the maker was? GM.<br /><br />The car was only distributed on a lease, and when the CA requirement for Zero Emission Vehicles was killed by the courts, as the leases expired, so did the cars. They were crushed. And the battery? Rights for the batery went with the company, which GM sold, guess WHO????? to the oil companies (Texaco, who was bought by someoen else), never to be seen again. The car was the EV-1. It was 20 years ago.TampaDoughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927689342520971279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-37136519286047463382009-06-02T12:41:00.551-07:002009-06-02T12:41:00.551-07:00Even in the boring basic transportation category, ...Even in the boring basic transportation category, one can have a little bit of excitement. Take our Honda Fit: boring basic transportation. Yet cutesey to look at and fun to drive--at least here in Boston where the typical GM sedan turning radius is way too wide. <br /><br />Good analysis, Tux.Coeruleushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329358348426560238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-5712825383193694582009-06-02T12:21:11.983-07:002009-06-02T12:21:11.983-07:00>"forensic economist"
Greg Palast ...<A HREF="http://www.gregpalast.com/about-greg/" REL="nofollow"> >"forensic economist" <br /></A><A HREF="http://www.gregpalast.com/grand-theft-auto-how-stevie-the-rat-bankrupted-gm/" REL="nofollow">Greg Palast </A> <br /><I>"...Rattner was one of the privileged, select group of investors in Cerberus Capital, the owners of Chrysler. "Owning" is a loose term. Cerberus "owned" Chrysler the way a cannibal "hosts" you for dinner. Cerberus paid nothing for Chrysler - indeed, they were paid billions by Germany's Daimler Corporation to haul it away. Cerberus kept the cash, then dumped Chrysler's bankrupt corpse on the US taxpayer...."</I>nunyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08833886980442919570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-73380188426700316892009-06-02T09:26:14.291-07:002009-06-02T09:26:14.291-07:00SQ, that 4 year old Subaru is going to cost you a ...SQ, that 4 year old Subaru is going to cost you a *lot* of money to service it in the future. That is true of most imports. I was quite distressed back in 1999 to find out that the air conditioning compressor on my Kia was $1800 and only available from the dealer. On an American car at the time, an air conditioning compressor was under $800. <br /><br />GM's cars certainly lack in the fit and finish department, but the problem is designing to a cost point, not technology. Their technology is as good as anybody's, if sometimes not reliable or easy to work on because the engineers ran out of budget to finish the job. And there's nothing wrong with boring. Hyundai makes boring cars. Toyota makes boring cars. Both sold lots of cars until the recent downturn (Toyota's sales have dropped like a rock in the recent downturn -- over 40% since this time last year!). Most people just want boring transportation that gets them from point A to point B in an economical and reasonably comfortable fashion.<br /><br />So if GM resigns itself to being the Toyota of the United States -- a maker of boring but reliable and comfortable cars -- they have a future. Not an exciting future, or one that will make them the world's largest car company ever again, but a future. It'll take quite a bit of work on their part to get there -- to dump the legacy overhead, dump the dealer network that has no idea how to sell boring economy cars, invest the money in engineering to actually *finish* the cars they sell rather than dumping them on the market half-baked with half-ass fit and finish, etc. -- but they have the talent and technology to do it. We'll just have to see if they execute, I guess. <br /><br />- Badtux the Car PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-49413858884594255942009-06-02T08:47:57.041-07:002009-06-02T08:47:57.041-07:00I agree about their design probs. As a GM tech in ...I agree about their design probs. As a GM tech in the mid 80's and again in the late 90's . It was very sad to see each "new line" come equipped withe same old 2.2L 4or tired old 3.1L V6 .Or else that horrible "quad 4" . I don't care that "technically" the quad 4's were a great engine and could have V6 power in a four cyl. , they were a nightmare to work on for even simple stuff , had major design faults and rattled themselved to death . Yea , GM really did themselves in with their lack of actual design changes . I also admit their Pickups are the best of all . I've got over a quarter million miles on my 93 , and still going strong . But for Car reliability and lack of expensieve maint. Nothing beats a Toyota . I need to haul wood and hay and brush and garbage and no subaru will do that .<br /> an aging W3skiw3skihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993709956954374919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-86794744916201686732009-06-02T06:50:31.771-07:002009-06-02T06:50:31.771-07:00Echoing your comments is an article in today's Gre...Echoing your comments is an article in today's Greensboro <I>News-Record</I> that quotes all the good-ole-boys who own Corvettes and GM trucks rising to the defense of the indefensible. They just can't figure out what the problem is.<br /><br />Thanks for your dissection of exactly what offends most of the knowledgeable car buyers in the US today.<br /><br />S<br /><br />Still driving an '89 Toyota Cressida which handles like new.Cirzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07070125217972397204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-16934537786014461742009-06-02T02:15:17.106-07:002009-06-02T02:15:17.106-07:00The "big three" deserve the problems they are curr...The "big three" deserve the problems they are currently having. As you say, the cars they produce are boring. I recently had the occasion to drive a Ford Focus for a week. (My Subaru was in the bodyshop and the FF was the loaner.) What a POS! The inside design was so ergonomically crappy it was hard to believe. After a few days I understood why people are running away from these companies. <br /><br />As with most people, when buying a car you have a budget. But I find that you get more bang-for-the-buck by buying a 4 year old Subaru than a new American car. (It's an Impresza Outback Sport.) Comfort, design and quality.<br /><br />GM should take some lessons from Hyundi. Anyone remember the old Pony. Classic POS -- but it looked great! Now Hyundi competes with Toyota - the industry standard.Southern Quebechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275618707597791415noreply@blogger.com