OT: My GM rant

I didn't make you read it did I? If you don't like it too bad.

Reply to
Phillip Schmid
Loading thread data ...

No, you didn't. No, really, you didn't. Ok, maybe I read the first sentence. Maybe we should rename the NG to . H

Reply to
Hairy

Nah, like I said in the first post I want to see GM succeed. If I was really anti-GM we'd have no GMs. As it is we have 6 of them right now. One of the

87 Silverados is the offroading truck with 258k miles on it and still works fine. It got replaced in late 2000 with 254k miles on it. Every other GM we keep till it hits 100k-120k miles and when we sell them they're still going strong.
Reply to
Phillip Schmid

I believe he likely meant overly complicated from the context that is should not be necessary in the first place, not that it is particularly difficult to use. Although we are talking about the general population here...95+% of which can't program a VCR (similar methods).

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Why wouldn't a speed compensated volume be necessary? Unless you are getting one very expensive car....all vehicles have enough road/wind noise when at highway speeds to make this a neat little feature.

Ian

Reply to
shiden_kai

James, you are trying to explain his statement with *your* views. And we all know your views, ad nauseam. "Overly complicated" and "not necessary" are in no way synonymous.

not that it is particularly difficult

When did you dream up that number? Do you really believe the crap that you put out? Have you ever used auto volume control? If you had, you would know that there is no similarity to programming a VCR. H

Reply to
Hairy

I'm running a 92 Caprice 305 with almost 380k on it, original tranny/engine and just replaced the timing chain/radiator/water pump. Other than the typical starter/alternator/fuel pump and routine stuff the car runs like a top.

However, WHY THE HECK DOES GM CURVE EVERYTHING?

IOW WHY, do they seem to put brackets, and then put bends and curves in them with razor sharp edges, so they obstruct other items?

It's obvious they do it on purpose to make servicing a nightmare.

Example: The AIR injection system, used for about the first 5 minutes of running yet has more plumbing than the typical loo. The stainless steel tubes are curved right at the exact spot necessary to block the spark plug holes and reuire a "rubber ratchet" to get the plugs out.

Why is the starter obstructed with some enormous bracket that has hidden bolts/nuts that are embedded inside the frame and have to be accessed via holes in the frame. Add to that the sizes are all different, and metric and it becomes another nightmare. It is all done by feel and blind. A horror.

Done on purpose.

That's my beef with GM.

Other than that, my rice burner friends are lucky to get 125k out of their tin boxes before they start burning oil like mad and fall apart.

Reply to
Ivan Mctavish

Sounds like the lumberjack who claimed he'd had the same axe for 25 years......

He only replaced the head three times, and the handle 5 times.....

Reply to
Anonymous

That doesn't sound too bad at all. If you look at the S-10s and S-15s (or whatever GMC called them) with the 4.3, the steering shaft is right in the way of the spark plugs. They make it a bit complicated under the hood, but nothing no one can't figure out if they spend enough time looking and enough time pulling and cursing :P

Reply to
Phillip Schmid

Do you have any idea how many rotations an alternator has to endure in

100k miles? How about a starter? Fuel pump?

I'd say 2 alternators/starters/fuel pumps in 380k miles is pretty dammed good. Note: I was only disabled once from these, when the fuel pump totally crapped out. The original at about 150k miles. Had to get towed home and naturally I had a full 23 gallons of gasoline in the tank :(

The other parts were predictive maintenence. IOW: Alternator rattling due to bearing failure. Starter not engaging all the time and getting worse.

I have YET to see a Jap car endure what my car has. There is a reason NYC taxis use Caprices and Crown Vics. Hit a pothole in NYC with a Corolla and look in the rear view mirror at your entire strut laying on the ground.

Jap cars are designed to run 100k trouble free, and usually they do, but after that they croak and parts cost is insane!!

Why does a Toyota Camry ignition module cost $400 when my GM one cost $19.95 and I can pick it up off the rack at Autozone?

A Honda distributer? Another $400 when my GM one cost $99.00 and is beefy...

An air cleaner hose for a Mazda MPV which had a minor hole in it and caused the engine to run like crap, $125.00 and it looked like the hose on my Hoover.....

These are tales taken from my co-workers who all drive at least 30k a year and some do much more.

The only cars that hold up are carefully chosen American cars or Volvos...

Sure GM/Ford/Chrysler make some major bombs,but the Japs are making shit cars and selling them at premium prices to fools in USA who think they are somehow better.

If I am going to pay 30k for a car it better say BMW on it!

Reply to
Ivan Mctavish

Yes my Malibu's radio had the feature. And if I remember correctly, it used a button sequence that stepped thought several modes and volume sensitivities. And, yes that is similar to programming a VCR.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

It isn't a problem with the Sebring I drive now...unless I have the windows or sun roof open. If they're closed, I rarely need to touch the radio volume control during varied speed driving. Same thing with my Caravan. The only vehicle I've owned in the past 20 years that needed constant radio volume adjustment because of road/wind noise was in a base level truck I owned for about 15 years. With the unpadded vinyl floor covering, it's was no wonder. Although the Malibu I had was not particularly quiet in comparison to some cars, I still disabled the speed sensitive volume control. Wouldn't most people prefer the engineering effort and dollars go into reducing noise levels instead?

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I certaintly can't argue with that assessment since we all post messages based on our individial views. The concept of such is quite elementary and likely already understood by most people.

They can be in the context for which Paradox was making his point. (e.g. deaden road noises vs. overly complicated radio system = overly complicated radio system is not necessary IF sound is deadened properly) So, in this case, it is clearly (very clearly) symomymous. I guess you missed the point of Paradox's post.

The interesting thng here is that you've explained why you didn't think that my explanation of what Paradox meant was actually what he meant. But you failed to enlighten us as to what you think Paradox actually did mean by his statement. Care to offer your explanation from "your" point of view of what Paradox really meant by a "overly complicated radio system" vs. deadening road noise properly? You've tweeked my curosity! ;-)

Didn't, it was published 15+ years ago by a VCR manufacturer (I forget which one). One good thing that came out of it is that most VCR's these days have auto-setting clocks (from a broadcast time signal) and somewhat simplier program codes. Before then, neary all VCR's in service had blinking 12:00AM displays and were hardly ever used for automated recording. Using a VCR was one of the largest consumer product complaints...and think it still is, actually.

Sure. The statistics are out there to see. See the NHTSA public forum ste. See Toyota's (correct) response to customer complaints that they received about DRL's after their 1999 (or was it 2000) year of mandating them (Hint: they backed away from mandating them like GM should have done...and look who is selling the pants off of GM!). Look at Perot and Prowler studies and many in the European union as well. Look at the Motorcyclist Association and the Motorist Association studies. The list goes on and on. But, be like GM management and just ignore it all and just keep on tanking. Brilliant move Sherlock!.

See other post.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I can almost guarantee that it would be far more costly to reduce noise levels then to use speed sensitive volume controls. And you know the American/Canadian consumer, "we want everything to be perfect, but don't want to pay any money for it".

Ian

Reply to
shiden_kai

You are attributing your veiws to his post, when he said something entirely different.

complicated

Nope. Keep reading.

I tend to think that people say what they mean, when they post. I don't use convoluted logic to try to make it agree with *my views*. Simply put, he said they use "an overly complicated radio system" to abate the noise issue. I took issue with the "overly complicated" part. Nothing else.

Care to offer your explanation from "your" point of view of what

Oh, I know what he meant. And I agree, to a point, with the exception of the "overly complicated" part. You used the word "properly", in regard to noise deadening. I believe that word is relative, in this case. I would expect a $70,000 luxury car to be much quieter than my $35,000 truck. And I suspect my truck is quieter than most $20,000 cars. If you want dead quiet, at speed, you've got to be prepared to pay more than I'm willing to pay. Automatic Volume Control is a good low cost alternative.

here...95+%

So, how is a 15+ year old report of dubious integrity relevent to this discussion?

~DRL ramblings snipped~

With intensive training and lots of practice, I'm sure even you could learn to turn a knob clockwise to increase sensitivity and counter-clockwise to decrease sensitivity. That's all it takes on my truck. H

Reply to
Hairy

Still don't get it I see. Hmmm..let me try again. The original context was overly complicated in design, not overly complicated to use. His meaning is very obvious since he did not refer to the use of the radio being complicated at all, but to it's design being overly complicated to compensate for lack of sound deadening. Did that help any?

Remember the response I was responding to was out of context to the point...the responder indicated that he didn't have any problem with the radio being overly complicated to use. Paradox's point wasn't equating "complicated" with "complicated function" (or use), but with the need for a complicated (e.g. complexity of...) design to compensate for poor sound deadening. If you go back and read it again, I'm sure you'll see it this time.

I can buy that...no arguement. It makes more sense as you restate it.

No arguement.

If compared to the 2003 Malibu LS I once owned, you're probably right. But I disabeled the speed-sensing volume control even on the Malibu. At it's lowest sensitivity setting, I was turning the volume down manually when increasing speed. It still over compensated. So I was doin *more* volum adjustments with teh feature activated. If I used higher sensitivy settings the volume totally blew me out of the car as the speed increased. It was quite a uselss feature, as far as I was concerned. The radio volume was just fine with the feature completely deactivated. Of the people I know with GM vehicles, only one person, that drives a Silverado Truck, has the feature activated.

Not if it isn't needed even then...and I haven't paid over 20K for a new car yet. (well except the Caravan, I paid 22.5K for it new in 1997).

Beats me, you asked where my information came from. ;-)

You can hide it, but it still exists. ;-) Didn't Charles Dickens write something similar 150+ years ago? Obviously he got it!

It was a combination step button control on the model radio I had...each press of the button stepped through 4-5 sensitivity settings with one of those settings being a position where the feature was completely disabled. I didn't have a problem using the feature at all...so not sure why you thought I did. Oh, I get it, we're back to the meaning of "complicated" again in the context of the original post, aren't we? ;-)

Reply to
James C. Reeves

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.