I wish it were not that way, Jane.
An Englishman once told me 'It is not what one IS, but what one is PERCEIVED
to be, that makes the difference'. There is a lot of truth in that, even
English cars are not perceived to be very good.
Every GM I have ever owned - and there are a good many in my past - had some
seriously irritating fault or shortcoming. From the cracking Iron Duke
to the weak Metric transmission, to the lousy CS alternators, the failing
engine plenums and gaskets, and many more.
I know you can't do anything about this.
But it is the reason that I, and many others who have been stung by GM over
the years, are a bitter about it.
Now, back to the Englishman's statement...Perception may get you in the door
(or kicked out), but to stay on top, you have to produce a product that
GM's models are not really boring and dull. They are, IMHO, plagued by
expensive failures and a GM bad attitude toward making a quality product
and standing behind it.
At least you said in your opinion. Too many poster like to state their
personal opinions as fact. Obviously not all of GM vehicles have been
problematic or GM would not still be selling more than anybody else, even
more than they did back in the fifties when they had 50% of the market. The
truth is more people still want GMs vehicles more than any others, that is
why they are still number one no matter how much some others may want the
brand they buy to be number one.
What that survey tells us is that fully 98% of the vehicles sold in the US
are trouble free, if listed as a percentage rather than presented as a
'list' On any list there will be one at the top, one at the bottom and the
balance listed in-between. Surely you don't believe that the Scion vehicles
are junk just because they fall below average on a list?
Because of my experience in all aspect of the business I am often asked what
to buy. My advice is to drive all those that meet your needs and buy the
one with the 'total drive home price' that suits your budget. All
manufactures are building good reliable vehicles today, the only real
difference is style and price, IMO ;)
If that is true, GM is in worse shape than we thought, because it makes
no sense to buy GM when Hyundais are so much cheaper.
Come to think of it, the Tiburon is actually better looking than most
I have been hearing really glowing reports about the newer Hyundais.
There was a claim in the latest Popular Science that the Azera is a fine
car...a 'budget Lexus'.
I have an appointment to drive one tomorrow.
They don't have the prestige appeal that a Lexus or other might have,
but we are interested in good transportation.
With a 7 year, 100,000 mile warranty, one might come out okay.
Uh, Consumer Reports says that there are significant differences still. (And
all they are doing is passing on what the car owners told them.)
I guess it does depend where you draw the threshold of "good dependable",
though. I would like my threshold to be at 0 problems in 5 years, but that
is unreasonable...for now.
Oh wait, you claim that for 98% of owners that can be the "met" threshold. I
guess that with every car I have ever owned (Lexus to GMC...especially the
GMC), I was in the unfortunate 2%. Bummer.
(And, yeah, I am just trying to get you to stop posting that silly
wrote in message
Just because one chances of getting one of the good ones is far grater than
getting one of the bad ones does not mean you will get one of the good ones.
I had a problem with one of my Lexus. My brother in law who owners it now
has had problems with it as well. The other three, as far as I know have
been trouble free. If I had assumed ALL Lexus LSs had the same problem I
should not have bought the next two, according to your logic. ;)
Where did you get this 98% of car owners have no problems over 5 years of
ownership? It is just so outside the realm of reality.
You look at the CR data and your claim and you are left with the conclusion
that those poor people in the unlucky 2% are basically living at their
dealerships. (OK, an exaggeration.) I don't buy it based on my own
experience. Even our 92 LS400, one of the most reliable vehicles ever built,
would fall in the 2% real unlucky category by your claim. Actually, none of
my associates would fall in your 98% with no problems category over a broad
range of car models.
It makes zero sense, what you write.
My guess is you believe what you do because you do not understand
statistical averages. You are entitled to your own opinion however. That
does not change the fact the survey after survey supports what I have
stated, and that is the all manufactures vehicles far into the 2% for the
rate of failure in the first five years. ;)
Cite one such survey. Just one. They DO NOT exist. The very idea flies in
the face of common experience. I do understand how statistics work. I am an
analytical chemist by profession, have University education in statistics
and use statistics on a daily basis. But more important than any of that, I
have owned a half-dozen new cars in my life, keep them an average of ten
years and I KNOW 1st hand what you claim is low-level baloney.
Mike you make good sense off and on, but this 2% in five years thing is just
devastating to your credibility. Stop it for your own sake.
J D Powers latest report of five year owners, for one.. I you deal is
statistics then you should know that any manufacture who produced a product
with a failure rate of much above 2%, their business would fail.
Please supply the link that says some J.D. Power survey showed that
only 1 in 50 new car owners of any brand had a failure in their first 5
years of ownership. That means, 1 in 250 owners of that model/brand had
a failure, on average, in any of the first five years of ownership.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.