I disagree. Everyone I know who own GM products like them. Deciding what is
"crappy" or "poorly-designed" is up to the owner. I could list several
Toyota's I think are shit, and I could do the same for GM. However, like I
said, the #1 plant in North America is the Oshawa GM plant. That should tell
you a little bit about the quality. As for overpriced, where I live, it is
much cheaper to buy a GM then some foreign crap.
I respectfully disagree. If you don't like GM, that's fine with me, but
IMHO, they build quality vehicles. They also keep everyone with 200
kilometers of me in house and home.
I don't have time to list all the ergonomic and other design flaws in my
company car (although I've taken stabs at it here in the past.)
It's also noticeably "looser" and noisier at appx. 40K miles than it was
when new. I suspect it will need major front end work before I turn it
in at 70K miles, and I don't know how long the A/C compressor will last
as it's been steadily getting noisier.
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
That's one thing that I have wondered about your Impala since you first
mentioned it. Did you just get a lemon? We make those Impala's down here,
and as I said before, the plant in which they are made get's top ratings for
quality. We also use the Impala's as Police cruisers, with no complaints
that I have heard of. It's also quite the popular car here (due to it being
built in-town). I see them everyday, all over the place. I have 2 relatives
who own one, but I have only driven one myself once. I test-drove it, as I
was looking to replace an older Bonnie. It was a base-model, with the 3400,
and the front bench. I found it quite comfortable to drive. I didn't find it
noisy, and it felt like a solid car. The only thing I can recall that I
didn't like was its seemed like it's ass-end was high up in the air, and I
found that distracting when backing up. But, I decided not to buy it when I
found my Bonnie SSEi.
Anyhow, like I said before, I don't mean any offence to you, I just have
never heard as many problems with an Impala as you have with yours.
How many miles?
I loved my 2001 LeSabre when I first got it, but after a couple of years it
started to fall apart. No help from the skimpy warranty either, especially
after putting on 25k a year you don't get any time for even non-moving
parts. I have windows propped closed with sticks of wood, I have switches
jammed in the on position with toothpicks, I have some rather expensive
repair bills for transmissions and wheel bearings.
This is the stuff I'd have expected from a Yugo, or a car from the 1940's,
not a new model with some otherwise good engineering. Buick did not earn my
loyalty on this one, they just pissed me off. I was a GM fan for many years
until I got this car. Yes, I contacted Buick. They suggested I guy a new
We may have. I really should be driving a Lucerne. That was my plan until
the LeSabre just pushed me over the line and took away may down payment in
repairs. Did I do the right thing buying a different band? I honestly
won't know for a couple more years. Meantime, I've driven it 9,000 flawless
miles, but I'd expect that from any new car.
You know I'm pretty much a died in the wool GM guy, but I too stepped out
and bought a Hyundai, not so long ago. I bought my wife a 2004 Sonata. I
was frustrated with some of the long standing, recurring issues with GM's.
Not enough to completely turn me away, because a few months later I bought
myself a Grand Am, but certainly enough to step outside of the GM product
My wife's car is coming on 60,000 miles and I have not repaired a thing
except for replacing the headlight bulbs. It's almost too bad too, because
the car has such a good warranty you almost want to use it... I will have
to replace the timing belt very soon, as it's a 6 cylinder interference
engine and the recommended interval is 60K. That's the nature of
interference engines and timing belts though. Edwin won't have to worry
about that in his car because his has a chain instead of a belt.
The ride, the fit and finish and the performance of this car are marvelous.
It's very Buick-esq inside and it still rolls down the road as smooth as any
GM I've ever owned. It rivals the rolling smoothness of our old '92 Park
Ave Ultra, though not the complete plushness of that car. It's also stiffer
over bumps than the Ultra, but not objectionably so. Still no rattles or
shakes. No rust, and we're in upstate NY - lots of road salt here. The
2.7L V-6 is pure snot as long as you keep it in the torque band. Don't let
it languish coming off the line or it acts like a 4 cylinder with a hang
over. You don't have to floor it, but you don't want to creep off the line
and then expect pull in second gear. It is after all, a 2.7L engine. OHC
on top of that.
It's different for me. I have been born and raised GM. Most of my family
works for the local GM (Oshawa, Canada) plant. When I go car hunting, I go
to GM places first, and I haven't really ever considered a foreign car.
Besides that, I don't really care for the look of them either. The Mazda 6
(if memory serves) is an exception. I do like the look of it, but, like I
said, its all Gm for me.
In my days of owning cars, I have had around 11. A few 3.1's, a 3400, two
3800 series I's, one Series II and my current 3800 Series II supercharged.
Oh, and the 305 in my old '82 Trans Am that I had back in 2000. I have to
say, my current car is my favorite. The supercharged engine puts out tons of
power, and get's great gas mileage for such a powerful engine. The ride at
the moment is not so good, as the front electronic shocks are on there way
out, but it will take a corner at any speed I want, and goes over bumps in
the road with no harshness. That, and it's almost 11 years old.
I realy agree with nate in a certin aspect...what happened to the
excitement you used to be able to get cavalier wagons in sticks! Now
you cant even get a performance version of the impala in a stick.
Thats exactly why enthusists went to other places for diffrent options
for cars. No manual transmission...no business from me either.
Spinning a lighter engine at higher RPM to make it's power only when needed
is an engineering decision. Lighter engine means the whole vehicle can be
lighter giving better performance and handling. Losing some torque and
having to adjust driving style to increase efficiency isn't unreasonable.
I'd prefer a Huyabusa to a Harley anytime. Sorry, not that into auto engines
anymore. Torque has real world advantages but HP is still HP. Might just be
the mindset of someone who'd buy a Camry. How many sportbikes do you pass
going up a hill. They have really small engines.
Albeit running at 10 RPMs or more ;)
Running a too small 4 cy at 3,500 RPM, a point past is top torque rating, to
maintain 65 MPH is not efficient. Running a larger engine at 2,000, well
below its top torque rating, to maintain 65 MPH in top gear is much more
efficient. More importantly, having 2,000 RPM of torque left, if one needs
to get out of the way of something, is much better position to find one
Geez, you just like proving yourself a complete moron, don't you. Why
don't you take your drivel to
alt.self-important.blowhards.bullshit.bullshit.bullshit - I can't even
bother to argue with your post below because it doesn't even make
enough sense that I can figure out what the fuck you were trying to
In any case, I can tell you that high RPMs and high efficiencies are
not mutually exclusive - I've logged many miles at >3000 RPMs in some
of my old VWs and still got consistent 30 MPG tankfuls.
Mike Hunter wrote:
You point is? It is easy to see why you do not understand that post. You
obviously do not have a grasp of the subject on which you are trying to
comment. I. E. A car with 300 HP at 5,700 RPM and 340 FPT at 4,500 RPMs,
will get 26 MPG going 60 MPH at only 1,500 RPMs. A car with a smaller
engine with 220 HP at 5,700 RPM and 240 FPT at 3,500 RPMs, will get 26 MPG
going 60 MPH at 3,200 RPMs. Which one do you thank will climb a steep grade
in top gear? What would happen to the fuel mileage in your car if you drove
down a gear or two half of the time? If you don't understand the
difference, I'm wasting my time trying to enlighten you it would seem. .
It's not I that doesn't understand, you haven't a clue what you're
talking about (as usual, should be no surprise to regular readers of
this newsgroup.) An engine will be most efficient at the speed at
which it was designed to be most efficient, period. Stating anything
beyond that is a gross generalization and likely to be false at least
half the time.
In any case, the generalizations you make in your post below have no
basis in fact.
Mike Hunter wrote:
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.