Why should Buicks be more reliable than other GMs?

CR is full of goofballs.

Go check out their car review issue. What rating do they give the Grand Cherokee for reliability?

Now, go back to the data. All good, very good, and excellent. Not one balck of half-balck rating for the last 2-3 years. Yet, full black final rating. What gives?

They are obviuously cooking the books.

Mechanicaly, the two are very simmilar, other than options and engines. The only real difference are the econoboxes and Cadillacs - where the Mercedes like electronic nightmare/testbed occurs.

Buicks were plusher. Slightly older age bracket.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander
Loading thread data ...
*MOCK NOT THE VOLVO!* I will now go drive my '75 245DL wagon, with it's I4 displacing less than the bottle of Coke in my fridge, and pretend I'm cool.

Sarcasm aside, Volvos (at least the older > snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

Reply to
Marky

I agree. OLD Volvos are slick. The new ones? Ehhh...

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Reply to
stuart8181

Consumer Reports is a very mis-informed organization. Personally, I look at JDpower for recommendations. JDpower bases their opinions on polls taken from the very people that buy the equipment, and even though Land Rover is named as best in initial quality, the truth comes out in long term quality tests (I use Land Rover as an example, because it tops initial quality, while bottoms out at long term quality). Consumer Reports has been screwing up for years now, this is why they are hurting. Already adding 'buy now' features to their web site - which basically goes against what they said they are about.

GM, according to JDPower, is getting really close to challenging Toyota in quality. GM is not quite there, but close. This is according to JDpower. However, I bought a 2003 Toyota 4runner, and a Cadillac CTS. The CTS has not been back to the dealer once, the 4 Runner has been back 4 times.

Reply to
Dan J.S.

Because Consumer Reports is full of shit.

Reply to
Cheezeypants

And the prrof of it was 1 or 2 years ago in its car issue in that they stated that they didn't get enough reliability data for the Mustang GT of that year but did get enough data for the A6 4.2... Come on, Mustang GT sells like hot cakes!

Reply to
Neo

Don't forget the Bonneville and the late Aurora which share the same platform.

Reply to
Neo

Yeah - you can keep your Accord V6 and Audi A4 - I'd spend the same money on a bigger, plusher car with more power.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Because Buick uses more 3800 engines in thier vehicles.

GMdude

Reply to
GMdude

Reply to
Marky

They're nice but the Impala SS could still kick their ass.

Reply to
Phillip Schmid

Sort of a moot point when you consider you can still buy a Marauder, you can't buy a V8 Chevy.

mike hunt

Phillip Schemed wrote:

Reply to
BigJohnson

yet.

Hopefully GM will bring back the RWD Impala and Monte on the next redesign. That's the rumour...hopefully it's true.

If not, bring the Holden Commodore over here and sell that.

Reply to
Brad Clarke

According to the latest stockholders report the rest of GM, like Cadillac, IS returning at last to RWD. The first RWD V8 will be the big Pontiac in 2005. Chrysler is returning to RWD as well, in it larger vehicles.

mike hunt

Brad Clarke wrote:

Reply to
DustyRhoades

Actually, the GTO is coming in 2004, it'll be RWD with a 5.7L V-8...

Reply to
Mike Levy

The 2004 GTO is an import, that has always been built as a RWD Holden, in Australia, not one of the current FWD vehicles that is reverting to RWD..

Mike Levy wrote:

Reply to
DustyRhoads

However, GM will need to re-design all the FWD vehicles to make them RWD. All the FWD cars have transverse engines, so the engines will have to get turned 90° to make it work. I see the import of the GTO as GMs first move to RWD vehicles...

Reply to
Mike Levy

Actually Cadillac was the first GM division to return to a domestically built RWD model last year.

mike hunt

Mike Levy wrote:

Reply to
DustyRhoads

I thought the Catera was a RWD.

Reply to
Mike Levy

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.