here's my .02.. For my shop trucks, I have had Mitsubishi's, Mazda's, Ranger's, Dakota's, GMC's, Chevy's, Ford's, Toyota Tundra. Last Friday, an F7 Volvo 24' delivery truck backed out of a blind driveway, directly in front of my newish 2003 Tundra, 50mph broadside, he went under the right rear against the lift gate itself, completely to the cab roof... almost tipped over the F7 Volvo, but it was pushed 8 feet sideways, hit a tree, and stopped it's tip... no reaction time, no skidmarks.... my driver not only survived, he opened the door on it's own, he got out on his own, and walked away, 2 bruises. And he came in to work the next business day, no pain's. Phenominal. The hood was against the windshield, and the radiator/core support was lodged INSIDE the timing gears, INSIDE the front cover of the engine... the valve covers dented the firewall, the 14mm cab bolts sheared off at the frame, all 6 of them, think about THAT!! both doors open, all the windows are intact. now, you tell me what I went back out and proudly bought today... hands down, the best truck for my business/employee's I have EVER owned, for what we do with it... Yup, I bought another 2004 Tundra. And, i'll prolly buy another one on top of that.. My Mitsi's have gone over 300,000, and neither one had the valve cover removed. One is still on it's second clutch. My 3.0 Ranger went through 5 clutch's in 91,000 miles.... 3 a/c units in the Dakota's.. yada, yada.. JH
Look.... I don't know you are, how drive your vehicle, or your rituals with it. It might be a turd... I don't know. But I have seen an example of your vehicle in every make. I know of a toyota tercel particular that had ALL of your gripes. Ya... I mean it.... trim, window regulators, a/c, ball joint. You name it. didn't make 100K either. It was a piece of crap. sounds like yur car is too.A I have been away from the board for a while and am checking on around 700 threads! I didn't even bother to see what is between tbe first post and the one before this one(three pages deep). I'm sure there is a 50/50 crowd here on tthe subject. This is a Message board for Buicks. A GM PRODUCT. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE LIKE THEM. IF YOU LIKE TOYOTA'S. GO TO A BOARD WHO LIKES THEM. Make sense? I Personally don't like to hear your anti GM rant. My wife just gave birth to two Boys fridaymorning. They came home Monday. I made D**N sure it was an American car. This will be amongst the pictures in their baby books. They will have that history to look back on years down the road. By the way.. I grew up on Forign cars. I settled on what works well for me. (see signature). enough said. This is thlast post i will make on this subject. I sisn't have the time to make this post. But there it was, the first thing i saw when i logged on.
uhhh Rob, the Bench Forum is about all things NOT Buick, that's what the title description says on the front page. This topic is fitting those parameters, and belongs herein. thanx, Jim
Rob Congrats on the boys (twins?) 3 of my 4 kids came home from the hospital in my 67 Riv GS and I drove away at my wedding in it. Holds some sentimental value and still have it with orig drivetrain. I guess at the positive in GM products .....after all this is a Buick forum. To each his own..... Yes, lets put this one to rest. Bruce
Sorry in advance, but you asked for it. Not trying to flame or anything, please don't take this as an attack or anything, this is just a topic I really enjoy (you'll see why at the bottom) and it got my mind going this morning. Here's some thoughts... Ah! Never make a claim without supporting evidence my old teacher used to say... "Ju want fax? I got fax for ju! Say hello to my leetle friend" :laugh: Lets start at the beginning... OK, bearing clearance, machine parts tolerance, thermal expansion design and fatigue life design is pretty much regulated by the SAE/ASME guidelines. Not by legal sanction mind you, but by force of reference. Design life is easily estimated by a series of SAE equations and these known sources are used by the vast majority of automotive engineers. Why? Because it's too costly to learn it yourself, and is a good shield when you get sued. Check out "Fundamentals Of Machine Component Design" by Juviall and Marhek, chapter 14 for a good reference on SAE design techniques. You can also find it online (with some digging) at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/ Any University Mechanical Engineering Depratment Library will have the big yelow books as well. OK, for bearing life, gasket survival, and overall load failures we design the parts using a Stress-Time indicator coverd by Fatigue Life Prediction With Randomly Varying Loads. Why? there's buckets of data around for it, all available thorugh the SAE. Using a model goverened by Bells theorem we test a sample to determine a Stress-Loadings curve (or S-N curve), using the industry standard of 3E8 for failure-safe parts or infinite life. These are tested for flucuating + mean loads, fluctating + reverse etc. Overall it's a good blending of scientific knowledge, theory, and real world resuilts allowing us to takie into account the vast knowledge of machine design. Corrosion, and wear are also designed into parts with this same empirical equation approach. For example, the formula for wear life is Wear Rate is found using the brinnel hardness of the material used, surface interferance pressure (whic is governed by the above paragraphs) sliding velocity, and empirical coeffecient. We arrive at an SAE approved guideline of part life. Once the machine design is out of the way we start looking at the whole package! Overall reliability in design is goverened by something known as the Interference Theory of Reliability Prediction. Basically using a sample sets known normal standard deviations are compared with Gaussian deviation. This is a fancy way of measuring sample sets that we try out and see what breaks. Again, the number of cycles and the testing methods are outlined by the SAE and are adhered to for the most part. OK, that takes us past the machine design. We then go into real world testing. Obviously we can't run a machine for 20 years, so we simulate the experience using a known fluctuation or shock loading system. For cars this is typically a test track, engines and pumps get the long-operations test on a well equipped dyno. Strain gauges are placed on operating components, gaskets are posthumously analyzed on a strain spectrometer for weak points. a redesign cycle is then implemented and we get another round of testing. All this results in a final known failure point. Mistakes in the design are thus double trapped. Weak points too expensive to fix are left in and service bullentins are generated, and any errors that make it past testing generate the large scale recalls. Now, this is just an overview of the common engineering techniques. This is what engineers learn, and what companies base thier products on. This does not mean that all engineering divisions are created equal, but it does mean that each company follows this same design path. The engineering between companies A & B will have its own design goals and objectives, but as far as reliability and standards are concerned they all follow the same path that's been in place since the 50's. Some are aiming for a cheaper product, some are aiming for a quality piece. One part may last longer, but it will cost more. This is the "triangle of Death" a lot of design engineers refer to. You have quality, time, and cost at the ends of the triangle, you can only be at one points, some combination of the 3. If you go all quality, kiss time to build and cost goodbye. What it does mean for our discussion here is that companies and engineeris in general scale thier testing according to similar standards, and certainly to the same principles. Honda does not know some engineering secret that GM doesn't. They can not design thier cars for longer life without incurring higher cost, and they can't use non-SAE testing methods witout paying big bucks in research or law suits. Combinations of parts are tested and checked to identical standards, that's a fact of Manufacturing Engineering. IMHO this fact is a very detrimental one at that. It promotes the Dominant Design problem and leaves us with identical copies of bad designs. Everyone goes for the (initially) cheapest alternative. Notice the lack of Rotary, Opposed, Circumferential, Turbine, electrical, Flyweel, and Hybrid engines on the market? They were all invented over 100 years ago, but nobody develops them. The process described above is why. All the fish swimming in the same direction. Why build something you can't verify or hide behind standards on when lawsuits start? I agree! Known failures that the company deems too expensive for a redesign. Imports follow the same path and have the same problem. I've changed several rear hubs for a friend with a 91 Camry, and the brakes on my colleagues 97 Avalon have seen my garage 6 times. I've redone the CV boots on my friends 91 Acura 3 times now, the throttle assembly on the same car needs to be greased and adjusted every 3 months. My 91 VW Fox hasa clutch cable with 1 month adjustment cycle, and my 85 Subaru needs regular waterpumps. This is all still anecdotal evidence... meaningless. it doesn't tell us which is more "reliable". What we need is a structured way to analyze the failures and maintenance costs, and see what's better! From the maintenance agreements. The 93 Corolla purchased new by my business partner had a service contract requiring just under $1000 year in maintenance. All the required items were spelled out in detail and he was required to have 3 month/20k kms checkups. A 94 Cavalier purchased by one of my clients had a stipulation on oil changes, basic wear items, and that all maintenance was done by a certified dealer. No consistent checkups and the required items had a yearly cost of $700. There were more, and more expensive items on the Corolla agreement. Having spoken to various dealers on behalf of friends buying new cars (some folks get asked to help move, I get to ride shotgun on car purchases) I have noted a correlation between import vehicles and required servicing. Land Rover requires a staggering $1800/year! Again, anecdotal evidence but its documented and can be verified with a call to your local dealerships. We can then confirm it by reading over service requirments as they stood 5 years ago and adding up the maintenance cost. As stated, each company has its design flaws. They both follow the same design techniques and testing patterns. They both produce known design problems (service items) and unknown items (recalls). the problem now is quantifiability! Where do we get hard numbers that say one fails more than the other? How do we quanitfy it in a meaningful way? The general public sure seems to think that imports are more reliable. But why? Do they have a structured way of analysing failures to determine if one is better than another? Wow, that sure would be a useful thing to have! As it happens, some of us make a darn fine living researching exactly this! I do it for rotating equipment in oilfield operations. I built my business around this principle as it's easily my favorite part of engineering machine design. I was even dumb enough to go back to school and get a second engineering degree in manufacturing. This stuff gets more in depth, and is actually a very important part of our economy. Anyhow, it's done using the testing and design method I described above for purely quality reasons, but most companies (or consumers) don't care about this. It's all quantified as cost. Downtime, maintenance, replacement and purchase cost, and final resale value of equipment get added up for various pieces of equipment and we see which one is cheaper. The most cost effective piece is the most "reliable". For example... a $100K car that never breaks is less cost-effective than a $1000 car that needs maintenance of $100 once a month with a $100/month downtime cost. The savings simply isn't there. Just talking maintenance and reliability we assume that the purchase price and resale price of the car do not matter. The purchase price and depreciation of the equipment (in this case a car) are covered as part of the operating requirements. In other words, you already own the car, or the cost was irrelevent because it was the one you "wanted". So we look purely at maintenance costs. If a car breaks down we have towing, downtime, parts, and service costs. If we pay more for maintenance, but the car breask down less frequently we can still account for that and determine a "winner". As it happens I have charted the costs for both a 93 Corolla and a 94 Cavalier all the way up from new purchase. In this case the Cavalier (piece of junk that I think it is) was cheaper. If you want the numbers I'm happy to go dredge out the spreadsheets. Well... maybe not happy... They weren't really all that far apart. The corolla averaged to $900/year, the Cavalier worked out to about $700. I followed a 93 Honda Prelude for a friend, purchased used in 97. Blue smoke (valve seals) and CV problems in 98. Head gasket in 99. Head gasket again in 2000 (service guy re-used torque to yield bolts). Gave up the ghost in late 2000 when it spun a rod bearing at 215k kms. Average yearly service cost was about $700. I'm dead serious. I deal with it every day and spent years studying the accursed thing. It really is a joke on the consumer because all the high and mighty claims of reliability are just that... claims. The whole objective of the car company is to get you in the door at the dealer for servicing, or back in the showroom for a new car. They are not interested in providing a quality product, beyond being able to claim "we're the best"... again only to get you into the showroom. If they can claim it with smoke and mirrors rather than hard numbers then so be it. As for hard numbers, the reason I get dragged along for car purchases is a long relationship with simulating, testing and verifying claims of reliability on equipment. 90% of it is software these days, and it's a lot of fun to work with. Again, my humble apologies for going on and on about this one, but you know what happens is you ask an engineer to prove his point. Happy to discuss where this might be wrong or innaccurate, or expand the details (hey, it's a good refresher for me anyhow). The day I get something 100% correct I'll give up and retire. ..all that being said I wouldn't buy a new GM today if you put a gun to my head. The interior is cheap and an ugly design, they're crammed with useless features (OnStar?!?!), no RWD option, and the styling just isn't there.
Interesting points, Clint. I'd buy a new GTO (if I hadn't spent the $$$ on a new 5 car garage to work on my GM junk)....it's RWD in a big way! Interior doesn't seem cheap....except for the lack of an oil pressure gauge! Bruce
Hey... don't apologize! If you're right and I'm wrong, I have no problem with it when there is actual evidence to back it up. I have been wrong before, and will be again. I get ticked when morons get on with 1 example of their nieghbor's brother's cousin's dog's previous owner's car, or wave their flag and yell about being a real American. If there is real evidence and you back up your claims, that to me is a good thing. On the other hand... Haven't you learned yet?... we are not interested in FACTS on the bench. It's about getting the popularity vote. I guess I lose. Maybe I'll make one more try at it: Yeah! GM rules! THey're the best! Go American, kick some middle east @ss! Woo Hoo! Free Beer & Naked Women (always wanted to name a band that- you'd have a lot of people coming to see you.) Seriously though... Shoot that spreadsheet on over. it's not that I don't trust you, I just don't believe you! Every chat board I get on has at least 5 "experts" that have the inside information. Let's just say I'm from Missouri.
It's all a matter of perception. Whenever I sit in a Japanese car I can't help but think the interiors look and feel cheap and flimsy. I've had excellent experiences with the GM cars I've owned. Even the Ford Ranger and Jeep we own have proved themselves as solid reliable vehicles. Drive what you want, it's your money.
I think we're saying the same thing Steve, just about different products. I personally get tired of always hearing about how great the reliability of import -vs- domestic cars are... when there's no proof or the example don't take into account real engineering or reliability issues. People just believe the marketing hype! I'll dredge up those sheets, they're in the backups of my personal server at home. Glad to have `em questioned I'd love to hear about a screw up...
Clint...you have fried my brain with that post. There goes my dream of becoming an Aeronautical Metal Fatigue Bearing Simulator Operator with a PHD in Electrode Emulsification Chemical Reactor Theory, or whatever its called. That's OK though.
I haven't read thru all the post but I know how I feel! Well I expressed my opinions on the BIG-3 and the fact that GM SUCKS a while back. There is NO-RESALE VALUE in the BIG-3 (in general) INCLUDING anything of the GM line. However, when it comes to trucks it looks like Ford HAS the resale-value AND quality! As much as I want a new F-250 Lariat, 4dr, 4wd, shortbed, "POWERSTROKE" I just can't afford the big price tag. So i'm eye-balling the Toyota Tundra 4dr 4wd right now. They are 0%/ 60 :TU: With exception to the C6 Vette and old Buicks, i'll NEVER buy anything of the GM line again ESPECIALLY NEW!!!:af: I bought my Crappillac NEW with 17 miles on it and have had NOTHING but troubles with it. I have a print out from the dealer of everything it's been back to the dealer for (all warranty) and it's as tall as I am. 71,000 miles and it's got metal in the tranny pan:af: my buddy (that's a Buick guy & I trust) is a tranny guy of 30 years experience and he tells me to park it or rebuild it NOW but don't continue to drive it. Say's it'll trash it and cost more to rebuild it. The thing is, if anyone drove the car they'd say there's NOTHING wrong with the tranny, but I know it's not right. On a cold start-up it'll stall 1,800 to 2,500 RPM before it moves which means it's loosing pressure. Then going down the road it doesn't shift like it use to (know one else can notice this) My buddy say's he'll rebuild it for $2,000 (R&R) and the rebuild kit alone is $800.00 :jd: NOT COUNTING the converter or any metal parts..just bands and clutches:Comp: :af: :Smarty: It'll take him 6 to 8 hours alone in LABOR to pull it out and then to put it back in. The front frame and ENTIRE front suspension has to come out before he can get the tranny out. My buddy that's a lead service tech @ Bill Heard Chevy agrees that it'll COST $$$$ and I should trade it or rebuild it NOW. He say's my Buick buddy is giving me a deal that it'd cost $3,500 to $4,000 to take it to another tranny shop or dealer. 71,000 miles????:Smarty: I don't trust this car to put $2,000 into the tranny to go another $5,000 miles without it costing me more $$$$$. What next a MOTOR?? :rant: Did I mention it averages a set of brake pads every 25,000 miles??? Words cannot describe how disgusted I am with American vechicles and quality, ESPECIALLY from GM :Smarty: Someone told me that J.D. Powers has ranked Crappillac as #1 in quality and service....:jd: You gotta be kidding me ou: Now let's talk about crap..I mean GM. Cookie cutter vehicles for cookie cutter people living cookie cutter lives. They have disgraced their own companies and offended their customers with CRAP like this new Caviler.....(I mean this POS with a chevy motor they've slapped a Pontiac name on..ya'll know what i'm talking about :Smarty: ) and they keep these USELESS compaines around like Pontiac?????? What a friggin JOKE!!! They haven't had their own engine since????????? 1983????:rant: :blast: They dragged out a SLOW death for Olds, & Pontiac should have been the 1st to go....they've disgraced us all (Buick, Olds & Pontiac enthusiast) thru the years with the junk and crap they've been building and slapping legendary names on, and now there are building Chevy suv's slapping a Buick badge on it and putting a chevy motor in it:rant: I know there has been chevy powered Buicks for several years but this corporate BS is getting ridiculious!!! :rant: :Comp: So now they are making US the LOYAL Buick enthusiast suffer and be DISGRACED by this crap they are building. Watch'em build a rwd car in a few years, slap a chevy motor in it and call it a GS or GN:af: :blast: :blast: :rant: :Smarty: :spank: They made it CLEAR to us that they don't care about us, they're gonna do what they wanna do. Wished they'd shut Buick down NOW like they should've done YEARS ago. You know it's freakin PATHETIC when Buick has had the SAME 240HP SC3800 GS for 8 years and Nissan with a smaller engine is making 255-260HP I can go on, and on, and but instead my actions will speak louder than words. I'm going Toyota, Lexus, Honda, and Nissan shopping. I'm standing up for QUALITY & RESALE VALUE in foreign vehicles. Flame suit on!
cars & troubles a car (except a classic) is the worst investment that u can make , but u require tranportation . does the phrase "built in obsolesence" mean anything ? every product on the market is designed to breakdown at some point and thus require repairs ? money is made in parts & labour ! this is a marketplace driven economy & buying replacement or new products , keeps people working . i have owned many cars since 1960 . the only piece of crap that i owed was a 710 datsun . terrible seats . backseat covering material separated & rotted just after the 1 year warrany was up . valve seals at 25000 miles or a quart of oil a week ! the only major problem that i have had on any of the gm cars that i have owned is with my 1998 regal gs which seems to have temp control heads that last 2 years only . other that that , only minor things that i repaired myself . i guess it is each to his own !
Buickman69, I know what you mean. Once you get burned good, why go back for more! gstewart, good point- a car is a terrible investment. I understand that they are built with a certain life expectancy. I wouldn't have any problem with them if I even got a solid 100K out of them without all the trouble. The problem with that is that these problems are happening when the car has 20-30 thousand miles on it! I did most of the work on all my cars when they had less than 50K on them. I don't think there's any excuse for that!
Buy used then and you can't lose much. That rapid depreciation is one of the best things about GM. Can buy a $25k car for $10K when it's 5 yrs old. Like a 99 Regal GS that will blow most imports away even higher HP ones since it has more TORQUE. Sure you might have to put a few bucks in it here or there....big deal....can afford to since the cost was relatively low. Man this thread just won't die...... ou: Bruce
Why do you think it's your job to kill it? You obviously feel some sort of obligation to answer every post.
Buickman 69, You are so right. How anyone can compare the GM of today with the GM of yesterday is beyond me. Why have brand loyalty in this day and age, when GM doesn't even have it? One thing about the JD powers survey. This only covers INITIAL quality. I should hope that EVERY auto maker can build a car that at least can stay together for a year. Lets take a look at these same vehicle repair rates after they have been driven a few miles. Until going on disability, I worked on nothing but low mile vehicles (usually under 30K miles) both foreign and domestic. Did I see some wasted Japanese cars? Of course I did. But the percentage of domestic vehicles needing serious repairs far exceeded the amount that the imports did. Examples: Dodge Neons with head gaskets that leaked so badly they would literally leave puddles of oil on the floor. With milage as low as 5000 miles. Almost EVERY GM 3.1, and 3.4 liter engine that rolled into the shop had intake manifold and oil pump drives that leaked. Most all with milage below 30K. GM 3.8L oil pan leaks, bad enough to soak the entire underbody of the vehicle, again, milage under 30K and as low as 5K. Low milage Dodge Caravans with belt tensioners breaking off of the engine, AC leaks at the evaporator. Chevy Malibus with front lower control arm bushings wasted in vehicles with milage as low as 10k. Jeep Grand Cherokees front and rear differentials eating bearings. So bad infact that Dana corp issued a tech bulletin to Jeep dealers and told them to expect a 100% failure rate. Dodge Dakotas going through ball joints as quick as 10K miles. New Chevy Blazer and GMC Envoys with the I6 having catastrophic engine failures under 10K miles when cylinder wall sleeves loosen up and fall into the crankshaft. Ford 3.8L that had head gasket failures so bad that Ford started offering incentives to buy the vehicles back. Ford Focus had so many federal mandated recalls that the government recomended to Ford that they temporarily stop selling them. Thats just what I could come up with off the top of my head. BTW most people talk down about the Chevy Cavaler/Pontiac Sunfire, but it was one of the few cars GM builds that I didn't see many problems with. Here's what I saw as far as Japanese Import problems. Nissans go through rear O2 sensors around 30k and occasionally had oil pressure sender units that leak after 60K. They also had some problems with evap canister purge solinoids. On some of their V6 truck motors they would crack exhaust manifolds. Some Toyotas had a sludge problem on the small 4 and Camry and Lexus 6. This was not as wide spread as some here make it out to be. Maybe saw one in 20 engines were sludged, and I agree that it was most likely due to poor maintenance. In the 90's Toyota V6s had a head gasket problem, but they did a voluntary recall on every vehicle up to 120K miles, so I never fixed one. Some Hondas over 90K miles had front crankshaft seal leaks. Isuzus were loaded with problems. Funny thing is that GM is a majority owner. Mitsubishis had head problems if the timing belt wasn't changed and it let go. Valves would hit the pistons, and for some reason would crack the head. Mazda V6s had valve cover leaks at the spark plug tube O rings that would let oil fill the tubes and cause random misfire codes. Now what I saw and repaired isnt made up to bash domestics, and most professional mechanics on the board will agree with what I saw in the field. I agree that all cars have there problems, but I saw far more serious problems from domestics much more frequently then I did with the Japanese imports. If people want to take that as me bashing domestics, or not supporting American auto makers, so be it. I call it using my professional experience of 17 years to objectively inform people of what I have seen. I love domestic vehicles, up to about 1975, the 86/87 GN are also stand outs as are the newer Vettes. My first love in cars will always be Buick, but the Buick that I love is when they were actually Buicks, had Buick power, and were not cookie cutter GM cars.
Thanks Bruce! It has been happy days and many adjustments (I hold my boy Kenny as I write this). I tried to compltet the '70 to bring the boys home but it didn't work out....the heads wern't ready. I'll probably post this elswere, but if I make this work... Here is a picture of Charlie and Kenny
Another Toyota loyalist here. Driven 5 Toyota trucks over 100k miles, out of the two I have now, one has 140,000 on it and the other one is over 250,000. Had a Chevy S10 that started self destructing within a month of leaving the dealership. Has less then 90,000 miles on it now and is quietly rusting into the ground next to my dads house. My mom had a bronco that lasted about 40,000 miles before it cracked it's first head. 3 sets of heads and 20,000 miles later she sold it as a parts truck. My brothers '02 ranger has been in the shop over a dozen times, everything from serious misfire to replacing all the accessories and pulleys 5 times in an attempt to cure a really bad squeal coming from the nose of the motor. He is currently going thru the process of "lemoning" the truck. Girl that I dated a few years ago had a Neon, had all kinds of electrical problems, squeaked and rattled really badly and the engine ate itself at about 45,000 miles. I HATED that car. Even if "American" cars were as trouble free as the "imports" are, I still would not buy one. They are just so uninspiring. There are exceptions (Vette, Ford PSD, Dodge Magnum, Mustang, Some of Caddys offerings). I thought GM was headed in the right direction with the GTO and the SSR. But they dropped the ball bigtime on those too when they made them into high end cruisers rather then affordable, lightweight, overpowered musclecars.
