Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8452 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 11:27 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: john178 (Oct 28, 2009 4:48 pm) I swear, the GM sites I visit this is a very common scenario. These guys have like 3 or 4 vehicles and are always either trading up or looking to replace. No wonder they believe the reliability and quality are on par with the imports, they don't keep their vehicles long enough! 
|
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (Oct 29, 2009 3:53 am) No car should be junkyard-ready by 50-60K miles, unless it's been abused or is a total POS. But it's probably fairly common for a car to have at least one problem by that time. Heck, my 2000 Intrepid had several.  Around 35,000 miles, I had to have the power lock actuator in the driver's door replaced, under warranty thankfully. Around 45,000 miles, the power assist for the passenger side mirror stopped working, and the rubber seal around the driver's door opening started to shrink up. And around 51,000 miles, the thermostat housing needed to be replaced. Oh, and I ran through my first set of tires at 30,000 miles! I also had the transmission serviced at 30K (owner's manual didn't call for it until 50K, but I didn't want to take a chance). I also had the spark plugs replaced when they did the thermostat housing, because I didn't believe that they really could go 100,000 miles. And new front brake pads at 39K, rear brakes at 51K (same time as the spark plugs and thermostat housing). My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima needed a new transmission at 35,000 miles.  However, the car has at least 300,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has more than made up for the failing of tranny #1. However, I don't think my uncle's '03 Corolla really needed anything other than maintenance in its first 60,000 or so miles. However, the 30K mile service probably wasn't cheap. He missed the 60K mile service and didn't get that stuff done until around 75K. I have a friend with a 2006 Xterra, which is up to around 52,000 miles now, and it hasn't needed anything other than regular maintenance, plus it got recalled for something or other. However, he takes it back to the dealer, and I'm sure gets up-sold on various stuff that it doesn't really need. I'm impressed that the Xterra is still on its original tires. It's a small vehicle, but it's heavy, so I figured that it would chew through those tires relatively quickly. So, now that I really think into it, maybe it isn't so common for a car to have issues in its first 50-60K miles!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 29, 2009 4:29 am) That depends on the tires. My 01 Pathfinder easily made it to 50k on the first set of Bridgestones. My current 07 Expedition is close to 60k and the original Continentals and still have quite a bit of tread. My BIL's 06 Ram 2500 came with Michelin LTX tires and he has 90k on them and they are finally down to the wear bars. When I owned a 98 SVT Contour, I only got 25k out of the original Goodyear Eagle GSCs, that really sucked as I drove 30k miles year back then. My wife's GP has 54k or so and the Goodyear RSAs are shot, and will be getting tires in the next week or so. But yes, I'd expect any car to go 50-60k w/o any problems other than routine maintenance. Buddy of mine has an 05 Grand Caravan which he just spent some $$$ on a new steering rack at 70k miles. I guess that is not the end of the world, but disappointing regardless. Now I've owned/seen some vehicles be very troublesome early which turned out to be very reliable, and others that started out reliable and began falling apart after 50k miles. But, IMO, just because a car can make it reliably to 200k, doesn't mean it's a great car. I've been around lots of reliable cars that I wouldn't pay a penny for. Mainly the domestic company cars my wife has had. Most reliable but completely sub par in all other areas. My 2000 Suburban was the worst offender I've owned. I'm not kidding when I say from about 45k miles to 95k miles it cost me close to $1000 every 10k miles in non routine maintenance repairs. It ranges from a failed transmission to HVAC controllers and everything in between. After that ownership experience GM means Garbage Motors to me. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (Oct 29, 2009 3:53 am) Don't I find the same acclamations on the foreign car sites! It's interesting how people view things differently. But I certainly disagree that there's some negative about GM owners having had no problems to 60K miles while it's a feature for some of the Honda fans to post that. Of course, if you check the Odyssey thread now you'll find transmissions that don't make it to 100K and Honda is graciously paying half of a huge overpriced tranny, sometimes twice before 100K. Transmissions seem to have been a Honda feature for regular replacement at 60K service interval. Or we can look at the Honda AC compressors that are failing. Check the thread here for that feature. Since "1's" are needed. My 93 leSabre checked great up to 150,000 when my wife made me trade it. My 98 leSabre has 170,000 approx on it. I've replaced upper intake manifold on it and I have replaced brake pads several times--I guess that's a negative? Volvos and Japanese cars don't need brakes? I recall lots of posts about Accords requiring early brake replacements. Check threads here on Edmunds.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Oct 29, 2009 5:42 am) Well, one of my former supervisors had a 1992 Civic that never needed rear brakes, at least. The engine blew up before it got to that point! However, he did mostly highway driving, but started neglecting the car as it aged. I think it finally blew at around 190,000 miles. I'm still impressed that he got that kind of mileage out of the brakes, but I guess highway driving can do that for you! Plus, it had a manual transmission, so that probably helped prolong brake life.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 29, 2009 6:02 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Oct 29, 2009 6:23 am) Nah, we just open the door and drag our feet along the pavement - Fred Flintstone brakes. It's a little rough on the shoes. I'd identify brakes as not one of Honda's better points. I do end up replacing pads and rotors earlier than other cars.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jae5 (Oct 28, 2009 2:49 pm) I love how every rumor gets stuff added on to it as it evolves. The latest one I heard to the Onstar rumor was that they will use it to listen in to your conversations, with a warrant I am sure they can do that anyway, and there are new special tires on the way that will be required on all GM cars. These new tires have special wires in the sidewall that will be used to transmit information to transponders in the road. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Oct 29, 2009 6:23 am) My old Bonneville never needed rear brakes for the entire time I owned it. I got it at 90,000 and sold it at about 150,000. It got new rear shoes a little while before I bought it. I did have to replace the rear brake lines because they were rusted and blistered about about 130,000 miles. No clue what the new 9-5 will be priced at. I would imagine it would be priced in the same range as the current 9-5 so 35,000-45,000.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Oct 29, 2009 6:39 am) An honest answer. And I'd consider that maintenance although not lasting long enough for most people. If someone is happy with the car that happens to, it's just a moderate extra expense. But I disagree with someone else's implying all foreign cars are wunderbar and GM cars are maintenance nightmares that don't last over 60,000 K without major work. Last I knew, all cars had their wheels put on one lugnut at a time. None were assembled by divine intervention. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
