Cruiter

I was not a fan of that either, and still wish it could have been done differently rather than on our backs (tax payers). However, it seems the did a good job in their re-development. My new C7 is a whole new standard in the world of high performance sports cars and still the only true sports car from America.

mmarshall

Well, when those taxpayers actually buy or lease a new GM or Chrysler product, they may be getting something back on that investment....generally a better vehicle than before, though there are still some exceptions.

FrankReynoldsCPA

So what you're saying is that you should pay twice for your car?

NO! The quality should be a return on the money you pay for car. They shouldn't be able to rake you over the coals at purchase, but you only get quality if you subsidize it with your taxes.

mmarshall

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I said that there are advantages, though, to new GM products that many taxpayers can benefit from.

You have little or no choice paying your taxes (unless you are Marion Barry in D.C.) That's going to apply whether you by a GM car or not....so I don't see that as an issue. But my point was that at least some of that tax money went towards giving you a better choice when you buy a new car...there are now credible alternatives from GM and chrysler that did not exist a few years ago. You may look at that in your view as "raking"....and you are entitled to your opinion, which I respect. But I don't quite agree with it. Having more and better choices in the marketplace does not hurt the consumer, but helps.

Habious

I don't understand this whole mentality.

Everyone (with an IQ over around 85) knows that GM has made some AWFUL cars.

Consumer Reports has said that their cars were just horrid. Unreliable, poorly assembled, and poorly designed to begin with.

Even people at GM themselves admit that they made a whole lot of crappy cars.

But, we're supposed to buy their cars now because their new corporate tagline is - "GM. Our cars used to suck a$$ but, they're much better now...we swear!"

So, short answer - No

I'll buy cars from companies that DON'T have a well-deserved reputation for making terrible cars. Even if their cars now are better (and I still won't even concede that point).

I think most "car people" would agree that a GM car with 100,000 miles on it is on it's last leg...and a Toyota or Honda with 100,000 miles on it is "just getting broken in".

mmarshall

And most people with the same IQ (including Consumer Reports) also know the buyout also made an enormous difference. With the exception of the plastic-bodied S-bodied cars in the 1990's (which I liked), I didn't buy a GM product got for over 40 years. Quality was too poor. But that was then....this is now.

Listen, I'm not necessarily trying to push GM...there are a lot of relatively good cars out there now for the money. The difference is that, today, GM and Chrysler, in general, have credible competition....in spite of the continuing negative panning that some people still want to give them.

Just like today with GM, many people were also slow to accept the positive changes at Hyundai and Kia after the late 1990s. When they finally opened their eyes and saw the truth, sales and reputation both skyrocketed.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

this self-serving puff piece by consumer reports states the obvious basically saying "they used to mostly suck, they mostly don't suck now, but make sure you continue to subscribe to check with our reports for the best advice"

FrankReynoldsCPA

TBH, I've driven a lot of GM vehicles with 100,000 miles on them that were far from being on their last leg. I still think they lag behind Ford, but I'm not a fan of hyperbole and blanket statements like this.

BTW, at 100,000 miles, our Toyota minivan was just getting broken. Forget the 'in'.

mmarshall

Gotta remember, though......they aren't necessarily talking to (or aiming at) car-savvy people like us. We talk cars every day, both on and off the Internet. CR aims to be the major (if not the only) source for the millions of people across the country for whom a car is little else but day-to-day transportation and a payment-note once a month.

nipponbird

Isn't Americans a bit too critical on their own cars? Of course the Germans and the Japanese know you can't sell poor quality in the US and they paid a lot of attention to reliability to "conquer" the US market. US car manufacturers take some time to respond to these strategies, especially a large corporate setup like GM. Both the German and Japanese have different corporate cultures, from that of the US. No space here to discuss all the differences, but it seems they're more adapt at reacting to a problem in customer satisfaction.
Always was a mark of quality on firearms, tools, household appliances and earth moving equipment if it was stamped "Made in USA" - why would it be so different for cars?

Habious

I'm usually not either, but this article isn't about "The new GM ZippyCar 2000!", it's about GM "in general" so, this conversation has to be made in-general.

Are there good GM cars out there? Sure
Are there bad Toyotas? Absolutely

But, if we're going to talk about GM cars, generally speaking, they have been pretty bad in the past (even Mmarshall, who is on GMs side here concedes that they made some really bad cars).

And I'm not making a blanket statement that, post-buyout, GM cars 'suck'. But, I'm saying they DID suck in the past. Also, I didn't hear anything post-buyout about them firing the designers, engineers, and assembly line workers that built the crappy cars in the past.

Maybe, somehow, with the same people designing, engineering, and building their cars...they're miraculously 'a whole new company!" and they're making some of the best cars on the market today. Sure, why not? Anything is possible.

Personally, I don't think the reason they made crappy cars in the past was due to "crushing corporate debt". The GM cars I've been in have always felt to me like they were designed by a guy who rides his bike to work. The ergonomic problems I've experienced are something that anyone who'd driven the car a couple of miles would have to notice. I really don't know what it takes to engineer "reliability" into a car. All I know is, Toyota and Honda are very good at it, in general. GM and Ford are not very good at it, in general.

The questions asked in the OP was "Should you buy a used GM car?" and "Should you buy a new GM car?"

I think most-everyone agrees on what the answer to the former, and I'm simply stating my answer (and reasons why) to the latter.

I8ABMR

I wouldnt buy one for 50% off. Even an F student gets a decent grade every now and then. Doesnt make them a good student.

Orzel

iTrader: (1)

+1 A GM vehicle is not welcome in our household.

nipponbird

Hasn't GM provided an income to thousands of employees directly or indirectly over several generations, helped the US to win two world wars and earned the US several billion in exports (paid taxes on it)?
It is a shame that they had to borrow a few bucks from Obama, but then you can be very sure he would've spent it on something less viable than GM anyway.

mmarshall

Concede? I was one of those who PREACHED for years about GM's poor quality...and most of it was correct. If anything, I'm conceding the other way around.....that they do better products today.


BTW, the most poorly-built new I ever owned was a 1980 Chevy Citation....and the most poorly-built one I ever test-drove was a 1984 Pontiac Fiero. The Fiero was worse in some ways than the late-1980s Hyundai Excel.....which had a reputation for being a lemon.

(However, I never test-drove a Yugo).