Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Worst-Made Cars on the Road
Yahoo, Forbes ^ | Friday, April 9, 2010 | Hannah Elliott

Posted on 04/12/2010 8:05:57 AM PDT by throwback

If you want to drive something dependable and long-lasting, steer clear of these vehicles.

With a 22% improvement in sales last month, and despite the six-month, $4.3 billion loss it announced Wednesday, General Motors is likely to have its strongest spring and summer in years. Plus, the automaker had critically acclaimed new products at the recent New York Auto Show and the much-anticipated Chevrolet Volt is due out this fall.

More from Forbes.com:

• In Depth: Worst-Made Cars On The Road

• Navigating Your Way Through Traffic

• Cars With the Best Gas Mileage

Year-over-year sales of GM's Cadillac division alone are up almost 76%; sales in the Buick, Chevrolet and GMC divisions were each up more than 40% for March. The industry as a whole was up 24.3%.

Unfortunately just because GM's cars are selling well now doesn't mean they're the best bet for durability or value -- yet. It'll take awhile before GM's new direction shows up in tangible new products at the dealership.

Four of the seven vehicles on our list of the worst-made cars on the road come from GM brands.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: automotive; cadillac; forbes; gm; gmbailout; governmentmotors; govtmotors; worstmade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last
To: wbill
Does that about cover all of the FReeper arguments for the "smart car" thread? :-)

No, but it DOES cover the incompetent directives of a government who prohibited smaller cars and convertibles for a while. Remember the 80s?

I'd rather live in a world where intelligent people (and stupid ones) can make their own choices, not even stupider bureaucrats who do it for "our own good."

141 posted on 04/12/2010 11:49:56 AM PDT by Publius6961 (10% of muslims, the killer murdering radicals, are "only" 140,000,000 of 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

It also violates rule number 1 in my book for auto styling.

That rule is the height of the tires must be 50% of the car.

That car looks like it has Cheerio’s for tires.


142 posted on 04/12/2010 11:52:06 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mono

No flame. It is up to you if you chose to support the regime hijacking private businesses. I have a Chevy truck and like it but won’t buy another. It is call a principled decision.


143 posted on 04/12/2010 11:54:58 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Government Motors: The public school of the auto industry.


144 posted on 04/12/2010 11:55:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chris37

...and what would happen if your F350 was broadsided by a Peterbuilt, yadda yadda, yadda...?


145 posted on 04/12/2010 11:59:53 AM PDT by Publius6961 (10% of muslims, the killer murdering radicals, are "only" 140,000,000 of 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Senator_Blutarski

Here is my reasoned argument and facts. The GM cars I have owned were reliable, economical to operate and have had no major mechanical problems. One of my cars is a 1992 Olds custom cruiser station wagon which just turned 200,000 miles. Total outlay for parts....$40.00 to replace the cruise control module with a used one and about 100 bucks for a heater fan assembly. 350cid v8 gets 18 city and 25 hwy. which is fine with me. Weighs over two tons and foreign rice burners would self destruct if they hit me. I have owned dozens of GM cars, seven at present, and never had a lemon.


146 posted on 04/12/2010 12:05:17 PM PDT by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mono
I have owned dozens of GM cars, seven at present, and never had a lemon.

Every GM product I have owned has had something major, and many things minor, fail on it.

Everyone seems to have different experiences, but it looks like the bigger picture is that they aren't up to par, overall.

147 posted on 04/12/2010 12:07:35 PM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Exactly. See my additional post number 146.


148 posted on 04/12/2010 12:10:42 PM PDT by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: chris37
The chinese SUV is probably made of poison, gives off poison fumes, and contains portable drive worm .exe’s.

Nah, they just thought "Well, they say a crumple zone is a good thing, so let's make ours extend all the way to the rear seat. It'll be safer!"

But seriously, the smart car’s frame being lower than so many other frames is the reason that I would not ever get in such a car. That and the fact that I can fit in it. It’s a clown car, and I am 6’4” 260 lbs WTH are they thinking making something like this ?!

I'm not trying to sell you one, but there are some myths here. You should be able to sit comfortably at your size. The driver compartment is quite roomy, since it's almost the entire enterior space. As far as the frame, it doesn't sit low, but high, one of the safety features.

That's the frame. Sure, it can never be safer than a much larger well-engineered car, but it's not as dangerous as it looks, especially for its size. I saw a driver's side head-on test once, and the Smart dirver would have walked away. The driver of the other (more normal size) small car would have been in the hospital.

One example, in a frontal, the rear-end takes damage. It routes the energy around the driver, to include using the tires as part of the crash structure (hey, that's a big rubber donut there you can use to absorb energy).

149 posted on 04/12/2010 12:28:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Anger is an emotion, and you are acting against the "anti-capitalist organization" based solely on the anger that you feel towards them and Obama. I choose to be rational and make decisions based on quality vs. rhetoric/emotion.

Speaking of rhetoric...the bailout was a loan, which is being repaid early. They are also ahead of schedule on the IPO and both parties in the matter have publicly stated that the intent is for the Government to start reducing their stake in the company at that time. However, they do caution that it may take several years to complete the Government divestiture. Clearly, given those facts, it is NOT a Government takeover.

150 posted on 04/12/2010 2:18:57 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
"I choose to be rational and make decisions based on quality vs. rhetoric/emotion."

Believe me, there is a mountain of data out there that unequivically prove GM's and Chryslers are flat out unreliable. If you made any sort of decision on quality data, you would certainly not by GM. It appears that ou are the emotional purchaser.
151 posted on 04/12/2010 3:25:30 PM PDT by AdamBomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty; antiRepublicrat
I mean, how would your dinky Peterbilt stand up to one of these?

You call that a truck? Now, this is a truck!


152 posted on 04/12/2010 6:48:33 PM PDT by Professional Engineer (Conservative States of America has a nice ring to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Anger is an emotion, and you are acting against the "anti-capitalist organization" based solely on the anger that you feel towards them and Obama.

You are completely missing the point and making unwarranted assumptions at the same time.

My post had nothing to do with anger. It had nothing to do with any type of "emotion", and you were incorrect to assume so.

I will state the case more bluntly, since you are having difficulty understanding.

1.The government controls GM.

2. I think that government control of GM is not in my economic self interest.

3. I do not want this government control of GM to succeed, because I think it will lead to more government control of more private enterprise which is bad for the economy and bad for me personally.

I want GM to fail, not out of anger or any other type of emotion, but because its failure will mean the failure of the government taking over private enterprise.

I will not purchase a GM product because GM's success is undesirable economically.

Sending a dollar to a government owned entity is like sending bullets to the enemy camp. Its an economic decision - not an emotional one.

153 posted on 04/12/2010 7:13:57 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
both parties in the matter have publicly stated that the intent is for the Government to start reducing their stake in the company at that time. However, they do caution that it may take several years to complete the Government divestiture. Clearly, given those facts, it is NOT a Government takeover. Sure - and the income tax was never going to be more than 1% on the richest 5% of Americans. I personally don't care about paying the government back. When the government owns 0.0% of the shares of GM, then I will consider purchasing one. Somehow, I don't think this will be for a long, long time.
154 posted on 04/12/2010 7:17:48 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

“I suspect the rating on the F-250 has a lot to do with the 6.4L Powerstroke engine.”

I have the 7.3 in a 1996 E350 van. Runs like a top, lots of pep, and gets good mileage. They shouldn’t have changed. Probably the EPA made them.


155 posted on 04/12/2010 7:33:49 PM PDT by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I can't count the number of Cheve Surburbans and Tahoes I have had ever since it was a 3 door crew truck and I have never had a problem with any of them.

My favorites were the '67 - '72 Suburbans. Beasts, they were.

156 posted on 04/12/2010 7:50:26 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz
Consumer Reports started out in the ‘30s. They saw themselves as a temporary stop gap measure to protect consumers until we transitioned to Marxism, at which time such a service would no longer be needed. Somewhere along the line, the transition, until recently, stalled.

I have a number of problems with their testing. They have a very limited notion of what constitutes good and bad, especially when it comes to vehicles. When they test major appliances, they do only a small fraction of the available models, leaving consumers to wonder if model “B” which is available locally is more or less the same as model “A” which was reviewed. They fill their pages with silly stuff like which brand of grape jelly is the best, as though you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself. And last, but not least, they spend subscriber money promoting and lobbying for their leftist agenda.

157 posted on 04/12/2010 8:00:28 PM PDT by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

I don’t think I had one in ‘67 but I did shortly after. Our daughter was born in ‘72 and I had one around then. Did your early one have only 3 side doors plus the back door?


158 posted on 04/12/2010 8:39:59 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
Yes, the '67 - '72 models had precisely that door arrangement. ...so you probably had an '71 or '72.

The above is '71 GMC Suburban, not a Chevy. But they were essentially the same.

159 posted on 04/12/2010 8:47:11 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Gad that is a BEAST! LOL! I remember thinking they were beautiful. The first one we ever saw was in downtown Houston and we chased it until we saw the Cheve logo. We bought one soon after, gold and white, I was hot stuff. ha!They didn't call them Surburbans back then, it was a crew truck. Did it have another name?
160 posted on 04/12/2010 8:53:47 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson