Worst-Made Cars on the Road

Yahoo, Forbes ^ | Friday, April 9, 2010 | Hannah Elliott

[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.

[Publius6961]

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."

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

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.

[Neoliberalnot]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

Government Motors: The public school of the auto industry.

[Publius6961]

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

[mono]

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.

[TChris]

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.

[mono]

Exactly. See my additional post number 146.

[antiRepublicrat]

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).

[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. 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.

[AdamBomb]

"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.

[Professional Engineer]

I mean, how would your dinky Peterbilt stand up to one of these?

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

[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.

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.

[CharacterCounts]

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.

[beef]

“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.

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

[beef]

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.

[Ditter]

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?

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

[Ditter]

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?