12th Dec 2007, 14:30
Next time you rent, ask for a luxury car special price, and rent a high end GM vehicle, especially the hot Cadillac. You will never want to drive a bland Toyota ever again.
12th Dec 2007, 17:50
10:26 bottom of the barrel economy models from Chevy, especially rental cars are hardly going to be indicative of the entire GM line-up. Maybe you should take a look at a large sedan from Buick, Cadillac or any of the full-size SUVs from GM. I am sure that my Buick would embarrass your Toyota in the luxury and comfort department, and it is a '99.
I'm sure if I rented a Toyota Yaris (probably even a Camry or Avalon), my impression of the Toyota line-up would be the same as you have generalized for the entire GM line-up.
12th Dec 2007, 22:22
Are you not aware of the thousands of Corollas blowing their engine due to sludge, and Toyota not taking responsibility and blaming it on the customer?!
I've never had a single problem with domestic coverage with their warranties.
13th Dec 2007, 09:43
No, in fact one of my co-workers actually had a brand new base model Toyota Yaris and the fit, finish, and overall quality of it is by far much nicer than the two GM base models I rented. I drive a 96 Tacoma which is also a base model, with crank down windows, a manual tranny, and no tach. The fit and finish of my truck, despite being older and more plain is still by far better than the two rentals I drove.
The fact that the engine used in the base model Malibu I rented is also in the mid and upper level trim models, the LZ4 V6, which as mentioned had 4 cracked hoses is proof enough for me that regardless the model or trim level, GM still builds cheap garbage that in no way could possibly compete with anything Toyota or Honda makes. You should have seen what happened when I closed the hood on the Malibu: The whole front end of the car flexed. The whole front end with the lights, grille, and bumper are all flimsy cheap plastic. Again- this is the same stuff used on the "nicer" models.
In regards to the Cobalt, well GM had high hopes for this car and originally claimed it would compete against the Civic and Corolla. No way. The only car it competes with is the car it replaced - the Cavalier, which in itself might have actually been better than the Cobalt. Nobody who drives a Civic or Corolla would ever consider a Cobalt because frankly, the car not only looks goofy and cheap, but the thing is built like a Rubbermaid garbage can. It also doesn't help that the New Civic is yet once more miles ahead in design, engineering, and most importantly for younger buyers-Style.
But to be fair, I did go look at one of the newer Malibus. I actually like the styling, the interior, and what I at least could see under the hood, which was covered in pretty plastic shrouds. I was actually halfway considering one for replacing my Wife's Civic. But after driving what was an 8 month old Malibu that was already practically falling apart, I have real second thoughts about it because if GM couldn't build a car less than a year ago, then I scarcely see the reason for trusting them less than a year later.
They still have a very long way to go, and despite what some people seem to be crowing on and on about concerning a handful (not thousands) of Toyotas with occasional sludging problems, or perhaps the 20 or so Tundras with a defective Cam, or even the 150-200 Camrys with a faulty snap ring in the transmission, the median reliability of Honda, Toyota and their subsequent luxury models are still far higher than that of GM or Ford. So until GM or Ford can build better cars and trucks, I think I'd rather drive a brand that I know will do it's job and do it well.
13th Dec 2007, 10:07
Wow, my Corolla has over 60,000 miles; not a problem with sludge. This is getting out of hand like the swift boat veterans for truth. To say so many Corollas have trouble is getting out of hand.
14th Dec 2007, 09:01
"I drive a 96 Tacoma which is also a base model, with crank down windows, a manual tranny, and no tach. The fit and finish of my truck, despite being older and more plain is still by far better than the two rentals I drove."
I've ridden in the '90's era and the early 2000's era Tacoma with guys at work, and they are cheap, utilitarian rattleboxes! The engine shakes so much that the stickshift is vibrating all over the place. They are cramped, and they have just a little cheap fuzz on the doors that is supposed to pass for trim. No thanks! These things set the LOWEST standard compared to the new domestics that I've driven, which would be the Crown Victoria, Buick LeSabre, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Pontiac G-5. The cheapest looking and feeling cars that I've driven have been the Chrysler PT Cruiser, and a Hyundai Sonata, although the Sonata wasn't such a bad car for a base model.
14th Dec 2007, 12:33
There is only one luxury domestic. Cadillac CTS. I am sorry, but everything else is an embarrassment. Even the Town car, DTS, etc are disappointing luxury cars. People give them too much credit when they are really below par.
14th Dec 2007, 14:41
Ride a rental car Corolla with family and luggage to Fla. for a thousand miles or have a comfortable luxury domestic... my choice is the latter. It only costs a little more to go first class.
14th Dec 2007, 18:14
Nicolaus August Otto invented the four stroke engine in 1876 in Germany. I guess we Americans have been "copying" his work with the four stroke engine in our cars for over 100 years, then.
15th Dec 2007, 02:25
14:15 Honda didn't invent VVT, but they perfected it and were the first to put it in a car. Every other automaker has followed their lead when it comes to V-tec.
15th Dec 2007, 09:35
I believe it was in 1964 that Chevrolet invented the recall. Not positive on that one.
15th Dec 2007, 11:51
Although the French used V-8's in some speedboats in the earliest 1900's, and Rolls Royce hand-built a handful of prototype V-8's, the first V-8 used in available cars was by Cadillac in 1914. Chevy tried a V-8 for about a year, which was a failure, and didn't attempt it again until 1955. The first mass-produced, affordable V-8 was from Ford in 1932.
24th Dec 2007, 23:27
Even GM's mid-sized SUV's are awesome on trips. We own a 2003 GMC Envoy that has proven to be the most comfortable AND economical SUV we have owned. On a trip to the mountains last year that involved a little off-roading, we got an incredible 24+ mpg on the highway at 75mph with the air on.
Our previous SUV's were all Ford Explorers, and though none ever had a single problem, the gas mileage was much worse and the ride not nearly as smooth. In addition, the base 6 in the Envoy is faster and more powerful (at 275hp) than the V-8 Explorers.
We test drove a number of SUV's before buying the Envoy, including the horrible Toyota Highlander, which was underpowered (slower than the Ford Escape) and had interior trim falling off. We have been very happy with our Envoy, and other family members (siblings) have put hundreds of thousands of miles on the larger Suburbans as well as the Chevy Trailblazers with virtually zero problems.
Even though I currently own one 2007 Ford, I still think GM vehicles are the best in the world. Our other two vehicles are GM.