GM. A Canadian Revolution

Since our countries are so closely linked and we spend so m uch money in your country I wouldn’t say too much. A lot more than the japs anyway

It’s not “rather than,” is it? Wasn’t the plan always to make them for a year in Germany then transfer production to a North American plant, which we now know to be Oshawa.

Oshawa has plenty of production capacity. They could easily continue to make the current and next Impala (related to the new LaCrosse) there.

With the exchange rate the way it is, GM would have lost their a$$ on everyone they imported from Germany.

Our cousins to the north always get screwed with. its good to see GM keep their word and build Camaro in Canada. The quality seems to be good coming out of there so I say good for them.

i remember reading that the Oshawa plant is one of (if not the top) the highest ranked/ awarded plants in North America (may have been the world, cant remember 100%).

Aussie’s designed the Camaro, Hanz designed the Regal, us Hoser’s builld em… all stereotypical drinking countries, maybe if the Toyota floor mat/ gas pedal designers would have slammed some sake and been ****-faced-retarded they wouldn’t have made a washing machine rocket

Can’t wait until the GS comes out! That’s really going to put the imports to shame.

I think they’re underestimating demand for the Regal at 35-40,000. And yes, it was somewhat painful to admit that.

Too bad we can’t build these cars in the USA.

But companies go to countries where the gov’t pays for their healthcare to save money.

I guess I’ll never see a new Camaro with a factory equipped T-Top option. Bummer …..

True, but soon you’ll be able to enjoy seeing well endowed Camaro occupants in tube-tops.

and think of all those Mullets flying in the breeze

Oshawa plants (there are 3) build the best quality cars/trucks consistently.

This year (2009) IQS they were #2 in NA with the Impala and old LaCrosse.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009108

But as I have said in the past the differences are getting mighty small. .42 problems per vehicle for first place vs .43 for 2nd place

I want a car that doesn’t drop the transmission after five years. JD Powers only measures the first 90 days of ownership, try Consumer Reports.

nomore, loveit. They ask about plant quality (which is pretty much out the door quality) and you bring up long term reliability.

If I ever owned a GM car with anything close to .42 problems I would be driving one right now. In fact last time I bought a car I got a survey in the mail from JD Powers, after about two months. No I hadn’t had any problems after two months. What does it prove when your car doesn’t break down in the first two months you’ve owned it? It’s better than nothing I guess, but I like to keep my cars for at least ten years so long term reliability is more important to me.

This is nothing new to me. I read about this in wikipedia.

Discussion was on Assembly plant quality which is basically Initial quality.

How gaps look, how parts were screwed together, paint appearance, scratches, etc.. Plant has very little to do with transmission failures at 3,5 or 10 years.

As far as 10 year reliability that is measured by no one as far as I know because the rate of initial owner retention at 10 years is probably around 5%. At 5 years it is ~20% retention.

While driving home just now I just saw a brand new Camaro smack a telephone pole doing about 50.

Johnny

GM is only going to offer one premium ($$$) trim leve, CXL, initially, so 35-40,000 is probabably about right until they fill out the lineup when production begins in NA. Can’t wait for the CX version with 16″ wheel covers and crappy cloth interior!

I hope the driver is Ok. Hopefully they can save the mullet.

Carstuff Actually the article does not mention the word quality at all, initial or otherwise. So we are all off on a tangent. I would also like to point out that I must be one of the 5% who plans to keep their vehicle for ten years. I had my previous vehicle from 1999 – 2008(I know only 9 years) , despite replacing the altenator, engine, radiator, u-joints, countless ball joints and brake parts, ect. There is some GM quality for you. Not one of those items had anything to do with body gaps, paint runs, or the first 90 days, yet they had a lot to do with $ and time.

GM – May the best car win!

Actually, Andy mentioned that he thought that the Oshawa plant had very good quality and is in the top of NA plants. I confirmed that with the proper Initial quality data awards link.

Someone else chimed in and repeated their mantra that quality at GM is bad at 5 years and to look at data elsewhere. I again tried to bring the subject back to initial data that is relevant to what the plant (Oshawa in this case) effects.

It’s your money buy what you want.

am pretty sure the mullet saved him, Johnny. Apparently the long back part got tangled up in the headrest preventing his cigarette from lurching forward and popping the airbag and so the only thing to make it through the windshield was his rifle.

NoMoreGM4Me, JD Power also conducts a 3 year dependability study and Buick tied for first with Jaguar. I trust JD more than Consumer Reports since JD surveys 46,000 random original owners vs CR who only surveys its members who tend to be trained import monkeys.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009043

What about the woman who was riding in the passenger seat? When the driver’s side air bag deployed was she pinned between it and his chest? And if so let’s hope she had her teeth out when she involuntarily bit down or the Camaro won’t be the only thing needing reconstructive surgery in the near future.

Wow, Johnny – that’s too funny, I laughed pretty hard.

Just to let you know insurance won’t cover damages to that area due to it not being a recognized driving activity….

Wow, great news. The last Regal was built in Oshawa and the quality was excellent (I know, I had a GS for 9 years that ran flawlessly) so it’s good to see it’s going back to the same plant. I was getting ready to purchase the LaCrosse, but I’ll wait and compare it to the Regal.

MHW – I think a three year study is far more meaningful than the ninety day study. I suppose either study could be skewed as those with bad experiences are more likely to reply, though I don’t know about the “trained import monkeys”. All American branded cars do not score badly on CR, and all imported cars do not score well. For example the Fusion scores very well, over a number of years.

NoMoreGM4Me, it’s clear you’ve got it out for GM. But, the point I think most people on here make about GM is that there is no defense for some of the product they pawned off in years past. However, a case could be made for decent reliability from cars GM engineered as far back as eight to ten years ago. And, a strong case for those engineered three to five years ago. With a steady and gradual increase year after year. The bigger point is that I believe GM’s newer products’ quality is defendable based changes internal to the company, not a marketing promise. The example you described was unfortunately from the tail end of GM’s darkest years. If you can’t see that there has been a major improvement in quality and reliability since then, well you are only cheating yourself and those that you preach to. I would recommend updating your knowledge with more recent data.

A guy at work said he was going to shop for a Rav-4 or CR-V. I told him to check out the Equinox because it has been highly acclaimed. He instinctively hadn’t even considered looking at a domestic but was open to giving it equal consideration.

Also, seeing how you are solely concerned with a vehicle’s ten-year (???) reliability data, I’ve got a question. Since you apparently don’t take reliability statistics into account, how on earth do you compensate for any potential changes -good or bad- a manufacturer underwent during your current long-term ownership? Meaning, let’s say you bought a 2000 Toyota Camry or Tundra. A lot has changed at Toyota since 2000. But, by your method, either of those vehicles would be a great choice for a replacement. You would still be preaching how Toyota is tops based on your ten-year method of rating reliability. Strange. But if it works for you, great. I just pity those that look up to you as a car guy.

NoMoreGM4Me, I agree that a three year study is more meaningful when looking for major engineering defects. But the two studies no doubt are used to determine varying and different information. As others have said, I bet the 90-day study is mostly used to determine ‘out of the box’ quality for things like fit and finish. Not to determine if the transmission is good or not.

I so want to change my screen name to NoMoreHondaOrToyota4MeBecauseILearnedALessonTheHardWayInBothCasesAndAmAshamedToHaveToEvenAdmitIt

Yea, I gotta again say that the discussion was about plant quality and the IQS is the best way to measure it. Of course if you are just trying to make your own point please neglect the facts and continue to whine.

I would just like to point out that while GM was producing cars with very poor reliability, some other companies were making products that were designed to last. My theory is that GM’s model has been to make their money on parts and repairs, rather than on the initial sale. Did this practice stop over the last few years? I agree there is some hope that it has. No method is perfect. Looking at a 2000 model and saying that a 2010 model from the same manufacturer will perform the same way is speculative. As is looking at a one or two year old model and saying it will be reliable after five or ten years. I am just saying when it is my money I will buy a model with a good track record. Maybe the next time I need a car GM will be one of those companies in my mind. If I needed a full size truck or wanted a Camaro(just because it’s cool), I might buy a GM vehicle. Contrary to popular belief I at least make sure that the cars I buy are at least made in the US, though it may not be from one of the Big 3.

NoMoreGM4Me – You said it best earlier on, “It’s your money buy what you want.” That pretty much sums up what everyone should be doing.

As for the comment about Consumers Reports. I use to go by what they said for reliability until it came out in 2007 that for certain companies (Toyota) on new or redesigned vehicles Consumers Reports was grading average for expected reliability without testing them. I don’t care how good or bad a companies reputation is, I will look at vehicles that I like and purchase accordingly.

And I still want to know what is below average and above average at CR!!!

Does an above average vehicle have 1 problem per vehicle at 5 years and the average is 5 problems?

Or is the average 2 problems per vehicle and the best in class 2.1?

Who knows? Nobody except the editors. They will not tell anyone.

“GM. A Canadian Revolution”

As a fellow investor, that sounds fine to me. It’s not necessary, though. American works too, since that includes everything from the north pole to the south. A Global Revolution makes the most sense.

Oops. My mistake. Antarctica isn’t part of America, but I think you still get the point.