GM problems

"Tom in Missouri" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I agree, it is far too easy to write a full page or two of rant when you
> begin talking about GM these days. And this is a person born and bred on
> Chevrolet, whose first car was a Chevy, whose first new car was a Chevy,
> and
> has had a Chevy in the garage forever. Well, almost, these days the
> everyday isn't a Chevy, it is a GMC.
>
> The look of the new Corvette has grown on me once I saw it in person.
> However, I can't pick them out of traffic. Neither can my daughter, who is
> currently into calling out Corvettes on the way to anywhere. A C5 stands
> out. A C4 stands out. C3 and back stand out incredibly. But the C6
> looks
> far too much like a typical Japanese import sporty car/sedan from the
> front.
>
> GM's innovation? Dead. When the Camaro/Firebird began their bloated
> rounded
> look in '96 or '97 or whatever it was, I knew that was the end of
> Camaro/Firebird. With regular tires from the back, the look was all
> wrong.
> It wasn't a pony look anymore, and that was what the whole deal was about.
> The engine shoved under the windshield, good grief Charlie Brown, didn't
> anyone remember lessons from shoehorning in a V8 in the Monza? A look at
> it
> and the Mustang and it was no contest. The Camaro may have been sleeker
> looking, but the Mustang was Saturday night ready. And easily modified
> for
> more Saturday night fun.
>
> I had thought once of doing some SCCA IT racing but that involved
> everything
> non-GM. Well, you could drag out a Vega or Monza, but they had to compete
> against much newer technology Japanese cars. Nothing in the GM lineup was
> even close to being good for IT. Cavalier? Yeah, right.
>
> And really, if you look at GM engineering, the only real saving grace they
> have had is the Chevrolet small block and big block. Look at where the
> bolts are on a trailing arm of a C2 and C3 and call that good engineering.
> Look under the hood at almost any Corvette for any work on anything and
> call
> that good. It is squeezed in like a slave ship out of Africa in the
> 1700s!
>
> The C1 and the C2 can be forgiven many problems because they were fast,
> they
> looked good, and they provided you a basic platform to do almost anything
> you wanted. C4 allowed much less of your own. C5 was designed to have
> you
> do nothing. And C6?
>
>
>

"Tom in Missouri" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I agree, it is far too easy to write a full page or two of rant when you
> begin talking about GM these days. And this is a person born and bred on
> Chevrolet, whose first car was a Chevy, whose first new car was a Chevy,
> and
> has had a Chevy in the garage forever. Well, almost, these days the
> everyday isn't a Chevy, it is a GMC.
>
> The look of the new Corvette has grown on me once I saw it in person.
> However, I can't pick them out of traffic. Neither can my daughter, who is
> currently into calling out Corvettes on the way to anywhere. A C5 stands
> out. A C4 stands out. C3 and back stand out incredibly. But the C6
> looks
> far too much like a typical Japanese import sporty car/sedan from the
> front.
>
> GM's innovation? Dead. When the Camaro/Firebird began their bloated
> rounded
> look in '96 or '97 or whatever it was, I knew that was the end of
> Camaro/Firebird. With regular tires from the back, the look was all
> wrong.
> It wasn't a pony look anymore, and that was what the whole deal was about.
> The engine shoved under the windshield, good grief Charlie Brown, didn't
> anyone remember lessons from shoehorning in a V8 in the Monza? A look at
> it
> and the Mustang and it was no contest. The Camaro may have been sleeker
> looking, but the Mustang was Saturday night ready. And easily modified
> for
> more Saturday night fun.
>
> I had thought once of doing some SCCA IT racing but that involved
> everything
> non-GM. Well, you could drag out a Vega or Monza, but they had to compete
> against much newer technology Japanese cars. Nothing in the GM lineup was
> even close to being good for IT. Cavalier? Yeah, right.
>
> And really, if you look at GM engineering, the only real saving grace they
> have had is the Chevrolet small block and big block. Look at where the
> bolts are on a trailing arm of a C2 and C3 and call that good engineering.
> Look under the hood at almost any Corvette for any work on anything and
> call
> that good. It is squeezed in like a slave ship out of Africa in the
> 1700s!
>
> The C1 and the C2 can be forgiven many problems because they were fast,
> they
> looked good, and they provided you a basic platform to do almost anything
> you wanted. C4 allowed much less of your own. C5 was designed to have
> you
> do nothing. And C6?

Sorry about that previous post. Clicked "Send" w/o meaning to...

I might get flamed all to hell, but I used to buy and drive GM intermediates
back in the day. I liked my Grand Prix, but the '84 Regal did it. Without
exaggeration, the car was nothing but trouble. Electrical problems out the
*ss. Mechanical problems. Plain annoying crap like glovebox latches and
turn signal stalks that would break. Lousy fit and finish. Just for the
hell of it one day I stopped by the local Honda dealer and drove the '87
Accords, one with an auto and one with a 5-speed. Bought one the next week,
and 3 Hondas and 3 Acuras later, I've never looked back. The things just
don't break. We bought an Acura TSX a couple months ago to go with our 2000
3.2TL. I will bet that in 8 years we'll own it I'll only have paid for the
routine maintenance, and consumables like tires and brakes. Maybe the
exhaust because of the winters around here, with the insane amount of salt
they dump. I can't imagine how GM could get me back now for a car that
would be a daily driver. The Cadillac line is at least a little interesting
lately.

I am really enjoying having the Corvette, but it has 79,000 miles on it, and
I could put better than twice those miles on a Honda and have nowhere near
the rattles, or mechanical problems I've already fixed on the 'Vette. Maybe
if I'd owned it the first 76,000 miles it would be a different story, but
from following this group for a year and a half now, I sort of doubt it.

Call 'em ricewagons or me unpatriotic if you want, but GM blew it with me
back in the 70s and 80s. They haven't made up any of the engineering gap at
all. One thing they might do is forget the bajillion-long option lists and
build more standardized cars, and really, really, really focus on getting
right what they do sell. But I guess the problem is, how do you get people
like me back in the showrooms? Not with an Ion, a Malibu or a Lacrosse.

AJM
'93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp