LaCrosse vs LaSabre

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Hairy wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I wonder if HLS actually expected to get a response from such an
> > antagonistic email. If he did, he's a fool.
> > H
>
> I got a kick out of that too. "Your response or lack thereof will be
> published on the net..." indeed! I don't care if I was at the most
> buyer-supportive company in the world, if I got an E-mail like that I'd
> laugh my head off as I hit the "delete" key.

'Laughing their heads off' and avoiding the engine issues are a couple of
the reasons that American automobile manufacturers have lost market share
and have little credibility left.

Your strategy is certainly working.....for Japan>

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...

> Good question. I certainly never expected (and never got) a response to my
> e-mail to the Fram people asking if their oil filters would stop sucking
> **** now that the company had been bought by Honeywell.

When customers ask pointed questions the first time and get no response, a
little antagonism is certainly in order. I have no need to get asskissy
with Buick.

The oil filter issue is a hard one. I also surveyed, very tactfully, some
of the oil filter manufacturers (and got nothing) and some of the oil
formulators (and got a bit more, but nothing scientifically meaningful).

I wish someone would do as good a job wringing out the oil filter issues as
was recently posted on air filters.

I made a search about the effects of ultrasmall particles in motor oil,
since their detrimental effects and the ability of some filters to remove
them are two factors often touted by the filter sellers. Nowhere could I
find a scientific study of the effects of these particles. I know it has
been done (Southwest Research, maybe, in San Antonio) but the exact
documents seem to be sheltered.

HLS wrote:

> I like many things about the Buick, and was impressed by their overall
> reliability standing in the market...a year or two ago it was second only to
> Lexus.

Why would you think Buick's reliability is any better than
Pontiacs? For the most part the cars are built out of the
same basic parts, assembled on the same or similar
production lines, by interchangeable workers, working under
the same management structure. As far as I know the only
"reliability" difference between the two is the advertising.
Of course I think this is also the main reason why people
think Lexi (or Toyotas for that matter) are so reliable.

Ed

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, C. E. White wrote:

> HLS wrote:

> > I like many things about the Buick, and was impressed by their overall
> > reliability standing in the market...a year or two ago it was second
> > only to Lexus.
>
> Why would you think Buick's reliability is any better than Pontiacs?

Why, because Condemner Retards magazine *says* so, of course! Same as they
said the Toyota Tercel was _vastly_ more reliable than the Geo Prizm,
despite both cars being made of identical parts at the same facility in
California, and only the badging being different. They've given vastly
different ratings to identical-except-for-nameplates cars on a fairly
regular basis over the years. Just one more reason to dismiss their
self-proclaimed expertise.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, HLS wrote:

> Have you seen the LaCrosse, and if so what do you think about it?

Yet another McRent-a-car from GM. Adequate but mediocre in virtually every
category. And its name means "masturbation" in Quebec.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>HLS wrote:
>
>
>>>I like many things about the Buick, and was impressed by their overall
>>>reliability standing in the market...a year or two ago it was second
>>>only to Lexus.
>>
>>Why would you think Buick's reliability is any better than Pontiacs?
>
>
> Why, because Condemner Retards magazine *says* so, of course! Same as they
> said the Toyota Tercel was _vastly_ more reliable than the Geo Prizm,
> despite both cars being made of identical parts at the same facility in
> California, and only the badging being different. They've given vastly
> different ratings to identical-except-for-nameplates cars on a fairly
> regular basis over the years. Just one more reason to dismiss their
> self-proclaimed expertise.

IIRC, the Prizm is identical to the Corolla, not the Tercel, and both
scored well above average in reliability ratings.

C. E. White wrote:

>
> HLS wrote:
>
>
>>I like many things about the Buick, and was impressed by their overall
>>reliability standing in the market...a year or two ago it was second only to
>>Lexus.
>
>
> Why would you think Buick's reliability is any better than
> Pontiacs?

Because, for one thing, a much higher percentage of Buick products are
sold with the Buick 3800 engine instead of the Chevy 3.4. That right
there is enough to skew things in Buick's favor. Apart from that, my
general impression is that the Buick-specific parts on the cars
themselves (interior controls, handles, storage, trim, etc. are much
better designed than Pontiac or (especially) Chevrolet interior bits.
You gotta remember that GM has allowed actual, measurable engineering
differences to exist between its divisions FAR longer than the other
American automakers did. Buick, Cadillac (Northstar), and Chevrolet
*still* produce different engine designs although they're in
non-overlapping sizes for the most part. It wasn't all that long ago
that Oldsmobile and Pontiac were still in that mix as well. "Back in the
day" GM built 4 completely non-related engines in the 7+ liter class:
Chevy 454 (junk), Buick 455 (excellent performance engine), Pontiac 455
(quirky like most Pontiac designs), Oldsmobile 455 (excellent torque
engine), and Cadillac 472 (most rugged of the lot), and at least 3
non-related engines in the 5.x liter class (Chevy 350, Buick 350, Olds
350). There are still vestiges of that division separation today.

HLS wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hairy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if HLS actually expected to get a response from such an
>>>antagonistic email. If he did, he's a fool.
>>>H
>>
>>I got a kick out of that too. "Your response or lack thereof will be
>>published on the net..." indeed! I don't care if I was at the most
>>buyer-supportive company in the world, if I got an E-mail like that I'd
>>laugh my head off as I hit the "delete" key.
>
>
> 'Laughing their heads off' and avoiding the engine issues are a couple of
> the reasons that American automobile manufacturers have lost market share
> and have little credibility left.
>
> Your strategy is certainly working.....for Japan>

My point is that *ANY* company representative would laugh and throw away
a combative note like that. As they should.

HLS wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>
>
>>Good question. I certainly never expected (and never got) a response to my
>>e-mail to the Fram people asking if their oil filters would stop sucking
>>**** now that the company had been bought by Honeywell.
>
>
> When customers ask pointed questions the first time and get no response, a
> little antagonism is certainly in order. I have no need to get asskissy
> with Buick.

I think you need to approach everything with the correct level of
expectations. No car maker is going to tell you, upon request, every
example of their engineering designs that are causing them trouble in
the field. No product maker is going to do that, up until the point
where they legally have to do so under a recall or similar initiative.

That doesn't mean they're being "dishonest," it means they're protecting
proprietary performance information. And don't think for a millisecond
that your beloved Asian car-makers don't play close to the vest with
their own engineering shortcomings either. Try to get Toyota to admit
that their PCV systems were crap and caused thousands of engines to be
replaced under warranty and many others at owners' expense. Try to get
Honda to admit that their mid-90s ignition systems were crap and that
thousands failed. Both of those are well-known and acknowledged
shortcomings in the gearhead community (such as these newsgroups) but
neither ever quite made it to the "recall" level and so the companies
involved are mute. Same with GM and their intake manifolds. Finding out
THAT sort of information is, as it has always been, the responsibility
of the buyer.

Well, whereas my first polite message to Buick went unanswered, my second
one did get a response.

The customer service person was gracious, if typically 'politically
correct'.

This is the answer I received:


Dear Mr. ***,

Thank you for contacting Buick again. We apologize for any inconvenience to
you. General Motors has and will continue to manufacture safe vehicles that
meet or exceed all federal regulatory requirements and our own stringent
internal safety requirements in performance and vehicle features. For
changes and updates to the 3800 Series engines, please check with your local
dealer.

To contact your local dealership's Service Department directly, you may
utilize the GM BuyPower web site to locate the participating dealership
nearest to you. Please go to www.gmbuypower.com and select "Locate Dealer"
under the Power Tools section. You will then be prompted to enter the
division and a city and state or zip code. This will locate the five
nearest dealerships in the area that you have requested. You may choose the
dealer you would like to contact by clicking on the name of the dealer.

We hope that this information answers your questions. If you need
additional information or have further questions, please let us know via
email or by calling Buick at 1-800-422-8425, between 8:00 AM-11:00 PM
Eastern Time, seven days a week. Again, thank you for contacting Buick!

Sincerely,

Ann **********

Customer Relationship Manager
Buick
****

The dealership shop foreman simply answered that there had been 'no recall
issued on these (earlier) engines'.