Most of us have probably heard the saying "A GM will run bad longer than other cars will run at all." Why is this? Sure GMs are far less likely to have a timing belt instead of a chain, and they've managed to avoid booby-trapped chain tensioners better than other automakers. But there has to be more to it than that. Is it because it's easy to make a GM run bad or that the GM has more intestinal fortitude when it comes to running even though things are wrong? Both?
In reply to GCrites80s :
(Sovietvoice) They are like glorious AK, designed to have giant clearances so as to work in mud and with potato for spare parts. (/Sovietvoice)
GCrites80s said:Sure GMs are far less likely to have a timing belt instead of a chain, and they've managed to avoid booby-trapped chain tensioners better than other automakers.
Not true. The 2.4L EcoTec and 3.6L Hi-Feature V6s were both plagued with failed timing chains and oil consumption at 50k miles, to the point that they issued special coverages on them.
I would say that that old saw applies to old pre-bankruptcy GM. Modern GMs are just as finicky and prone to 'sploding as any other manufacturer these days. Look at the cam/lifter and oil pump failures that have plagued their truck motors since the early 2000s. It's not the old days of Buick 3800s, 2.2L pushrod I4s and 350 Chevys any more
^I agree that it is a pre-bankruptcy thing. A time with a lot more vacuum-operated accessories and the potential for them and their lines to create part-throttle running issues when they leak or fail.
In reply to GCrites80s :
And they still had a lot of old legacy engines in the inventory that were built like freaking anvils. The Buick 3800 and the 3400/3500/3900, chief amongst them. Plus the Gen I Ecotec, which was much better than the newer ones like the LEA.
I drove an '86 El Camino with a 4.3 V6 that had a balancer worn enough that the outer ring wore a hole in the timing chain cover and would take occasional swipes at the chain. Had such valve clatter that I could never get the radio to cover it up. Rings were just plain shot. My uncle had paid some redneck to change it over from TBI to an Edelbrock carb and the thing never ran right, when I got it the choke was ziptied half closed to keep it running. Near the end of its life the transmission lost reverse and the fuel lines decided to rub against each other enough that I had to cut them and slip a rubber line over them.
That stupid POS got me up and down the Eastern Seaboard half a dozen times, and got me to work for a year and a half before I returned it to my mother so her husband could play with the car.
Survivership bias.
More owners of GM's treat them like crap so there are more of them out there to see. Same way Honda has owners who maintain their cars better so finding one with 800K miles is more likely even on an original engine.
I've never heard that applied to GMs. I have heard it applied to old Land Rovers, probably because they have about three moving parts. Or because expectations are so low.
I've heard it applied to GMs. When I think of it, I think of Chevy Celebrities and Cutlass Cieras, etc.
I more attribute it to the demographic of the used buyers of these cars. People who needed something low priced to fit their income and are then people who only fix what HAS TO be fixed to keep it moving. Hence, always something not quite right but running.
GCrites80s said:Most of us have probably heard the saying "A GM will run bad longer than other cars will run at all." Why is this?
Because the car snob that paid $20k for his Subaru when his buddy paid less than half that for his same year, same mileage Z24 is pissed when the Z turned out to be significantly more reliable in the long term, and he has to say something to justify his purchase
GMs run well?? (couldn't pass it up).
John Welsh (Moderate Supporter) said:I've heard it applied to GMs. When I think of it, I think of Chevy Celebrities and Cutlass Cieras, etc.
This. Most '80s-'00s GM cars may start running poorly early in their service lives (if they ever ran well), but they will keep at it for a looooong time.
At the age of 17, I went an entire winter adding coolant to my 1977 Malibu (250 straight 6). I knew it needed more coolant when the heat stopped working.
I couldn't afford to pay to have it fixed and had no real knowledge or skill to try to fix it myself. I was the demographic!
I do think a lot is survivorship bias, people will smile throwing $3K at their third Odyssey transmission and tell everyone how much they love Honda. People will also drive with no head gasket and multiple terrible O2 sensors and complain about the thing. Every company has their slam dunks and whiffs, so it's not ubiquitous, but many of those GM drivetrains were really overbuilt and understressed.
Duke said:John Welsh (Moderate Supporter) said:I've heard it applied to GMs. When I think of it, I think of Chevy Celebrities and Cutlass Cieras, etc.
This. Most '80s-'00s GM cars may start running poorly early in their service lives (if they ever ran well), but they will keep at it for a looooong time.
Reminds me of the '89 Cutlass with a 2.8L that my father had with 190k miles. He drove it for an unknown amount of time with a broken head bolt and a blown headgasket. It used some coolant, but never copious amounts and it never smoked or overheated. While trying to chase a nasty persistent misfire in cold wet conditions (Actually caused by a failed waste spark coil that was only dropping one cylinder, only time I've seen that) he was doing a tune-up and went to remove a sparkplug and the plug broke off in the head. He had to pull the head off to remove it, and when he pulled the rocker cover and valve train he found the top part of the head bolt was just dancing around in the bolt hole. Pulled the head off, the gasket was blown between cylinders 3 and 5, and both those cylinders were steam-cleaned. Welded a nut onto what was left of the head bolt, removed the broken plug from the head, put a new head gasket and head bolts in and ran that car for another 60k miles.
I had a '98 Regal that fit that saying pretty well. Some of the contributing factors:
1. The engine could trace its roots to the 1960s, giving them plenty of time to work out bugs. Granted, some of this time was also used to introduce new ones like Dex-Cool.
2. Iron block AND heads. Even if you overheated it, they're not likely to warp.
3. Low RPM would mean less stress on the engine.
4. 1960s American designs generally tended to make up for a lack of modeling and quality control by just making parts heavier, resulting in a design that was more fault tolerant than reliable. Adding 1990s levels of quality control (say what you want, they're ahead of what was done in 1960) and more modern engine management, but keeping the overbuilt nature of the engine, makes for a lot of fault tolerance.
I just figured it was because those old GMs didn't really make enough power to hurt themselves. Like how a 22re will run forever (except in Lemons apparently). 2.2 liters making all of 113 hp speaks to a pretty understressed engine.
When I hear this saying, I immediately think of the bad old days of Badge Engineered GM FWD trash from the 1980's-early 2000's. There were some highlights here and there, but somewhere 2000 years from now, there will be a tan Cutlass Ciera cockroaching around on this continent. I don't know who (or what) will be behind the wheel, but it's guaranteed to be there, roaching along in the wasteland. If it's powered by a 3.8/3800 V6, tack another 2000 years onto that.
Spite, they run on spite. My 04 Grand Prix GTP just won't die, even with 580k it still runs rather well (dosen't like sitting still) and has most of the original parts. Got to be spite or the pack I made with the devil one of the two.
I'm reading this on my lunch break, while sitting in my 88 Silverado with an estimated 400,000 mi on it. I towed 4,400 lb for about a thousand miles over a long weekend last winter.
How's this look for that mileage?
I feel like the "gm reliability" thing is like the frog in a pot of boiling water.
The owners have never had anything other than GM so they think monthly component failures are a normal thing for everyone.
I was a Toyota fanboy for a long time, I also love my Ford trucks. My current GM truck ownership experience is leaving me wishing I had bought an Excursion instead of a Suburban.
thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) said:I just figured it was because those old GMs didn't really make enough power to hurt themselves. Like how a 22re will run forever (except in Lemons apparently). 2.2 liters making all of 113 hp speaks to a pretty understressed engine.
Back to that old Land Rover - 2.25 liters, 38.2 hp at the wheels. And they break halfshafts.
I want to replace it, but it does everything I need from it.
ShawnG said:I feel like the "gm reliability" thing is like the frog in a pot of boiling water.
The owners have never had anything other than GM so they think monthly component failures are a normal thing for everyone.
Well said.
Also applies to lots of Euro and other manufacturers and their owners.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to GCrites80s :
(Sovietvoice) They are like glorious AK, designed to have giant clearances so as to work in mud and with potato for spare parts. (/Sovietvoice)
More like giant clearances to make manufacturing cheaper, with less waste.
You'll need to log in to post.
