Why is it that GMs will run so bad for so long?

wearymicrobe said:

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. 

This could be the correct answer.  As much as I'm a Chevy fan, I have to admit that they are pretty low hanging fruit as far as ownership goes.  So a lot of people who don't possess particularly well developed cognitive skills own them and trash them.  

A 401 CJ said:

.  So a lot of people who don't possess particularly well developed cognitive skills own them and trash them.  

LOL. Nicest way to state that I have ever seen. LOL. Gave me a chuckle..... of the "GM demographics"

The saying "like a rock" always strikes a cord in this argument. A rock isn't the most efficient tool that humans have used; but, you can use it as a hammer, a weapon, you can assemble a lot of rocks to build a structure such as a wall, and so on. Yea there are better options out there that might not fall apart with every hammer strike; but, the rock is an easy go to and doesn't require a lot of engineering and development. 

It also comes down to how well owners actually take care of their cars. As with Honda and Toyota, people will think they just magically last forever. They forego regular maintenance and then flip out when they need a new head because it's been 30k since their last oil change and their valve springs are full of crystallized oil. 

Also about GMs - the Aveos (I know it's a Daewoo) had some serious timing tensioner issues where they were made a cheap plastic and without a doubt break around 50k miles or less. 

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I worked in automotive in the 80’s and 90’s. We made a lot of parts for GM and you’d be surprised how tight the tolerances were, even on things that didn’t need to be 

MadScientistMatt said:

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.

There are soooo many late '90s-early 2000s Regals and Centuries running around my area; it's unbelievable. Mostly driven by young people. Gold, silver, maroon -- all the old lady hits.

Why is it that you still see tons of say 1988-2000 FWD GM sedans with the 3.8 or 3400 droning around with the rear suspension squatting and the exhaust rotted out, but you never see Ford or Dodge sedans from the same era?

Think about it, when is the last time you saw a first or second gen Ford Taurus on the road? Or a Dodge Spirit or Intrepid? Is it just a matter of production numbers? 

Yeah I still see those FWD terrible GM products limping down the road all the time.

My personal take on it:

GM mastered the perfunctory reliability.  They cranked out trillions of things over the years and didn't go crazy with the latest and greatest.  The small block chevy remained mostly unchanged for 50 years, and spawned the 4.3L, LT1, and the LS engines share a great deal of architecture with the SBC.  A similar thing can be said for the 231/3.8/3800, the 2.8/3.1/3.4, and countless other engines.  The Powerglide evolved into the TH350, then 700r4, 4L60, 4L60E, and 4L65E.  Some of the same parts that go into a 1950s transmission will also fit in a transmission from 2008.  Same goes for TH400/4L80E/4L85E, and (to a lesser extent) the 6L80 and 6L90 transmissions used today.

They didn't reinvent any wheels, they just applied new technology to old architecture.  That was their recipe for keeping costs down at the expense of not having the latest and greatest NVH standards, longevity standards, or resale value.  In many ways, it paid off.  GM has developed a viciously loyal following (as have many brands) and going crazy altering things could be a disaster.  Like New Coke in the 80s.  Spend billions on developing a new recipe, hire Bill Cosby for the commercials, and watch it crash and burn so spectacularly.

GM was one of the last marques to get into the FWD game because they were afraid of the "new coke" syndrome.  Instead, they took a calculated risk by letting others get ahead and be the canary in the coal mine.  Once they saw the canary was still alive, they waded in the shallow end.

Now that most automotive companies are multi-national entities and can pool resources from other continents and companies, things are a bit different these days, but GM always put a focus on making Lee Jeans.  Ford focused on making Levi's jeans.  Dodge focused on Wrangler jeans.  Toyota focused for a long time on cargo pants made out of durable but uncomfortable material.  They would last forever, but it sometimes be a bit of a chore to put your butt in them.  BMW focused on making Givenchy leather pants.  Rolls Royce focused on making ball gowns.

GM is the master of making cars and trucks that satisfy GM people.  They don't focus on blank-slate redesigns of engine architecture to reduce NVH.  They don't come out with a new, unproven transmission design every 4 years, or completely change suspension architecture.  There's a reason the phrase "GM parts bin engineering" is so common.

mr2s2000elise said:

A 401 CJ said:

.  So a lot of people who don't possess particularly well developed cognitive skills own them and trash them.  

LOL. Nicest way to state that I have ever seen. LOL. Gave me a chuckle..... of the "GM demographics"

Well, I would include myself in that statement.  I therefore don't have to feel bad about putting on airs of elitism.  

because E36 M3 still takes a long time to break down completely?

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

because E36 M3 still takes a long time to break down completely?

Nah, there is a difference. That odyssey that suddenly had zero gears on the highway was really on its second transmission. We've all seen the Civis with the snapped timing belt that suddenly was scrap. Somehow there's a G6 or a Venture chugging around with lights all over the dash, but still running anyway.

It's not as simple as clearances or simplicity. It is, as Curtis said, in some cases a slowly evolving product line. It's also, as some others have said, a conservative state of tune for everything. Some of it is clever engineering, honestly.

I think sometimes GM is smart for staying the course and keeping it simple.  I can think of dozens of other manufacturers' sudden and complete re-engineering of something that ended up in failure.

Honda 3-shaft transmissions, Nissan's R55RE5E555RERE5R (or whatever it was) transmission that constantly had overheated solenoids which caused all kinds of damage, Ford's 4.0L OHC with two hundred timing chains and guides that failed and required removing the engine to do the work, but no timing marks on the cams, Jaguar's Nikasil cylinder liners... I think GM gets by just fine with iron blocks and hypereutectic pistons and transmissions and rear axles that have a proven track record.

Noisy, whiny, and clunky perhaps, but there is a reason they are just as reliable as a 1965 GM.... because they pretty much ARE a 1965 GM.

In reply to newrider3 :

The tin worms ate the suspension componants and subframe mounts.

Im most familiar with the GM V8 stuff and I see it in diagnosing and trouble shooting these things. Truck runs bad, start unplugging stuff and the PCM will usually revert to a "base tune" and run just fine missing major info like MAF or 02 readings. Think the MAF is bad, unplug it, does it run better? Yes, replace MAF.

Then I work on something else and unplug any component and it dies.

Peabody said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I worked in automotive in the 80’s and 90’s. We made a lot of parts for GM and you’d be surprised how tight the tolerances were, even on things that didn’t need to be 

But did you make AKs for GM? 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Nissan's R55RE5E555RERE5R (or whatever it was) transmission that constantly had overheated solenoids which caused all kinds of damage

If you mean the RE5F22A, that is an Aisin-Warner transmission (AW55).  GM used it in a few vehicles too!  As well as SAAB, Volvo, Opel.... 

Everybody had valve body problems, because as my trans guy put it, ALL Aisin automatics have valve body problems.

Pushrods. Far more tolerant of abuse and wanton neglect than chains and belts. 

Appleseed said:

Pushrods. Far more tolerant of abuse and wanton neglect than chains and belts. 

Which is why Ford just cooked up a port-injected, cast-iron, pushrod engine for heavy usage

Appleseed said:

Pushrods. Far more tolerant of abuse and wanton neglect than chains and belts. 

Pushrods don't help you if the suspension mounting points rot off the car, or the wiring harness does a speedrun on biodegrading, or you need a new midpipe to pass emissions and it's a $2000 part not available from the aftermarket because it's shaped so goofy.

Hey, this reminds me of a joke.  Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny drive to a bar in an old Chevy Colorado.

Then what happened to the cylinder head?

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Just the parts, they put them together.

When GM and Ford started developing transmissions together we bid on parts for both.

The GM parts required far better material and much tighter tolerances.

I also feel that GM seals, and their approach to the use of seals (minimal), are among the best in the industry. Sure a seal might leak but it won't kill the car (Opti excluded). You don't hear about people doing reseals to a GM. Like "OH, it's been 5 years, I really need to reseal my Grand Am."

Had good experience with:

2007 Pontiac G5, 2.2L Ecotec, had over 200k miles before being written off in an accident.

2009 Malibu I brought new, 185k miles now had to replace the frt cat due to cracked exhaust manifold, the resonator/mid muffler, headlamp bulbs, and not much else. Still has original spark plugs. Solid car, daughter now trying to kill it.

GM today is much much different to pre bankruptcy GM.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Don't  confuse run with drive. Craigslist should have taught you that. 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

My personal take on it:

GM mastered the perfunctory reliability.  They cranked out trillions of things over the years and didn't go crazy with the latest and greatest.  The small block chevy remained mostly unchanged for 50 years, and spawned the 4.3L, LT1, and the LS engines share a great deal of architecture with the SBC.  A similar thing can be said for the 231/3.8/3800, the 2.8/3.1/3.4, and countless other engines.  The Powerglide evolved into the TH350, then 700r4, 4L60, 4L60E, and 4L65E.  Some of the same parts that go into a 1950s transmission will also fit in a transmission from 2008.  Same goes for TH400/4L80E/4L85E, and (to a lesser extent) the 6L80 and 6L90 transmissions used today.

They didn't reinvent any wheels, they just applied new technology to old architecture.  That was their recipe for keeping costs down at the expense of not having the latest and greatest NVH standards, longevity standards, or resale value.  In many ways, it paid off.  GM has developed a viciously loyal following (as have many brands) and going crazy altering things could be a disaster.  Like New Coke in the 80s.  Spend billions on developing a new recipe, hire Bill Cosby for the commercials, and watch it crash and burn so spectacularly.

GM was one of the last marques to get into the FWD game because they were afraid of the "new coke" syndrome.  Instead, they took a calculated risk by letting others get ahead and be the canary in the coal mine.  Once they saw the canary was still alive, they waded in the shallow end.

Now that most automotive companies are multi-national entities and can pool resources from other continents and companies, things are a bit different these days, but GM always put a focus on making Lee Jeans.  Ford focused on making Levi's jeans.  Dodge focused on Wrangler jeans.  Toyota focused for a long time on cargo pants made out of durable but uncomfortable material.  They would last forever, but it sometimes be a bit of a chore to put your butt in them.  BMW focused on making Givenchy leather pants.  Rolls Royce focused on making ball gowns.

GM is the master of making cars and trucks that satisfy GM people.  They don't focus on blank-slate redesigns of engine architecture to reduce NVH.  They don't come out with a new, unproven transmission design every 4 years, or completely change suspension architecture.  There's a reason the phrase "GM parts bin engineering" is so common.

Curtis seems to sure know a lot about pants.