Seven GM vehicles get PERFECT reliability from CR.

[MikeMike]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Consumer Reports 2006 Annual Buying Guide; Page 154.

Seven GM vehicles received perfect reliability scores in the latest addition of the Consumer Reports annual buying guide.

Note: The C/R best rating equals "trouble spots representing the percentage of survey respondents who reported problems occurring in the 12 months from April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004."

The best rating possible in each catagory is determined by the reporting population survey with a defect of 2% or less.

Vehicles are rated on: Engine, Cooling, Fuel System, Ignition Systems, Transmission, Electrical, A/C, Suspension, Brakes, Exhaust, Power Equipment, Paint, Body Integrity, Hardware.

The GM vehicles with a perfect score are:

2004 Cadillac CTS
2004 Chevrolet Impala
2004 Chevrolet Suburban
2004 Chevrolet Tahoe
2004 GMC Yukon XL
2004 Saab 9-5
2004 Pontiac Grand Prix



lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

 

[Analog]

How does it compare with the Rice brands?

 

[shadduphoe]

i <3 yukons + cts'

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

That's pretty much how it's going to go.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

2004?? It's a little outdated don't ya think? 2006's are already out. At least they could have done a writeup on the class of '05.

<--Knows nothing about how CR gathers their data.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

That's pretty much how it's going to go.

Allow me to start. 18 months isn't SH!T for determining vehicle reliablity. Is that even 30k miles considering average use? Let me know if you can get to 100k without more than scheduled maintance and THEN will start including GM's in my car shopping.

 

[sniperruff]

good for GM, but keep in mind that getting car advice from CR is like getting info on a washing machine from motortrend or edmunds.

 

[Accipiter22]

i've NEVER seen CR as biased....considering their reports are almost entirely based on consumer responses....especially for the reliability rankings.....

having said that, I'm shocked GM did that good, although several of those entries were Caddy's, which are supposed to be better quality

p.s. they can't publish reliablity rankings till the cars have been on the road for a while, as they have to collect responses from actual owners of the cars

 

[Random Variable]

The best rating possible in each catagory is determined by the reporting population survey with a defect of 2% or less.

So a "perfect" rating is not really a perfect rating?

I had a 2004 Grand Prix for two years. After about one year a leak developed in the roof that let rainwater get into the car.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

That's pretty much how it's going to go.

Allow me to start. 18 months isn't SH!T for determining vehicle reliablity. Is that even 30k miles considering average use? Let me know if you can get to 100k without more than scheduled maintance and THEN will start including GM's in my car shopping.

Can't speak for GM, but my F-150 is very near 100K with *ahem* less than regular maintenance. Let's just say I'm not so religious about oil changes...

The only problem I've ever had was with the passenger's power window motor which got replaced under warranty. Other than that the truck still runs great and it's built like a tank.

Just thought I'd add this too:
I live in the country so I'm pretty hard on my truck too. I'm always hauling or towing something or other or just off-roading for the fun of it. In fact, I flat out drive the h3ll out of it. It gets a bath about twice a year and has never had a tune up done either.

(I know, profile says Tucson, but that's just because it's the closest thing that anyone would recognize )

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

The best rating possible in each catagory is determined by the reporting population survey with a defect of 2% or less.

So a "perfect" rating is not really a perfect rating?

I had a 2004 Grand Prix for two years. After about one year a leak developed in the roof that let rainwater get into the car.

QUICK! CALL CR!!! there still may be time to get the perfect rating revoked!!! :-D

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

That's pretty much how it's going to go.

Allow me to start. 18 months isn't SH!T for determining vehicle reliablity. Is that even 30k miles considering average use? Let me know if you can get to 100k without more than scheduled maintance and THEN will start including GM's in my car shopping.

my dad had a catylitic convertor fail at 80K miles, and a belt, or something within the A/C squeaks if he has it on one setting.

the vehicle is a 2004 Avalanche, yea, he has probably 130k miles on it now id guess.

its 2 years old.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
2004?? It's a little outdated don't ya think? 2006's are already out. At least they could have done a writeup on the class of '05.

<--Knows nothing about how CR gathers their data.

they survey the consumers, and the vehicles were surveyed after 12 months of ownership, and then they have to put the data together, so you get the picture.

 

[TNM93]

I've always found GM to be reliable. GM cars I've owned and mileage out of them

1992 Cavalier: 222,716 miles (given to Goodwill)
1991 Astro Van: 245,000 miles and still going strong (Trade in)
2004 Silverado - 40000 miles without a problem.

All were bought new.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
lets see this discussion (CR biased, blah blah blah, GM still sucks)

That's pretty much how it's going to go.

Allow me to start. 18 months isn't SH!T for determining vehicle reliablity. Is that even 30k miles considering average use? Let me know if you can get to 100k without more than scheduled maintance and THEN will start including GM's in my car shopping.

ya, i remember when they used to say that about Japanese cars.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
i've NEVER seen CR as biased....considering their reports are almost entirely based on consumer responses....especially for the reliability rankings.....

having said that, I'm shocked GM did that good, although several of those entries were Caddy's, which are supposed to be better quality

p.s. they can't publish reliablity rankings till the cars have been on the road for a while, as they have to collect responses from actual owners of the cars

Several? did the list get edited after you read it? i only saw one caddy.

 

[jpeyton]

GM can make the most reliable, best looking, best handling, best fuel economy cars in the world and they'll still be in the deep red thanks to UAW and their outrageous health care costs.

 

[Legend]

2004?

Let's get some data from 1994.

Reliability with cars automatically refers to LONG TERM reliability. A product that doesn't work when you buy it new is defective, not unreliable.

 

[PingSpike]

Whether GM has improved its reliability remains to be seen, because new cars don't fall apart after a year...even chryslers manage to hold together that long. People aren't avoiding them because their new cars aren't good, they're avoiding them because they got burned when they bought one of their old ones. Its a whole lot easier to keep an existing customer happy then it is to get new customers to replace the ones you pissed off. And people tend to complain loudly and praise quietly. What am I getting at? You can't burn up your goodwill, then say "oh, we're not doing that anymore!" and expect instant results. They'll have to get it right, and keep doing it right for awhile.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: TNM93
I've always found GM to be reliable. GM cars I've owned and mileage out of them

1992 Cavalier: 222,716 miles (given to Goodwill)
1991 Astro Van: 245,00 miles and still going strong (Trade in)
2004 Silverado - 40000 miles without a problem.

my Olds intrigue is 7 yrs old and has 140k miles on it. i've had to replace tires, breaks (calipers, pads and discs), wiper blades, belts, belt tensioner just broke and i had to replace that, struts (that was done last week along with the belt tensioner) . . .

i'm not sure what's on that list that wouldn't have had to be replaced on a japanese or german vehicle, in other words, i think everything on my list are parts that wear over time on any vehicle.

the only other problem i've had with it are the power windows, i'll probably have to replace all the regulators etc. that's kind of a bummer but it's cheaper than buying a new car.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
GM can make the most reliable, best looking, best handling, best fuel economy cars in the world and they'll still be bashed at ATOT because they aren't Nissan, Honda, Toyota, etc...

Fixed for ATOT relevance

 

[BrokenVisage]

Some at CR got paid handsomely.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: TNM93
I've always found GM to be reliable. GM cars I've owned and mileage out of them

1992 Cavalier: 222,716 miles (given to Goodwill)
1991 Astro Van: 245,00 miles and still going strong (Trade in)
2004 Silverado - 40000 miles without a problem.

my Olds intrigue is 7 yrs old and has 140k miles on it. i've had to replace tires, breaks (calipers, pads and discs), wiper blades, belts, belt tensioner just broke and i had to replace that, struts (that was done last week along with the belt tensioner) . . .

i'm not sure what's on that list that wouldn't have had to be replaced on a japanese or german vehicle, in other words, i think everything on my list are parts that wear over time on any vehicle.

the only other problem i've had with it are the power windows, i'll probably have to replace all the regulators etc. that's kind of a bummer but it's cheaper than buying a new car for an Impala or Malibu.

The only problem I've had was with the 1992 Cavalier where I needed to replace the fuel pump, and some slight overheating issues that were fixed easily. None of these problems occured until after it had reached the 200,000 mile mark. Was a great car. I own a Ford now as well, and can't wait to get rid of it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Legend
2004?

Let's get some data from 1994.

Reliability with cars automatically refers to LONG TERM reliability. A product that doesn't work when you buy it new is defective, not unreliable.

Bah. At that point, it has far less to do with the car itself and much more to do with the owners.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: TNM93
I've always found GM to be reliable. GM cars I've owned and mileage out of them

1992 Cavalier: 222,716 miles (given to Goodwill)
1991 Astro Van: 245,00 miles and still going strong (Trade in)
2004 Silverado - 40000 miles without a problem.

my Olds intrigue is 7 yrs old and has 140k miles on it. i've had to replace tires, breaks (calipers, pads and discs), wiper blades, belts, belt tensioner just broke and i had to replace that, struts (that was done last week along with the belt tensioner) . . .

i'm not sure what's on that list that wouldn't have had to be replaced on a japanese or german vehicle, in other words, i think everything on my list are parts that wear over time on any vehicle.

the only other problem i've had with it are the power windows, i'll probably have to replace all the regulators etc. that's kind of a bummer but it's cheaper than buying a new car.

belt Tensioner is the only questionable item in that list i would say for "normal" maintnence. all the rest would have to be done on foreign vehicles.