Hybrids don’t make much sense for something bigger than a Camry-sized vehicle. The huge battery packs are just too expensive. A diesel’s a better way to go.
Those GM truck hybrids were minimal hybrids, with little impact on mpgs because of how little assistance the electrical parts made.
MG McAnick Dents on top of Aztecs and Jukes are from being beaten with the proverbial UGLY STICK!!!
Yup
They’re called mild hybrids
As for the Juke and Aztek
Yup, somebody beat them with the ugly stick
And when they were down, somebody didn’t stop, and kept beating them
Remember the original Hyundai Santa Fe . . . ?
From the side, it always looks like the fenders had received some serious dents
With the Cherokee my eye never makes it down to the smile. The grille and lights make me squeeze my eyes shut in horror. I think this rivals the Juke for ugliness. Though the Aztek and the old Datsun F10 are uglier than either. OK, from the front the Juke and Cherokee may be worse, but the Aztek’s proportions are weird and the F10 is ugly from any direction.
Remember the 80s Pontiac LeMans–the one not actually made by GM, but outsourced? That was an ugly and unpleasant little car. It always looked to me like they took that little car and stretched it in all directions to make the Aztec. The Aztec also reminds me of a baby garbage truck from the back. The Prius is just about as ugly from the back too IMHO.
I used to think the new Cherokee (and the new 300 body style) were stupid looking, but they’ve grown on me a bit, and the new Cherokees are very nice inside, so I could overlook that I suppose. I still think the older 300s look better. One of the better-looking recent SUVs is the Escape IMHO.
I always thought the Chrysler Crossfire was kind of ugly from the back–Apparently Jeremy Clarkson agrees–when they had it on Top Gear, they showed it side by side with a dog squatting to take a dump, which made me chuckle. From the front, the Subaru Tribeca with its horse collar grille doesn’t do much for me.
Kudos to Chrysler and Ford’s designers these days–I think they have the best looking newer vehicles overall. GM, not so much. And Audi’s making some beautiful automobiles.
I am surprised no one has mentioned the GM Lower Intake Manifold Gaskets on the 3.1/3.4L engines and the 4.3/5.7 L Vortecs
Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4 Liter engines.
The intake manifold gaskets on these engines are prone to failure. After so many cycles of heating and cooling the gaskets no longer seal the engine coolant passage in the upper portion of the engine. When this seal is breached, coolant begins to mix with engine oil. If the failure is caught in time, the gasket only need be replaced. If the engine is run for a long time the coolant can dilute the engine oil and cause a failure of the engine bearings.
Lets not forget the Chrysler Engineering Marvel that was the 2.7L V-6 with the internal water pump. Everyone cries about timing belts, but this motor had an internal chain driven oil and water pumps. When the water pump started leaking guess where all that coolant would go…
Destined to blow up from the factory.
Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4 Liter engines.
ALL GM V6’s and some of their V8’s had major intake manifold problems.
@MikeInNH
ALL GM V6's and some of their V8's had major intake manifold problems.
Not true at all, the 3400 DOHC lq1 v-6 motor didn’t have intake gasket problems, the 3.5l “shortstar” v-6 didnt, these were gm designs.
The 3.0l catera motor didn’ and the honda v-6 put into saturns didn’t. These were not Gm designs but they were a “GM” motor since GM vehicles had them.
The 3.6 used in the 2004-up Caddy Cts didnt have intake issues either.
Granted the 3400 DOHC and catera motor had their share of issues but intake gaskets failing were not one of them.
To say that ALL GM v-6s made from 1995 to 2006 had intake issues is false. Lets keep the facts straight here.
So…here are the facts.
Here’s the class action lawsuit…
http://www.sueeasy.com/class_action_detail.php?case_id=215
Not true at all, the 3400 DOHC lq1 v-6 motor didn't have intake gasket problemshttp://www.justanswer.com/chevy/2edaa-gm-s-3-4-litre-motor-3400-mini-vans.html
, the 3.5l "shortstar" v-6 didnt, these were gm designs.http://repairpal.com/intake-manifold-gaskets-may-leak-engine-oil-266 http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/9238-so-how-many-people-have-had-4.html
honda v-6 put into saturns didn't.
You’re right…I should have been more specific…All V6’s built by GM experienced intake manifold problems.
To say that ALL GM v-6s made from 1995 to 2006 had intake issues is false.
Every V6 engine built by GM during that period had some intake manifold problems. Maybe not every year.
Did I miss one??
Not true at all, the 3400 DOHC lq1 v-6 motor didn't have intake gasket problemshttp://www.justanswer.com/chevy/2edaa-gm-s-3-4-litre-motor-3400-mini-vans.html
I am talking about the 3400 DOHC Engine. They were built from 91-97.
You are right about the shortstar. Those did have intake issues. Gm sure does build junk.
Those did have intake issues. Gm sure does build junk.
The issue I’ve always had with GM…they built junk because they choose to build junk. It took them over a decade to correct the intake manifold. They knew about the problem long long before they decided to do something about it.
Yes sir you are exactly right. They keep producing a faulty design. Look at the Vega, they ruined what could have been a great car, all due to penny pinching. Same thing 10 years later with the 350 diesel debacle.
Look at the Vega, they ruined what could have been a great car, all due to penny pinching.
I owned two of them.
@MikeInnh
Did you like your vegas? I have never been in a factory unmolested vega. I thought they were probably ok cars for the time minus their issues.
@MikInNH When the Vega came out, my wife and I looked at it because it was an American Economy Car. We did not like the tinny sound it made while running and the luggage space was too small. We bought a used intermediate instead. In retrospect I was thankful because all the engineering guys I worked with who bought them ended up regretting it.
This car was a “corporate” forced efforts that the divisions reluctantly had to participate in.
The sleeveless aluminum block cast in Messina, N.Y. right beside the Alcoa plant (the liquid Al was piped over from the Alcoa smelter!).
When the bugs were worked out, it was a better car.
“When the bugs were worked out, it was a better car.”
True, but–in typical GM fashion–the bugs were worked out not very long before they stopped producing these cars.
Time and time again in the '70s & '80s, GM followed the practice of bringing products to market prior to doing sufficient durability testing, and instead relying on their customers to find the bugs for them. The problem with that approach is that you frequently wind up alienating so many people who were stuck with lemons that you keep shrinking your customer base.
Anyone here read “Rivethead” by Ben Hamper? It’s a bit dated now, but Ben worked for GM in the 70s and 80s and describes his experiences with the corporate environment, the union, including waste, etc., his fellow assembly line denizens, and life in general. An enlightening and entertaining read even if you’ve lived the life.
I had one Vega a 1971. It was on It’s second factory replacement engine under 20,000 miles on the odometer. The car was obviously in like new condition. I got it for doing some work on a Triumph TR-4 so it “cost” me $100. I really liked it. It looked good (silver) the black interior was perfect. Yes. It was a cheapo car but ran and drove very well. It was a 4spd M/T+++. I got about 2,500 miles before the engine blew (again). I sold it for $50. I have no regrets. When Chevrolet installed iron sleeves in the aluminum engine block in 1974 it was to late. No Sale! I worked at a GM (Buick) dealership in 1975/76. Informing me of their total lack of quality is preaching to the choir!