Dear GM....

General Motors,

I love you. We've been together forever. I've owned 75+ cars, most have been from you. There are 8 of your products out in the driveway and I've got 3 more tucked away at my dad's place. Every time i strayed to a blue oval, they broke horribly and made me come crawling back to you. This time, though, WTF were you thinking? The steering system on my Avalanche is STUPID! Idler arm and pitman arm wore out at 140k, which is perfectly acceptable. Hell, it's commendable after the weak idler arm used on the 88-98 trucks. I can even accept that step one, being a Z71, is remove 2 skidplates. However, step two is remove sway bar, and step 3 is put a puller on the idler arm to center link joint, put heat on it, pound the E36 M3 out of it for over an hour, have it not come loose, give up and order a new center link and tie rods because this piece of crap is coming out in one piece. That's just stupid right there. The 2 main components that require whacking have the worst access, and on top of that a chunk of control arm bracket needs cut off to get a puller on the pitman arm? FU. Stupid move there, buddy. Why couldn't you have just gone with the rack and pinion in 99 instead of 07. I'm sad, my wallet is $400 lighter for steering linkage parts(i only bought AC delco and Moog), but hopefully the truck should be set for another 140k. When the time comes to replace the Avalanche, I may have to seek out the elusive 99 OBS crew cab short bed "classic" as everything about the 88-98 style trucks is less stupid for a DIY mechanic.

Regards,

A Dejected GM Owner.

I've owned 40+ cars, and only 3 GM products. They are soo ininspired I cant imagine owning 70 or so! But, up to now it sounds like they've been good to you.
I fear that your latest frustrating experience won't be your last, no matter who your next car comes from. Serviceability is not on their radar.

"Dear Pat,
You insufferable fool. Its taken you 70+ GM cars to figure out that we design mediocre appliances to feed the mindless masses? Shame on you.
Unapologetic GM"

Racks are far more expensive, fragile, and harder to service than "traditional" steering systems. I don't like the idea of them on trucks.

I've owned many GM products and will continue to buy them.

My 72 GMC truck still had its original tie rods and steering gear. It's all in pretty good shape, but I replaced it because it just has to be getting old... right? RIGHT?

Dear Pat,

Thanks for the money.

XOXO GM

DrBoost wrote: I've owned 40+ cars, and only 3 GM products. They are soo ininspired I cant imagine owning 70 or so! But, up to now it sounds like they've been good to you. I fear that your latest frustrating experience won't be your last, no matter who your next car comes from. Serviceability is not on their radar.

I own 40 plus vehicles now. Many Gm and it's hard for me to imagine so many of the performance cars they've made over the years being called uninspiring. The GMs I own are in general way easier to work on than my Porsches or Toyotas. To each their own lol.

If that's your only complaint about a gm car you must be blind. I can think of several gm cars I've had and immediate family have had, they would have been fortunate just to get a gm car to 140k

My tundra has rack and pinion steering, it's not really all that awesome.

In reply to Cotton:

Maybe its because they are GM that you have to own so many. Just sayin'.

iadr wrote: If you think a rack and pinion is the answer to anything, you need help. The supposed superiority is a scam set on the public much as the domestic's "FWD is the future" push in the late 80's early 90's, and one of the reasons I will never ever buy another C&D or R&T for as long as I live, as they were behind the push, as well as the push to excess roll stiffness and harsh rides. Trucks with R&p steering will almost always have one replacement in their lives. I've worked for car dealers for going on 15 years- and jobber before that, and racks have become big business. Doesn't help Mopar don't sell inner tie rods for the majority of their racks. We see failure of some type (loose inner tie rods or leakage or, whatever) in about 12-15% of all brands before 65K miles (100k km). Mopar worst, Ford actually not super bad...

As opposed to recirc-ball boxes, which go bad, but there's no point in replacing them because the reman units are usually just as bad, sometimes worse.

So...GM is the Floyd Mayweather of automobiles?

Everything that I've owned that has been something other than GM (Except the wife's Elantra) has been a big flaming pile of crap. I'll stick with what works dependably, is cheap to run and easily serviceable thank you very much.

I'm a car guy, I like cars no matter who makes them. I've had GMs and loved them. I've had GMs that I hated too. The same with Ford, Mazda, Toyota, Suzuki, Yamaha, BMW, Jeep, and several other brands I'm sure. They all do stupid E36 M3 sometimes.

The only brand I absolutely despise is Nissan. It's an unreasonable hate left over from a 1983 Stanza. I won't buy a Nissan ever again even though they build some good cars.

My only other true dislike is anything made after the mid 90s. It's too complicated and most of it is junk I don't need and won't use.

GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

BTW, do you have an unexplained rattle in your passenger side frame rail?

If so, you could cut it open and probably find pennies in there. GM designs stupid E36 M3 sometimes, but 90% of the time whatever is designed is assembled by people who can't be bothered to actually work.

yamaha wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

BTW, do you have an unexplained rattle in your passenger side frame rail? If so, you could cut it open and probably find pennies in there. GM designs stupid E36 M3 sometimes, but 90% of the time whatever is designed is assembled by people who can't be bothered to actually work.

No, but I do have an explained rattle in my driver's side frame rail. It's in two pieces.

Cotton wrote:

DrBoost wrote: I've owned 40+ cars, and only 3 GM products. They are soo ininspired I cant imagine owning 70 or so! But, up to now it sounds like they've been good to you. I fear that your latest frustrating experience won't be your last, no matter who your next car comes from. Serviceability is not on their radar.

I own 40 plus vehicles now. Many Gm and it's hard for me to imagine so many of the performance cars they've made over the years being called uninspiring. The GMs I own are in general way easier to work on than my Porsches or Toyotas. To each their own lol.

If I exclude the 'vette, I can't think of a chassis I'd want want to own. To be clear, some quick cars they've built in the past were still uninspiring cars.
When I talk about an uninspiring car, I'm talking about the typical flaccid chassis with crappy feedback that GM will bolt a truck motor to.
That being said, I'd love to have a RWD Grand National.

yamaha wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

BTW, do you have an unexplained rattle in your passenger side frame rail? If so, you could cut it open and probably find pennies in there. GM designs stupid E36 M3 sometimes, but 90% of the time whatever is designed is assembled by people who can't be bothered to actually work.

Back around the time I bought my 1972 POS Vega, disgruntled union workers were dropping ball bearings or marbles inside the doors on Cadillacs. Yea, piss off the best customers you have. The BS explanantions I got for my Vega being a POS were only exceeded by FORD many years later when we had our POS Lincoln.

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

You're thinking of Chrysler. GM comes up with mediocre ideas and executes them well. Look at, say, the small block Chevy. Several cubic feet of bad ideas wrought in steel and iron. And yet, it has been the generic performance engine for decades, because while it has all SORTS of design flaws and limitations, GM at least cranked out a bajillion of them and... well, maybe they did some sort of dark arts thing in the back rooms or something.

Knurled wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

You're thinking of Chrysler. GM comes up with mediocre ideas and executes them well. Look at, say, the small block Chevy. Several cubic feet of bad ideas wrought in steel and iron. And yet, it has been the generic performance engine for decades, because while it has all SORTS of design flaws and limitations, GM at least cranked out a bajillion of them and... well, maybe they did some sort of dark arts thing in the back rooms or something.

Plastisol, the Computer Controlled Carb, G-body frames, the entire Fiero, the C4 Corvette's digital dash, the CRT touchscreen, the Aztek. Yup, I'm thinking about GM.

G_Body_Man wrote:

Knurled wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

You're thinking of Chrysler. GM comes up with mediocre ideas and executes them well. Look at, say, the small block Chevy. Several cubic feet of bad ideas wrought in steel and iron. And yet, it has been the generic performance engine for decades, because while it has all SORTS of design flaws and limitations, GM at least cranked out a bajillion of them and... well, maybe they did some sort of dark arts thing in the back rooms or something.

Plastisol, the Computer Controlled Carb, G-body frames, the entire Fiero, the C4 Corvette's digital dash, the CRT touchscreen, the Aztek. Yup, I'm thinking about GM.

All manufacturers have had berkeley ups and various technologies, ideas, options, designs, etc that just didn't work out. Maybe you should sell the g body and pick up a Camry.

Those were all mediocre ideas But executed WELL. Well, okay the computer controlled carb worked awesome. The Aztek was an interesting take on the minivan (it was mechanically a Lumina APV) and if they were so bad, why were there so many on the roads? And why did every other division get their own version?

Chrysler has all of the awesome engineering ideas but they also have awesome accountants that beancounter everything to failure. The Fiero was thought up as something awesome but they shot themselves in the foot when they tried to justify it...

to be fair, most of my GM stuff has been old or trucks, and they have almost always done my right. i used to pick up sub $800 astro vans and pound the crap out of them for a year for work. most of my truck have been acquired with 180k+ and run up well over 200. my current beater work van is a 2007 express with an untouched 420k mile 5.3. i love some 88-92 tbi 700r4 or manual half ton pickup, i've logged hundreds of thousands of miles in those and never paid more than $2300 for one.

i just hate that an hour job max has taken 3, most of that fighting two things that should not be that hard to get at, and honestly i will never understand why they went to the pitman arm being a wear part versus one that just has a hole in it.

Cotton wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote:

Knurled wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

You're thinking of Chrysler. GM comes up with mediocre ideas and executes them well. Look at, say, the small block Chevy. Several cubic feet of bad ideas wrought in steel and iron. And yet, it has been the generic performance engine for decades, because while it has all SORTS of design flaws and limitations, GM at least cranked out a bajillion of them and... well, maybe they did some sort of dark arts thing in the back rooms or something.

Plastisol, the Computer Controlled Carb, G-body frames, the entire Fiero, the C4 Corvette's digital dash, the CRT touchscreen, the Aztek. Yup, I'm thinking about GM.

All manufacturers have had berkeley ups and various technologies, ideas, options, designs, etc that just didn't work out. Maybe you should sell the g body and pick up a Camry.

Camries don't have character, or pillow-style red velour interiors.

Knurled wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: GM consistently manages to come up with great ideas, then royally berkeley them up in execution.

You're thinking of Chrysler.

You're kidding right? Look at the GM and Ford concept cars, especially from the 90s and 20**s. Chrysler consistently produced cars that were very close to the concept cars than anyone. Can you say Viper, Prowler (not my cup of tea, but it was close to the concept IIRC), Neon, LH cars, etc. Those were all good cars and sold well, Prowler excluded.