Reliability of the GM 2.8L V6 and discussion of 80s cars

[kevm14]

2000s GM cars are better than 90s GM cars which were better than 80s GM cars.

Yet you shun the 2000s and want the 80s cars.

I dunno, there were plenty of decent GM cars in the 2000s. Any Corvette (but specifically the C5 and C6 Z06), GTO (ok it was a Holden), the trucks and SUVs were good except for some corrosion issues on the GMT-800 pickups (I assure you Ford and Dodge had theirs, and I don't think you even want to go there with Toyota). The Duramax diesel and Allison 1000 (an award winning powertrain) came out for 2001 and has been pretty consistently good ever since. My CTS-V was a product of the mid-2000s. Jamie's SRX, which placed first in a C/D comparison with plenty of good luxury crossover competition.

In general the 2000s was a huge decade for any of the Gen III and IV V8 stuff. We entered the decade with the already-excellent 345hp LS1 and left with the 638hp LS9. Likewise, you had the 4L60 and 4L80 in 2000 and then the 6L80 and 6L90 in 2006 and 2009. LOTS of progress.

The Mustang couldn't match the 1998 F-body's performance until the 3 valve 4.6 in 2005 and even then I think it was just barely at parity.

Sure the Impala wasn't a great car, but the Malibu was good from 2004 on. The Cobalt wasn't good in general, but the 2008+ Cobalt SS was outstanding. The Trailblazer SS was at least interesting (they put the LS2 in that).

And the Chevy Volt, which was a pretty monumental engineering project, was done in the 2000s.

I'd also say the 2000s was the decade where GM discovered how to engineer a world class chassis, which is quite significant. Mind you, this is a characteristic that the Camaro wasn't even endowed with until the ZL1 and 1LE hit the streets, a few years after the re-introduction.

On a related note, they really got serious about MR shock tuning through the 2000s.

Random innovation (that was too expensive to catch on): Quadrasteer option on 3/4 ton trucks (2002-2005).

In other divisions, cars like the Buick LeSabre weren't sporty but were very reliable.

[bill25]

I think you missed my point.

2000s GM cars are better than 90s GM cars which were better than 80s GM cars.
True.

But by the 2000's I and many others gave up, and were not willing to take a gamble. Since about 2005 they have actually been producing good cars. It took 30 years for people to give up and 10 years to give them a chance again. I would say they have it good.

I like the 80's body styles over the 90's and 2000's. Not the powertrains.

[Adam]

There were probably other examples, but the main "issues" with 80s Detroit powertrains was probably more a general shortcoming in power and efficiency, NOT reliability. An Olds 307, for example, had 140hp in the 80s. But they were reliable. And actually got reasonable fuel economy.

Some of the later ones made as much as 150hp. My single tank fuel economy record in my '88 Cutlass Supreme in high school was 26mpg. The 2.73:1 gears probably helped.

[Adam]

I drove the Cultass to about ~125K, then lost it to rust. Powertrain worked great even as the frame failed and wasn't safe to drive anymore.

[bill25]

My American car history:
Mercury Topaz - POS - replaced everything and it overheated and died at less than 150K
Mercury Sable - overheated and died at less than 110K - This car was abused by someone else previous to me though.
Z-24 Great car overall but overheated and died at about 158K - 2.8L
Monte Carlo SS - Blue smoke out the tailpipes at 130K, Car was in BAD shape mechanically and rust.
GMC Jimmy 2.8 - Everything was replaced, and still had engine problems - 2.8L.

My parents had a Cutlass Ciera - car was not that good seemed like it was going to fall apart on the highway, the dash vibrated so much it looked like it was going to fall off at about 75. It died because of me, not the powertrain.
They also had a Delta 88 Brougham which was sweet, I want to say it had a 3.8, got rid of it because it was about to die, way less than 200K.

I guess my argument is more on longevity than reliability, these cars just didn't last. Out of all of these the longest one I owned was probably the Z-24 and that was about 2 to 2.5 years total.

The Topaz was leaking oil and radiator fluid at less than 130K. Just total garbage.

[bill25]

Then, in the early 2000's my parents got a 87 Corolla, it had over 230K on it and ran great. The later sold it around 250K because it needed tired and a new ignition switch. Then they got a 95 Corolla that my brother drove to over 250K all original drivetrain and my brother sold it for 650. 2 years later that person was moving and asked if he wanted to buy it back, still running strong. So when my Volvo left me high and dry, and I was in still in college, what was I gonna buy? based on history, it wasn't going to be an average American car that likely wouldn't pass 150K, it was a Corolla. It has 192K on it, 2003, so 12 years olds, and mileage wise, it has already beaten every American car I was directly in contact with except for a Pontiac Bonneville that I know had over 200K, which everyone I knew thought it was a miracle at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I am an American car guy, but they were not good for most of my life. Luckily they have made a comeback and my next car will be American.

[kevm14]

Here are GM's American sales by year. Around 2002/3 is when I gave up on American cars for a while. It only got worse until 2010. Funny, around 2010 with the Camaro, I am looking at American made again, and the sales track my opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors

Year - U.S. sales (vehicles) - Chg/yr.

1998[35] 4,603,991
1999 5,017,150 Increase9.0%
2000[36] 4,953,163 Decrease1.3%
2001 4,904,015 Decrease1.0%
2002 4,858,705 Decrease0.9%
2003 4,756,403 Decrease2.1%
2004[37] 4,707,416 Decrease1.0%
2005 4,517,730 Decrease4.0%
2006[38] 4,124,645 Decrease8.7%
2007[39] 3,866,620 Decrease6.3%
2008[40] 2,980,688 Decrease22.9%
2009[41] 2,084,492 Decrease30.1%
2010[42] 2,215,227 Increase6.3%
2011[43] 2,503,820 Increase13.7%
2012 2,595,717 Increase3.7%
2013[44] 2,786,078 Increase7.3%
2014[45] 2,935,008 Increase5.3%

I think you are way off base here.

In the year 2009, in the largest decline during economic crisis, fewer than 6 million new passenger cars were sold in the United States, and the total number of new sold and leased cars and light trucks dropped to just above 13 million from a normal pre-crisis level of 20 million.[7] The number of cars sold in the US decreased at a continuous rate since 2000, when 9 million passenger cars were sold in the US. 1985 was a record year with cars sales totaling just over 11 million.[7]

You don't have enough data to conclude anything near what you have above. For example, this indicates that despite your argument, GM actually had over 1/3 of the entire US auto market in the terrible sales year of 2009. Given the globalization of the auto market, and all the brands and offerings, I think that's pretty surprising.

Anyway, it doesn't mean what you say isn't true, but the data you have shown (GM sales) doesn't prove it. It may be that Asian brands suffered less during the economic decline but to ignore that EVERYTHING was declining is incredibly disingenuous. The economy was fucked, and it affected every single brand, not just GM and not just American brands.

[Adam]

Monte Carlo SS - Blue smoke out the tailpipes at 130K, Car was in BAD shape mechanically and rust.

Needed valve seals. Many of them did. Still ran fine, probably. The only thing the Cutlass ever needed was more power. Which I never gave it.

What were the other mechanical problems with the Monte?

[kevm14]

Some data to chew on.

US census auto sales 1990 to 2010.png

Let's compare to Bill's data.

I normalized the GM sales numbers to the total US new motor vehicle sales and leases.

GM US auto sales compared to industry 2000 to 2010.png

Totally changes the picture. It doesn't turn bad news into good news, but when you normalize (and theoretically take into account the economic environment) GM was just steadily losing sales through the 2000s, but in the single digit range.

Now let's graph domestic and imported. Actually, before I do, I admit I don't know if "import" means "not manufactured on US soil." If so, this is less helpful. It could also mean US brands and foreign brands. That is kind of critical to interpretation though. I probably shouldn't even use this without answering those questions. But here we go.

Total US sales, broken out by cars and trucks

US sales cars and trucks.png

Total US sales, broken out by import and domestic

US sales domestic import.png

If import vs domestic refers to place of manufacture (or assembly), then each could actually be a mix of US and foreign automakers. Really need to know this...

[bill25]

Needed valve seals. Many of them did. Still ran fine, probably. The only thing the Cutlass ever needed was more power. Which I never gave it.

What were the other mechanical problems with the Monte?

You are probably right. Also, the main things that failed were nickel and dime things like alternator, exhaust disconnected the bolt broke that held it to the manifold, the car was kind of a dog, it didn't start in the winter (which was the majority of the time I drove it) without using a screwdriver to hold the intake open, The one I had had IROC wheels on it which didn't fit right and were hitting the suspension, The main reason for selling was the rust/rot that was beyond my finances to repair. It had the normal headliner sag, obviously not mechanical.

The bottom line was I didn't have the money to save it, and it was 15 years old. The floor, quarters and trunk were all rotted out. If you were sitting in the back seat, you could see the ground through the wheel well near the seatbelt. I didn't know what I was doing when I was looking for one. I learned a lot. I still loved the car, it just needed more power and less rot (and Posi). I am not an American car hater, I love them, but even in the 1999-2000 timeframe driving this, my whole purpose was to make it really fast because stock, it wasn't.

In reality, most of my bad experiences were Mercury (Topaz/Sable) but the 2.8 Jimmy sucked, I don't care what anyone says. The Z-24 was great for the time, but if a car died at 160K now, it would be totally unacceptable. I changed the oil every 3000 miles religiously in that car. I did all the maintenance.