I never implied the 300C was a "bad car"...I simply pointed out a design flaw that baffles the mind how it could make it through testing....but I know sh*t happens.

Personally, I don't care for the shoebox styling.....but applaud Chrysler for building it.....but it does further the anti-american biases (even though this one is owned by sourkraut eaters) when a "domestic" drops the ball.

I honestly want to know if the modern day "testing" is done as much in computer simulations as in real world driving. Sometimes you gotta' beat the crap out of the first few off the assembly line to find the flaws...

 

Amen to that!

 

Question for the engineers here: How do these things happen (recall issues)?

I'm a product designer, but have never worked on anything as complex as a car (locomotives are close, but it's apples to oranges). From my experience in locomotives and consumer products I've been around all sorts of testing and have been enterained by 'testing to failure'.

All the issues Guion pointed out seem to be issues that alpha and beta testing should have ironed out. So why hasn't it. Is is rushed development time? Or is this an unfortunate reality in the engineering world?

 

While I'm not surprised that the 300C isn't on the same level as Lexus, I wouldn't have expected any better from a GM product.

Did I mention that my B-body had at least half an inch of slack in the steering the day it left the factory?

 

I for one am on the brink of being totally disgusted with anything the big 3 have come up with lately.

I'm not saying a car can be perfect, but for the $$$ that is being asked, it should be a bit more toward the goal than it is.

I mean, first off, unless you're ready to plunk down $30k-$40k on a car/truck, you get a cookie cutter car anymore. Thats freaking rediculous!

Then there's quality - SOOOO many TSBs on all these cars... most are minor but what about the big ones.

I mean, this next statement goes beyond brand preference.

We as Americans like to think we can make the best and provide the best products, but in reality, we are among the worst......... well, when considering vehicles. We are behind in almost every way... current trends, model design, and most importantly reliability. I like US products but lets face it, pride in American products doesn't cut it anymore - Japanese auto manufacturers are killing us right now...

Anyway, one last thought - My wife's 2000 GMC Sierra has about 78,000 miles on it...

Overall we love the truck. However, there is a problem with the steering shaft that makes the truck's steering wheel vibrate and allows road noise thru the shaft. VERY irritiating. The other thing, common with most GM trucks I've driven is the gears. When giong from park to drive or reverse, it will clunk when the gear shifts almost every time! Its not U-joints or anything like that, its the gears themselves - Too much play or slack. Come on now,

for something that cost probably $28000 new, with only 78000 miles, these problems should NOT be there!

<whew>

 

I believe that is driveshaft clunk you are hearing, not gears within the transmission itself.

Oh, and all automakers have TSBs to make service techs aware of potential problems that have come up (either from customers complaining or just discovered after production starts). Saying that the Americans are behind styling-wise and "trend"-wise is fine, but that is opinion type stuff.

I wouldn't call most of the domestics "cookie cutter" lineups. Sure, a Malibu looks related to a Cobalt and Impala (and so on), and the Grand Prix looks related to the GTO. They should look like they belong to the appropriate family (much like a Corolla and Camry or Civic and Accord are obviously related). But an Impala and Grand Prix look nothing alike, and they both look and feel totally different than the upcoming Buick Lacrosse. Similarly, park a Pontiac G6, a Malibu, and a Saab 9-3 next to each other and call them cookie cutter cars. If you don't like the particular styling, fine, but that doesn't mean the cars are cookie cutters.

 

Not "cookie cutter cars" in the sense of the 1980s, for sure. Those cars were vaguely good looking and vaguely contemporary.

The current crop of "cookie cutters" are all disappointingly similar to their predecessors, and the predecessor models were all mediocre to begin with.

 

2 rebuttals:

If you think about it, haven't cars from particular decades been cookie cutters? A 56 Buick didn't really whole that much from a 56 Ford. Lot's of chrome and fins everywhere. Yes, there were more differenciations in the details, but overall I think you could make a (broad) argument about cookie cutter looks through history.

Here's what get's me: For many years the good people of Ohio have built Accords with outstanding qualtiy while other American assembled car (mostly big 3) have lagged way behind. The problem to me seems to stem from Amrican management in how cars are designed and assembled, not the actual workers.

 

I dunno. I was under the car and had my wife shift the truck into gear and it was a definate clunk coming from the rear end.

Who knows - I guess I just expect better from a manufacturer... especially when the tranny itself (4L60/700R4, 4L60e, or 4L65e) in some form or another has been around for a while now. I know, its not exactly the same, but when the technology has been out for 20+ years, you'd think they can get it right.

 

No, I'm not upset or anything like that. Just heading off the herd that's running to the bash Chrysler, or the "I told you it was a piece of..." crowd. GM has some good stuff in the pipeline, and it isn't limited to just the next Camaro.

But the more Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, and hopefully the Dodge Charger sells, the more stupid GM will realize they look with their "Go painfully slow" approach in reintroducing RWD cars. Chrysler is proving FWD isn't life support, and you can actually sell cars without packing on $6,000 of bribe money. That's all.

That's the sad part. The "false perception". All the current recalls I pointed out with GM cars is also pretty common with so called better cars as well.

*Nissan is selling cars with airbags that don't meet current federal regs in their minivans [NHTSA Recall No. 04V103]

*Subaru cruise control cable can come apart, leaving the car stuck in cruise, whether you want to slow down or not [NHTSA Recall No. 04V128/Subaru Recall No. WWQ-01]

*Audi has a recall going on that involves an electrical short & fire potentially starting simply by ptressing your knee against the knee bolster [NHTSA Recall No. 04V133]

*Honda and Acura SUVs have a transmission flaw that involves broken gear teeth & transmission locking as a result [NHTSA Recall No. 04V176/Honda Recall No. P30/Acura Recall No. P31]

*Bentley (Yes, THAT Bentley) has a recall on a fuel line that may disconnect [NHTSA Recall No. 04V130/Bentley Recall No. R04/02]

*Jaguar has a recall that involves sharp edges slicing airbags if they deploy [NHTSA Recall No. 04V136/Jaguar Recall No. R719]

*Maserati has steering wheel bolts that might come apart [NHTSA Recall No. 04V140/Maserati Recall No. 106]

*96 & 97 BMW 5 series (yes, Et tu BMW!) are under a recall due to cracking (and breaking) strut plates that could wipe out the suspension (great if you're going at a high rate of speed at the time [NHTSA Recall No. 04V183]


...And it can go on and on, affecting every brand of vehicle sold in the US.

The point here is twofold. First, US cars are no better or worse than what even exclusive car companies are doing. Actually, even GM's recent rash of recalls ARE NOT as bad by a long shot (save Aurora's cracking fuel lines) as some of the other recalls issued by others. My point wasn't to unfairly bash GM, just add perspective.

The second point is that if the worse thing the new 300 has to deal with is a slight pull to the right on early models, that still puts it ahead of every car on the road, especially considering it's only been on the assembly line for a couple of months.

It's all about keeping perspective.

To keep abreast of the latest Federal Recall Information:
http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/recallsdesc.htm

 

I have Audi A6 Quattro, with automatic. You bet that it's got this clunk as well. It doesn't happen when you shift between R/N/D, but happens mostly when shifting gears under hard acceleration, then let go off the accelerator, and then slowly apply the accelerator.

Had the car on the hoist, the driveshaft has some free play in the rear differential

 

lmao

 

What do you mean "similar to their predecessors"? Styling wise? Quality wise? Powertrains?

New Malibu = very different from old Malibu.
New G6 = not even close to Grand Am.
New 9-3 = different enough that the Saab "purists" got all pissed at first, even though to me it looks sufficiently Saab-like that I can't picture it being anything else...

I mean, of course there are some carry-over cues. They are still under the same brand. I would expect a new 9-3 to look somewhat similar to a previous 9-3, because they both need to look like Saabs. The G6 is quite different from the heavily cladded Grand Am. And the Malibu, well yeah it's still a conservative, upright, staid sedan, as was the previous one. But no one would confuse one with the other, inside or out. *shrug*

 

1. The new Malibu is just as dull as the old one, except for the "excitement" of the hideous and overpriced Maxx.

2. The G6 looks set to continue the Pontiac tradition of a backseat that is rendered useless by a lack of headroom. Worse yet - is 200hp for $25k a good performance value? It's obvious that GM management still hasn't noticed the 250hp Altima. Or maybe they're just hoping that Pontiac buyers don't visit Nissan franchises.

3. The Saab 9-3 is clawing around at the bottom of the near-luxury class, just like the old 900/9-3 which was probably worse. In this segment the 4-cylinder-only powertrain is something of a joke, but not as big a joke as in the similarly sized 9-5. (By the way, what's the point of offering two Opel Vectra based cars?) I've taken the appearance of the bogus 9-2X to mean that the 9-3 is something of a flop.

 

With all due respect, that didn't defend the 'cookie cutter' arguement,