Please don't think I am ranting here although it may sound like it. I have a GMC Sonoma with the 3rd door. The door handle on the 3rd door recently broke and thinking this was an unusual occurrence I went to the dealership to get a new one. This piece was not a complicated part and was made of a sturdy plastic. I was charged w/tax 61.00 which I thought was quite high. Didn't say anything just paid for it. Went home installed it myself. Later on I decided to check and see if everyone was that high. Of course I go to Ebay not expecting to find one but there were several for sale, so this was obviously a weak point with this truck. The new part was identical to the old one, no changes. GM did not improve this part at all despite it's weakness. Back to Ebay, There were several for sale between 16.00 and 21.00 including shipping and OEM. You could also buy aftermarket that were even cheaper and also just the simple handle (broken part) for a mere $2.95 probably Chinese made. So GM makes no effort to fix a weakness and the dealership decides to pay off their mortgage with my business. Lesson learned.... ebay for everything

That is what happened to make them be in this situation, they made cars they were designed to make it through the warrenty period with no issues and then all bets were off. I have a 2001 Malibu, so far I have replaced.

Wheel hubs (the parts that has the wheel bearings and bolts to attach the wheels) 4 times at about 90-100 a piece for parts.
lower intake manifold gaskett, first time was 600 dollars, second time was 500.
new radio after the first two stopped playing cds, now have an aftermarket radio
too many times on the brake pads.

I never go to the dealer for work, always friends or garages. I probably spent close to 2,000 on parts that normally shouldn't go out. And guess what, they are all common issues. Also GM has this wonderfull idea on my car, they thought "hey, lets get rid of the tranmission dipstick and make it so the owner has to bring it back to us to check the level".


On the other had, at one point, my mom had a 1991 toyota Previa for about a couple years. It was given to us with 255k miles. We did have to replace and repair some parts (steering rack, rear calipers repaired, new front struts), but after 255k I figure it was worn out parts. We later sold the van with 275k miles on it and it still runs today (sold it because a mechanic said it was about to rust through on the frame).

I will say the newer cars are a lot better designed, but GM has burned too many bridges. I only have a few cars that I would consider owning made by GM.

http://gmfactsandfiction.com/category/quality/

If you want the TRUTH about the World's Leading Automaker, log on to www.gmfactsandfiction.com.

My last 3 vehicles have been GM and I can say the only complaint whatsoever I have is their power window switches. 1993 GMC Safari, Ran like a top, Was in very good condition, Had 170,000 miles when a civic failed to yield and I made a horse shoe out of it. Could have actually been fixed fairly easily too.

1995 Buick Lesabre, I gave it to my brother at 175,000 miles, still going strong at 200,000

1997 Pontiac Bonneville SSEI. Bet I got another ten years of quality car on this one at 81,000.

Dad has a 2005 GMC safari with over 200,000 and he don't blink a eyelash taking it on a trip to Canada, Wyoming or wherever and neither woujld I.

IMHO Great products, Stricker is a shock if yiou buy new but Don't bat a eyelash at buying one used with 80-90 thousand miles if it has been cared for. Brakes, waterpump, alternator and its basically a new car

The TRUTH about my 2004 Impala with 53,000 miles. It has been in the shop four times in the last nine months for defective parts. My extended warranty that I PURCHASED covered it. GM wouldn't have touched it and issued no recalls for the defective parts. And now I have brake rotors that are terribly warped and the car shudders when I hit the brakes and neither the extended warranty nor GM will cover it. The DEALER said this is a common problem and GM knows since 2000 about it and has done nothing.

I really like the car - if I can keep it out of the shop.

I always buy American and often Chevy. But this car has left a bad taste in my mouth and GM doesn't care. I'm not saying this is the case with all GM owners. But I read and I hear that I am not alone with these issues.

A fact of life is that parts wear out. every kind of car out there has some sort of inherent problem that the mfg. didn't see coming. true some have more than others. our esteemed main stream media has put down our BIG 3 for years while hardly ever telling us about problems or recalls with foreign made vehicles. And there are 6 people not working being paid by GM for every one that actually goes to work! legacy cost is killing them and that is partly their fault for letting it get to this point...i once sold a chevy van to a freind with 225k on it and he took it to 495,000! a new 350 engine at 90k and 3 transmissions but hey. the body was finally worn out. most of your GM cars will go well over 200,000 with the proper maintenence.

aceace, we sell that same part i think you are talking about for 48.01. we are a 4 line GM dealer. if you buy that through a garage with a tax exempt licence ( or tell them you are a garage and you will pay the tax) you could save $10 or 15 more. i did notice that there is a part-no. change recently on that also. and yes it is a common problem with that cargo door.

Randy Stull

I own a 2005 Chevrolet Colorado and I've been very happy with it. I've owned Ford, Dodge and Chevrolet trucks, but this one is my favorite. I would never buy a Dodge again, since I've had numerous issues with the two Dakota's that I've had. Ironically, they've were the same issues, so I was done with Chrysler/Dodge. However, with my wife's ties to Dodge (through her family) we bought a 2008 Dodge Avenger for her, sadly. The car looks great, inside and out, but it's a piece of junk. We've had nothing but problems with it, including everything you could think of, down to the door handles peeling off.

Okay, back to GM. I tend to agree that there are too many brands, still. I'm not sure why Buick wasn't axed before Pontiac. If they can sell Hummer and sell, or do away with Saturn, it'll be a step in the right direction. Along with getting rid of Buick and Pontiac, this can only help, I'd think. Finally, why do they need so many SUV-type vehicles? They now have Traverse, Equinox, TrailBlazer, Tahoe and Suburban. How about axing one or two of those? The first few that I mentioned, seem like they're quite a bit similar in size. Just a thought. Doing away with other brands will help with my other thought, which was why do they have the same vehicle, but with three brands? For example, the mid-size truck for GM comes in three brands, Chevrolet, GMC and Isuzu. Maybe it's something that isn't an issue, but seems that it could be. Only having Chevrolet and GMC will do away with some of this...hopefully! I'm no expert, but these are just some thoughts that I have rattling around in my head...

just because they print it doesn't mean it's true!:confused:
if the goverment will lie to you what make's you think they wont?

Whats wrong with General Motors? Well, IMO... the problem they have is the union contracts. I really hate to say that too. I have always been in favor of unions or worker rights. When you're trying to compete with companies with no union involvement, it sure makes it tough $$$ wise. Union workers earn more money and benefits and that costs the company more to operate.

Don't get me wrong, I think people getting higher pay and better benefits is great.... but I think it comes at a price that may be to high to compete in our world today.

The solution... SOCIALISM

BTW... I've owned either a GM or Dodge vehicle all my life. I currently own a 2008 GMC Sierra Truck.:thumb


The below information is straight from the UAW website. http://www.uaw.org/organize/advantage.cfm

Union workers earn more
Wages and benefits for the average union worker in the private sector totaled $36.65 per hour in September 2008, compared to $25.92 an hour for the typical non-union worker.

Wages and salaries higher for union workers
In September 2008, the average union worker in the private sector earned $22.77 per hour in wage and salary income, while the average non-union worker earned $18.70 per hour. That's a union advantage of $4.07 per hour, or $8,466 per year for a full-time, full-year worker.

... But benefits are the biggest union advantage
Benefits, though, are where the biggest union advantage lies. The average union worker in the private sector receive $13.88 per hour toward their benefits package while their non-union counterpart receives only $7.21 per hour.

Retirement benefits more widespread for union workers
After years of service, workers deserve a secure retirement. Unfortunately, only 51 percent of non-union workers receive retirement benefits through their employer, through either a traditional pension or a 401(k) account. In stark contrast, 86 percent of union workers have employer-provided retirement benefits.

Only about half (52 percent) of non-union workers receive health care benefits through their employer. That compares with 79 percent of union workers.

Union advantage holds across occupations and industries

Blue-collar workers in manufacturing enjoy a substantial advantage from union representation -- but so do workers in non-manufacturing settings. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report, "Union Members in 2008," shows that the union advantage holds across occupations and industries.

For example, union workers in protective service jobs (such as security guards and corrections officers) earn $990 per week, compared with $620 for non-union workers. The union premium also exists in office and administrative support occupations where union workers earn $749 per week compared to $585 per week for non-union workers.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Despite my being a little upset about the door handle. I have generally had good luck with GM. One way to solve GM's problems would be to make it so people that hire in at 20 yrs of age can't retire until they are 62 unless disabled rather than the current 30 years and out w/full benefits. GM is paying retirement and benefits to so many it has driven up the cost of cars way up as someone said earlier. Just an idea.