Sometimes it comes down to volume. Far more civics sold than corvettes and that lowers costs. Lower fixed cost per unit, better purchasing deals, more low cost automation etc.
Sent from my ATT Bell Rotary Dial Phone
Lashdeep,
I certainly get that all cars (almost) are built to a budget. But why is it that some manufacturers just seem to get it done in better fashion? Leaving the Triumphs and Corvettes aside for a moment, Scottie noted his $22K Honda Civic has all the "bells
and whistles" of modern automotive technology. And my guess is that, even at $22K, that car is built far better than many others which might fall into the realm of this discussion. How does Honda (and Toyota, and.....) get it so "right" when others (looking
at you, GM) seem to get it so wrong (though I will concede that this may not be fair to 20-teens GM products, which may finally be good, durable cars). And if we even back up in time, I'd bet that a '96 Civic was screwed together far better than my friends
'96 'Vette.
Or, in the immortal words of our friend Big Head Dennis, "I could be completely wrong."
😉
gp
From: Lashdeep Singh <lashdeep [at] yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 1:46 AM
To: George
Cc: The FerrariList
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] GM products, was: Re: 1978 GTS Rear Brake Caliper question
GP, most cars are built to a budget.
An engineering team spends the money on components that are important. They wouldn't prioritize door panels and chassis geometry or powertrain development equally.
Maybe in a Pagani but not in a Chevrolet or a Triumph.
The Corvette guys spent the $$$ on powertrain and chassis. They likely didn't have much of their budget left for door panels.
The C4s spanked most of their competition on track and looked very nice while doing it.
The Triumph engineers spent their budget on whiskey and cricket jerseys as is evident in their product.
The C6 ZR1 has a plastic key FOB but you can't infer anything about the rest of the car's quality or performance from that. Carbon brakes, magnetic shocks and Magnesium chassis parts got the $$$ and the key FOBs had to suffer.
Evaluate performance cars based on their performance!
LSJ
And the door panel was really just an example of what I perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be shoddy workmanship on GM's part. I mean, if a 30+ year old *Triumph* (possibly the cheapest of all cheap *BRITISH* sports cars) can keep its door panels securely
in place, why can't GM's flagship sports car?? Where else have they cut corners to build to a price? What else will just fall apart? And as you point out Charles - this particular problem was after the rework....
So, if my wife ever did talk me into buying her a Chevy (not very likely), I might like it initially, but would be ever wary of when things will just start to break. Her former Monte Carlo not withstanding (that was a good and very nice, comfy - and quick!
- car).
FWIW, YMMV, yadda yadda...
gp
From: Charles Perry <charles [at] carolina-sound.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:50 AM
To: George
Cc: The FerrariList
Subject: RE: GM products, was: Re: 1978 GTS Rear Brake Caliper question
I will concede you that fact, George. My C4 Corvette (1985 Z51) has possibly the worst POS door panels of any car ever built, and I am including my neighbor’s amateur
race cars which include a lot of old real estate signs and pallets as structural components. Even the aftermarket replacement C4 door panels make a Papa John’s pizza look rigid, and even including additional aftermarket brackets they still pop off the door
structure every time you close the door. Without question: Worst. Car part. Ever.
And your friend’s 96 was AFTER they had an interior re-work to update the C4 from mine.
I had considered trying to fab my own from fiberglass, but I am currently derailed by the car’s need for new fuel pumps.
I find Charles' comments interesting, but won't let my wife read them (she's a Chevy gal from way back). She's constantly PO'd that I won't buy her a Chevy, even though her old Monte Carlo
Z34 (1998 MY) was still in great shape and going strong at 204K miles when we sold it a decade or so back.
To me, Chevy has always been a maker of pretty darn good engines - but the rest of the car sucked. A very good friend has a '96 'Vette with a great LT4 engine, but also with a floppy inner
driver's side door panel. Even my former POS Triumph Spitfire (RIP), at almost *20 YEARS* older than the 'Vette, didn't have a floppy door panel. WTF Chevy???
So I'm curious to see how Charles' CTS-V holds up over time, WRT build quality. I suspect the engine will be like the energizer bunny....
And in that vein, I'll be happy to hear of *UNRESTORED* examples of vintage GM products that are as good as the day they first rolled out of the showroom. I'll start - her Monte Carlo was
darn close, even the leather upholstery was just broken in (almost 10 years and, as mentioned above, 204K miles). Wondering if that's the exception or now the rule?
But as long as she uses *MY* good credit to buy a car, I still get a say in what that car is.
😉
gp
From: Charles Perry <charles [at] carolina-sound.com>
I find it surprisingly hard to argue. I never in my life thought I?d want a Camaro, but the ZL1 1LE is absolutely a phenomenally developed car all around and I?d love to have one as a track car.
Felt the same way a couple of years ago ? would never have pictured owning a Cadillac, but my CTS-V 6MT wagon has been huge fun and nearly zero trouble.
It will be years before my track driving talent matches the capabilities of our C7 Z06 Corvette.
GM praise always used to be preceded by the phrase ?For the money?? but that?s just not the case anymore. World class in everything except maybe interior materials, and they?re just not far enough off to dissuade me from GM any more.
|
aol.com)