Jump to content

Reliability Study Finds GMC Beats Honda - How Did Your Truck Do?

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

post-139450-0-19075200-1441808273.jpg

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
9/9/2015

 

Last year at an automotive press launch I met the author of this article and one of the people behind this study. Steven Lang is not an easy guy to put in to a nice neat box. He owns a business involved in used car buying and selling. He writes news and opinion for some of the most respected automotive publications, and he is the kind of guy that strikes one as a deep thinker when you meet him. In his newest update to an on-going reliability study he is involved in, he points out that GMC's vehicles are more reliable than Honda's. In particular, he says that the full-size GMC trucks and SUVs "offer exceptional long-term reliability with a very low engine and transmission defect rate." He means what he says. Long term. His study picks up where most leave off, starting at 5 years of use and going up to 20 years.

 

Lang rolls two decades of real world experience and almost one million data points into his work. Check it out here. You can view any make or model's reliability at the link. Here is the Sierra's:

post-139450-0-63076300-1441808816_thumb.png

post-139450-0-19075200-1441808273.jpg

post-139450-0-63076300-1441808816_thumb.png

post-139450-0-19075200-1441808273.jpg

post-139450-0-63076300-1441808816_thumb.png

post-139450-0-19075200-1441808273.jpg

post-139450-0-63076300-1441808816_thumb.png

Wintersun Enthusiast

Wintersun

Posted
Posted

The only SUV/truck sold in any numbers by Honda is the CRV and it is in the top 10 of all vehicles, 4WD, 2WD, sedans, and trucks in terms of overall reliability and has been since it was introduced. In terms of pickups the Toyota trucks have consistently provided better design and better build quality and better reliability than any American brand truck.

 

I have put more than 170,000 miles on six Toyota 4WD pickups with many miles offroad and never spent a dime on anything other than scheduled maintenance. My GM SUV needed new brake rotors at 28,000 miles, new tie rods at 45,000 miles, a new water pump at 56,000 miles, a new head gasket at 77,000 miles. The Chevrolet CD player never worked properlty and only a GM player could be used thanks to the special optical link used. The clock never worked as it would short out within days of returning from the dealer. The interior lights would go on due to faulty rocker switches and when this happened they would drain the battery completely overnight. The roof rusted through where the factory roof rack was installed and this cost $1400 to fix properly. Same problem with the door seals and rust going through the body and this was for a vehicle that was driven 100% in Californa where salt on roads is never encountered.

 

My 1988 Chevy Blazer needed new main bearings and rear engine seals at only 12,000 miles. Transmission failed before 80,000 miles were on the vehicle. Rear differential also needed to be rebuilt. Total engine failure before 100,000 miles and SUV was scrapped. This has been an ongoing quality problem with the Blazers for the past 20 years.

 

My current GM truck has 3 different factory defects that have luckily been subject to a warranty extension to 120,000 miles. I appreciate the problems with the GM truck's front ends and so grease it myself every 3,000 miles so it will last as long as possible.

 

And then there is the problem with the ignition switch failures that have killed the drivers and occupants of GM vehicles. This is not an engine or transmission defect so these numbers and people would not enter into Steven Lang's "analysis". His report is slipshod unless he did this for payment from GM and purposely cooked the results.

 

I have a GM truck as I felt it was the best heavy duty diesel powered truck available in the USA. If I was buying a truck or SUV with a gas engine then GM's vehicles would not be on the list for consideration. I have owned trucks and SUV's by Willys, Jeep, Dodge, Ford, Toyota, Suzuki, and GM, and without a doubt the least reliable were the three GM products.

ArtU Enthusiast

ArtU

Posted
Posted

I am not satisfied with the quality of my 2008 K1500 period, from 15K on it was "Built Like a Mud-ball" not "Built Like a Rock"...

barry G Senior Enthusiast

barry G

Posted
Posted

I don't doubt the numbers at all. We run six GM delivery vans, the lowest mileage is 580k.

 

definitely reliable. Just follow the rules. There is some errors through the years.. the L30 or any 5.0/5.7 with oil cooler needs a very strong billet filter to keep full flow of oil pressure. That can cut life in half..the cheap filters on the double balance.

About the last weird thing gm shipped, as far as engine killing.

 

the wintersun with a ricer defense comment... expect to get away with that here? Ridiculous.

 

The steel and making your own fixes is my only local mishap, most likely after running into a honda. I started learning about 3 decades ago, no big deal to me.

mig weld for a weekend, reel in 19 years.

 

obd2 years onward, it has some records to break. Not gonna catch the gm.

 

I don't like the squishiness either, in any truck, any year.

there is a checklist still working today just like the old.

Start with LT tires if the body and frame is excellent,

poly cab mounts, poly sway bar bushings. Shock mounts is still a common thing to break a tab on..

else get after the frame chores, crossmembers. Even a headache rack adds to the front cross sills. That is a piece to keep a monster if you want to add rigid.

twoheeldrive Enthusiast

twoheeldrive

Posted
Posted

I have had more problems with my Toyota Sequoia than all 5 of my GM trucks and SUV's combined. The latest problem will be its last... the frame is rusting away to dust.

calvic Enthusiast

calvic

Posted
Posted

I like my trouble free Honda CR-V,

BUT I love my 2015 GMC Duramax long bed, also trouble free!

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

Have to agree with Wintersun on this one, except these days they all seem to be junk. I don't know who does these "reliability" studies ...

 

Mine needed lower ball joints at 38k miles. rotors pulsated right off the showroom floor with 47 miles on it - YES .. FORTY SEVEN - went back to dealer under warranty at least 6 times for that. Interior squeaked and rattled worse than my '94 K1500 that had 266k miles on it. Front left seal on diff at CV axle started leaking at 40k. Engine started burning oil at around 50k. One strut failed at 50k. Just recently I had to do upper control arms / ball joints, & hub bearings at around 75k. Frame in rear was all rusted back in '09 when it had less than 50k on it. Now the rockers are starting to rust underneath - all this with an annual used motor oil spray to keep corrosion at bay.

 

Don't even get me started on the body of these things. I backed into a sapling back in '09 at less than walking speed, & the box folded like an accordion right up over the wheel! Chrome section folded in a V. Had to go on the frame machine for an hour to straighten the box out. When I was younger with my El Camino, I had backed into a concrete parking lot light base at nearly 20 mph. It bent my bumper & tailgate mount 1/4" inward. Probably would've totaled the '07 with a similar impact ...

 

There seems to be no consistency with GM vehicles these days. Some report excellent reliability, while quite a few have all kinds of issues, large and small.

 

One things for sure - I won't be buying another new vehicle in my lifetime.

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

Monday truck right there.

Nargg Enthusiast

Nargg

Posted
Posted

 

I have put more than 170,000 miles on six Toyota 4WD pickups with many miles offroad and never spent a dime on anything other than scheduled maintenance.

 

If they were the older (circa 1980s) Toyotas I'd believe that, but those trucks were so basic there was nothing to break in them. Today's trucks are far more advanced and far more loaded with stuff to break. I personally have driven two Chevy's to 250K with minor issues that were cheap and easy to fix. The easy part is the best. The Toyota my brother in law owns is down more than running. And fixing it is a pain in the *ss. Toyotas are no longer built to be easy to maintain. They did that to support the dealerships. GM and Ford trucks still are made to be easily serviced and easily maintained. I'll take either of these two any day over a modern Toyota.

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

 

..... GM and Ford trucks still are made to be easily serviced and easily maintained. ....

Sounds like you've never experienced OBD-II electrical gremlins, and live in a state that doesn't do inspections ...

 

Definitely agree on 'Yotas today. My buddy had a Tundra a few years back. Blew the T-case 2k miles in, then again at 130k miles. Check engine light was on the entire time he owned it.

 

 

 

I do have to admit, I like the fact that GM didn't stuff my engine under the dashboard like FoMoCo loves to do. I also LOVE the fact they smartened up and went back to drum rears (at least on my model), and also back to the traditional yellow, green, brown, white wiring for the tail lights. No need to make EVERYTHING complicated ...

 

As far as all the computer-controlled crap we can't get away from these days, I for one can do without ALL of it. It's all great ... WHEN it's working ....

Rocko973 Enthusiast

Rocko973

Posted
Posted

699,600 miles as of today.

My former daily driver, a 2003 Silverado 1500 HD, bought new, now has 125,000 miles, and the only thing I have ever replaced was the fuel pump at about 80,000 miles. Other than that, it's been smooth sailing. And I've driven it through some pretty rough dirt roads on occasion... She is now retired, called upon only for weekend warrior home projects or camping/road trips with family.

 

Chevor: I am amazed at your 699,600 miles! Over 11,000 miles/mo average?

Chevor Senior Enthusiast

Chevor

Posted
Posted

I say closer to 10k a month. Keep in mind year models are always out early.

Rocko973 Enthusiast

Rocko973

Posted
Posted

that's still impressive, Chevor. Good to hear!

 

I also wanted to mention that my 2003 1500 HD is still on its stock brakes. Is that common here? I don't regularly pull a trailer or boat, but I've used it to tow cars, hall a lot of dirt, rocks, pallets of bricks, etc., on occasion. It's really been a great truck, one of my most reliable vehicles ever, not to mention most useful...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...