Am I wrong about GM?

>He thinks that picture is a problem on a fleet truck
>He doesn't know how to take 15 minutes of prep with the 120 and 220.
>He doesn't know how to paint retard proof single stage

Why should be value your opinions on anything? You keep posting straight cars with bad paint and claim they're shit. You're obviously a normie.

Cars will break over time and people will abuse them. It's all personal preference.

At that time? From what years? 1988-2005? Because that's about the range that I see paint FALLING OFF of these things... That's a long time to realize "hey dude, you got a fucking problem" unless the issue is "did we save $0.02?"

Lincoln is just a Ford, which means (and this is GENERAL, because there are some platforms, engines, years that are shit) that I can count on them to have thought things out, have a good record as far as engineering and ruggedness, and the Lincolns are by-far the most well-suited luxury vehicles I've ever driven. I despise BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz, Porche and Cadillac, I've driven them all and they seemed to be pumped out without any thought about what might happen five-minutes after it left the lot. I think these brands are for people that are impulse buyers and can be swooned into buying something that makes their jimmies jingle.

Watch this. This is one of those "wow" features to get somebody to buy the shit, never thinking about how it might BLOCK buttons and be an issue in the future, just as long as somebody feels their butthole pucker.

youtube.com/watch?v=u4W5CaqhdnY

The factory should deliver a tested product...

It's a clear oversight and is a symptom of a larger issue.

Then why do I find it hard to find other brands that are as shit as GM cars? I mean really, if I need to find a car to enter for the Crap Fest, the first thing I'm doing is hitting up CL and typing "1988 chevy/buick/gmc/olds/cadillac/pontiac"

Full-disclosure, I believe that all Lincolns from 1980-1989 are shit. 1990 Town Car got it back on track, but everything else followed the 90's trends (and ALL their flaws). They didn't get another good car until the 2003-2011 Town Car, and any Lincoln made after 2014 is fine as far as quality and longevity, but christ nobody can design a functional interior today.

"HEY LOOK, I can durpty durp a hurpaderp just by using my voice command!"
"SYNC, please say a command"
"DURP!"
"Sorry, I didn't understand, please try again"
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR-PUH!"
"Sorry, I didn't understand, please try again"
"DEEEEEEEEE-YUUUUUUUUUR-PUH!"
"Sorry, I didn't understand, please try again"

vs.

*press durp button
*car durps

Also, you need a robot to park your car? How did you get a license?

Maybe if you stop yelling durp at the poor thing it would work

You're a fucking liar. Look at the layout of this shit and tell me ANYTHING should be expected to work.

what about DODGE?

This is the layout of my Town Car. I have yet to find any fault in its function, and believe me, I'm one PICKY asshole.

In fact, I get so annoyed by seat-belt chimes (they beep whenever you turn the key to ON and start it, but I don't fasten until after I start it so I can fasten my belt empty-handed) that I just rigged the seat-belt sensor to show that I'm ALWAYS buckled. The peace is sweet...

If there is a fault in a car, I find it, and I shit on it. GM gives me a lot to shit on, they're not alone, but they are the shittiest.

They're odd. I don't get their design, but I also don't get the "is this knob about to fall off in my hand" feeling when I drive one. I also don't see the PLAGUED gauge issues that GM seemed to have from the 80's to mid 00's... I mean really, PLAGUED. They used horrible printed circuits that were guaranteed to fail.

So now we get to Ford.

Am I wrong to say that Ford's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different marquis do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against Ford's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four Fords have a working fuel gauge... That the headliner on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the wind years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the knobs on the dash are held on with glue, that everything you touch creaks and groans as if it's ready to give, that all of the interior panels rattle and clack over the most minute road faults, that the expanded-foam steering wheel in one of his cars is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the vehicle!

Well?

So now we get to Toyota.

Am I wrong to say that Toyota's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different marquis do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against Toyota's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four Toyota's have a working fuel gauge... That the headliner on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the wind years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the knobs on the dash are held on with glue, that everything you touch creaks and groans as if it's ready to give, that all of the interior panels rattle and clack over the most minute road faults, that the expanded-foam steering wheel in one of his cars is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the vehicle!

Well?

>pontiac
I dunno dude, I'm with you up to there, but there's hella grand prix's and grand am's still on the road. they're not terribly fuel efficient but they just don't seem to die

there's the Neon in the sticky, so they did at least one thing kinda almost sorta right

So now we get to VW.

Am I wrong to say that VW's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different marquis do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against VW's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four VW's have a working fuel gauge... That the headliner on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the wind years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the knobs on the dash are held on with glue, that everything you touch creaks and groans as if it's ready to give, that all of the interior panels rattle and clack over the most minute road faults, that the expanded-foam steering wheel in one of his cars is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the vehicle!

Well?

yeah my grand am is my daily driver, bought it as used

so by your opinion is GM the worst? because all the "internet ratings" and "consumer reports" have chrysler, jeep and dodge at the bottom.

btw not starting a fight with you, I'm actually agreeing that GM sucks ass

I like Pontiac. In fact, if not for the poor crash score in one of the tests, I would have gotten one for my wife. I'm talking about the sedan, fuck the coupe.

The 3400 is a solid fucking engine with economy you can't really complain about for what it does.

It is still, however, assembled from GM parts-bins. Yes Pontiac does it better, but they still creak and rattle just as much as other GM's.

The dash face is one big piece of easily shattered plastic. One crack and kiss it goodbye. The knobs are those NASTY rubber-coated plastic ribbed-for-your-pleasure designs that GM started in the 90's. Everything in these cars offends my senses.

>so by your opinion is GM the worst?

No, I just like to pretend Hyundai and Kia don't exist.

Chrysler is worse, though. Not only do they have a QC department that went to lunch before the paint on the office door dried, they are WHORES. By that I mean they have no shame in knocking off everybody else and making what I call "bootleg" cars.

Ever seen those $2 airsoft guns at the flea market that are supposed to model a Glock but have a hammer? That's the same sort of idea behind most of what Chrysler does.

Prowler, PT Cruiser, New Yorker, anything it takes to get Leisure Suit Larry to swoon and empty his pockets.

ATHF fans just need to think of Carl. "That is AUTHENTIC, RED PLEATHER!"

The Prowler and PT Cruiser look like the kind of thing a kid would design. Immature gimmicks!

The New Yorker and 300....

OK, is there anybody that will deny that the 300 is supposed to look like a Bently? I mean REALLY look like one?

And the New Yorker is the car I cite any time I need to illustrate what shameless and unoriginal copiers they are.

"People are really buying those Buicks and Cadillacs. Oh and the new Lincoln Continentals are doing even better... WHY NOT ALL OF THEM! TRIPLE THE SALES!"

So they go completely Lego mode and take a piece from this and a piece from that and when somebody says "THAT'S A MEGABLOCK, IT DOESN'T FIT" they stuff them in a closet and beat them with an orange in a sock and say "god dammit, they won't know the difference!"

Then pic related is born.

1988 Buick Century vs 1988 Chrysler New Yorker, nah, nothing going on here, just coincidence.

I've got experience with more vehicles than I can possibly keep track of and would like to provide you with some insight. However it should be kept in mind that nearly all of this is dealing with 90s-00s light trucks, SUVs, and vans.

When comparing Ford to GM 1/2 ton (F150-K1500, Expedition-Tahoe/Yukon) I can not possibly have it in me to give Ford the edge in any example other than general look and feel of a bottom of the barrel base model work truck. But even that is just a maybe and does not speak for the actual build quality or longevity of said interior. Take a step up from the zero options base model and I'd rather be in the GM every time. The interior "feels" higher end even when it's not, and this seems especially true when comparing the luxury models like Escalade vs Navigator. They seems to have much more attention paid to ergonomics while in the design stage. Nearly every aspect of the design is extremely intuitive. Everything is where it feels like it should be for ease of use and that concept carries over when you're working on the vehicle. Replacing a cluster can be done in about two minutes on a GMT400. The same job is a nightmare on a 9th gen F150.

That said, these GM trucks do have their issues. For some reason the clear coat just does not want to stick to the white paint GM used. The other colors seem to be fine though. GM's always had problems with starters and fuel pumps. No idea why, but yeah they tend to go out at a higher than average rate. Not to say it's a major issue, as they generally last 100-200k and aren't expensive or difficult to replace. When it comes down to it, I trust GM more than I do Ford.

The differences in how well thought out the design is shrink considerably when you move up to the newer HD platforms. The 99+ Super Duty and 01+ GM HD platforms are both great.

As far as headliner falling, I've seen that happen to pretty much every make. Whenever headliner gets wet, the adhesive fails.

I have to try to block out anything that happened in the 90's because....it was the 90's. Do we really want to talk about it?

So now we get to Nissan.

Am I wrong to say that Nissan's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different marquis do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against Nissan's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four Nissan's have a working fuel gauge... That the headliner on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the wind years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the knobs on the dash are held on with glue, that everything you touch creaks and groans as if it's ready to give, that all of the interior panels rattle and clack over the most minute road faults, that the expanded-foam steering wheel in one of his cars is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the vehicle!

Well?

>From what years?
Not an excuse but it should be noted that some of the paint issues were the result of regulations that required formula changes and did affect all of the Big 3 in varying degrees through that period.

>I believe that all Lincolns from 1980-1989 are shit
Huh. Do tell. Pic related

As affordable, comfortable, and capable as 90s trucks and SUVs can be, yes. We have to talk about it.

What needs to be said?

The 80's cars were 70's cars that were quickly neutered and choked to meet emissions standards, and in the process had new-fangled and hardly-tested or thought-out technology SHOE HORNED into them. Yes, I love guessing which of the 60 dash buttons in a row I'm pressing while going through menus to find my trip meter.
Please add MORE glowing puke-green lights to my peripheral so I can be sure not to drive at night, thx.

The 90's were just a continuation of 70's/80's technology that jumped onboard with the "ergonomic/economic" craze without any forethought. Need more economy? Shrink it down, or round out the body, don't ask whether or not it will look good. Need more ergonomics? Fuck it! Expanded foam and rubber-dome switch-mechanisms everywhere!

I just love how that door handle flexes every time I get out and it feels as though it's ready to fall out of its mounting. And hey, if we're going to have switches, we're going to make them as square and stiff and puke-tastic as we can!

>Please add MORE glowing puke-green lights to my peripheral so I can be sure not to drive at night, thx.
Green is the best color to use to maintain night vision...

>door handle flexes
It's called rotating. That's how it actuates. That's how it knows you want to open the door. Would you prefer it be a button?

>we're going to make them as square and stiff
Would you prefer round switches that are soft? I'd wager you complain about that too.

Right, but it doesn't have to be such a pukish green that looked more like a print-error than a design decision.

>It's called rotating. That's how it actuates.
No, when you pull this handle the top-end (furthest from the levering portion) flexes and creaks.

>Would you prefer round switches that are soft? I'd wager you complain about that too.

Pic Related. These have an excellent fulcrum, whereas the GM switches are ALWAYS too fucking tall which means downward force doesn't transfer easily to a rotational force. Also, they press very easily, it's like hitting a key on the keyboard, but still solid and mechanical, not spongey. The best door switches I've ever tried, even better than 2008-current ford switches. Want to know what happened to the ford switches in 2008?

>Want to know what happened to the ford switches in 2008?

They made them TOO FUCKING TALL AND SQUARE!

And to add the diarrhea icing to the shit cake, here comes chrysler to violate your anus

Post more of your Lincoln.

GM started to go to shit in the '60s, becoming garbage by the end of the '70s.

Inversely, Lincoln started to shine and would become the best until they went to crap in 1980.

Chrysler became the equivalent of Lada in that they hit their stride in the '60s and literally built the same car until 1980; despite trying to hide it under different increasingly hideous bodies.

>Right, but it doesn't have to be such a pukish green that looked more like a print-error than a design decision.
This color green? Doesn't look too pukish to me.

>No, when you pull this handle the top-end (furthest from the levering portion) flexes and creaks.
I don't know why you pull at the weakest point furthest from the levering portion (perhaps you're hoping it breaks and going out of your way to stress it) but I've got four of those handles and have yet to notice any of these issues.

>Pic Related.
Those are more square than the switches you're complaining about being too square. Do you really not have the strength to actuate the GM switches? Do you have the strength to turn a steering wheel?

In your pic, look at the difference between the number 3 and 4 on the tach, and the difference between the 8 and the bottom of the 0 at the "80" mph indication on the speedo. Do you see the poor lighting consistency? They just couldn't get this right? And the color...it's not really a color, it's just close enough to what they were going for that they said "good enough" and moved on. Nobody could actually like that color, EKH! Reminds me of my first suburban. Oh and those needles, hahahahaha, "I can only see half of the needle" "Fuck it, they can guess"

>Do you really not have the strength to actuate the GM switches?

I don't mean the shape, I mean the boxy FEEL, and just more about comfort. It's like the difference between a tight-knit Haynes cotton tee and a wool sweater. The sweater isn't going to kill me, but why would anybody opt to constantly assault the senses? Can't I have a button-pressing experience that's so right that it's forgotten, rather than one that lingers when it just isn't right?

Towncar owner here. OP I like lincoln too. I also work for Ford. But you're off your roller rocker. The towncar is junk. The only think that doesnt break is what the crown vic fleet has in them standard.
The digital dash without an rpm guage. The faux glovebox on the passenger side. The leaky gasket before the blower fan. Let's not even mention how seriously the 4.6L's intake was before they made the thermostat housing metal.

Ford is fine. But dont let the gm w-bodies and lower trim previous models put you off. They had a good lineup that ld take over many new cars offered today. For the same price

I only have shots of the old Lincoln that I'm selling.

Lincoln had it's ups and downs. Revived in '68, died in 1980, revived in 2017 by the new Continental... Not saying that my town car is bad, it's one of the best cars I've ever driven.

Here's my gauge for comparison to the one above.

>The digital dash without an rpm guage.
see pic above

>The faux glovebox on the passenger side
...what? I have a glovebox...

> Let's not even mention how seriously the 4.6L's intake was before they made the thermostat housing metal.

This doesn't effect the 2003-20011 models, that was the last redesign before it died.

I'm a mechanic and a picky asshole, this car has yet to turn me off.

It's dark out, but here is the shot of the car from the dealer. Black lace-material top, black exterior, black interior.

The '77 Lincoln is the one I want to see. I want to buy another one.

So now we get to NASA's Apollo program.

Am I wrong to say that NASA's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different lunar modules do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against NASA's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four Lunar Rover's have a working fuel gauge... That the headliner on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the solar radiation years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the knobs on the dash are held on with glue, that if sound could travel in a vacuum everything you touch would surely creak and groan as if it's ready to give, that all of the interior panels rattle and clack over the most minute crater faults, that the expanded-foam steering wheel in one of his rovers is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the rover!

Well?

This might be the most autistic and baseless brand whoring I've ever seen on Veeky Forums.

incoming

I'll include the 8-tracks. There's two and a cassette adapter

Yes. You do have the better model. But that doesnt save the previous model problems. The 2016 impala is miles ahead of the early 2000 models.
The same for the towncar. The 2010 blows out the 2001.
Car companies are generally making better shit these days. But if youre willing to dig up dirt on GM over anyone else. I can do the same on what you like. It literally boils down to preference and principles.

So now we get to Beat's.

Am I wrong to say that Beat's FIRST priority is volume production? How many different headphones do they have? That's like having ten-wives and pumping out as many babies as you can, allah be praised.

I keep banging my head against Beat's faults because my father in law is a die-hard fan, no matter how many times I point out that NONE of his four headphones have a working auxiliary jack lead... That the headstrap on some is falling, that the clear-coat was lost to the wind years ago or the paint seems to be evaporating slowly, that half of the buttons on the microphone control are held on with glue, that everything you touch creaks and groans as if it's ready to give, that all of the plastic panels rattle and clack over the most minute bass drops, that the expanded-foam noise cancelling ear pads in one of his headphones is DISINTEGRATING, and that there are so many god damned frustrating over-sights in the design of practically every aspect of the product!

Well?

And the 1980 Lincoln Mark VI shits itself when the 1977 Mark V strolls by. It can always go both ways.

2003 town car, shitty steering wheel, 2005 gets a better wheel, 2008 gives you shitty door switches... it's a cycle of shit, wipe, shit, wipe

dumping

How much and where?

Also, 460?

Fuck yes.

I might be a huge cuck but I feel good with my s10. I'm not saying it's great. I'm saying It's never failed in an any unexpected ways. Everything was expected or known problems that I was prepared for ahead of time. If a part or assembly isn't on the list of common failures, it lasts the life of the vehicle. If it is, the aftermarket improved it or the ac delco version lasted 200k miles anyway so fuck it.

I can't say as much for other vehicles I've owned. Especially my f150. Everything on that heap would brake with no warning.

$5,500 in Dallas

I'm interested; I'm in Houston.

I've never brought the integrity of the powertrains of any of these vehicles into question. I'm talking about the small nuances.

So you still have your paint? The gauges all work?

How does this guy go on a rant about paint quality and no one brings up any white crown vic ever?

>Being this retarded

Your "88 Buick Century" is a 97 ish Skylark,
Your "Ford" is a 02 ish Continental
The Chrysler is older than both a '94 which started the whole cab forward trend. I never liked it, but you can't say it's the same at all and came first besides dumbass.

cool. got kik?

hey, retard, they are two posts, not referencing one-another...

my dad has a Savannah 2500 like pic on OP, it's pretty reliable, engine wise, although he supercharged his cuz shit power stock, but the build choices? terrible, shitty plastic all on the interior, terrible paint job, overall trash interior

No, is it on Craigslist? If so, I'll text you about it tomorrow.

in Dallas. go ahead

Great. Found it. My area code is 262.

So what is the point of the pic then?

Also, why compare the NY and Buick then? The Chrysler is more like the downsized Cadillacs of the 80's than a A body Buick?

The pic is ONE example of Chrysler blatantly combining popular cars to make a bastard that ends up with NONE of the charm of either.

Yes, it's closer to the Cadillac, true. Chrysler has almost always wanted to be a Cadillac.

I'm ashamed to say that I drive a Geo Metro and I can't parallel park to save my goddamned life. I'm absolute shit at it. I might as well vertical park like a smart car.

I'm looking at getting a Pontiac Vibe, simply because it's not actually a GM. It's a toyota matrix (corolla hatchback) that GM slapped some exterior parts on.

Sure, the exterior that GM *did* make, will probably go to shit, but I'll be able to replace most parts with straight up corolla parts when they go bad for super cheap.

my gauges still work. even the famous gas gauge where the fingers wear out on the resistor board. someone, can't remember who, sells a kit that stops them from wearing out.

door handles replaced by what seems to be a sturdier part.

paint is good for 14 years old.

Dashboard is cracked, though. can't deny that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_60°_V6_engine

This is one of the only redeeming things about Pontiac/GM

More consistent "smoother" lighting does nothing for me if everything else about it is less visually pleasing. Like look at that fucking font. Look at the D in OD. What the fuck is that?

owned one in blue. Front end was all fucked up, paint peeling and faded, interior another fucking story.

It used to randomly shut off at a stop(red lights) and strand me at the intersection for a good 20 minutes. I replaced fucking everything related to spark and fuel and the cunt still did it. Don't get me started on the retarded ass bolt placement for the fuel pump, which wouldn't be an issue if they allowed you to get a FUCKING SOCKET ON THE THING.

Good highway cruiser, though.

I was 19 when I bought it, Little did I know I bought the niggest of niggermobiles possible. I'm mainly talking about it's condition.

I agree.

Gas gauge was spotty at best, but the fancy ass little "miles left to a tank" electronic piece worked well enough to tell me when the tank was low.

...

>niggermobiles

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have used this word.

I think the reason it was stranding you was the carb. They were shit and would do exactly this. If not, then the fuel pump was done.

I'm not saying cars like yours aren't out there, I can find them all day long, it's that this is quite the norm if you search for 1989 Olds or Buick...

But it doesn't make sense if the Chrysler came before those cars now does it?

Sounds like you spout a bunch of uninformed opinions as fact.

>those fucking filler panels in the first place
What the fuck WERE they thinking?

CORINTHIAN LEATHER

>has nothing to do with Corinth
>half the seat is vinyl

One thing you don't understand about fleet vehicles is that they get the absolute hell beaten out of them their entire life. A lot of problems boil down to negligence by the owner.

I've seen GM vans with 250k+ miles and still be used everyday at jobsites. There's a reason GM is the only manufacturer that still makes traditional vans, compared to about every other car maker has switched to the European style.

Go back to /b and post your bananas on ylyl threads faggot!

hurp de durp

>There's a reason GM is the only manufacturer that still makes traditional vans
Yeah, because they don't have a European van model they can steal for their home market and they're too fucking cheap to engineer a new one. Ford and Chrysler made the switch because European vans are simply superior at being vans with the configuration modularity and space offering. If you want a thirsty crapbarge with shit cargo space to beat on for 300k miles, buy a Murrikan truck and slap a bed shell on it.

Hey friend, I agree with you, but you want to talk about copying, look at Ford blatantly ripping off Rover and Aston in the last few years.

Actually, gm also makes a euro spec van. Im on my phone otherwise I'd attach a pic, look up the Chevy city express.

I assume you haven't driven a proper full size van to realize how useful they really are

>Actually, gm also makes a euro spec van
Rebadging a Nissan does not equal making a euro spec van.

>Chevy city express
lol

American full size vans are exactly as useful as Euro full size vans, except that they don't have any high roof options at all and are therefore completely useless as vans.

You just crossed a line there lad

You're the reason I wake up in the morning.

those filler panels were necessary whenever it became uneconomical to produce so many stamped and welded parts with any sort of consistency and finish. So your options are, stop making cadillacs that look like cadillacs, or put vinyl in the place of craftmanship. It may have also reduced repair costs but....really? sure...

Yup. But they didn't take both and glue some parts together and say "why not both?" Chrysler is shameless, tasteless and unoriginal.
Ford owned Aston Martin from about the 90's to 2007 btw...

>they don't have any high roof options at all and are therefore completely useless as vans.

Heh, yup. I never understood the purpose of a box vehicle you can't stand up in...

Bumper laws that were in effect at the time:

>Cars for the US market were equipped with bulky, massive, heavy, protruding bumpers to comply with the 5-mile-per-hour bumper standard in effect from 1973 to 1982. US bumper height requirements effectively made some models, such as the Citroën SM, ineligible for importation to the United States.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(automobile)

supposedly they had to survive a 5mph hit against a wall without incurring a certain repair cost.

Yeah I think it was something like that but I can't find a source.