GM Inside News Forum banner

13 New Cars To Avoid For 2016

6K views 34 replies 22 participants last post by  silvergoat2k6 
#1 · (Edited)
deleted
 
#2 · (Edited)
Jim Gorzelany Contributor Business Forbes

Link to Forbes Evaluation

Today’s new cars just aren’t what they used to be, and we mean that positively. That’s because it’s become increasingly difficult to find a truly and terrifically bad car, truck, or crossover sitting on a dealer’s showroom floor. Gone are the days of monumental mechanical calamities, finger-sized fit-and-finish gaps, uneven trim, and overall shoddy workmanship. While no vehicle is perfect, the average model today performs at a higher level, is safer, offers more amenities, is built better, and is much more durable than at any time in motoring history.

And yet the proverbial cream still rises to the top. Some models lead while other lag with regard to their designs, measurable performance attributes, and the degree to which their buyers are ultimately satisfied. Some are plagued by questionable reliability and/or poor resale values, while others are saddled with dated designs and/or technology. Certainly with the average vehicle selling for $33,871 (according to Kelley Blue Book), astute car buyers should ensure they’re getting the most for their hard-earned money.

To that end we spent considerable time wading deep into assorted data from various sources to put together a baker’s dozen list of cars, crossovers, and SUVs that, while many possess positive qualities, remain also-rans in a highly competitive marketplace.
Link to Forbes Evaluation

Cadillac ATS

Likeable enough in many regards, the compact ATS luxury/sports sedan is neither as sporty as the BMW 3 Series it targets, nor is it as luxurious as the Mercedes-Benz C-Class. With an overall score of 57 and a reliability rating of minus-120, Consumer Reports appreciated the ATS’ driving dynamics and exterior/interior styling, but was less enamored of its gruff and under-powered turbocharged engine, very cramped seat and trunk, difficult entry and exiting, and its confounding controls. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 43% of its original value after three years and 31% after five years.
FCA really got hammered in this evaluation. I do have to agree, due to personal experience, with the ATS being on here. I think the same reasons the ATS is here is why sales are dropping on the ATS.
 
#3 ·
Zouds. Beat up Jeep and and Dodge much? But this is CR, one must filter the opinions.

I'm imagining Luke is readying an ATS response.

And this, classic CR:
But beware that it’s big and ungainly, and is sheer vehicular overkill in absence of such special needs. With an overall score of 54 and a reliability rating of minus-154, Consumer Reports liked many of the Suburban’s attributes, but found it under-powered, hard to maneuver and park, difficult to load with cargo, and overpriced. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 47% of its original value after three years and 32% after five years. It’s substantively similar to the GMC Yukon XL, and the somewhat smaller Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon models, which tend to score somewhat higher.

Hmmm. Big and ungainly? Shucks, who'd of thunk?
Dear Gawddd-aaahhh, can't everyone just buy a Pious and be happy and sanctimonious? Please???

And given the demand, I'm not sure I buy their deduction schedule.

And why do similar vehicles score differently? Harks back to the 90s and Taurus NOT RECOMMEND and Sable RECOMMEND. Identical cars, different scores. And nobody even asks WHY?
 
#4 ·
For CR, the sample size for both the Chevy Suburban and Yukon XL are so small that a few vehicles scoring really well or really poorly can skew the numbers up or down. They only sell about 4,000-6,000 Suburbans and 2,000 Yukons a month and there are probably not a lot of CR subscribers that will go out and purchase them. That is how you can have two vehicles built at the same factory with 99% of the same parts have scores that diverge from one another.

Not sure how the Prius worked its way into the equation on this one.....
 
#7 ·
The "gruff" and "underpowered" 2.0 liter turbo that has at least 260 lbs of torque down to 1700 rpm and allows an ATS to reach 60 in a shade less than 60 seconds?

And is there not a thread here with a video of a tester of a base Camaro with that gruff, weak 2.0 liter waxing poetic about how there is so much torque and 0-60 in the mid five second range?
 
#19 ·
Lets see..... one Chrysler, two Dodges, and three Jeeps plus two Fords, plus one Cadillac and one Chevrolet and then one Infiniti plus one Nissan and finally one Acura.

Or if you prefer, six FCAUS, two Ford, two GM, two RN, and one Honda.

Now look a little more closely at this and that...... and bundle these versus say some others from Toyota and Lexus.

So yeah....... just what a Lexi / Toyoski fan would want and now, likely needs.

( Consider both Retail and Fleet. )
 
#20 ·
Not as sporty as the 3? Odd, considering most of the rags will acknowledge that as the one area where it really excels over the 3 and C.
 
#23 ·
The ATS was a sub-par effort from GM.
Look at the trunk hinges-they look like they belong in a 1982 Chevy Cavalier. The trunk is small to begin with, wouldn't you look at that and say put in hydraulic hinges to maximize space?
CUE is sub par without redundant buttons and knobs, it's just not an all out effort and unfortunately GM specializes in laziness.
 
#27 · (Edited)
But beware that it’s big and ungainly, and is sheer vehicular overkill in absence of such special needs. With an overall score of 54 and a reliability rating of minus-154, Consumer Reports liked many of the Suburban’s attributes, but found it under-powered, hard to maneuver and park, difficult to load with cargo, and overpriced. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 47% of its original value after three years and 32% after five years. It’s substantively similar to the GMC Yukon XL, and the somewhat smaller Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon models, which tend to score somewhat higher.

LOL. Wow! That's dumb CR. We own a 2016 Z71 Suburban. It drives a lot smaller that it looks. It is my wife's vehicle and she thinks it is extremely easy to drive and park. She backs into almost every space. Under-Powered? 355hp and 383#trq. That's plenty for this SUV. When I drive with a mix of city/hwy I am at 18.5 mpg. We take it and load it up for sports and vacations. It is our people and cargo mover. The deck is a tad high, but if you can lift over 25# you can handle loading the truck. My only hard complaint is the rear headrest should fold automatically.
 
#29 ·
Again with the hack magazine articles. It's like they are just trying to justify their existence.

While we're at it, how many more useless award names can we come up with?

I still believe in buying the vehicle that feels right to you. Life is too short, buy what vehicle puts a smile on your face, not what someone else tells you you should buy! :)
 
#30 ·
The Suburban is bs...sorry it's too big for you. Why don't they rag on other full size SUV's like the Expedition EL, QX, LX...

Suburban owners LOVE their Suburbans
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave B
#33 ·
Funny, the 9 speed auto in the FCA products merits specific mention, but the rotten Powershift in the Focus and Fiesta gets a pass.

"Poor" ratings in an arbitrary new IIHS test ? Many have gotten that because the vehicles were never built to meet the updated standards.

The head of the IIHS said he's never put his family in the new F-150 at the turn of the century because of it's performance in the overlap test. The Toyota truck lost a front tire that went rolling off, no comment. Millions of people bought F-150s and have driven untold numbers of miles without blood in the streets in the years since then. This sort of journalistic hysteria is meant to get eyes and sell magazines.

If, as the article claims, vehicles are better and more reliable now, how about some decade long comparisons and a full disclosure of how the metrics have changed over the years.

If they have all gotten more reliable, by how much? Compared to 5 years ago? Ten ? What benchmarks have been changed in that time ? Procedures ? Data collection and interpretation using what standard ? Has that standard changed over the past 10 years ? Is an "unreliable" car today what would be a reliable car five years ago ?

As for handling, ride, quiet, "refinement", etc, that would be something an individual would decide, not a poll.

Acura "brand cachet" ? Is that really a "car to avoid" factor ? Sort of like Strategic Vision's "surprise and delight" category.
How do you measure that BS ? "Coarse sounding" engine ? How does it rank in ease of repair, reliability and longevity ?
Bad seats ? For that particular reviewer, perhaps.

These magazines act as if they are the "last word" on any subject, yet buyer's experiences can and do vary.
 
#35 ·
Just not a fan of the 2.0T engine, sorry. A co-worker had to have the engine replaced in his ATS at 6K miles when it started eating pistons. The engine may make good power and torque, but the next smooth and refined 4-cylinder motor GM makes will be it's first. The 2.4L in my wife's Equinox is anything but smooth and refined also.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top