Is it true that the older Gm last longer then the new Gm cars I got a 3.5 v6 2005 chevy malibu 178k on it had the car for 7 years and it barely gave me issue but my friend 2011 chevy malibu 3.6 and has 117k he had for 5 years with super low miles and he had a lot of problems with his engine and his transmission went out 2 weeks ago, my car never had major engine problem nor any transmission problems I only had to replace some suspension parts and multiple thermostat I had to go through but that is it from what I had to repair
The 3.5 is better than the 3.6.
The 3.6 had issues with the timing chains because GM recommended extended oil intervals.. There are many Technical Service Bulletins out regarding this issue. Don’t be discouraged, if you want to stick with GM, look for the 3.5 or 3800.
2005/2011 is the same crap.
GM quality peaked in the 1980's and has been going downhill every since.
I think multi-port injection, and electronic ignition were important technologies that made cars much more reliable.. There has been anything ground shaking since then.
GM was at the top of their game through the late 1960s or (with the exception of the Vega) early 1970s. It's been a long decline since then, aside from a few bright spots such as the downsized B-Body full size cars of the late '70s.
They are if you go way back to the classics. But going from 2005 to current is the same poor quality.
Indeed. I have a friend who works in the service department of a GM dealer and he has plenty of horror stories. Late model cars just a few years old with serious mechanical failures that even my 24-year-old beater hasn't seen in its nearly 360,000 miles.