Finally why can't a Caddy compete with and S class? Or an A8? Or a 740IL? Or an LS400/430? Or a Jag XJ6/8? Or a Rolls?

As an American it bothers me that our best is second rate. Why can't I buy a V12 or big V8 Ford or Caddy that is the pinical of design and quality?

[QUOTE=Hatterasguy]I have yet to see a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car that by 100k miles wasn't falling apart. The body panals all have wide and ever changing gaps the paint is failing. I have lost count of the number of Lumina's and Neons I see with no paint on the hoods, trunk lids, or roofs. Also every Ford crown vic or Lincoln I see seem to emit blue smoke from their exhuast even very new looking ones. 4.6 or 5.0 valve seals heading south?
[QUOTE]
I'll call your first statement... you obviously are not looking very hard. Granted if you look at a Geo you might not see it going that long - but your exaggeration of the supposed lack of quality kills me. I guess working for the largest Saturn retailer in the US and escorting vehicles through the serice department (At the philosophy stores, Saturns are escorted from the customer to a parking area, and then by the same porter to the service bay, from the service bay, thorough the cleaning, to parking in the outgoing lot, to the final customer presentation), and seeing a majority of the cars with 100K+ on the Odo in for routine maintenance sways me. That or the fact that my father's business has 2 delivery trucks, 1 with well over 100K on the odo, and 1 with nearly 250K, and neaither has EVER been back to a dealer.

GM and the other americans had an issue switching to water based paint in the '90s.. I will give you that.

And the Ford 4.6 has low compression rings which cause this. It is a problem that developed with time, and can be fixed by running a heavier oil in it, as has been changed on the latest 4.6s by Ford.

I'm not here to argue that Mercedes are not quality, because they are, and I plan on being a long term owner, but don't put down the other makes with blanket statements.
~D.J.~

I'd rather have a STS Caddy before I would take the New mercedes. In fact the ONLY new mercedes I would own is the new diesel. But at that price, its not gonna happen.

Anyway who says it can't compete, it does, and does quite well. Why can't Lincoln compete, why can't Mercury? I don't see dodge, hyundi Honda, Suburu, or Kia doing it either, or for the people outside the USA, Peugot, Renault , Fiat, Autobianci, Seat, Skoda, Lancia , Alfa-romeo just to start..

Because GM doesn't have anything to market to that high of a price point. It would be pointless, the average Cadillac buyer may be a well off retiree or such, but they are not going to spend a copious amount of money on a car, especially one festooned with such gadgetry which might be useful, will make them feel like they are driving a damn spaceship. The money is in the midrange, not the upper spectrum. Perhaps this is why in the US, MB moves more E and C classes than S classes.
~D.J.~

What happened to the guy that started this thread?
 

What happened to the guy who started this thread, claiming that it was obvious that GM had "converted" a gasoline engine to make the 6.2L diesel?

SteveM.

Yes.......where is his unimpeachible proof? I know GM products quite well, and he was blowing smoke like I said.

I like Saturns if I ever get into an accident I want the car I hit to be a Saturn! :D I hit one once when a lady driving a little green one ran a stop sign, the rear door broke apart and the rear fender didn't do much better. Their is just nothing their! The plastic just falls apart! And I hit it in my Camry that had a plastic bumper! In the Mercedes hitting a Saturn would be great for me I probably wouldn't get any damage at all. But the person iniside.

I will give you one two the newer paints Mercedes is using are not as hard as they used to be. They seem to chip a lot.

I don't car about the gadgetry and electronic crap, I want a sweet engine awsome brakes and a very well built structure. An advanced suspension setup and high quality interior is a must also.

The Saturn has a steel space frame that is very strong in an accident. The door panel and fender you talk about are not structural. and can easily and cheaply be replaced. Try that with your less strong steel skined door. or fender. that are likely to be less strong as an assembly. And the parking lot dings your steel skinned door will get by ignorant and carelss people who slam their doors into yours.

Exterior body panels are not required to be structural for a strong crash safe car.

I hit 4 deer one night at midnight exiting a highway on a dark curve. Only damage to my car was paint and plastic panels. A lot cheaper than if I had hit them with my Mercedes and its steel panels.

Zero structural damage.

If you are trying to win me over or disprove me by making comments like this, you are proving to be an ass. Research their crash test results and then come back and comment something like this. Did you know they have the lowest death rate of any subcompact or compact car? Did you know they have one of the lowest post-accident repair cost rates? Did you know they are one of the lowest maintenance cars to be found on the road today?
Hit my VUE in a large car like your Mercedes... you have mass but I have multiple airbags and technology on my side.
I was involved in a severe accident earlier this year, and had I not been driving a VUE, there is a severe chance I would have been killed - and this was stated on several accounts. I owe my life to my VUE, hence why I will always have one as a daily driver as long as they are in production. Like I said, do your research before you sling mud.
~D.J.~

whether or not the 5.7 was reverse engineered it's hard for anyone but the actual designers to say...

I think a lot of the way the 5.7 diesel engine is, is to ensure compatibility with existing GM platforms and trans and utilize common exterior accessories. Or at the least to have the mountings standardized. Things like motor mount position and bolt patterns, bell housings, alternator & AC compressors, water pumps, etc, etc. Consider how many & how easily 5.7 diesel platforms were converted to gas engines.

The most rational & believeble explaination I've heard about the 5.7 was that the early years used head bolts that could not stand the compression of a diesel motor. It's likely that the 5.7 diesel used the same head bolts as the 5.7 gasser. The 5.7 has a reputation for blown head gaskets and cracked heads. Certainly indicative of weak head bolts. Expensive to repair and often terminal to any motor.

GM fixed this problem but the public image was already set. Kinda like the Fiero...early problems easily fixed but it still doomed an otherwise very good car.

I'd have to give the late 5.7 a thumbs up. And the early 5.7 a so-so, depending on a through inspection.

I grew up in a GM family also. Dad worked for AC Spark Plug and Mom worked for Buick. But I have seen the light!!! (Actually, I think it's the reflection off a 3 pointed star in a circle.)

The old Mercedes were built with a degree of attention to quality, instead of attention to maximum flash, or bling-bling factor.

the new ones..........I would rather spend my money on the Cadillac. Not saying the Mercedes is junk, just that is grown more and more unreliable and more and more costly to repair due to their fixation with more and more gadgets that are prone to break and cost a small fortune to repair due to not being well designed.

Sort of like the Chrysler designed automatic climate control monstrosity taken to the Nth degree.

Where? I would imagine that I've spent far more time on the Ford diesel boards than you, and cannot readily come up with any instances of a Powerstroke succumbing to cavitation. Are people concerned about it? Yes, but it's not as an immediate of a threat as it is with the 7.3l IDI, and in fact the arguement has been made that cavitation can happen with any diesel engine. The 7.3l IDI, on the other hand, had serious issues because the problem was unknown when the engine began production in 1987, and so the IH engineers felt that there wasn't an issue with boring the 6.9l engine block out to 7.3 litres. They realized that this was a problem in the early 1990's, and later Ford IDI's were sold with instructions to keep the coolant additive package up-to-date. Also, IH was able to redesign the block to minimize the issue when they designed the Powerstroke.

Take a look at these links:

Page describing cavitation in general

Some good pictures of a cavitated 7.3l IDI

Cavitation thread on the 7.3l IDI board on TheDieselStop.com

Another cavitation thread on the 7.3l IDI board

Thread regarding whether cavitation is serious or not, on the '94-'97 Powerstroke forum

Another thread questioning the concern about cavitation, on the '94-'97 PSD board

Another thread on the '94-'97 PSD board, specifically saying that there hasn't been a recent occurence in a PSD

BTW, the only problem with finding those threads was all the stuff I had to sift through...it's well-documented on this site. TheDieselStop.com is considered to be an authoritative source on Ford diesel trucks, as much as the TurboDieselRegister is for Dodge trucks and TheDieselPage.com is for GM vehicles.

NOT true...I'll be the first to admit that Ford has issues of their own. Electrical connectors were not thought out well, the Twin Torsion Beam suspension leaves a lot to be desired (but I'd still take it over GM's CV-joint IFS garbage any day!), the 6.0l has been having more than its share of problems, and every of Ford's diesels have had their share of teething problems (CPS's on the 7.3l PSD's, cavitation on the 7.3l IDI's, injector pump issues on 6.9l's and 7.3l IDI's {which I believe 6.2l's share, since they use the same pump}, head gaskets on early 6.9l's, etc).

Also, before you try to call me a rabid die-hard Ford guy, let me say right now that, were I to buy a new truck, there's no question in my mind...that I'd buy a Dodge. The 7.3l PSD is a decent engine (the 6.0l isn't, though), but IMHO the Cummins 6BT is far superior. You believe that the Dodge truck is junk; I have yet to see any conclusive evidence stating this while pertaining to '94 and newer trucks (yes, the '89-'93 left a ot to be desired).

I'm not particularly brand-loyal...except that I will never willingly buy GM or anything built in Japan (and before someone calls me on that Toyota pickup I'm getting, that's being given to me, and note that I'm putting a German diesel in it). And yes, I've had some direct experience, and many instances of immediately-secondhand experience (family members, etc) that led me to that decision.

Well These were in ford f-250 and f-350 trucks (powerstrokes), not the big ones. And I know I read about them and the fact that Ford has a class action lawsuit brought about because of there not being any mention in service manuals referencing the nitrate additive for the cooling system that prevents this, the new manuals are supposed to have this. Most cavitation issues were beyond 100,000 miles and out of warranty. If I can remember to look for the links to where i read this info last year I will post them.

I don't proclaim to be a ford expert. And my comments are to the effect I don't see anyone bashing Fords, or Dodges or any other brand for that matter. Only GM vehicles when every other brand has its issues and Ford has had far more than its share of automatic transmission issues. So has dodge.

The links I posted were referring to F-250/350's. IH didn't have a problem with cavitation, simply because coolant filters (with the proper amounts of SCA added in) were and are standard equipment on medium-duty trucks.

If you can find anything backing your claim up, please post it. Without documented evidence behind this, there's no reason whatsoever for someone on the other side of your arguement to believe that point. Not trying to criticize; I really want to see it. The only potential class-action lawsuit I've heard about against Ford is for the 6.0l, because every indication so far shows that it's a lemon.

Maybe there's a reason for that? :) Okay, here's a challenge for you. Find every bad thing you can about the 5.9l Cummins diesel (just the engine, NOT the transmission or the body surrounding it), and post it here, with well-documented evidence for each issue. I'll bet you can't.

...and so has GM. There's someone on that Ford site who had a 6.2l that he was otherwise happy with, but went through 7 automatic transmissions (referenced here). Doesn't seem like a good record to me. Don't get me wrong, though; Ford's E4OD was/is a POS, and Dodge's 4 speed auto was in the same boat. The moral of the story: Truck diesels and overdrive automatics don't mix well. :) The Chrysler TF727 and the Ford C-6 held up fairly well behind their respective diesels, but the lack of an overdrive really had a bad inpact on fuel mileage. I've heard that the inherent problem is that the oil pump on most automatic transmissions is driven by the engine, and truck diesels all make their power at low RPM's, when the oil pump is producing less pressure than it would be in the power band of a g@$ engine. The extra power with the low trans fluid pressure can lead to early failures. The Allison used behidn the D_max was the first light-duty auto to address this issue, although IIRC the ALlison has its own set of problems. The Torqushift used behind the 6.0l PSD supposedly also corrected this issue, but the amount of engine problems have overshadowed what tranny problems there may be, so I can't say for sure. I know this, though...any diesel pickup I own will have a manual tranny. :)