4th Nov 2012, 15:38
You say, "The point that I think he is trying to bring up is that the car was just really polished up for him, when you see a shiny rock beside a rusty rock, you seem to forget that when you drop the shiny rock it's gonna crack and look real bad."
If the Cobalt was abused for over 100,000 miles and the buyer deceived, how does that reflect on the quality of the Cobalt?
17th Nov 2010, 16:08
So you had a G6 and put $1,200 bucks into it for repairs, and I am trying to prove what wrong? GM cars are junk, so to buy one with high mileage is like playing Russian roulette. Good luck! You only further my point by admitting the poor quality of yet another GM product. I'm sorry but "it's an alright car" and "but I don't like it" in the same sentence about the same car just doesn't make sense to me.
The Cobalt is in no way a long range car that is meant to be driven for hundreds of thousands of miles. These are pretty low end cars with cheaply made drivetrains, kind of like the Cavalier. Did some Cavaliers make it to 300 or 400K miles? Sure, but very few compared to the amount that were in the junkyard before 100K miles. They are both disposable transportation that GM engineered for repeat business, and based on your reaction to the G6, it is working.
Seriously, if a car that sets you back $1,200 in repairs is an alright car to you, more power to ya. I prefer better brands that don't need more than routine maintenance to get me through the time I own them. The original poster is just one of many I have seen on here that falls for a car without thoroughly checking it out, and now they are paying dearly for it. Nothing really to prove is there?