Not really so with the C5. The 97 production run was only a half year and they ran the line slowly to get that experience. The 97s are probably the best assembled of the C5 years. Consider this: they built 9752 97s in a half a year. Starting in 98 they built at least 30K units per year from then on.

Bill

 

They were running it slow and correcting the many mistakes along the way!Prob the worst built of the C5's!Not to mention all the minor details that were worked out or improved over the life of the run.

 

 

if you have ever been to BG you will see the line does not run very fast anyway - there are QC ppl looking at everything.

Remember each car sits in the lot for up to 20 days ( or something like that) in case a bad part or problem is found along the way. If something is found, all the cars from that defective part batch can be return and corrected.

 

Many of those design/production problems dont reveal themselves until the cars have been on the road for a year or more.Precisely why a car made late in a model run are always better.

 

Not better just newer. If it took several years to show up, then several years would have that problem. Fact is, people who spend more for the newer year want to justify it. People who spend less for an old year also want to justify it. Regardless of year, get the best car you can find as far as care and mileage goes. Care being the bigger factor IMO, as a 5k mile car will probably have more problems than a 45k mile car. The only problem with older, is, some parts wear out cause of age. Seals get old, and weatherstripping gets brittle. a 98 is closer to these problems than an 04. But, again care is important. a 98 that has been covered or garaged would probably have better weathersrip than an 04 stored outside.

If the they fix all the bugs thing was true, then how long was the column lock an issue? Why was oil consumption worse in the middle of the run and not the begining? Do 04s not get rocking seat with age just like a 97? Most of these cars deal with the same issues, regardless of year. They did change the intake in 01to the ls6. That is good. They also extended the rear weatherstripping in 98 to keep water from coming in the back when you open the hatch. They deleted the passenger lock in 01, and changed the wheels in 01. I would say an 02 would have all the updates, most important being the engine (ls6 intake). It would not have the fuel filter in the tank, which I would consider a problem. And, it could be had for the best price. An 02 would be the all around winner here for me.

 

Ponders an office with bookshelves loaded down with tech service bulletins and revised parts......

 

I have to agree on the assembly quality of the 97. Very impressed each time I dig into a my 12 year old car. Possible I'm biased?

The FFS could be a big issue on the late 03-04. Most of the Early C5's already have issues with the fuel filter leaking, so eventually later models will have fuel filter issues.

02 would be my choice...01+ also had (technically) LS6 blocks.

 

When you look at the ppl who buy those so called "extended warranty" those are the guys who dont drive much any way.

Those of use who drive A LOT have minimal problems, if any.

 

I agree,the worst thing you can do is let any car just sit and rot!

 

I disagree. I bought my 00 A4 2 years ago with 48k on the odometer from a Chevy dealer. I purchased a 3 year/36K extended drivetrain warranty. It paid for itself 3 months after I bought the car when the transmission died. I now have 82k miles and have experienced every possible mechanical/electrical issue there is for these cars. Unfortunately I wish I'd have gotten a more extensive extended warranty plan that covers electrical crap as well.

 

The thing with that is it may have been beat on for 48,000 miles before you got it!You do have to maintain em !

 

As far as the specs on the cars, the 2001-04 were all pretty much the same. Except for the Z06. I've got a 2001 Coupe, not much changed until the C6's.