What Fallacy is this? Hasty generalization or Composition?

I owned two Chevy cars – a Cruze and a Malibu – and they gave me nothing but trouble. The choke and the batteries froze up and the clutches went out on both cars. They were always in the shop. Chevy’s are poorly constructed and should be avoided. What fallacy does this person commit, fallacy of hasty generalization? or fallacy of composition? It is difficult to tell if the argument assumes that parts of the Chevy car are troublesome (batteries, clutch etc.) therefore the whole Chevy car is poorly constructed making this a composition fallacy or if the person has observed a small amount of Chevy cars and made a generalization about the whole of Chevy cars which in this case it would be a hasty generalization fallacy. These fallacies are hard to tell apart and a little confusing.

I don’t see the deception here. The claim is anecdotal and sound. There is a component of generalization and part to whole argument, but there is evidence to support the claim. So it’s really more opinion and complaint than fallacious reasoning.

I own two Chevys.
Both cars are constantly in the shop for faulty clutches, chokes, and frozen batteries.
Therefore all Chevys are poorly made and to be avoided at all cost.

Hasty generalisation, I say. Hasty generalisation is about sample size (present in your case), whereas fallacy of composition is about what something is made of. Granted the terms are not especially well defined and hence confusing, which explains why I have had to define them a bit here.

Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

1.) It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.

The claim is made by someone who owns two Chevys and has experienced
the same faulty parts in two different brands of Chevy product. The claimant
surmises that Chevy parts are inferior and poorly-built and therefore concludes
that this is applicable across the board to all Chevy manufactured vehicles.

This seems to be a sound complaint and personal opinion.

There is a factual (anecdotal) basis to the claim. It is perfectly reasonable that
the claimant has arrived at this conclusion, and though it may be generalized it is
certainly not a hasty one. While it is also a 'part to whole' complaint (composition) it is
a reasonable one to arrive at, and at considerable expense and inconvenience.

2.) It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.

I own two Chevys.
Both cars are constantly in the shop for the same faulty clutches, chokes, and frozen batteries.
Therefore all Chevys are made with inferior parts and should be avoided at all cost.

There is a component of generalization and 'part to whole' argument, but there is evidence to support the claim.
So it’s a more an opinion and personal complaint than an error in reasoning.

3.) It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Without any deception, the claimant reasonably concludes that Chevys are..."to be avoided".

The claimant is justified in coming to this conclusion. Whether s/he is factually correct
is not the issue, but only whether they have committed some form of error in reasoning.

I'm not picking up on any error or deception. Now, Chevy may have a marketing problem, but that's about it.

I would say both, but mostly generalization.