Dealership techs abuse customer's Camaro
- Thread starter LTVibe
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
And whose logo is proudly displayed on top of the dealership's building?
This is as much of an issue for the dealer as it is for the car manufacturer that this dealer represents. The dealer’s end of the barging, in this case, is to make the customer whole, GM's responsibility is to make sure that the dealer does it in case there are problems.
If GM's response is that there is nothing they can do, then GM doesn't deserve this guy's business and a lot of other people's business for that matter.
If GM wants to stay in business, they should treat these kind of disputes seriously, if not... well, there is always another bailout.
You are wrong. The dealership has SOLE responsibility. Would YOU pay out of your pocket for something YOU didn't do? Of course not. Does it make GM look bad, sure does to people who don't know any better.
GM is right for not claiming any responsibility. Why should they pay for damages done by a NON-GM employee??
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
And whose logo is proudly displayed on top of the dealership's building?
This is as much of an issue for the dealer as it is for the car manufacturer that this dealer represents. The dealer’s end of the barging, in this case, is to make the customer whole, GM's responsibility is to make sure that the dealer does it in case there are problems.
If GM's response is that there is nothing they can do, then GM doesn't deserve this guy's business and a lot of other people's business for that matter.
If GM wants to stay in business, they should treat these kind of disputes seriously, if not... well, there is always another bailout.
You are wrong. The dealership has SOLE responsibility. Would YOU pay out of your pocket for something YOU didn't do? Of course not. Does it make GM look bad, sure does to people who don't know any better.
GM is right for not claiming any responsibility. Why should they pay for damages done by a NON-GM employee??
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
That's only partially true. Whether or not GM likes it, they're part of it. When GM will sell me a car directly, outside of the dealership network, then I might agree. Also, considering GM has certain standards that must be met to put the big logo on the roof, they have responsibility.
Issuing dealership approvals isn't just about getting royalties and having a place to ship their cars. There's responsibility to the end customers with respect to service, not just the product.
There's pretty much only one reason I don't drive a Subaru - the local dealer is absolutely terrible. There's the same issue with the local VW/Audi dealership. I have no issue with Subaru or VW/Audi vehicles, yet the dealers are beneath contempt. So, this affects Subaru and VW/Audi. It might be "between me and the dealers," but the manufacturers have definitely lost out on any new vehicle sales to me until the matters "between me and the dealers" are addressed.
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
That's only partially true. Whether or not GM likes it, they're part of it. When GM will sell me a car directly, outside of the dealership network, then I might agree. Also, considering GM has certain standards that must be met to put the big logo on the roof, they have responsibility.
Issuing dealership approvals isn't just about getting royalties and having a place to ship their cars. There's responsibility to the end customers with respect to service, not just the product.
There's pretty much only one reason I don't drive a Subaru - the local dealer is absolutely terrible. There's the same issue with the local VW/Audi dealership. I have no issue with Subaru or VW/Audi vehicles, yet the dealers are beneath contempt. So, this affects Subaru and VW/Audi. It might be "between me and the dealers," but the manufacturers have definitely lost out on any new vehicle sales to me until the matters "between me and the dealers" are addressed.
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Typical, there was a BMW dealer awhile back where they were joyridding around in the M1 and the tech's got fired over it.
The actual rare, early '80s, mid-engined deal, or the new(er) 1 series turboed M version??
Nah the new one, if it was an original car BMW would have probably shot them.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Typical, there was a BMW dealer awhile back where they were joyridding around in the M1 and the tech's got fired over it.
The actual rare, early '80s, mid-engined deal, or the new(er) 1 series turboed M version??
Nah the new one, if it was an original car BMW would have probably shot them.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
Sure they are, and GM can yank their license if they want. Whats the old saying? "The buck stops here"
If I were in GM corporate I'd be breathing down there necks to make this go away.
Bad PR is bad PR, you can spend millions on an add or a few bucks fixing something like this.
How do you think Lexus cleaned everyone's clock in the 90's when they first came out? They would bend over backwards to fix problems, and if something like this happened it would have been made right very quickly.
Its called building brand equity and loyalty.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
Sure they are, and GM can yank their license if they want. Whats the old saying? "The buck stops here"
If I were in GM corporate I'd be breathing down there necks to make this go away.
Bad PR is bad PR, you can spend millions on an add or a few bucks fixing something like this.
How do you think Lexus cleaned everyone's clock in the 90's when they first came out? They would bend over backwards to fix problems, and if something like this happened it would have been made right very quickly.
Its called building brand equity and loyalty.
Last edited:
...and people think that I'm unreasonable to demand that my car not be driven when I have no driveability complaints...I've vented on BITOG about this stuff before, and this is exactly why.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
I'm not claiming that GM should pay for this. They should, however, be wielding the stick of yanking the right to be called a GM dealership. GM justifiably likes when people buy GM cars and have those cars serviced at dealers with genuine GM parts. GM does a fair bit of advertising to promote GM dealerships and their service.
If a dealer or his employees cannot appropriately treat a customer's vehicle, perhaps that flow of cars, parts, and technical knowledge from GM to the dealer should cease. Perhaps he'd be better off being licensed as a Lada dealer. I'm sure with his staff and his newly tweaked reputation, he'd spearhead bringing that brand into a new, North American resurgence.
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
I'm not claiming that GM should pay for this. They should, however, be wielding the stick of yanking the right to be called a GM dealership. GM justifiably likes when people buy GM cars and have those cars serviced at dealers with genuine GM parts. GM does a fair bit of advertising to promote GM dealerships and their service.
If a dealer or his employees cannot appropriately treat a customer's vehicle, perhaps that flow of cars, parts, and technical knowledge from GM to the dealer should cease. Perhaps he'd be better off being licensed as a Lada dealer. I'm sure with his staff and his newly tweaked reputation, he'd spearhead bringing that brand into a new, North American resurgence.
Although the dealership bought the Camaro back for book value plus 10% (probably approximately the price the customer originally paid) The dealer Best Kia-Chevy put out a few statements that seems to deny responsibility for the damage or for that matter doing ANYTHING wrong at all, even though they DID buy the car back.
If anything the continued arrogance in the responses from this STEALERSHIP is even more reason to stay away from them.
If GM was wise they would pull their Chevy franchise from Best and give it to someone else. I wonder what Kia will do?
Both car makers should drop Best to put them out of business.
If anything the continued arrogance in the responses from this STEALERSHIP is even more reason to stay away from them.
If GM was wise they would pull their Chevy franchise from Best and give it to someone else. I wonder what Kia will do?
Both car makers should drop Best to put them out of business.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Although the dealership bought the Camaro back for book value plus 10% (probably approximately the price the customer originally paid) The dealer Best Kia-Chevy put out a few statements that seems to deny responsibility for the damage or for that matter doing ANYTHING wrong at all, even though they DID buy the car back.
If anything the continued arrogance in the responses from this STEALERSHIP is even more reason to stay away from them.
If GM was wise they would pull their Chevy franchise from Best and give it to someone else. I wonder what Kia will do?
Both car makers should drop Best to put them out of business.
Unless the unit sales numbers drop like a brick, neither GM or KIA will drop them over this. 6 months from now, everybody's mind will be on something else and this will be forgotten.
Although the dealership bought the Camaro back for book value plus 10% (probably approximately the price the customer originally paid) The dealer Best Kia-Chevy put out a few statements that seems to deny responsibility for the damage or for that matter doing ANYTHING wrong at all, even though they DID buy the car back.
If anything the continued arrogance in the responses from this STEALERSHIP is even more reason to stay away from them.
If GM was wise they would pull their Chevy franchise from Best and give it to someone else. I wonder what Kia will do?
Both car makers should drop Best to put them out of business.
Unless the unit sales numbers drop like a brick, neither GM or KIA will drop them over this. 6 months from now, everybody's mind will be on something else and this will be forgotten.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Sure they are, and GM can yank their license if they want. Whats the old saying? "The buck stops here"
Correct! GM makes profit from those "independants" who sell their GM products, so GM does not get to pass the buck!
Not picking on GM, this applies to ALL manufactures.
Sure they are, and GM can yank their license if they want. Whats the old saying? "The buck stops here"
Correct! GM makes profit from those "independants" who sell their GM products, so GM does not get to pass the buck!
Not picking on GM, this applies to ALL manufactures.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
I'm not claiming that GM should pay for this. They should, however, be wielding the stick of yanking the right to be called a GM dealership. GM justifiably likes when people buy GM cars and have those cars serviced at dealers with genuine GM parts. GM does a fair bit of advertising to promote GM dealerships and their service.
If a dealer or his employees cannot appropriately treat a customer's vehicle, perhaps that flow of cars, parts, and technical knowledge from GM to the dealer should cease. Perhaps he'd be better off being licensed as a Lada dealer. I'm sure with his staff and his newly tweaked reputation, he'd spearhead bringing that brand into a new, North American resurgence.
I agree. I have ALWAYS felt that GM should own their dealerships and not be like a franchise. We could better control quality of service and customer satisfaction. No matter what, like some here said, all the customer sees is a GM logo on the dealer signs and they think it's GM running the business.
Better yet - sell internet and allow the customer to choose their shop of choice for warranty and service work off of an approved list or something.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
No, it is fully true. I work for GM and have a lot of relations with the dealers. These are independent businesses. True, there are agreements and certain qualifications that must be met. HOWEVER- paying for a car that a NON-GM employee abused is NOT GM corporate's responsibility.
I'm not claiming that GM should pay for this. They should, however, be wielding the stick of yanking the right to be called a GM dealership. GM justifiably likes when people buy GM cars and have those cars serviced at dealers with genuine GM parts. GM does a fair bit of advertising to promote GM dealerships and their service.
If a dealer or his employees cannot appropriately treat a customer's vehicle, perhaps that flow of cars, parts, and technical knowledge from GM to the dealer should cease. Perhaps he'd be better off being licensed as a Lada dealer. I'm sure with his staff and his newly tweaked reputation, he'd spearhead bringing that brand into a new, North American resurgence.
I agree. I have ALWAYS felt that GM should own their dealerships and not be like a franchise. We could better control quality of service and customer satisfaction. No matter what, like some here said, all the customer sees is a GM logo on the dealer signs and they think it's GM running the business.
Better yet - sell internet and allow the customer to choose their shop of choice for warranty and service work off of an approved list or something.
Wonderful dreams here... but that's all they are, dreams.
It just isn't going to happen, guys. This sort of stuff has been happening at stealerships since the first car that could spin the tires!
It just isn't going to happen, guys. This sort of stuff has been happening at stealerships since the first car that could spin the tires!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
I agree. I have ALWAYS felt that GM should own their dealerships and not be like a franchise. We could better control quality of service and customer satisfaction. No matter what, like some here said, all the customer sees is a GM logo on the dealer signs and they think it's GM running the business.
That may be, but it still won't fix the problem of poor employees. I have had the best luck from a customer service standpoint with smaller dealerships, while the larger ones tend to have the most varied knowledge base. Some years back (I don't know if it's still the case), the largest GM dealer here had an absolutely phenomenal body shop - when they fixed something, you never even knew it had a problem in the first place.
I agree. I have ALWAYS felt that GM should own their dealerships and not be like a franchise. We could better control quality of service and customer satisfaction. No matter what, like some here said, all the customer sees is a GM logo on the dealer signs and they think it's GM running the business.
That may be, but it still won't fix the problem of poor employees. I have had the best luck from a customer service standpoint with smaller dealerships, while the larger ones tend to have the most varied knowledge base. Some years back (I don't know if it's still the case), the largest GM dealer here had an absolutely phenomenal body shop - when they fixed something, you never even knew it had a problem in the first place.
I remember getting my Grand Am GT back after getting an oil change at Tires Plus. The A/C no longer worked nor did the air unless it was on MAX. Also the Cruise Control stopped working.
What a coincidence. I marched in there and demanded to see the manager and he told me they could fix it for a certain fee and a diagnostic charge. I said no way. He replied, "tough luck, nothing we can do for you...hit the road".
Not quite as incredible as what this guy experienced, but frustrating for sure.
What a coincidence. I marched in there and demanded to see the manager and he told me they could fix it for a certain fee and a diagnostic charge. I said no way. He replied, "tough luck, nothing we can do for you...hit the road".
Not quite as incredible as what this guy experienced, but frustrating for sure.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
And whose logo is proudly displayed on top of the dealership's building?
This is as much of an issue for the dealer as it is for the car manufacturer that this dealer represents. The dealer’s end of the barging, in this case, is to make the customer whole, GM's responsibility is to make sure that the dealer does it in case there are problems.
If GM's response is that there is nothing they can do, then GM doesn't deserve this guy's business and a lot of other people's business for that matter.
If GM wants to stay in business, they should treat these kind of disputes seriously, if not... well, there is always another bailout.
You are wrong. The dealership has SOLE responsibility. Would YOU pay out of your pocket for something YOU didn't do? Of course not. Does it make GM look bad, sure does to people who don't know any better.
GM is right for not claiming any responsibility. Why should they pay for damages done by a NON-GM employee??
Who said anything about GM footing this bill?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If GM was smart since this story might go viral and cause a lot of damage they would make this right quickly and fire the guys on the video.
Dealerships are all independently owned and operated. This is NOT a GM issue, it is an issue between the dealership and the car owner.
And whose logo is proudly displayed on top of the dealership's building?
This is as much of an issue for the dealer as it is for the car manufacturer that this dealer represents. The dealer’s end of the barging, in this case, is to make the customer whole, GM's responsibility is to make sure that the dealer does it in case there are problems.
If GM's response is that there is nothing they can do, then GM doesn't deserve this guy's business and a lot of other people's business for that matter.
If GM wants to stay in business, they should treat these kind of disputes seriously, if not... well, there is always another bailout.
You are wrong. The dealership has SOLE responsibility. Would YOU pay out of your pocket for something YOU didn't do? Of course not. Does it make GM look bad, sure does to people who don't know any better.
GM is right for not claiming any responsibility. Why should they pay for damages done by a NON-GM employee??
Who said anything about GM footing this bill?
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Wonderful dreams here... but that's all they are, dreams.
It just isn't going to happen, guys. This sort of stuff has been happening at stealerships since the first car that could spin the tires!
Sure it has and guys have been getting fired for it since than too.
One of the guys who works for me used to work at an Acura dealership. He was "testing" a new Acura on their test drive loop and one of the neighbors called and complained that he was doing probably about 80 in a 30mph zone. He was fired as soon as he got back to the dealership.
This Acura dealership I have heard from other guys has a zero tolerance policy for show boating, so if you take an NSX out on a test drive and your doing something other than driving it, and are caught, chances are very high you will be fired by the time you get back to the lot.
The [censored] these guys were doing to this Camaro would have gotten them canned as soon as it was brought to managements attention.
Wonderful dreams here... but that's all they are, dreams.
It just isn't going to happen, guys. This sort of stuff has been happening at stealerships since the first car that could spin the tires!
Sure it has and guys have been getting fired for it since than too.
One of the guys who works for me used to work at an Acura dealership. He was "testing" a new Acura on their test drive loop and one of the neighbors called and complained that he was doing probably about 80 in a 30mph zone. He was fired as soon as he got back to the dealership.
This Acura dealership I have heard from other guys has a zero tolerance policy for show boating, so if you take an NSX out on a test drive and your doing something other than driving it, and are caught, chances are very high you will be fired by the time you get back to the lot.
The [censored] these guys were doing to this Camaro would have gotten them canned as soon as it was brought to managements attention.
Last edited:
While dealer practices are under the spotlight, here is another story:
Originally Posted By: news
Someone should do the staff at Priority Chevrolet a big favour and explain to them that in the world of car sales, there’s a difference between a customer “getting a steal” (as in getting a great deal on a new set of wheels) and a customer actually stealing the vehicle off the lot (a.k.a., grand theft auto.) Needless to say the two are completely different; thus, calling the local constabulary to falsely claim a vehicle had been stolen makes for egregious business practices to say the least.
http://www.thepassinglane.ca/2012/10/che...-stole-suv.html
Originally Posted By: news
Someone should do the staff at Priority Chevrolet a big favour and explain to them that in the world of car sales, there’s a difference between a customer “getting a steal” (as in getting a great deal on a new set of wheels) and a customer actually stealing the vehicle off the lot (a.k.a., grand theft auto.) Needless to say the two are completely different; thus, calling the local constabulary to falsely claim a vehicle had been stolen makes for egregious business practices to say the least.
http://www.thepassinglane.ca/2012/10/che...-stole-suv.html
The news article doesn't mention it, but i hope the manager who reported the vehicle stolen gets charged for filing a false police report.
Well you don't have to be a genius to push iron.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked