GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Okay, I'll phrase it this way.
I've never had the problems with the six Hondas and one Ford we've owned that these owners are having with their fairly new Impalas.
A simple, objective statement.
If I owned one of the subject Impalas, I'd be pretty unhappy.
I would likely not consider another GM product, since the experience would leave a bad taste.
If this is bashing, so be it.
To most, it is merely a statement of fact.
GM has made a mistake in not repairing these Impalas, and was stubborn enough to end up as defendent in a lawsuit.
Again, a simple statement of fact.
If I really believed that GM has stepped up to world-class build and engineering quality, I'd shop GM for my next new car.
Given the facts on the ground, I'll instead look at Hondas, Subarus and maybe Fords.
Not bashing at all, merely statements of fact.
Were this not so, the GM fans and employees would not get so defensive in any thread in which the wisdom of GM is questioned.


Well Hondas Fords,Subarus and whoever else do have their problems. I get what you are saying, but you are basing you view of GM cars based on your experience with owning a few other makes and a news story that's negative about GM. Because the one Ford you had was good, that means Ford's are better than GM. If you feel you were well served by Hondas that's fine. But you reasoning is basically if I hear bad stories about an automaker even though I have no personal experience with them, then they are necessarily bad. Well anyone could dig up bad stories about Honda. That doesn't make the cars necessarily over all a bad choice. For instance Accords not too long ago had a class action about their rear brake pads.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's not a 3rd class, that's part of the anti-bail out class that motivates many Ford and import fans. You are just making my point. The anti-GM sentiment is usaully about the bail outs, the UAW or what the media presents motivated by the same, and not really objectively about the product.


This might be true for some people here, not me. What GM did was wrong, its a shame people still holding notes on these cars through "the old GM" still have to pay their notes. Imagine if they could say, hey that's the old GM we don't have to pay them. I wonder how GM would like that? A shame they can't w/o destroying their credit.

 

[urchin]

The difference between Ford, Honda and GM is that WE the taxpayer and also those customers bailed GM out when they needed it most. And now GM is telling those people who helped bail them out and bought their product as well to , "get lost". That is a BIG difference!

 

[FZ1]

No,it's not about that. You've got to learn to be objective. It's just what I said it's about,for me,anyway. When GM launches an insulting,deceptive,ad campaign based on a ,fairly obvious,lie......That's offensive to many Americans,including me.

 

[fdcg27]

This isn't a bad story.
This is a story about GM refusing to fix a built-in engineering problem based upon a technical change in corporate entity.
It isn't just that the one Ford we had was good, nor that all of our Hondas have been as well.
We owned GM products years ago, and our experiences were not favorable.
It could be argued that used car values tell all, and if you check out the used car market, you'll find which makes are valued, and which aren't.
GM products have not had very good resale value over the past couple of decades, while Hondas and Subarus are bad buys as late model used cars, because they retain so much of their value.
Maybe there's a vast conspiracy, maybe all buyers and sellers are ignorant, or maybe GM cars simply haven't been well designed or well built.
The market speaks for itself.
The used car market reprents the consensus of all buyers and all sellers.
It does not bash, and it does not lie.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Try talking to HP or Dell and trying to get them to repair a fried motherboard in a laptop under warranty. It's darn near impossible, and they talk to you like you are crud.


And this is part of the reason I despise HP. Not only do their laptops have a higher failure rate than that of their peers, but because they are the "biggest", they seem to feel that they can screw their customers on warranty as well. Sound familiar?

In comparison, ASUS and Lenovo have both been EXCELLENT to deal with on warranty issues, with ASUS even going as far as covering notebooks that were out of warranty and doing plastic replacements on a notebook in for something else because somebody was rough with it and there was a small crack in one of the trim pieces.

The beef people are having with GM here is the same beef you are taking with HP and DELL. And that is the same reason I won't buy HP or DELL products. Which parallels the reason many in this thread won't buy GM products.


But this is arguably a false analogy. Overall GM has been good about honoring its warranty, better than some automakers and definitely not the worst. All automakers have problems, aren't always good about warranty repairs, and get class action suits against them. But if you hear Bitog tell it, GM is the worst at everything . And any way they want to twist it it's still biased and false and amounts to misinformation. Bitog is pretty anti-GM, I don't care what anyone says. It's pretty transparent too. The GM detractors normally come in two classes, Ford fans and import lovers motivated by anti-UAW, anti-bailout sentiments sprinkled with a healthy dose of media misinformation motivated by the same thing. Few of these people have much recent experience with GM products. They are just talking out of their bias and mispreceptions.


But you represent the other side of the fence sir

Your opinion is hardly what I would call "middle ground"

Not true, I believe I am being middle ground. Would middle ground be I say nothing in GM criticism threads? Or should I say Ford and every other automakers' cars are "better" than or equal to GM? And are you suggesting that the GM critics are middle ground? Not even close. No one praises Ford as much as you do and a few other Ford fans here. You guys also jump on every opportunity to denigrate GM slyly. About the most you see people like me who are favorable of GM do is defend GM from nearly constant criticism. GM gets bashed a lot here and rarely are other makes. And Ford and Hyundai does get hyped here a lot. I don't go around praising GM and bashing everything else to any similar degree. You are trying to argue there is an equivalency when there is not. 90% of these numerous threads are thinly-vieled renditions of "GM is complete junk, I'll never buy GM, gubmint motors, UAW, bailouts blah blah". There's no equivalency. All I say is GM cars are comparatively pretty good taken as a whole.

 

[NHHEMI]

Owned 3 new 2000's+ model year GM's( 2 trucks and 1 suv )prior to the bailout and all were excellent vehicles. I would absolutely buy a GM again if the situation was right.

GM and Chrysler both as part of the bankruptcy were absolved of responsibility for things like the Impala problem on vehicles made prior to the bankruptcy. Warranty obligations are not absolved but things like this that would involve big recalls on vehicles out of warranty are. That is nothing new and is kind of the whole point of a bankruptcy.

You don't even have to see a bankruptcy for this kind of thing to happen and it is far from uncommon for a mfg of a product to try and resist big recalls on their dime. Happens ALL THE TIME!

I bought a brand new Lowe boat in 2002. Genmar owned Lowe at the time. They sold off all their boat companies a couple years later. My boat came with a 10 year corrosion warranty. There was a design flaw in the transom that trapped water and lead to massive corrosion eating through the transom from the inside out. Should have been covered but the new owners of Lowe boats said "we didn't build the boat so we won't honor the warranty". Genmar said "we don't own Lowe boats go talk to them". I ended up shelling out the $1500 to fix the transom. Was it fair or even smart on the new Lowe boat company to do that to me? No, of course not. Is it uncommon? NO!

[censored] happens deal with it. Life isn't fair. Maybe GM should fix the issue for people. I think it makes sense they do so actually. Doesn't surprise me that they are not doing it though. Would not deter me from a new GM vehicle either as ALL car mfg's do things like this. You can not avoid this kind of thing by avoiding a specific car dealer. If you tried you would not be able to find a car to buy!

This is not unique to GM. I can see you not wanting another GM if you are the OP, just as I would not buy another Lowe boat( at least from the current owners ), but if you don't own an effected vehicle get over it.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This isn't a bad story.
This is a story about GM refusing to fix a built-in engineering problem based upon a technical change in corporate entity.
It isn't just that the one Ford we had was good, nor that all of our Hondas have been as well.
We owned GM products years ago, and our experiences were not favorable.
It could be argued that used car values tell all, and if you check out the used car market, you'll find which makes are valued, and which aren't.
GM products have not had very good resale value over the past couple of decades, while Hondas and Subarus are bad buys as late model used cars, because they retain so much of their value.
Maybe there's a vast conspiracy, maybe all buyers and sellers are ignorant, or maybe GM cars simply haven't been well designed or well built.
The market speaks for itself.
The used car market reprents the consensus of all buyers and all sellers.
It does not bash, and it does not lie.

Well I disagree. Resale value doesn't prove anything really. Rental and fleet sales are a factor, and the biggest is consumer perception which is not based on perfect information or experience but on the media, which also is lacking in facts and agenda driven. I'm not going to sit here and say GM vehicle are the most reliable, But I'm not going to say that some other make is always more reliable. There's more to vehicle ownership and cost then perceived reliabilty. My point is GM vehicle are overly criticised and other makes are overly praised.

To tell you the truth I've never considered you a basher. My argument is not really with you so much. I think what we have here is you're more skepticle of GM reliability. That seems to be your main criteria. That's fine but I'd just say GM vehicle are a lot better than they are commly presented as being.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's not a 3rd class, that's part of the anti-bail out class that motivates many Ford and import fans. You are just making my point. The anti-GM sentiment is usaully about the bail outs, the UAW or what the media presents motivated by the same, and not really objectively about the product.


This might be true for some people here, not me. What GM did was wrong, its a shame people still holding notes on these cars through "the old GM" still have to pay their notes. Imagine if they could say, hey that's the old GM we don't have to pay them. I wonder how GM would like that? A shame they can't w/o destroying their credit.


I don't diagree with that. I don't really have all the facts to know why GM didn't make good on the problem under warranty. I think the repairs should be made, so I don't disagree with anyone that says they should be. I'm just saying it's not just GM. Look what Nissan did to owners like SayJac for instance. That seems way worse. But the impression one gets from these threads is that only GM will leave you holding the bag for their mistake and the others won't. It amounts to misinformation.

 

[urchin]

I'd say GM has a HIGHER obligation to remedy this problem than another company because "the people of the USA" kept them alive and able to profit once again. The same customer they are now telling to pound salt is the same one that saved their a@@.

Yes, GM has a higher ethical obligation to fix these products!

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I don't diagree with that. I don't really have all the facts to know why GM didn't make good on the problem under warranty. I think the repairs should be made, so I don't disagree with anyone that says they should be. I'm just saying it's not just GM. Look what Nissan did to owners like SayJac for instance. That seems way worse. But the impression one gets from these threads is that only GM will leave you holding the bag for their mistake and the others won't. It amounts to misinformation.


How you figure? From your example of SayJacs experience with Nissan, There was serious Nissan-Bashing going on, As was Toyota Bashing in the Now-Locked and Very long Toyota threads.. Just seems to me that since this is a GM-based thread, any bashing wil be GM-oriented. IMHO, if it's pink and oinks, it's prolly a pig..

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Interestingly, no one pays any attention to this kind of thing happening at Honda, or any of the other automakers.

Honda went broke, got bailed out, and are now using the bankruptcy to deny liability for an engineering flaw ?

They certainly kept THAT one quiet.

I thought that THIS discussion was about precisely that scenario with GM

 

[fdcg27]

I'm going to have to agree with you that GM vehicles are more reliable than they are generally given credit for being.
Some of the newer cars have also been exceptional buys at actual retail.
How about a 2008 G5 2.2 Ecotec automatic coupe, with sunroof, 16" alloys, air, PW, PDL, sunroof, decklid spoiler, remote unlock and remote start for $13,500.00 out the door?
An okay car that has made its buyer a great daily driver for very little money.
28.5 mpg average in her actual use, as well as the entertaining DIC, including the excellent GM OLM system.
It has been dead reliable for the nearly three years and 50K she has had it.
She got cheap financing on it as well.
It's not a Honda, which becomes clear from the first turn of the key, but no Honda offered the dollars and cents value this car did.
GM has made some decent vehicles, and most are probably pretty reliable.
Still, the used car market represents the collective wisdom of all used car buyers and sellers.
Residual values involve a great deal more reality than you seem to give them credit for.
It isn't all media hype and buyer ignorance.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
and not really objectively about the product.


GM fixed the cop cars, and told regular consumers to go jump...

So are GM saying that the cars were faulty, or one group of customers is less worthy of a decent fix ?

 

[FZ1]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This isn't a bad story.
This is a story about GM refusing to fix a built-in engineering problem based upon a technical change in corporate entity.
It isn't just that the one Ford we had was good, nor that all of our Hondas have been as well.
We owned GM products years ago, and our experiences were not favorable.
It could be argued that used car values tell all, and if you check out the used car market, you'll find which makes are valued, and which aren't.
GM products have not had very good resale value over the past couple of decades, while Hondas and Subarus are bad buys as late model used cars, because they retain so much of their value.
Maybe there's a vast conspiracy, maybe all buyers and sellers are ignorant, or maybe GM cars simply haven't been well designed or well built.
The market speaks for itself.
The used car market reprents the consensus of all buyers and all sellers.
It does not bash, and it does not lie.

Well I disagree. Resale value doesn't prove anything really. Rental and fleet sales are a factor, and the biggest is consumer perception which is not based on perfect information or experience but on the media, which also is lacking in facts and agenda driven. I'm not going to sit here and say GM vehicle are the most reliable, But I'm not going to say that some other make is always more reliable. There's more to vehicle ownership and cost then perceived reliabilty. My point is GM vehicle are overly criticised and other makes are overly praised.

To tell you the truth I've never considered you a basher. My argument is not really with you so much. I think what we have here is you're more skepticle of GM reliability. That seems to be your main criteria. That's fine but I'd just say GM vehicle are a lot better than they are commly presented as being.
Resale value doesn't prove anything? Reality is 2 things 1. Resale value 2. Tom Berenger in Platoon. Reality case closed.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I'm going to have to agree with you that GM vehicles are more reliable than they are generally given credit for being.
Some of the newer cars have also been exceptional buys at actual retail.
How about a 2008 G5 2.2 Ecotec automatic coupe, with sunroof, 16" alloys, air, PW, PDL, sunroof, decklid spoiler, remote unlock and remote start for $13,500.00 out the door?
An okay car that has made its buyer a great daily driver for very little money.
28.5 mpg average in her actual use, as well as the entertaining DIC, including the excellent GM OLM system.
It has been dead reliable for the nearly three years and 50K she has had it.
She got cheap financing on it as well.
It's not a Honda, which becomes clear from the first turn of the key, but no Honda offered the dollars and cents value this car did.
GM has made some decent vehicles, and most are probably pretty reliable.


Exactly. Evenly the lowly, much aligned Cobalt can in reality offer its buyer all that. Plus maybe the buyer likes the styling, feels it has a better ride than say a Corolla, maybe they want to buy an American brand. It could be for a lot of reason, maybe they like that they can get Dex VI ATF, Dexcool everywhere cheaply, the 100k mile powertrain warranty. Maybe a Civic won't give more reliability. The point is there are a lot of reason why someone might see GM vehicles a good buy.

Quote:
Still, the used car market represents the collective wisdom of all used car buyers and sellers.
Residual values involve a great deal more reality than you seem to give them credit for.It isn't all media hype and buyer ignorance.

I'm not going to say that used resale value doesn't indicate anything in regard to possible reliabilty, but in the case of late model GM vehicles especially it is a lot media hype and buyer ignorance or perception at play. Moreso than say with the resale value of European models.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
and not really objectively about the product.


GM fixed the cop cars, and told regular consumers to go jump...

So are GM saying that the cars were faulty, or one group of customers is less worthy of a decent fix ?


GM said the cop cars have different parts. I'm not saying that's true or not. The point is all automakers cars have problems, sometimes refuse to warranty repairs, and have class action lawsuits. But some people try to paint the picture that GM is the worst, and that usually imports and sometimes Ford are so much better.It's pretty clear to me what their real motivation is. If the media reports said GM was the most reliabile (which the media would never do even if it was true) it wouldn't make any difference to these people so let's not pretend it would. I've been listening to the GM criticiser for over 30 years and it goes back almost 60 years. I know what motivates them. Having said that, I've already said that GM deserves some criticism here, but a lot of it is over the top as I explained. this debate is getting circular and rendundant now.

 

[fdcg27]

I'm with you on Euro cars.
The average GM product is as reliable as a hammer compared to certain British (German designed) and German products.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Not true, I believe I am being middle ground.


I didn't say I didn't think you didn't think you were being middle ground. What I doubt is that you are actually being middle ground. Would you for a minute believe that I was trying to be middle ground? I was. Scary eh?

Quote:
Would middle ground be I say nothing in GM criticism threads? Or should I say Ford and every other automakers' cars are "better" than or equal to GM? And are you suggesting that the GM critics are middle ground? Not even close.


No, I think middle ground is something like the comments made by an apparently unbiased party, somebody like fdgc27. You and I are too close to our respective "circles" to ever be truly objective and "neutral". You carry your own biases sir, you and I have been over this subject matter enough times you cannot honestly expect me to believe otherwise.

Quote:
No one praises Ford as much as you do and a few other Ford fans here. You guys also jump on every opportunity to denigrate GM slyly. About the most you see people like me who are favorable of GM do is defend GM from nearly constant criticism. GM gets bashed a lot here and rarely are other makes.


So your defence of GM under "constant attack" on this board is different from when I defend Ford from an "attack" because it happens less to Ford? Interesting....

Quote:
And Ford and Hyundai does get hyped here a lot. I don't go around praising GM and bashing everything else to any similar degree. You are trying to argue there is an equivalency when there is not.


Really, I bash everything other than Ford? Ben does too? Obviously he would be the other party you are implicating here.

Ford has only recently got a lot of hype on this board due to the situation regarding the bail-out (first time I'm mentioning the bail-out in this thread BTW). Prior to that, they were hated on just as hard as GM was and is sir.

Quote:
90% of these numerous threads are thinly-vieled renditions of "GM is complete junk, I'll never buy GM, gubmint motors, UAW, bailouts blah blah". There's no equivalency. All I say is GM cars are comparatively pretty good taken as a whole.


And where in this thread did I say otherwise? I said GM's behaviour is similar to what Nick has accused HP of doing. That has been my extensive experience with HP.

And due to subject matter like the bailout being brought up (and you'll notice, I did NOT BRING IT UP in the post you quoted), yes, these threads get heated and polarized. It comes with the subject matter. People feel like GM is cheating them because of it. So it becomes personal.

My recent threads about my experience with Honda transmissions don't get anywhere near as heated, though I would say that problem is just as serious, if not moreso than any of GM's problems in recent years. There just isn't the emotional attachment there it seems.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL



My recent threads about my experience with Honda transmissions don't get anywhere near as heated, though I would say that problem is just as serious, if not moreso than any of GM's problems in recent years.

There just isn't the emotional attachment there it seems.


Probably because the GM customer that bought these cars also by way of their taxes helped to bail them out so they could profit another day.


Nice way to "pay back" that bailout!