GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: 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


Alot of people seem to forget that both Honda and Toyota received fairly large "bailouts" from the Japanese government- but because they aren't American, people ignore it.

 

[urchin]

I can't find anything that indicates that Honda got any sort of bailout, while it seems that Toyota got loans.

Neither of these are the same as a "bailout".

Bottom line is that the US taxpayer gave GM and Chrylser a life preserver and they never have to pay it entirely back. Toyota and Honda received no such deal.

 

[FL_Rob]

Why haven't I seen (in the last 20 years), vehicles from ANY Manufacturer that can last 20 Years? ...Like mine.???

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Alot of people seem to forget that both Honda and Toyota received fairly large "bailouts" from the Japanese government- but because they aren't American, people ignore it.


And this has "what" to do with this thread ?

Honda (and now Toyota) aren't denying warranty due to their now bankrupt status, so what do they have to do with the thread ?

Except that you want to keep adding strawmen

 

[pbm]

I am not a GM basher even though the bailout fiasco left a bad taste in my mouth. I do believe this is a very bad PR move that will come back to bite GM in the butt just as refusing to fix their bad IM gasket design in the 3.1 and 3.4 did.

I won't say GM makes inferior cars (comparing to Ford) but I really believe that GM is a POORLY MANAGED company (again compared to Ford).

 

[KrisZ]

Someone at GM must be going, SWEEEET!!!!.
Public thinks the "loans" are paid back, losses from the old GM are carried over as tax credits, and now they don't have to honor their warranties, what else can a corporation ask for?

 

[Hokiefyd]

I read this story this weekend as well.

I think the question is valid. If "new" GM is absolved from the "old" GM for repairs like this, where is the line drawn with a new car warranty (say a 5 year powertrain warranty) and safety recalls? It's not uncommon for a safety recall to pop up 4 or 5 or 6 years down the road. Is the "new" GM obligated to recall a 2005 model produced by the "old" GM?

I understand and accept the explanation given in response to the suit. Agree or disagree, I understand where they're coming from. But I don't understand where the line of responsibility is drawn in regard to other things, like warranties that may still exist or safety recalls that may crop up.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
.... where is the line drawn with a new car warranty (say a 5 year powertrain warranty) and safety recalls?


You would have to dig out the bankruptcy plan, it will be spelled out there in very fine detail. Probably anyone with a Pacer account can get it; I have one, but I'm really not that interested in it.

A WAG would be that the new corp assumed liability for warranty claims going forward, but no obligation to redesign old designs that may be flawed.

Expecting ANY litigant to voluntarily waive an absolute defense to a class action lawsuit is unrealistic. The company may ultimately undertake a redesign / repair of this flawed part, but on their terms, not a District Court's terms. But it does make a good opportunity to bash, if that is one's inclination, which it seems to be for many.

I worry about a lot of things - the warranty status on three Pontiacs isn't one of them.

How'd the class action lawsuit against Nissan turn out for their 350Z alignment problems? IIRC,there were three or four years of 350Z production that would chew up front tires almost immediately. One of my clients was unfortunate enough to own one of those cars.

 

[A_Harman]

There's still a lot of anger in America about GM turning into "Government Motors". Now it seems as if they're buying into the entitlement mentality of being a special protected class that can run away from their failures. If they want to survive as a real company, they should honor the warranties of the "old" GM to build goodwill with their customers. Otherwise, they'll be back for another feed at the public trough in a few years.

 

[Silver02ex]

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.


Huh??? I got a recall notice this year from Honda for my air bags. A couple years ago Nissan sent out noticed for the 05 -06 Pathfinder for the gas tank sensor. Toyota fixed the gas pedal issue. The don't give out the same lame excuse like GM did. Show me where Honda, Nissan, or Toyota did deny work on a car because it's the "old" company.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Someone at GM must be going, SWEEEET!!!!.
Public thinks the "loans" are paid back, losses from the old GM are carried over as tax credits, and now they don't have to honor their warranties, what else can a corporation ask for?

Originally Posted By: urchin
I can't find anything that indicates that Honda got any sort of bailout, while it seems that Toyota got loans.

Neither of these are the same as a "bailout".

Bottom line is that the US taxpayer gave GM and Chrylser a life preserver and they never have to pay it entirely back. Toyota and Honda received no such deal.
Originally Posted By: 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!

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Win


Expecting ANY litigant to voluntarily waive an absolute defense to a class action lawsuit is unrealistic. The company may ultimately undertake a redesign / repair of this flawed part, but on their terms, not a District Court's terms. But it does make a good opportunity to bash, if that is one's inclination, which it seems to be for many.

I worry about a lot of things - the warranty status on three Pontiacs isn't one of them.



+1

Thats the way I see it.

 

[urchin]

I like how the GM apologists here keep bring up the technical legalities here.

You know in the court of law they hold all the weight.

BUT IN THE COURT OF THE CONSUMER AND PUBLIC OPINION THOSE LEGALITIES DON'T MEAN SQUAT.

GM is going have one heck of a black eye in the eyes of current customers and they are going to make sure that anyone they know doesn't by a GM product if they can help it.

GM don't do it to yourselves again...you need to pull the ethical head out of your butt and make good will repairs to those that request them if you don't want to ruin the NEW GM.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Not really.

If you re read what Win said, he said that GM may umtimately make these repairs but under their terms and not the Courts terms. I hope they see the light and take this path as well. Defending against lawsuit demands certain actions. Pleadings that exagerate your position are the norm.

If you re read my original post, I'm not apologizing for GM at all. I'm hopefull that the repairs will get done, and clearly said this was a mistake and a PR nightmare for GM.

 

[Win]

I think they should as well on a car that recent.

But I don't run their company, and don't know the particulars of their reorganization plan.

I do know it's not very realistic to expect any litigant to turn a potential absolute defense into a potential open ended liability. That's not just a bad legal plan, it's a bad business plan.

It may cause them some PR damage, and that may or may not turn into lost sales. I'm pretty sure most of the people that are here feigning outrage were not potential customers to begin with.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: Win

It may cause them some PR damage, and that may or may not turn into lost sales. I'm pretty sure most of the people that are here feigning outrage were not potential customers to begin with.



Here I am.

I was considering a Cruze until I saw this issue come up about the Impalas on the news.

I will be reconsidering even though I think the Cruze is a great product. The attitude of GM with regards to this issue is a bit unsettling to say the least.

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Defending against lawsuit demands certain actions. Pleadings that exagerate your position are the norm.If you re read my original post, I'm not apologizing for GM at all. I'm hopefull that the repairs will get done, and clearly said this was a mistake and a PR nightmare for GM.

But why did it have to come to the lawsuit in the first place???? Why couldn't GM have fixed cars at the dealerships back when customers complained? Why deny repairs under warranty only to be sued later and have to assume such a ridiculous, PR-loosing stance?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Nick R


Alot of people seem to forget that both Honda and Toyota received fairly large "bailouts" from the Japanese government- but because they aren't American, people ignore it.


They've gotten plenty of assistance from domestic taxpayers. The amount of subsidies that are given to automakers and other manufacturing concerns, foreign and domestic, to locate assembly plants is sickening.

Especially if you are just an ordinary businessman that never got anything but big tax bills, runarounds, and the shaft from government.

These subsidies may not be bailouts, but they are certainly bail forwards. To think that GM is the only automaker that has its hand in the taxpayer's pocket is pretty naive and uninformed.

But again, this thread is more about bashing than anything else.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
Why couldn't GM have fixed cars at the dealerships back when customers complained? Why deny repairs under warranty only to be sued later and have to assume such a ridiculous, PR-loosing stance?


Well, how do you know that they haven't fixed many of them, or for that matter, virtually all of them (save Drew99GT's parents, of course)?

It only takes ONE person to file a lawsuit seeking class certification for an entire class of something that is claimed to be affected. ONE person.

I don't know whether or not it is a whole bunch of disgruntled Impala owners, or a relative handful. No facts have been presented in this regard.

 

[Tempest]

So the bankruptcy protects them from repairs but the IRS lets them keep all the tax breaks from their pre-bankruptcy days. It's good to be owned by the government!