GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77I0Z820110819

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't GM STILL make Chevrolet? So the GM that made the new Chevrolet that sits in the dealer showroom down the street today ALSO made the Chevrolet that someone bought back in 2007 or 2008, right?

 

WOW!!
What a bunch of bull.
I'm glad you posted this, I was looking at an '08 Impala, I will now stop looking.

 

So does that mean franchise dealers of the "NEW GM" are not allowed to sell used vehicles still covered by the factory warranty manufactured by the "Old GM"???? LOL


My head is spinning!!!

 

This is a lame excuse - GM was GM and still is GM. They are just hoping for that golden parachute to shield them from all the past.
You know these big companies are getting WAY too big for their britches and are finding a way to really screw customers and get away with it. GM isn't the only one doing such tactics - there are many well known companies that shouldearn the golden poo awards... I am avoiding the big compainies whenever and wherever I can.

 

Govermnt motors is dead and gone as far as I am concerned.

 

This is a great point. GM's action essentially says that any car it made prior to the bankruptcy is now an orphan with no manufacturer to stand behind it. According to the article, GM will still honor the warranty on any car it sold, but after that, sorry, we didn't build it.

This will reduce the value of those cars in the used car market.

 

This is truly shady as hell.
For them to even CONSIDER doing this kills my interest as a customer completely in the future.

To say they are not responsible for their old designs and manufacturing is complete and utter BS.
If the courts allow them to get away with this, GM is forever off my list.
I've been GM loyal since I was a teenager too.

That would imply any safety recalls found later down the road they will COMPLETELY deny liability for.
That means if 800,000 pre-GM bankruptcy cars blow up for whatever reason, they will say "Sorry, not our problem ??"

Bye Bye GM, this will be your nail in the coffin.

 

Thats total BS, and about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Whats next, trying to get out of the original factory warranties on cars built before the bankruptcy too. If GM starts pulling this kind of crap, nobody's going buy their cars.

 

I do recall Obama promising that GM would still stand behind all its warranties. Would he lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVezWBmDp7U

 

With his "obligations" to the unions, he couldn't very well let GM go under as it should have, now could he?

As long as there is any option whatsoever, I will not own another modern GM vehicle.

 

You have to read the Reuters article again. It says that GM WILL honor the warranties of the cars it sold prior to bankruptcy.

Here's a direct quote from the article:

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

Apparently, the flaw in the Impala was a "design choice" by the old GM that the new GM is not responsible for.

To me, it's nonsense, but that's their argument, and, according to the article, the new GM was apparently successful in using this argument in a case involving their On-Star system:

GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.

 

Well shet mah mouf and call me corn pone!

What happened to that "It's all GM" line they've been feeding us the last twenty years trying to justify what they did to Oldsmobile and Pontiac, and to convince us Chevrolets were the equal of those carlines? Are they now saying that GM was never GM?

Either it is GM, or it's not GM. But it's typical of corporate lawyers to try and weasel their employers out of any liability or responsibility.

They lost me as a new car customer some 25 years ago. Now they have lost me as a used car customer. The hell with them. Let 'em go down in flames. I own stock in neither GM nor its suppliers, my job is not dependent on them, and don't see where their destruction would really affect me one way or another.

Yup. Put the unions out of work and watch the revolution start. Then watch the politicians run for cover as they burn DC down.

 

When I bought my '07 Saturn Aura this year, I inquired about the warranty: 3/36,000k for the interior, general items on the car, 5 year rust through warranty, and 5/100,000k on the engine and drivetrain. Plus in the online ad for the the car, the dealer stated, lifetime engine replacement, which I printed and saved with the paperwork.

 

In England we have the "sale of goods" law.
Basically it requires that goods sold, that is anything bought from a retailer, be fit for purpose and of merchantable quality.
In the case of cars it means they should work properly and not persistently break down.
The responsibility lies with the retailer, car dealerships are no exeption and all "small print" getout clauses are overidden by this law.
Don't your "Lemon laws" work in a similar way?

Roger.

 

So then if I steal "old" GM's designs, like say the LS series v8, new GM can't sue me because they were not responsible for it? Cool double standard they'd apply there.

Everyone paying off their new car loans from pre 2009 era should IMMEDIATELY stop paying them off because you owe it to "old GM".

The company was STOLEN from its owners and paid for by us with our tax dollars, then GIVEN to the union. After all that this is how they thank us. Who the hell did the money spent to purchase it go to anyways?

This and I'm still not over the ad they would not pull that claimed they paid off the TARP money, but lo and behold... Was paid off with other TARP money!

GM no longer exists to manufacture cars, but only to sustain pensions and benefits to union employees.

F*ck GM, F*ck Chrysler, if anything ever possesses me to buy a car newer than 1975 it'll be a damn Ford... And what has this country come to where THAT is the most acceptable option?!

 

That's why I switched to Honda 10+ years ago for my daily drivers! Ive been a Honda Tech for almost 10 years they are not perfect but I have seen them warranty engines and transmissions with over 150.000 miles and the vehicles were 6,7+ years old. Ask Gm,Ford and Chrysler to warranty an engine/trany a day or mile after the warranty is up! Good luck!

 

Normally, you wouldn't be getting a loan directly from GM. You get it from a financial institution, who then owns your debt. You pay them, not GM. So you can't get off the hook on payments. Sorry. Sounds good though.

 

^ He beat me to it. Agreed.

It all becomes a situation where you have to go up against a ginormous companies TEAM of highly
trained and very expensive lawyers, just like THIS instance.

My interpretation of the article is that there's an obvious flaw in the GM design of the Impala that's
warranting a TSB or a recall. GM is trying to duck responsibility for it saying it's "Old GM's" fault.

There's no such thing. GM is still GM, they just changed some management. This is a team of lawyers
trying to deflect responsibility. The problem here is you need money to fight for what's right
here in America. Yes, that also includes our Justice system for criminal accusations.

So you'd have to hire a team of lawyers to get what's owed to the consumers.

 

Wow. Thats just wrong beyond belief. And here I was hoping that GM would turn it around and become a succesful company again. Now I know why I still drive my 91 chevy truck as my daily driver and have no desire for something new.

 

No. Lemon laws are designed to protect the buyer of a brand new car from an inordinate number of repairs on that car within a relatively short time frame after taking delivery (for example, five repairs within the first month of ownership). These laws are not designed to take the place of a warranty or of a recall, should a company decide to have one or should a federal agency order a company to recall cars that are suffering from a defect.

In the case of the Impala, this problem would normally be handled by a recall if the company determined that enough of the Impalas made had that problem, especially if the defect compromised safety. It appears that GM is attempting to get out of having to recall the cars by arguing that it was a different company that made them.

 

After seeing the inordinate number of issues we have had with company vehicles of GM parentage, I would not buy a GM product for that reason alone. Couple that with the way I have been treated by GM (specifically Chevy) salesmen while looking at vehicles, the wormy way Government Motors has cheated the taxpayers, now this.........My decision to buy a Ford F 150 Supercrew with the Ecoboost engine looks better everyday. I love my Olds.....and most pre 73 GM vehicles, but what that company has become is truly sad.

 

Did you really just ask that............

 

Better that 50% of the new vehicles sold by GM dealerships are financed through GMAC.......

 

Yes, but GMAC is not your father's GMAC. It's now owned by something called Ally Financial, of which GM has a minor stake. GM has not held majority ownership of GMAC since 2006. It's apparently, at the moment, owned mostly (73.8%) by the U.S. Treasury.

If you borrow for your car through GMAC today, you are not borrowing from GM. You are borrowing from the U.S. Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial

 

To keep it polite,
He reminds me of Joe Isuzu.

 

True GM unloaded GMAC because it was a major liability and played a major part in bringing dowm GM as a whole. Then GMAC morphed into a bank so it would eligible for tarp money and borrowing from the feds discount window. It did become Ally bank which is an internet bank only. Another liability to the taxpayers.

GM is a waste and should become extinct.

 

That's truly messed up......
I wasn't aware the US Treasury holds 73% of the company now.
Looking at the 170 billion in loss of assets and $20.4 Billion lost in equity......
I'm trying to figure out WTF the US Treasury was thinking investing $16+ billion of our money into this.