[jackr67]

I bought my Black 2010 Camaro SS new, with 8 miles, in November of 2009 from John Miles Chevrolet in Conyers, GA. It is now July of 2010, and I have paint cracking and peeling all around the car. Marty Claypool, the Regional Representative for GM in Georgia, has looked at it twice and decided that GM will not repair the car. He has offered me a token cash settlement – less than half the cost estimates I’ve received from independent shops to perform the work – to have the car repainted myself, with the stipulation that no GM dealership do the work and that my warranty would be voided. This is entirely unacceptable.




The spots pictured are on the roof and trunk lid of the car; however there are dozens of spots like these as well as significant amounts of “trash” in the paint all over the car. Marty Claypool actually accused me of “parking under an acid truck”.

As a part of my research, PPG was kind enough to send a representative to my home to measure the thickness of my Camaro’s paint with a digital gauge. A typical factory paint job will be between 3.5 and 6.0 mils, with variation of no more than 0.5 mils all around the car. He took 60 individual readings with results between 6.7 and 9.5 mils. This is about twice what would be expected, and suggests that part (or all) of the car may have been painted more than once. It was his opinion that the observed variations in thickness would not be consistent with a robot factory paint job.

For clarity, I created a map of the paint thickness around the car. Notice the roof, which has 2.8mils of variation across the surface. Notice too that each side of the trunk lid was painted separately, resulting in overlap in the center – rather than in one side to side pass.

Furthermore, the PPG representative pointed out what appears to be overspray beneath the clear coat on the rear passenger quarter panel. Again, this would not be typical of a robot factory paint job.

Since my purchase, the Camaro has been washed fully and by hand every two weeks, with spot-washing in between for any bird or bug spots. It has also been hand waxed monthly. It parks among five other late model and classic cars, all of which are used regularly and experience the same general environmental and driving conditions. None of these vehicles shows any signs of issues seen on the Camaro.

As GM will not repair the paint, I am forced to use the Lemon Law. In Georgia, that involves offering GM a “Final Opportunity to Repair” which I have done, and which they declined. Then, I must send them a “Request to Repurchase or Replace” which I have done, and which they also declined. Following that, there is an arbitration process run by the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs that mediates – I have just requested arbitration from the state, and am waiting to hear back. The OCA here in Georgia has been very helpful, and I have consulted with them at each step to ensure their support, and the strength of my case. Still, having GM put me through this has been an enormous hassle and expense.

If you are considering purchasing a Camaro, I encourage you to wait. In the past ten years, I have purchased five new cars and have never been treated this poorly. The Camaro is an awesome car, and is well designed and generally well built – however, GM has not honored its warranty obligations to me. GM has done everything it can to avoid taking responsibility for problems in my car, and my experience with a GM vehicle has been miserable.

My GM case number: 71-841168110
My GM case representative: (866) 790-5700x41480



I’ve included a summary of my case below:

1. 11/12/2009. I purchased the vehicle new from John Miles Chevrolet in Conyers, GA with 8 miles showing.
2. 11/24/2009. Brought vehicle to John Miles at 813 miles for “gurgling” noise within dashboard, malfunctioning windows, burning smell and inspection of “trash” in paint by service manager. No loaner is provided. Vehicle returned 11/24/2009.
3. 12/23/2009. Brought the vehicle to John Miles for follow-up inspection of “trash” in the paint. Repair of these areas was scheduled for January. Vehicle is also repaired for “gurgle” per TAC and inspected for clunking in the front suspension when reversing. After a two hour wait, a Hyundai Accent is provided as a loaner. Vehicle returned 12/31/2009.
4. At the recommendation of service manager at John Miles, scheduled paint repairs were cancelled – in his opinion, work performed would be worse than what was already on the car.
5. 4/26/2010. Brought the vehicle to Rick Hendrick Chevrolet in Duluth, GA for inspection of “trash”, excessive paint chipping and etching patterns in paint. Mark Henderson (service manager) personally inspects and concludes that observed chipping and etching is abnormal, and we agree to watch the situation and take action should it get any worse. Vehicle is also repaired for low air conditioning refrigerant levels and poor A/C performance. No loaner is provided. Vehicle returned 4/26/2010.
6. Paint begins to crack and blister on multiple panels; large chips are observed on the roof.
7. 5/17/2010. Brought the vehicle to Rick Hendrick at the request of Mark so that Marty Claypool, regional GM representative, may inspect. Vehicle air conditioning performance is still poor. Marty “does not see” any cracking of the paint. No loaner is provided. Vehicle returned 5/21/2010. While at Rick Hendrick, both passenger wheels are curbed by dealership.
8. 5/21/2010. Created case #71-832593974 with General Motors. Ariel is my representative. Requested escalation.
9. 5/25/2010. Ariel calls back, tells me Marty considered it again, and still will do nothing. I ask again for escalation.
10. 5/27/2010. Ariel calls, tells me she’s escalating the case and will call back on 5/28/2010.
11. 6/07/2010. Having not heard from Ariel, I call and leave her a message.
12. 6/10/2010. Having still not heard from Ariel, I call and leave another message.
13. 6/17/2010. Having still not heard from Ariel, I call and leave yet another message.
14. 6/17/2010. I call the GM line and get Angela. She informs me the case is closed and that GM will not repair the defective paint. I inform that I plan to pursue the Lemon Law.
15. 6/17/2010. “Final Opportunity to Repair” sent to GM in accordance with the Georgia Lemon Law.
16. 6/18/2010. Ariel calls to tell me the case has been closed.
17. 6/18/2010. Mark and Marty call and request a re-inspection on 6/21/2010.
18. 6/21/2010. Brought the vehicle to Rick Hendrick for Marty Claypool to re-inspect. Mark produces signed vehicle check-in paperwork from 5/17/2010 on which is noted (in different color pen and handwriting) that wheels were curbed at the time when I dropped the car off on 5/17/2010. After some argument, he admits to having added that note after the fact. Commits to repair the wheels. Loaner is provided. Vehicle returned 6/24/2010.
19. 6/21/2010. Sonia from GM calls with a new case number #71-841168110, identify the service visit of 6/21/2010 as their “final opportunity to repair” under the Georgia Lemon Law.
20. 6/23/2010. Sonia called, she cannot reach the dealership or Marty – wants to know if I have heard anything? She commits to call back on 6/25/2010 to discuss outcome of inspection.
21. 6/23/2010. Marty this time does see cracking in the paint and suggests I “parked it under an acid truck”. In his opinion, entire car will need to be repainted and this is not a manufacturing defect. He is “very reluctant to offer anything at all”. Does offer a total of $3,500 as a settlement for repaint of car and repair of wheels – with stipulation that vehicle warranty is voided and I release GM from arbitration, lemon law and buyback. Also stipulates that no GM body shop will repaint the car.
22. 6/24/2010. Vehicle inspected by Decatur Paint and Body
23. 6/25/2010. Vehicle inspected by Kelly Auto Body
24. 6/26/2010. Vehicle inspected by Sentry Auto Body
25. 6/28/2010. PPG sends their regional expert to perform a visual inspection of the vehicle.
26. 6/29/2010. PPG sends their regional expert to my home with a digital paint thickness meter. More than 60 readings are taken, all of which are individually photographically documented and then placed on a flat diagram of the vehicle (attached). Photos of each reading physically being taken are available as well.
a. Readings are between 6.7mils and 9.5mils, with significant variance of 2.8mils – equivalent almost to a full paint job – across the roof.
b. Overspray seen over several square feet of the rear passenger quarter panel.
c. Overlapping bands seen in spray pattern on trunk, with high points along the center of the surface.
d. Four significant pieces of trash observed in upper/roof portion of the vehicle alone.
27. 7/14/2010. Still have not heard from Sonia.