GM not honoring my Camaro paint warranty; paint cracking and peeling all over the car

[Inspector 17]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

GM has a known paint issue, in the case of this thread he can't get info from GM on the cars history, which they should provide for him since he bought it and they made it... IMO they should be more helpful.

This thread isn't about a paint issue per se. It is about the OP's concern about GM not providing a satisfactory customer service response. My point is that in this thread the OP made no mention to the previous damage to the car. My point is just that we are all so quick to jump on GM and say they did something wrong when only hearing one side of the story.

Originally Posted by Berean

The only way that's relevant is if the OP then went out and had his entire car repainted as a result.

Or tried to repair the chips and somehow damaged the paint.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by camaropete

Or tried to repair the chips and somehow damaged the paint.

The whole car has essentially a second coat of paint, not just in certain areas.

[jackr67]

Camaropete – my first service visit to John Miles Chevrolet concerning defects in my paint was on 11/24/2009. This was two weeks after I bought the car.

A month *after* that service visit, on 12/20/2009, the gills and the area behind the front wheels of my Camaro got chipped as I drove to Dahlonegha. The DOT had put down some cat sand, which – as I noted in the thread – I crept over at a very low speed. The roads I traveled were all paved, and at the time I felt that this very normal use should not have caused the chipping I experienced. In fact, I was traveling with a friend in a Honda Accord, which drove the same roads with me at the same speeds, and which shows none of this kind of chipping. The thread shows detailed pictures of all the chipping that occurred on that day, all of which is in the area directly behind the front wheel, and on the rear gills.

As I told Marty Claypool, while I’m not happy about the excessive chipping in the gills and behind the front wheels, many Camaro owners are having those problems – they are not unique to me. Since this specific kind of chipping is obviously a much larger problem, I’m willing to let someone else fight for warranty action here.

I have been very clear, both with Marty and in this thread that my specific areas of concern are the spots on my car where the paint is cracking, etching and peeling. These areas are primarily on the roof, and on the trunk of the car. This problem *is* unique to my car, and I believe is caused by defects in the paint. True, I have the same chipping that many other Camaro5 members report, but that’s not the subject of my beef with GM.

The areas of the car that were chipped on 12/20/2009 are still just as chipped as they were when those pictures are then. No attempts to repair the chips have been made. I’d be happy to take pictures of those areas if that would help ease your mind. Furthermore, the areas where trash was noted in the paint on my 11/24/2009 service visit are all still there.

To your statement that I “made no mention” of the damage – the thread here on Camaro5 wasn’t exactly hidden from view …

[robsls3]

Man I feel for you. I had to do the same thing for my 06 GTO with them for the M6 always popping out of 1st and 2nd gear. Also all stitching coming out of my seats (yeah all my seats). Master tech, service manager drove it and it did it to them several times but the regional rep would not replace the trans or the seats. After 8 trips to the dealer and my lawyer calling 4 times they ended my smartbuy early and took it back. Didnt care as I didnt want the car anymore.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Berean

The whole car has essentially a second coat of paint, not just in certain areas.

That is not what the paint depth gauge says...


The test says the the paint is uneven throughout the car.

This is getting ridiculous.

I don't know who's at fault.

But here are some things that stand out.

One: if GM repainted the car they would have done the entire car or entire panels and the paint would be even over the car or over the panel..

Two: if for whatever reason the dealer repainted the car they would have painted the entire car or entire panels.

three: If the car's paint was damaged due to circumstances outside of normal warranty coverage... The owner is responsible to fix it.

Now, like Pete said... We only get one side of the story. it's not fair to throw the dealer or GM under the bus.

I, in general, am not a fan of the way dealers do business. But the Dealer is the middle man between the car owner and GM... If the dealer isn't willing to cooperate then the owner is left with the process laid out in Pete's escalation thread...

Once that process is over, if the owner isn't satisfied, then they have to either make an insurance claim or a legal one...

As much sway as Camaro5 can have at times... we are not gonna influence what GM or a dealer does....

And as much as I hate to admit it... GM doesn't owe us an answer... I wish they would chime in at times but we are only a sampling of one model of one brand of a global company...

people are allowed to make their case and even make accusations. But remember, in all situations like this, one side of the story is not the whole story.

FWIW.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

That is not what the paint depth gauge says...


The test says the the paint is uneven throughout the car.

This is getting ridiculous.

This is what the OP said about the paint testing:

"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."

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Berean

This is what the OP said about the paint testing:

"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."

again, we don't know where it is uneven... I'm not calling the owner a liar.

but we don't have all the information...

Lets take the hood of the car.. One complete panel or piece. if half of the hood has more paint than the other half, it is reasonable to assume the dealer nor GM did it. No reputable paint shop paints half of a complete panel unless it's a touch up and then they lay down very little paint, in fact it will most likely have less paint as part of the paint correction process... we are talking tenths of mils...

Now on the other hand if a panel does have varying amounts of paint then that raises all kinds of questions... Did the car owner try and have a cheap repair done and is now trying to pawn it off on GM....

OOORRRR....

did the dealer try and hide a crappy paint repair by doing it half assed...

I don't know and nor will we know.

But I'm not ever going to take one side of the story as the whole truth.

It isn't responsible. There is MORE to this story.

That's all I'm saying.

[jackr67]

If there is more here, I'd love to know what it is.

One quick point: the hood is aluminum and the digital meter used by the PPG representative could not get a thickness reading from it - same as with the plastic bumpers.

Let's talk about the roof. The density of readings on my diagram provides a fairly clear picture of the inconsistencies, but let's look at the actual measurements taken:
















Some patches appear to hover around 7.5mils. Overall, the roof ranges by more than 2.5mils in thickness.

GTA - you suggested that perhaps only part of individual panels may have received paint work. The PPG representative was particularly interested in the trunk, as he felt it presented clear evidence of a "hand" paint job. Let's work from the passenger to the driver side of the car (best I can):








Notice how it's light at the edges, then gets thick in the middle, then get's light at the edges again? The entire panel is twice as thick as it should be, no question there - but what about that pattern? Is that what a robot at the factory would do?

In contrast, we used the same meter to take readings of my Nissan Pathfinder, which I also bought new and which has had no paint work of any kind:





Notice that the readings are between 3.3 and 3.7mils around the entire car. In the PPG rep's oninion, this is typical of a factory paint job. We then went and took readings on *his* company vehicle, which also returned the same consistent types of readings.

I feel like there are some points on which we can all agree:
1) The entire car was painted at the factory
2) PPG took readings of paint thickness, which are probably accurate
3) The paint varies in thickness around the whole car by more than is typical of a factory paint job
4) The paint is more than twice as thick as a factory paint job should be
5) All or most of the car has had paint added to it since it was painted at the factory

I feel like the question on which we disagree (Pete, GTA) is on where that work was done. I believe the evidence I've presented clearly shows it happened in the first 8 miles of this car's life.

[SS Mike]

Originally Posted by jackr67

Notice that the readings are between 3.3 and 3.7mils around the entire car. In the PPG rep's oninion, this is typical of a factory paint job. We then went and took readings on *his* company vehicle, which also returned the same consistent types of readings.

I feel like there are some points on which we can all agree:
1) The entire car was painted at the factory
2) PPG took readings of paint thickness, which are probably accurate
3) The paint varies in thickness around the whole car by more than is typical of a factory paint job
4) The paint is more than twice as thick as a factory paint job should be
5) All or most of the car has had paint added to it since it was painted at the factory

I feel like the question on which we disagree (Pete, GTA) is on where that work was done. I believe the evidence I've presented clearly shows it happened in the first 8 miles of this car's life.

That's crazy! I completely agree with your points above. I'm sure the car was painted at the factory (originally, with a robot), and I truly believe it was painted again after that. The issue now is tracking the car down from when it left the factory, and got into your driveway. I wish you the best of luck and I'm sorry that you have to go through this.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by jackr67

If there is more here, I'd love to know what it is.

One quick point: the hood is aluminum and the digital meter used by the PPG representative could not get a thickness reading from it - same as with the plastic bumpers.

Let's talk about the roof. The density of readings on my diagram provides a fairly clear picture of the inconsistencies, but let's look at the actual measurements taken:
















Some patches appear to hover around 7.5mils. Overall, the roof ranges by more than 2.5mils in thickness.

GTA - you suggested that perhaps only part of individual panels may have received paint work. The PPG representative was particularly interested in the trunk, as he felt it presented clear evidence of a "hand" paint job. Let's work from the passenger to the driver side of the car (best I can):








Notice how it's light at the edges, then gets thick in the middle, then get's light at the edges again? The entire panel is twice as thick as it should be, no question there - but what about that pattern? Is that what a robot at the factory would do?

In contrast, we used the same meter to take readings of my Nissan Pathfinder, which I also bought new and which has had no paint work of any kind:





Notice that the readings are between 3.3 and 3.7mils around the entire car. In the PPG rep's oninion, this is typical of a factory paint job. We then went and took readings on *his* company vehicle, which also returned the same consistent types of readings.

I feel like there are some points on which we can all agree:
1) The entire car was painted at the factory
2) PPG took readings of paint thickness, which are probably accurate
3) The paint varies in thickness around the whole car by more than is typical of a factory paint job
4) The paint is more than twice as thick as a factory paint job should be
5) All or most of the car has had paint added to it since it was painted at the factory

I feel like the question on which we disagree (Pete, GTA) is on where that work was done. I believe the evidence I've presented clearly shows it happened in the first 8 miles of this car's life.

I'm not saying you don't have a case. I'm just saying you can't prove to us anything regarding how your car ended up with the paint problem it has. dealer or otherwise.

And I'm sorry, as compelling as your case is, I'm not going to take your side only and pass judgement on the dealer...

You have illustrated your position quite effectively and if you are telling the truth and the dealer is hiding something then you absolutely deserve to be compensated.

But I'm not going to say that the dealer is at fault. And trying to get GM to fix what a dealer did is not an option. Even if GM agrees with you. All they will do is make the dealer fix it right.

When will we as consumers understand the GM is not supposed to be the front line customer service. That is the dealers job. Now I agree that sucks for us. But in the end that is how the system is designed...

So, follow the escalation procedure, which it looks like you have, Get an answer from that process then decide what is next. Insurance or Legal action?

In the end this is just another thread bashing another dealer who May have done something underhanded...

So, I guess we do agree, I am not willing to throttle the dealer, without their side of the story. It is conceivable that it isn't the dealer's fault.

We have to take you at your word. Base on what you have posted here, I would lean to the dealer being at fault..... But There is no proof of that.

The only proof we have is your car has a crappy paint job and it most likely didn't happen at the factory.

Rehashing this over and over on camaro5 is doing very little to resolve this problem.


And there is nothing more here... Just you and me bickering on the interwebz

[TooCool5]

Originally Posted by Berean

Sounds like the dealer may have done something to the car and repainted it. Dealers do this all the time and are usually not required to disclose it unless it reaches a certain dollar amount.

I'd look into the history of the car with the dealer. They may end up being liable.

Someone has to have records of the repaint of your car.
Either GM at the factory or the dealer should. You should Subpoena all the cars history from the factory. Also any quality holds they may have had on it.
IMO it may be less stress to just trade it in if they are going to put you through years of litigation.

[GaryTucker]

Quite a bit can happen in 8 miles...and that's even if the car had 6 miles on it when it left the factory. I've seen cars totalled by careless transporters either when they were loaded or when the came off the truck. All it takes is a leaky brake line above your car on the transporter and you have instant paint removal when it is washed.

I still say that this does not look like something the factory would do as it is too sloppy even for someone in the booth at the factory manually doing touch up. There is too much paint on this car for the factory have messed with it.

I've seen GM yank engines (happened on the Impala/Caprice line back before 1996). A coating line came loose from a sprayer and doused the engine bays of a bunch of Caprice/Impala vehicles. Instead of cleaning the engines, they were pulled and donated to GM ASEP programs and clean engines were installed...It was just cheaper to do. The amount of paint work you're seeing would have probably meant your car went to the scrap pile or an ASEP program versus to a customer.

[Cam#7]

It's a wonder to me that more cars are not damaged in the car carriers. You can see how little clearance there is; maybe this car wasn't tied down properly.

[jackr67]

My intent here is to ensure I'm being reasonable, and to build as complete a picture as possible.

I want to make sure that the evidence I've collected is sound and complete. I want to be sure I'm interpreting the evidence in as reasonable and conservative a manner as possible. I want to be doubly sure that I am arriving at reasonable conclusions, and asking for reasonable things from GM.

I don't want to be perceived as trying to bicker, or create conflict. I'm here so that if I've missed something, or jumped to an incorrect conclusion - I find out among friends, and not at arbitration across the table from a bank of GM attorneys.

I appreciate everyone's help - especially those folks who disagree with me. If there's a fault in my logic or the conclusions I've reached, let's find it.

It seems there is majority consensus around the conclusion that some paint work was done to the car after its initial robot paint job. Are there any remaining reasons why that conclusion might be inaccurate?

Is there any way we can get at the history of my car's first 8 miles?

I have the "PDI" paperwork from John Miles which shows an "Invoice Date" of 10/30/2009 and 8 miles on the odometer. It shows a PDI, Vehicle Check-in and Nitrogen into the tires - nothing out of the ordinary. I've already asked John Miles to look up my vehicle's Build Date but have not yet heard back.