New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by PercyJWellingtonIII

If GM doesn't make this right and quick, this may be my last GM car. Ford here I come.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site, I'd own a Camaro 2SS/RS and have a ZL1 on order right now.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site, I'd own a Camaro 2SS/RS and have a ZL1 on order right now.

It's not just this site, Fen...issuing ultimatums with very little (or none) facts seems to be a trend...

By the way...why are some of us taking this "news" (notice I used quotes...) so personally? It's really none of our business in the first place, but we're going to waste our energy getting upset over it?

[Fightinfire921]

I would still buy a new Z/28.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

Hence my comment in one of these threads that the one we should be really scared of is Reuters, lots of misleading journalism there. Although I do admit if there is really a problem GM should fix it, warranty or not.

If there is a real safety problem, it should be fixed. The thing that is really bugging me—it shocks me that no one in this thread noticed—that the tires are burning out at 6k miles. How does one go 6k miles or less in 4 years of driving?

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

How about we try and dig a little deeper before going crazy over nothing, hmmmm?



Most importantly (to me anyways...), is the car even under warranty?? And is the problem even legitimate? Lots of people can sue over nothing...one of the hallmarks of our society...

Originally Posted by PercyJWellingtonIII

If GM doesn't make this right and quick, this may be my last GM car. Ford here I come.

Don't blame GM for a poorly written article. You, and so many of our members, are right to side with the customer. At the same time, we have not properly held accountable the journalist. Is this person any less required to provide evidence than a member claiming a new, fast quarter mile time? I expect journalists to back up this story and prove the problem. For that reason, I don't consider many of the so-called journalists in our media actually journalists.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site, I'd own a Camaro 2SS/RS and have a ZL1 on order right now.

[8cd03gro]

I don't know why you are so aggravated with the journalist. . . all he did was report quotes/statements from related parties or parties with experience in related areas. What does the journalist have to be held accountable for? Maybe you feel one can't fully take a side in the lawsuit without more information, but it's not like the journalist gave any opinion or assessments.

[1o.f00t.570rk]

Every company has a lot of scumbags working for it, trying to pinch pennies. I am often surprised at how anything gets done - so often it seems in spite of all the crap that has to be dealt with and the people who just want to push product.

I would agree with earlier posts regarding the lack of thorough information detailing the problem. Until we start seeing deaths from this like with the Pinto...I don't see any big reason to jump ship.

I would like to see the warranties upheld, but also more information on what's the root cause in every case before any significant decisions are made.

[el ess A]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

By the way...why are some of us taking this "news" (notice I used quotes...) so personally? It's really none of our business in the first place, but we're going to waste our energy getting upset over it?

It may not affect you, true. Yet, anyway. But if it did happen to you and your car, would you be ok with it? What if they said that any 2010 Camaro was just out on its own? Would you be ok with it if I simply said, 'Tough S***?' In fact, according to the GM lawyer- if you take his argument to heart- the entire Camaro design was done by the "old GM", so any design flaws pretty much could be brushed off as not their problem. Doubt they could get away with that, but I'd bet dimes to donuts they'd try.

There does need more factual information follow-up, but so far, I haven't seen any.

Sometimes doing the right thing makes more sense than doing things right. Regardless of the outcome decision, GM needs to get their PR reps on this or it could spin out of control. Word of mouth travels fast and far. Bad word of mouth travels faster and farther.

[20Camaro11]

This case boils down to this.... Some customers feel that their vehicle is defective and are suing GM. GM has and is still covering vehicle repairs that are warrantied. GM contends that the alleged suspect part is not broken or defective and thus...are not replacing the part. The conflict in this story...is that the Customer can't sue the re-organized (New) GM. They would have to sue the Old GM which would ultimately get them nothing. Seems to me...the cheapest route for the customer would be sell their Chevy and buy something different. Market forces.....

[TJ91]

only gm can pull a stunt like this.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by coolman

Bankruptcy has it's privileges.

Not if you're one of the "protected shareholders" that got pennies on the dollar for their shares so that non-protected entities could get prefferential treatment in the deal for some mysterious reason. (That should be obvious)

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by cmore

Wait, wait, I though the Government was going to back the warrentys?

That's that the top guy said on TV. Something about our warranty being even better because it has the whole of the USA standing behind it.

So, pick your poison... would you prefer that GM weasel out of the repairs or would you rather take it out of your taxes and have the promise from Uncle Sam kept?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Camarowguy

So wait. If this is true, this means I could wreck into someones car, and then go legally change my name and not be liable for it.

You couldn't change your name during the wreck. It would be MORE like buying a whole bunch of expensive stuff and then changing your name before the bills come due and then saying "Not me!".

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I don't know why you are so aggravated with the journalist. . . all he did was report quotes/statements from related parties or parties with experience in related areas. What does the journalist have to be held accountable for? Maybe you feel one can't fully take a side in the lawsuit without more information, but it's not like the journalist gave any opinion or assessments.

Agreed. Everyone here is going berserk about the details left off by the reporter. Granted, we know that most media is completely distorted these days and we should not trust much of what they opine when they start throwing in adjectives like "Radical" and "Controversial" when they talk about certain things. They lie often through omission or commission, so take some things with a grain of salt.

That being said, the offending point of the article is not if there was a serious defect or not or what the defect even is. Who cares? That's not the sticking point. The problem is that GM said "Oh that is not OUR problem. You need to sue the OLD company!"

Their slimy excuse for not doing the repairs is what people are taking issue with.

I think I would have been more satisfied if they had simply said "This problem is not serious and not life threatening. We do not feel we are obligated to fix this minor issue."

Instead we get a weasle words response. "Old GM's fault!!!'

THAT is why people are upset.

[brandotron]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It's not just this site, Fen...issuing ultimatums with very little (or none) facts seems to be a trend...

By the way...why are some of us taking this "news" (notice I used quotes...) so personally? It's really none of our business in the first place, but we're going to waste our energy getting upset over it?

That's it! I'm buying a Yaris!