The intake manifold problems of most of GM's modern V-6 engines are but
one example of poor engineering and/or poor manufacturing control which
have caused hundreds of thousands of customers to be burned. These are
not used car hand-me-downs, but people who put out their hard earned
money and got screwed.
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start with a
10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM do this? If
their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained by-the-book should not
have any powertrain failures in 100,000 miles. This should also be made
retroactive to all GM vehicles sold in the past 9 years.
This would be money well spent on building the brand image. Much more
sensible than throwing discounts down the rat hole of marketing
foolishness. If GM were building top quality vehicles then this extra
warranty would cost almost nothing.
Increased rebates and incentives destroy resale values of previously
sold vehicles. Extend the warranty and the resale value of previously
sold vehicles actually goes up.
Trolling again? The intake gasket problem has been solved. Why would GM
or any other auto maker give more warrantee than the others?
Kia & the asian upstarts need to to lure unwary customers to their junk.
Hmmm, first I am accused of never providing a realistic suggestion, then
I am a "troll" for doing so. Make up your mind Mr/Ms no name.
If GM makes well built products then what possible reason could there be
not to give a long warranty? If the product is well engineered and
well built then there is no reason for the powertrain to fail before
100,000 miles when a customer maintains it by-the-book. GM would need
to require that the customer document proper maintenance.
As far as the intake gasket problem being solved, how do you know? It
hit my three year old Olsmobile which is powered by a 3.4l V-6 engine GM
has had one version or another of in production for well over a decade.
What are your suggestions for GM to pull out of the sales and financial
tailspin it is clearly in? More rebates? More Red Tag Sales Events?
This is an excellent suggestion. I don't think GM would loose much on this
deal...at least it would be far less that $3K-$6K per unit that they loose
now with these crazy profit-busting sales. And those costs would come over
several years, not up front.
However, I still personally wouldn't buy a GM vehicle again. I like some of
their models, when the lights are off and you can actually see them. But
all of them are most annoying "lights-in-your-face-all-the-time" cars. I
just don't want to even drive such a annoying vehicle.
What a surprise that you agree with Horner! Neither one of you would
appear to have even a basic knowledge of the economics of Horner's
suggestion. And together, your combined IQ's would fall well short of
your respective shoe sizes!
Then why do you remain in this News Group? Take a look up above James -
it say's alt.autos.gm up there! *lol* Quit tormenting us and troll on
over the the News Group whose vehicles you will be buying in the future.
My gosh, how you moan and whine!
I'd pay a surcharge to GM to keep producing their
"lights-in-your-face-all-the-time" cars, if it would drive you and
Horner out of the News Group. The only nice thing about reading whiney
posts from you and Horner is that I know that the rest of day has to be
better! Your "woe-is-me" posts make me realize how lucky I am, not be be
a malcontent like you and Horner!
Chrysler has been doing it for years. And, at the moment, their sales have
been up for the year as have their profits. Deferring costs is a viable
business alternative. Certaintly better than taking the hit up front as
happens with cutting the sales prices to bare-bones.
I come from a decades-long GM family...both sides. I'd like to end the
estrangement at some future point. The problem is, only one side is really
Which *could be a GM*. I haven't written them off completely. ;-)
Except I'm not alone. If one wants to sell cars, one needs to listen to the
customer base. Especially when there is no rational reason not to and most
of the competition is listening on the subject matter and responded
appropriately to them.
Poor reason. But if you have the money, knock yourself out. The problem
is, that attitude to the customer won't sell cars.
I'm perfectly fine, thank you. Not sure why you want to make this personal
though. The topic of the op was to post ideas on how to improve sales. You
disagree with the ideas. Not a problem for me. I'm certainly not going to
claim a low IQ on your part for it.
Now, back to the topic. What are your ideas (other than alienating
customers to go elsewhere, that is)?
thats why I decided not to buy the 3.9 G6 coupe cuz it uses that same basic
design v6 that has been failing the last 10 to 15 years because of a poor
design. Now if GM thinks they have their shit together with the new engine
then warrantee it for at least 8 years then I will bite. Otherwise my GM
days may be over. Then again I dont care if they put an airplane engine in
the G6 sedan cuz that thing is so ugly they would have to give it to me.
I just don't understand it.
I've owned several GM autos over the years.
I've had pain-in-the-ass problems with all of them.
Yet I talk to guys who say;
Drove my Chevy 200K miles,
and never even changed the oil or spark plugs.
Are these like fishing stories ?
I owned a Chevette too. ( Shove-It )
Another case where GM spent more $$ on advertising
than on engine/drivetrain reliability.
Just traded in my 99 Century for an 05 Century and I had about 150K km on it and
I never did change the plugs.
As a mater of fact the reason I traded it was because I sent my wife in to have
the plugs changed and she phoned back saying they wanted $1000 to change the
plugs and replace the wires. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the car.
intake gasket failure before reaching 100k miles. The rest will have the
failure before 200k miles unless extremely lucky. Now why would I buy the
new 3.9 v6 when GM let the problem with the previous engines go on for 10 or
15 years knowing of the problem hitting customers fo $800 a pop for the
repairs. The 3.9 may well have the same problem. Sounds like gauranteed
money for the GM shops, now its come back to bite them in the ass. I was a
hard core GM fan growing up as a kid in the 60s and 70s admiring everything
from a 57 chevy to a 70 454 Chevelle, but lets face it those days are over
and GM screwed itself.
You forgot Chrysler. Chrysler covers 7/70 on an 03 Stratus and 04 Sebring
the Wife and I have. I had a 03 Malibu...but it only came with a 3/36
warranty. I dumped it before it could get the gasket and piston slap
problems. It was a POS car anyway in comparison to the cars we have now.
At least the sludge problems of the 2.7 Chrysler engine can be owner
mitigated by using Synthetic oil.
James C. Reeves wrote:
> You forgot Chrysler.
There are many reasons that we'd all like to forget Chrysler! PT
Cruiser, Prowler, Viper, Stratus, Sebring, etc., etc., etc.
There's a ringing endorsement, if ever I heard one! LMAO! I might have
known that you'd be driving some pussified anemic little wussmobiles!
Those two vehicles have no style, no class and no power! Not unlike
Which like millions of others, you may never have had problems with.
Gawd, you sound like an hysterical little girl! You see ghosts behind
Now there's a real slam! James those two little wussmobiles you now have
will depreciate far quicker and deeper than the Malibu. And they are
possibly the ugliest cars to come out of Detroit since the AMC Pacer!
That sounds like wonderful quality you bought there James! You are one
Those products exist and many Chrysler models sell, especially the 300C
these days (not sure why, they're ugly as hell). But why so seemingly
bothered by their existence?
Their sales numbers have been improving over the past year or two. And they
are making money (at least for now). So, results like that say yes those
ideas the Op has put forth are worth looking at before dismissing
Can't stick to the subject matter at hand I see. <sigh> I'm not sure what
your opinion of me personally or with the particular vehicles I referenced
has to do with the topic. Neither provide any ideas on how to sell more GM
However, you may want to check the performance numbers and general
statistics in any car rag...they are virtually identical in that year
(2003). So in the final analysis, neither product has any glaring advantage
over the other based on the raw statistics. Style and design are largely
personal taste. GM makes some nice looking and desirable cars as far as I'm
concerned. (I like the style of the 2003 Malibu). Some disagree (I just
don't happen to disagree in this particular area).
The cars are comparably priced (see www.carmax.com) or (www.edmunds.com).
Fact is, *ALL* US made cars depreciate too quickly. Doesn't matter if it's
GM, Ford, Chrysler. The Malibu and Stratus are no exception.
Opinion counts for just that..opinion. Some poeple liked the Pacer (I
wasn't one of them). So what? I don't see the point on how Chryslers you
think are ugly will help sell more GM's. Unless you can explain the
rationale to your statement.
I will say that neither vehicle had been in the shop for warranty work
during their first year. I can't say the same for the Malibu, I had..and I
only had it for 9-months. The worst problem was that the body seams were
not sealed. the car leaked like a seive when ever it rained. It took the
dealer 5-days to fix that little problem and repair the damage from the
water. My experience with the Malibu is not likely typical. However, the
car was simply too much bother to keep...I'm sure you can appreciate that.
I doubt many people would keep a car under the circumstances.
What is so odd about accepting a product fault that has a easy owner-applied
solution? It's hard to claim (as you just did) that I am claiming product
quality here since I had disclosed a fault in the product, don't ya think?
Chrysler has it's problems, no question about it.
By the way, the topic is to discuss ideas on how GM can sell more cars. My
example was to demonstrate that some of GM's competitors (Chrysler in this
case) are offering increased warranty coverage as an incentive (and that
supports the Op's suggestion).
Now so far, not a single idea on the topic from you. Zip. Nada. Do you
have any? Or is your idea to keep doing what isn't working? Or do you
prefer to simply call people names instead? How productive is that?
Unfortunately John, GM can't do that as they would go broke even
sooner. Wagner prefers to administrate a slow demise where the pain can
be felt by the customers, employees and the public at large.
Eventually, if they need to, they will try to buy new customers with
longer warranties. They already spent your money and more so they won't
be giving any back.
PS. GM tried what you are suggesting years ago with their 8V71 diesel
engines that were failing cylinder kits at early mileage. They issued
one FIX after another. They bought back engines and overhauled others
up to 300,000 miles. Customers soaked it all up and went to Cummins for
their next spec.
You are probably right :(. GM's management and union leaders seem to
have completely missed the lessons of the demise of the once powerful
British-based auto industry which self destructed in the 1960-1980
period. There is now not a single remaining UK based automotive company
of any significant size. Even the niche players like Rolls-Royce and
Lotus are now owned by other companies (Germany's BMW for Rolls,
Malaysia's Proton for Lotus).
General Motors = British Leyland ??????
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile powertrain
warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic, a vehicle
maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in
200,000 miles. Where does one draw the line of practicality? John, the
answer to this question is held in assessing the odds of component
failure. i.e. the longer the time period, the greater the risk of
component failure. Not to mention the impact on powertrains of the
varying driving styles from person-to-person. John, wake up and smell
the burning clutch!
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.