No more GM for me? Maybe Toytoa

Page 1 of 4  
I've been a fan of GM cars for many years. I've owned every division except Cadillac. May latest is a 2001 LeSabre and it may be my last GM car.
Am I expecting too much?
Heated seat went after 1 1/2 winters. Less that the 3 years, but more than 30K miles so no warranty. Replacing of the $10 toaster element in the seat would be $575. Dealer charged $67 diagnostic fee to tell me that. GM would give me a few buck off a new car. A $30,000 solution to a problem that should be less than $100.
Rear window cable broke. Rear windows have been put down maybe 5 times.
Cruise control switch will not stay on I have it jammed on with a toothpick
Front brake discs had to be replaced at 50K, need to be again at 100K. (warped and vibrate with brakes on)
Air pump for emissions is starting to make noise when cold. Potential $450 repair.
Final nail in the coffin was the transmission crapping out and cost ing $2400.
I was seriously considering a Lucerne, but now I'm thinking Toyota. The Lucerne would have been in my driveway in a few weeks if the trans had not set me back. I know things wear out and break, but I think this could have been better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My 90 LeSabre has been the best car I have had. It has 176,000 miles. Wife seen a 98 LeSabre for sale and wants me to go look at it. I hate to give up a good thing.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I still have my '91 Regal, but I think the 2001 LeSabre is not up to the same quality. More features, more conveniences, but more problems. My concern is that a 2006 may have slipped a bit more rather than improved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wife
When I had to replace my '98 Regal (daughter - interstate highway - oblivious tow truck operator - guard rail - police report), I really wanted to go with a La Crosse, but could not bring myself to buy any car in its first model year. Even the best of intentions have a hard time passing muster in the first model year. Decided to have some fun with an '03 Gran Am GT in the meantime and give a few years for things to shake out. When it's time to buy again we'll see what the GM world looks like.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I cant complain about my car being bad except that GM has known about and continued there defective design on the intake gasket for 15 years sticking 70-90% of v6 owners with failures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe GM will come around but until then they must be punished. I still havnt totally forgiven them for my intake gasket failure. I would by another GM with Incentives and another couple of thousand knocked off, but will not pay full price.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You need to 'forgive' the gasket manufactures, not GM. Numerous brands, domestic and foreign, had multiple gasket problems for several years after the government banned asbestos without allowing the gasket manufactures time to develop a suitable replacement material.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike, still singing that tired old song? GM puts in the gaskets they want to, and they put shit ones in for far too long. Far longer than they had to. You must be an idiot to keep up your denial of logic.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:06:37 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your opinion, contrary to the facts, is what is not logical ;)
mike hunt
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is not opinion that other auto makers have corrected the problem far quicker than GM. You blame the forced change of taking away asbestos. Since the other auto makers fixed their issues, logic dictates that GM could have as well, or at least that lack of asbestos was no longer a viable excuse. You are the one without a logic compass.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:47:23 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't believe, first of all, that all other manufacturers had the same problems with gaskets that GM has had. Maybe so, but I haven't heard this substantiated.
Second, GM has been diddling with this for years and neither dealt with the issue nor stepped up to the plate and payed the bills. Their short warranty was a good way to avoid responsibility and channel a bit more work to the dealerships.
Third, this sort of behavior is not new to GM. I can remember the - rotting rear windows (which GM fully knew about and declined to modify. Was caused by brazing steel panels in a wet zone.) - pitifully undependable 440T4 trannies (Metric), which usually just outlasted warranty - cracking blocks in the Iron Duke 2.5 litre 4 cylinder series ( op. cit. warranty dodging) - CS100 alternator system (op. cit. warranty dodging) - plastic injection plenum (usually dodged by warranty. Here, Ford did the same type of caca engineering for a while, but backed up, extended warranties, and paid for most of their failures).
Buying a GM has become similar to marrying a whoring woman. Her past history is hard to overlook, no matter how much you like the 'ride'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

Let me get this straight. The manufacturer offers a product for sale. The manufacturer also offers a LIMITED warranty, and provides an excruciatingly detailed written copy of said LIMITED warranty to every buyer. In fact, the manufacturer even offers complimentary copies of the LIMITED warranty to non-buyers and to prospective buyers before they decide to become buyers. No secrets here. Everything's on the table.
Buyer chooses to buy. AFTER THE limited WARRANTY EXPIRES, buyer encounters trouble. Buyer concludes that manufacturer is "dodging" his obligations.
Dunno how that's possible. Manufacturer's responsibilities and obligations were thoroughly spelled out in the finest of detail before the transaction occurred. If the manufacturer is willing to offer assistance beyond what was originally agreed upon, the buyer ought to be grateful, not mad. If the manufacturer is not willing to provide assistance beyond the original agreement, I'd understand how the buyer would feel disappointed. But mad? Cheated? No, that's preposterous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure - take all the time you need.

There is this concept called "quality". Quality and warranty are two different things. While the manufacturer is making its limited warranty so well known they are also touting their quality. There's another word that creeps into play - "value". Like quality, it is distinct from warranty. At the price of a new car, people buy with much more than just warranty in mind. Manufacturers sell on more than warranty. In fact, warranty is probably about the least mentioned aspect of the sale by the manufacturer. Value and quality however, are highly touted.
Care to reconsider your position on manufacturer's responsibility to bad design decisions?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cheated in the sense that while the letter of the contract is not violated, the spirit is. Buyers do not expect such kinds of defects, or at least that they would knowingly be allowed to persist. Example, I wouldn't expect a tranny to fail just out of warranty, and I wouldn't expect important gaskets to fail out of warranty but still long before is common in automobiles in general. Yes, we all know that anything is possible, and that the warranty only is good for the period it covers, but that doesn;t mean we expect everything to fall apart immediately after the warranty. It's a calculated risk the buyer takes that most major components will easily outlast the warranty. Seems GM has been either deliberately or neglectingly been stacking the odds outside the normal realm. You can call that whatever you want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ABut there is something called an "implied warranty" meaning the expected useful life. One expects that and engine or transmission would not die after just 36,000 miles. Anything short of 50,000 miles (really not that long) you would normally win in court.
Rob wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cit.
extended
My response would have been informative to you, but I have decided not to post it. It contained many references to GM's behavior with respect to quality support, and I really don't want to air it here.
There is a perception that one is purchasing quality. GMs advertising draws on quality and innovation.
The conditions of the warranty are no doubt legally correct. If a person is not satisfied by the way he or she has been treated by GM, he should buy something else.
GM expects to lose about 17% of its sales volume this year, according to recent news.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Even my brother's (gasp here) Toyota $-Runner had this problem. Toyota (eventually) paid for my brother's repair. It happened at around 50K.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> On 3/26/2006 8:12 AM ... Dave wrote:

That could be part of the difference. Toyota paid for the out-of-warranty repair (according to this post). GM doesn't seem to want to do that (according to other posts here over the years).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You prompted me to check into your claim. Not true.
A transmission was $600 more at one web site I checked.
Alternator and starters were in a range where the Toyota was the same to about $35 more on a $140 to $200 item. Water pumps were even closer.
Unless you can offer specifics, your claim is not going to be a factor in my decision. More important that small differences in cost, is the longevity of the parts. I don't think that a water pump life in any brand is going to be radically different, nor does the price seem to be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message Toyota parts can

Truth has never been Mikey's strong point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.