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
Final nail in the coffin was the transmission crapping out and cost ing
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
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.
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.
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.
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, 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"
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
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:47:23 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
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.
- 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'.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.