I've about had it with the dealer who sold me a 2004 Trailblazer. I bought it new and found out 30 days later it had been in some sort of collision before I bought it. The repair was done badly (they even clear coated over the dealer-installed pin striping). Obviously the damage was done sometime after the dealer received the vehicle from Chevrolet.
The dealer doesn't respond to my calls, The Chevy Assistance Center is a joke. The dealer talks to them, promises to call me, and never does.
Is there a higher authority in GM I can get to? Everyone knows there are Zone Manager but so far I haven't found any contact information for the Chicago Zone Office. Do I have to sue to get their attention?
And GM wonders why they've steadily lost market share for the past 20+ years? LOL. I'd give them the answer but they're too stupid to understand.
I've been to the dealership and only had the misfortune of meeting with the flunky sale manager types. They want to up sell me to a a new vehicle. *As if I could trust that the next vehicle from them would be any less damaged than the first.) The owner is never around.
Again as I said I feel for anyone having issues with a new vehicle. But you are wrong about the market share. I'm a stock holder so I keep pretty close tabs on their performance. I used to work for General Motors and still have stock.
That is incorrect. GM's market share has been on the decline for years. Even the most recent sales numbers show the trend still continues. Where are you getting information that GM's market share is growing?
No, what your showing is review (cost of stock). And that's just what I said, all automakers are reporting losses compared to the last few years. Their market share is increasing, it's a separate issue.
| > That is incorrect. GM's market share has been on the decline for years. | Even | > the most recent sales numbers show the trend still continues. Where are | you | > getting information that GM's market share is growing? | >
| >
| | As all auto manufactures are posting losses in comparison to the past few | years. GM is still growing their global market share. | |
formatting link
| | Brian | |
Nice to see GM's *global* market share is up to 15.5% from 15.1%. Perhaps there is some new light shining at the end of the tunnel. Toyota has been eating everybody's lunch lately!!
Your going about this wrong. This is a civil matter. What it boils down to is this - if the dealer misrepresented the car to you, they committed fraud. If they didn't, then your stuck and you can only run it through the regular warranty repair channels.
You said you bought this car new. Well, where did this collision take place? Did someone come into the dealership and buy the vehicle, then drive it off the lot and into a tree, then turn it back in to the dealer? If so, that is if the was any prior owner on the title, then the car is used, not new, and the dealer defrauded you.
If the collision took place while the car was property of the dealer - such as, during a test drive or some such - then I would assume of course that there was more than 5 miles or so on the odometer of the vehicle when you bought it, and that you probably got some fantastic deal on it as a "demo" car, AND more importantly, it was probably represented to you as a demo car. This is where things get sticky.
In this case while the car still must meet the definition of new - no prior owner on the title - since it was represented as a demo, and the definition of a demo is one where the car is going to have some wear on it - your kind of in a legal grey area. On one hand a reasonable person would assume that any damage on a demo would be minor dents, dings, and such, not a major collision. On the other, since the dealer didn't represent it as pristine condition, by accepting it as such you are on very shaky ground to attempt to prove a fraud claim. If the collision was minor, such as just a smashed fender and nothing else, then the dealer could probably reasonably argue to a court that a smashed fender was consistent with normal wear and tear on a demo. If the collision bent the frame, deployed the airbags, broke half the windows and knocked the engine around in the bay, well that is a different matter.
Now, IF on the other hand the dealer represented the car to you as a brand new vehicle - not a demo - then there is an implication there that as a brand new vehicle it isn't going to have some hidden collision damage. In that case the dealer committed fraud by misrepresenting the car.
If there is fraud involved the Chevy Assistance Center cannot help you. This is a criminal matter and must be handled by local law enforcement - the police, or the local district attorney and office of consumer protection.
If your fraud claim is clear cut, those organizations will help you. If however your claim is shaky -such as you bought the car as a demo and the collision damage was one front fender, that was replaced and a bad spray paint job was done on it - then they aren't going to do much. In that case you can try going it alone with a private lawyer, but it would be better for you to just work it through the normal warranty channels. In this case you would submit it to ANY dealer, not necessairly the one you bought the car from, as a bad paint job claim, since from Chevy's point of view, a collision never happened on this car.
You are being kind of stupid in my book, frankly. You bought a 2004 vehicle
4 months after the new model year started, there's a damn good chance that you bought it as a 'speciul deal' demo car or some such. Certainly you knew damn well that it has more than 4 miles on the odometer when you drove it off the lot. And now your finding out why it was such a special deal and your mad, because you want the same car that everyone else got who paid full price for one.
"General Motors Corp. will defend its shrinking U.S. market share and keep incentives aggressive after sales fell 16 percent in November, North American President Gary Cowger said."
GM total sales are indeed growing. GM's competitors like to mention share but what they fail to point out the market expands yearly. The latest numbers are around sixteen million or more, the largest percent of which are light trucks. When GM, Ford and DerMopar were the only brands on the market it was only around eight million a year and truck sales were only about ten percent of that number. GM, Ford and dodge sell more trucks than some brands, like Toyota, sell total cars and trucks combined
Toyota is indeed growing but is still third in total sales, but not necessarily earnings, to GM and Ford worldwide and in the US. GM and Ford far outsell Toyota in most of the markets in which they actually compete but Toyota sells in many markets where GM and or Ford do not compete like mini cars and trucks.
Toyota so called better product is more myth than fact. Every manufacture make some that are not up to snuff. As Toyotas begins to sell in the millions rather than in the hundreds of thousands, more of their bad one are showing up. The recent slew of cars with engine problems, that lead to a warranty extension by Toyota, is an example. Toyota has been over pricing their vehicle by 20% to 30% against the competition, as well. A national car magazine, comparing five mid size cars, reached that conclusion when it rated the Camry fifth, behind two domestics and two imports, as a buy recommendation because of the $5,000 higher price.
Market share is a good barometer though for companies to user for competive comparison purposes. It answers the important management question as to which companies are connecting with the customer. Now if it could answer the whys and hows question!!! GM makes some of the best products out there (certainly better than Toyota!). But there is something seemingly pervasive happening that is causing "share" to continually erode. My personal opinion is it is how GM treats the customers that do have problems. Toyota (and in my personal experience, Chrysler) really steps up in that area. GM falls down in that area...which will have a fairly significant alienating effect on the customer no matter how good the product is.
That approach has many potentially long term destructive edges. Some consumers ask what is wrong with the product if GM has to "give their cars away" (nothing, of course, but the perception one paints becomes reality). Some consumers will equate the product with "cheap" (I don't mean price, but quality...again a perception this approach paints to some people). Some consumers see it as "desperation" by GM to "try to stay in business" (even though that isn't the case...I hope!). Of course, this approach really tightens the margins and cuts into profits too! The "Pro" is it keeps more of the factories operating and our wonderful US people working! Overall, it's not a good long-term approach and they've been using it for 3-years now...too long!!
GM management really needs to stop dicking around and get into the *why* they have to go to this excessive level to move their cars when their competitors haven't needed to go nearly as far as they have had to. I think Ford is the only other one that gives discounts close to GM (although I think they've even backed off of that recently). Now as a consumer, those that want GM cars get a VERY good price. But GM management needs to get off the dime and find out why this is happening to them and fix it. When they do, maybe I will buy my GM stock back again!!!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.