| James, in contrast to you, a self-professed challenging
| customer, I prefer to be a satisfied customer.
Don't we all.... A noble goal. :-)
| In contrast to you, I was able to study the lighting
| control system in my new GM car until I understood
| it. Then I kept my damned hands off of it since it
| works right.
I'm glad it works for you. I don't have an issue with that. However, If
it's generally so easily understood, how come several people in the "HELP!
2001 Impala Headlights" thread from 7/26 all had _different_
wrong) advice to the original posters issue...hmmm!? Damned awful lot of
confused people if you ask me! And note how the original poster had to
solve his problem. Why? GM's idiotic control design! Note, in the end, how
many other people think it's idiotic too.
Seriously though. I haven't any issue providing the "Auto" switch position
that you like and that makes you "happy". But like Ford and Chrysler, there
should also be a "Off" position for those customers that want that type of
control instead. GM CAN do that..it isn't a unreasonable expectation (in
fact it's a standard expectation and standard industry practice)
| However, if you prefer to rant to the top
| at GM, then that is fine. If I were at the top of GM,
| I would certainly ignore your attitude also.
And continually eroding GM market share quarter after quarter and year after
year is the proof in the pudding that that is, and will always be, the
answer. And erosion continues even with overly generous incentive
programs! This country needs GM to get back in the game and find out what
the wide breadth of the customer base wants and just answer to them (that's
where the money and the future comes from). It's a easy elementary concept,
| In the past, when I had some difficult support problem
| with some auto, I started with the dealer, then moved
| up to the zone manager, each time with a
| polite and well-documented letter. But I got results.
Yes, my experiencs also in the past. However, regarding dealing with GM
though...been there..done that. I followed the same trail as you
described...started with the dealer, etc. all the way with letters to Bob
Lutz (so far). All levels basically said things like... "nothing we can do
(lie)"..."the design doesn't allow what you want (lie)"..."it's the law
(lie)"..."we will no longer accept email from you on this subject (true,
they didn't, abd wouldn't call back either)"...etc. Perhaps it was the
blatent lies they tole me that really did it for me!! Actually, come to
think of it, all levels but Lutz responded, who didn't resond at all.
I also went through the BBB Autoline (at Chevrolet's suggestion which they
knew was a wild goose chase) and The States Attorney Consumer Affairs Office
after that failed...GM refused to "arbritrate". Consumer Affairs suggested
getting a lawyer and going to court under the premise that under the 2002
edition of the Maryland Vehicle Law section TR 22-201.1, the law applies
specifically to the _owners_
responsibility and control of the lights and
GM's implementation _may_
inappropriately interfere with required said
control (and the owners "reasonable" ability to adhere to certain provisions
when lighting is required and not required). They felt that the courts
should look at the issue if I was willing to persue. Believe it or not, I'm
not the suing type..never have been and I won't take it there.
| I'll let you get back to your rant now.
Okay, thanks. ;-)