Don't buy used GM cars - no warranty anymore

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive success starts now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-----

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-----

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-----

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-----

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-----

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Read more:

Lying sack of s*it !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally, there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement cost.

ord

I would also like to know (at least on the Mustangs) who mixed up the colors. A lot of them looked like they were aiming for Day-glo... and missed.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are both liars and wrong.

Hahahahahahahaha. And you'd expect them to say otherwise, why? Have you actually taken a car in for warranty service that was built before the bankruptcy?

snicker

Oh. Well I'll damned sure take the word of a GubmintMotors employee over a Automotive magazine writer !!

Yes. a 2009 Cavalier and a 2008 Trailblazer. Both were bought used and the new-car warranty transferred to me at the time of sale. One turned out to be a wire loose in the Onstar installation and the other a damaged rear window crank. No questions asked.

I would not buy anything associated with GovMint motors. They're crap anyway.

Family member worked with dealers for years and now retired works part time for a car rental agency and sees all makes of cars.

Comparing cars, his last cars were Nissan and Subaru's.

Both are made in US plants by US workers. The GovMint motors cars may be made in Mexico or Canada and all are using lot of Japanese parts. Last "American" car I had was a Ford lemon manufactured in Mexico.

I only had a GM warranty on one car, and it worked well. The Impala spindle issue causing tire wear was never covered by warranty. It's one of those defects GM tried to avoid paying for by mostly denying, because it only happens to some limited number of cars. They don't want to recall all the Impalas for that. If they did the right thing and fixed it for people having the wear problem, this class action would have been avoided. They've been denying defects forever. Most of the car manufactures do it, but GM is probably the champ. I only drive used GM's and have dealt with peeling paint on 2 cars, and put manifold gaskets in 2 as preventative maintenance. I would just put the new spindle kit in if I had an Impala and tire wear. Think it's a couple hundred bucks Of course that's why I could retire early - don't spend much on cars. GM used cars are cheap for a reason. Suits my purpose well, but people spending big money on new cars have a right to be pissed. What's really stupid is GM letting a lawyer talk about not being responsible for "old GM." Shows stupidity has a long life.

--Vic

ISTR it wasn't pissant warranty visits like that that were the issue, it was massive liability exposure from design flaws that went unchecked. Something about several years of Impala (which had lotsa fleet sales) having a suspension or brake defect?

I think the judge shoulda made them pick a new name for the company, personally. And I think they should go back and pay at least a token payout to all the people holding stock in the old company who got screwed, before they pay any bonuses or dividends.

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

Not often that the people who finance the bankruptcy (debtor-in-possession) get to tell the judge how the bankruptcy WILL be concluded.

You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing lawyers don't like it.

Just bullshit. Fact is people go to GM in the cities they live and have problems. That would be GM.new. Consumers don't give a crap about GM.old and GM.new, that is just political bullshit as it says GM on the warranty.

What is really happening is GM.new is trying to deny claims, hoping for $2000 they don't find a good one and lawyer up. I wonder how many are quietly getting screwed over?

Here is one for ya. I know someone in the business. The latest scam is to charge the customer saying it isn't covered. If they just pay, then the dealer submits it to the auto head office for reimbursement, getting the double dip.

It is just another reason not to deal with GM and other corrupt CAW/UAW/auto companies.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt, dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.

There is this thing called goodwill. The new Government Motors can certainly go with the letter of their agreement with Obama but it isn't good for business. One of the most basic rules of business is that you work to keep customers because of the high cost of getting new ones.

The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.

ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly disguised DBAs.

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my career since then.