GM, Ford reputations take a hit

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...

> And to others, being treated right means the manufacturer fixing what
> are very obviously design mistakes in the vehicle even if the warranty
> has expired.

"Design mistakes?" Maybe.

When these problems show up and are not corrected nor supported for LONG
periods
of time, one might wonder if these defects are not planned obsolence, or
intentional
time bombs.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Unfortunately to many customer, 'treating costumers right,' equates to
>> fixing the vehicle for free for as long as they one the vehicle. LOL
>>
>> mike
>>
>
>
> No doubt that's a strong motivator for some customers. The 100,000 mile
> warranties were designed to appeal to them.
>
> It is, after all, what I do at home. I don't spend much money at all
> fixing my cars. Maybe $100 a year per car, if that. My expectations are
> going to be hard to live up to.

Actually, this is an inexpensive thing for the car makes to do. Some of the
repairs they already cover if there is a design problem with the car or
truck. And most vehicles don't need major covered repairs in the first
100,000 miles. Things like brakes are considered normal wear and tear items,
so they aren't covered. So it is usually not a big cost for the car makers.

Some Hyundai dealers near where Mike lives purchase insurance contracts (aka
extended warranties) on the drivetrain for their costumers for between
100,000 and 200,000 miles (after the regular 100,000 mi warranty expires).
Most people don't keep their cars that long, so it is a small risk.

Jeff

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Unfortunately to many customer, 'treating costumers right,' equates to
>> fixing the vehicle for free for as long as they one the vehicle. LOL
>
> And to others, being treated right means the manufacturer fixing what are
> very obviously design mistakes in the vehicle even if the warranty has
> expired.

And not go through hoops to get the repairs covered.

My father has a 2001 or so Grand Prix. My dad a lot of engine rebuilding and
head repair work for the dealer over maybe 40 years. When there was a
problem with the transmission, most of the costumes got a replacement
transmission, but had to pay for the labor. However, because my father knew
the people in shop, they got GM to pay for the whole thing. All the
costumers, not just my dad, should have gotten the whole thing done without
cost. After all, they paid for a working transmission when they bought the
car.

Jeff

> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And to others, being treated right means the manufacturer fixing what
>> are very obviously design mistakes in the vehicle even if the warranty
>> has expired.
>
> "Design mistakes?" Maybe.
>
> When these problems show up and are not corrected nor supported for LONG
> periods
> of time, one might wonder if these defects are not planned obsolence, or
> intentional
> time bombs.

Considering that the next version of the engine or transmission has this
problem fixed, I doubt it is a design feature, as you suggest.

The other thing is that the automaker who made the faulty vehicle is less
likely to get repeat business, whether it is to buy a car for the owner's
kid or replace the fault vehicle.

One thing is clear, there are fewer new cars on the American road than last
year. Auto sales are down like 2.6% from the previous year. They were down
in 2005, too. And Americans are driving more each year. Cars are more
durable than ever before. It used to be that car engine would last maybe
100,000 mi, if the owner was lucky. Now engines regularly go to 150,000 or
200,000 mi or more.

This was good for my dad and my college education. Dad owned a machine shop
that rebuilt engines. He also made lots of money selling tail-pipes, shocks,
carburetors, spark plugs and ignition parts. With fuel injection, electronic
ignitions, longer-lasting shocks and stainless steel tailpipes, they rarely
sell these parts, now. And there is far less engine-rebuilding work now than
20 or 30 years ago. In fact, one of the five machine shops in town closed
completely, the staff at his shop is down 75% (from 6 to about 1 1/2), two
of the remaining shops have much small staffs, too.

The market also changed with a lot of the tailpipe and shock business going
to chain stores that don't go local independent warehouses; a lot of garages
put on new rotors rather than have them resurfaced because the cost of new
rotors is better. In addition, dealerships will often get new short blocks
or engines for in-warranty work rather than send out to work to a machine
shop.

So the loss of business is due to both the increased longevity of engines
and the changing market.

Jeff

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>> "Some O" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Jim Higgins" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ford and GM have lamented the fact that many car buyers simply don't
>>> > consider them anymore. GM has conducted focus groups that show its
>> vehicles
>>> > get much higher marks when their Chevy or Pontiac nameplate is
>>> > replaced
>> by a
>>> > Toyota badge.
>>>
>
> Beyond their quality, they have an additional problem that they can't get
> control of. Many of their dealers make it pure torture to both buy and
> own their products. Many of their enemies were created by the dealers,
> not the product or the corporation.
>
> They say they can't really tell their dealers what to do. They're
> independent. Personally, I bet there are people everywhere who would be
> more than willing to represent them.

Actually, they can pull the dealership from a dealer if they don't make
quality standards. One Caddy dealership closed up near where I used to live
(Crea Caddy - maybe Mike knows these people). The new dealer was required to
increase the size of the showroom within a certain amount of time.

If a McDonald's gets a lot of complaints about a particular independent
francise, they will investigate. If there are problems with the way the
restaurant is run (other than the restaurant sells lots of unhealthful
food), McDonalds will either pull the francise or take over the restaurant
if the problems aren't fixed. Likewise, if a dealer refuses to repair cars
with complicated problems (I know of one dealer who was known to try to get
complicated problems sent to another dealer) or gives a really poor costumer
service experience, the car makers should be able to step in.

My dad used to sell and repair Kohler, Tecomsah and B&S engines. If he
didn't meet the quality standards (mostly for training), he would not have
been a dealer for them.

I would be surprised to learn that if a dealer doesn't do an adeqaute job,
that the maker can't pull the francise. I think the Japanese excercise these
rights more often than the big 3.

Jeff

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news21yh.7001$_d4.3877@trndny05...
..
>
> Considering that the next version of the engine or transmission has this
> problem fixed, I doubt it is a design feature, as you suggest.

Sorry, Jeff, when it takes GM 10 years or better to correct an obvious
problem, then your explanation doesnt wash.

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:Lb1yh.3205$yH3.489@trndny07...

> I would be surprised to learn that if a dealer doesn't do an
> adeqaute job, that the maker can't pull the francise. I think the
> Japanese excercise these rights more often than the big 3.

It is not as easy to pull a franchise as you might think. Remember
Ford and the "Blue Oval Certified Dealer" fiasco? Ford wanted to
identify dealers that met certain minimal standards. A group of
dealers in Texas sued Ford saying this wasn't fair - and won. States
have very restrictive laws that favor the automobile franchise owners
over the manufacturers. State legislatures are a lot more likely to
favor local dealers than far off manufacturers. The Japanese
manufacturers often have better franchise agreements (from the
manufacturer's standpoint) than US manufacturers. They arrived much
later and avoided many of the bad ideas in the much older US
manufacturer's franchise agreements. The newer brands (Acura, Lexus,
even Saturn) have even more restrictive agreements. I was surprised
that GM got away with creating the Saturn brand. If I had been running
a Chevrolet dealership when Saturn was created, I'd have been very
upset if GM granted a Saturn franchise that competed with me. I
suppose this is why GM originally set Saturn up as a completely
different (but wholly owned) corporation.

Ed

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news21yh.7001$_d4.3877@trndny05...
> .
>>
>> Considering that the next version of the engine or transmission has
>> this
>> problem fixed, I doubt it is a design feature, as you suggest.
>
> Sorry, Jeff, when it takes GM 10 years or better to correct an
> obvious
> problem, then your explanation doesnt wash.

Which problem are you talking about?

Ed

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:Lb1yh.3205$yH3.489@trndny07...

> I would be surprised to learn that if a dealer doesn't do an adeqaute job,
> that the maker can't pull the francise. I think the Japanese excercise
these
> rights more often than the big 3.
>
> Jeff

I had to go to the Buick zone representative a few years ago when I
encountered
a dealership that couldnt seem to repair the serious problem, wasnt
interested,
and wouldnt listen.

After 5-6 visits to the dealership, with the service manager telling me he
couldnt
find the problem if is it intermittent, I asked him to let me ride with the
mechanic
and I would show him what was happening. No dice.

Then I asked if he had checked TSBs on this car. He said he had.

As soon as I called the rep, he knew immediately what was wrong, said that
a bulletin had been issued, and contacted the dealership.

Within minutes the service manager called me, all upset, asking why I called
zone, that it could get them in trouble. Tough ****!

The owner called me and apologized.

Yes, the manufacturer can demand quality if they want to.

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:45c8a1f1@kcnews01...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:Lb1yh.3205$yH3.489@trndny07...
>
>> I would be surprised to learn that if a dealer doesn't do an adeqaute
>> job, that the maker can't pull the francise. I think the Japanese
>> excercise these rights more often than the big 3.
>
> It is not as easy to pull a franchise as you might think. Remember Ford
> and the "Blue Oval Certified Dealer" fiasco? Ford wanted to identify
> dealers that met certain minimal standards. A group of dealers in Texas
> sued Ford saying this wasn't fair - and won. States have very restrictive
> laws that favor the automobile franchise owners over the manufacturers.
> State legislatures are a lot more likely to favor local dealers than far
> off manufacturers. The Japanese manufacturers often have better franchise
> agreements (from the manufacturer's standpoint) than US manufacturers.

And the big 3 surely have had the oppurtunity to read the Japanese
aggreements. They could have failed to renew the francises or put in new
terms. The francise aggreements are not for ever.

Jeff

> They arrived much later and avoided many of the bad ideas in the much
> older US manufacturer's franchise agreements. The newer brands (Acura,
> Lexus, even Saturn) have even more restrictive agreements. I was surprised
> that GM got away with creating the Saturn brand. If I had been running a
> Chevrolet dealership when Saturn was created, I'd have been very upset if
> GM granted a Saturn franchise that competed with me. I suppose this is why
> GM originally set Saturn up as a completely different (but wholly owned)
> corporation.
>
> Ed
>