Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

imidazol97

VW executives plead guilty. $22,000,000,000 in costs to VW in US.

To compare:
"But Volkwagen’s exposure in the United States has already dwarfed previous cases for vehicle manufacturers in pollution cases and safety malfunctions. Volkswagen agreed to pay $4.3 billion in civil and criminal penalties in the case brought by the Justice Department. It was just a piece of the overall $22 billion in settlements and fines in the United States.

“Volkswagen deeply regrets the behavior that gave rise to the diesel crisis,” the company said in a statement. “The agreements that we have reached with the U.S. government reflect our determination to address misconduct that went against all of the values Volkswagen holds so dear.”

General Motors, by comparison, paid $2 billion in fines and civil settlements over faulty ignition switches that left more than 100 dead. No executives were charged in the matter.

Takata, the Japanese auto parts maker, recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges linked to faulty airbags, agreeing to pay $1 billion in fines and penalties. Three Takata executives face criminal charges.

suydam

@abacomike -- do what the docs say. Hope the antibiotic doesn't have adverse effects, many do. Try to stay positive. Maybe your twin can give you a piece of his liver if yours goes. You've been through a lot. We're all pulling for you

driver100

ab348 said:

They are not going to give you a new car because your clutch failed beyond warranty. Come on.

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

I still think GG should be able to claim at least double damages as a warning to car manufacturers, they should solve "real" problems before they go that far, and stonewalling is not acceptable.

driver100

suydam said:

@abacomike -- do what the docs say. Hope the antibiotic doesn't have adverse effects, many do. Try to stay positive. Maybe your twin can give you a piece of his liver if yours goes. You've been through a lot. We're all pulling for you

+1

driver100

imid ,” the company said in a statement. “The agreements that we have reached with the U.S. government reflect our determination to address misconduct that went against all of the values Volkswagen holds so dear.”

Yeh, getting caught wasn't in the plan book

imidazol97

That $22,000,000,000 in fines and such is money VW made from the cars that they sold; money the buyers paid. Doesn't sound like they were skirting bankruptcy like GM was.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

roadburner said:

graphicguy said:

OK peanut gallery....gonna throw out some other scenarios given my CTS Lemon seems to be moving along at a snail's pace.

This is all hypothetical, and would be done to change the groundwork a bit. Let me be clear, I'm still waiting for Cadillac to get an arbitrator who they're happy with so BBB can move this along with. I have it on an insider's authority that's what's going on (I have my sources......i.e. The recently seperated Cadillac service person who stays in touch with dealership friends).

Let's say I tell them to take whatever dollars they owe me (thinking it will be somewhere in the low $40K range once they finish their little "wait him out" game) for the sake of resolution, I buy another GM product (NO MORE CADILLACS).

Follow along with this hypothetical, I'm not a Buick fan, although I know many of you like them. I have had good luck with Chevies....so what can I get for $40K+? Colorado? Might be able to use a pickup. A Volt? I know some really like those, too. Plus, that one would net me a $7,500 tax credit.

Thoughts?

No way- well, maybe a Camaro SS 1LE...

Maybe it is just me but the new Camaros do nothing for me. I see that low roofline and my back starts hurting, and those little slits for windows makes my eyes start squinting.


Interior.....OK, but, not that great - I have seen nicer:

Yuck on that color, like that interior, agree that the windows are slits, couldn't imagine driving that. Don't like the high belt line on most new cars.

But you could put up with a lot of negatives for 455hp.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

roadburner said:

graphicguy said:

OK peanut gallery....gonna throw out some other scenarios given my CTS Lemon seems to be moving along at a snail's pace.

This is all hypothetical, and would be done to change the groundwork a bit. Let me be clear, I'm still waiting for Cadillac to get an arbitrator who they're happy with so BBB can move this along with. I have it on an insider's authority that's what's going on (I have my sources......i.e. The recently seperated Cadillac service person who stays in touch with dealership friends).

Let's say I tell them to take whatever dollars they owe me (thinking it will be somewhere in the low $40K range once they finish their little "wait him out" game) for the sake of resolution, I buy another GM product (NO MORE CADILLACS).

Follow along with this hypothetical, I'm not a Buick fan, although I know many of you like them. I have had good luck with Chevies....so what can I get for $40K+? Colorado? Might be able to use a pickup. A Volt? I know some really like those, too. Plus, that one would net me a $7,500 tax credit.

Thoughts?

No way- well, maybe a Camaro SS 1LE...

Maybe it is just me but the new Camaros do nothing for me. I see that low roofline and my back starts hurting, and those little slits for windows makes my eyes start squinting.


Interior.....OK, but, not that great - I have seen nicer:

Yuck on that color, like that interior, agree that the windows are slits, couldn't imagine driving that. Don't like the high belt line on most new cars.

But you could put up with a lot of negatives for 455hp.

There are other ways to get 455 hp.

Mustang looks like the classic car refined and updated, Camaro looks like a cartoon of the original.

imidazol97

imidazol97 said:

The GM reps responding to comments on forums is the dumbest implementation of a potentially good idea.

The GM reps are on another forum that I frequent. All it does it take up bandwidth with an extra response to someone's question or comment.

Often the people have already been to one dealer and didn't like the response. But instead the responses are always send me your VIN and I'll pass it on to the closest dealer in your area. Duh. I can find the dealer.

I understand that some people are trying to get something covered that's not within the 4 corners of the written warranty. They just think if something goes wrong after warranty, it ought to be covered anyhow.

oldfarmer50

bwia said:

abacomike said:

Doctor gave me Cephalexin (generic Keflex) 500 mg capsules - three times a day for 7 days. Then, he wants to see me next Friday. He said if the swelling and tenderness do not resolve by Tuesday to call him. He thinks it is some sort of infection - but not viral due to the swelling of the gland. We shall see - we shall see.

Mike, I think your doctors are using you as a guinea pig. It seems as though every month you are on a new medication and I wouldn't be surprised, if in turn, these drugs have adverse side effects or serious drug interactions. Time to look into alternative treatments such yoga and aromatherapy.

And perhaps most importantly, all these new cars that you buy almost every year is making you sick. According to CBS, reporting on a study conducted by the Ecology Center, a new car smell can be toxic. "What you might actually be sniffing are toxic fumes from chemicals used to create the car interior."

"Research shows that vehicle interiors contain a unique cocktail of hundreds of toxic chemicals that [throw] off-gas in small, confined spaces," Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center, said in a written statement. "Since these chemicals are not regulated, consumers have no way of knowing the dangers they face.

Prendre garde

Makes you wonder how the human race ever lasted this long. There is a theory that having an environment TOO free of toxins leaves people weak and sick. Sort of like a muscle that never gets exersized. Accordingly, everything from poison to plutonium is good for you if the exposure is small enough.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

roadburner said:

graphicguy said:

OK peanut gallery....gonna throw out some other scenarios given my CTS Lemon seems to be moving along at a snail's pace.

This is all hypothetical, and would be done to change the groundwork a bit. Let me be clear, I'm still waiting for Cadillac to get an arbitrator who they're happy with so BBB can move this along with. I have it on an insider's authority that's what's going on (I have my sources......i.e. The recently seperated Cadillac service person who stays in touch with dealership friends).

Let's say I tell them to take whatever dollars they owe me (thinking it will be somewhere in the low $40K range once they finish their little "wait him out" game) for the sake of resolution, I buy another GM product (NO MORE CADILLACS).

Follow along with this hypothetical, I'm not a Buick fan, although I know many of you like them. I have had good luck with Chevies....so what can I get for $40K+? Colorado? Might be able to use a pickup. A Volt? I know some really like those, too. Plus, that one would net me a $7,500 tax credit.

Thoughts?

No way- well, maybe a Camaro SS 1LE...

Maybe it is just me but the new Camaros do nothing for me. I see that low roofline and my back starts hurting, and those little slits for windows makes my eyes start squinting.


Interior.....OK, but, not that great - I have seen nicer:

Yuck on that color, like that interior, agree that the windows are slits, couldn't imagine driving that. Don't like the high belt line on most new cars.

But you could put up with a lot of negatives for 455hp.

Yeah, tell me about it.

Look what I have to "put up with" and I only have 420 HP.

jmonroe

ab348

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

abacomike

suydam said:

@abacomike -- do what the docs say. Hope the antibiotic doesn't have adverse effects, many do. Try to stay positive. Maybe your twin can give you a piece of his liver if yours goes. You've been through a lot. We're all pulling for you

My brother would give me a "piece of advice", but never a "piece of his liver"!  Besides, he drinks so much wine (he loves his Cabernet Sauvignon) I think my sick liver would reject his "vineyard" liver quite quickly.

All kidding aside, I am sure if it ever came to that, he'd be here in no time. 

abacomike

Just spoke to my brother.  He thinks I might have the mumps.  He told me you can get the mumps again if you didn't have it on both sides.  But I told him my doctor in Chicago at the time gave me several hefty injections of Mumps Immune Globulin to protect my other "vital" glands - I know it worked because my son was born 13 months later.

My gland on the left side of my neck (salivary I believe) hurts every time I swallow or move my neck.  This is not fun - believe me!!!

abacomike

$21 billion is what VW has had to come up with as a result of that diesel fiasco.  When the Federal Government collects the $13 billion to $14 billion imposed as a fine, what happens to that money?  Does it go right into the Treasury or does it go to the EPA, or somewhere else.  If you add the penalties imposed on Toyota, GM, VW, etc., it adds up to a pretty sum.

abacomike

cdnpinhead said:

. . . by inviting complaints in an environment where millions of drivers watch the boards . . .

Millions? I'd say maybe a dozen or two.

I guess I overstated the popularity of the Forums - by a million and a half at the very least! 

driver100

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

bwia said:

abacomike said:

Doctor gave me Cephalexin (generic Keflex) 500 mg capsules - three times a day for 7 days. Then, he wants to see me next Friday. He said if the swelling and tenderness do not resolve by Tuesday to call him. He thinks it is some sort of infection - but not viral due to the swelling of the gland. We shall see - we shall see.

Mike, I think your doctors are using you as a guinea pig. It seems as though every month you are on a new medication and I wouldn't be surprised, if in turn, these drugs have adverse side effects or serious drug interactions. Time to look into alternative treatments such yoga and aromatherapy.

And perhaps most importantly, all these new cars that you buy almost every year is making you sick. According to CBS, reporting on a study conducted by the Ecology Center, a new car smell can be toxic. "What you might actually be sniffing are toxic fumes from chemicals used to create the car interior."

"Research shows that vehicle interiors contain a unique cocktail of hundreds of toxic chemicals that [throw] off-gas in small, confined spaces," Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center, said in a written statement. "Since these chemicals are not regulated, consumers have no way of knowing the dangers they face.

Prendre garde

Makes you wonder how the human race ever lasted this long. There is a theory that having an environment TOO free of toxins leaves people weak and sick. Sort of like a muscle that never gets exersized. Accordingly, everything from poison to plutonium is good for you if the exposure is small enough.

If that is the case, Mike should have built up a huge amount of immunity from all those new cars!

Actually I agree with your theory though....if you live in a bubble you don't build up your immune system.

stickguy

Driver, you situation would never qualify for lemon law in the US.

driver100

No, it wouldn't, and probably not in Canada after reading the last article. The article I read was more like this though;

What is the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration plan?

CAMVAP is an auto industry program that provides arbitration, funded by the plan, for car owners or lessees in a dispute with a manufacturer.

It covers about 90 per cent of vehicles sold or leased in Canada, and manufactured within the previous four years.

An independent arbitrator fairly quickly conducts a hearing and issues a binding decision. But the consumer pretty much gives up their right to go to court if they participate in CAMVAP.

In its own words, "CAMVAP allows both the consumer and the manufacturer the opportunity to resolve the issue in front of an independent arbitrator without the cost and delay that often accompanies court action."

The arbitrator rules whether the manufacturer has liability and if so, whether the manufacturer should buy back the vehicle, repair it, pay for prior repairs, and pay for the consumer's out-of-pocket expenses.

How effective is CAMVAP?

Lawyer Kyle Rees
Snow's lawyer, Kyle Rees, said while CAMVAP looks like a great program, there are issues with it.

Out of 238 rulings listed by CAMVAP for 2013, the arbitrator decided the manufacturer had no liability in 75 claims, had to buy back the vehicle in 81 awards, had to repair the vehicle in 49 situations and had to reimburse the consumer for repairs in another 10 claims.

Whole Article


CAMVAP

jmonroe

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

I bailed after the fifth paragraph. :@

jmonroe

driver100

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

I bailed after the fifth paragraph. :@

jmonroe

That was payback for all the one's you made me read!

oldfarmer50

abacomike said:

cdnpinhead said:

abacomike said:

. . . by inviting complaints in an environment where millions of drivers watch the boards . . .

Millions? I'd say maybe a dozen or two.

I guess I overstated the popularity of the Forums - by a million and a half at the very least! 

Yeah, but where we may lack QUANTITY we make up for it in QUALITY.

I'm looking forward to a play date today with my Mustang buddy. We're going to put his car up on a lift and see what mods have been done to his exhaust system to make it sound so nice. I'm hoping it's just a simple resonator delete with an H pipe.

A muscle car needs a decent sound.

driver100

btw....I copied the whole article about Canadian Lemon Law because of how badly Chrysler does......number of cars going to arbitration is way out of proportion and the number of cars that had to be bought back is huge. I like Jeeps but I don't think I would risk buying any Chryco car....odds aren't good!

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

abacomike said:

cdnpinhead said:

abacomike said:

. . . by inviting complaints in an environment where millions of drivers watch the boards . . .

Millions? I'd say maybe a dozen or two.

I guess I overstated the popularity of the Forums - by a million and a half at the very least! 

Yeah, but where we may lack QUANTITY we make up for it in QUALITY.

I'm looking forward to a play date today with my Mustang buddy. We're going to put his car up on a lift and see what mods have been done to his exhaust system to make it sound so nice. I'm hoping it's just a simple resonator delete with an H pipe.

A muscle car needs a decent sound.





Sounds like fun.....I am off to play pickleball.
(another productive day....I have no idea how I used to find time to work)

Maybe you can modify your car too!

graphicguy

Driver....sounds like CAMVAP is more reasonable than the BBB arrangement in the U.S.

BBB finally got back to me. They (Cadillac) found an aribitrator they like. Hearing is Thursday after next. The BBB said Cadillac MAY offer to settle before that.

I was in Waukesha,WI for work this week. I drove a rental down the Chicago to do some work with United Airlines, who is HQd downtown Chicago. So, ended up staying downtown. Given parking rates downtown, I took my rental back and used UBER and taxis to get around. One UBER driver had an XTS. He said he uses it for UBER Black, which is the limo version of the service. He was slow, so he answered my request for "regular" UBER.

Not scientific, but he said he bought it as a Cadillac "buy back" a couple of years ago. He said he couldn't wait until he could get rid of it. Nothing but issues, and his aren't covered under warranty given he uses it as a "livery service".

It was probably only a couple of years old, but looked like it had been in service for over a dozen years. It was not holding up well and sounded like every bolt was coming off.

ON a positive note, I had the rare opportunity to see HAMILTON. Everyone, whether a theater lover or not, should see it. IT was outstanding! Didn't realize it when I got the ticket, but Wayne Brady played Aaron Burr.

jmonroe

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

I bailed after the fifth paragraph. :@

jmonroe

That was payback for all the one's you made me read!

I didn't make you do anything.

This is a tax-free Edmunds site but when people see a good tale, they can't resist.

jmonroe

sda

graphicguy said:

Driver....sounds like CAMVAP is more reasonable than the BBB arrangement in the U.S.

BBB finally got back to me. They (Cadillac) found an aribitrator they like. Hearing is Thursday after next. The BBB said Cadillac MAY offer to settle before that.

I was in Waukesha,WI for work this week. I drove a rental down the Chicago to do some work with United Airlines, who is HQd downtown Chicago. So, ended up staying downtown. Given parking rates downtown, I took my rental back and used UBER and taxis to get around. One UBER driver had an XTS. He said he uses it for UBER Black, which is the limo version of the service. He was slow, so he answered my request for "regular" UBER.

Not scientific, but he said he bought it as a Cadillac "buy back" a couple of years ago. He said he couldn't wait until he could get rid of it. Nothing but issues, and his aren't covered under warranty given he uses it as a "livery service".

It was probably only a couple of years old, but looked like it had been in service for over a dozen years. It was not holding up well and sounded like every bolt was coming off.

ON a positive note, I had the rare opportunity to see HAMILTON. Everyone, whether a theater lover or not, should see it. IT was outstanding! Didn't realize it when I got the ticket, but Wayne Brady played Aaron Burr.

GG, glad to hear a date has been set and you can bring this thing to an end. Just curious, had you bought the Accord Touring, what color would you have selected?

abacomike

I finally experienced a very positive result of all the technology that is crammed into my BMW 740i. I was parked at the mall and got into my car, started the engine, put the gear selector into R (reverse for those of you who only drive 3 pedals) and began backing up, looking both ways to make sure no car or pedestrian was behind me - but on each side of my parking space were two SUV which blocked my left and right rear visibility. All of a sudden, I hear a pulsating warning beep "from the rear seating area of my car". Sure enough, a car was coming from my left and if I had continued to back up without the rear "pedestrian/cross traffic warning system" and the driver of the oncoming car did not stop when he saw me pulling back, I would have had a very upset automobile insurance company having to pay out on a couple of claims (one for my rear quarter panel and one for the front end of the oncoming car!

What amazed me most about this accident prevention system was "where" the pulsating warning sounds were coming from - the rear - behind my head. I've experienced the front warning sounds when I am pulling straight out and a pedestrian or car was coming from my left or right (the warning tones come from the front of the car), but the location of the warning tones alerted me that the imminent collision with a car or pedestrian was from behind. Now that's what I call outstanding engineering and planning.

I like it!!!

stickguy

GG, this hearing (if it happens) should be the acid test as to whether the whole process should be blown up. Hard to imagine a more cut and dried case than yours, with no interpretation of law required (the whole "working as design" or "can't replicate" issue with some complaints). So even with an arbitrator in Caddy's pocket it should be 10 minutes and you win. So if they manage to still find against you, should file a complaint under RICO statute!

I wonder if the comment from BBB is legit? gotta figure they know that you have a winning case, but they still have to play the game. And I assume before the hearing, the arbitrator will review all the files, and pretty much already have a decision made. And if it is that you will win, they will relay to Cadillac, and it will be in their best interest to just make the offer. I assume in that case, they can avoid branding the car maybe, claiming it was a good will offer, not a lemon buyback? Who knows, maybe they can't ever fix the car right anyway so won't even matter!

suydam

abacomike said:

I finally experienced a very positive result of all the technology that is crammed into my BMW 740i. I was parked at the mall and got into my car, started the engine, put the gear selector into R (reverse for those of you who only drive 3 pedals) and began backing up, looking both ways to make sure no car or pedestrian was behind me - but on each side of my parking space were two SUV which blocked my left and right rear visibility. All of a sudden, I hear a pulsating warning beep "from the rear seating area of my car". Sure enough, a car was coming from my left and if I had continued to back up without the rear "pedestrian/cross traffic warning system" and the driver of the oncoming car did not stop when he saw me pulling back, I would have had a very upset automobile insurance company having to pay out on a couple of claims (one for my rear quarter panel and one for the front end of the oncoming car!

What amazed me most about this accident prevention system was "where" the pulsating warning sounds were coming from - the rear - behind my head. I've experienced the front warning sounds when I am pulling straight out and a pedestrian or car was coming from my left or right (the warning tones come from the front of the car), but the location of the warning tones alerted me that the imminent collision with a car or pedestrian was from behind. Now that's what I call outstanding engineering and planning.

I like it!!!

In a crowded mall those rear sensors are a godsend. I've also been warned when small children have run out behind my car just AFTER I had checked the rear view. I won't be without them any more.

graphicguy

SDA, Stick....thanks, guys. Appreciate the support.

There was an Accord I thought was gorgeous, and had never seen the combo before (or since). It was dark blue with tan leather. It had sold and was sitting outside the front of the dealership waiting for the new owner to finish in F&I office.

I talked to the sales person about it, and he told me they ordered it that way. Personally, I've never thought I'd wait for a Honda or Toyota to be ordered (3 months?). Sales person told me since the factory was right up the road (Marysville, OH) that they could get a special order done in 2 weeks.

If that blue one hadn't been already sold, not sure I wouldn't have driven it away as my new car.

abacomike

graphicguy said:

Driver....sounds like CAMVAP is more reasonable than the BBB arrangement in the U.S.

BBB finally got back to me. They (Cadillac) found an aribitrator they like. Hearing is Thursday after next. The BBB said Cadillac MAY offer to settle before that.

I was in Waukesha,WI for work this week. I drove a rental down the Chicago to do some work with United Airlines, who is HQd downtown Chicago. So, ended up staying downtown. Given parking rates downtown, I took my rental back and used UBER and taxis to get around. One UBER driver had an XTS. He said he uses it for UBER Black, which is the limo version of the service. He was slow, so he answered my request for "regular" UBER.

Not scientific, but he said he bought it as a Cadillac "buy back" a couple of years ago. He said he couldn't wait until he could get rid of it. Nothing but issues, and his aren't covered under warranty given he uses it as a "livery service".

It was probably only a couple of years old, but looked like it had been in service for over a dozen years. It was not holding up well and sounded like every bolt was coming off.

ON a positive note, I had the rare opportunity to see HAMILTON. Everyone, whether a theater lover or not, should see it. IT was outstanding! Didn't realize it when I got the ticket, but Wayne Brady played Aaron Burr.

This sure is good news, GG. What amazes me about this entire process is the obstinate approach Cadillac has taken regarding a fair and reasonable solution to this issue. Perhaps they are just "testing" the waters to see how far you will go to acquire a fair and equitable solution. Cadillac would have been much better off just replacing the car from the very start.

When and if the hearing takes place (arbitration), if you present to the arbiter the fact that this is the 3rd Cadillac you have had and have been put into a position whereby you have only driven the 3 cars in the past 2 years only a fraction of the time you owned them due to recalls, hazards, fires, front ends, etc., I can't see how you can lose regarding your request for being offered a buy back. In buy backs, they deduct for use of the car vis a vis mileage, etc.

I wish you luck, my friend, you sure deserve it!!!

jmonroe

abacomike said:

I finally experienced a very positive result of all the technology that is crammed into my BMW 740i. I was parked at the mall and got into my car, started the engine, put the gear selector into R (reverse for those of you who only drive 3 pedals) and began backing up, looking both ways to make sure no car or pedestrian was behind me - but on each side of my parking space were two SUV which blocked my left and right rear visibility. All of a sudden, I hear a pulsating warning beep "from the rear seating area of my car". Sure enough, a car was coming from my left and if I had continued to back up without the rear "pedestrian/cross traffic warning system" and the driver of the oncoming car did not stop when he saw me pulling back, I would have had a very upset automobile insurance company having to pay out on a couple of claims (one for my rear quarter panel and one for the front end of the oncoming car!

What amazed me most about this accident prevention system was "where" the pulsating warning sounds were coming from - the rear - behind my head. I've experienced the front warning sounds when I am pulling straight out and a pedestrian or car was coming from my left or right (the warning tones come from the front of the car), but the location of the warning tones alerted me that the imminent collision with a car or pedestrian was from behind. Now that's what I call outstanding engineering and planning.

I like it!!!

Welcome to the world of upscale car ownership. Even my wannabe has that feature.

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

If I went to arbitration and if I won I have a choice, they fix the car at their expense, I can take another car, or I can get the cash value of the car....you can read the Lemon Law yourself. If they only are required to fix the car for free, they would always go to arbitration, they have nothing to lose. The point is, they gave me $500 to go away.....they didn't want to risk the stiffer penalties that could have been brought down.

The clutch was fixed out of warranty at your expense and by your own admission it was fine afterward. There was no "lemon" involved, It was just a matter of arguing whether the clutch was defective and whether they should extend warranty coverage for that. If you think they would have given you another car, well... good luck.

I claimed the clutch was faulty. They claimed I caused the problems so I should pay to have it fixed. Dealer paid $600, Audi paid $500, I paid $1200. What was my recourse if I didn't take them to arbitration or small claims court? They seemed to come up with $500 pretty fast when I threatened to go to arbitration. The rules say 3 options, fix car, replace car, or cash equal to value of car. They don't say they choose, they said if I win I choose. All I am going by is what the rules said.......I think it makes it a good incentive to make them work to try to solve the problem....if they know they are right they'll still fight it....if they are wrong they won't want to risk those penalties.

This reminds me of a Chrysler commercial that aired years ago...it had one of those typically stupid "jingles" or "sing-a-longs", extolling the virtues of Chrysler with a cheery chorus of voices.

Then, right at the end, they were singing about Chrysler's new extended warranty---the song wrapped up with a drum roll finale and the chorus chirping something like "longest warranty of any car-----(then more softly) ....excluding manual clutch!"

driver100

GG, The Canadian system does seem fairer and more efficient. It is much more reasonable too because it covers 5 years or 100000 miles. It is pretty bad that there even has to be such a big deal process to go through.

I also like the fact the car companies pay for it and it adds $1 to the cost of each car....I would gladly pay $1 for that kind of protection.

That is probably a good sign that BBB said Caddie may settle beforehand......I bet it will be on the low side - they will want to see if you are a fighter or not.

Thanks for the opinion about Hamilton....it will be in Tampa for next winter...hopefully Toronto before that!

Mr_Shiftright

abacomike said:

cdnpinhead said:

abacomike said:

. . . by inviting complaints in an environment where millions of drivers watch the boards . . .

Millions? I'd say maybe a dozen or two.

I guess I overstated the popularity of the Forums - by a million and a half at the very least! 

No, no, we have lots of lurkers and one-timers....considerable number of visitors whom you never meet.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

If I went to arbitration and if I won I have a choice, they fix the car at their expense, I can take another car, or I can get the cash value of the car....you can read the Lemon Law yourself. If they only are required to fix the car for free, they would always go to arbitration, they have nothing to lose. The point is, they gave me $500 to go away.....they didn't want to risk the stiffer penalties that could have been brought down.

The clutch was fixed out of warranty at your expense and by your own admission it was fine afterward. There was no "lemon" involved, It was just a matter of arguing whether the clutch was defective and whether they should extend warranty coverage for that. If you think they would have given you another car, well... good luck.

I claimed the clutch was faulty. They claimed I caused the problems so I should pay to have it fixed. Dealer paid $600, Audi paid $500, I paid $1200. What was my recourse if I didn't take them to arbitration or small claims court? They seemed to come up with $500 pretty fast when I threatened to go to arbitration. The rules say 3 options, fix car, replace car, or cash equal to value of car. They don't say they choose, they said if I win I choose. All I am going by is what the rules said.......I think it makes it a good incentive to make them work to try to solve the problem....if they know they are right they'll still fight it....if they are wrong they won't want to risk those penalties.

This reminds me of a Chrysler commercial that aired years ago...it had one of those typically stupid "jingles" or "sing-a-longs", extolling the virtues of Chrysler with a cheery chorus of voices.

Then, right at the end, they were singing about Chrysler's new extended warranty---the song wrapped up with a drum roll finale and the chorus chirping something like "longest warranty of any car-----(then more softly) ....excluding manual clutch!"

lol and that ad reminds me of one playing now for Billy Fuselli or whatever his name is KIA. They have about a million things they give you if you buy a car...like he gives you $1000 back when you buy a car, and you get a free cruise. At the end of the ad the guy reads the desclaimers that last about 20 seconds and no human on earth could keep up with the speed of that guys voice.

driver100

Mike, that sounds like a great feature....I hate backing out when I am between 2 trucks or SUVs. I hope it isn't too loud though, some of those warnings can throw you off and make you step on the gas instead of the brake or something.....

suydam

I think most cars have Rear Cross Traffic Alert on at least their upper trim levels now. Both the '14 Encore and '17 Volt do. It's loud enough so you notice but not piercing. 

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

If I went to arbitration and if I won I have a choice, they fix the car at their expense, I can take another car, or I can get the cash value of the car....you can read the Lemon Law yourself. If they only are required to fix the car for free, they would always go to arbitration, they have nothing to lose. The point is, they gave me $500 to go away.....they didn't want to risk the stiffer penalties that could have been brought down.

The clutch was fixed out of warranty at your expense and by your own admission it was fine afterward. There was no "lemon" involved, It was just a matter of arguing whether the clutch was defective and whether they should extend warranty coverage for that. If you think they would have given you another car, well... good luck.

I claimed the clutch was faulty. They claimed I caused the problems so I should pay to have it fixed. Dealer paid $600, Audi paid $500, I paid $1200. What was my recourse if I didn't take them to arbitration or small claims court? They seemed to come up with $500 pretty fast when I threatened to go to arbitration. The rules say 3 options, fix car, replace car, or cash equal to value of car. They don't say they choose, they said if I win I choose. All I am going by is what the rules said.......I think it makes it a good incentive to make them work to try to solve the problem....if they know they are right they'll still fight it....if they are wrong they won't want to risk those penalties.

This reminds me of a Chrysler commercial that aired years ago...it had one of those typically stupid "jingles" or "sing-a-longs", extolling the virtues of Chrysler with a cheery chorus of voices.

Then, right at the end, they were singing about Chrysler's new extended warranty---the song wrapped up with a drum roll finale and the chorus chirping something like "longest warranty of any car-----(then more softly) ....excluding manual clutch!"

lol and that ad reminds me of one playing now for Billy Fuselli or whatever his name is KIA. They have about a million things they give you if you buy a car...like he gives you $1000 back when you buy a car, and you get a free cruise. At the end of the ad the guy reads the desclaimers that last about 20 seconds and no human on earth could keep up with the speed of that guys voice.

(read aloud at 4,000 words a minute): "only one at this price.....not including license, sales tax, dealer fees, doc fees, down payment, optional license plate bolts, armrests and sun visors...must be between the ages of 18 and 23 to qualify and a recently deployed veteran to Afghanistan.....credit restrictions apply...no shoes, no shirt, no service"

houdini1

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

I bailed after the fifth paragraph. :@

jmonroe

That was payback for all the one's you made me read!

A lot of collateral damage there.

houdini1

Mike, would your car have braked on its own if you had not braked manually?

carnaught

@graphicguy, agree with @driver100 that Cadillac will try to settle low with you before the arbitration. Just be on guard, and don't hesitate to make a counter offer, or just tell them you've gone this far, and you'll wait till arbitration for a resolution.

abacomike

houdini1 said:

Mike, would your car have braked on its own if you had not braked manually?

yes, both front and rear cross traffic and pedestrian alert systems will first audibly alert you of a pedestrian or a car in close proximity. At the same time, it primes the brakes. If you do not "brake" within a certain time (a second or two, perhaps less), the brakes are automatically applied if collision is imminent. A truly great feature in a big car like the 740i.

graphicguy

carnaught said:

@graphicguy, agree with @driver100 that Cadillac will try to settle low with you before the arbitration. Just be on guard, and don't hesitate to make a counter offer, or just tell them you've gone this far, and you'll wait till arbitration for a resolution.

Thanks....I suspect you're right. And, I will stick to my guns. I have never been more disappointed in a product, service or company than I have been with Cadillac. They wonder why their sales have been tanking and continue to tank. Even with positive initial press reviews, engineering and customer service is dismal, at best. Doesn't take long for these types of experiencing to make their rounds.

driver100

houdini1 said:

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

All I am saying is that is what the Lemon Law site says happens. It doesn't sound possible, but that is what they say. I suppose they would say, lets be reasonable, the clutch was at fault, would you accept that the manufacturer replace it. Maybe that is what they would actually do, but the site says 3 options.

Are you talking Ohio lemon law or Ontario? Because to my knowledge there is no lemon law in Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, in law there is the principle of a "reasonable man". Your scenario does not sound reasonable.

Canada has CAMVAP (The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP))

The original sites I looked at mentioned the 3 options, this one is more realistic. Some interesting hi-lites of the Canadian plan.


Disputes about alleged defects in a vehicle’s assembly or implementation of the new-vehicle warranty are eligible for arbitration under CAMVAP. Because it’s a dispute-resolution process, it has some distinct advantages.

It is free to use and relatively speedy — most cases are resolved within 70 days of application — and, unlike U.S. lemon laws, it doesn’t employ armies of lawyers. It offers reasonably effective recourse, even for buyers of late-model used vehicles.

CAMVAP is national in scope, ensuring every Canadian has access to the same remedies, while the U.S. lemon laws vary from state to state, with some weaker than others.

Many more Canadians are eligible for a hearing, as long as the vehicle is no more than five model years old and has traveled fewer than 160,000 km. The U.S. eligibility limit is generally three years and 50,000 km.

“Eligibility is easier in Canada. There’s no three-attempts-at-a-repair or 30-days-in the-shop stipulations before a vehicle owner can seek restitution, which are common requirements in the U.S.,” says Bob Pierce, the former provincial motor vehicle registrar who helped establish CAMVAP in 1994.

Recognizing that U.S.-style lemon laws would cost provincial treasuries millions of dollars annually, Pierce says the industry-run plan was granted nationwide approval to “save the administrative burden.”

“American lemon laws are bureaucratic, take lots of time and cost taxpayers and consumers alike,” he says. Automakers gird for battle with immense legal departments in the U.S., and consumers likewise show up with their own lawyers, generating big legal bills.

By contrast, the cost of dispute resolution in Canada is more manageable and is borne entirely by the automakers. It is estimated the program’s expenses add little more than $1 to the price of each new vehicle.

CAMVAP general manager Stephen Moody refutes the perception that arbitrators may be biased in favour of the manufacturers who are paying for the process.

“Some 75 to 80 per cent of the arbitrators are private lawyers, with the balance made up of engineers and other professionals, who have chosen arbitration as a tool in their portfolio. Manufacturers have no say in their selection.”

CAMVAP is guided by an independent board of governors that includes consumer, government, dealer and manufacturer representatives. In order to use the arbitration process, which is binding (no appeals), consumers have to relinquish the option of pursuing civil action in court.

Automobile owners are invited to apply for arbitration anytime within the stipulated time and mileage period. Hearings take place in the complainant’s hometown. And lawyers are deemed unnecessary.

“We see only two or three lawyers a year at hearings,” says Moody. CAMVAP averages about 300 hearings across the country each year.

The pro-consumer Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca) suggests vehicle owners are better served by bringing an expert witness, such as an auto technician, who can identify faulty parts inside a failing transmission, for example.

“Many complaints settle when the consumer is backed up by an expert and is well-prepared,” says APA president George Iny. Moody concurs.

“We recommend bringing a friend or a witness — and bring the vehicle with you. Arbitrators typically will take the vehicle out for a short drive; it’s a great opportunity to demonstrate the problem,” says Moody.

CAMVAP limits the kinds of reimbursements that consumers can receive. It can’t refund expenses related to buying or leasing a vehicle, or award punitive damages — a big reason why arbitration remains more affordable than a lawsuit.

Iny says many consumers elect arbitration, expecting that their problematic vehicle will be bought back by the manufacturer. But it often doesn’t turn out that way.

“CAMVAP is a very good place to get a refund for the car repairs your manufacturer should have paid,” says Iny. “It’s not nearly as effective for getting rid of a bad vehicle.”

In a study of CAMVAP award statistics covering 2009 and 2010, the APA noted the success rate for consumers was 61 per cent. But 54 per cent of consent awards and 21 per cent of arbitrated cases were ordered back to the dealer for yet another repair. For some vehicle owners, it’s a less than satisfactory outcome.

Only 12 per cent of arbitrated cases resulted in a purchase refund, minus an allowance for vehicle use. The APA suggests arbitrators need guidelines for identifying just how bad a vehicle has to be before replacement is required (every U.S. state lemon law does so).

Moody contends many applicants are not intent on getting their money back; they just want their vehicle repaired properly.

“A lot of consumers don’t apply for a buyback. It may not be in their interest or their ability to buy a new car after the use-of-vehicle cost has been deducted,” explains Moody.

Iny says that’s because of the punitive manner in which CAMVAP calculates vehicle depreciation, based on a lifespan of 160,000 km. He says that undervaluing the vehicle’s life by half, since today’s vehicles are expected to run 320,000 km before being scrapped.

“CAMVAP is a risky proposition if you want to return your bad vehicle,” says Iny. “The likelihood of that happening is about one in eight arbitrations, overall, and varies greatly depending on the brand of vehicle.”

In its analysis of arbitration award statistics posted online at camvap.ca, the APA identified which manufacturers appeared most often at hearings. (In its defence, CAMVAP states the collected data has no statistical validity.)

Almost one-third of arbitration cases in 2009-’10 involved Chrysler vehicles, including Dodge, Jeep and Ram models. With only 13 per cent market share in Canada at the time, Chrysler was overrepresented in hearings, while Ford and General Motors had representations more in line with their market shares.

Chrysler was ordered to buy back its vehicles about 40 per cent of the time that year, higher than any other manufacturer. Among importers, Nissan was also overrepresented and it was ordered to buy back its vehicles 28 per cent of the time.

BMW, Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not participating in CAMVAP, so owners of their vehicles must wrangle with dealers or elect to go to court.

I bailed after the fifth paragraph. :@

jmonroe

That was payback for all the one's you made me read!

A lot of collateral damage there.

I know, and a lot of waste of cyberspace......

andres3

ab348 said:

bwia said:

GG, that is a strong condemnation of the CTS and by extension Cadillac. Someone should be conveying these sentiments to the Cadillac boss (I can't remember his name) and to Mary Barra.

Come now, are you really surprised? Not exactly an unbiased view shown there. But whatever.

No, not unbiased at all, that's true. His bias is being a former and current owner of the brand. What a terrible bias!

explorerx4

Like the price, too bad about the color.
They have others in colors I like better, but they are only about 1K off.
http://www.terryvillechevy.com/VehicleDetails/new-2017-Chevrolet-SS-4dr_Sdn-Terryville-CT/2938421703

andres3

imidazol97 said:

imidazol97 said:

The GM reps responding to comments on forums is the dumbest implementation of a potentially good idea.

The GM reps are on another forum that I frequent. All it does it take up bandwidth with an extra response to someone's question or comment.

Often the people have already been to one dealer and didn't like the response. But instead the responses are always send me your VIN and I'll pass it on to the closest dealer in your area. Duh. I can find the dealer.

I understand that some people are trying to get something covered that's not within the 4 corners of the written warranty. They just think if something goes wrong after warranty, it ought to be covered anyhow.

There is a thing called "implied" warranties, subject to some interpretation. For instance, if I was only a few days or a few miles past my warranty, I would think the manufacturer should step up in this borderline type of case.