I read a piece on Buffet a year or so again. He actually seems rather modest - lives in the same middle class house in Omaha, doesn't showboat, used to drive a Lincoln, but Waggoner talked him into a Caddy DTS a year or two ago. I bet he does most of his own driving. I grew up near (certainly not in) some well to do suburban areas in Chicago. It seemed like old money and the very wealthy were more likely to drive nice cars like Buicks back then, but new money always seemed to have to have a show off big dollar car. Of course, if you don't use the car for business, its really a depreciating non-operating asset, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised by the old money having more modest cars. So I guess I wasn't really surprised by Buffet's car picks since I don't think he is a car buff.
GM just announced a recall of approx. 1.4 million vehicles due to a faulty windshield washer heating system potentially being a fire hazard.
Instead of correcting the problem system by repairing it, GM is disabling it and, as I understand it, offering each vehicle owner $100 compensation.
While I doubt many of these vehicles were purchased primarily for this feature, nevertheless, it was an option the purchaser had a right to expect to function (at least, under the warranty period).
So, do you thing this is the beginning of a new trend in warranty service, or a one-time "blip" on the warranty scene?
"GM is taking preemptive action, which is lot better than pretending nothing's wrong until a tragedy proves the opposite.
"It's hard not to view GM's recall in light of Toyota Motor Corp.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!tm/quotes/nls/tm (TM 69.19, -0.29, -0.42%) sticky accelerator crisis, where it took a string of deaths and volumes of consumer complaints to finally break through a wall of denials, costing Toyota billions of dollars in a rear-guard effort to make things right.
"After all, this is a legacy problem. These faulty fluid heaters date back to the days before bankruptcy. The first fix, in 2008, didn't work and the company that supplied the units, Microheat, went out of business after that first recall.
"Either way, cultivating the perception that GM is changing the way it thinks will be just as important as product design as it prepares its stock offering in the months ahead. "
Sounds fair to me. Supplier is out of business. Can't be made to support recall parts. GM pays $100 to each own having it removed for loss of services.
So, do you thing this is the beginning of a new trend in warranty service, or a one-time "blip" on the warranty scene?
Yeah I can understand how heated windshield washer fluid could be important. I'd trade a $100 bucks anyday for that feature cause we wouldn't need that around my parts.
I can also understand if customers rejected the initial offering and submitted their own in place of the $100. This could also make it to small claims court.
Sounds fair to me. Supplier is out of business. Can't be made to support recall parts. GM pays $100 to each own having it removed for loss of services.
The problem with that approach is that GM car buyers didn't contract with the sub-contractor, but with GM. And, at 1.5 million units, it would seem that a different supplier could be found to produce a working product at a reasonable cost to GM. It isn't rocket science, as many other automakers offer the very same option.
What if it was a necessary engine part?
Some folks might really use the option in question, although it isn't absolutely necessary. How about the car radio? OK to walk away from it?
"Sorry... You're stuck. The original part maker is defunct".
Legacy problem or not, after GM and the government did so much in "guaranteeing" and advertising that existing warranties would be upheld, it seems a bit disingenuous to attempt to walk away by claiming the sub-contractor is now out of business. Either a warranty is intact or it isn't....
I'm not bashing GM here, but because this idea of changing the promise to the consumer may spread to other automakers, is this what we should expect from now on?
If you hire a contractor to build your house and agree on a price and pay that price, is it fair to not have kitchen cabinets because the cabinet maker went broke?
I would think most would tell the contractor to find a different cabinet maker. And, I doubt it would be satisfactory to the homebuyer for the contractor to issue a refund that the contractor deemed "fair" (with no imput from the purchaser) along with..."Sorry, the cabinet maker went broke....You're on your own".
I suspect GM will see a class-action lawsuit here... If nothing else, it would seem that is will damage GM's credibility when they market the claim of standing behind their products.
Per the article I cited earlier, it's an effective way to move a problem to the sideline for most owners. Heating the washer fluid is a conspicous consumption method of doing something that only 5% of the owners use on a vehicle-time weighted percentage and that's probably a high guess. On that vehicle-day type of count I'd think only 1% be the usage rate--only in cold climates on vehicles left outdoors and only those days where frost, ice formed on the windshield. And most of those plain alcoholic washer fluid would have melted the ice as well.
I suspect people in Florida and Georgie and South Carolina will be as happy to get the $100 for disconnecting the heater portion as the Social Security folk are to get a $250 check from the US taxpayer as an extra payment to buy their vote--er, I mean to help them pay for Medicare costs.
Only in the court of public opinion. We shall see how that washes out. I still think Toyota will buy his silence as they have done many times before. If they have not done so already. I have not heard a word from him since the incident.
You'd have the right to demand they fix it and fix it right in CA. If they can't or don't in 2 - 4 attemps/visits to the dealer then you have a :lemon: .
You'd have a perfect qualified lemon law case and indeed, your GM is a lemon. :lemon:
I'd tell them add a zero to that $100 or your buying the car back!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm not bashing GM here, but because this idea of changing the promise to the consumer may spread to other automakers, is this what we should expect from now on?
I hope not, as I hope only GM and Chrysler are the only ones evil enough to think of something so terrible as not honoring warranties and thinking one C-note is good enough to make it "go away."
If you hire a contractor to build your house and agree on a price and pay that price, is it fair to not have kitchen cabinets because the cabinet maker went broke?
I would think most would tell the contractor to find a different cabinet maker. And, I doubt it would be satisfactory to the homebuyer for the contractor to issue a refund that the contractor deemed "fair" (with no input from the purchaser) along with..."Sorry, the cabinet maker went broke....You're on your own".
I suspect GM will see a class-action lawsuit here... If nothing else, it would seem that is will damage GM's credibility when they market the claim of standing behind their products.
You are absolutely 100% right and I agree with you fully. As somewhat of an expert in construction management (my chosen career field for 8 years now), I can say without a doubt the contractor would not get away with saying, "sorry, the manufacturer went out of business." If it was specific in the contract that they provide a model from that manufacturer, then they should have procured it prior to them going out of business. A like kind and quality substitution might suffice, but the owner/client would have right of refusal and approval.
Frankly, the owner is within his rights to consider it a BREACH of CONTRACT if you think it's OK to delete the cabinets. I'd say hey, I was paying you $400,000 for the house, but I considered the cabinets to be $350,000 of that, so OK, no cabinets, the new contract is $50,000. Since the contractor is the first to breach, all bets are off and all terms can be changed at that point.
Basically, not delivering on a promise "purchase contract" puts that party in a real bind and a real pickle. You really should be at the mercy of the owner. Some owners will not be happy, and will stick it to you, as they can, and maybe should.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I suspect people in Florida and Georgie and South Carolina will be as happy to get the $100 for disconnecting the heater portion as the Social Security folk are to get a $250 check from the US taxpayer as an extra payment to buy their vote--er, I mean to help them pay for Medicare costs.
I suspect those people happy to get $100 would be even HAPPIER getting $1,000.00. If those people knew they had a legitimate and lawful case to get GM to buyback the vehicles under lemon laws, I doubt they'd accept the $100 so hastily.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
More time is being spent bashing GM in the toyota-lexus discusssion than discussion toyota-lexus! GM must really have the folks worried as competition.
With all the flaws lexus, avalon, and camry have shown through the recent years, the fans of Kaizen are worried about a gimmick in some GM production vehicles where the supplier is no longer able to build replacements so GM is asking to neuter the product!!! I love the hypocrisy!
Maybe we can talk runaway acceleration? Dying Priuses? Sludge? Transmission lag due to poor choices of accumulator size (or is there no accumulator now on the camrys with that problem?) by toyota engineering? Brake wear?
Maybe we can talk runaway acceleration? Dying Priuses? Sludge? Transmission lag due to poor choices of accumulator size (or is there no accumulator now on the camrys with that problem?) by toyota engineering? Brake wear?
OKay. Let's talk about runaway acceleration in Toyotas. Would you suggest and recommend that Toyota follow GM's lead and example, and offer this solution.
- Remove the throttle body and pedal assembly. - Offer customer $100 for their troubles. - Offer a marketing slogan.....
May the best car win!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I get amused by how actively toyotaphiles attach GM but dismiss toyota-lexus' manipulations of law and government agencies as "oh well
You're going to find it quite difficult to find a post I have made defending Toyota or any other auto maker.
Over 35 years, I've owned many makes of cars, and my experience with every manufacturer has been somewhat mixed. Some were more reliable than others, but that holds true within specific makes. One of the best cars and one of the worst cars I ever owned was a GM product. So, I'm neutral in that respect.
Pointing out that a "case closed" example by some (such as the Saylors case by the Toyota bashers) isn't anything at all what they really think it is doesn't make me a Toyota supporter, but a supporter of what the facts tell us.
I could care less about who the manufacturer is, and if it were GM and UA, my opinion would be exactly the same. I drive on the same road as all the other folks, and I'm just as subject to being plowed into as anyone else by a car undergoing UA. I don't deny the possibility of UA in any make, but I have yet to review any evidence that even come close to verifying its existance.
So, if this was Toyota attempting to do what GM is doing, my opinion would be EXACTLY the same.
The fact is, a promise was made to the customer, and its one that could be kept. GM doesn't want to keep that promise and is wanting to avoid its obligations in the promise it voluntarily made. It makes no difference whether or not YOU deem the function necessary.
Now, if the vehicle owner has the option of repair/replacement or take a $100 payment, I'm fine with that. At least, the customer has input into the transaction. And, I suspect that many will indeed just take the $100. The real question is...Will they buy another GM product after the experience?
Yes, some will, but some won't. Anyone who is well versed in marketing will tell you that its much cheaper to keep an existing customer that go out and get a new one. Since we are all "stakeholders" in GM, this is something that should concern all of us.
Again, I'm not bashing GM or any other manufacturer. The facts speak for themselves.
Its fairly easy to see how GM may soon be called the automaker of broken promises. Maybe they simply don't care.
The real irony is that GM may well spend more money on its campaign to erase the name "Chevy" and replace it with "Chevrolet". I wonder what the total cost of that inane effort will be...
With all the flaws lexus, avalon, and camry have shown through the recent years, the fans of Kaizen are worried about a gimmick in some GM production vehicles where the supplier is no longer able to build replacements so GM is asking to neuter the product!!! I love the hypocrisy!
The only thing hypocrital here is GM telling its customers that the supplier went belly-up and they can't find an alternate supplier, when other makes clearly aren't experiencing a supplier issue.
More time is being spent bashing GM in the toyota-lexus discusssion than discussion toyota-lexus! GM must really have the folks worried as competition.
With all the flaws lexus, avalon, and camry have shown through the recent years, the fans of Kaizen are worried about a gimmick in some GM production vehicles where the supplier is no longer able to build replacements so GM is asking to neuter the product!!! I love the hypocrisy!
Maybe we can talk runaway acceleration? Dying Priuses? Sludge? Transmission lag due to poor choices of accumulator size (or is there no accumulator now on the camrys with that problem?) by toyota engineering? Brake wear?
We should be all honest here.
Toyota has made extremely reliable cars for decades. They are quiet, smooth, and boring if you like good handling. There have been a few issues in the past, but not many. As a percentage of their vehicles the problems are still quite rare. In the last few years Toyota has grown too fast, prioritized growth over quality, and cheapened the product. A rare but serious recent problem has killed people, and Toyota has been guilty of coverup and some fraud and they ought to be slammed for that. Most of their recent cars are still quite reliable and boring, but getting a bit cheaper (quality-wise).
GM has made a lot of junk for decades. They have had some good stuff, especially in trucks and old people cars (Buick; if you like those vehicles). In particular most of their mainstream cars have been poor in reliability and refinement vs. the competition. They have some reliable vehicles but in general most of their stuff has been unreliable, although cheaper to repair than many foreign makes. GM has also been an advertising and financial disaster for a decade or more. More recently their vehicles have gotten far more competitive and they are showing great effort. The reliability is improving but still spotty. The BK helped them shed a lot (but not all) of their problems. The change in management is s step in the right direction. Their ability to be successful and profitable is still questionable. Their likelihood of repaying the government all the money they took is very low.
Fanboys on both sides can bring up rare events and we can argue for a long time. But the statements above are a pretty realistic list of where GM and Toyota have been and have evolved to today.
- Remove the throttle body and pedal assembly. - Offer customer $100 for their troubles. - Offer a marketing slogan.....
That was hilarious.
To be honest I don't think we should be making a big deal about the temperature of the wiper fluid. Even though GM hyped that up in their advertising, it's not exactly an essential feature.
Having said that, we have 1.4 million potential fire hazards driving around, and that is what should be getting attention (not the warranty).
Question: do any other car makes outside of GM provide washer fluid heaters or are they peculiar to GM? If, say Nissan, has a heated washer fluid system, I'd have the GM systems retrofitted with the system from Nissan's supplier. Else, it sounds like this system is unique to GM vehicles and the sole supplier is out of business.
Still, a possibly faulty gimmick that is disabled pales compared to a major component that can seriously injure or kill the driver and a vehicle's occupants in the case of SUA.
They're only (possible) hazards if the system is engaged which it rarely would be. It's not as if one leaves it on for hours. I used it once, it heats in a few minutes, the fluid clears the ice, then I turned it off. The running heater/defroster would make it unnecessary to engage the heated fluid feature from that point on.
An out of control car during a SUA incident is a danger to all.
I once rented a Mercury Tracer sedan in New Mexico, drove it from Albuquerque to Taos in a snow storm.
The wiper fluid froze up, big time. I'm not even sure a GM-style heater would have helped, though, because the whole line was frozen up.
Even after buying fresh fluid, the lines were frozen so it STILL didn't work.
A heater like that may not have helped unless the entire line all the way to the source was heated, but for sure I would have left it on for the whole trip.
The interior heater and defrost did little to help. The windshield was dirty from all the stuff kicked up by other cars, and I could not clean it off without stopping (which I did - many times).
If it's cold and the fluid freezes up I'd have that on the whole time I was driving, possibly all winter.
There is winter washer fluid. Heck, I would think adding some alcohol to regular washer fluid would keep it and the lines thawed. There's this orangish stuff that clears bugs if you happen to be driving through an insect-infested area. Splattered bugs sure do make a mess.
Absolutely, and I'm the type of guy who cleans his windshield every time I fill up with gas, and often a 2nd time at home inbetween. Rain X applications regularly, too.
This was a rental so it was delivered already cold/frozen.
In cold temps, though, if a car had washer fluid heating, mine would be on all the time if temps were below 35 or so - always.
>I once rented a Mercury Tracer sedan in New Mexico, drove it from Albuquerque to Taos in a snow storm. The wiper fluid froze up, big time.
Here in beautiful Western Ohio, the usual winter problem in snowy weather is the wiper blades themselves getting covered with ice and slush where they don't touch the glass. The stuff keeps the wipers from flexing to fit the various curves of the windshield. The rubber covered wiper blades for winter help with that. I don't believe heated or unheated washer fluid helps. Stopping and banging the ice loose from the blades and off the windshield is the only fix. Staying home in that type of weather is another fix.
I was happy to see more car makers going with these flat blades that don't have the big exposed metal frame for ice to get stuck on, they tend to ice up much less:
Those plus the wiper de-icers on my Subaru are absolutely golden. No wonder everyone in the snow belt drives one.
FWIW my Sienna does not have these flat blades, not sure about the newer ones.
Subaru > Toyota in terms of heated side mirrors, too. The Sienna melts ice, but the Forester goes a step further and makes even misty rain evaporate, keeping the mirror clear all the time.
I'd have killed to trade that Mercury for my Subaru in Taos...
To be honest I don't think we should be making a big deal about the temperature of the wiper fluid. Even though GM hyped that up in their advertising, it's not exactly an essential feature.
Having said that, we have 1.4 million potential fire hazards driving around, and that is what should be getting attention (not the warranty).
I agree, and that was never my intention.
The real question, as I originally asked it, was "Is this the type of behavior from auto manufacturers that we should expect in the future?".
As we add more and more "do-dads" to cars, I predict we will have other instances of what many would consider "minor" conveniences that fail. And, I think we all agree that the washer heater system falls into the non-critical arena.
But, how about, say, a bluetooth system...or, the aux. input into the radio? Again, not "mission critical", but far more widely used.
Is it realistic for any manufacturer to sell a product with technically advanced features, and yet, when one/some of those features fail, simply say "Oops! Its broke...subcontractor went broke" and offer some sort of payment in lieu of repair?
In the case at hand, its probably a simple solution. The only question is how much those owners will demand as payment for the lost function. And, maybe that's the answer.
Possibly GM feels its cheaper to go this route than engineer and effect a fix. I'm sure that we would see a different response if the item was deemed more important in the operation of the auto.
Of course, if I were a competitor, I would certainly use the example to my benefit in my marketing effort. And, that was my point all along...Since we are all "stakeholders" in GM, is it in our best interest to accept that type of behavior? If a company doesn't stand behind its product with a reliable warranty, yet competitors do (an assumption here), it doesn't take a financial wizard to see where this will end up.
Remember, were talking about 1.5 million vehicles. That's more than the annual production of some car companies (Mazda and BMW, as an example -2008 production).
If it were 1000 vehicles, I doubt this issue would have ever made the news.
Is it realistic for any manufacturer to sell a product with technically advanced features, and yet, when one/some of those features fail, simply say "Oops! Its broke...subcontractor went broke" and offer some sort of payment in lieu of repair?
Can't you see that on the Volt? Ooops! Charging system powered by ICE does not work, please plug it in after 40 miles, here is $10K as compensation. :P :shades:
Is this the type of behavior from auto manufacturers that we should expect in the future?
That seems likely, especially since they're being more and more careful to avoid liability.
But, how about, say, a bluetooth system...or, the aux. input into the radio?
I can give you a real-world example: analog OnStar. They went digital and the older analog systems flat lined.
Another: imagine trying to get a map update for an older CD-based Navigation system. The newer maps take up so much space it's usually a set of 2 or 3 DVDs. That would be up to 20 CDs worth of capacity! Ain't happening.
So it happens already.
What's different now?
Well, this feature was hyped up a lot during the 2009 auto show season, IIRC, so a year later killing it seems premature even for bleeding edge stuff. 1.4 million units is also a huge installed base. I doubt any manufacturer sold 1.4 million CD-based Navigation systems.'
I have mixed feelings. I'd be annoyed, sure, but I don't want to stop them from taking risks and discovering features that do work well.
I remember when the 1999 Miata came out, it made less-than-stated HP, and owners got a $500 accessory gift card?
That seemed fair to me - I mean, if you test drove it and it had enough power, what does the number on the brochure really matter?
Plus they'd buy it back if you still weren't happy, but you'd have to return the $500 and the car.
Weren't there some claims that the electronics wouldn't respond to shifting into neutral? Of course, if you've got a key ignition you can just drop it back a notch in that event I guess - quicker than CTRL-ALT-DEL !
There have been no legitimate verifiable claims that shifting to neutral has ever NOT worked. Everytime someone does a test with full throtlle acceleration neutral always works just fine, 100% of the time.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I can give you a real-world example: analog OnStar. They went digital and the older analog systems flat lined.
But, were the old analog systems still under warranty?
If any were, IMO, GM should have given the digital upgrade to those still under warranty (and also active subscribers) when analog went "quiet" (According to Wikipedia, an upgrade was available for the last 3 years analog OnStar was installed for a $200 fee)...
From Wikipedia...
In April 2006, GM notified approximately 500,000 of their OnStar customers who had analog service that their service would be terminated effective December 31, 2007, because starting February 18, 2008 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would no longer require US cell phone systems to operate in analog mode. Customers who purchased a prepaid, non-refundable, non-transferable 1-year OnStar Safe & Sound subscription were scheduled to receive an equipment upgrade. If the vehicle is from the 2003, 2004, or 2005 model year, an adapter costing approximately $200 (includes a one year subscription) can be installed at the customer's expense. If it is older, it will simply no longer be usable.[9] A law firm in Pennsylvania representing some of the affected customers sought to have a class certified for a class action lawsuit for damages claimed in the cancellation of OnStar service.
To me, that's a big difference. Being obsolete and unservicable after the warranty expires is different than not being repaired while the warranty is still active.
Also, this item actually depends upon a 3rd party carrier to function, and an additional yearly fee (doesn't GM give only the first year OnStar service free, then require payment annually afterwards?), and since federal regulations forced out analog (actually, the FCC no longer required carriers to support analog, and since it was allocated spectrum, the carriers reclaimed it for digital usage) this really was beyond GM's control. I don't have a GM vehicle, but I would imagine there are all sorts of "caveats" in the owners manual explaining GM's limitations of responsibility with OnStar.
I can't buy a betamax cassette any more, but then again, there isn't a single betamax still out there under warranty.
Another: imagine trying to get a map update for an older CD-based Navigation system. The newer maps take up so much space it's usually a set of 2 or 3 DVDs. That would be up to 20 CDs worth of capacity! Ain't happening.
Again, are we talking obsolescence here or are we talking refusal of repair while still under warranty? If I buy a laptop from HP, and its still under warranty if it breaks HP will either repair or replace it with another one with, at a minimum, the same power and functionality. If its out of warranty, I have no recourse if parts are no longer available... nor, would I have any problem with that. At that point, it worked at least as long as the company guaranteed it would work.
I remember when the 1999 Miata came out, it made less-than-stated HP, and owners got a $500 accessory gift card?
That seemed fair to me - I mean, if you test drove it and it had enough power, what does the number on the brochure really matter?
While I agree with your conclusion here, that's not quite the same thing. Advertising one thing and delivering something less is just telling a lie, unless there is a mistake in publishing the performance information.
I'd be annoyed, sure, but I don't want to stop them from taking risks and discovering features that do work well.
Nor do I. Still, I personally expect a company to stand behind its product, be it automobile, computer or hair dryer for as long as the warranty period is in force.
Now, if GM or any other company isn't willing to do that, they should shorten the warranty period (or not offer one at all). Then, at least you understand YOU are making a concious decision of taking on the added risk that the product may not have much of a lifespan.
Otherwise, IMO, its no more than being dishonest to their customers.
Nor do I. Still, I personally expect a company to stand behind its product, be it automobile, computer or hair dryer for as long as the warranty period is in force.
So when you let the water run dry and the heater burns down your home you would be satisfied with another defective designed water heater?
Basically that is what Toyota has done with the CTS throttles. Yours goes bad they give you a new one. Same poor design but now you have a new one that can fail and stick.
If I buy a laptop from HP, and its still under warranty if it breaks HP will either repair or replace it with another one
I am still laughing from that one. You obviously have never tried dealing with HP tech support. If you were lucky enough to buy from Costco you may get a replacement. You want to talk to someone in India or China that works for HP get out your CC. HP builds decent printers and lousy computers. I have one that is a constant hassle. Never again. If they break throw them away and buy another.
I am still laughing from that one. You obviously have never tried dealing with HP tech support. If you were lucky enough to buy from Costco you may get a replacement. You want to talk to someone in India or China that works for HP get out your CC. HP builds decent printers and lousy computers. I have one that is a constant hassle. Never again. If they break throw them away and buy another.
This response was typed and sent from a HP laptop that the company replaced under warranty, exactly as I said they would do.
Basically that is what Toyota has done with the CTS throttles. Yours goes bad they give you a new one. Same poor design but now you have a new one that can fail and stick.
And, don't forget Chrysler. Same sub-supplier, same problem.
If you're going to bash a company, then you should at least bash ALL the companies with the same issue.
A stuck throttle in a Toyota is no less dangerous than a stuck throttle in a Chrysler or Dodge.
I see new ones for sale (and 8 track tapes too) via Google Shopping.
Gary, I'm with you on HP. I have a boat anchor here that belongs to a friend. The shop took one glance and said yeah, 1,000s of those were bad. It's the Compaq with the bad solder on the mobo and my friend stuck it in a closet for several months while out in the bush and missed the recall.
I went Chinese with a Lenovo because of that fiasco, and I have two HP engineers as neighbors. They do mostly printers here still, but both neighbors got an earful. :shades:
Meanwhile Toyota is revamping the ranks and bringing back low-level supervisors to improve quality:
Gary, I'm with you on HP. I have a boat anchor here that belongs to a friend. The shop took one glance and said yeah, 1,000s of those were bad. It's the Compaq with the bad solder on the mobo and my friend stuck it in a closet for several months while out in the bush and missed the recall .
So, somehow HP is at fault because your friend, as you say..."stuck it in a closet for several months while out in the bush and missed the recall."
Everyone's experience is different. All I can say is that I didn't have any issue with HP product replacement (only one sample for me). Perhaps next time might be different...if there is a next time.
And, don't forget Chrysler. Same sub-supplier, same problem.
If you're going to bash a company, then you should at least bash ALL the companies with the same issue.
A stuck throttle in a Toyota is no less dangerous than a stuck throttle in a Chrysler or Dodge.
I don't want to meet either of them on the road.
Odds are worse with an 07 Caliber, actually. 5 in 25,000, so 1 out of 5,000.
I believe Consumer Reports calculated the odds in the recalled Toyotas at 1 in 10,000. It was in the letters section of last month's issue, and before people scream bias that was the edition where they put the DO NOT BUY: SAFETY RISK label on the Lexus GX.
The production numbers for Chrysler are much smaller, but the odds are double.
I think GM asking for a $200 fee to upgrade existing ones to digital was wrong, though. Perhaps better than nothing, I suppose.
Remember - those customer were paying a subscription fee at the time.
If the Wiki info was correct, the $200 "upgrade" also included a 1 year subscription, but since I don't have a GM product, I don't know how much of the $200 went to the upgrade and how much went to the subscription fee.
My guess is that it probably was covered under the OnStar contract/agreement, but I also agree with you. Charging a person with a 3-5 year old car a fee to upgrade their equipment so that they had the "priviledge" of paying an annual subscription (a profit center for GM) to GM was poor marketing, IMO. I would have done more like the Cellular companies, and given it free for a 2-3 year subscription agreement. In the end, no one would have been happy with the results, but most would have accepted it with little argument.
HP knowingly sold 1,000s of these laptops with bad mobos - Compaqs and Pavillions. The fix is to reflow the whole motherboard. Not cost effective. When I walked into the local laptop repair place, the tech took one glance and picked a chip up off the counter and said "here's your problem, but it's not worth fixing".
$1,000 laptops shouldn't die in two years and since it's a manufacturing defect, the recall should have been for at least 3 years, the typical life of a computer.
They irritated me so much stonewalling me on tech support that I won't buy another one of their printers either. And this wasn't even my laptop.
Now, think about how people get treated at car dealers and by the manufacturers, and you'll understand why so many people post "I'll never buy another Ford/Chevy/Toyota" around here.
It's a whole lot easier to keep customers than get new ones. Maybe Chrysler has figured that out with the way they are handling their stuck accelerator recall, compared to the way Toyota did.
HP knowingly sold 1,000s of these laptops with bad mobos - Compaqs and Pavillions. The fix is to reflow the whole motherboard. Not cost effective. When I walked into the local laptop repair place, the tech took one glance and picked a chip up off the counter and said "here's your problem, but it's not worth fixing".
$1,000 laptops shouldn't die in two years and since it's a manufacturing defect, the recall should have been for at least 3 years, the typical life of a computer.
Knowingly sold them? Got proof?
Did they last through the warranty period? Didn't you say there was a recall time period, but your friend missed it?
How do you know 3 years is the life of a typical computer? Is that just your opinion, or do you want to quote a source?
If I go today and buy a 26" flat screen TV with a 1 year warranty, I know before I walk out of the store that once 1 year passes, it will not be economical to repair the unit. But, I still expect to last longer than a year. How long should a 26" flat screen TV last before breaking?
They irritated me so much stonewalling me on tech support that I won't buy another one of their printers either. And this wasn't even my laptop.
Fair enough. I doubt any mass manufacturer of any product hasn't ticked off some number of customers. HP is no different. I have the very same opinion of other manufacturers.
Now, think about how people get treated at car dealers and by the manufacturers, and you'll understand why so many people post "I'll never buy another Ford/Chevy/Toyota" around here.
Read my comment above. I understand perfectly. No one likes to feel like they were "burned".
It's a whole lot easier to keep customers than get new ones.
Definitely. I agree 100%.
Maybe Chrysler has figured that out with the way they are handling their stuck accelerator recall, compared to the way Toyota did.
Time will tell on that...But, I do agree that better customer service is ALWAYS better than poor customer service.
What we are really talking about here is the explicit warranty .vs. the implied warranty. My BMW warranty is for 4 years or 50K miles, but I certainly expect it to last longer than 4 years and 50K miles.
ANd, we are back where we started. GM has both an explicit as well as implied warranty for the cars with the heated washer system, and they want to walk away from both warranties. And, mind you, these are mostly high-line autos, not entry level.
I call that poor customer service. And, as you feel about HP, I feel the same way about GM...and, I don't even currently own one. That behavior certainly isn't conducive to getting me to buy a GM product, either.
>HP knowingly sold 1,000s of these laptops with bad mobos
I don't know if they knowingly sold them, but there was one problem where the warranty was extended to 2 years. One of the laptops I did maintenance on showed symptoms at 1.5 years according to owner. I thought I remembered a motherboard problem in the video area. Sure enough. Contacted tech support via the CHAT method, which I've found to almost perfect 95% of the time. Had a FedEx return box shipped out same day for delivery next day or 2nd day, I forget now. She returned laptop and had the fixed laptop or with new guts but her own hard drive back in 7-9 days IIRC.
I like HP's chat but despise their voice help folks.
Had a FedEx return box shipped out same day for delivery next day or 2nd day, I forget now. She returned laptop and had the fixed laptop or with new guts but her own hard drive back in 7-9 days IIRC.
Similar to my experience, but in my case, got a completely new laptop...One, in fact, that had more memory, an additional USB port and 20 additional GB HD capacity. Total time involved was about 2 weeks. Since it was in essence a free upgrade, obviously I was pleased.
That laptop is the one I am using as I type this, and it is approx. 2 years old now.
But, I understand well the ill feelings of others. I have those very feelings about some companies as well (XM Radio is one of them. The most incompetent folks I have ever attempted to deal with).
In that regard, I can only imagine the scenario when Sirius/XM attempts to delete either the XM or Sirius side.... with all the cars equipped with one or the other receivers.... Gonna be fun!
My post was typed on my old HP laptop, a Pavilion 5000 series, about 4 years old best I can figure. It's ON many hours of the day, sitting on a bar area with a cooling fan plate under it.
Comments
Instead of correcting the problem system by repairing it, GM is disabling it and, as I understand it, offering each vehicle owner $100 compensation.
While I doubt many of these vehicles were purchased primarily for this feature, nevertheless, it was an option the purchaser had a right to expect to function (at least, under the warranty period).
So, do you thing this is the beginning of a new trend in warranty service, or a one-time "blip" on the warranty scene?
"It's hard not to view GM's recall in light of Toyota Motor Corp.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!tm/quotes/nls/tm (TM 69.19, -0.29, -0.42%) sticky accelerator crisis, where it took a string of deaths and volumes of consumer complaints to finally break through a wall of denials, costing Toyota billions of dollars in a rear-guard effort to make things right.
"After all, this is a legacy problem. These faulty fluid heaters date back to the days before bankruptcy. The first fix, in 2008, didn't work and the company that supplied the units, Microheat, went out of business after that first recall.
"Either way, cultivating the perception that GM is changing the way it thinks will be just as important as product design as it prepares its stock offering in the months ahead. "
Sounds fair to me. Supplier is out of business. Can't be made to support recall parts. GM pays $100 to each own having it removed for loss of services.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yeah I can understand how heated windshield washer fluid could be important. I'd trade a $100 bucks anyday for that feature cause we wouldn't need that around my parts.
I can also understand if customers rejected the initial offering and submitted their own in place of the $100. This could also make it to small claims court.
The black box in the car proved he was lying. And we won't even get in to his personal situation(s).
The Sikes case is dead.
The problem with that approach is that GM car buyers didn't contract with the sub-contractor, but with GM. And, at 1.5 million units, it would seem that a different supplier could be found to produce a working product at a reasonable cost to GM. It isn't rocket science, as many other automakers offer the very same option.
What if it was a necessary engine part?
Some folks might really use the option in question, although it isn't absolutely necessary. How about the car radio? OK to walk away from it?
"Sorry... You're stuck. The original part maker is defunct".
Legacy problem or not, after GM and the government did so much in "guaranteeing" and advertising that existing warranties would be upheld, it seems a bit disingenuous to attempt to walk away by claiming the sub-contractor is now out of business. Either a warranty is intact or it isn't....
I'm not bashing GM here, but because this idea of changing the promise to the consumer may spread to other automakers, is this what we should expect from now on?
If you hire a contractor to build your house and agree on a price and pay that price, is it fair to not have kitchen cabinets because the cabinet maker went broke?
I would think most would tell the contractor to find a different cabinet maker. And, I doubt it would be satisfactory to the homebuyer for the contractor to issue a refund that the contractor deemed "fair" (with no imput from the purchaser) along with..."Sorry, the cabinet maker went broke....You're on your own".
I suspect GM will see a class-action lawsuit here... If nothing else, it would seem that is will damage GM's credibility when they market the claim of standing behind their products.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The black box did not prove he was lying. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Per the article I cited earlier, it's an effective way to move a problem to the sideline for most owners. Heating the washer fluid is a conspicous consumption method of doing something that only 5% of the owners use on a vehicle-time weighted percentage and that's probably a high guess. On that vehicle-day type of count I'd think only 1% be the usage rate--only in cold climates on vehicles left outdoors and only those days where frost, ice formed on the windshield. And most of those plain alcoholic washer fluid would have melted the ice as well.
I suspect people in Florida and Georgie and South Carolina will be as happy to get the $100 for disconnecting the heater portion as the Social Security folk are to get a $250 check from the US taxpayer as an extra payment to buy their vote--er, I mean to help them pay for Medicare costs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Only in the court of public opinion. We shall see how that washes out. I still think Toyota will buy his silence as they have done many times before. If they have not done so already. I have not heard a word from him since the incident.
You'd have a perfect qualified lemon law case and indeed, your GM is a lemon. :lemon:
I'd tell them add a zero to that $100 or your buying the car back!
I hope not, as I hope only GM and Chrysler are the only ones evil enough to think of something so terrible as not honoring warranties and thinking one C-note is good enough to make it "go away."
If you hire a contractor to build your house and agree on a price and pay that price, is it fair to not have kitchen cabinets because the cabinet maker went broke?
I would think most would tell the contractor to find a different cabinet maker. And, I doubt it would be satisfactory to the homebuyer for the contractor to issue a refund that the contractor deemed "fair" (with no input from the purchaser) along with..."Sorry, the cabinet maker went broke....You're on your own".
I suspect GM will see a class-action lawsuit here... If nothing else, it would seem that is will damage GM's credibility when they market the claim of standing behind their products.
You are absolutely 100% right and I agree with you fully. As somewhat of an expert in construction management (my chosen career field for 8 years now), I can say without a doubt the contractor would not get away with saying, "sorry, the manufacturer went out of business." If it was specific in the contract that they provide a model from that manufacturer, then they should have procured it prior to them going out of business. A like kind and quality substitution might suffice, but the owner/client would have right of refusal and approval.
Frankly, the owner is within his rights to consider it a BREACH of CONTRACT if you think it's OK to delete the cabinets. I'd say hey, I was paying you $400,000 for the house, but I considered the cabinets to be $350,000 of that, so OK, no cabinets, the new contract is $50,000. Since the contractor is the first to breach, all bets are off and all terms can be changed at that point.
Basically, not delivering on a promise "purchase contract" puts that party in a real bind and a real pickle. You really should be at the mercy of the owner. Some owners will not be happy, and will stick it to you, as they can, and maybe should.
I suspect those people happy to get $100 would be even HAPPIER getting $1,000.00. If those people knew they had a legitimate and lawful case to get GM to buyback the vehicles under lemon laws, I doubt they'd accept the $100 so hastily.
With all the flaws lexus, avalon, and camry have shown through the recent years, the fans of Kaizen are worried about a gimmick in some GM production vehicles where the supplier is no longer able to build replacements so GM is asking to neuter the product!!! I love the hypocrisy!
Maybe we can talk runaway acceleration? Dying Priuses? Sludge? Transmission lag due to poor choices of accumulator size (or is there no accumulator now on the camrys with that problem?) by toyota engineering? Brake wear?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
OKay. Let's talk about runaway acceleration in Toyotas. Would you suggest and recommend that Toyota follow GM's lead and example, and offer this solution.
- Remove the throttle body and pedal assembly.
- Offer customer $100 for their troubles.
- Offer a marketing slogan.....
May the best car win!
You're going to find it quite difficult to find a post I have made defending Toyota or any other auto maker.
Over 35 years, I've owned many makes of cars, and my experience with every manufacturer has been somewhat mixed. Some were more reliable than others, but that holds true within specific makes. One of the best cars and one of the worst cars I ever owned was a GM product. So, I'm neutral in that respect.
Pointing out that a "case closed" example by some (such as the Saylors case by the Toyota bashers) isn't anything at all what they really think it is doesn't make me a Toyota supporter, but a supporter of what the facts tell us.
I could care less about who the manufacturer is, and if it were GM and UA, my opinion would be exactly the same. I drive on the same road as all the other folks, and I'm just as subject to being plowed into as anyone else by a car undergoing UA. I don't deny the possibility of UA in any make, but I have yet to review any evidence that even come close to verifying its existance.
So, if this was Toyota attempting to do what GM is doing, my opinion would be EXACTLY the same.
The fact is, a promise was made to the customer, and its one that could be kept. GM doesn't want to keep that promise and is wanting to avoid its obligations in the promise it voluntarily made. It makes no difference whether or not YOU deem the function necessary.
Now, if the vehicle owner has the option of repair/replacement or take a $100 payment, I'm fine with that. At least, the customer has input into the transaction. And, I suspect that many will indeed just take the $100. The real question is...Will they buy another GM product after the experience?
Yes, some will, but some won't. Anyone who is well versed in marketing will tell you that its much cheaper to keep an existing customer that go out and get a new one. Since we are all "stakeholders" in GM, this is something that should concern all of us.
Again, I'm not bashing GM or any other manufacturer. The facts speak for themselves.
Its fairly easy to see how GM may soon be called the automaker of broken promises. Maybe they simply don't care.
The real irony is that GM may well spend more money on its campaign to erase the name "Chevy" and replace it with "Chevrolet". I wonder what the total cost of that inane effort will be...
The only thing hypocrital here is GM telling its customers that the supplier went belly-up and they can't find an alternate supplier, when other makes clearly aren't experiencing a supplier issue.
Is this the new GM?
With all the flaws lexus, avalon, and camry have shown through the recent years, the fans of Kaizen are worried about a gimmick in some GM production vehicles where the supplier is no longer able to build replacements so GM is asking to neuter the product!!! I love the hypocrisy!
Maybe we can talk runaway acceleration? Dying Priuses? Sludge? Transmission lag due to poor choices of accumulator size (or is there no accumulator now on the camrys with that problem?) by toyota engineering? Brake wear?
We should be all honest here.
Toyota has made extremely reliable cars for decades. They are quiet, smooth, and boring if you like good handling. There have been a few issues in the past, but not many. As a percentage of their vehicles the problems are still quite rare. In the last few years Toyota has grown too fast, prioritized growth over quality, and cheapened the product. A rare but serious recent problem has killed people, and Toyota has been guilty of coverup and some fraud and they ought to be slammed for that. Most of their recent cars are still quite reliable and boring, but getting a bit cheaper (quality-wise).
GM has made a lot of junk for decades. They have had some good stuff, especially in trucks and old people cars (Buick; if you like those vehicles). In particular most of their mainstream cars have been poor in reliability and refinement vs. the competition. They have some reliable vehicles but in general most of their stuff has been unreliable, although cheaper to repair than many foreign makes. GM has also been an advertising and financial disaster for a decade or more. More recently their vehicles have gotten far more competitive and they are showing great effort. The reliability is improving but still spotty. The BK helped them shed a lot (but not all) of their problems. The change in management is s step in the right direction. Their ability to be successful and profitable is still questionable. Their likelihood of repaying the government all the money they took is very low.
Fanboys on both sides can bring up rare events and we can argue for a long time. But the statements above are a pretty realistic list of where GM and Toyota have been and have evolved to today.
- Offer customer $100 for their troubles.
- Offer a marketing slogan.....
That was hilarious.
To be honest I don't think we should be making a big deal about the temperature of the wiper fluid. Even though GM hyped that up in their advertising, it's not exactly an essential feature.
Having said that, we have 1.4 million potential fire hazards driving around, and that is what should be getting attention (not the warranty).
Still, a possibly faulty gimmick that is disabled pales compared to a major component that can seriously injure or kill the driver and a vehicle's occupants in the case of SUA.
An out of control car during a SUA incident is a danger to all.
The wiper fluid froze up, big time. I'm not even sure a GM-style heater would have helped, though, because the whole line was frozen up.
Even after buying fresh fluid, the lines were frozen so it STILL didn't work.
A heater like that may not have helped unless the entire line all the way to the source was heated, but for sure I would have left it on for the whole trip.
The interior heater and defrost did little to help. The windshield was dirty from all the stuff kicked up by other cars, and I could not clean it off without stopping (which I did - many times).
If it's cold and the fluid freezes up I'd have that on the whole time I was driving, possibly all winter.
At least it's June and warm.
This was a rental so it was delivered already cold/frozen.
In cold temps, though, if a car had washer fluid heating, mine would be on all the time if temps were below 35 or so - always.
Here in beautiful Western Ohio, the usual winter problem in snowy weather is the wiper blades themselves getting covered with ice and slush where they don't touch the glass. The stuff keeps the wipers from flexing to fit the various curves of the windshield. The rubber covered wiper blades for winter help with that. I don't believe heated or unheated washer fluid helps. Stopping and banging the ice loose from the blades and off the windshield is the only fix. Staying home in that type of weather is another fix.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Those plus the wiper de-icers on my Subaru are absolutely golden. No wonder everyone in the snow belt drives one.
FWIW my Sienna does not have these flat blades, not sure about the newer ones.
Subaru > Toyota in terms of heated side mirrors, too. The Sienna melts ice, but the Forester goes a step further and makes even misty rain evaporate, keeping the mirror clear all the time.
I'd have killed to trade that Mercury for my Subaru in Taos...
Having said that, we have 1.4 million potential fire hazards driving around, and that is what should be getting attention (not the warranty).
I agree, and that was never my intention.
The real question, as I originally asked it, was "Is this the type of behavior from auto manufacturers that we should expect in the future?".
As we add more and more "do-dads" to cars, I predict we will have other instances of what many would consider "minor" conveniences that fail. And, I think we all agree that the washer heater system falls into the non-critical arena.
But, how about, say, a bluetooth system...or, the aux. input into the radio? Again, not "mission critical", but far more widely used.
Is it realistic for any manufacturer to sell a product with technically advanced features, and yet, when one/some of those features fail, simply say "Oops! Its broke...subcontractor went broke" and offer some sort of payment in lieu of repair?
In the case at hand, its probably a simple solution. The only question is how much those owners will demand as payment for the lost function. And, maybe that's the answer.
Possibly GM feels its cheaper to go this route than engineer and effect a fix. I'm sure that we would see a different response if the item was deemed more important in the operation of the auto.
Of course, if I were a competitor, I would certainly use the example to my benefit in my marketing effort. And, that was my point all along...Since we are all "stakeholders" in GM, is it in our best interest to accept that type of behavior? If a company doesn't stand behind its product with a reliable warranty, yet competitors do (an assumption here), it doesn't take a financial wizard to see where this will end up.
Remember, were talking about 1.5 million vehicles. That's more than the annual production of some car companies (Mazda and BMW, as an example -2008 production).
If it were 1000 vehicles, I doubt this issue would have ever made the news.
Can't you see that on the Volt? Ooops! Charging system powered by ICE does not work, please plug it in after 40 miles, here is $10K as compensation. :P :shades:
That seems likely, especially since they're being more and more careful to avoid liability.
But, how about, say, a bluetooth system...or, the aux. input into the radio?
I can give you a real-world example: analog OnStar. They went digital and the older analog systems flat lined.
Another: imagine trying to get a map update for an older CD-based Navigation system. The newer maps take up so much space it's usually a set of 2 or 3 DVDs. That would be up to 20 CDs worth of capacity! Ain't happening.
So it happens already.
What's different now?
Well, this feature was hyped up a lot during the 2009 auto show season, IIRC, so a year later killing it seems premature even for bleeding edge stuff. 1.4 million units is also a huge installed base. I doubt any manufacturer sold 1.4 million CD-based Navigation systems.'
I have mixed feelings. I'd be annoyed, sure, but I don't want to stop them from taking risks and discovering features that do work well.
I remember when the 1999 Miata came out, it made less-than-stated HP, and owners got a $500 accessory gift card?
That seemed fair to me - I mean, if you test drove it and it had enough power, what does the number on the brochure really matter?
Plus they'd buy it back if you still weren't happy, but you'd have to return the $500 and the car.
I would add that SUA only goes out of control in the hands of an incompetent driver that isn't aware your supposed to shift into neutral.
But, were the old analog systems still under warranty?
If any were, IMO, GM should have given the digital upgrade to those still under warranty (and also active subscribers) when analog went "quiet" (According to Wikipedia, an upgrade was available for the last 3 years analog OnStar was installed for a $200 fee)...
From Wikipedia...
In April 2006, GM notified approximately 500,000 of their OnStar customers who had analog service that their service would be terminated effective December 31, 2007, because starting February 18, 2008 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would no longer require US cell phone systems to operate in analog mode. Customers who purchased a prepaid, non-refundable, non-transferable 1-year OnStar Safe & Sound subscription were scheduled to receive an equipment upgrade. If the vehicle is from the 2003, 2004, or 2005 model year, an adapter costing approximately $200 (includes a one year subscription) can be installed at the customer's expense. If it is older, it will simply no longer be usable.[9] A law firm in Pennsylvania representing some of the affected customers sought to have a class certified for a class action lawsuit for damages claimed in the cancellation of OnStar service.
To me, that's a big difference. Being obsolete and unservicable after the warranty expires is different than not being repaired while the warranty is still active.
Also, this item actually depends upon a 3rd party carrier to function, and an additional yearly fee (doesn't GM give only the first year OnStar service free, then require payment annually afterwards?), and since federal regulations forced out analog (actually, the FCC no longer required carriers to support analog, and since it was allocated spectrum, the carriers reclaimed it for digital usage) this really was beyond GM's control. I don't have a GM vehicle, but I would imagine there are all sorts of "caveats" in the owners manual explaining GM's limitations of responsibility with OnStar.
I can't buy a betamax cassette any more, but then again, there isn't a single betamax still out there under warranty.
Another: imagine trying to get a map update for an older CD-based Navigation system. The newer maps take up so much space it's usually a set of 2 or 3 DVDs. That would be up to 20 CDs worth of capacity! Ain't happening.
Again, are we talking obsolescence here or are we talking refusal of repair while still under warranty? If I buy a laptop from HP, and its still under warranty if it breaks HP will either repair or replace it with another one with, at a minimum, the same power and functionality. If its out of warranty, I have no recourse if parts are no longer available... nor, would I have any problem with that. At that point, it worked at least as long as the company guaranteed it would work.
I remember when the 1999 Miata came out, it made less-than-stated HP, and owners got a $500 accessory gift card?
That seemed fair to me - I mean, if you test drove it and it had enough power, what does the number on the brochure really matter?
While I agree with your conclusion here, that's not quite the same thing. Advertising one thing and delivering something less is just telling a lie, unless there is a mistake in publishing the performance information.
I'd be annoyed, sure, but I don't want to stop them from taking risks and discovering features that do work well.
Nor do I. Still, I personally expect a company to stand behind its product, be it automobile, computer or hair dryer for as long as the warranty period is in force.
Now, if GM or any other company isn't willing to do that, they should shorten the warranty period (or not offer one at all). Then, at least you understand YOU are making a concious decision of taking on the added risk that the product may not have much of a lifespan.
Otherwise, IMO, its no more than being dishonest to their customers.
So when you let the water run dry and the heater burns down your home you would be satisfied with another defective designed water heater?
Basically that is what Toyota has done with the CTS throttles. Yours goes bad they give you a new one. Same poor design but now you have a new one that can fail and stick.
If I buy a laptop from HP, and its still under warranty if it breaks HP will either repair or replace it with another one
I am still laughing from that one. You obviously have never tried dealing with HP tech support. If you were lucky enough to buy from Costco you may get a replacement. You want to talk to someone in India or China that works for HP get out your CC. HP builds decent printers and lousy computers. I have one that is a constant hassle. Never again. If they break throw them away and buy another.
This response was typed and sent from a HP laptop that the company replaced under warranty, exactly as I said they would do.
Basically that is what Toyota has done with the CTS throttles. Yours goes bad they give you a new one. Same poor design but now you have a new one that can fail and stick.
And, don't forget Chrysler. Same sub-supplier, same problem.
If you're going to bash a company, then you should at least bash ALL the companies with the same issue.
A stuck throttle in a Toyota is no less dangerous than a stuck throttle in a Chrysler or Dodge.
I don't want to meet either of them on the road.
I see new ones for sale (and 8 track tapes too) via Google Shopping.
Gary, I'm with you on HP. I have a boat anchor here that belongs to a friend. The shop took one glance and said yeah, 1,000s of those were bad. It's the Compaq with the bad solder on the mobo and my friend stuck it in a closet for several months while out in the bush and missed the recall.
I went Chinese with a Lenovo because of that fiasco, and I have two HP engineers as neighbors. They do mostly printers here still, but both neighbors got an earful. :shades:
Meanwhile Toyota is revamping the ranks and bringing back low-level supervisors to improve quality:
Toyota to bring back low-level supervisors (Reuters)
So, somehow HP is at fault because your friend, as you say..."stuck it in a closet for several months while out in the bush and missed the recall."
Everyone's experience is different. All I can say is that I didn't have any issue with HP product replacement (only one sample for me). Perhaps next time might be different...if there is a next time.
To be honest I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
I guess that's where you're drawing the line, and I wouldn't disagree.
I think GM asking for a $200 fee to upgrade existing ones to digital was wrong, though. Perhaps better than nothing, I suppose.
Remember - those customer were paying a subscription fee at the time.
If you're going to bash a company, then you should at least bash ALL the companies with the same issue.
A stuck throttle in a Toyota is no less dangerous than a stuck throttle in a Chrysler or Dodge.
I don't want to meet either of them on the road.
Odds are worse with an 07 Caliber, actually. 5 in 25,000, so 1 out of 5,000.
I believe Consumer Reports calculated the odds in the recalled Toyotas at 1 in 10,000. It was in the letters section of last month's issue, and before people scream bias that was the edition where they put the DO NOT BUY: SAFETY RISK label on the Lexus GX.
The production numbers for Chrysler are much smaller, but the odds are double.
Remember - those customer were paying a subscription fee at the time.
If the Wiki info was correct, the $200 "upgrade" also included a 1 year subscription, but since I don't have a GM product, I don't know how much of the $200 went to the upgrade and how much went to the subscription fee.
My guess is that it probably was covered under the OnStar contract/agreement, but I also agree with you. Charging a person with a 3-5 year old car a fee to upgrade their equipment so that they had the "priviledge" of paying an annual subscription (a profit center for GM) to GM was poor marketing, IMO. I would have done more like the Cellular companies, and given it free for a 2-3 year subscription agreement. In the end, no one would have been happy with the results, but most would have accepted it with little argument.
HP knowingly sold 1,000s of these laptops with bad mobos - Compaqs and Pavillions. The fix is to reflow the whole motherboard. Not cost effective. When I walked into the local laptop repair place, the tech took one glance and picked a chip up off the counter and said "here's your problem, but it's not worth fixing".
$1,000 laptops shouldn't die in two years and since it's a manufacturing defect, the recall should have been for at least 3 years, the typical life of a computer.
They irritated me so much stonewalling me on tech support that I won't buy another one of their printers either. And this wasn't even my laptop.
Now, think about how people get treated at car dealers and by the manufacturers, and you'll understand why so many people post "I'll never buy another Ford/Chevy/Toyota" around here.
It's a whole lot easier to keep customers than get new ones. Maybe Chrysler has figured that out with the way they are handling their stuck accelerator recall, compared to the way Toyota did.
$1,000 laptops shouldn't die in two years and since it's a manufacturing defect, the recall should have been for at least 3 years, the typical life of a computer.
Knowingly sold them? Got proof?
Did they last through the warranty period? Didn't you say there was a recall time period, but your friend missed it?
How do you know 3 years is the life of a typical computer? Is that just your opinion, or do you want to quote a source?
If I go today and buy a 26" flat screen TV with a 1 year warranty, I know before I walk out of the store that once 1 year passes, it will not be economical to repair the unit. But, I still expect to last longer than a year. How long should a 26" flat screen TV last before breaking?
They irritated me so much stonewalling me on tech support that I won't buy another one of their printers either. And this wasn't even my laptop.
Fair enough. I doubt any mass manufacturer of any product hasn't ticked off some number of customers. HP is no different. I have the very same opinion of other manufacturers.
Now, think about how people get treated at car dealers and by the manufacturers, and you'll understand why so many people post "I'll never buy another Ford/Chevy/Toyota" around here.
Read my comment above. I understand perfectly. No one likes to feel like they were "burned".
It's a whole lot easier to keep customers than get new ones.
Definitely. I agree 100%.
Maybe Chrysler has figured that out with the way they are handling their stuck accelerator recall, compared to the way Toyota did.
Time will tell on that...But, I do agree that better customer service is ALWAYS better than poor customer service.
What we are really talking about here is the explicit warranty .vs. the implied warranty. My BMW warranty is for 4 years or 50K miles, but I certainly expect it to last longer than 4 years and 50K miles.
ANd, we are back where we started. GM has both an explicit as well as implied warranty for the cars with the heated washer system, and they want to walk away from both warranties. And, mind you, these are mostly high-line autos, not entry level.
I call that poor customer service. And, as you feel about HP, I feel the same way about GM...and, I don't even currently own one. That behavior certainly isn't conducive to getting me to buy a GM product, either.
I don't know if they knowingly sold them, but there was one problem where the warranty was extended to 2 years. One of the laptops I did maintenance on showed symptoms at 1.5 years according to owner. I thought I remembered a motherboard problem in the video area. Sure enough. Contacted tech support via the CHAT method, which I've found to almost perfect 95% of the time. Had a FedEx return box shipped out same day for delivery next day or 2nd day, I forget now. She returned laptop and had the fixed laptop or with new guts but her own hard drive back in 7-9 days IIRC.
I like HP's chat but despise their voice help folks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Similar to my experience, but in my case, got a completely new laptop...One, in fact, that had more memory, an additional USB port and 20 additional GB HD capacity. Total time involved was about 2 weeks. Since it was in essence a free upgrade, obviously I was pleased.
That laptop is the one I am using as I type this, and it is approx. 2 years old now.
But, I understand well the ill feelings of others. I have those very feelings about some companies as well (XM Radio is one of them. The most incompetent folks I have ever attempted to deal with).
In that regard, I can only imagine the scenario when Sirius/XM attempts to delete either the XM or Sirius side.... with all the cars equipped with one or the other receivers.... Gonna be fun!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,