General Motors discussions

bpizzuti

The latest example is "Cash For Clunkers" which did NOTHING to help US manufacturers as foreign companies captured most of the sales.

That's somewhat misleading. First of all, "foreign" manufacturers, which are a majority of car manufacturers (something like 10 or more versus 3 domestics?) got I think 60%? Or was that 40% of the cars sold in C4C were built in the US? One or the other, don't remember which. Anyway, the domestics certainly didn't lose out...Ford had two vehicles in the top 10 C4C models: Focus and Escape. Even GM got some benefit from increased Malibu, Equinox, and Cobalt sales (I think Aveo sales increased too, didn't they?). Chrysler might not have but they're pretty much a lost cause at this point anyway, right?

Ironically enough, many of the "foreign manufacturer" cars that benefited are in fact built in some of those bribe-influenced factories they built in the US. So even though it's not an American company, at least it benefits the American economy.

Mr_Shiftright

Probably the best thing that ever happened to the D2 was bankruptcy. At least it got rid of some of the rot. Whether it works in the long run, we'll see. We cannot legislate away decades of mediocrity, however, any more than we can legislate people's personal morality.

Let's say, for instance, that GM (or Ford or Chrysler, it doesn't matter) were actually ONE DEALERSHIP in a large American city.

Okay, and lets' say this dealership wasn't doing too well. Sales were limp, customers not very well satisfied, in spite of decent product. The carpets are a bit tatty, the neon light out front flickers and the "V" is missing from Chevrolet. The salespeople are not well dressed and the bathrooms stink.

Is this fixable? How might you do that?

The point of this "thought exercise"? The point might be this---whatever you came up with to cure the ills of that dealership might be applicable on a corporate level.

In other words, leadership from the top.

vinnyny

This is probably the wrong board for this, but I think they zapped my response on C4C, so here goes.

Had Congress given a hoot about American companies AND American jobs, they could have helped both by restricting the program to cars that are classified as American-made by the EPA. Although that would have eliminated those Chevy Aveo sales (made in Korea) it would have included all those Accords (made by American workers in Ohio). That way, American consumers benefit at the same time as American workers (a beautiful cycle because workers are consumers too). The following sentence would have accomplished this goal: The vehicle identification number must begin with a "1" to be eligible.

bpizzuti

I see your point, but I also see what a mess that would have made. First you'd get the complaints from Ford because of the Mexican made Fusion and Focus, and we should support American companies, then things about Canadian made GMs, etc. SO they'll re-point it to American companies, which would draw the complaints about the Accords and Corollas built here, so there will be special exceptions here and special exceptions there....and by the time they're through it would either include everyone, exempt everyone, or look like the U.S. Tax Code. :sick:

Quite frankly, I'm wondering how few GMs and Fords would have been left qualifying. Not sure where the Cobalt and G5 are built, or the Malibu, but you're right about the Aveo being out. Also the Focus and Fusion (not sure about the Escape).

Mr_Shiftright

iN REPLY TO VINNYNY:

I'm pretty sure an action like that would have made the WTO hopping mad and resulted in retaliatory trade sactions and a very unpleasant backlash for the US.

Besides all that, the US government intervened mightily on behalf of the D3 in the late 70s and early 1980s, when they were being slaughtered by the foreign companies. They instituted what amounted to quotas, gave loans to Chrylser, required domestic content rules, etc.

It didn't do any good because Americans boycotted American cars en masse. Nobody held a gun to American car buyers. They went out and did what Lee Iacocca used to recommend in his car commvercials:

"If you can find a better car, buy it!

imidazol97

>restricting the program to cars

Easier than that: cars made in US or sold under the name plate of the big 3, GM, C, F.

roadburner

I love it! I'm buying one of those shirts to wear to the BMW CCA Oktoberfest.

PF_Flyer

I dunno... maybe they could rename the Volt to be the Chevy CPR and slap this on the side

vinnyny

That would have definitely resulted in trade sanctions because it restricts trade to American companies. At least if they had restricted it to cars made in the US--whether they were American or foreign branded--we could honestly say that it was a jobs program for our own workers. Foreign companies still would have gotten their piece of the pie while more Americans kept their jobs. Discriminating on the basis of corporate national identity is a much easier case to make.

vinnyny

That's why we keep it simple: "Only vehicles with vehicle identification numbers beginning with a '1' are eligible". All that says is that the car is made in the US. It doesn't discriminate against foreign companies because they all have factories here anyway. At the same time, it does exclude cars made in foreign countries by foreigners and supports American workers. No huge "tax code" required and a very tough argument for the WTO to counter.

In case you guys haven't noticed, we're fighting for our economic existence here. Our economy is a shambles and our major industries are failing. The automobile industry used to be one of pillars of our economy. Now, it's half what it was. 40% of the B3 is owned by foreigners (all of Chrysler and part of GM). The defense industry is a mess too. We're buying foreign planes over suitable American aircraft--with American stooges leading the way. Our real estate market in in the crapper and the Chinese are buying up cheap land and companies. Heck, Anheuser-Busch is owned by foreigners now. That's right, your Budweiser is a foreign beer!

The least we could do is try to keep a few more Americans off the unemployment and welfare rolls.

imidazol97

>That would have definitely resulted in trade sanctions

No.

It allows cars made in US, e.g., Camrys, Civics, Tundra, etc., to be sold here along with all products of the US companies such as Focus which is made in Mexico.

In the discussion of other counties' helping their auto industry do they restrict their imports? do they help only the domestic makers? Is Buick of China (which has to cooperate with a Chinese maker to produce there IIRC) getting help from China?

roadburner

How's this for a slogan?
"The socialism goes in before the name goes on!"

stever

Budweiser is a foreign beer!

Serves 'em right for stealing the name of a Czech beer. :P

Did you go on vacation this summer? I did, and for an economy in shambles, it sure doesn't look like there are breadlines on every corner.

In GM news, GM is dropping the franchises of 70 percent of Cadillac dealerships nationwide. I guess that's one way to insure exclusivity of a brand.

GM cutting most Cadillac dealers (Business Journal of Milwaukee)

stever

May as well take the fins and flames way beyond the HHR.



Bonus points if you recognize where the photo crop came from.

Mr_Shiftright

I would think that 99% of all Cadillac dealerships are duals anyway.

roadburner

Bonus points if you recognize where the photo crop came from.

It's Ron Gettel... no, wait! It's Bozo The Clown!
I always get them confused.

PF_Flyer

bumpy

"Only vehicles with vehicle identification numbers beginning with a '1' are eligible". All that says is that the car is made in the US.

1,4, or 5 for the US. 2 is Canada, 3 is Mexico, and 6-9 are various factories in South America.

vinnyny

I believe that 1 and 4 are USA, but isn't 5 Australia?

fezo

We had a Chevy - Caddy dealer here but they dropped (or it got dropped for them) the Caddy portion a few years back. Looking at them lately I would not be shocked to see the Chevy part gone as well.

bumpy

Turns out Australia is 6 and New Zealand is 7.

Mr_Shiftright

I doubt you could even restrict C4C to US-built rules without reaction from the WTO. Certainly not something one would do without careful diplomacy. Last thing you want is a trade war.

hpmctorque

by BILL VLASIC
Published: September 10, 2009

DETROIT — "In an all-out effort to restore confidence in its products, General Motors will offer a 60-day, money-back guarantee on all its vehicles beginning on Monday, according to people involved in the company’s plans.

As part of its marketing campaign, G.M.’s new chairman, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., will be featured as the company’s spokesman in a new television commercial designed to lure consumers back to the company’s showrooms.

The commercials, which feature the slogan 'May the Best Car Win,' will make their debut on national television on Sunday. Mr. Whitacre, the former chairman of AT&T, will make a direct appeal to consumers to try G.M. vehicles — and return them after 60 days for a full refund if they aren’t satisfied.

'We’re putting our money where our mouth is,' Mr. Whitacre says in the commercial, according to people who have seen the campaign.

The 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' program is thought to be the first time that a major automaker has offered a full refund on a vehicle after it has been sold. The program will cover all of G.M.’s core American brands — Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and GMC — and run through November.

The money-back program was conceived by G.M. executives and its board as a dramatic way to promote the quality of the company’s product line after its emergence from bankruptcy in July.

There is no mention in the ad campaign of the $50 billion in taxpayers’ dollars that provided G.M.’s financial bailout this year, or the fact that the federal government owns 60 percent of the company.

Instead, the campaign and money-back promotion is an attempt to focus attention on G.M.’s cars and trucks.

Mr. Whitacre, 67, has said that G.M. must halt its slide in market share in the United States. The company, which once held a 50 percent share of the market in the 1960s, has a 19 percent share so far this year.

The use of Mr. Whitacre as a spokesman is reminiscent of Lee Iacocca’s ads in the 1980s as chairman of Chrysler, when he coined the slogan 'If You Can Find a Better Car — Buy It.'

Those ads helped Chrysler rebound after the company needed federal loan-guarantees to stave off bankruptcy.

Other automotive executives have appeared in ads with less success. In 2006, Chrysler failed to jump-start sales with advertisements featuring DaimlerChrysler’s chief executive, Dieter Zetsche.

G.M. declined to comment today in the upcoming advertising campaign or the money-back promotion. The automaker’s board officially approved the campaign this week."

hpmctorque

I think this is the type and scale of campaign that's needed to get skeptics and fence sitters to consider and reconsider a GM product, since GM is assuming the risk if the customer is disappointed.

My prediction and hope is that it'll permit GM to retake some market share from the leading import brands.

kernick

So I can go down to the Chevy dealer and get a Corvette, maybe a Z06, or even order a ZR-1! , and then take it back 59 days later? And anyone can do this? :confuse:

How exactly does this make GM, uh I mean the government any $? It'll sure get GM's factories busy; and it'll all be paid for with tax $'s? :mad:

lokki

I think that this will end up generating some bad press for GM despite their sincere best of intentions.

Here's the problem. I once(a zillion years ago) bought a used car from a rental car company. After getting it home, I discovered flecks of body paint on the gas cap...so the car had been repainted... something that the salesmen were supposed to have disclosed. (They were supposed to give you all the service records for a car before you bought it but "forgot"). So, back we go to take advantage of their no-questions-asked money-back promotion.

The catch. They'll refund the price of the car but not the cost of the sales tax. Just for an example, on a $10,000 car, at 5% thats $500.

So, do you hate your new purchase enough to spend $5000 or $1000 or $1500 to get out of the deal? Probably not. Will you keep the car and resent the way you were treated? Probably, if my experience is anything to go by.

The car itself? Never found any evidence that it had actually been in an accident and it served me well (Toyota Corolla), but the experience taught me a good lesson in examining the real value of warranties.

hpmctorque

This is breaking news to me, as it is to you, so I don't know all the details.

Here's how I see it, at least initially: Changing peoples' car buying habits will be difficult and expensive. Given the improvements GM has made in their vehicles, I think most people will be sufficiently pleased to keep them. The percentage of returns won't be too great. If it turns out to be too expensive, I imagine GM can terminate this campaign.

smalltown

I would rather see GM offer a 5yr/60,000-mile warranty so that consumers can be assured of not having out-of-pocket expenses for a longer period. That was what drew me to take a chance on Hyundai in 2002. If GM will offer a small hatchback/wagon and the warranty, I would be willing to take another chance on them. I traded in the Hyundai after 5 years for 48% of the purchase price for a used Ranger.

kernick

They'll refund the price of the car but not the cost of the sales tax.

That's fine, they can keep "nothing". NH has no sales tax, and I believe there are a few other states also that don't have sales-tax. After I take the Vette back, maybe I'll have my wife go get an Escalade for 2-months. :P

kernick

I agree a longer warranty would be better; but remember - even a lifetime powertrain warranty didn't help Chrysler enough when they instituted that in the first half of 2008 (?).

fezo

Glad you brought up that NH lack of sales tax. If I buy a 60 day GM car I'll do it in New Hampshire...

british_rover

Most GM cars already have a five year 100,000 mile power train warranty that is transferable to a second owner unlike Hyundai's power train warranty.

anythngbutgm

link title

Oops, the public has spoken and GM does not look good. Perhaps they should've cherry picked the questions a little better (Like they do with thier marketing )

british_rover

I can't see one third of it you need to upload it to carspace or something and then shrink it down.

anythngbutgm

lol! Think of it as an "Extended" Hertz Rental program.

Imagine this will only hurt resale values even more, since it should add another owner onto the history report.

kleenall

Anytime i have returned a purchase for a refund , the sales tax was refunded too. Because the return and refund voids the sale and with no sale there is no sales tax due. It is as if the sale never happened.

bvdj84

What will GM do about the resale of the returned cars? It will NOT be worth any where near the sale price. Then, at this point it will sting them, not the consumer. But, then when it is being put up for resale, I am going to ask if its been returned and why? Creating another underlining question in the consumers mind when getting newer used GM car? What is wrong with it?

I have been hit in the face hard by the plummeting resale value of my car. Its an 08 GM, want take this car back, since its half way to lemon?

Saturn- "we have been doing right by our people since day 1" ????
UHH? Hmm, no comment. Their lying here, why would we believe other things they say?

Based on the polls I have seen, most would not give a GM a chance, even with the new program. I agree!

bvdj84

You know that it is sad when my uncle comes into town and sees my 08 Pontiac G6 and tells me to unload the car soon! lol. I didn't even say a word. I plan to do so, but its value is so low. But, how much, "realistically"? I might not ever know, because a dealer is going to be afraid to offer anything to reasonable. I haven't tried recently.

ingvar

Very bad idea. Costco changed return policy for TV, Digital cameras & etc., lot of dishonest people who "rent" digital device for a trip and return it back. I think, we going to see same story with the cars. Huge amount of "slightly" used cars.

srs_49

Costco changed return policy for TV, Digital cameras & etc., lot of dishonest people who "rent" digital device for a trip and return it back

That's a good point. All of the "wide screen" stores around here had to change their no-questions-asked return policy several years ago. Turned out people were getting a wide screen set for the Super Bowl, then returning it the next week.

serenoa1

serenoa1

I have heard nothing from GM regarding a refund of the value of any trade-in (which will presumably be long gone by the 60 days), a refund of all administrative and other fees which auto dealers are so famous for, sales taxes and anything else which was charged to the buyer in the contract.
On the surface this appears to be a desperate ploy by a desperate company. If not everything is refunded so as to make a return not feasible, then GM's credibility will suffer even more than it already has. If GM were going to be up front, these factors should have already been explained as obviously their people know how they will be treated.

nomoreford2

This program will not work due to the fact that GM needs to lower the prices on some of there cars. A V6 Malibu for $26K, $27k for a Lacrosse, $49k for a G8 and these are just starting prices if your looking for something other than 4cyl. Its like there overly excited that they can finally put a DOHC in a car instead of push-rod everything like Impalas and have over priced many of there cars now.

andres3

I agree a longer warranty would be better; but remember - even a lifetime powertrain warranty didn't help Chrysler enough when they instituted that in the first half of 2008 (?).

That was because the warranty Chrysler offered was so riddled with holes, loopholes, and terms & conditions that the warranty was in effect, worthless and useless.

Add to that the fact that most people knew Chrsyler was headed straight for bankruptcy by the time they started the "lifetime warranty," and you had a warranty that was worth about as much as GM stock, in other words, worthless and useless.

Nevertheless, if it has been a TRUE "lifetime" warranty, and not a fake one (read the fine print type deal), it would have been more successful than it was.

andres3

I see this promotion as nothing other than a gimmick for a tax payer subsidized 59 day rental period. It looks like the subsidy may be minimal as the consumer will probably no be refunded all kinds of dealer fees and add-ons.

If this was a 100% money back guarantee, it would be a truly "FREE" rental experiment. It looks like it might be a 95% money back deal.

Either way, I wouldn't mind trying out a CTS-V for 59 days and 3,999 miles. Or if I was truly considering keeping a car, I might try something, but as soon as it had one single fault or failure, I'd surely return it. Even a single rattle from the glove box or a bad light bulb in the trunk would be good grounds for not trusting GM and giving the car back.

However, this is a good idea if there's people out there like me that might be swayed by something serious like a 60 day trial period (if it truly is no cost other than taxes already paid via bailout).

So my bailout money can be recovered with a 60 day rental.... sounds like payback time.

kernick

I read this morning there is a "cost" to getting the 60-day trial, and keeping the vehicle. The cost is that instead of having the 60-day trial, GM would give you $500 more in rebates, if you decline the 60-day trial.

So if you do the trial and keep the vehicle, you paid $500 more then you could have.

boomchek

lol, I think the return policy is not as simple as giving back the keys and the dealer cutting you a check back for the vehicle. What if it's a financed deal and 2 payments already came out? What if you're a subprime customer and financed with a sub prime lender? And the biggest one of all, what if there's a trade in involved? Wil you be happy if you get a check for the wholsale value of your trade that was running? Will you find a comparable replacement vehicle for this amount?

I think for most people who will want to return the vehicle, they will end up keeping it due ot the hassle of returning it.

Heck I bought a 50" plasma TV with a 30 day exchange policy. It started giving me sporadic trouble within a week, and even then it took me a while to motivate myself to repack it and return it to the store to exchange it.

I remember GM had a 24 hour test drive promotion about 5 years ago in my area. I was selling Hondas then. Some customer thought that the 24 hour test drive is as simple as going in, giving a copy of driver's license and getting a free ride for a day. It wasn't.

You had to go in, and acutally to a tentative deal on a vehicle you were going to buy (work out price payments etc), and leave a deposit. Then you could take the car out for a day. This way you commited some time to the deal and were more likely to buy it than just return it. In other words, this wasn't a free one day rental program with no strings attached. I figure it's the same with this program.

lokki

I decided to do a little research on car sales tax refunds since it's been 20 some years since my case. Things change...

It seems that it may be subject to individual state laws rather than GM's whim - something that seems kind of obvious to me in retrospect. Remember the dealer doesn't have the tax money collected - that went to the state government

Texas - you write to the state explaining the reason
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/refunds/refunds_mv.html

Calfornia - for 2 days, you get all the taxes and fees refunded, but the dealer can charge you a 'restocking fee'.
http://dca.lacounty.gov/artCarBuyersBOR.htm

Virginia - (where my case took place) no tax refunds unless it was a lemon law buyback or a lease-buyout.
http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/sut2.pdf

New York - Lemon Law buybacks and so are lease-buyouts are covered, but the rules are silent about unusual cases like GM's program. So, maybe.

In any case, I think that my initial premise may still be correct. You'll may get all fees and costs back that the dealer kept, but he's not going to refund you money that the state has and then try to collect it from them. On a $25K car with the tax at 5%, that's $1,250... worth arguing about.

Of course, I could be wrong.... any dealers out there with actual experience?

anythngbutgm

I think for most people who will want to return the vehicle, they will end up keeping it due ot the hassle of returning it.

I think this is what Government Motors is counting on...

andres3

Well, if GM is really committed to a true 60 day trial period, they don't have to make it very cumbersome for the customer.

In CA, the sales contract clearly lists all of the added-on fees, taxes, and charges, and at the bottom you have your total OUT THE DOOR COST.

If they are really committed to this, they should just give you a check for the OUT THE DOOR COSTS You paid, and handle all of the financing refunds/payments, DMV refunds/payments themselves (the dealer or GM) just like they work with gov't and financing companies on the front end or with C4C.