Everybody wants a deal. But precious few people are willing to change their habits to make their deal last longer.
Category: Maintenance
Three years ago I suggested that Detroit win back car buyers by doing something no one seemed to be doing: provide customer care deserving of the name. In a similar vein, Steve Lang recently asked readers whether manufacturers or the government should do more when a model commonly suffers from an expensive problem. Well, according to an article in Automotive News this week GM has strongly encouraged its dealers to pick up the tab on more out-of-warranty repairs to reward and create loyalty.
According to the article, the bottleneck hasn’t been GM—the customer care money has been there, but dealers have been too tight with it because of fears that GM would punish them if they spent it. Why did dealers have these fears in the first place? The article doesn’t say. The important thing isn’t how these fears came to exist, but that they’re currently unwarranted. One dealer calls the new “open pocketbook” approach to keeping customers happy a “seismic shift.” Problem solved?

The Detroit News’s David Shepardson reports that GM has requested the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging rear-suspension problems on 2007-8 model-year Impalas, on the grounds that
“New GM did not assume liability for old GM’s design choices, conduct or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty, and its terms expressly preclude money damages,” the response says.
The suit “is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM.”
For some time now, there’s been something of a low-scale war going on between OEMs and aftermarket parts suppliers just below the national media radar. The issue: whether or not aftermarket structural parts are as good as OEM parts. Ford has been a major proponent of the OEM-only approach, making the video you see above in hopes of proving that aftermarket parts aren’t up to the job. But the aftermarket is firing back, and they’ve made their own video in direct response to this one, which you can view after the jump.
Read More >
How user-serviceable should a car be? Should special tools be required to perform basic tasks? If the car in question is a sporty car, should there be less effort on the manufacturer’s part to ensure serviceability (because it’s a “toy” and more likely to be owned by people with multiple cars) or more (because sporty cars tend to have longer in-service lifetimes and have a more self-service-oriented owner base)?
After performing most of the 30,000-miles service on my 2004 Boxster S “Anniversary Edition”, I believe I’ve become a little more passionate about my answers to the above questions.



Recent Comments
-Nate - Nice article ; Chrysler was ‘ dead ‘ back in the 1970′s too , they bounced back , glad to see it then as now . The Taurus is...
jimbob457 - The Chinese may be trying to buy Fisker ‘on the cheap’, as the headline says. This is technically accurate. You could just as...
Japanese Buick - Beware the leader who blames his leadership failings on people plotting against him.
fvfvsix - Personally, Bertel – I can’t even begin to understand what the hell is going on in the minds of some of the posters...
Murilee Martin - I also shot that Metro-amino. It is amazing. Look for it in a future Junkyard Find.
jeffzekas - I once felt the same way- not anymore, not since the loss of my oldest son… http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/z ekasfamily/
vanwestcoaster - +1
krhodes1 - The wiring issue is pretty much an early ’90s thing. It is not THAT big a deal to replace the engine harness. Volvo and Saab had the same issue...
Bluto - Is being a legit racist still working out for you, Ronnie?
jeffzekas - Is it true that Porsche was involved in the development of the Chevrolet Corvair motor? To what extent?