GMC Acadia Woes: "GM Missed an Opportunity to Do Right"
The Baltimore Sun reports that Maryland resident Earl Arnette flew to Pittsburgh in April to buy a new GMC Acadia. Despite the fact that the CUV lacked the rims he coveted (and paid for), Earl drove his baby home. Soon thereafter, the power liftgate wouldn't lift, the adjustable seat belts wouldn't adjust and the remote start wouldn't start. Before Arnette could make it to the dealer, he had a head-on with a firetruck. His airbags didn't deploy (even though there had been a recall in February for faulty airbag sensors). After the heavily-damaged vehicle sat at a dealership for two months, Arnette discovered the holdup: the dealer couldn't get parts. Two months after that, the Acadia was finally fixed. Ish. The liftgate and remote start still didn't work. And then the GPS system died. Unwilling to accept an offer to cover his rental car fee, Arnette wrote a letter to GM CEO Rick Wagoner listing his full demands, and contacted the Maryland attorney general's office. Oops. "Arnette's letter to the AG triggered an automatic redirect of his complaint to GM's legal department and all contact with Arnette ceased, GM spokesman Randy Fox said. Should he decide to drop his 'legal action' with the attorney general's office, GM's executive customer assistance center would try again to work out an amicable solution with Arnette." Reporter Why risk bad word-of-mouth on a product that is getting rave reviews? One would think GM could have tried a little harder to accommodate a consumer who wanted the Acadia so badly he traveled 200-plus miles to buy it."
More by Frank Williams
Comments
Join the conversation
The parts thing is no surprise. The last company I worked for switched from Escapes (too many repairs) to Equinoxes (Oops) for the fleet. Turns out the wheel bearings on these things failed prematurely, catching Chevy off guard. I drove rentals while that thing was in the shop, becuase new wheel bearings simply couldn't be had. To be fair these vehicles were getting abuse the manufacturer never intended. The company should have had Explorers or something of that nature.
I seem to recall reading an article discussing this sort of thing a short while ago....oh, yes! 'The Big 2.8 Make Their Own Bad Luck'
MY counterpoint to the opinions of the bloggers... GM is an independent company, no matter what one expects, they do not have to do anything. No matter the jury, its just a jury. They are independent from me. Expecting them to be what I wish or think is my responsibility. I do not have "shoulds" GM does not either. I can set myself up to believe GM is this and that, but reality is reality. My opinions are just opinions. How good or bad a company they are in my eyes, bares no will over them. Or is up on trial. I can trial any one in my eyes all I want, it bares entitlement to obligation on there part. I need to leg go, and let GM. Now, I do want the vehicle to work flawlessly (technically impossible), but If I chose to expect that its my responsibility. What ever I expect something to be is my responsibility. Putting that thing/person on trial is my choice. But my choices do not determine "shoulds" for others, or responsibility. I am independent after all, because I chose of my own response-ability to be so. I chose to let GM be GM.
is this the real GM? as far as the dealer, he should have replaced the malfunctioning parts with parts off of a car in his inventory. that would have been "excellent" customer service and great PR for himself.