Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GM is acting like scum
- Thread starter satcomer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably not about a vehicle developed before she took over in 2011....
Though not sure who it would go to in upper management about a defect in a discontinued car. Maybe her.
That's not clear at the moment. If evidence comes out that she did, you can bet she will find herself back in front of congress.
The OP seems to be making it clear they want to make a passive political point with the "union" this and "they'll NEVER get a fine" that. We don't know what will happen until the investigation is over. They may get a massive fine. The fact they're unionized has nothing to do with this investigation or its outcome.
Ford and Firestone were negligent in their tires that caused Explorers to flip over and kill people, and hid it for years. For a while they were the "I'll never buy another one of those again" brand. I've owned Hondas, Volkswagons, Fords, Jeeps, Nissans, Toyotas, and GM vehicles, and *all* of them have had some sort of quirk or reliability issue or at some point had recalls over safety concerns.
Vehicles are complicated machinery, used extremely frequently, carrying combustible liquids, that transport people at high speeds across long distances. There is an inherent danger in using them. Traveling used to come with a very high mortality rate - steam ships going across seas, wagons across the country over open terrain being pulled by horses... There has always been an inherent danger to traveling. We assume some risk when we do it, and the risk has been *extremely* minimized in the past 100 years of transportation innovation.
Yes, the companies need to stand by their products and not hide flaws. I abhor the fact that *all* of them have cost analysis of how many lives must be lost / litigation amount necessary to justify a recall. If you're aware of an opportunity to improve the safety of your existing product, do it. For crying out loud, for $.57 cents, I bet if they'd just offered the option of the owner to PAY to have the fix implemented they'd recouped some of the expense (obviously not labor, but still.) Hiding the flaw is never a good option, and continuing to use a design that is known to be flawed is never a good option. Based on what's been revealed *so far,* it does appear that the previous management knew this issue was coming up, and basically retired & promoted the current CEO to face the music for their failures.
There are plenty of products that I won't buy because I disagree with the ethics of the company or how they do business. Samsung is one of them. By all means, never buy a GM again. It's disingenuous, however, to assert that their quality is the same as it was in the 80s or 90s, or even early 2000s. ALL of the American manufacturers make competitive products compared to the imports. Anecdotal tales of poor reliability are just that - anecdotal. For every negative one there's a positive one. My grandfather drove the same Chevy pickup truck for 30 years as a work truck - a 1972 C series. The fact he never had any major problems with it doesn't say anything about GM or Chevy trucks as a whole, but it may influence *my* buying choices.
The GM case is much more nuanced than "unions bad." If the investigation discovers that the previous management covered up negligence, then they should be held personally criminally liable. The organization appears to be accepting accountability for the issue, so the issue really focuses down on the fact they hid the problem for so long, which again comes down to personal choices by previous management.
Ford and Firestone were negligent in their tires that caused Explorers to flip over and kill people, and hid it for years. For a while they were the "I'll never buy another one of those again" brand. I've owned Hondas, Volkswagons, Fords, Jeeps, Nissans, Toyotas, and GM vehicles, and *all* of them have had some sort of quirk or reliability issue or at some point had recalls over safety concerns.
Vehicles are complicated machinery, used extremely frequently, carrying combustible liquids, that transport people at high speeds across long distances. There is an inherent danger in using them. Traveling used to come with a very high mortality rate - steam ships going across seas, wagons across the country over open terrain being pulled by horses... There has always been an inherent danger to traveling. We assume some risk when we do it, and the risk has been *extremely* minimized in the past 100 years of transportation innovation.
Yes, the companies need to stand by their products and not hide flaws. I abhor the fact that *all* of them have cost analysis of how many lives must be lost / litigation amount necessary to justify a recall. If you're aware of an opportunity to improve the safety of your existing product, do it. For crying out loud, for $.57 cents, I bet if they'd just offered the option of the owner to PAY to have the fix implemented they'd recouped some of the expense (obviously not labor, but still.) Hiding the flaw is never a good option, and continuing to use a design that is known to be flawed is never a good option. Based on what's been revealed *so far,* it does appear that the previous management knew this issue was coming up, and basically retired & promoted the current CEO to face the music for their failures.
There are plenty of products that I won't buy because I disagree with the ethics of the company or how they do business. Samsung is one of them. By all means, never buy a GM again. It's disingenuous, however, to assert that their quality is the same as it was in the 80s or 90s, or even early 2000s. ALL of the American manufacturers make competitive products compared to the imports. Anecdotal tales of poor reliability are just that - anecdotal. For every negative one there's a positive one. My grandfather drove the same Chevy pickup truck for 30 years as a work truck - a 1972 C series. The fact he never had any major problems with it doesn't say anything about GM or Chevy trucks as a whole, but it may influence *my* buying choices.
The GM case is much more nuanced than "unions bad." If the investigation discovers that the previous management covered up negligence, then they should be held personally criminally liable. The organization appears to be accepting accountability for the issue, so the issue really focuses down on the fact they hid the problem for so long, which again comes down to personal choices by previous management.
That is your opinion. If you feel that the government is going to get a heavy fine like Toyota did then you are living in a dream world. Government Motors are going to get a pass because the Federal Government owned GM during the heyday of the GM coverup. The Government will give then a pass because if they fined then really hard it will come back to Government during this election cycle. GM will get off will a slap on the wrist.
Regardless if GM gets a fine or not doesn't change the main issue. Will GM fix these vehicles for the people who shelled out their hard earned money to buy them?
Why are you keep on repeating this?
They are. That is what a recall is doing. A recall isn't a, " Your car is unsafe. Come in to your local Chevy dealer and trade it in for a new 2014 Cruze!!!!" A recall is a bring in the car to the dealer and the dealer will replace the defective part. In this case, the ignition switch.
GM wants to not be responsible for vehicles that were built prior to the bankruptcy.
GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs
“New” GM Only Responsible For Post-Bankruptcy Ignition-Related Accidents
Owners of recalled GM cars face long repair waits
This is GM just claiming it does not have liability( aka can't be sued over it) in trying to get out of a lawsuit. But, does not have any relevance to this recall.
And this one simply states it will take awhile to get the new parts distributed, notify owners, etc.
Nothing about GM not fixing the ignition switches.
But this is your MO. Stretch what the articles actually say and repeat and repeat the same talking point. I'm done. Ignore list time.....
GM has acted like scum and tried to avoid fixing these cars. They've even went as far as to try and void all the warranties back in 2011. They've damaged their brand name for years to come.
Actually, they did. For a number of years, they even used Apple's iPhone camera defense. "There is nothing wrong with it. It is the way you are pressing it." For YEARS, Toyota blamed it on rug placement.
Problems happen with vehicles. What is different with this one is that GM has went to efforts to attempt to avoid fixing them. They have on one hand attempted to claim that they are not responsible for vehicles manufactured prior to the bankruptcy. Those vehicles belong to the "old" GM not the "new" GM. This isn't the first time. It's happened since the bankruptcy.
On the other hand the advertising arm of GM loves to tout the history of their brands, Corvette, Camero, etc. but if they are a new company, then that history isn't theirs to brag about.
Brand identity is very important in the USA. When a company acts or reacts badly it tarnishes the brand. It's hard to get that reputation back. Would you buy a new Chevrolet, Buick or GMC knowing that if they go through another bankruptcy, they will attempt to void the warranties of vehicles built prior to the filing?
On the other hand the advertising arm of GM loves to tout the history of their brands, Corvette, Camero, etc. but if they are a new company, then that history isn't theirs to brag about.
Brand identity is very important in the USA. When a company acts or reacts badly it tarnishes the brand. It's hard to get that reputation back. Would you buy a new Chevrolet, Buick or GMC knowing that if they go through another bankruptcy, they will attempt to void the warranties of vehicles built prior to the filing?
So the Fed came down hard on GM with maximum fine.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/16/gm-recall-probe/9169355/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/16/gm-recall-probe/9169355/
Thanks I've got an '04 Celica
Its a pretty car! Just a very slow one...
----------
I have a fully loaded 2012 Corvette Grand Sport convertible that I've already put 67,000 miles on it, and I've NEVER had a single issue with it. Never skipped a beat,
I wouldbt it will kill GM.
GM makes much more excited cars than bore boxes like Honda Toyota, neither of which produce heavy trucks that business depends on either.
I can't think of a single Japanese car other then that 105,000 dollar GTR and no the longer made Lexus LFA that is nearly as exciting as my Corvette.
I know
doesn't have any power below 5000rpm, really need to rev the nuts off it to get anything ...While I'm glad they fined GM the maximum amount, $35 million is just a slap on the wrist financially. I'm hoping the families of the 13 killed and others injured sue the crap out of GM.
hasn't GM cut down the production of medium & heavy trucks ? on their GMC site i only can find SUVs and some pick up trucks....
hardly competing with MAN(VW),Volvo Trucks,Mercedes, Isuzu etc.
I am talking things like F350s
That kind of deal.
Lots of business's don't need a huge Semi made by Volvo, but a small Euro style pickup truck simply won't be enough.
So that is the kind of truck I am on about.
GM recalls another 2.4 million cars.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blog...bags-seat-belts-transmissions?icid=autos_5638
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blog...bags-seat-belts-transmissions?icid=autos_5638
There’s been rumblings since the car was in prototype stage that a turbo variant of the 2.0-2.5L boxer would make it in. That same chassis, with less than 100lbs added but with close to 300HP would be a _blast_.
Toyota made some exciting performance cars over the years, but they did kind of ditch performance vehicles. My 4th gen Supra was fun, though it wasn’t very stock
Our 4Runner is an awesome SUV, one of the last few built on a “real” truck chassis, very capable off road, tows a +ton+ (about 5 actually), and still has nice manners around town.Everyone has pretty high hopes about the FT-1 (possibly badged as a Supra):
Outstanding!