Don't buy used GM cars - no warranty anymore
Rebel1
"save" GM:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_General_Motors_bankruptcy.html
Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.
The PHANTOM
BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977
U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says
Related Articles
Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM statement on auto industry restructuring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson
In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.
"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."
GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner
Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977#ixzz1X12FnipR
Lying sack of shit !!!
aemeijers
If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)
Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.
--
aem sends...
Kurt Ullman
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
ord
> retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
> first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
> version looks bloated to my eyes.)
I would also like to know (at least on the Mustangs) who mixed up
the colors. A lot of them looked like they were aiming for Day-glo...
and missed.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
Twayne
Rebel1 <Reb...@optonline.net> typed:
Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are both liars and
wrong.
Harold Burton
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
Hahahahahahahaha. And you'd expect them to say otherwise, why? Have you
actually taken a car in for warranty service that was built before the
bankruptcy?
snicker
The PHANTOM
> Innews:4e63d6d9$0$23637$607e...@cv.net,
Oh. Well I'll damned sure take the word of a GubmintMotors employee
over a Automotive magazine writer !!
harry
> On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, Rebel1<Reb...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
> >> "save" GM:
>
> >>http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_General_Motors_bankruptcy.html
>
> >> Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
> >> all incumbents, next election.
>
> > BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
> > warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???
>
> >http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977
>
> > U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says
>
> > Related Articles
>
> > Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
> > success starts now
>
>
> > Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat
>
>
> > DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip
>
>
> > Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli
>
>
> > GM statement on auto industry restructuring
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.
harry
BTW, was it corrupt Rs or Ds?
John Grabowski
*I am usually reluctant to buy anything major from a company that I know to
be in business only a few years. You just don't know if they will be around
in the future for parts or service. Even though they are using the GM name,
by their own words they are not the same company. It reminds me of BMW
buying the Rolls Royce trademark and name and then building their own
factory and filling it full of boat builders.
aemeijers
Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.
George
Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
even if he just makes himself look even sillier.
Ed Pawlowski
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote
>>
>> Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
>> American cars.
>
> Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
> silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.
Harry has not looked at the Vauxhall recently. His Hillman Minx is still
running.
Twayne
Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> typed:
Yes. a 2009 Cavalier and a 2008 Trailblazer. Both were bought used and the
new-car warranty transferred to me at the time of sale. One turned out to be
a wire loose in the Onstar installation and the other a damaged rear window
crank. No questions asked.
Frank
I would not buy anything associated with GovMint motors. They're crap
anyway.
Family member worked with dealers for years and now retired works part
time for a car rental agency and sees all makes of cars.
Comparing cars, his last cars were Nissan and Subaru's.
Both are made in US plants by US workers. The GovMint motors cars may
be made in Mexico or Canada and all are using lot of Japanese parts.
Last "American" car I had was a Ford lemon manufactured in Mexico.
Vic Smith
I only had a GM warranty on one car, and it worked well.
The Impala spindle issue causing tire wear was never covered by
warranty.
It's one of those defects GM tried to avoid paying for by mostly
denying, because it only happens to some limited number of cars.
They don't want to recall all the Impalas for that.
If they did the right thing and fixed it for people having the wear
problem, this class action would have been avoided.
They've been denying defects forever.
Most of the car manufactures do it, but GM is probably the champ.
I only drive used GM's and have dealt with peeling paint on 2 cars,
and put manifold gaskets in 2 as preventative maintenance.
I would just put the new spindle kit in if I had an Impala and tire
wear.
Think it's a couple hundred bucks
Of course that's why I could retire early - don't spend much on cars.
GM used cars are cheap for a reason.
Suits my purpose well, but people spending big money on new cars have
a right to be pissed.
What's really stupid is GM letting a lawyer talk about not being
responsible for "old GM."
Shows stupidity has a long life.
--Vic
harry
> "aemeijers" <aemeij...@att.net> wrote
My last proper Brit car was a Triumph Stag. I think with the
exception of Aston Martin all our cars are bought up by foreigners.
Cars are still designed and made here in vast numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_Stag_1972.JPG
I have never had a Hilman Minx. They were always lemons.
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
With cars like this it's not difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20
What an abortion!
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>With cars like this it's not difficult.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20
>
>What an abortion!
That's the first car I ever drove. When I 14 years old.
It was a repo.
My dad was a repo man then, and had it parked it in front of the house
for a week or so.
Took it out about 3 times, late at night, and once in daylight.
A butter knife would turn the ignition on.
Nice car at that time.
Probably leagues better anything common in England.
--Vic
aemeijers
was massive liability exposure from design flaws that went unchecked.
Something about several years of Impala (which had lotsa fleet sales)
having a suspension or brake defect?
I think the judge shoulda made them pick a new name for the company,
personally. And I think they should go back and pay at least a token
payout to all the people holding stock in the old company who got
screwed, before they pay any bonuses or dividends.
I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.
--
aem sends...
Kurt Ullman
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
> I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
> unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
> similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.
Not often that the people who finance the bankruptcy
(debtor-in-possession) get to tell the judge how the bankruptcy WILL be
concluded.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to
get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not
responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE
saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of
the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing
lawyers don't like it.
Canuck57
Just bullshit. Fact is people go to GM in the cities they live and have
problems. That would be GM.new. Consumers don't give a crap about
GM.old and GM.new, that is just political bullshit as it says GM on the
warranty.
What is really happening is GM.new is trying to deny claims, hoping for
$2000 they don't find a good one and lawyer up. I wonder how many are
quietly getting screwed over?
Here is one for ya. I know someone in the business. The latest scam is
to charge the customer saying it isn't covered. If they just pay, then
the dealer submits it to the auto head office for reimbursement, getting
the double dip.
It is just another reason not to deal with GM and other corrupt
CAW/UAW/auto companies.
--
If it is all Bush's fault, then how come Obama is doing much more of the
same and expecting different results?
George
>>> Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
>>> silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.
>>
>> Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
>> when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
>> loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
>> even if he just makes himself look even sillier.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> With cars like this it's not difficult.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20
>
> What an abortion!
Gee, I didn't know they were still making 1958 production year vehicles.
You just made yourself look even sillier.
hls
"harry" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message news:0ea69838-c4be-499c-9189-
Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.
*********
The Brits have made cars over the decades that make American iron look
great.
hls
exception of Aston Martin all our cars are bought up by foreigners.
Cars are still designed and made here in vast numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_Stag_1972.JPG
I have never had a Hilman Minx. They were always lemons.
*******
Stags were troublesome too. Many older British cars have
returned to the earth from which they sprang.
Hell Toupee
> I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
> unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
> similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.
On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.
The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.
SMS
> You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to
> get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not
> responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE
> saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of
> the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing
> lawyers don't like it.
That's true, but I'm sure that "Rebel1" is not alone in failing to
understand the distinction. The person mentioned in the article does not
have a warranty claim, the vehicle is out of warranty. Part of the
government bailout deal was that the new GM honor warranties of the old
GM, which they are doing.
If GM wants to build any credibility, they need to go beyond just
honoring the express written provisions of the old warranties, even
though they have no legal obligation to do so.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.
George
There is this thing called goodwill. The new Government Motors can
certainly go with the letter of their agreement with Obama but it isn't
good for business. One of the most basic rules of business is that you
work to keep customers because of the high cost of getting new ones.
Kurt Ullman
wrote:
> There is this thing called goodwill. The new Government Motors can
> certainly go with the letter of their agreement with Obama but it isn't
> good for business. One of the most basic rules of business is that you
> work to keep customers because of the high cost of getting new ones.
The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than
the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.
Larry
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:If6dnbv5dOX7BPvT...@earthlink.com...
> the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
> through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.
>
Back in 1984 I got fucked on a warranty repair claim and have been buying Toyotas ever since...6 of them to be exact.
aemeijers
ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.
Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.
--
aem sends...
aemeijers
a Toyota. Or are you a multiple-car household?
(I <like> Toyotas, at least until their current bizarre styling. And in
my experience, once you learn their little quirks, they last a long time.)
--
aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell Toupee<w...@menull.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
>>>> unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
>>>> similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
>>> construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
>>> homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
>>> demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
>>> dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
>>> longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
>>> liability for past work.
>>>
>>> The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.
>>
>> GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.
>
>
>ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
>corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
>without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
>their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
>are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
>disguised DBAs.
Larry
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message news:i_mdnU5SKOV5WfvT...@giganews.com...
>> "Kurt Ullman"<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:If6dnbv5dOX7BPvT...@earthlink.com...
>>> The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than
>>> the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
>>> through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.
>>>
>>
>> but what is really expensive is when your customers stop buying your cars and start buying Toyotas.
>>
>> Back in 1984 I got fucked on a warranty repair claim and have been buying Toyotas ever since...6 of them to be exact.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Um, lessee- 27 divided by 6- 4.5 years each? Not much of a lifespan for a Toyota. Or are you a multiple-car household?
aemeijers
Pay attention- the GM board of directors, as the nominal owners and
operators of the 'old' GM.
--
aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
who had their property seized.
aemeijers
What property? All they lost were now-worthless franchise agreements or
bonds. It wasn't seized- it ceased to exist. Nobody else got it. The
dealers who were cut loose still owned the property, in most cases,
unless GM's real estate arm or similar was leasing it to them.
Just like if a Ma'n'Pa company goes belly up, any unsecured loans they
have out from creditors near the end of the line, are now worthless
scraps of paper.
Try the same thing with markers you have out to a bookie or loan shark,
and you will be able to predict the weather with your knees and knuckles
the rest of your life. If they can't get their money, they use you as an
example to all the others.
--
aem sends...
Canuck57
Bond holder tried to enforce their contract with GM, but Obama
instructed the courts to let GM welsh. Anyone who lends GM money now is
insane. OMG (Obama Must Go) and Bernanke needs to be fired before I
would lend money in the USA. You might be better off in Venezuela thna
the USA right now as a lender.
--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?
Canuck57
pension plans. Just GM screwing Americans where it counts.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
GM was property. The dealership was property. It was seized.
>All they lost were now-worthless franchise agreements or
>bonds.
Property.
>It wasn't seized- it ceased to exist.
Bullshit. GM continued to operate with new owners (unions and government).
>Nobody else got it.
Nonsense.
>The
>dealers who were cut loose still owned the property, in most cases,
>unless GM's real estate arm or similar was leasing it to them.
The franchise agreement was property.
>Just like if a Ma'n'Pa company goes belly up, any unsecured loans they
>have out from creditors near the end of the line, are now worthless
>scraps of paper.
Not at all. The first-class bond holders are in line, *way* ahead of other
creditors, certainly unions.
>Try the same thing with markers you have out to a bookie or loan shark,
>and you will be able to predict the weather with your knees and knuckles
>the rest of your life. If they can't get their money, they use you as an
>example to all the others.
What a moronic analogy. Though with Obama and his minions, you may have
something.
Kurt Ullman
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >
> >What property?
>
> GM was property. The dealership was property. It was seized.
Not really. These are franchises and they weren't renewed. Not at
all unusual in bankruptcy proceedings. Not really all that much
different than Borders, for instance, getting out of leases. This is one
of the few standard things that happened, to my mind.
James
> In article <0b1g67paoq34tnu68obvhb55jk71tk8...@4ax.com>,
>
> "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> > >What property?
>
> > GM was property. The dealership was property. It was seized.
>
> Not really. These are franchises and they weren't renewed. Not at
> all unusual in bankruptcy proceedings. Not really all that much
> different than Borders, for instance, getting out of leases. This is one
> of the few standard things that happened, to my mind.
Auto dealer franchieses are not licenses to print money, they are
contracts between two parties and there are clauses in them that allow
the manufacturer to terminate under many different conditions. There
was a recent situation near here where the dealership took advantage
of someone with less than perfect mental capacity, selling her a car
when she came in to get her old car repaired. The manufacturer
terminated their franchise agreement and took bank the inventory that
wasn't paid for. Another dealer group bought the franchise rights and
renamed it within weeks.
Typically the manufacturer doesn't have anything to do with the real
estate. They may have an agreement about branding and signage for the
location, but the dealer owns or leases the location. Some dealerships
who lost their GM franchise have opened other franchises in the same
location, or opened a used car store.
One thing is very clear. There were too many GM dealerships. The
number of dealerships was more reflective of GM's sales dominance in
the 70s and 80s than the current situation. Dealers need volume to
make profit, and volume helps drive customers to their profitable
service departments. GM dealers were selling half to a third of the
volume that a Honda or Toyota dealer would sell.
I wouldn't weep for most GM dealers who lost their franchise. Most
dealerships are owned by groups who generally buy different franchises
to spread the risk around. So what they lose in GM, they might make up
at their Ford, or Nissan or another brand franchise they own. Mom and
Pop dealers are fading fast.
Nick Naim
> On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>>> Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
>>> "save" GM:
>>>
>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_General_Motors_bankruptcy.html
>>>
>>> Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
>>> all incumbents, next election.
>>
>> warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???
>>
>> http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977
>>
>>
>> U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says
>>
>>
>> Related Articles
>>
>> Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
>> success starts now
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> GM statement on auto industry restructuring
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson
>>
>> In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
>> for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
>> either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
>> filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.
>>
>> "Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
>> or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
>> repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
>> will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
>> starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."
>>
>> GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
>> the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
>> government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
>> automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner
>>
>>
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977#ixzz1X12FnipR
>>
>>
>> Lying sack of shit !!!
>
> If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
> the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny from
> me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally, there
> are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
> interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
> bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro designs-
> ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean design in
> 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford retro-rods
> either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the first 'retro'
> Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer version looks bloated
> to my eyes.)
>
> Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on most
> new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you are in a
> bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around cat-eye
> headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that area of
> plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
Aside from the Chrysler 300 2005-2010 all other Chrysler products seem
invisable to the human eye
wait I might ad the 2011 300C.What is that?
> cost.
>
> --
> aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
until the transmission went. Eight years old and well less than 100K and it
was junk.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>In article <j4643u$an4$2...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> There is this thing called goodwill. The new Government Motors can
>> certainly go with the letter of their agreement with Obama but it isn't
>> good for business. One of the most basic rules of business is that you
>> work to keep customers because of the high cost of getting new ones.
>
> The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than
>the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
>through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.
people will continue to badmouth GM since we know going in that they
wanted something they had no legal right to and people like that are
usually nothing but a pain in the ass forever.