http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-...year-warranty/

Strange and not confidence inspiring... these are the days where I expect to see more and more companies backing their products in more and more ways to show they're confident in their product quality.

 

Downgraded is an unfair term. Sounds more like a cost savings measure to me. Downsized? Yes, but did you miss the part on they are also adding items to the Powertrain warranty and those items removed from the 100k mi -5 yr are still covered under bumper-to-bumper?

 

Okay, so the things that added are:

The following items have been added to the Powertrain portion of the coverage for 2010.

1) Engine oiling system including the hoses, lines and cooler.

2) Crankshaft Pulley.

3) Clutch Master Cylinder

Now when was the last time you had your crankshaft pulley replaced?

Things that are no longer covered:

1) The entire pressurized fuel system (in-tank fuel pump, lines, fuel rail, injectors and return line.

2) The Engine/Powertrain Control Module (ECM/PCM) and module programming.

3) The Transmission Control Module (TCM), Transfer Case Control Module and module programming.

4) The Throttle Body Assembly.

5) Clutch and Pressure Plate for Manual Transmission.

6) Sealed Wheel Bearing Assemblies or Hub and Bearing Assemblies (axle shafts, seals and bearings that are part of complete axle housings are still covered).

Now we've all seen stories about ECMs, fuel pumps, clutches and bearings needing replaced well before 5 years or 100k miles. You can spin it however you want, but like Threxx said, this wouldn't be something I would consider confindence inspiring.

They had better hope that Hyundai's marketing people don't get a hold of this and start putting it on TV.

 

So they still have the 5yr/100,000mi. warranty, they just changed what is covered on the powertrain warranty to 100K.

Title is kind of misleading, I though maybe they got rid of the 100,000 warranty.

 

I've never understood that - why would a company increase coverage to inspire confidence in their product? "Don't worry if your new car breaks down alot, because you're covered."

It's more of a sales ploy to try to get the "American-cars-break-down-all-the-time" crowd. However, don't you think that consumers might think "why do they need such big coverage if they build a quality product?"

 

Re-read it. They have been picked up on the bumper-to-bumper warranty. They're still covered, but not for 5 yr or 100k mi.

 

Uh what? Anything is covered on the bumper-to-bumper stuff except wear items like tires and such, always has been. How is that an improvement?

 

Huh? Would a downsize in warranty coverage not be a downgrade?
You look at what they added and look at what they took away and tell me it wasn't a downsize/downgrade/whateveryouwanttocallit.

Of course they're still covered under the bumper to bumper... if they weren't they wouldn't even be able to call it a bumper to bumper warranty without lying. Am I supposed to be impressed?

The 100k mile coverage is worthless to most consumers anyway. Honda, Toyota, and most everyone else these days gives 5yr 60k mile powertrain coverage at a minimum. 60k miles is about what the average car will be driven in 5 years anyway so the only people who will benefit from that extra 40k miles of coverage are the people who drive quite a bit more than average... up to 20k miles a year... and people who drive 20+k miles a year are typically driving highway miles which are typically easier on the powertrain in the first place.

I never said they got rid of it. There's nothing misleading about the title. I suppose it could clarify the downgrade more but I'm limited on the # of characters... and that's what the message body is for.

You guys both act like downgrade is too harsh of a word. Do you want me to spin this in a positive way for you? Should I just say GM "adjusted" the powertrain warranty terms? I'm sure that's what GM would say if they had the choice, but let's consider this... if you buy an extended bumper to bumper warranty on any 2007 through 2009 GM vehicle you will pay $100+ less than if you buy one on a 2010. The difference is that on the 2010 you're buying more coverage. See for yourself... go look up some GMPP quotes on otherwise identical 2009 vs 2010 vehicles.

Let me give you an example. You go buy a used car at a dealership. The guy goes on and on about what great shape it's in, how it's passed their 2 million point inspection and he's never seen a car so well maintained in its life. You then ask if he's willing to put a warranty where his mouth is. Are you more confidence-inspired if he's willing to back this supposedly well maintained reliable used car with a 12 month warranty, or if he refuses to warranty the vehicle?

A long and highly encompassing warranty says to a potential customer "We're willing to put our money where our mouths are... this vehicle is reliable, and to assure you of that, we're willing to pay for the repairs ourselves in the unlikely event that it fails".

 

They're trying to show that they are confident that your car has the reliability to go 100k miles without any powertrain problems...to me that says that they build a quality product. They aren't trying to say even if it does break we'll fix it...that is true, but not the message they are trying to convey.

 

Its more of a downgrade in mileage not coverage. They must be tired of losing money on faulty electronics.

 

Actually, Corvettes are famous for having those go bad...and it is a complete bitch because the rack is right in front of it.

 

Yes, I was expecting to see that GM dropped the 5/100K all together. or maybe lowered the mileage down to 60K

also last I checked the average American drives something like 14,xxx miles a year. For this reason I wish manufacturers would do 3 year 45,000mi. bumper to bumper instead of 3/36K. The last 3 cars me and my wife have owned have all had the warranty expire because of miles at around 2-2¼ years.

 

That's what I was expecting after reading the thread title too, but I don't think that's Threxx's fault. We were mislead, but it's not because of his choice of words. There's no denying that this is a downgrade -- it's just not the downgrade we were expecting.

 

I don't see how anybody could confuse the meanings of "downgrade" and "discontinue" or "eliminate."

 

http://www.gmreinvention.com/index.php/site/tell-fritz/