Fizzboy7

Another gimmick from a gimmicky car company who lacks quality product to draw people in. When you have a solid product, you don't need to make these silly garauntees.
As usual, this latest tactic does nothing to reward a smart buyer or the demanding auto enthusiast. It only rewards someone who didn't do their homework on the model they purchased. Why not reward smart people instead? Does GM have a thing for ignorance? Want to keep em close to the family?
Just like cash for clunkers skipped right over people who take care of their cars, this losely does the same thing. Here's to contributing more to the dumbing down of America.

pbm317

I'm pretty sure it read that it doesn't cover any negative equity that you ROLL IN from your previous car/trade in. It just refunds the price on the car and the sales tax.

Trexus

100% agreed. Government Motors has been a humongous burden on the taxpayers and continues to do so. I do remember reading about how the new GM CEO Fritz Henderson stating that they will pay back the "loans" they received from the Government...

I too will never buy a GM product but my hard earned tax dollars supported Government Motors...

The G Man

I am assuming that since the title will still be clean, there is no negative equity.

IS-SV

Just another gimmick. Focus on the product(s) please is my suggestion.

mmarshall

A public relations move, for sure, but I'm not sure I'd call it a gimmick. First, a lot of potential money is involved here, on each car....."gimmicks", as such, usually don't involve these kind of stakes. Second, Saturn, in the 1990's, instituted a similiar program, and it became one of the company's most customer-friendly sales attractions.

IS-SV

Call it whatever you want. It's still a gimmick. Gimmicks often involve a lot of advertising dollars, nothing new. Second, nobody wants a replay of Saturn with cheezy, plastic, poor-quality, low performance, poor safety cars. In fact the Saturn brand is so low value today that Penske might might get the division for pennies on the dollar (assuming the deal even goes through), most likely the division is history.

Looking back into the 1990's is not how progressive car companies succeed in 2009, thankfully.

mmarshall

If that's the case, then why did the company (and its cars) receive such enormously high customer satisfaction ratings in the 1990's.....on a par, at the time, with Lexus and Infiniti? Like it or not, those "cheezy" cars, as you reference them, developed a cult-like following. I owned one myself (an SL-2 sedan), and had a LOT less trouble with it than previous American-with designed/built cars I had owned in the 70s and early 80's. Its overall quality was roughly comparable to Mazdas and Nissans of the period......almost to Honda/Toyota levels.

I know that you dislike those cars (for reasons we have discussed here and before) but I still have to disagree.

IS-SV

That's great ancient history which you seem to dwell on. Today Lexus and Infinity are way above Saturn in all aspects of customer satisfaction.

Your selection of past and current low-performance, non-enthusiast-oriented vehicles is your personal choice. That's nice that Saturn's were less trouble than the other American junk of the 70's and 80's, and I'm old enough to remember those crappy cars too, but that has nothing to do with the challenges that GM faces today.

mmarshall

Maybe, maybe not. A good case can be made that many of Saturn's current problems (and bankrupy/sale) can be traced to when the company lost its original mission (in 1999/2000) and started getting away from the cars (and policies) that made it great.

And the original S-class, plastic-body compacts did not just stay in a vaccum, either, when it came to safety/technology advances. They received air bags, ABS, and traction/stability control just like the rest of the auto industry had at the time. And with an average 14% mark-up from wholesale to retail (they always sold at retail, with no exceptions), they were also a good profit for the dealerships.

IS-SV

Maybe, maybe not, says it all. I agree, maybe, maybe not.

Certainly another sad story in the last several decades of GM performance.

I8ABMR

they are desperate and will need to do anything to get their cars off of dealership lots

The G Man

If it is another gimmick, it’s a pretty good one. Customers like incentives that they can use immediately, unlike the extended power train warranty that Chrysler had. Try the car out for 2 months. if you don’t like it, return it. Sounds like a great idea as long as GM doesn’t make the return process difficult. Cant wait till I try out the new Corvette

IS-SV

You can imagine the miserable hard-sell experience that you would have to endure if you tried to return one of these cars( and wasted hours of your time).

But the boilerplate isn't bad in the agreement, not a lot of evasive fine print, to the credit of GM. But IMO it really doesn't change the merits of the specific vehicles.

In order for You to qualify for the repurchase of Your Eligible Vehicle:

* The Eligible Vehicle must be a new 2009 or 2010 model.
* You have purchased an Eligible Vehicle and taken Delivery between September 14, 2009 and November 30, 2009.
* You must be able to deliver to the Participating Dealership a clean and unencumbered title to the Eligible Vehicle, which title has remained in Your name since the Delivery Date of the Eligible Vehicle.
* You must be an individual natural person who is the title owner of the Eligible Vehicle. Businesses, corporations and partnerships do not qualify.
* Your Eligible Vehicle's odometer must not have more than 4,000 miles since the Delivery Date.
* Your Eligible Vehicle must have been registered and insured in the Buyer's name since the Delivery Date.
* Your Eligible Vehicle must have no more than $200 of damage as determined by GM or GM's agent. Such damage may include, without limitation, internal or external scratches, scrapes, dents, odors, rips, burns, etc.
* Your Eligible Vehicle may not be leased.
* Your Eligible Vehicle must have been returned to a Participating Dealership where You purchased it, in the same working order as it was on the Delivery Date.
* Your Eligible Vehicle must not have incurred damage or non-warranted repairs in excess of $200, regardless of whether such damage has been repaired.
* Your Eligible Vehicle must not have been subject to any liens or other security interests other than a lien for the original financing used to purchase the Eligible Vehicle.
* A minimum of thirty (30) days must have passed since the Delivery Date of Your Eligible Vehicle.

The G Man

Sounds like any damage, repaired or not, over $200 voids the deal. $200 is not a lot now a day, you can have a broke tail light lense and it will cost you more than $200.