General Motors hires former Vice Chairman Bob Lutz to advise its senior leaders

wasn't the new CEO put in to deal money.. not cars?... forced from the bankruptcy?

isn't lutz the guy who made all this extra debt for gm in the 1st place?...

 

ugh. jaws, the sequel.

 

He's b-a-a-ck!

Take your pick:





Or both for that matter.

 

Let's see what he does with the labor contract. Pushing the union to strike & halt production is one way to reduce inventory.

 

I keep wondering about GM's recent decision to not honor the warranty of the cars from the 'old' GM. I would like to hear Lutz's opinion, just for snickers.

 

I'm so glad I don't support this rediculous company anymore.

 

I'm just glad I don't own a GM car! Never have, and now probably never will. Refuse to honor warranties? Given the likelihood of another bankruptcy and another bailout, you'd have to be a mighty reckless person to buy a GM car now!

 

I just called my local Chevy dealer and they said my warranty is still fully in effect.

Do you have reliable source that says GM is not honoring old GM warranties other than Drudge and internet hysteria?

 

The old-GM vs. new-GM warranty brouhaha deals specifically with
suspension/tire wear issues on the Impala:

GM Impala Lawsuit

FWIW, some discussion here:

CleanMPG thread

 

my 90 year old father was a huge gm guy until he lost a good part of his savings in worthless gm stock. he's moved on to chrysler, but i'm afraid that might finish him off.

 

Several issues here: Legally, New GM and Old GM are different companies. That's apparently the basis for the lawyers' argument against liability. But when you buy a company, you get their liabilities as well as their assets.

Another issue, is that it's all b.s. about their being different companies. Legally, yes. But it's the same company under the same management with the same executives (even if the top one or two got fired) and the same workers and the same factories and the same car models.

And yet another issue is public relations: Some companies step up to the plate and take responsibility. Other companies do everything they can to leave the customers holding the bag. Who in their right mind is going to trust GM now? Sure, they might continue to make individual repairs, but when a big issue involving lots of cars comes up, will they do the recall and fix them? Would you buy a used car knowing that the company might argue that it is not responsible because the original owner bought it from "Old" GM, and not from "New" GM? Or simply that your warranty agreement or the recall liability is with the "Old" company, and not the "New" company?

If Americans are not complete imbeciles, the value of any used GM car will now drop significantly because the whole liability issue is uncertain, and the "New" company has made it clear that it will do its best to weasel out of any serious obligations.

And they're setting the pattern for the next bankruptcy and bailout, which given the lack of real change in company philosophy, is likely.

 

A good reason not to put a significant part of your savings in any individual company.

 

Yup. You should never put a significant amount of you assets in any one company. Unfortunately a lot of people have so much faith in their employer that they invest a good share of their savings in their employer. Then they get a double whammy when their employer goes Tango Uniform and leaves them without a job or savings.

 

I know that was talked about, when they were going into BK, but I thought that idea was discarded as a public relations disaster? And since the US Government was rescuing them, that the government put it in as one of the stipulations for help (well, not really help, more of a total rescue) that warranties had to continue to be honored.

Unfortunately I have owned a GM car. I'll say this, it was cheap. Well not to own unfortunately, that was expensive, but to buy it was cheap! ;-) That was maybe my first life lesson on the difference between cheap and inexpensive - an important distinction. I traded that car in on a Mazda that was older and had more miles, and I had to pay for the privilege. And I was happy to do it!

My dad however kept buying, driving and complaining about his GM's until just a few years ago.

 

the analogy of when you buy a company you buy their liabilities does not apply here. Nobody bought GM, "new" GM was not a spin off of old GM. GM went thru bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court contracts and obligations can be erased or modified, that is part of why they go thru the BK proceedings. In this case, the BK process split the company into two companies, one got all the stuff they thought was viable, one got all the stuff that was dragging down GM or was a burden.

So even if a company is bought by another company as part of their bankruptcy, the obligations don't usually follow. Sometimes if the courts deem their is a compeling reason, but usually not.

 

This is true. However the "NEW" GM has gone out and fixed "OLD" GM vehicles ... OUT of warranty.... They also fixed the suspension on the Impalas in the lawsuit.... for police departments.... So there may be some issues for them in those issues. Also, it's a MAJOR ... Public Relations NIGHTMARE for them... They already are not a well liked company because of the bail out.. Why not fix the cars (quietly). This is killing any advertising that they do...

 

GM continues to honor old_GM warranties as laid out in the government mandate to receive a bail-out, but they are now trying to weasel out of what they term 'design_defects.'

Only GM could try to construe a design defect as not a warranty issue. Man, what a scumbag of a company.

 

Can you imagine what Toyota would be like if Lutz ever worked for them? Prius would have been cancelled in 2004 because of 0-60 speed or some other inane reason. The Camry would probably look like SuperChugger. (Gotta have 2 year old grandkids to understand that reference)