Chevy TrailBlazer, TrailBlazer SS and GMC Envoy Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Banned
2004 gmc envoy_slt_xuv
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Heres my story (and please dont move it to a tech thread..it stands on its own as a question to all)

I bring my vehicle in for the Fuel sender recall. My fuel tank itself does not have a leak.

The dealer performs the service. The mechanic likely had to yank and pull in the inlet hose to disconnect the hose and drop the tank. They perform the recall service

I get the Truck back. Fuel is now leaking from the fuel inlet of the tank. I return to the dealer. The Dealer looks up the Bulletin for the cracking inlet. My VIN falls outside the range covered.

My tank did not leak when it was brought in for recall service. It now does.

30 days of "he said she said" discussions with the GM call center that has been outsourced to Argentina, AND the dealer service manager confirming in a 3 way conference call that the tank did not leak when it was brought in and that the leak was a direct result of the recall service ....results in the following decision:

GM will pay for 1/2. Final decision.

I think I understand that all I can do at this point is schedule some time when the district rep visits the dealer and see if they override the decision, or I can sue GM. The tank is leaking in my driveway so it needs fixing now so both of these options suck.

What I would like to know if the the forum members feel that this is a fair disposition in this or any other parallel universe. Lets see the tank is good.. my truck gets a recall service, the tank now leaks...its my fault.

Logic? The "NEW" GM??? An I being too sensitive?

The new GM??? What a flippen joke. As a former 14 year GM Engineering employee I am disgraced to see with my own eyes how GM has been treating its customers. I cant imagine that this is really happening

I have bought two new GM Vehicles in the past three years. If I do end up paying 1/2 then ....... :raspberry to the "new GM" Its worse than ever!!!!!!!

I cant see myself ever buying a Ford, so that leaves Toyota, Nissan or God forbid Chrysler for my future purchases. I will make 1 more call to the Argentina call center...lets see if the "NEW GM" has a conscience:bonk:
 

·
Registered
2005 gmc envoy_denali_xl
Joined
·
111 Posts
What I would do

I would get a writen quote for the repair and file a small claims suit against them for the damages. You would be surprised how litle it cost to file the suit. Here are the most likely scenerios that could happen.
1. Court finds in dealerships faver - you end up paying the 1/2 they already agreed to and little court fees
2. Court finds in your favor, dealership is at fault, - dealer covers all cost including youer court fees
3. (more than likely outcome) dealer gets summons to appear in court/in front of magistrate and contacts you to settle it out of court. The cost may be more than it is worth for service manager to be out dealership all day.

Of course I would get the work done first because it is a safety issue, and I'm not sure i would want the dealer touching my car after i sued them. Then i would file
 

·
Premium Member
2007 chevy trailblazer_ls
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Whats the total cost they want you to pay 1/2 of? Unfortunately they are probably looking at the fact the truck is 5+ years old and things break or go bad. Its too bad the service manager at the time just did'nt make that decision on his own and call it a mulligan, and fix it. Hope everything works out for you.
 

·
Registered
2009 chevy
Joined
·
6,431 Posts
Bill, :iagree: with MAAACKUS.

In the old days, that would work, and most of the time, they would settle out of court.

However, under the current "arrangement" there is probably no hope of winning.

Hundreds of existing law suits are being left with the "old" GM and will die with that company.

I don't think you can win this one Bill.
 

·
Registered
2005 gmc envoy_denali_xl
Joined
·
111 Posts
Bill, :iagree: with MAAACKUS.

In the old days, that would work, and most of the time, they would settle out of court.

However, under the current "arrangement" there is probably no hope of winning.

Hundreds of existing law suits are being left with the "old" GM and will die with that company.

I don't think you can win this one Bill.

yeah your right with GM, but in this case I'm pretty sure the case would be against the dealership them self and not General motors. As long as this isn't one of the dealers on the chopping block
 

·
Banned
2003 gmc envoy_slt
Joined
·
7,190 Posts
yeah your right with GM, but in this case I'm pretty sure the case would be against the dealership them self and not General motors. As long as this isn't one of the dealers on the chopping block
:iagree: The work was done for a recall. But the damage was the mechanics error. Not a GM error, a dealer error. The dealer should be responsible for fixing the problem.:m2:
 

·
Registered
2009 chevy
Joined
·
6,431 Posts
yeah your right with GM, but in this case I'm pretty sure the case would be against the dealership them self and not General motors. As long as this isn't one of the dealers on the chopping block
:iagree: The work was done for a recall. But the damage was the mechanics error. Not a GM error, a dealer error. The dealer should be responsible for fixing the problem.:m2:
Yep, :thumbsup: that is a good point.
Better chance to win that case :hail:
 

·
Registered
2007 chevy trailblazer_ls
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
When I was a GM service manager, here is how I would have handled it: told you about the fuel leak, ordered the needed parts for repair, submitted it to GM under warranty, and given you a car to use until the truck was repaired. This is a safety issue of fuel leakage. Since you took delivery of the truck after the repair and then noticed the leak and the dealer confirmed it, they should have still done what I would have done. My dealer principle (owner) would have no issue with this course of action. Equally so, nor would GM. As far as your vin falling out of range of suspect vehicles, a call to the dsm would get this corrected. GM was (and is) concerned about safety concerns. It looks to me that the SM at the dealership you went to, dropped the ball.
 

·
Registered
2005 chevy trailblazer_ls
Joined
·
70 Posts
This is a dealer issue, GM really does not have anything to do with this, and acutally you shold be quite happy with GM for covering half. But honestly, you should have never had had this problem, those things should have been handled between the dealer and GM, with you never dragged into this, well other than letting you know that you were going to get the rental for a couple more days while they fixed the truck.

A shop I used to deliver parts to had a similar situation. They had the transmission go out on a van they were working on. The repair they were doing was in NO way related to the transmission, that van just go hit with a VERY VERY common problem for that model. In the end the shop just let the customer know the van was going to be a few more days, and why of course, then proceded to buy a $3k transmission and put it in. The customer picked up their van, paid the $99 bill for the original repair, and drove off with a brand new transmision with warrenty. The shop could have just handed the van back with the busted transmission, but it was actually less loss in money to not loose the customer, and every one of their friends and family, and just fix the van. BTW, this was a small shop, 3 mechanics, one of whom was the owner, so $3 was a significant hit. IIRC the shops insurance did cover the repair, but the shop owner didnt know that the insurance company would cover it when they put the new transmission in.
 

·
Registered
2005 gmc envoy_slt_xuv
Joined
·
341 Posts
A shop I used to deliver parts to had a similar situation. They had the transmission go out on a van they were working on. The repair they were doing was in NO way related to the transmission, that van just go hit with a VERY VERY common problem for that model. In the end the shop just let the customer know the van was going to be a few more days, and why of course, then proceded to buy a $3k transmission and put it in. The customer picked up their van, paid the $99 bill for the original repair, and drove off with a brand new transmision with warrenty. The shop could have just handed the van back with the busted transmission, but it was actually less loss in money to not loose the customer, and every one of their friends and family, and just fix the van. BTW, this was a small shop, 3 mechanics, one of whom was the owner, so $3 was a significant hit. IIRC the shops insurance did cover the repair, but the shop owner didnt know that the insurance company would cover it when they put the new transmission in.
While thats a nice story, it is not the same thing - In Bill's case they had to touch and work with the part that later failed and they should have never returned the vehicle to him with that damaged part ... especially so since it concerns a MAJOR safety issue, namely fuel leakage.

What I bet happened is the tech F'ed up on the job and never told his boss of the part he broke.

The fact that you brought the car in and part A was not broken, and drive out and it is ... WITH THEM recognizing it wasn't broken when brought in admits they are assuming fault.

Personally, I would have hammered the service rrep once fault was admitted and never gone to the corporate ladder
 

·
Banned
2004 gmc envoy_slt_xuv
Joined
·
447 Posts
its just that every thread and post you make you run GM through the grinder... just getting a little tired of all the negativity....

but its whatever :)
Yes it is whatever, I worked for GM for 14 years watched the thief management take away 3/4 of the GM Jobs while they lined their greedy pockets, they CANCEL OUR TRUCKS FROM PRODUCTION while they are selling 180 vehicles per day, they run the company into death, take 60 BILLION from the taxpayers with a promise to be the NEW GM, but in fact they are the same company just much smaller and on the taxpayer dole.

Oh yes and they want us to buy the POC Acadia, Enclave , Outlook minivans instead of our Trailvoys. On my deathbed!

By the way I reviewed the posts that I started or contributed going back to my first one. Here are the statistics:

62 / 136 total posts of them are technical in nature with no criticism of GM or its products. = 45.6%

7/136 were related to the tragic closing of the Moraine assembly plant that made the trucks this forum is all about. =5.1%

29 / 136 are direct criticisms of GM management and or their running the company into the ground = 21%

15 / 136 are direct mockery of the POS Minivans Acadia, Enclave etc. (which have nothing to do with our wonderful vehicles). = 11%

5 /136 were negative responses to morons running down our trucks and GM workers in general. = 3.7%

8 /136 posts were unrelated to any thing but nonsense. = 5.9%

11/136 posts were general reminiscing of how great it was to work for GM in engineering and sharing the direct experience with the forum members = 8%

So if you check the math exclusive of rounding errors, you will see that in fact the overwhelming majority of my posts are technical in nature and positive to GM and its products, and a minority of my posts are critical of GM management and some minivans posing as trucks. I have never criticized a 360/370/305 product or a Trailvoy member

Please don’t tell me I have too much time on my hands. I not the one who’s a forum moderator (nothing against the great job the guys are doing on the Trailvoy site!)

Now please let my thread stay on topic, and use facts when ever possible. Lets have fun here!!!!!

Well it is finally settled. The service manager agreed to fix the tank and go back after GM for the money. What an awful experience. From April 21 until July 17th almost a full 3 MONTHS to get GM and/or the dealership to take proper responsibility for a fuel leak that was directly a result of a NHTSA forced recall.

This was a learning experience for me, as I had no idea what lengths the 2 bit GM Argentina call center outsourced little robots would go through to sidestep responsibility for a fuel leak caused by a repair. And the worst part of it was everything was documented. Bottom line: recall, repair, poor quality of sonic weld on cheap as shi7 Kautex fuel tank. The sonic weld on the inlet check valve is too weak for a reliable repair on a Northeast vehicle and they KNOW it.

Truly disgusting behavior, completely indicative of a company that still does not have the slightest clue of what is necessary for customer retention and satisfaction.

The "New GM" - :crackup: I am sorry this is not our fathers GM, they don’t deserve 1/10th of the loyalty we give them. There are lots of other AMERICAN engineered and built vehicles out there, and real BOF trucks too. Ah maybe I can forgive them some day but not today:duh:
 

·
Banned
2004 gmc envoy_slt_xuv
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Well it is finally settled. The service manager agreed to fix the tank and go back after GM for the money. What an awful experience. From April 21 until July 17th almost a full 3 MONTHS to get GM and/or the dealership to take proper responsibility for a fuel leak that was directly a result of a NHTSA forced recall.

This was a learning experience for me, as I had no idea what lengths the 2 bit GM Argentina call center outsourced little robots would go through to sidestep responsibility for a fuel leak caused by a repair. And the worst part of it was everything was documented. Bottom line: recall, repair, poor quality of sonic weld on cheap as shi7 Kautex fuel tank. The sonic weld on the inlet check valve is too weak for a reliable repair on a Northeast vehicle and they KNOW it.

Truly disgusting behavior, completely indicative of a company that still does not have the slightest clue of what is necessary for customer retention and satisfaction.

The "New GM" - :crackup: I am sorry this is not our fathers GM, they don’t deserve 1/10th of the loyalty we give them. There are lots of other AMERICAN engineered and built vehicles out there, and real BOF trucks too. Ah maybe I can forgive them some day but not today:duh:

BTW I wanted to say THANKS to all who gave me the advice I needed to settle this. Another reason these trucks are so great are the kind of people who own them.
 

·
Registered
2005 gmc envoy_denali_xl
Joined
·
111 Posts
Glad it all worked out for you. It's amazing how fast people will agree to take responsibility they realise you're not willing to take it up the a**
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top