Chevrolet C10 Short Wheel Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM cutting back on powertrain warranty citing lack of interest

Generally, when a manufacturer offers a long, high-mileage warranty, it's a sign that it stands behind its products. On top of that, it's generally a selling point for consumers, who can rest easy knowing that any catastrophic failures will be picked up by the manufacturer. Considering those facts, it does seem rather strange that General Motors is slashing the mileage warranty on model year 2016 vehicles from Chevrolet and GMC. Instead of offering consumers a 100,000-mile warranty, GM will now only offer a powertrain warranty up to 60,000 miles. The five-year warranty period, though, remains unchanged. GM will also cut the number of free services being offered to Chevy and GMC owners, as well as Buick drivers, from four to two. "Through research, we have determined that when purchasing a new vehicle, included maintenance and warranty rank low on the list of reasons why consumers consider a particular brand over another," explained a memo sent to dealers by Chevrolet VP Brian Sweeney and his GMC counterpart, Duncan Aldred, and obtained by Automotive News. "As a result, we have benchmarked our competitors, reviewed our current offerings and have concluded the following modifications to align closely with our customers' needs and expectations." While the move might seem odd, Sweeney and Aldred are right – according to Automotive News, Ford, Honda and Toyota each offer a five-year, 60,000-mile powertrain warranty. As for what the money saved by trimming the powertrain warranty will go towards, a GM spokesperson simply told AN that the company will "reinvest the savings we will realize into other retail programs," some of which have been requested by consumers. What are your thoughts? Would a 40,000-mile reduction in a new vehicle's powertrain really turn you off from buying one? Even if it matched its competitors? Is GM better off spending its money elsewhere? Have your say in Comments. Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Equinox View 10 Photos News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Chevrolet Chevrolet GM GMC Auto Repair Maintenance Ownership warranty

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.

GM's Oshawa plant may close after Camaro production moves

Most of the time, when vehicle production is moved from one assembly plant to another, it spells bad news for the former. While General Motors won't go so far as to say its Oshawa, Ontario factory, which is losing the Chevrolet Camaro to the Lansing Grand River plant, is in trouble, analysts seem to think the factory's days are numbered. Forecasts for the facility are far from positive. The loss of the Camaro this year, combined with GM's targeted shutdown of a single-shift assembly line responsible for the fleet-only Chevy Impala Limited and the Equinox crossover is a bad enough omen. But with AutoForecast Solutions CEO Joe McCabe telling The Detroit News that the plant's other two products, the Cadillac XTS and Buick Regal, aren't likely to stick around beyond 2017, things look decidedly grim at Oshawa. "There is a fairly strong chance that the plant could close," Jeff Schuster, senior VP of forecasting for LMC Automotive, told The Detroit News. That doesn't mean that Unifor, Canada's auto union, and the Canadian government are going to let the factory die without a fight. And with the latter chipping in $10 billion as part of GM's 2009 bailout, you might think it has a degree of leverage in the situation. A meeting between the government and the Detroit Three at the 2015 North American International Auto Show revealed that Oshawa is already a topic of conversation. "We made it very clear that we would like to see an indication on the future of Oshawa sooner, in particular because the timing is very challenging for our supply chain to be able to adjust to potentially future orders or changes, but also to know that there are going to be future opportunities at Oshawa," Ontario's Minister of Economic, Development, Employment and Infrastructure Brad Duguid told The Detroit News. "Bottom line: It's time they made a longer-term commitment here," Unifor President Jerry Dias said, echoing Duguid's statements. It's unclear if this sort of strong talk will be enough to save 3,300-plus employees, although based on the analysts' forecasts, we doubt it.