twintornados Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So, Ford was right.....again....Yahoo finance article 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 They'll never admit it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-S Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Why was Ford "right again"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Because when GM went to 100k, all the Ford haters complained that they "had to do it to compete". They didn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Why was Ford "right again"? That 5/60K was more than adequate and 5/100K wasn't necessary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Or maybe buyers stopped buying expensive extended warranties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 That 5/60K was more than adequate and 5/100K wasn't necessary. +1 Apparently, the two year "free" maintenance offering wasn't a major benefit to Chevrolet and GMC customers either. I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota Motor Sales USA dumps or reduces its free maintenance program soon. Volkswagen of America scaled back free maintenance from two years to one starting in MY 2015. Among mass market brands, only Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi Motors, and to a lesser extent the FCA brands have new vehicle warranties that depart from the mass market norm: 3 yr./36k mi. bumper to bumper and 5yr./60k mi. powertrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 Why was Ford "right again"? Because Ford took a lot of flak when they increased power-train to 5/60 and then GM leapfrogged to 5/100 less than a month later. Everyone said that Ford would be doomed if they didn't follow suit.....here we are, dang near ten years later and Ford has kept their promise of a good, solid 5 year 60,000 mile power-train warranty and GM just admitted that Ford was right all along by now admitting to their customers that 5years and 100,000 miles was a ridiculous marketing ploy that failed. But, GM will spin it to their investors that they are saving money.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-S Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Over the years warranties have gone back and forth in terms of their coverage periods for a long long time. They are typically used as a sales tool for a manufacturer but I believe they are largely ignored by the buying public. I had a Sonata and even with their "10 year" warranty there are so many caveats with it so as to make it not much better than anyone else's warranty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 But, GM will spin it to their investors that they are saving money.... Actually, GM stated this change will not have any material impact on the company's finances, and that any savings will be directed toward additional features in Chevy and GMC vehicles. Here is the quote from Automotive News: A GM spokesman said both the powertrain warranty and the inclusion of free scheduled maintenance remain "among the most competitive in the industry." "The financial impact of this change is immaterial and any savings will be reinvested in features customers value like advanced vehicle technology," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Actually, GM stated this change will not have any material impact on the company's finances, and that any savings will be directed toward additional features in Chevy and GMC vehicles. Here is the quote from Automotive News: So, the "savings will be directed toward additional features in Chevy and GMC vehicles" will not have any material impact then sounds like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Therefore the additional features will also be immaterial. Way to contradict yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Therefore the additional features will also be immaterial. Way to contradict yourself. Not a contradiction at all. GM is simply reallocating resources away from items that customers don't value very much (100k powertrain warranty and 2 years free maintenance) toward items the company thinks customers will value (advanced vehicle technology). That reallocation will not impact the company's financial position in the short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) If the savings are immaterial then whatever you do with the savings is also immaterial and should not have been mentioned. They should have just said the savings are immaterial. And if there are enough savings to actually invest in other areas then the savings are not immaterial. Edited March 13, 2015 by akirby 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-S Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Here is the quote....................... "“The financial impact of this change is immaterial and any savings will be reinvested in features customers value like advanced vehicle technology," he said. I interpret that as the "impact is immaterial" (he does not say what he means by impact.) and "any savings" (which he does not quantify) will be reinvested etc. To me they are not necassarily the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 If the savings are enough to make any impact on new features then they are not immaterial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Ford won against anti-Ford/pro-GM fanbois like this from PUTC that bragged about the longer warranty... Until ford comes out with a 100k warranty they aren't even an option in my new truck search. Posted by: Ryan | Apr 14, 2014 8:51:46 AM •Best-in-class powertrain warranty – 5 years/100,000 miles Posted by: JR | Apr 4, 2012 11:40:04 PM Mark: there are a lot of folk out here that drive 100K in 5 years you know? and I for one like the idea of powertrain coverage for more than 60K ! most folks drive at least more than 60K in 5 years! so I like many others will NOT buy another vehicle without coverage till at least 100K!!! if the manufacture will not stand behind their product, how can they expect a buy too! Posted by: sandman4X4 | Apr 14, 2014 1:43:35 PM GM did 460 out of a 6.2 with a 100k warranty.How does that apple taste??? Posted by: Tyler | Nov 2, 2013 12:32:38 AM It looks as unreliable as the 2014 150. But being new, maybe Ford will move to 26th place for reliability with the new pickup. I wonder if Ford will match GM and Ram's warranty with the new pickup, but I doubt it because of the poor reliability record for Ford. Posted by: greg | Nov 14, 2013 5:37:41 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) "Ford won against anti-Ford/pro-GM fanbois like this from PUTC that bragged about the longer warranty..." These are some of the more normal posts at PUTC. Most resemble 3 dozen P71's arguing with each other. Or a bunch of 8 year olds on the school bus. "My Daddy's pickup is better than yours! Is not! Is too!" Edited March 14, 2015 by MY93SHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Just like GM to announce it's doing less for customers and putting the best spin on it. if the impact is negligible,, then why change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The Hyundai 10/100k certainly had an impact when purchasing my wife's Santa Fe. I don't know why anyone would simply disregard warranty periods. Admittedly, we used it once when a transmission harness (wiring) went bad, and was covered at ~63k. The only caveat I know of with the Hyundai/Kia warranty is it isn't transferable. I don't recall when Ford went to 5/60k, but it's always good when a manufacturer stands behind their product. My Ranger was 3/36k. That said, GM was probably spending too much money fixing the ignition switch problem and the money had to come from somewhere. Cutting the warranty 40% is an easy way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 ...I don't recall when Ford went to 5/60k, but it's always good when a manufacturer stands behind their product. My Ranger was 3/36k. I remember it was July of 2006, just before I took delivery of my 2006 Ford Fusion SE V6. The salesman told me when I was picking up the car that he had some good news for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Warranty periods are not a predictor of quality. You just build the cost of the warranty into the product. Extended warranties are available for most vehicles if you want it. Most would rather not deal with multiple dealer visits at all, regardless of whether it's under warranty or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 When I look at long warranty offerings, I'm of the opinion that the manufacturer is counting on NOT having to spend money honoring them. It may not be a direct measure of quality, but I believe it's an indicator of the manufacturer's belief in the reliability of the product. For lack of a better term, it's a bet. Long warranty=Manufacturer is betting on not spending money to fix problems within that time frame. Short warranty=I'm betting I won't have to spend money for the near term after the warranty expires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Not at all. When Hyundai introduced their 10 year warranty they were bad. Honda was the best and they had the shortest warranty. The only difference is the cost to the mfr. Hyundai had to build in more cost to cover their 10 yr warranty than Honda did. It's true that there is a cost difference to the mfr depending on number of expected claims but again that just goes into the base cost. Honda gets to keep more of their per vehicle profit than Hyundai does due to lower warranty claims, but it's still just a cost issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 It may not be a direct measure of quality, but I believe it's an indicator of the manufacturer's belief in the reliability of the product. That's what they want you to believe, but it's not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.