Cadillac Owners Forum banner
1K views 14 replies 8 participants last post by  FredMaxwell 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Yet another thread I'm not allowed to post in.
 
#4 ·
I don't know about double the money back...that seems a bit excessive.
 
#5 ·
What a crock !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Broke the rear end on the dragstrip" HELLO????????????

I remember in the "old" days many performance cars (hemi mopar is one)
was sold AS-is with NO warranty.................

I can just imagine bring in my Z for the 2nd or 3rd blown engine, trans.,
etc. the dealer would wise up and refuse any warranty service !
 
#7 ·
I don't think that fragging the thing that many times is right, even if he was racing it pretty hard...but I still don't think its worth 385,000!
 
#8 ·
c5racr1 said:
0-60 under 5 seconds= a lot of strain on the vehicle. don't advertise a vehicle as igh performance and put substanderd parts in it, congrats to the viper owners, about time detroit is held responsible for putting lowest bidder parts in our vehicles.
Yeah here's a main point. Don't advertise the car as a performance vehicle, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and then build it with weak links that cannot stand up to even how it's advertised. (cough- CTS-V - cough)
 
#9 ·
CIWS said:
Yeah here's a main point. Don't advertise the car as a performance vehicle, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and then build it with weak links that cannot stand up to even how it's advertised. (cough- CTS-V - cough)
The flaw in this logic is that performance is a subjective term. "Performance" by what standard? And does "performance" also have to mean "bulletproof?"

This case it total BS and should have been thrown out by the judge. The instant those jackasses put that car on a drag strip, Chrysler's warranty responsibility ended. Give me two hours on a strip and I'll render worthless any performance car you want to send me.

I hope they take their 385 Gs, buy a real performance car and wrap their sorry asses around a tree. THEN they'll have a lawsuit.
 
#10 · (Edited)
noahsdad said:
The flaw in this logic is that performance is a subjective term. "Performance" by what standard? And does "performance" also have to mean "bulletproof?"

This case it total BS and should have been thrown out by the judge. The instant those jackasses put that car on a drag strip, Chrysler's warranty responsibility ended. Give me two hours on a strip and I'll render worthless any performance car you want to send me.

I hope they take their 385 Gs, buy a real performance car and wrap their sorry asses around a tree. THEN they'll have a lawsuit.
The flaw in this logic is Cadillac advertises a car that can perform 0-60 is less than 5 seconds and has since it's release. "3 vehicles. 0-60 under 5 seconds"
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/vseries/index.jsp?

In order to perform as advertised will require putting a strain on a differential that wasn't designed to perform as it is advertised. To do so will result in a lunched part(s). If you can not build the car to the performance level which you continue to advertise it, then either continue to honor the warranty since you made this choice or supply the vehicle with a part that can withstand it. Go look at the way Cadillac advertises the V series. If you run/drive it that way and the parts can not withstand it, the manufacturer then says you "abuse" the car. I call BS and apparently so does the judge in Waukesha County.
 
#12 ·
CIWS said:
If you run/drive it that way and the parts can not withstand it, the manufacturer then says you "abuse" the car. I call BS and apparently so does the judge in Waukesha County.
You really can't be serious. So I can go buy a Hummer, take it on the Rubicon and bash the crap out of it until it breaks, then drag AM General into court and sue because it didn't hold up as advertised? As stated before, you name the performance car and give me two hours on a drag strip with it, and I'll thrash it into oblivion.

Some time ago, a distraught mother sued Pontiac because her son had plowed his Trans Am into a concrete bridge support at 110 mph. The claim was that Pontiac made a car that LOOKED like it should go very fast, but the owners manual contained no warning against driving 110 mph on a public road. She won the suit. That was also in Wisconsin if I recall correctly. Liability lawyers live by the creed of PT Barnum, and count on a culture that thinks they have no personal responsibility for anything that may go wrong in their lives.

If every product performed exactly as the advertising stated, we'd all be the fastest, most rugged, handsomest, cleanest, best-smelling, high performance, well-adjusted, oversexed culture in history. Don't see that happening any time soon. Guess we need a class action lawsuit.
 
#13 ·
noahsdad said:
You really can't be serious. So I can go buy a Hummer, take it on the Rubicon and bash the crap out of it until it breaks, then drag AM General into court and sue because it didn't hold up as advertised? As stated before, you name the performance car and give me two hours on a drag strip with it, and I'll thrash it into oblivion.
Yes I am serious. Does GM have a commercial stating their Hummer can traverse the Rubicon without it getting the crap bashed out of it ? If so I haven't seen it. Cadillac does advertise and repeat the capabilities of the V series. Several CTS-V owners have had multiple differentials replaced even without "abusive" driving. There's a difference between a company advertising actual capabilities of a car and the car not being able to perform them without failing due to sub par parts and carrying a concept to an extreme. You seem to be the one having a problem telling the difference.
 
#14 ·
CIWS said:
Yes I am serious. Does GM have a commercial stating their Hummer can traverse the Rubicon without it getting the crap bashed out of it ? If so I haven't seen it. Cadillac does advertise and repeat the capabilities of the V series. Several CTS-V owners have had multiple differentials replaced even without "abusive" driving. There's a difference between a company advertising actual capabilities of a car and the car not being able to perform them without failing due to sub par parts and carrying a concept to an extreme. You seem to be the one having a problem telling the difference.

There have been several ads, video and print, showing Hummers bowling over rock strewn trails just like the Rubicon. Conversely, there has never been a Viper ad showing it turning 12 second quarter mile runs at the drag strip, which is precisely what these guys said they did. That is my primary issue with this suit. As soon as the judge heard that he should have thrown it out.

Regarding the CTS-V diff issue, I'm all for holding the feet of the manufacturers to the fire for substandard products. If the diffs are failing under normal, legal driving conditions, then GM should be repairing/replacing them.
 
G
#15 ·
I like things to perform.
No games.
You sell me a car that you say is made for performance,
It breaks when I want it to perform,
You are in the wrong and you suck.



That reminds me of when some ******* designed the pinto..
He found out they blew up when ass ended
What did he do,
He figured the so many cent per car cost
He figured the cost of the wrongful death suits

The death payoffs were lower so he didn't fix the flaw
It backfired and that piece of shit who let people die in the name of a buck ended up paying out millions on millions on millions


The bottom line is keep your word and don't be a scumball
 
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