have had my MY 2001 Z06 for over a year now and currently in a buyback war with GM. I thought I would post my experience here to show just how difficult GM can be.

My car was purchased in November 2000 and on July 23, 2001, my car had been out of service for 22 business days and seen for oil consumption 4 times without resolution. The North Carolina Lemon Law Statute that 4 time or more or 20 or more business days out of service for Lemon Law replacement. You must 1st give the manufacturer notice in writing of the series of problems you have with your vehicle.

I sent the following letter to GM on July 24, 2001.

July 24, 2001


General Motors Corporation
Headquarters, Detroit Michigan
Attn: Mr. Bill Lovejoy, GM Group Vice President
North America Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing
Fax: (313) 667-4157


General Motors Corporation
GM Corvette Assembly Plant
Bowling Green, Kentucky
Attn: Mr. Will Cooksey, Plant Manager
Fax: (270) 745-8252

SUBJECT: 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop, VIN#

Mr. Lovejoy and Mr. Cooksey,

I am writing this letter regarding my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop that was purchased, delivered, and serviced by Sir Walter Chevrolet in Raleigh, North Carolina.

I took delivery of my vehicle on November 10, 2000. This being my second new Chevrolet and Corvette, I was extremely happy to have taken delivery. This ended just a few days later though.

Attached to this letter is a complete service history (Along with dealer invoice #’s) on my vehicle. In the past eight months , I have had my vehicle into the service department 10 times for various problems and the vehicle has been OUT OF SERVICE for a total of TWENTY TWO (22) BUSINESS DAYS. One of these problems (Excessive oil consumption) has had SIX (6) dealer presented occurrences and between TEN AND THIRTEEN (10) and (13) personal occurrences and the problem still exists. I have verbally notified Mr. Ricky Edwards, Service Manager on several occasions and the problems with my vehicle still have not been resolved.

I feel that Mr. Ricky Edwards and his service staff at Sir Walter Chevrolet have been most helpful and I truly believe that they have done the best that they can to solve these problems to my satisfaction. But the issue remains that these problems still exist. Due to the fact that there are currently FOURTEEN (14) problems with my vehicle, some of which are up to over SIX (6) occurrences along with the vehicle being out of service for TWENTY TWO (22) BUSINESS DAYS in the past EIGHT (8) MONTHS, I feel now that this issue has gone beyond what should be considered acceptable.

This is the reason I am writing this letter. Before my purchase of this vehicle, I owned 3 brand new Ford Mustangs. Each vehicle was in the service department no more than 2 or 3 times for warranty work during the 1st year. After that, I purchased a 2000 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe that was bought back by GM due to being into the dealer for warranty repair THIRTEEN (13) times and EIGHT (8) times for the same problem in the 1 year. Now the 2001 Z06 that I have purchased to replace my 2000 Corvette Coupe has been into the dealer TEN (10) times and out of service for TWENTY TWO (22) BUSINESS DAYS in the past 8 months. I feel that this is unacceptable for a vehicle that costs $51,000.00. The North Carolina Lemon Statute states

§ 20-351.3. Replacement or refund; disclosure requirement.
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled
by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations
of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a
reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to
any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for
the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of
defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the
motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than
24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the
vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer,
replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the
consumer the following:
(1) The full contract price including, but not
limited to, charges for undercoating, dealer preparation and
transportation, and installed options, plus the non-refundable
portions of extended warranties and service contracts;
(2) All collateral charges, including but not
limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and similar
government charges;
(3) All finance charges incurred by the consumer
after he first reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its
agent, or its authorized dealer; and
(4) Any incidental damages and monetary
consequential damages.

and it also states

§ 20-351.5. Presumption.
(a) It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts
have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable
express warranties if:
(1) The same nonconformity has been presented for
repair to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer
four or more times but the same nonconformity continues to exist;
or
(2) The vehicle was out of service to the consumer
during or while awaiting repair of the nonconformity or a series
of nonconformity’s for a cumulative total of 20 or more business
days during any 12-month period of the warranty,
provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly
in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of
nonconformity’s and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period,
not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the
nonconformity or series of nonconformity’s.


According to the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes, I believe my vehicle completely qualifies for replacement under both conditions.

(1) The same nonconformity has been presented for repair to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer four or more times but the same nonconformity continues to exist;

My vehicle has been seen by the dealer for Excessive oil consumption (5) times

(2) The vehicle was out of service to the consumer during or while
awaiting repair of the nonconformity or a series of nonconformity’s for a cumulative total of 20 or more business days during any 12-month period of the warranty, provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly

My vehicle has been OUT OF SERVICE for 22 BUSINESS DAYS in the past EIGHT MONTHS.

Due to these above FACTS, I respectfully request in the interest of customer satisfaction that General Motors and Chevrolet REPLACE my 2001 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with a 2002 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with the same options. I am requesting a 2002 due to the fact that my dealer has confirmed that my excessive oil consumption is due to a faulty RING DESIGN that exists on ALL 2001 Corvette Z06 Hardtops. This request and REPLACEMENT option selection is also being made in accordance to the North Carolina Lemon Law Statute which states:

§ 20-351.3. Replacement or refund; disclosure requirement.
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled
by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations
of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a
reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to
any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for
the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of
defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the
motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than
24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the
vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer,

replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle
or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the
consumer the following:

I truly believe the Chevrolet Corvette is a great vehicle. During my trip to Bowling Green Kentucky during the C5 Birthday Bash, I had the opportunity to meet many of the people who are responsible for its creation, design and manufacture. I also traveled back to Bowling Green to witness the build and AUDIT process of my 2001 Corvette. All I can say is that they are the most impressive group of individuals I have yet met and I can see that they take great pride in creating a super vehicle.

It appears unfortunately AGAIN that my 2nd CORVETTE is having a number of problems that are not normal or the standard for the Chevrolet Corvette. It seems that most agree that GM is committed to customer satisfaction. I respectfully request your assistance in a swift resolution to this matter.

Thank you for your time and attention.

***********************************
*************

It took 9 days to get a response and I sent the following letter on August 9, 2001


August 9, 2001


General Motors Corporation
Headquarters, Detroit Michigan
Attn: Mr. Bill Lovejoy, GM Group Vice President
North America Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing
Fax: (313) 667-4157

General Motors Corporation
Headquarters, Detroit Michigan
Attn: Ms. Mary Kingston, Assistant to Mr. Bill Lovejoy
Fax: (313) 667-7070

General Motors Corporation
GM Corvette Assembly Plant
Bowling Green, Kentucky
Attn: Mr. Will Cooksey, Plant Manager
Fax: (270) 745-8252

SUBJECT: 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop, VIN#


Mr. Lovejoy Ms. Kingston and Mr. Cooksey,

I am writing this SECOND letter to let you know the actions that have taken place on my complaint and requests regarding my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop.

I sent my 1st letter to you on July 24, 2001. It took 9 DAYS for someone from General Motors to contact me regarding my letter. The individual that contacted me on August 3, 2001 was Mr. David Speer in GM Legal Correspondence. Mr. Speer left a message for me and I returned his call on August 3, 2001. During this conversation, Mr. Speer told me that he was in the process of contacting the dealership, the area rep, and some individuals in the engineering departments. Mr. Speer told me that I would be contacted by him the following week. I again told him of that I was looking to have my vehicle REPLACED in accordance with the North Carolina Lemon Law Statues.

By August 7, 2001, Mr. Speer had not contacted me so I called him back. I was then told at that time that Mr. Jim Cuccurello, Field Area Service Manager had stated that General Motors would NOT be repurchasing my vehicle and that my vehicle would be repaired AS NEEDED. I then asked Mr. Speer what that exactly meant and how could Mr. Cuccurello ignore the fact that my vehicle MORE THAN qualifies for REPLACEMENT under the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes. I was not given any further explanation nor have I been contacted further by anyone in the General Motors organization after August 7th 2001.

It is now August 9th, 2001 and 16 CALENDER DAYS after I have notified you (THE MANUFACTURER) in writing of the series of non-conformities that exist with my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop. I have not been contacted nor has any attempt been scheduled nor attempt to schedule any type of repairs, etc on my vehicle been made. Please note below the section of the North Carolina Lemon Law Statute that pertains to this.

§ 20-351.5. Presumption.

provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly
in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of
nonconformities and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period,
not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the
nonconformity or series of nonconformities.


At this point, I am very disappointed that General Motors seems to not be committed to the idea of customer satisfaction and the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes.

I again am AGAIN respectfully requesting that in accordance with the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes that General Motors and Chevrolet REPLACE my 2001 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with a 2002 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with the same options. I am requesting a 2002 due to the fact that my dealer has confirmed that my excessive oil consumption is due to a faulty RING DESIGN that exists on ALL 2001 Corvette Z06 Hardtops. Again, this request and REPLACEMENT option selection is being made in accordance to the North Carolina Lemon Law Statute which states:

§ 20-351.3. Replacement or refund; disclosure requirement.
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled
by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations
of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a
reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to
any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for
the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of
defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the
motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than
24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the
vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer,

replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle
or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the
consumer the following:


I have attached along with this letter a copy of the 1st letter that was sent on July 24, 2001 along with a REVISED SERVICE HISTORY that documents that additional discovered problems with my vehicle.

I respectfully request your assistance in a swift resolution to this matter.

Thank you for your time and attention.

See Part 2 below

PART 2

***********************************
*****************

After still receiving no resolution to my problem, I sent the following letter on August 23, 2001


August 23, 2001


General Motors Corporation
Headquarters, Detroit Michigan
Attn: Mr. Bill Lovejoy, GM Group Vice President
North America Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing
Fax: (313) 667-4157

General Motors Corporation
Headquarters, Detroit Michigan
Attn: Ms. Mary Kingston, Assistant to Mr. Bill Lovejoy
Fax: (313) 667-7070

General Motors Corporation
GM Corvette Assembly Plant
Bowling Green, Kentucky
Attn: Mr. Will Cooksey, Plant Manager
Fax: (270) 745-8252

SUBJECT: 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop, VIN#


Mr. Lovejoy Ms. Kingston and Mr. Cooksey,

I am writing this THIRD letter to let you know the actions that have taken place on my complaint and requests regarding my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop.

I sent my 1st letter to you on July 24, 2001. It took 9 DAYS for someone from General Motors to contact me regarding my letter. The individual that contacted me on August 3, 2001 was Mr. David Speer in GM Legal Correspondence. Mr. Speer left a message for me and I returned his call on August 3, 2001. During this conversation, Mr. Speer told me that he was in the process of contacting the dealership, the area rep, and some individuals in the engineering departments. Mr. Speer told me that I would be contacted by him the following week. I again told him of that I was looking to have my vehicle REPLACED in accordance with the North Carolina Lemon Law Statues.

By August 7, 2001, Mr. Speer had not contacted me so I called him back. I was then told at that time that Mr. Jim Cuccurello, Field Area Service Manager had stated that General Motors would NOT be repurchasing my vehicle and that my vehicle would be repaired AS NEEDED. I then asked Mr. Speer what that exactly meant and how could Mr. Cuccurello ignore the fact that my vehicle MORE THAN qualifies for REPLACEMENT under the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes. I was not given any further explanation nor have I been contacted further by anyone in the General Motors organization after August 7th 2001.

On August 9th, 2001 and 16 CALENDER DAYS after I have notified you (THE MANUFACTURER) in writing of the series of non-conformities that exist with my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop, I wrote a SECOND letter which I have attached to this letter for your reference. A few days later and after I called several times, I was contacted by Ms. Kingston. Ms. Kingston stated that she would get back to me when she had more info. A week after the SECOND letter, I sent a fax reminder to let all parties know that I still had not been contacted nor had any action taken place with my vehicle. I placed several messages to Ms. Kingston’s voicemail after the reminder fax was sent. Finally on August 20, 2001 and 27 CALENDER DAYS after my 1st letter to you (THE MANUFACTURER), I was contacted by Ms. Kingston. She stated that the Mr. Jim Cuccurello, Field Area Service Manager had the “replacement rings” in hand but he was on vacation so I would have to wait to see what action would be taken with my vehicle. I reminded Ms. Kingston that it had been 27 CALENDER DAYS since my 1st notification to the manufacturer and according to North Carolina State Lemon Law Statutes that I more than qualified for REPLACEMENT of my vehicle. She again stated that nothing could be done until Mr. Cuccurello returned from vacation. I find this completely unacceptable and a total disregard for customer satisfaction.

It is now August 23, 2001 and 30 CALENDER DAYS after I have notified you (THE MANUFACTURER) in writing of the series of non-conformities that exist with my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop. There has been no attempt to schedule any type of repairs, etc on my vehicle. On August 27, 2001 it will be 34 CALENDER DAYS after my 1st notification to you (THE MANUFACTURER) of the series of non-conformities that exist with my 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop. Please note below the section of the North Carolina Lemon Law Statute that pertains to this.

§ 20-351.5. Presumption.

provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly
in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of
nonconformities and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period,
not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the
nonconformity or series of nonconformities.


At this point, I am very disappointed that General Motors seems to not be committed to the idea of customer satisfaction and appears to have complete disregard for the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes.

I again am ONCE AGAIN respectfully requesting that in accordance with the North Carolina Lemon Law Statutes that General Motors and Chevrolet REPLACE my 2001 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with a 2002 Millennium Yellow Corvette Z06 Hardtop with the same options. I am requesting a 2002 due to the fact that my dealer has confirmed that my excessive oil consumption is due to a faulty RING DESIGN that exists on ALL 2001 Corvette Z06 Hardtops. Again, this request and REPLACEMENT option selection is being made in accordance to the North Carolina Lemon Law Statute which states:

§ 20-351.3. Replacement or refund; disclosure requirement.
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled
by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations
of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a
reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to
any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for
the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of
defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the
motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than
24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the
vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer,

replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle
or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the
consumer the following:


I have attached along with this letter a copy of the 1st letter and 2nd letters that were sent on July 24, 2001 and August 9, 2001 along with a REVISED SERVICE HISTORY that documents that additional discovered problems with my vehicle.

I respectfully request your assistance in a swift resolution to this matter.

Thank you for your time and attention.


***********************************
*****************

Finally in September and 43 CALENDAR days after my 1st letter, I was contacted by Performance Chevrolet to schedule a repair of my rings.

I told them that since it has exceeded the 15 days the statute gave, I would not be scheduling a repair and wanted a replacement.

I then hired an attorney and he sent the following letter to GM:


I received the following response from GM


Attorney Letter Page 1

See part 3 for rest of story Attorney Letter Page 2

And here is the response from GM

GM Response

I responded to GM via letter to my attorney.

December 5, 2001


Raymond W. Postlewait, Jr. Esq.
Attorney At Law
Northgate Mall
Suite 3-A
Durham, North Carolina 27705


Mr. Postlewait,

I have received the letter you forwarded from General Motors dated December 4, 2001. I offer the following information to counter the claims that GM made in the letter.

My 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Hardtop has been out of service for a total of 22 business days from the period starting December 6, 2000 until the “Final Notification Letter” to the manufacturer of the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle, dated July 24, 2001

12/06/00 – Invoice 225155 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1080 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 1 DAY

12/21/00 - Invoice 226716 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1762 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 2 DAYS

12/28/00 – Invoice 227387 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, (Dropped the car off on 12/28/00 and the car was not ready until 01/03/01.) MILEAGE: 3743. OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 5 DAYS

01/29/01 – Invoice CVCS59535 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 4353 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 14 DAYS

03/08/01 – Invoice CVCS61355 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5535 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 21 DAYS

03/15/00 – Invoice CVCS62319 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 6275 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 22 DAYS


In addition, my vehicle had been presented 4 separate times for excessive oil consumption to a Chevrolet Dealer. I was told either that the oil consumption was normal or Ricky Edwards, Service Manager, Sir Walter Chevrolet, told me that General Motors was aware of the oil consumption problem and THERE WAS NO FIX AVAILABLE FOR MY VEHICLE AT THAT TIME.

12/06/00 – Invoice 225155 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1080 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 1 DAY

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (1st dealer presented complaint)

After driving the car ONLY 1080 miles, the car was low 1 QUART of oil. I was told that this is perfectly normal and NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. 1 quart of oil was added.


03/06/01 – Invoice CVCS61004SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5000

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (2nd dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. Was told there was no fix for this problem at this time.


03/08/01 – Invoice CVCS61355 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5535 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 21 DAYS

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (3rd dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. I was told by Ricky Edwards, Service Manager, Sir Walter Chevrolet, that this is a problem that GM is aware of and there is not fix at this time.


03/15/00 – Invoice CVCS62319 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 6275 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 22 DAYS

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (4th dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. I was told by Ricky Edwards, Service Manager at Sir Walter Chevrolet, that this is a problem that GM is aware of and there is no fix at this time.


As you well know, the North Carolina Lemon Law statute states:

§ 20-351.5. Presumption.
(a) It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts
have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable
express warranties if:
(1) The same nonconformity has been presented for
repair to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer
four or more times but the same nonconformity continues to exist;
or
(2) The vehicle was out of service to the consumer
during or while awaiting repair of the nonconformity or a series
of nonconformity’s for a cumulative total of 20 or more business
days during any 12-month period of the warranty,
provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly
in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of
nonconformity’s and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period,
not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the
nonconformity or series of nonconformity’s.


My vehicle meets the requirements of 20-351.5 (1) as it has been presented to Sir Walter Chevrolet (An authorized Chevrolet dealer) on 4 separate occurrences for “Excessive Oil Consumption”

12/06/00 – Invoice 225155 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1080 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 1 DAY

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (1st dealer presented complaint)

After driving the car ONLY 1080 miles, the car was low 1 QUART of oil. I was told that this is perfectly normal and NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. 1 quart of oil was added.


03/06/01 – Invoice CVCS61004SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5000

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (2nd dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. Was told there was no fix for this problem at this time.


03/08/01 – Invoice CVCS61355 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5535 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 21 DAYS

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (3rd dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. I was told by Ricky Edwards, Service Manager, Sir Walter Chevrolet, that this is a problem that GM is aware of and there is not fix at this time.


03/15/00 – Invoice CVCS62319 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 6275 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 22 DAYS

The car is burning excessive oil. Oil Level is Low (4th dealer presented complaint)

The car was low 1 QUART of oil. 1 quart of oil was added. I was told by Ricky Edwards, Service Manager at Sir Walter Chevrolet, that this is a problem that GM is aware of and there is no fix at this time.


My vehicle meets the requirements of 20-351.5 (2) as it has been out of service for a total of (22) twenty-two business days from the period of December 6, 2000 until December 6, 2001 (12, Twelve Month Period during the warranty period of November 10, 2000 until November 10, 2003)

12/06/00 – Invoice 225155 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1080 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 1 DAY

12/21/00 - Invoice 226716 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, MILEAGE: 1762 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 2 DAYS

12/28/00 – Invoice 227387 PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, CHAPEL HILL, NC, (Dropped the car off on 12/28/00 and the car was not ready until 01/03/01.) MILEAGE: 3743. OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 5 DAYS

01/29/01 – Invoice CVCS59535 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 4353 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 14 DAYS

03/08/01 – Invoice CVCS61355 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 5535 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 21 DAYS

03/15/00 – Invoice CVCS62319 SIR WALTER CHEVROLET. MILEAGE: 6275 OUT OF SERVICE TO DATE TOTAL: 22 DAYS

and General Motors (The Manufacturer) was notified directly in writing on 1st on July 24, 2001, of the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle

**EDITED** see above for letter


Then again on August 9, 2001

Then again on August 23, 2001

During this period that the three letters above were sent (July 24, 2001 through August 23, 2001 [30 calendar days]), there had been no attempt to schedule the “Final Repair”/correction of the series of non-conformities nor any attempt to “Final Repair”/correct the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle.

Again, as you well know, NC 20-351.5 (2) clearly states

…… provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly
in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of
nonconformity’s and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period,
not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the
nonconformity or series of nonconformity’s.


I was not contacted until September 4, 2001, which was (43) Forty Three Calendar days after my direct notification in writing to GM (The manufacturer) the existence of the series of nonconformities that exist with my vehicle. On that date, Mr. Tim Wilder of Performance Chevrolet in Chapel Hill, NC (An authorized GM/Chevrolet Dealer) stated that he had just received engine piston rings and wanted to “schedule” a time for me to bring my car in to be repaired. I informed Mr. Wilder that this had been the 1st time anyone from GM/Chevrolet has attempted to schedule a “Final Repair”/correction of the series of non conformities that exist with my vehicle and that it has been (43) Calendar days since my direct notification in writing to GM (The manufacturer) the existence of the series of non conformities that exist with my vehicle and that NC 20-351.5 (2) clearly stated that the GM (The manufacturer) had only 15 calendar days from the date of my direct notification in writing to them of the existence of the series of non conformities that exist with my vehicle to “Final Repair/Correct” them. (July 24, 2001 until August 7, 2001 = 15 calendar days)

I went on to explain to Mr. Wilder the facts from the letters above and due to the fact the GM (The manufacturer) had been given a “reasonable period” which did not exceed 15 calendar days to “Final Repair”/correct the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle, I would be pursuing a “Replacement” of my defective vehicle in accordance with NC 20-351.3

§ 20-351.3. Replacement or refund; disclosure requirement.
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled
by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations
of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a
reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to
any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for
the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of
defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the
motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than
24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the
vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer,
replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the
consumer the following:
(1) The full contract price including, but not
limited to, charges for undercoating, dealer preparation and
transportation, and installed options, plus the non-refundable
portions of extended warranties and service contracts;
(2) All collateral charges, including but not
limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and similar
government charges;
(3) All finance charges incurred by the consumer
after he first reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its
agent, or its authorized dealer; and
(4) Any incidental damages and monetary
consequential damages.


Mr. Wilder asked me to fax to him all of my documentation which I completed on September 4, 2001.


As you can see, GM (The manufacturer) was given in accordance with NC 20-351.5 (2) a reasonable period, not to exceed 15 calendar days from the date of my direct notification in writing to them of the existence of the series of non conformities that exist with my vehicle to “Final Repair”/correct them. This period started on July 24, 2001 and expired on August 7, 2001 (15 calendar days.) During that period there had been no attempt to schedule the “Final Repair”/correction of the series of non-conformities nor any attempt to “Final Repair”/correct the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle. It was not until September 4, 2001 and (43) forty three calendar days that I was contacted by Performance Chevrolet (An authorized GM/Chevrolet dealer) to “schedule” the “Final Repair/correction” of (1) (one) of the nonconformities that exists with my vehicle. This (43) forty three calendar day period far exceeds the (15) fifteen calendar day period allotted to GM (The Manufacturer) by NC 20-351.5 (2) to “Final Repair”/correct the series of non-conformities that exist with my vehicle.

Based off of these clearly substantiated facts and in accordance with the NC Lemon Law Statues, I reject the offer of General Motors dated December 4, 2001 and demand a “REPLACEMENT” of my vehicle by General Motors in accordance with applicable state and federal statutes.

***********************************
*****************

We received the same response as above from GM to this letter so I decided to give GM 1 FINAL attempt to correct all 21 problems with my vehicle.

Current Problems –
1. Emergency Brake Cable Rattles (3rd complaint)
2. Deck lid rattles (2nd complaint)
3. Transmission is difficult to shift, including reverse and pops out of 2nd gear sometimes. (4th complaint)
4. Engine burns excessive oil. (6th complaint and have added ****5 quarts of oil since last service visit****)
5. Rear facia is warped on Passenger side (1st complaint)
6. Alternator makes squealing noise sometimes (1st complaint)
7. Finish on rims is damaged by FACTORY wheel weights.
8. Mufflers rattling (1st complaint)
9. Passenger seat leather excessively worn without use (1st complaint)
10. Memory feature sometimes will not work (1st complaint)
11. PAINT/BODY PANEL CRACKING ON REAR LEFT QUARTER PANEL (1st complaint)
12. Excessive fuel consumption during highway cruising in 6th gear **16-18 mph average at 60 – 70mph** (1st complaint)
13. Front console cover distorted and misaligned (2nd complaint)
14. Brake rotors starting to warp (1st complaint)
15. Slow drip LEAK of oil out of vehicle (Appears to be coming out of the rear differential or transmission. (1st complaint)
16. Car has vibration at upper highway speeds (1st complaint)
17. Suspension making clunking noises (2nd complaint)
18. Tires excessive uneven wear due to incorrect alignment. (1st complaint)
19. Alignment and steering wheel position not correct (3rd complaint)
20. Loud semi-shrill noise coming from rear of car (1st complaint)
21. Z06 Front Air Screen Defective (2nd complaint)

See next part for repair details.

I decided to give GM one more chance in good faith and to show that I have went above and beyond what is required by the statute in an attempt to bring a resolution.

So, my car now is at Performance Chevrolet and they have 15 calendar days to correct all of the problems and NO further problems to occur or BUYBACK.

So far they have verified that Sir Walter Chevrolet made some serious ERRORS with the transmission job and several problems with my vehicle are caused by their faulty work.

Stay tuned over the next two weeks for more details.

Jim

I'd suggest a new attorney... This should have already been in a court room as soon as they refused the first buyback. The car is an expensive car..... the value of the car has been diminished (I wouldn't buy it!), the car qualifies for more than one of the "buyback" requirements. I had an attny in 1990 and the first thing he said to GM was "The problems with this vehicle are the exact reason NC has a lemon law". The vehicle was bought back within 1 week and that was for a problem with the front diff on a 4x4 pickup! If GM wants to play hardball, let them. That's covered in the "recovery" section of the lemon law as well. Heck, you could buy a couple new vettes after prevailing on that one!
Isn't it interesting that the car manufacturers have a strong lobby trying to get rid of the lemon laws across the country?
Bottom line.... even if all your documentation is in place, GM can stonewall you all day long. They simply want you to "go away". If you let them off the hook, there's only one person that loses and it won't be them. Sometimes you have to send them a wakeup call. You have to ask yourself, what are you going to have when they're done....
I feel for ya buddy.... been there, done that....
Hope it turns out the way it should for ya...

I would get a new lawyer and maybe try another manufacturer of cars, my 7 Vettes have been back to the dealer 2 times for warranty work, my Vettes have been good to me, sorry to hear about your problems.

It seems logical to me that the state attorney would help as he or she is supposed to uphold the laws of the state. good luck the problems with vettes are well known to GM and they are arrogant if not indifferent to them always blaming the dealer or the customer. I am glad that you posted this as I may take some legal action later. My problem was fixed but it was inherit to the design and wasnt disclosed to me or others. It amazes me that they wont be upfront with customers that are loyal and be robust in eliminating problems with their design and their manufacturing processes.

JLA,
You will win this if you are patient and don't let up. I know someone very closely who has gone through this. GM will test you.

What happened with my friend was that GM waited until just days before the court date and then they offered to repurchase. My guess is, they will hold out as long as they can to see if you will back down.

As long as you have all the necessary paperwork from the service done to your car, you will win.

Good Luck


[QUOTE]Originally posted by JLAENTERPRISES:
[qb]I responded to GM via letter to my attorney.

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: C6_4_ME ]

Thanks for the helpful comments.

I feel pretty confident that it will all be over soon.

Jim

"I'd suggest a new attorney... This should have already been in a court room as soon as they refused the first buyback."

Absolutely no doubt about it. They face a no-win-scenario! There is no way that you can, or cold have lost the case. They not only would have been forced by the courts to replace your Corvette, but they ALSO would have been forced to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

I cannot understand (with the massive amount of physical and empirical evidence) "why" you did not fire your first attorney, and put an attorney on the job who was single minded about getting your car replaced.

If my car had that MANY problems as you say your car has, there would be no way on this green earth that I would allow ANYBODY to continue repairs.

Both the law and ethics are on your side.

I'm totally confused by your willingness to take continued chances with this LEMON? In fact, I'm a little bit amazed! Shocked, even!

I figured I would give them their requested Final attempt even though it has past far beyond the limit the statute sets.

They will not have the series of problems fixed within the 15 calendar days and probably will still refuse to replace it.

I will be able to show that I went above and beyond what the statute requires and GM was still unreasonable and no regard for the statute.

In a lawsuit (considering treble damages,) this can only work out to my advantage.

At the end of the 15th day I am trying to decide if I should just go and demand my car back regardless of the statute or let them finish?

Any ideas?

Jim

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: JLAENTERPRISES ]

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: JLAENTERPRISES ]

Jim,

I've got a little personal rule of commerce, and it goes something like this:

I play by the rules of the game and work hard for my money. I expect quality for my hard-earned cash. I cheat no one and I do not expect to be cheated. If I make a mistake, I admit it and ask for forgiveness. When I spend my hard-earned cash, I expect to do so with honest, ethical, men and women of character. Since they are honest and ethical, I expect them to guarantee that the product/service they deliver is fit for the purpose for which it was created. If defects occur, I expect them to do the honest and ethical thing and immediately repair, replace, refund, or re-service what I've paid for in good faith. If they refuse, I'll ask a sitting judge and/or jury to make me whole in the eyes of the law.

Jim, I see no reason to have allowed this "final attempt". The requirements of the law have been met and exceeded. You paid for the product in good faith and accepted said product with the understanding that is was fit for the purpose for which is was created. The product turned out not to be fit for the purpose for which is was created, and you made every good faith effort to allow the company to bring the product into a condition of technical and legal conformity. The failed to do so within the time limits set forth in the State Statues. Thus, you are entitled to a remedy not to include additional repair attempts by the company.

However, you have now placed yourself into their domain once again by not taking the matter to court, and allowing this "final attempt" to be made.

Given this move on your part, the 15-day clock must continue to tic. But, I see no reason why that clock should tic past 15 days without the car being back in your possession. I would not even wait for them to tell you that they will, or will not replace the vehicle. I would simply file and have them served with a notice to respond to the courts.

That will demonstrate that you mean business. And, that will be the point when your attorney receives a letter from them saying that they have reconsidered their previous decision and now wish to consider your request for replacement. You can terminate the lawsuit at any time after that.

This is ONLY my opinion, of course.

I wish you the best. I had an experience that almost went to court with GM over my brand new 2000 Coupe. Fortunately, they saw that I meant business, right from the word go, and I never had to file a single paper. My car runs perfectly now, but they made far too many incorrect diagnoses. Going to court to seek a legal and just remedy does not make you a “mean spirited” person. In fact, it makes you somewhat of a hero for consumer justice. Automobile manufacturers (and big businesses in general) have billions to throw around courtrooms if they choose to. What their billions cannot do for them is heal poor public opinion when someone like you suffers under their poor judgment.

It is a rough compensating balance of sorts and the only defense the public has for being completely ignored by the giants of industry and their mighty fists filled with more cash than you, or I will see in a thousand lifetimes.

You have to like the "treble damages" in the NC Lemon Law. Make sure you take the photos of your car repair (in progress) to show the judge. Make sure you identify (as you did in the forum) what the parts are and how "abnormal" it is to have to have the engine yanked, rear yanked, suspension, etc. I've bought GM cars all my life and probably will continue to. Their products are, for the most part, very reliable and descent quality. Why a manufacturer forces people to go to these extremes when it's THEIR product that's the problem is far beyond me. I also have a very strict set of rules I go by. I don't complain about little rattles or small problems on a new car. I normally just fix whatever I can myself. I do, however, demand they stand by their vehicles and abide by the laws. Unfortuneately, they force people to extreme steps while they play their childish games. In my opinion the GM people that make the "decisions" in these cases are for the most part idiots that should be serving hamburgers. For my last problem, the front axle of my new truck had never had any lube in it... not a drop from day one. It was shipped that way and the idiots at the dealership didn't bother to perform the "pre-delivery" checks. OK, so after 500 miles or so there's a ticking sound coming from the axle. I took it back... no problem found.... this happened 5 times within 1 month and I was told by the service manager "wait until it gets worse"!!!!! I went to another dealership and that's when I found out there wasn't a drop of lube in the axle... When they did put the lube in, it leaked like a sieve (surprise! you don't think the seals got fried do ya?). I didn't ask, I demanded a replacement. The dance began... "They would find me a truck"... after a month I called and they told ME to go find it...
I then demanded my money back. Here's the first idiot's response.... "The truck has been fixed. You can't say the leaking is the same problem. It's like having a bad valve in the engine and having it repaired. If there's another problem in the engine, you can't say it's the same problem." My reply "I could if some moron never put oil in the engine couldn't I!". Needless to say, as you've discovered yourself, I ended up with an attorney and I made it clear before he did anything..... that I wasn't keeping the truck and GM was going to buy it back. No options, no other settlements and if he didn't feel he could handle it, I'd find another attorney. Took a week once he got involved..... Nice..... Life is good again.....
Hang in there... you've get what you deserve as long as you walk softly and carry a really big stick...

Sorry to here about all of your problems with your Vette. You should get another lawyer so that you will win it quickly. There is no doubt you will win, but a new lawyer might get it done quicker. And maybe the lawyer will put pressure on GM to settle once an for all. They will settle this, but your lawyer needs to put lots of pressure on them. Good luck and keep us updated. Happy Holidays.