Chevrolet Lets Buyers Return Cars Within 60 Days

[kwillia]

Did you mistakenly pay cash for a new Chevrolet Impala, only to realize a month later what an old piece of junk it is? Simply return it, no questions asked.


That’s the idea behind the “Chevy Confidence” sales promotion, a dramatic incentive to win more buyers to the Bow Tie brand after last year’s record sales of 4.76 million worldwide. The deal applies to purchases, not leases, of any 2012 or 2013 Chevrolet -- from Spark to Corvette ZR1 -- made now through Sept. 4 at participating dealers. If you hate the car, you can walk back to the dealer after 30 days and return it, so long as there’s no damage and less than 4,000 miles on the clock.

Exhaust Notes - A Blog from MSN Autos - MSN Autos

[kwillia]

Here’s the fine print (and seriously, don’t buy a 2012 or 2013 Impala and then return it. Wait for the all-new 2014 Impala, which is much, much better):

•Return includes sales tax, but you’re still on the hook for registration, title, and insurance costs.
•You can’t return the car if it has more than $300 worth of current damage or was damaged and repaired earlier (this includes stinky odors and any scratches).
•You can only return it between 31 and 60 days after you took delivery.
•Companies, fleet sales, and GM employees are obviously omitted.
•If you bought a dealer demo car, you can’t return it.
• You could be taxed on your return (really).
•If you decide to return it but then die, your family’s stuck with a car you hated (also, yes, really).
•Your return is processed by a third-party benefits company called cynoSure Financial, so you'll need to ask them how long it will take to get your money back.

[Source: GM]

[ProfMoneyWise]

Opinion:

No haggle pricing works both ways. The price is the price and risk is built into the price of the car.

I've read and re-read the return policy. I get it but I still had to read it a few times. There will be some who will have a befuddled look on their faces when their plan to drive a new Corvette for a couple of months on the cheap backfires.

2012 and 2013 models apply. Good way to clear the 2012's and introduce buyers to the 2013's. Clever.

GM does have a safety net. GM has us as taxpayers as partners yet. Makes me wonder what range of latitude GM Leadership has in matters such as this or if it has to have USG involvement.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

The all new 2012 Chevy Keurig.

Break it? Just don't like it? Need new tires? Got it dirty? Bring it in and trade it for a brand new one! Just keep buying these little cup thingy's that make it go...

[ProfMoneyWise]

Larry you are more in tune with the political side than I. What is your take on how the USG would/will have to be involved?

[Gilligan (Premo)]

I find it very interesting to observe what is going on at GM lately. It could be purely coincidental that some very unusual moves recently are occurring as the election heats up:

1. GM "pushed out" a record number of completed but unsold pickup trucks last month or so, increasing lot inventories to unprecedented levels (unprecedented for GM or any other mfr). Once pushed out to distribution lots, however, the units ARE counted as "delivered" in the month they went out.

2. Recent US government purchases of GM "fleet" vehicles has been at and astounding level (up 75% IIRC?!). Every department gets brand new GM vehicles to use these days, some even if they never even put in for any. (guy we deal with from NWS showed up in a brand spankin' new GM SUV a couple weeks ago...said he had no idea it was even coming in or why..)

3. Hokey sales incentives like the topic of this thread.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ProfMoneyWise

Larry you are more in tune with the political side than I. What is your take on how the USG would/will have to be involved?

In what, GM? The auto industry?

Let us not forget that 'GM" is GONE. The new GM is just that, a new company and a large part is owned by we, the people.

[ProfMoneyWise]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

In what, GM? The auto industry?

Let us not forget that 'GM" is GONE. The new GM is just that, a new company and a large part is owned by we, the people.

Both really. I tend to stay away from the politics side of things and my involvement/interest in the inner workings of industry I leave to managers of mutual funds and my advisor(s).

My question to you was more along the lines of did GM (Government Motors) get approval from the USG for this type of promotion? Is that what is now required?

[ProfMoneyWise]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I find it very interesting to observe what is going on at GM lately. It could be purely coincidental that some very unusual moves recently are occurring as the election heats up:

1. GM "pushed out" a record number of completed but unsold pickup trucks last month or so, increasing lot inventories to unprecedented levels (unprecedented for GM or any other mfr). Once pushed out to distribution lots, however, the units ARE counted as "delivered" in the month they went out.

2. Recent US government purchases of GM "fleet" vehicles has been at and astounding level (up 75% IIRC?!). Every department gets brand new GM vehicles to use these days, some even if they never even put in for any. (guy we deal with from NWS showed up in a brand spankin' new GM SUV a couple weeks ago...said he had no idea it was even coming in or why..)

3. Hokey sales incentives like the topic of this thread.

1 and 2 make me go . . . "ah hah, that is what I was thinking too"

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ProfMoneyWise

My question to you was more along the lines of did GM (Government Motors) get approval from the USG for this type of promotion? Is that what is now required?

Short answer; I have no idea.

Long answer, I don't think so if we mean the 'government' as someone, say, in the administration.

Now, having said that, Stephen Ratner Steven Rattner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia DID work for the administration and was known as the father of Cash for Clunkers, a stunningly stupid idea on so many levels I won't even bother with it except to say it did serve the primary purpose; help domestic sales, especially GM. Recall also at about that time, the stories about Toyota's cars that wouldn't stop; a smear campaign clearly orchestrated out of the campaign if not the administration.

So, on those grounds, an awful lot is possible. Of course, that said, the goal would be to serve the interests of GM, it's people, vendors and communities that depend on those business's so, not any different than TARP or any other justification, really.