GM "Proud" Commercial

[Gizmo2]

With the government involve now they will probably just remove both lights altogether.:thumbsup:................:confused2:

 

[N80]

No, that would be too cost effective. The truth is they will both still be there but neither will work.

 

[mustangsallysdad]

I thought daytime running lights were a Canadian thing? Not sure they are even required here? In my state they would be required to function or you get a "REJECT" decal at annual inspection and a 5 day corrective order, even if they are not Federally mandated...if they are a legal illuminating device they are required to function. Obviously, at the very least, they are a high maintenance item...if not required, do away with them and use that money for something else. Paying back taxpayers, legitimately for instance. Instead of the shell game method they're trying to make us believe.

 

[bp fick]

If one ran the head lights, or burned a bulb in their garage all the time, they too would fail. Since the daytime running lights get so many hours, the bulbs can/will last only so long. Not a priority of the owners to replace, I assume.

Day time lights are a source of controversies. They help visibility on two lane roads, but also get inadvertently used, without proper taillights, at night. That which is meant for safety creates other issues. Must be some Peter Principle.

 

[mustangsallysdad]

If one ran the head lights, or burned a bulb in their garage all the time, they too would fail. Since the daytime running lights get so many hours, the bulbs can/will last only so long. Not a priority of the owners to replace, I assume.

Day time lights are a source of controversies. They help visibility on two lane roads, but also get inadvertently used, without proper taillights, at night. That which is meant for safety creates other issues. Must be some Peter Principle.

This has gone on for many years...shouldn't GM have addressed this anyway by now? They have to be aware of the higher consumption rate...why not engineer them to last longer or eliminate them altogether?

 

[two_bit_score]

One thing that concerns me is that if we stop buying GM's due to the fraudulent claims by Whitacre, amoung many other reasons not to buy, then GM may require more TaxPayer cash infusions to continue. Obama considers them too big to fail and surely would not allow them to go under and take the union jobs down with them.

We're stuck with GM one way or the other.

 

[955er]

Its also a national security issue. As a country, we cannot afford to mothball some of our most modern, up-to-date manufacturing facilities. GM's Willow Run in Michigan is an example. If things hit the fan, we may need these factories to make, say, tanks and bombs. And fast.

There were several years during WWII where the big three did not make a single car for domestic public consumption.

 

[bp fick]

This has gone on for many years...shouldn't GM have addressed this anyway by now? They have to be aware of the higher consumption rate...why not engineer them to last longer or eliminate them altogether?

Gonna "blame" GE or Phillips for producing bulbs that only last 2000 or 4000 hours? Shrug. Don't see it the same way you do, apparently. These same operators never check their brake light bulbs either, to my aggravation. Don't see this one as being pinned on GM.

I don't buy GM, never much have. Did own a couple Safari/Astro vans back in the day, as they were tough, economical and hauled alot of people and were a fair tow vehicle. Other than that, can't think of any others, out of a hundred new and used vehicles purchased over 40 years. Never was much of a fan.

 

[Chuck52]

Is the light problem just with the trucks? The lights on my 2003 Impala work fine...the right side has never been changed, but a deer changed the left side, along with the fender, a year ago. I can't really say I've ever checked the lights during the day, but they are the same bulbs used at night and they work then. In fact, if I get another car that doesn't do the automatic on thing, I'll probably be driving around without lights pretty often! I know when I drive my F150 I have to remember to turn on the lights when it is raining, etc. It's also nice when I drive into a parking garage during the day that the light are on in the Impala; I notice that in the truck as I often have to turn the lights on to see.

Chuck

 

[mustangsallysdad]

Is the light problem just with the trucks? The lights on my 2003 Impala work fine...the right side has never been changed, but a deer changed the left side, along with the fender, a year ago. I can't really say I've ever checked the lights during the day, but they are the same bulbs used at night and they work then. In fact, if I get another car that doesn't do the automatic on thing, I'll probably be driving around without lights pretty often! I know when I drive my F150 I have to remember to turn on the lights when it is raining, etc. It's also nice when I drive into a parking garage during the day that the light are on in the Impala; I notice that in the truck as I often have to turn the lights on to see.

Chuck

Only seen it on GM trucks and truck based SUV's.

 

[N80]

Gonna "blame" GE or Phillips for producing bulbs that only last 2000 or 4000 hours? Shrug. Don't see it the same way you do, apparently. These same operators never check their brake light bulbs either, to my aggravation. Don't see this one as being pinned on GM.

Of course its GM's fault. Why should an owner or potential buyer care where GM buys their light bulbs? If GM is going to include a light that is supposed to be on all the time then they better put one's in that will last.

And the rub here is that this is such a prevalent problem that everyone knows what we're talking about and it only effects one line of their vehicles. GM trucks. Don't see it on the Chevys. So this is more than a light bulb burning out after a long while.

Of course its GM's fault and if so many of us have noticed it and wondered about it then it can't be helping GM's cause. And the more I think about this silly little thing the more it fascinates me. I'm just dying to hear a reasonable explanation.

I heard once that is was a union thing requiring the lights to come from two different producers, one okay the other notoriously bad. I suspect there is nothing to this story.

 

[Gizmo2]

Some politican probably owned the compay that had the bad bulbs. As in pay offs.

 

[bp fick]

And the rub here is that this is such a prevalent problem that everyone knows what we're talking about and it only effects one line of their vehicles. GM trucks. Don't see it on the Chevys.

Since those GMC and Chevy trucks are typically built on the very same line, with identical parts, including bulbs, I find this fascinating.

No defender of GM here, so I'm outta here. See ya 'round the forum.

 

[2manyrocks]

Any of you remember when GM had a downsized Chevrolet Nova product and they also had a Cadillac version that looked like the downsized Nova?

I could be mean and say I never notice the lights because I'm too distracted by the peeling paint, but I wouldn't sink that low.

 

[mustangsallysdad]

Since those GMC and Chevy trucks are typically built on the very same line, with identical parts, including bulbs, I find this fascinating.

No defender of GM here, so I'm outta here. See ya 'round the forum.

Listen, it's simple...it is obviously a quality control issue that GM has to be aware of...one would think that they would have learned their lesson about quality control through the NUMMI joint venture with Toyota. The bulbs don't last and they don't care...the burden is left to the consumer to deal with. Then again, GM was under the watch of Jack Wagoner, who rose to the head of GM through the financial wing of Corporate GM...in other words, a bean counter...GM sank into financial straits under HIS watch...yeah, the financial wizard. How did that work out.

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

Any of you remember when GM had a downsized Chevrolet Nova product and they also had a Cadillac version that looked like the downsized Nova?

I could be mean and say I never notice the lights because I'm too distracted by the peeling paint, but I wouldn't sink that low.

Of course Ford would never use a platform for more than one thing. Like make a Lincoln out of a Crown Vic? Ever see rust and peeling paint on a Ford?

All my vehicles since '88 have been GM and all with DRL and never replaced a headlight bulb yet, even on the '99 Malibu that is still on the road.

 

[mustangsallysdad]

Of course Ford would never use a platform for more than one thing. Like make a Lincoln out of a Crown Vic? Ever see rust and peeling paint on a Ford?

All my vehicles since '88 have been GM and all with DRL and never replaced a headlight bulb yet, even on the '99 Malibu that is still on the road.

Have any of those GM vehicles been a truck or truck based SUV? I haven't read where a '99 Malibu has been mentioned as one of the problematic vehicles.

 

[2manyrocks]

GM got caught building a lot of large SUVs, trucks, etc. when gas prices hit the roof sort of like they got caught in the mid 1970's, only this time they were apparently encumbered with more liabilities and the downturn took them under.

You have to wonder how what the overall cost is for the taxpayers to prop them up and also pay for the cash for clunkers program.

"Too big to fail" sort of falls in the same ballpark as the unsinkable Titanic.

I think there is a point that should be called "too big to manage effectively."

There's also a point when stretching the truth so far breaks it and that's the criticism that the ad deserves.

 

[DieselnHooters]

Bought a Ford Fusion last year, fine car but should have bought Ford stock instead cause now I could afford a lamborghini.

 

[EddieWalker]

Forbes has a really good story that explains how dishonest GM is being in their ad that claims they have paid back the loan. What really sucks is that it's just a scam to get MORE money from the government is such a way as to not make it well known because of all the backlash that's already come out over all the money they have already received.

Still Government Motors - Forbes.com

Don't read this if you anger easily, or want to support GM.

Eddie