Because the story was written after an extensive AF survey, the article reflects the opinion of an industry rather than the views of a publication. For this reason, we at Automotive Fleet feel it has special merit.
While most of the warranty article reflects what can be considered an "anti-warranty" view from members of the car fleet industry, we would like to call your attention to the comment of E. A. Nacke, president of Nacke Chevrolet, Inc., Holyoke, Mass. Mr. Nacke called the "twenty-four months, five year and 50,000 mile warranty the greatest and most valuable gift any buyer of any product has ever gotten on any product. And it is 'free of charge' to the owner," Mr. Nacke concluded.
We at Automotive Fleet are basically in agreement with Mr. Nacke - but with some reservations.
We would hate to think of the condition of the automotive market without the warranties. What guarantees would a buyer have in regard to mechanical condition of the vehicle? Could a fleet administrator be sure that a salesman would not spend all of his time taking his vehicle into repair shops? And what about the fleet dealers? How could he plan his service operation? Could he afford to stand behind the fleet vehicles that he puts on the road? And what about the simple economies of dealers being compensated from the manufacturer for service work performed?
Since 1963, when Chrysler Corp., became the first major manufacturer to offer the extended 5 and 50 warranty, there has been a definite lack of communications in the "warranty game." This breakdown in communications - between fleet buyer and fleet driver, between manufacturers and dealers, and between the fleet drivers and the service writers - is a breakdown that has been continually stressed by car fleet industry spokesmen and by officials of the auto manufacturers on the pages of this publication. This "communications gap" has only added to the many burdens that seem built in to the "warranty game."
What is covered by the warranty and what is not covered? And who pays for what under the warranty? These are the $64 questions in the "communications gap."
Despite the problems, and there are many, the basic premise of the warranty is one that cannot and should not be argued. Simply put, the warranty is intended for one purpose: to provide the buyer with a car that is as mechanically sound and as safely constructed as the manufacturer can make it. And in this premise comes the rub. Are these the best ears that the manufacturer can build?
But let's consider the warranty picture from a safety standpoint. In order to quality under warranty requirements, each vehicle must be validated at 12,000 miles, or once a year. A time-consuming bother? Think about it from purely a safety point of view. How many more accidents and deaths would there be if there were no validation requirements and owners were not required to have their vehicles inspected? It's a pretty horrifying thought.
The American car owner is a very fickle buyer. He thinks nothing of spending $12 to fix a $100 watch that may need another repair job in six months. But let him get hit with an $80 repair bill on a $3,500 car and he'll cry bloody murder. Yet, this repair work will, in all probability, keep his car in good running order for at least six months.
All things considered, the car repair bill, with all the training involved of the specialists who work on the ear, is probably a cheaper bill than the one he got at the jeweler.
While we at Automotive Fleet are very quick to point out the obvious faults in the "warranty game," we would hate to be placed in a position of where we would have to write about an industry that would be without benefit of such a policy.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments