Dealer totals customer's ZL1

Curmudgeon wrote: In many areas it is the LAW that the keys MUST be left in vehicles stored inside a repair shop after business hours, where I live now is an example. That's so in the case of a fire the FD personnel can get these vehicles full of flammable liquids out.

While I can understand the thinking behind that, it can't work like that in the real world when oftentimes cars in the building are inoperative. I'm picturing someone trying to start a car that is partially disassembled underhood, or has a bad fuel pump, or has a bad transmission, some other situation where it isn't self-mobile. Assuming that it even can roll.

This is nothing to say about many shops where more cars than bays are inside overnight. We've had nine cars in our small four bay shop before. (We currently have four dead ones in the shop, three long-term major reconstructions) What are they going to do, spend twenty minutes shuffling cars out? And THAT is assuming that the lifts even work, no electricity means no lift function!

It still does nothing for the hundreds of gallons of flammables typically on-site in the form of tanks and drums of oil, as well.

update, someone on here picked it

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/15/wrecked-camaro-zl1-new-replacement/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000588

The part that I never get is that, once you work on cars for any real length of time, there's no real fun in driving someone else's car like that. It's just a Camaro, big whoop.

Then again, it was a porter who did it wasn't it?

That's a load of E36 M3. I'm gonna make the dealer wrap my ms3 around a pole and demand a new one.

aussiesmg wrote: update, someone on here picked it http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/15/wrecked-camaro-zl1-new-replacement/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000588

Appears that he's PURCHASING the car. So he wasn't planning to work with the the original dealership on a deal like that?

He's just being a prick.

mndsm wrote: That's a load of E36 M3. I'm gonna make the dealer wrap my ms3 around a pole and demand a new one.

Sounds like he's paying the difference. It doesn't say how good of a deal he's getting on the new one, but GM and the dealer not making a profit on the sale would seem reasonable to me.

Knurled wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: In many areas it is the LAW that the keys MUST be left in vehicles stored inside a repair shop after business hours, where I live now is an example. That's so in the case of a fire the FD personnel can get these vehicles full of flammable liquids out.

While I can understand the thinking behind that, it can't work like that in the real world when oftentimes cars in the building are inoperative. I'm picturing someone trying to start a car that is partially disassembled underhood, or has a bad fuel pump, or has a bad transmission, some other situation where it isn't self-mobile. Assuming that it even can roll. This is nothing to say about many shops where more cars than bays are inside overnight. We've had nine cars in our small four bay shop before. (We currently have four dead ones in the shop, three long-term major reconstructions) What are they going to do, spend twenty minutes shuffling cars out? And THAT is assuming that the lifts even work, no electricity means no lift function! It still does nothing for the hundreds of gallons of flammables typically on-site in the form of tanks and drums of oil, as well.

I do not make the news, I merely report it. It is the law in our area.

ass whoopin's happen

Curmudgeon wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: update, someone on here picked it http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/15/wrecked-camaro-zl1-new-replacement/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000588

Appears that he's PURCHASING the car. So he wasn't planning to work with the the original dealership on a deal like that? He's just being a prick.

The dealership offered him lower value replacements. It doesn't sound like they would have been willing to offer him a good price on a new purchase. I'm guessing part of the deal with getting the car cheap from GM is he had to get it from that particular dealership to help calm the bad press. Sounds like a GM deal, not a dealership olive branch.

MrJoshua wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: update, someone on here picked it http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/15/wrecked-camaro-zl1-new-replacement/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000588

Appears that he's PURCHASING the car. So he wasn't planning to work with the the original dealership on a deal like that? He's just being a prick.

The dealership offered him lower value replacements. It doesn't sound like they would have been willing to offer him a good price on a new purchase. I'm guessing part of the deal with getting the car cheap from GM is he had to get it from that particular dealership to help calm the bad press. Sounds like a GM deal, not a dealership olive branch.

Exactly. He didn't deserve a new car for free and he didn't START OUT asking for that. But he sure as hell deserved a lightly used 2012 that was every bit as nice as his, not whatever turd they scraped up and offered him. And in fact, for the trouble, it should have been a slightly nicer 2012 than the one they wrecked. I still believe that if the dealer had taken that attitude from the start it would never have become an issue.

Datsun1500 wrote: I don't get trading a 69 in on the original 2012.

Wait.

What.

Trade a '69 Camaro for something that looks like an overinflated cartoon version of a '69 Camaro.

It's times like this that I truly grasp that I have no idea how people think.

Although if it was only worth $60k or so, it couldn't have been anything super awesome, so there's that.

We have no idea what the 69 Camaro shape was in, options or what not.

Could have been a secretary special with a Maaco paint job, rusted with bondo cracking.

that autoblog post uses this as its source, there's a little more detail.

http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-zl1-crashed-by-dealership-is-getting-a-1501366861

It doesn't sound like he's getting anything for free, nor did the dealer lose anything other than some internet rep and a douchebag of an employee. His insurance paid off the original and another dealer is transferring a 2013 over to the dealership that wrecked the first one (I'm not 100% on why he'd still do business with them) for him to buy. Meaning no-one gave him anything. Well except for the business that are sending him free parts.

This is me being a troll and a dick, but I would still sue the dealer for loss of use of the vehicle and all time required to make it right, plus legal fees.

Just because I am an shiny happy person like that. Hennessy Honda of Woodstock sucks.

z31maniac wrote:

Mazdax605 wrote: Wouldn't this be a case where gap insurance would have been a good thing? I know that Mazda made me have it on my RX-8 lease years ago.

Yeah, hell, I have gap insurance on a 2006 Miata. It boils down to the VAST majority of people don't understand the purpose of insurance.

I think gap coverage is only available if you finance for it.....just throwing that out there.

Knurled wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I don't get trading a 69 in on the original 2012.

Wait. What. Trade a '69 Camaro for something that looks like an overinflated cartoon version of a '69 Camaro. It's times like this that I truly grasp that I have no idea how people think. Although if it was only worth $60k or so, it couldn't have been anything super awesome, so there's that.

I read, somewhere, that he sold his '69, and traded a '10.

Ahh, I stopped reading that drivel at page 7......