I have exclusively purchased GM products for my family for over 20 years (and have historically driven a lot of miles, so this leads to many purchases). Unfortunately, my latest purchase was a 2009 Saab (I would not have purchased a Saab if it was not part of GM). Unlike my prior Saab, this vehicle has been nothing but trouble--literally from the day I drove it home from the dealership. Although the vehicle has less than 77k miles, it has been in for service for nearly 10 weeks so far this year. Currently, it is in the shop for intake valve replacement (8 of the 16 are 'disintegrated'). Obviously, a 2 1/2 year old car shouldn't need this $2600 repair. Further, the replacement valves are of a different design--likely because of the defective engineering of the initial products.
Unfortunately, 2009 was a year when GM had a shortened powertrain warranty for Saab. As such, I am understanding that this repair is not covered.
When talking to GM's Customer Assistance Center, I was advised that the decision has been made by GM to not support any such cases as mine--even if so doing creates reputational damage or loss of customer loyalty.
Living in Michigan, I would have liked to continue to support GM, however, this does not appear to be an option for future purchases due to the decision to disregard a customer just because the vehicle purchased had a Saab nameplate rather than Chevrolet. Certainly, it is not the Saab customer who is reponsible for the closure of Saab's operations. It is GM's. So, why then should the loyal GM customer be left stuck holding the bag for a problem GM created?
The gentleman at GM Customer Assistance Center even stated that, if my car was a Malibu, they would treat the situation very differently.
Again, why would GM choose to specifically disadvantage a loyal customer only because they happened to get stuck owning a nameplate which they elected to cease? Why is my future business any less valuable to GM than someone owning a brand which made their restructuring cut?
Even more, why did the quality of Saab vehicles degrade so drastically in the few years GM owned the brand? My 2004 Saab ran for 200k miles with nothing but routine maintenance. It sure seems that GM could have engineered a 2009 model which would last 75k miles without the need for major engine overhaul (as well as the many other repairs which have been performed to date).
Monetary Loss: $3000.