The "American Leyland" News Thread

[Spectre]

From the "Our Dear Leader Obama Motors" and "Toyota isn't run by morons, just boring people" departments as well as the AP/San Jose Mercury News:

Report: Toyota to end Calif. joint venture with GM

Posted: 07/23/2009 08:46:36 AM PDT
Updated: 07/23/2009 08:46:37 AM PDT

Toyota Motor Corp. has decided to liquidate its stake in a California manufacturing plant that it jointly operated with General Motors, a Japanese news agency reported Thursday.

The Japanese carmaker will begin negotiating with the "Old GM" starting next week, Kyodo News reported, citing unnamed company officials.

Toyota spokesman Mike Goss would not confirm that the Japanese automaker had made a final decision on the fate of Fremont, California-based New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., also known as NUMMI. Goss said Toyota will begin negotiations with the GM officials about the plant and added that the company is conducting an "extensive review" of its production needs.

A GM spokeswoman was not immediately available to comment.

Nummi's fate was thrown into question last month when GM announced it was withdrawing from the 50-50 joint venture. GM emerged from bankruptcy protection shortly after the announcement and the company's stake in NUMMI is now part of Motors Liquidation Co. — also known as Old GM — where it will be liquidated under court supervision.

The NUMMI plant, established in 1984, employs 4,600 workers and makes the Pontiac Vibe station wagon for GM, and the Corolla compact car and Tacoma pickup truck for Toyota.

Toyota has been reexamining its U.S. strategy after plummeting U.S. auto sales helped drag it to its worst-ever overall loss for the fiscal year ended in March.

On Monday Yoshi Inaba, president of Toyota Motor North America and chairman of Toyota Motor Sales USA, said the Japanese automaker was carefully evaluating its options for NUMMI and hoped to make a decision "as quickly as possible."

He said Toyota was studying whether it could be economically viable in the future and considering factors such as the company's idle factory space, labor and image.

California represents Toyota's largest market within the U.S. California lawmakers have held discussions with the company about ways of keeping the plant open.

The United Auto Workers union represents employees at the joint facility and their labor contract expires next month. The joint venture was developed to have American workers learn Toyota's production methods, which were much leaner and more efficient. The UAW has not been able to organize workers at a Toyota plant in the U.S.

Seems Toyota doesn't want to be doing business with a government-owned entity that will most likely force unionization (aka the UAW) on the rest of their plants if they continue.

[Spectre]

News of American Leyland this morning, via Reuters.

Chrysler to make Fiat in Mexico: report
Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:45am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chrysler Group is planning to produce Fiat SpA's (FIA.MI) Fiat 500 subcompact at a Chrysler plant in Mexico, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

Chrysler is also considering what other Fiat models to introduce to the U.S. market, under directions from its Italian partner, the paper reported on its website on Sunday.

Plans also include making a small Fiat engine for the 500 at a Chrysler plant in Trenton, Michigan, and building a Fiat-derived compact car slightly larger than the 500 in the United States, a source told the paper.

The Toluca, Mexico plant, which currently makes the Dodge Journey crossover and PT Cruiser, is an attractive home for the 500 because cars could be exported to South and Central America where the Fiat brand is popular, the Journal reported.

Fiat acquired a 20 percent stake in Chrysler and entered into agreements to give it access to Fiat technology and platforms. Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in April.

Chrysler representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Oh God.... now we're going to have an Italian engine manufactured by the UAW shipped to Mexico by Teamsters.... I can't see how that could possibly go wrong, can you?

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Spectre

News of American Leyland this morning, via Reuters.



Oh God.... now we're going to have an Italian engine manufactured by the UAW shipped to Mexico by Teamsters.... I can't see how that could possibly go wrong, can you?

We know the engines will be small and light enough that said Teamsters can use them as cannon fodder during strikes.

Yes that was a dig at one of your complaints about the teamsters

[2Billion]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the Ontario government recently announced a subsidy specifically for the Volt, for the exact amount GM says they had to increase the price by ($10,000). They claim it's for electric cars in general, but they did make the announcement at a Chevy dealer.

Remember, the US government isn't the only one screwing people in this boondoggle.

[Spectre]

Good news folks, looks like SAAB is actually going to GTFO of American Leyland after all - there's been rumors that Obama Motors was balking over the sale to KoenigseggseggseggABBAseggmustangengineseggseggviking, but apparently terms have been agreed on. From TimesOnline:

GM agrees terms for sale of Saab to Koenigsegg
Robert Lindsay


General Motors has agreed the terms of a sale of its loss-making Saab division to Koenigsegg, a Swedish manufacturer of sports cars based near Malmö, employing only 45 people.

Augie Fabela, Koenigsegg’s chairman, said that the American carmaker would remain a minority owner in Saab until it became profitable, but added that some finance for the deal had yet to be secured. Koenigsegg is hoping for a SwKr4.3 billion ($778 million) loan to Saab from the European Investment Bank. Koenigsegg also needs to raise a further SwKr3 billion.

Carl-Peter Forster, the head of GM Europe, said: “This contract is an important step in the journey to a potential deal. The closure of the deal is contingent on the funding commitment from the European Investment Bank, guaranteed by the Swedish Government.”

[JCE]

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans nationwide say they are now more likely to buy a Ford since that company did not take any bailout funding. Only 12% are less likely to buy from Ford.

WELL DUH. Ford has a desirable product and didn't take wellfare handouts like GM and Chrysler. I RESPECT Mullay and Ford for doing the RIGHT THING. If I buy a new car I'll probably buy a Ford.

Originally Posted by nouseferaname90

T shirts! Get yer T Shirts!

http://site.despair.com/governmentmotors/

I'm so ordering one of those!

Originally Posted by JakeRadden

When the Government starts regulating Ford out of existence I'm just going to... start crying.

More reason for people to buy cars from a proper company like Ford.

I made this specifically for the whole raptastic Obamanation bailout debacle.

Originally Posted by nouseferaname90

And that 6% likely to buy GM want a Camaro, Yukon, Suburban, or Silverado. None of the cars that Government Motors thinks people want.

This is most likely 100% true. Problem is they can really please most people by offering both a economical solution and a car enjoyment solution by offering the Camaro or Yukon next to a Volt and Aveo.

Originally Posted by JakeRadden

I would buy one just for the name!

To true. Saturn V is such an epic name!

Originally Posted by argatoga

The Sky is being dumped because Penske doesn't want to build the cars, only sell them. I could see them making a deal with Holden. Holden planned to have their factory pumping out cars for more than just the Australian market. With the G8 gone they will be looking for another outlet.

Too bad Penske couldn't setup a deal with Holden to just import Holdens as Saturns. That would be epic fucking win. I'd pay a $3-5k premium just to have a proper Holden.

Originally Posted by janstett

And don't forget that this year's budget is $4.2 trillion and has a $2 trillion spending defecit (bigger than the entire budget of the last Bush year, which was $1.8t).

How the F*** do we go from spending $1.8t to $4.2t in one year?

And people really thought Bush was that bad eh?

Originally Posted by Ezbok58a

The reason they bought more Fords than GM or Chrysler is because Ford actually has a all fleet car that every state agency uses, and it's Flex Fuel now...

The 20+ year old Crown Victoria...

Other than that its new Flex Fuel Suburbans and god only knows what the Chrysler products are...

In essense they've replaced their old Suburbans and Crown Vics, with new Suburbans and Crown Vics...which they do every few years anyway.

Fleets are using Suburbans and Crown Vics because they are rubust and last for freaking ever.

Originally Posted by Spectre

Yeah, they had an asking price of $10 mil for the Viper brand - but from what I heard, the most anyone was willing to give them was $5.5M.

Can we start a FinalGear fund to buy Viper?

Originally Posted by Spectre

Really?



Tell me, where can I get lockers for an S4?

You forgot the other case in which an unlocked 4WD vehicle will spin all of its wheels instead of doing the one wheel peel.

Awsome video, and that estate was sexy.

Originally Posted by Crazyjeeper

Yeah, a generic 70s barge with with a 500 cubic inch (thats 8.3 liters) V8. How can that not be fun?

When it has 190bhp? Only the first few years of the 500ci had the 500bhp.

Originally Posted by prizrak

Awesome so now they will tax the shit out of gas just to throw money at Lithium....

So unless I'm not calculating this right normal base wage for an assembly line worker is MORE than starting salary in my team where a BS is MANDATORY to even get an interview....

Sickening eh?

Originally Posted by Spectre

Good news folks, looks like SAAB is actually going to GTFO of American Leyland after all - there's been rumors that Obama Motors was balking over the sale to KoenigseggseggseggABBAseggmustangengineseggseggviking, but apparently terms have been agreed on. From TimesOnline:

Good news for SAAB, getting out of GM's stranglehold. A SAAB + Koenigsegg partership should be brilliant.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Good news folks, looks like SAAB is actually going to GTFO of American Leyland after all - there's been rumors that Obama Motors was balking over the sale to KoenigseggseggseggABBAseggmustangengineseggseggviking, but apparently terms have been agreed on. From TimesOnline:

I see what you did there.

And and those GM Revolution shirts are fantastic. I boughtorized one myself, good quality all around.

[Spectre]

It's time for the Obama Motors/American Leyland news roundup!

First, from the "Hey, we're part of the government now and that means we don't have to care what you think of us" department and AP via Fin24m:

GM pulls out of mercury plans

Wahington - General Motors has quit working with a partnership
that collects toxic parts from scrapped cars, jeopardising an
effort to prevent mercury pollution just as hundreds of thousands
of clunkers are headed to recyclers.

Participants in the environmental programme told The Associated
Press the timing of GM's departure could hurt their work. The
government's "cash-for-clunkers" programme will lead
to trade-in and recycling of an estimated 750 000 vehicles,
some of which contain mercury switches.

GM says it's a new company, formed with substantial
government aid in the wake of bankruptcy protection, and is not a
member of the partnership because it doesn't make vehicles with
mercury switches and is not responsible for the older vehicles. The
old company, which is still under bankruptcy court supervision,
says it is reviewing agreements involving the former company and
declined to comment.

Roughly 36 million mercury switches were used in trunk
convenience lights and antilock brakes in vehicles built in the
1980s and 1990s. More than half of them are in GM vehicles built
before 2000.

Mercury released into the air can accumulate in plants, fish and
humans. Children and fetuses are vulnerable to the effects of the
toxic metal, which can damage the development of the nervous
system.

The car industry partnership, called the End of Life Vehicle
Solutions, or ELVS, was created in 2005 to prevent mercury
emissions from being released into the environment when vehicles
are crushed and shredded. It works closely with the National
Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program, which the Environmental
Protection Agency helped form with automakers, the steel industry
and environmentalists in 2006.

'GM not paid its dues'

The programme, which is scheduled to run until 2017, has
recovered 2.5 million switches and disposed of nearly 5 600
pounds (2 540 kilograms) of mercury. General Motors, prior to
its bankruptcy, was the group's largest participant and
informed the partnership of the change last week.

Mary Bills, the partnership's executive director, said GM
has not paid its dues since filing for bankruptcy. Its annual bill
is $700 000 to $1m, a substantial portion of the
programme's funding. Without GM's payments, the
organisation may be forced to scale back or cease operations,
making it more difficult for recyclers to dispose of mercury
recovered under the $3bn "cash-for-clunkers" programme
and other recycled vehicles in the future, she said.

"We're surprised that GM, who wants to have this great,
green image, would do this," Bills said.

General Motors, 60.8% owned by the US government, emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month under a plan in which
its best-performing assets were sold to form a new company. The
former company, now called Motors Liquidation, is a conglomeration
of GM's liabilities and underperforming assets that remains
under court supervision.

GM spokeswoman Sharon Basel said GM's former entity remains
a member of the partnership. The new automaker, however, "has
never produced vehicles with mercury switches and has no mercury
switch responsibility under the terms of the bankruptcy court
order," Basel said.

Tim Yost, a Motors Liquidation spokesman, declined to comment
about the partnership, saying the old company has been analysing
its nearly 500 000 contracts and agreements, "including
this one."

ELVS manages programs to collect and dispose of the mercury
switches, providing white storage buckets to recyclers to collect
them. Thirteen automakers participate, including Chrysler Group,
Ford Motor and Daimler, and the companies' fees are based on
market share and their portions of the switch population.

Fifteen states require automakers to set up a collection system
to recycle the switches. Most of them also require recyclers to
remove the switches before a vehicle is shredded. Thirty-four
states conduct voluntary programs. Maine has its own programme.

Bills said it was unclear how they would continue service in the
34 states without more funding.

In a letter on Friday, Bills told the 15 states with auto
industry requirements that the ELVS board would "continue to
recycle any GM switches that arrive at our waste contractor in our
collection buckets as long as funds permit." If the
organisation remains unfunded for the GM costs, "we will no
longer be able to accept GM switches for recycling," she
wrote.

They're surprised that GM bailed on their responsibility now that they have the limitless government treasury to pull from? What planet are they from??

From the "Hey, Obama, what about the executive compensation in your car company?" department, the "Your Tax Dollars At Work" department and the AP via Car Dealer Reviews:

GM to Restore the 10% Executive Level Pay Cuts

A person familiar with the pay situation told the AP that General Motors Co. will restore salaried employee pay cuts the company made earlier this year, effective as of September 1st. Workers received an e-mail from GM explaining the situation, thanking them for their sacrifice and that the reinvention of the company is just beginning.

The cuts, made earlier this year, that have been restored:

* Executive level: 10%
* Manager pay: 7%
* Other salaries: 5% (To be restored in the spring, and not effective Sept. 1st).

No specifics are mentioned on hourly workers.

Yeah, they've basically done nothing, but hey! They don't have to justify themselves to shareholders any more plus they can pull from the US Treasury, so what the heck, might as well, right?

[EyeMWing]

The GM mercury recovery thing is not surprising to anybody in the business. Companies that promise to buy back hazardous products from recyclers NEVER follow through for very long. However, you may rest assured that none of them that would have avoided landfill in the first place will actually end up in landfills - scrap hounds (even big commercial ones) are NOTORIOUS packrats. If it has a heavy metal or exotic material component to it, it goes straight into a bin and onto a storage rack until it becomes valuable at some indeterminate point in the future - whether by some buyback program, or for reuse, or for material recovery. This process is part economics, part environmentalism, and part psychological disorder.

[nouseferaname90]

I've given up on properly commenting. it gets me nowhere, and I have yet to receive 1 response from the 10-15 emails I have sent the white house.

[phuckingduck]

Can I just say, the new GM commercial with the CEO is just terrible. Talk about a stiff suit.

[NecroJoe]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

Can I just say, the new GM commercial with the CEO is just terrible. Talk about a stiff suit.

I thought the same thing...it could have been much more impactful if they put Lutz or even Leno in the commercial.

[Spectre]

Here's the ad in question.

+ YouTube Video

Check out the arrogance of this guy.

1. Car for car, no, GM doesn't win.
2. I got into one of your Government Motors cars, Ed. I didn't like what I saw.
3. Your refunds - they're coming from the same people that won't pay your dealers for the clunkers they bought, what makes you think people will trust you if you can't pay your own dealers?
4. Your 100,000 mile, 5 year powertrain warranty that shows how strongly you feel about your cars and how committed you are to us? Yeah. It says a lot about how 'strongly' you feel and how 'committed' you are when you won't even match Hyundai's 10/100 warranty - which comes on even their cheapest and worst constructed models... which are, of course, better built than comparable GM offerings. By the way Ed, most people in the US don't drive 100K in five years. They drive an average of 10-15K a year - which means that your warranty will run out when they've done about 50-75K. Is there a reason you won't match Hyundai's warranty time? Hm? Could it be the adhesives and plastics you use to assemble your cars all start disintegrating in about five years, perhaps? Hm?

[EyeMWing]

Originally Posted by NecroJoe

I thought the same thing...it could have been much more impactful if they put Lutz or even Leno in the commercial.

I don't think Leno would be caught dead endorsing THOSE cars.

[MacGuffin]

You know... those who believe in that commercial and buy a GM car because of it, probably don't deserve any better anyway.

[EyeMWing]

IMO the real interesting story to come out of this GM failitude isn't what's going on at GM itself, but at Penske/Saturn. A car dealership chain/truck rental/leasing/service joint and racing team finds itself as a car manufacturer... Despite having no manufacturing or design experience. The endgame is that they're going to have to buy their cars from somewhere else. In practice, this means they can slide some cash to prettymuch any car manufacturer worldwide and say "Stamp our badge on some output from one of your lines", pay the car's way through the US certification process, and sell something totally unique and unparalleled in the US markets.

Word on the street is that they're talking to Renault.

[Strelok16]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Fallon

Recently Volkswagen debuted their latest concept, called the E-UP. Shortly later, Chrysler unveiled their latest model, the F-UP.

although that joke probably should have been about GM, he said it best I think

[Spectre]

Here's the roundup for American Leyland/Our Dear Leader Motors.

From the "Well, DUUUUH" department and the Wall Street Journal comes this news:

Auto Makers Unlikely To Repay Loans Fully
MEENA THIRUVENGADAM

The Treasury Department drove a hard bargain but likely won't recoup taxpayers' entire investments in General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, said a report from a congressional panel overseeing government bailouts of the banking and auto sectors.

The panel, though, commended the Treasury's efforts to function as a tough negotiator for structuring deals to save ailing auto makers.

"They may have driven the best bargain they could, but it may not be enough," said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University law professor and the panel's chairwoman.

The report cited remarks from Obama administration manufacturing adviser Ron Bloom, who previously ran the Treasury's auto-rescue efforts and indicated last month "it was possible but unlikely that taxpayers would recover all of the money they had invested in Chrysler and General Motors."

The panel also raised doubts about whether a planned 2010 initial public offering for GM is a sensible option. The report said it is possible that it will take several years for GM and Chrysler to be profitable.

Overall, the Treasury has disbursed nearly $80 billion in aid to the U.S. auto sector, including money for suppliers and funds to cover consumer warranty costs. While some funds, like $1.5 billion loaned to Chrysler Financial, have been repaid, officials are doubtful all loans made to Chrysler and GM will be fully repaid. Ms. Warren didn't estimate the potential loss to taxpayers.

The Treasury said the administration believes "under certain assumptions" GM and Chrysler could repay a "meaningful percentage" of the funds.

"Even if there are some losses, we are confident that American workers, taxpayers and the broader economy would have suffered significantly more had these companies been forced to liquidate," said Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman.

Chrysler said in a statement it was confident it could repay taxpayers.

So, basically, it's going to be the second coming of Amtrak. Pretty much what most people figured. That money is gone and it's not coming back.


And more news, this about the so called "Money Back Guarantee" the stuffed shirt appointed to run Government Motors was talking about in the commercial linked upthread. Turns out that there are gotchas and catches that GM can use to get out of giving you your money back. From the Detroit News, American Leyland's home newspaper:

GM's return policy may not be worth the hassle
Dan Strumpf / Associated Press

You fell in love with that $22,000 Chevy Malibu because of its color, style and price. After driving it home, you realize it's not what you wanted. Maybe it's the way it handles on the highway, the location of the cup holders or the shape of the seats.

Don't worry. Bring it back for a refund, no questions asked, says GM's Chairman and new TV pitchman Edward Whitacre Jr.

But is it really as easy as returning an ill-fitting shirt to Macy's?

As with any deal, it's a good idea to read the fine print. As your love affair with the new car turns to hate, you'll need to drive very carefully and make sure to limit how many miles you put on the car. And don't expect your wallet to be made whole even if you follow the fine print to the letter.

Q : So, I can bring back my car or truck to the dealer anytime?

A : Not so fast. No returns are allowed within the first 30 days of purchase. It's anytime between day 31 and day 60 of ownership.

That seems like a narrow window, but the policy makes sense for GM. Buyer's remorse can set in within days for new customers, who grouse over things like knobs and cup holders appearing to be in the wrong place. Owners can grow more accepting of problems over time, says Jack Gilles, director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America.

Q : Do I have to cite a defect?

A : No. You can hate the color for all GM cares. But the policy says a returned vehicle can't have more than $200 in damage -- and GM, through an inspection, gets to decide what constitutes that much damage.

Q : Wow, $200? Doesn't even a small scratch or dimple caused by kicked-up gravel cost that much to fix?

A : It's true the cost of vehicle repairs -- even small, cosmetic ones -- can easily exceed $200. (Repairs covered by warranty are excluded.) But GM insists it had to set a limit to protect itself from customers returning badly damaged vehicles and expecting a full refund.

Gilles says the $200 limit is on the low side -- particularly when coupled with the prohibition on returning before 30 days.

"You combine that with the 30 days, it's easier and easier to get $200 in damage," he says. Plus, with GM making the determination on damages, "it may appear that the cards are stacked against you."

The lesson for consumers: Be extra careful during those first two months if you're thinking about returning your new ride. And no car can be returned if it's been in an accident.

Q : If I keep the car free of dings, I get all my money back?

A : In this case, "money back" doesn't mean all your money. Just the cost of the vehicle and sales tax.

GM won't refund the title, registration and other fees, which can add up to several hundred dollars depending on your state.

"It's not really unfair because otherwise you've rented the car for free for 30 to 60 days," says Terry Connolly, dean of the Ageno School of Business at Golden Gate University.

GM also won't refund any accessories purchased through the dealer, like paint or rust protection, aftermarket equipment and the like. So choose those add-ons carefully if you think you might return the car.

Q : What else do I need to look out for?

A : Don't go on a cross-country jaunt. The new car or truck cannot have more than 4,000 miles on it. Also, owners must be current on payments.

Forget buying his and hers pickup trucks. Only one return is allowed per household. In addition, leased vehicles are not covered.

And GM says if you die, no refund.

The program started Sept. 14 and runs through Nov. 30, which is the last day customers can take delivery of their new vehicles to qualify for a refund.

Q : How does this compare with the Hyundai Assurance program?

A : The Hyundai Assurance program, which the Korean automaker launched in January, also allows buyers to return their vehicle. But the key difference is a buyer is eligible only if he or she loses their source of income. In addition, the policy kicks in after two months of ownership, but is good for a year.

Q : If I return my vehicle and everything is in order, will I get my old car back?

A : No. According to GM spokesman Pete Ternes, dealers aren't obligated to return the car you traded in. In any case, after 30 days it's probably sitting on a used-car lot or in the hands of another driver. Instead, the dealer will treat the value of your trade-in as money toward your new car and refund you the full price, Ternes says.

Q : What happens to my returned car?

A : Dealers will put the returned vehicles up for sale on their used car lots. GM, through an insurer, then reimburses the dealer for any loss he or she takes on the refund.

Q : How much could this program wind up costing GM?

A : GM bought an insurance policy through the firm cynoSure Financial Inc. to cover the cost of any reimbursements, spokesman John McDonald says. The policy was purchased using funds from GM's marketing budget, which that automaker does not disclose.

Q : With all the restrictions, why would anyone want to participate in this program?

A : Several consumer experts say the hassle isn't worth it, particularly when you consider that GM is quietly offering an incentive NOT to participate.

Customers who waive the return policy receive a $500 rebate toward the purchase of their vehicle. The sensible choice seems to be to settle on the car you really want and take the rebate, says Gilles of the Consumer Federation of America. "In my book, spend a little more time checking the car out and take the 500 bucks."

So, once again, smoke and mirrors from GM.

[MacGuffin]

That reminds me:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo&feature=player_embedded#t=11[/YOUTUBE]

[Dogbert]

Here's an exercise; watch what happens when I change the bolding on this article:

GM's return policy may not be worth the hassle
Dan Strumpf / Associated Press

You fell in love with that $22,000 Chevy Malibu because of its color, style and price. After driving it home, you realize it's not what you wanted. Maybe it's the way it handles on the highway, the location of the cup holders or the shape of the seats.

Don't worry. Bring it back for a refund, no questions asked, says GM's Chairman and new TV pitchman Edward Whitacre Jr.

But is it really as easy as returning an ill-fitting shirt to Macy's?

As with any deal, it's a good idea to read the fine print. As your love affair with the new car turns to hate, you'll need to drive very carefully and make sure to limit how many miles you put on the car. And don't expect your wallet to be made whole even if you follow the fine print to the letter.

Q : So, I can bring back my car or truck to the dealer anytime?

A : Not so fast. No returns are allowed within the first 30 days of purchase. It's anytime between day 31 and day 60 of ownership.

That seems like a narrow window, but the policy makes sense for GM. Buyer's remorse can set in within days for new customers, who grouse over things like knobs and cup holders appearing to be in the wrong place. Owners can grow more accepting of problems over time, says Jack Gilles, director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America.

Q : Do I have to cite a defect?

A : No. You can hate the color for all GM cares. But the policy says a returned vehicle can't have more than $200 in damage -- and GM, through an inspection, gets to decide what constitutes that much damage.

Q : Wow, $200? Doesn't even a small scratch or dimple caused by kicked-up gravel cost that much to fix?

A : It's true the cost of vehicle repairs -- even small, cosmetic ones -- can easily exceed $200. (Repairs covered by warranty are excluded.) But GM insists it had to set a limit to protect itself from customers returning badly damaged vehicles and expecting a full refund.

Gilles says the $200 limit is on the low side -- particularly when coupled with the prohibition on returning before 30 days.

"You combine that with the 30 days, it's easier and easier to get $200 in damage," he says. Plus, with GM making the determination on damages, "it may appear that the cards are stacked against you."

The lesson for consumers: Be extra careful during those first two months if you're thinking about returning your new ride. And no car can be returned if it's been in an accident.

Q : If I keep the car free of dings, I get all my money back?

A : In this case, "money back" doesn't mean all your money. Just the cost of the vehicle and sales tax.

GM won't refund the title, registration and other fees, which can add up to several hundred dollars depending on your state.

"It's not really unfair because otherwise you've rented the car for free for 30 to 60 days," says Terry Connolly, dean of the Ageno School of Business at Golden Gate University.

GM also won't refund any accessories purchased through the dealer, like paint or rust protection, aftermarket equipment and the like. So choose those add-ons carefully if you think you might return the car.

Q : What else do I need to look out for?

A : Don't go on a cross-country jaunt.The new car or truck cannot have more than 4,000 miles on it. Also, owners must be current on payments.

Forget buying his and hers pickup trucks. Only one return is allowed per household. In addition, leased vehicles are not covered.

And GM says if you die, no refund.

The program started Sept. 14 and runs through Nov. 30, which is the last day customers can take delivery of their new vehicles to qualify for a refund.

Q : How does this compare with the Hyundai Assurance program?

A : The Hyundai Assurance program, which the Korean automaker launched in January, also allows buyers to return their vehicle. But the key difference is a buyer is eligible only if he or she loses their source of income. In addition, the policy kicks in after two months of ownership, but is good for a year.

Q : If I return my vehicle and everything is in order, will I get my old car back?

A : No. According to GM spokesman Pete Ternes, dealers aren't obligated to return the car you traded in. In any case, after 30 days it's probably sitting on a used-car lot or in the hands of another driver. Instead, the dealer will treat the value of your trade-in as money toward your new car and refund you the full price, Ternes says.

Q : What happens to my returned car?

A : Dealers will put the returned vehicles up for sale on their used car lots. GM, through an insurer, then reimburses the dealer for any loss he or she takes on the refund.

Q : How much could this program wind up costing GM?

A : GM bought an insurance policy through the firm cynoSure Financial Inc. to cover the cost of any reimbursements, spokesman John McDonald says. The policy was purchased using funds from GM's marketing budget, which that automaker does not disclose.

Q : With all the restrictions, why would anyone want to participate in this program?

A : Several consumer experts say the hassle isn't worth it, particularly when you consider that GM is quietly offering an incentive NOT to participate.

Customers who waive the return policy receive a $500 rebate toward the purchase of their vehicle. The sensible choice seems to be to settle on the car you really want and take the rebate, says Gilles of the Consumer Federation of America. "In my book, spend a little more time checking the car out and take the 500 bucks."

Why would I want GM to refund me for things not made by GM (aftermarket accessories) or paid for by GM (title and registration fees)? I bitch enough as it is about them spending too much money, so why would I want them giving people money back that wasn't spent at GM in the first place?

And if you're so worried about that $200 limit, why don't you go to a body shop and have them go over the car? It's not like this is the first time ever that dealers have scrutinized the condition of a car... they've been doing it since, oh, they started accepting cars as used.

I mean damn, is there really such a drought of FUD about this topic that people have to talk about invented, over-exaggerated shadiness about automotive return policies?