2003 Cadillac Seville Complaints

WHILE MY WIFE WAS DRIVING VEHICLE LOST POWER WHILE DRIVING JUST AFTER PURCHASE FROM (LIA INFINITY) DEALERSHIP IN ALBANY, NY. REQUESTED DEALER TAKE VEHICLE TO CADILLAC DEALER FOR CHECKOUT WHICH HE SAID WAS DONE AND RETURNED WITHOUT REPAIR. CONDITION WAS INTERMITTENT AND WAS THEREFORE DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE. AFTER 1 YEAR OF OWNERSHIP ID PROBLEM AS CRANKSHAFT SENSOR (PART NO.S 012575481 AND 012575482) ISSUE WHICH WAS GENERALLY KNOWN IN INDUSTRY. TOOK VEHICLE TO CADILLAC DEALER ON 1/20/2009 (LONG CADILLAC SOUTHBOROUGH, MA. 01772) AND REQUESTED SPECIFIC REPAIR WHICH COST $427.56. DEALER INSISTED WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED SINCE I WASN'T FOLLOWING DEALER PROCEDURES WHICH REQUIRED DEALER DIAGNOSIS AT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. PROBLEM NO LONGER PERSISTED AFTER REPLACING SENSORS BUT WAS EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS CONDITION AND CADILLAC/GM WAS NO HELP IN REPAIR OR DIAGNOSIS DURING PROCESS. *TR

2003 CADILLAC SEVILLE SLS. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO RUSTED STABILIZER BAR BOLTS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE MADE A KNOCKING NOISE, WHEN HE MADE A LEFT OR RIGHT TURN. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONE OF THE BOLTS HAD BROKE IN HALF. *JB

VEHICLE WAS IDLING IN DRIVEWAY DURING STRONG ELECTRICAL STORM. LIGHTNING APPEARED TO HIT A TREE NEARBY. SIMULTANEOUSLY, SEVERAL DASH WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON AND STAYED ON, INCLUDING ANTI-LOCK BRAKE, TRACTION AND STABILITY CONTROL WARNINGS. CALL WAS MADE TO INSURANCE COMPANY AND VEHICLE TOWED TO CADILLAC DEALERSHIP. SERVICE DEPARTMENT SAID CAUSE OF THE WARNING LIGHT WAS A BOLT NEAR WIRE TO ANTI-LOCK BRAKE POWER CONTROL MODULE HAD WORN INSULATION OFF, CAUSING FAILURE OF POWER CONTROL MODULE.IF INDEED LIGHTNING/POWER SURGE DID NOT CAUSE THIS PROBLEM, IMPROPERLY LOCATED BOLT OR DESIGN WOULD SEEM TO BE DEFECTIVE. *TR

MY CONCERN IS PLASTIC HEADLIGHT LENSES. THE PLASTIC LENSES DETERIORATE TO THE POINT THAT THEY CLOUD OVER AND BECOME YELLOW, DRASTICALLY REDUCING THERE EFFECTIVENESS IN LIGHTING THE ROADWAY AT NIGHT OR DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. HOW DID THE AUTO MAKERS CONVINCE THE NHTSA THAT PLASTIC LENSES WERE SAFE ? WHEN DID IT BECOME THE VEHICLE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE TO BUY EXPENSIVE KITS, WHOSE EFFECTIVENESS IS DUBIOUS AT BEST, TO TRY AND KEEP THEIR HEADLIGHTS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO BE SAFE ? THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO BUY REPLACEMENT LENSES AND FOR THOSE WITHOUT THE MECHANICAL ABILITY, ALSO HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THEM INSTALLED, ONLY TO FACE THE SAME PROBLEM WHEN THE NEW ONES BECOME UNUSABLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTO MAKERS SAVE WEIGHT AND MONEY BY NOT USING GLASS BUT IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT IT THE AUTO MAKERS RESPONSIBILITY TO DELIVER A SAFE VEHICLE TO THE DRIVING PUBLIC AND THAT USING PLASTIC ON HEADLIGHT LENSES IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS. THIS COMPLAINT ADDRESSES ALL AUTO MANUFACTU...

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CADILLAC SEVILLE. HE HAD TO REPLACE THE INTERMEDIATE STEERING SHAFT WHEN THE VEHICLE HAD 24,923 MILES ON IT. HE IS CONCERNED THAT THE PART WAS DEFECTIVE AT SUCH LOW MILEAGE. THE TOTAL REPAIR COST WAS $439.27 THE CURRENT AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WERE 24,923.