tchart:
Linux:

 

GWM Ute need I say anything else you get what you pay for!

 



Yeah not so helpful.

I own the other Chinese Ute (LDV) and have had no major issues - almost 5 years now.

Based on the Facebook pages I belong to all car/Ute brands have issues including the “bullet proof ones” like Hilux have major failures.

 

 

 

I agree that @linux’s comment is not constructive to resolving the original problem. But it is a helpful comment if it gets other car buyers to consider the issues raised in the original post.

 

The anecdotal evidence in the OP issue certainly trumps any other anecdotal positive experience. Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on such anecdotal evidence. Advocating for another brand such as LDV gives me even greater concern given their behaviour in Australia.

 

Instead we can look at what has actually happened and see if there are warning signs for anyone considering buying a GWM/Haval vehicle:

 

1. The one-year old vehicle has a major fault preventing it from being used by the owner. Warning sign of major failure inside warranty period. This is not necessarily a major problem provided the dealer/brand resolve the issue to satisfy the customer.

 

2. The fault took weeks to diagnose. Warning sign as there may be a training/expertise issue.

 

3. The needed parts aren’t held in NZ. Warning sign as they may not stock the full range of parts yet. Warning sign that they may not have the critical mass to maintain a full-service network in NZ.

 

4. Dealer offers less than a full replacement. Warning sign that the dealer or the brand may be trying to opt out of warranty and the necessary good-faith commitment to support customers.

 

5. This is the second time the buyer has had a major failure of the same brand and model. WARNING SIGN that there may be real reliability issues worth avoiding.

 

The impact is amplified because the vehicle failed at a “critical time of the year for their contracting business.” But given point 5 above, I would not have been relying on this vehicle for a critical part of my business. I agree with @linux that you usually get what you pay for. In this case, an upfront saving on the vehicle has exposed the owner to higher risks of vehicle failure at an inconvenient time.

 

AFAIK, nothing suggests that there is any fault on the part of the vehicle owner so it seems like a straight warranty issue that should be resolved as painlessly as possible for the owner who has committed to the brand.

 

 

 

Edited to remove typo