Warning: Long and probably boring comments .... proceed at your own risk.
It has beern fun reading some of the comments here. I wanted to reply to a few not quoted here.
1. The idea that a long warranty is used for bad products as learned in marketing is perhaps misunderstood. I was a marketing prof for many years and the fact is that very long warranties are not used only by low quality products. That generalization cannot be made. Sometimes the product in question is attempting to establish itself to be of high quality and offers as proof the length of its warranty. This happens mainly in what is called a "high-involvement" type of purchase in which the buyer feels considerable psychological, financial, physical, performance, risk when buying. The longer warranty helps to remove some of the doubt or perceived risk. Hyuandai and Kia are two companies that use the warranty in this way. Who in their right mind would want to risk buying another potential Yugo, for example, unless they had great assurance theyt would be protected. So, use it to win trust for new, unknown brands/products. Normally, the product or brand using this strategy must develop a good product or consumers will quickly learn the brand is so bad that even the warranty is not sufficient to overcome the bad product and warranty cost to the manufacturer will be so expensive they cannot continue to offer it. Hyuandi has used this approach excellently, and they have improved quality faster than any brand I can recall in recent history.
On the other hand, some clearly inferior products offer strong warranties when the producer won't be around to honor them. For examples, consider all the nonsense offers made through TV by such firms as "Ronco," various cuttlery brands. questionable tools and so forth.
I have bored everyone enough re this point. The point is that long warranties can be used by high or low quality brands, but there will be a tendency for high quality brands to lower warranties over time if they feel they are no longer needed because their quality has been well established. Consumers will not pay a premium for what is considered not necessary. Honda and Toyota do not offer long warranties for this reason.
2. In GM's case, the increased warranty length related to supposedly improved quality can actually be the result of improved quality, or it might be being used in lieu of other price incentives that would be more costly. For example, employee pricing by Chrysler might give $7k off a truck, which is going to be used by all buyers, so total cost is $7k x number of buyers. GM's warranty may be a calculated gamble in which it has not improved quality but gambles that the total additional repair costs due to warranty length will be less than $7k a vehicle; many drive train repairs can be made before $7k is reached. I bought a 98 Aurora and got quotes on extended warranty coverage from GM. I cannot remember the exact costs, but eeven the dealer said "what do they know we do not" when we compared the cost of the 100k warranty to the 75k. It went from something like $1450 to $3100+ for the added 25k miles. But, even if GM offwered the $3100+ extended warranty "free" with new car purchase, that is still well below $7k employee pricing or other rebate progams.
3. Idea that extended powertrain only warranty is not worth that much ... on the Aurora, which was GM certified, within 4 months of purchase head gasket blew (many $ repair), followed by rear main seal, radiator, etc. Just recently I had to have the cv joint and alterrnator replaced at a warranty cost of about $1300. On a Caddy I had they thought the oil pan gasket had a leak .. repair cost for that would have been over $2k. If replaced each strut or shock over $500. Transmissions on newer GM trucks are over $4k. Yes, maybe there will be no power train warranties, but get ready to bend over and drop pants if there are any.
4. Sales problems for Ford and GM are probably not as related to lower perceived quality as to very unispired designs. Extremely poor and not updated often enough. Chrysler's view that they want to instill a love it or hate it passion has paid off substantially as compared to Ford and GM's seemingly "don't offend anyone" strategy has resulted in very boring designs that increasingly appeal mainly older buyers.
5. All USA producers seem to have really overestimated how much buyers will pay for their new rides. Check pricing and it seems that high 20's to mid 30's and above is typical. Consequently, loan terms now run as high as 6 years, during which many will have buyers upside down. They cannot buy new again if they are so upside down they cannot get out of the old.
That's too much from me. Thread is interesting.