[KeithO]

There was an article in the printed version (I didn't see it on the website) reporting on people having their warranties voided when they go in for service and the dealer finds out that the owner has been autocrossing. The case-in-point was an Evo owner that ran the car in the local SCCA region. When he took the car in for repairs (admittedly significant), they told him that they knew he was autocrossing it (they wouldn't tell him how they knew) and that he was going to have to pay out-of-pocket for the repairs - $7k.

They also discussed the situation with Subaru where you get a year's SCCA membership with the purchase of a WRX so that you can "experience the full potential of your car".

In the grand scheme of things, I suppose this is fair, but it is something to keep in mind.

[sgarnett]

Personally, I don't see a problem with not covering drivetrain or suspension parts on a car that sees competitioing use. Racing breaks things; that's just a fact of life. If you play, you have to pay.

Of course, some cars will hold up to competition better than others, and that may factor into purchase decisions. Even for performance cars, MOST are not purchased for competition, and building them for competition just isn't cost-effective. I do think a real heavy-duty competition option should be available on performance cars. Of course, that option should include things like oil and ps coolers, heavy duty synchros, etc, instead of tape stripes.

I do think Subaru screwed up. If they want to promote grassroots competition as a sales tactic, they should either cover it or clearly disclose that they won't.

By the way, this is another reason I think there should be a street tire class for ALL stock cars and not just small displacement ricers. Race tires put a LOT more stress and wear on the car.