[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.

[LT4Firehawk]

Several things:

First off, Gary, the Nitto 555R II is a DOT street legal tire with a 100AA treadwear rating that comes with street legal tread depth. There is no way on earth that Chevy can get away with voiding your warranty because you run that tire. Heck, the Goodyear Supercar tires that come on the Z06 are of similar specs. There are plenty of people out there that run the 555R II as a DEDICATED street tire (me included). The fact that we may also run that same model of tire at the track is completely irrelevant. I know lots of people that run other (more traditional) street tires at the track (or autox) as well.

Second, my biggest concern with all of this are quotes like this from a Chrysler person:

“If a guy’s constantly lighting up the tires on the street, that’s not normal wear and tear,” says Chrysler’s Bodene.

If you advertise a car as a performance car, then I expect to be able to drive it like one and still be under warranty. If I bought a Viper, you can be dang sure I would be lighting up the tires every chance I got. Quotes like this make me think that all the auto manufacturer's will be looking very closely at what they can do to get out of there warranties by classyfing anything they can as "abuse". GM already has a bad reputation from this mindset with fiascos like the weak clutches and oil consumption in the LS1/6 f-bodies and Vettes and trying to wiggle out of replacing/fixing them under warranty by claiming they were "abused". It all comes down to the fact that if a company is going to advertise a car as a "performance" car by quoting 0-60 times, showing burnouts in adds, or four wheel drifts through corners, etc, then they need to stand behind that car. Although I'm sure there are disclaimers (in very fine print) on ads like that, there is an implied message from those ads that these cars should be capable to do those things. (Hmm, I wonder if there's any lawyers out there interested in starting a class action suit against all these companies?)

Finally, things like this are one of the reasons that I will probably never buy a car that is under factory warranty again. Not only are most dealer service centers incompetant and can't fix the issue on the first attempt (and sometimes second or third), now they are trying to wiggle out of covering problems at all.