Anyone See The Autoweek Article On Autox?, Carmakers are voiding warranties Options

[LT4Firehawk]

I wouldn't have gone through the trouble for a wheel (I would have bought a whole new set (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ), but I would have gone through the trouble to stop them from voiding my warranty (if I had one). I'm just glad that my Hawk doesn't ever have to see the dealer again. I feel much better taking her to a mechanic I know and trust.

[sgarnett]

I agree on the advertising, but other than that let's be realistic.

Anticipated average warranty costs are included in the price of the car - they HAVE to be if the manufacturer intends to stay in business. If abuse was covered by warranty (and competition IS abuse) they would have to add a LOT of money to the price of the car - both to cover the increased average warranty repair cost and to beef up everything to reduce warranty claims.

The reason we were able to buy cars even as close to competition-ready as these are is that the average customer is not competing and competition damage is not covered.

The business case for selling cars warrantied for competition would require a MUCH higher selling price, driving lower volumes, and therefore driving the price even higher.

BTW, if you browse sites like LS1.com it won't take long to find someone who blew a shift and then tried to get his bent pushrods replaced under warranty.

[Crazy Canuck]

imho, if a company decides to void a warranty, they should at least refund the value of the warranty left to the owner.
For sure there are figures on how much does warranty cost on average per vehicule, and the companies take that into account on the purchase price.
Having said that, if the company has the "choice" to void the warranty, the owners should have the same "choice" to void the payment on the warranty.
I would buy a Vette with a 8,000$ discount if it had no warranty.

[2000Z-71]

I'll probably open up a hole can of worms here but oh well. I really see the stresses endured by a car in an autocross and a "racing" ie: open track session as being very different. The same stresses put on a car in autocrossing could also be encountered with agressive street driving. If a manufacturer is going to market a performance car it should be able to endure the stresses of aggressive driving. The manufacturers should stand behind their products, not try and weesle out from under their warranties.

The problem is there is very little recourse a consumer has against a dealer or a manufacturer in a warranty dispute. I had a very long batlle with Chrysler concerning warranty work on my Dodge pickup. I had the main seal on the trasfer case fail and puke fluid all over. The dealer refused to cover it under warranty leaving me with a $850.00 repair bill. Since there was a scratch on the skidplate the dealership claimed that the seal failed because I had driven the truck off-road. The line I got from the district manager was, "The Dodge Ram is not intended for off-road usage, any damage incurred from driving off-road is not covered under warranty." He didn't have an answer for why the truck had the "Off-Road" option package if it wasn't intended for that use or how the truck on the cover of their brochure parked in the middle of a boulder field had gotten there.

Bottom line, I ate the repair bill. I had exhausted all means of resolving the dispute short of hiring an attorney and filing suit. After that experience I will never buy another Chrysler product again, even if they do come out with a Charger coupe with the hemi and a t-56. Chrysler may have saved themselves a repair bill, but they've lost more in a future sale with me.

[felton316]

Damn, that sucks that manufacturer's were denying warranties. I know all the Subaru dealers around here were giving away free SCCA memberships whenever you purchased a WRX. I guess they stand behind their product.

[CMC#5]

Look, I realize that there's got to be a line somewhere. However, that line is not your warranty in its entirety being voided if you attend one HPDE day. First of all, there are plenty of legitimate claims that could happen even if you race the stupid car: a/c, electrical, stereo, etc etc etc. Second of all, if they void your warranty for any reason, they should be forced to return to you the expected value of that warranty.

When you bought the vehicle, part of that sales price covers expected warranty claims. Whatever that number is, if they're going to cancel it, they should give it back. Its like calling up your insurance company and canceling your policy, they give you your money back.

The bottom line is they're screwing the consumer. They advertise cars based on performance and warranties. Then they charge you money for warranty coverage. Then they give you an SCCA membership (in Subarus case). Then they tell you the warranty is void, but they keep your money. Somebody needs to sue those bastards.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, and NO I don't think Subaru should replace your transmission if you go racing. BUT I do think they should've told you ahead of time that IF you go racing they wont replace it.

[LT4Firehawk]

imho, if a company decides to void a warranty, they should at least refund the value of the warranty left to the owner.
For sure there are figures on how much does warranty cost on average per vehicule, and the companies take that into account on the purchase price.
Having said that, if the company has the "choice" to void the warranty, the owners should have the same "choice" to void the payment on the warranty.
I would buy a Vette with a 8,000$ discount if it had no warranty.

I agree 100%.

[bruecksteve]

The bottom lines is.... NEVER buy another new car again. Maybe they'll start to get the point.