| robmarch | 07-01-2004 09:59 AM |
Subaru's position on Autocross
�
�
This is becoming a hot topic around the web, a lot due to [URL=http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=02612566]this article[/URL] .
I guess this is as close as we have to an official statement from Subaru, from the article.
[quote]For instance, even though Subaru pops for a one-year SCCA membership for every interested WRX buyer, and in its marketing materials appears to encourage owners to enter their cars in autocross events, the company says autocrossing is racing and racing can void warranty coverage. The WRX/SCCA application form says the SCCA �looks forward to helping you fully experience the benefits of owning this car.� But the form also includes a disclaimer that Subaru�s warranty excludes �damage or failure resulting from participation in competition or racing events.�
�If the damage looks to be racing related, you�re not going to be covered,� says Subaru spokeswoman Larkin Hill. �We don�t want to punish the person who goes out once in a while and autocrosses�and that shouldn�t cause any problems with the car anyway. However, autocross is considered competition and the warranty does not cover abusive driving or competition. If you�re out there racing every weekend, you can�t expect us to fund it.� [/quote]
With a feature in Drive Performance magazine on autocross, and the Subaru Challenge event, I think it's important to understand their position on what autocross does to a car. I have contacted them for clarification.
My personal opinion is that autocross is invaluable driver education, even if it was run in a manner where the times were not counted against a competition. I also believe that it's possible to autocross a car without causing damage to it, minus putting slight additional wear on wear items such as brake pads and tires. I feel the low speed car control education is well worth this small additional amount of wear.
I'm really hoping that manufacturers embrace the sentiment of Subaru's statement, that autocross shouldn't damage cars, and overlook the friendly competition aspect of the autocrosses.
I'll try to post their response here to help advise whether or not participation in the Subaru Challenge will void warranties.
I guess this is as close as we have to an official statement from Subaru, from the article.
[quote]For instance, even though Subaru pops for a one-year SCCA membership for every interested WRX buyer, and in its marketing materials appears to encourage owners to enter their cars in autocross events, the company says autocrossing is racing and racing can void warranty coverage. The WRX/SCCA application form says the SCCA �looks forward to helping you fully experience the benefits of owning this car.� But the form also includes a disclaimer that Subaru�s warranty excludes �damage or failure resulting from participation in competition or racing events.�
�If the damage looks to be racing related, you�re not going to be covered,� says Subaru spokeswoman Larkin Hill. �We don�t want to punish the person who goes out once in a while and autocrosses�and that shouldn�t cause any problems with the car anyway. However, autocross is considered competition and the warranty does not cover abusive driving or competition. If you�re out there racing every weekend, you can�t expect us to fund it.� [/quote]
With a feature in Drive Performance magazine on autocross, and the Subaru Challenge event, I think it's important to understand their position on what autocross does to a car. I have contacted them for clarification.
My personal opinion is that autocross is invaluable driver education, even if it was run in a manner where the times were not counted against a competition. I also believe that it's possible to autocross a car without causing damage to it, minus putting slight additional wear on wear items such as brake pads and tires. I feel the low speed car control education is well worth this small additional amount of wear.
I'm really hoping that manufacturers embrace the sentiment of Subaru's statement, that autocross shouldn't damage cars, and overlook the friendly competition aspect of the autocrosses.
I'll try to post their response here to help advise whether or not participation in the Subaru Challenge will void warranties.
| AndyRoo | 07-01-2004 10:06 AM |
that is a very acceptable and agreeable position, as long as dealers do not begin the practice of refusing to fix something by claiming it is auto x related, when it clearly is not.
| Jon Bogert | 07-01-2004 10:12 AM |
A car manufacturer still has to show that the damage was caused by racing, autocrossing, stoplight burnouts, etc. to deny a warranty claim. If, in fact, you were abusing the car (as the EVO owner in the article certainly was), or actually broke something during competition, suck it up and pay the bill. How could anyone expect the manufacturer to pay for that?
If you occasionally track or autocross the car and have a warranty claim for a failure not specifically related to that use, there shouldn't be a problem.
Subaru's statement expresses that perfectly.
If you occasionally track or autocross the car and have a warranty claim for a failure not specifically related to that use, there shouldn't be a problem.
Subaru's statement expresses that perfectly.
| Georgethefierce | 07-01-2004 10:14 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AndyRoo[/i]
[B] that is a very acceptable and agreeable position, as long as dealers do not begin the practice of refusing to fix something by claiming it is auto x related, when it clearly is not. [/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY
[B] that is a very acceptable and agreeable position, as long as dealers do not begin the practice of refusing to fix something by claiming it is auto x related, when it clearly is not. [/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY
| robmarch | 07-01-2004 10:24 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jon Bogert [/i]
[B]If, in fact, you were abusing the car (as the EVO owner in the article certainly was), or actually broke something during competition, suck it up and pay the bill. How could anyone expect the manufacturer to pay for that? [/B][/QUOTE]
What in the article made you think the car was clearly abused?
I agree that abuse should not be covered under warranty. This does bring up another point, though. If a manufacturer publishes a 0-60 time for their car, how many times are you allowed to try to duplicate it without it being considered abuse? I refuse to accelerate quickly from a stop in my Subaru because I have no idea how many fast starts it can take.
I just worry that the companies replacing clutches and trannies for people who do lots of clutch drops on the street and not able to prove abuse will look for any excuse they can to limit their liability, and autocross is a convenient one.
[B]If, in fact, you were abusing the car (as the EVO owner in the article certainly was), or actually broke something during competition, suck it up and pay the bill. How could anyone expect the manufacturer to pay for that? [/B][/QUOTE]
What in the article made you think the car was clearly abused?
I agree that abuse should not be covered under warranty. This does bring up another point, though. If a manufacturer publishes a 0-60 time for their car, how many times are you allowed to try to duplicate it without it being considered abuse? I refuse to accelerate quickly from a stop in my Subaru because I have no idea how many fast starts it can take.
I just worry that the companies replacing clutches and trannies for people who do lots of clutch drops on the street and not able to prove abuse will look for any excuse they can to limit their liability, and autocross is a convenient one.
| B&S Motorsports | 07-01-2004 10:39 AM |
This sort of thing REALLY makes me appreciate our local dealer.
They actually sponsor an autocross team and have sponsored events as well.
There are several employees of the dealership that autocross on a regular basis.
I feel comfortable knowing that my dealership understands completely what autocross is and can tell the difference in whats "abuse" and what isnt.
Scott
They actually sponsor an autocross team and have sponsored events as well.
There are several employees of the dealership that autocross on a regular basis.
I feel comfortable knowing that my dealership understands completely what autocross is and can tell the difference in whats "abuse" and what isnt.
Scott
| AndyRoo | 07-01-2004 10:55 AM |
In regards to the EVO, you gotta really try to blow the turbo in just one auto x event. Thats a lot of damage that you can only really blame on abuse (unless he got a lemon).
I dont like the idea of "blacklisting" an owner for autocrossing though. If this owner gets everything fixed out of his own wallet, and maybe the dealer could check the car out, he should be allowed later warranty work (non competitve damages of course).
I dont like the idea of "blacklisting" an owner for autocrossing though. If this owner gets everything fixed out of his own wallet, and maybe the dealer could check the car out, he should be allowed later warranty work (non competitve damages of course).
| robmarch | 07-01-2004 11:24 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AndyRoo [/i]
[B]In regards to the EVO, you gotta really try to blow the turbo in just one auto x event. Thats a lot of damage that you can only really blame on abuse (unless he got a lemon).[/B][/QUOTE]
what if he did get a lemon?
I really can't envision a situation, other than running it without oil or something, where you could blow a healthy turbo and engine in an autocross event without misshifting (which they can track).
I could see making this type of argument for a tranny or clutch, assuming it was dropped at redline 4 times, or something.
even if it was abused before the autocross and after, it was the abuse, not the autocross, that would have done the damage.
[B]In regards to the EVO, you gotta really try to blow the turbo in just one auto x event. Thats a lot of damage that you can only really blame on abuse (unless he got a lemon).[/B][/QUOTE]
what if he did get a lemon?
I really can't envision a situation, other than running it without oil or something, where you could blow a healthy turbo and engine in an autocross event without misshifting (which they can track).
I could see making this type of argument for a tranny or clutch, assuming it was dropped at redline 4 times, or something.
even if it was abused before the autocross and after, it was the abuse, not the autocross, that would have done the damage.
| zzyzx | 07-01-2004 11:34 AM |
The reality is that SOA is playing both sides. The advertising campaign, the SCCA membership, etc (you know the details...) is what gets the younger crowd in the door. Clearly the sales of the WRX are targeted at a youthful niche and the sales of the WRX speak to the success of this marketing. So, they succeeded with their marketing and we made (and make) them a successful car company.
The problem? We called their bluff. A lot of WRX owners actually do autocross. Who woulda thunk?
The irony of getting an SCCA membership and/or SOA holding the Subaru Challenge events, then saying if you autocross then your SOL... well, that's just silly.
Let's not forgot Subaru needs us. We don't need them.
This is a slap in the face to any Subaru owner who purchased the car, buying into exactly the kind of marketing Subaru wanted us to. If they're not careful, they may alienate their niche which will hurt them. If I were at SOA I'd be figuring out what can be done in terms of damage control right now, not to mention sitting Larkin down with HR to discuss her severance package.
That said, I think it's almost entirely misplaced. At my dealership, it's clear to them that the individuals that wreak havoc on their cars are in fact [b]not autocrossers[/b], but the average street racer type that really doesn't know a thing about autocross.
As an autocrosser, I feel we're getting a raw deal.
- Steve
The problem? We called their bluff. A lot of WRX owners actually do autocross. Who woulda thunk?
The irony of getting an SCCA membership and/or SOA holding the Subaru Challenge events, then saying if you autocross then your SOL... well, that's just silly.
Let's not forgot Subaru needs us. We don't need them.
This is a slap in the face to any Subaru owner who purchased the car, buying into exactly the kind of marketing Subaru wanted us to. If they're not careful, they may alienate their niche which will hurt them. If I were at SOA I'd be figuring out what can be done in terms of damage control right now, not to mention sitting Larkin down with HR to discuss her severance package.
That said, I think it's almost entirely misplaced. At my dealership, it's clear to them that the individuals that wreak havoc on their cars are in fact [b]not autocrossers[/b], but the average street racer type that really doesn't know a thing about autocross.
As an autocrosser, I feel we're getting a raw deal.
- Steve
| AndyRoo | 07-01-2004 11:56 AM |
But you can't expect subaru to fix all damages occuring from competition. Imagine the hundreds of rally folks that would be asking for new parts because they broke or overused them.
Subaru is doing a better job then most with it by still fixing problems with the car of a known autocrosser if they have a problem not resulting from competition. Unless I'm reading this wrong.
[QUOTE]That said, I think it's almost entirely misplaced. At my dealership, it's clear to them that the individuals that wreak havoc on their cars are in fact not autocrossers, but the average street racer type that really doesn't know a thing about autocross.[/QUOTE]
^^ I do agree with that though.
edit: maybe the EVO kid bought a boost controller and played around with it a little too much, then yanked it before he brought it to the dealer? not sure, but you're right, there must have been something besides that one auto cross.
Subaru is doing a better job then most with it by still fixing problems with the car of a known autocrosser if they have a problem not resulting from competition. Unless I'm reading this wrong.
[QUOTE]That said, I think it's almost entirely misplaced. At my dealership, it's clear to them that the individuals that wreak havoc on their cars are in fact not autocrossers, but the average street racer type that really doesn't know a thing about autocross.[/QUOTE]
^^ I do agree with that though.
edit: maybe the EVO kid bought a boost controller and played around with it a little too much, then yanked it before he brought it to the dealer? not sure, but you're right, there must have been something besides that one auto cross.
| KC | 07-01-2004 11:59 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx[/i]
[B] If they're not careful, they may alienate their niche which will hurt them. If I were at SOA I'd be figuring out what can be done in terms of damage control right now, not to mention sitting Larkin down with HR to discuss her severance package.[/B][/QUOTE]
Like moving the brand upscale to ditch the 'boy racers'? ;)
[B] If they're not careful, they may alienate their niche which will hurt them. If I were at SOA I'd be figuring out what can be done in terms of damage control right now, not to mention sitting Larkin down with HR to discuss her severance package.[/B][/QUOTE]
Like moving the brand upscale to ditch the 'boy racers'? ;)
| akuhner | 07-01-2004 12:22 PM |
If you can't afford to fix it, don't race it... I do auto-x, rally-x and TSDs I'm on my 3rd motor and 2nd transmission, all out of warranty. Both motors were trashed due to blown head gaskets (loooong story), one at a TSD and one at a rally-x - I paid for both replacements out of pocket. If I had a warranty I would have tried to get them to pay for it, but I certianly wouldn't have complained when they said no.
You are not getting the short end of the stick, if the fine print in the warranty says that claims can be denied due to competition then they have covered themselves. I wish we lived in a utopia where warranties covered everything, but manufacturers would go broke doing that so we don't...
Alex
You are not getting the short end of the stick, if the fine print in the warranty says that claims can be denied due to competition then they have covered themselves. I wish we lived in a utopia where warranties covered everything, but manufacturers would go broke doing that so we don't...
Alex
| Big C | 07-01-2004 12:38 PM |
All of this goes back to the disconnect between marketing and the dealership/service department. Subaru markets a "rally car for the street" and encourages people to enjoy it. However, enjoying this type of car in the way depicted in commercials (and implied by the free SCCA membership) borders on abuse. The fact that the dealership can make a subjective decision based on their interpretation of "abuse" makes the situation worse because your treatment can vary completely based on what dealer you choose.
My opinion is that a completely stock "performance" vehicle should be able to handle the "abuse" of track days, auto-x and rally-x. And if the manufacturer says the car can do 0-60 in 5.4 then I should be able to repeat that at will without fear of voiding my warranty for abuse. And this is not really the case with a WRX.
I basically went through this with my 02 WRX. Never abused it (beyond auto-x and rally-x), but when I complained about some tranny issues it was immediately dismissed as abuse. Definitely going to think twice before I consider another Subaru, based on that treatment.
C
My opinion is that a completely stock "performance" vehicle should be able to handle the "abuse" of track days, auto-x and rally-x. And if the manufacturer says the car can do 0-60 in 5.4 then I should be able to repeat that at will without fear of voiding my warranty for abuse. And this is not really the case with a WRX.
I basically went through this with my 02 WRX. Never abused it (beyond auto-x and rally-x), but when I complained about some tranny issues it was immediately dismissed as abuse. Definitely going to think twice before I consider another Subaru, based on that treatment.
C
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 12:39 PM |
I assume my vehicle has no warranty as I think Subaru's warranty is relatively useless. I've heard of too many denials to even want to waste my time dealing with it. Perhaps if it were something rather mundane like the A/C system or an electic window motor or what have you I'd consider it, but overall I think Subaru shouldn't really bother to offer much warranty and stop selling the extended warranty; they won't honor it anyway.
I can't think of a time that I've heard of anyone getting warranty work done when it was deserved.
Example: Friends took an RS into the dealership that was having some sort of transmission issue. The dealership looked at the edges of their RE92s and told them that it looked like it was worn a bit on the edges so therefore their transmission work would not be covered.
I personally don't expect Subaru to cover anything unless the car has just not been touched.
The Subaru warranty is a waste of my time. I'll enjoy my autocrossing and not worry about it. :)
I can't think of a time that I've heard of anyone getting warranty work done when it was deserved.
Example: Friends took an RS into the dealership that was having some sort of transmission issue. The dealership looked at the edges of their RE92s and told them that it looked like it was worn a bit on the edges so therefore their transmission work would not be covered.
I personally don't expect Subaru to cover anything unless the car has just not been touched.
The Subaru warranty is a waste of my time. I'll enjoy my autocrossing and not worry about it. :)
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 12:43 PM |
I agree with Big C on how Subaru talks out of both sides of their mouth; "Great performance car!" then "You tried to get it to perform, warranty denied."
Until someone takes this to court and wins, it's going to continue to be marketed and dealt with in the same manner. There was actually a case recently where someone took SOA to court and they lost on a warranty claim. I don't remember any other details; it was on the board here somewhere.
Until someone takes this to court and wins, it's going to continue to be marketed and dealt with in the same manner. There was actually a case recently where someone took SOA to court and they lost on a warranty claim. I don't remember any other details; it was on the board here somewhere.
| AndyRoo | 07-01-2004 12:47 PM |
wow...that is pretty crappy.
But most companies will have the same or worse policy as subaru, and isnt it up to the dealer to define what is abuse? There should be a clear way to determine what is abuse and what isnt. Until then, dealers will enjoy the screwing of owners with their loosely defined idea of abuse.
But most companies will have the same or worse policy as subaru, and isnt it up to the dealer to define what is abuse? There should be a clear way to determine what is abuse and what isnt. Until then, dealers will enjoy the screwing of owners with their loosely defined idea of abuse.
| jcroy66 | 07-01-2004 01:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Car #187[/i]
[B]I wish we lived in a utopia where warranties covered everything, but manufacturers would go broke doing that so we don't... [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I'd prefer that we lived in a utopia where my car cost $8k less, because the manufacturer didn't have a warranty at all...
[B]I wish we lived in a utopia where warranties covered everything, but manufacturers would go broke doing that so we don't... [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I'd prefer that we lived in a utopia where my car cost $8k less, because the manufacturer didn't have a warranty at all...
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 01:24 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Actually, I'd prefer that we lived in a utopia where my car cost $8k less, because the manufacturer didn't have a warranty at all... [/B][/QUOTE]
That sounds fine with me. Although if they had no warranty, don't you imagine quality control might go to H in a rather large handbasket with a quickness?
[B] Actually, I'd prefer that we lived in a utopia where my car cost $8k less, because the manufacturer didn't have a warranty at all... [/B][/QUOTE]
That sounds fine with me. Although if they had no warranty, don't you imagine quality control might go to H in a rather large handbasket with a quickness?
| ForceFed4 | 07-01-2004 01:30 PM |
I actually think Subaru's policy (as stated in the first quote at least) is very reasonable. If you're an occasional auto-Xer, you really shouldn't have to worry. If you're at the track or rallyX every weekend, you're putting more than "typical" wear on the car, that's impossible to deny.
People honestly think Subaru should be paying for damage that occurs @ a track day or rally X?! Either of those go WAY beyond typical usage, and are a class apart from driving around cones in a parking lot. I've rally-Xed a couple times, but I stopped because I KNEW it was beating the hell out of the car. It was loads of fun, but being airborne or sideways in the dirt at anything from 30-60mph is NOT typical/normal use, especially if it becomes habitual practice.
Same goes for the track, even if it is a HPDE and not "racing".
Now I'm not saying these events should blacklist you or completely void your warranty. But someone who rally-Xs regularly should not expect to have their blown struts, fried wheel bearings, and bent suspension components (etc...) fixed under warrantee.
The real problem IMO is that the dealer is left to make the completely subjective ruling. "Oh, the edges of your tires show wear" should not ever be a valid excuse to deny warranty coverage. Short of driving to the dealer with corded slicks and nubers still on the car, the mere fact that breakage occured should never be used as evidence that racing must have occured.
Some of the tranny stories I've heard are very disturbing. Subaru seems to make the circular arguement that that racing causes the tranmission to break, therefore any broken transmissions have been raced. So anyone with a broken transmission gets denied.
A major car company is never going to cater to racers. First, there's not enough of them, and second, it's a losing proposition. Racing DOES break things that normal use does not. Even companies that release cars specifically made to race (Ferrari 360 Stradale for example) don't warranty them for racing. Racing and warranties just do not go hand in hand.
People honestly think Subaru should be paying for damage that occurs @ a track day or rally X?! Either of those go WAY beyond typical usage, and are a class apart from driving around cones in a parking lot. I've rally-Xed a couple times, but I stopped because I KNEW it was beating the hell out of the car. It was loads of fun, but being airborne or sideways in the dirt at anything from 30-60mph is NOT typical/normal use, especially if it becomes habitual practice.
Same goes for the track, even if it is a HPDE and not "racing".
Now I'm not saying these events should blacklist you or completely void your warranty. But someone who rally-Xs regularly should not expect to have their blown struts, fried wheel bearings, and bent suspension components (etc...) fixed under warrantee.
The real problem IMO is that the dealer is left to make the completely subjective ruling. "Oh, the edges of your tires show wear" should not ever be a valid excuse to deny warranty coverage. Short of driving to the dealer with corded slicks and nubers still on the car, the mere fact that breakage occured should never be used as evidence that racing must have occured.
Some of the tranny stories I've heard are very disturbing. Subaru seems to make the circular arguement that that racing causes the tranmission to break, therefore any broken transmissions have been raced. So anyone with a broken transmission gets denied.
A major car company is never going to cater to racers. First, there's not enough of them, and second, it's a losing proposition. Racing DOES break things that normal use does not. Even companies that release cars specifically made to race (Ferrari 360 Stradale for example) don't warranty them for racing. Racing and warranties just do not go hand in hand.
| BriDrive | 07-01-2004 01:34 PM |
Honestly, there's a big difference between Auto-X breaking a car and a Driver breaking a car.
Subaru, by ponying up for a 1 year SCCA membership is saying: ...look, the wrx will easily handle some auto-x'ing...so go out an enjoy your car there, in a controlled environment, and maybe learn a thing or two to boot....
But, as a footnote:...we are not giving carte blanche to go try clutch dumping, tranny smashing, center diff annilation along with rev-limiter bouncing hooliganism while you're at it.
Its a little perk (SCCA membership) ,not a free ticket to go joy ride thrash your own car as if it was stolen and expect us to put it all back together for you for free.
That's my take on the whole thing, which I'll bet SOA is wishing they had never even offered now.
Subaru, by ponying up for a 1 year SCCA membership is saying: ...look, the wrx will easily handle some auto-x'ing...so go out an enjoy your car there, in a controlled environment, and maybe learn a thing or two to boot....
But, as a footnote:...we are not giving carte blanche to go try clutch dumping, tranny smashing, center diff annilation along with rev-limiter bouncing hooliganism while you're at it.
Its a little perk (SCCA membership) ,not a free ticket to go joy ride thrash your own car as if it was stolen and expect us to put it all back together for you for free.
That's my take on the whole thing, which I'll bet SOA is wishing they had never even offered now.
| robmarch | 07-01-2004 01:40 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ForceFed4 [/i]
[B]I actually think Subaru's policy (as stated in the first quote at least) is very reasonable. If you're an occasional auto-Xer, you really shouldn't have to worry. If you're at the track or rallyX every weekend, you're putting more than "typical" wear on the car, that's impossible to deny. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with this. I think the effect on most parts is negligable, considering it's 4 miles per autocross, and you drive the car 100k+ in it's lifetime. Brakes and tires being the exception.
running 6 autocross events per year shouldn't have any significant impact on your car's life. And, autocrossers are aware that they will be replacing tires and brakes as part of the price of entry.
[B]I actually think Subaru's policy (as stated in the first quote at least) is very reasonable. If you're an occasional auto-Xer, you really shouldn't have to worry. If you're at the track or rallyX every weekend, you're putting more than "typical" wear on the car, that's impossible to deny. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with this. I think the effect on most parts is negligable, considering it's 4 miles per autocross, and you drive the car 100k+ in it's lifetime. Brakes and tires being the exception.
running 6 autocross events per year shouldn't have any significant impact on your car's life. And, autocrossers are aware that they will be replacing tires and brakes as part of the price of entry.
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 02:05 PM |
I agree with the tires as far as autox wear, but if you're wearing a noticeable amount on the brakes at an autox, I really want to know what you're doing and what kind of course you have. I wear more going to and from the event than I ever could at an event (standard event, 3-5 runs.) :confused:
| NeoteriX | 07-01-2004 02:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] Like moving the brand upscale to ditch the 'boy racers'? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Look at all the good it has done for Acura. :lol:
[B] Like moving the brand upscale to ditch the 'boy racers'? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Look at all the good it has done for Acura. :lol:
| zzyzx | 07-01-2004 02:48 PM |
Good point on Acura - same with Honda. Now they're gonna spend the next 5 years trying to get them (and their sales figures) back. Subaru had better learn from this, or learn the hard way. Subaru isn't Honda and can't afford to lose any of it's brand loyality, boy racer or not.
| Scooby Freak | 07-01-2004 03:26 PM |
I wouldn't of bought a subaru if it wasn't for the SCCA. After watching them autocross, I had to have one. And the membership going with the car just about sold me on a WRX.
Imaging being able to refuse the warranty when buying the car for a discounted price. Everything I buy comes with a warranty, but I've never used one (knocks on wood).
Imaging being able to refuse the warranty when buying the car for a discounted price. Everything I buy comes with a warranty, but I've never used one (knocks on wood).
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 03:29 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NeoteriX[/i]
[B] Look at all the good it has done for Acura. :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
:lol:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Scooby Freak[/i]
[B] I wouldn't of bought a subaru if it wasn't for the SCCA. After watching them autocross, I had to have one. And the membership going with the car just about sold me on a WRX.
Imaging being able to refuse the warranty when buying the car for a discounted price. Everything I buy comes with a warranty, but I've never used one (knocks on wood). [/B][/QUOTE]
I would do it, however I'm sure that they would never actually try this. :(
[B] Look at all the good it has done for Acura. :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
:lol:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Scooby Freak[/i]
[B] I wouldn't of bought a subaru if it wasn't for the SCCA. After watching them autocross, I had to have one. And the membership going with the car just about sold me on a WRX.
Imaging being able to refuse the warranty when buying the car for a discounted price. Everything I buy comes with a warranty, but I've never used one (knocks on wood). [/B][/QUOTE]
I would do it, however I'm sure that they would never actually try this. :(
| Opie | 07-01-2004 03:38 PM |
I don't think I've ever heard of any Subaru warranty being denied for autocrossing. And I also know that Auto-x doesn't automatically mean abuse. I think the comment Ford made is very similar to what Subaru is thinking:
[QUOTE]�Owners can participate in the instructional days without automatically voiding their warranties,� says Ford Performance Vehicles spokesman Alan Hall. [B]�Obviously if they abuse it [the car] on the track, or there�s a part that breaks due to aggressive driving, that will not be covered under warranty. But your warranty will not be voided across the board by just participating in that event.[/B] We don�t automatically void a warranty unless above-normal abuse is shown on a vehicle.�[/QUOTE]
Just because you auto-x you aren't black-listed. But if there is a failure that appears to be abuse, then that part will not be covered by the warranty. I'm also sure that just as any other car manufacturer, Subaru tests each and every component in their vehicles and knows what it takes to cause a failure. And I'd also be willing to bet that many of the parts would never fail unless subjected to some type of abuse, whether it be clutch drops, or curb jumping, lack of maintenance or missed shifts. Chances are if you've had a failure it was due to some type of abuse or neglect done by the driver.
No manufacturer tells you what to do with your vehicle once you've purchased it...what they tell you is the things you can and cannot do if you want the warranty coverage to remain intact. It's spelled out very clearly in your owners manual. I can't for the life of me figure out why so many owners think the warranty covers everything no matter what is done to the vehicle. I can see that it only covers manufacturers defects...nothing else. And the warranty language is the same from any other car brand sold in the U.S., it's nothing new.
I love it when everybody acts like they are being "wronged". :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]�Owners can participate in the instructional days without automatically voiding their warranties,� says Ford Performance Vehicles spokesman Alan Hall. [B]�Obviously if they abuse it [the car] on the track, or there�s a part that breaks due to aggressive driving, that will not be covered under warranty. But your warranty will not be voided across the board by just participating in that event.[/B] We don�t automatically void a warranty unless above-normal abuse is shown on a vehicle.�[/QUOTE]
Just because you auto-x you aren't black-listed. But if there is a failure that appears to be abuse, then that part will not be covered by the warranty. I'm also sure that just as any other car manufacturer, Subaru tests each and every component in their vehicles and knows what it takes to cause a failure. And I'd also be willing to bet that many of the parts would never fail unless subjected to some type of abuse, whether it be clutch drops, or curb jumping, lack of maintenance or missed shifts. Chances are if you've had a failure it was due to some type of abuse or neglect done by the driver.
No manufacturer tells you what to do with your vehicle once you've purchased it...what they tell you is the things you can and cannot do if you want the warranty coverage to remain intact. It's spelled out very clearly in your owners manual. I can't for the life of me figure out why so many owners think the warranty covers everything no matter what is done to the vehicle. I can see that it only covers manufacturers defects...nothing else. And the warranty language is the same from any other car brand sold in the U.S., it's nothing new.
I love it when everybody acts like they are being "wronged". :rolleyes:
| NeoteriX | 07-01-2004 04:01 PM |
Opie,
I think many can agree that the warranty protects a product from manufacturer's defects -- the last car built on a friday, a metal mixture that wasn't formulated correctly, whatever.
I guess the fear though is that, well let me explain through a hypothetical situation.
Let's say that I had a control arm that left the factory defected. For argument's sake, let's say it is set to destruct at 5000 miles. Now, if I drove the car like my grandmother from home to work, never exceeding the speedlimit, shifting below 3k, everyday and it suddenly broke on my commute the experience should be trivial to get the car repaired for warranty work (should being the operative word :) )
Now, let's say I had the same control arm, but this time, in addition to commuting, I autocross regularly. What if I hit that 5000k mark while autocrossing? What if the arm breaks while commuting, but it's just known that I regularly autox? I mean, Subaru dealership could make the argument that autox stresses the suspension components more than normal, and the broken control arm was the result.
I don't forsee a car running into any unsual problems when autocrossing (if done in a non stupid manner), but what if you have a legitimate complaint/warranty issue that is denied because it's known you autocross? Yes, you could fight it in court, but I guess it just sucks that the burden of proof rests on you.
OT: my friend in his automatic integra just started autocrossing. It's not a sportshift, just regular automatic, and he tells me he's downshifting with it. Is that stupid or not?
I think many can agree that the warranty protects a product from manufacturer's defects -- the last car built on a friday, a metal mixture that wasn't formulated correctly, whatever.
I guess the fear though is that, well let me explain through a hypothetical situation.
Let's say that I had a control arm that left the factory defected. For argument's sake, let's say it is set to destruct at 5000 miles. Now, if I drove the car like my grandmother from home to work, never exceeding the speedlimit, shifting below 3k, everyday and it suddenly broke on my commute the experience should be trivial to get the car repaired for warranty work (should being the operative word :) )
Now, let's say I had the same control arm, but this time, in addition to commuting, I autocross regularly. What if I hit that 5000k mark while autocrossing? What if the arm breaks while commuting, but it's just known that I regularly autox? I mean, Subaru dealership could make the argument that autox stresses the suspension components more than normal, and the broken control arm was the result.
I don't forsee a car running into any unsual problems when autocrossing (if done in a non stupid manner), but what if you have a legitimate complaint/warranty issue that is denied because it's known you autocross? Yes, you could fight it in court, but I guess it just sucks that the burden of proof rests on you.
OT: my friend in his automatic integra just started autocrossing. It's not a sportshift, just regular automatic, and he tells me he's downshifting with it. Is that stupid or not?
| AndyRoo | 07-01-2004 04:31 PM |
you know those "skateboarding is not a crime" t-shirts?
they gotta make those for auto x...
they gotta make those for auto x...
| DrBiggly | 07-01-2004 05:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AndyRoo[/i]
[B] you know those "skateboarding is not a crime" t-shirts?
they gotta make those for auto x... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd wear one. :-D
[B] you know those "skateboarding is not a crime" t-shirts?
they gotta make those for auto x... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd wear one. :-D
| Big C | 07-01-2004 05:42 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AndyRoo [/i]
[B]you know those "skateboarding is not a crime" t-shirts?
they gotta make those for auto x... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I had the bumper sticker and still got arrested for tresspassing..LOL
[B]you know those "skateboarding is not a crime" t-shirts?
they gotta make those for auto x... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I had the bumper sticker and still got arrested for tresspassing..LOL
| WReXer | 07-02-2004 12:07 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by robmarch [/i]
[B] If a manufacturer publishes a 0-60 time for their car, how many times are you allowed to try to duplicate it without it being considered abuse? I refuse to accelerate quickly from a stop in my Subaru because I have no idea how many fast starts it can take.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you aren't able to reliably duplicate a MANUFACTURER'S published spec / claim within the warranty period, somebody is getting lied to (ie BS).:eek:
If you were improve the specs with potentially damaging modifications, the manufacturer shouldn't be liable for any warranty related damages since you are exceeding the SPECIFICATONS.
The fun part is proving what mods are damaging. Hope you have a good and sympathetic service writer.
[B] If a manufacturer publishes a 0-60 time for their car, how many times are you allowed to try to duplicate it without it being considered abuse? I refuse to accelerate quickly from a stop in my Subaru because I have no idea how many fast starts it can take.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you aren't able to reliably duplicate a MANUFACTURER'S published spec / claim within the warranty period, somebody is getting lied to (ie BS).:eek:
If you were improve the specs with potentially damaging modifications, the manufacturer shouldn't be liable for any warranty related damages since you are exceeding the SPECIFICATONS.
The fun part is proving what mods are damaging. Hope you have a good and sympathetic service writer.
| robmarch | 07-02-2004 08:56 AM |
My car is stock, but I understand your point.
My point is that autocrossing a stock car explores the limits of (i.e. emergency lane changes, etc), but doesn't exceed, the "normal driving conditions" specificed in the warranty. It's not racing, in that the timing is there to identify whether or not the driver is improving their skills, primarily. The trophies, etc., that are handed out are friendly competition, and encourage drivers to push their own driving skill limits and find the limits of the car.
I also think that drivers, and further the general population, benefits when more drivers take this type of driver education and improve their skills and attentiveness.
My point is that autocrossing a stock car explores the limits of (i.e. emergency lane changes, etc), but doesn't exceed, the "normal driving conditions" specificed in the warranty. It's not racing, in that the timing is there to identify whether or not the driver is improving their skills, primarily. The trophies, etc., that are handed out are friendly competition, and encourage drivers to push their own driving skill limits and find the limits of the car.
I also think that drivers, and further the general population, benefits when more drivers take this type of driver education and improve their skills and attentiveness.
| hockeyguy | 07-04-2004 01:57 PM |
Very interesting thread! My input:
I've got a Cobb Stg II 03 WRX...many different mods in suspension/exhaust/intake/blah blah blah...LOL.
I considered my warranty voided long ago even with only 25K miles on the odo thus far. I'm blowing blue smoke out the back and have purchased another turbo from another NASIOC member...didn't even THINK of asking the dealer to look at it. Another example...I lowered the car with Progress springs...when the stock struts blow, I'm not going to the Suby dealer...it's MY responsibility...whether or not the car was "raced". I modded the car...I pay the price...not brain surgery.
I don't drag race, but if and when my tranny goes I will go to the dealer. They're gonna see my mods and say "denied" and there's not a whole lot I can do about it...no video coverage of my driving exists which would prove my claim...LOL.
Auto-X should be sponsored by the insurance companies!! If EVERYONE in EVERY type of car participated in just ONE auto-X, the streets would be a safer place to drive as the skills and knowledge of your vehicle obtained during a few short runs can help you AVOID an accident, which is better than surviving one! The best airbag is an UNUSED one.
How's it go...You PLAY, you PAY?
Is the Subaru/SCCA marketing campaign deceptive? I don't think so...they're not gonna pay for you modifying or abusing the car...it's a WORKMANSHIP warranty, not a "guarantee".
Just my .02...have a great Suby Day!!!
Mike
I've got a Cobb Stg II 03 WRX...many different mods in suspension/exhaust/intake/blah blah blah...LOL.
I considered my warranty voided long ago even with only 25K miles on the odo thus far. I'm blowing blue smoke out the back and have purchased another turbo from another NASIOC member...didn't even THINK of asking the dealer to look at it. Another example...I lowered the car with Progress springs...when the stock struts blow, I'm not going to the Suby dealer...it's MY responsibility...whether or not the car was "raced". I modded the car...I pay the price...not brain surgery.
I don't drag race, but if and when my tranny goes I will go to the dealer. They're gonna see my mods and say "denied" and there's not a whole lot I can do about it...no video coverage of my driving exists which would prove my claim...LOL.
Auto-X should be sponsored by the insurance companies!! If EVERYONE in EVERY type of car participated in just ONE auto-X, the streets would be a safer place to drive as the skills and knowledge of your vehicle obtained during a few short runs can help you AVOID an accident, which is better than surviving one! The best airbag is an UNUSED one.
How's it go...You PLAY, you PAY?
Is the Subaru/SCCA marketing campaign deceptive? I don't think so...they're not gonna pay for you modifying or abusing the car...it's a WORKMANSHIP warranty, not a "guarantee".
Just my .02...have a great Suby Day!!!
Mike
| Butt Dyno | 07-06-2004 02:28 AM |
There are lots of crappy dealerships out there. There are lots of crappy dealerships for EVERY brand of car. There was a thread on here not too long ago about how Porsche owners with the $15K ceramic brake systems were frying them at track days and Porsche dealers were telling them "you can't track the car and expect us to fix your brakes". And that's a brake system that costs more than most of our cars are worth.
Anyway, don't hold a bad dealership against Subaru. If I had to decide between an STi and an Evo I would factor in the dealerships as a big part of the decision. Fortunately I have a kickass Subaru dealership really nearby...
Fundamentally though, this article isn't news. No manufacturer is going to step up and say "we black flag you for autocross". Every car company's [i]official[/i] position on this is pretty much the same.
john
Anyway, don't hold a bad dealership against Subaru. If I had to decide between an STi and an Evo I would factor in the dealerships as a big part of the decision. Fortunately I have a kickass Subaru dealership really nearby...
Fundamentally though, this article isn't news. No manufacturer is going to step up and say "we black flag you for autocross". Every car company's [i]official[/i] position on this is pretty much the same.
john
| robmarch | 07-06-2004 09:36 AM |
I agree, hockeyguy, that insurance companies should give discounts or sponsor autocross as driver education. Knowing the limitations of a vehicle, as well as having confidence in your car to not panic in "panic" situations is the biggest outcome of autocross. That and "looking ahead."
combine this with the fact that the courses are designed to be below the speed limit, and you have a safe situation where you can learn the limits of your vehicle without causing undue stress on the vehicle.
I agree with your argument with the "mod" issue too, but don't think autocrossing a stock car is abusive, and think that it should have no bearing on warranty whatsoever.
combine this with the fact that the courses are designed to be below the speed limit, and you have a safe situation where you can learn the limits of your vehicle without causing undue stress on the vehicle.
I agree with your argument with the "mod" issue too, but don't think autocrossing a stock car is abusive, and think that it should have no bearing on warranty whatsoever.
| robmarch | 07-06-2004 09:39 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ButtDyno [/i]
[B]Fundamentally though, this article isn't news. No manufacturer is going to step up and say "we black flag you for autocross". Every car company's [i]official[/i] position on this is pretty much the same. [/B][/QUOTE]
Mitsubishi pretty much said that in the article, in that they stated that they considered autocross racing, and that if they saw [b]any[/b] evidence of racing, they would deny warranty coverage.
the guy may have been abusing the car, and he may have deserved to have his warranty voided. I can't believe one autocross could damage the connecting rods and turbo any more than you could on the street, though.
[B]Fundamentally though, this article isn't news. No manufacturer is going to step up and say "we black flag you for autocross". Every car company's [i]official[/i] position on this is pretty much the same. [/B][/QUOTE]
Mitsubishi pretty much said that in the article, in that they stated that they considered autocross racing, and that if they saw [b]any[/b] evidence of racing, they would deny warranty coverage.
the guy may have been abusing the car, and he may have deserved to have his warranty voided. I can't believe one autocross could damage the connecting rods and turbo any more than you could on the street, though.
| Butt Dyno | 07-06-2004 09:57 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by robmarch [/i]
[B]Mitsubishi pretty much said that in the article, in that they stated that they considered autocross racing, and that if they saw [b]any[/b] evidence of racing, they would deny warranty coverage.[/b][/quote]Yeah, but, that's not preemptive. My point is, every car company says "go ahead, but if it looks like you screwed something up at an autocross, we aren't covering it". The article did say "racing damage" not "racing". Ultimately Mitsu's official position on this and Subaru's are the same...
Mitsu: .Autocrossing, or timed competition, is classified under the warranty terms as racing. It.s difficult for us to know if you.re out there racing, but if there is evidence of racing damage, we.re going to look into it and you may have warranty restrictions placed on certain parts of the vehicle..
Subaru: .If the damage looks to be racing related, you.re not going to be covered,. says Subaru spokeswoman Larkin Hill. .We don.t want to punish the person who goes out once in a while and autocrosses.and that shouldn.t cause any problems with the car anyway. However, autocross is considered competition and the warranty does not cover abusive driving or competition. If you.re out there racing every weekend, you can.t expect us to fund it..
I dunno why that copy pasted funny.. but you get the jist.
john
[B]Mitsubishi pretty much said that in the article, in that they stated that they considered autocross racing, and that if they saw [b]any[/b] evidence of racing, they would deny warranty coverage.[/b][/quote]Yeah, but, that's not preemptive. My point is, every car company says "go ahead, but if it looks like you screwed something up at an autocross, we aren't covering it". The article did say "racing damage" not "racing". Ultimately Mitsu's official position on this and Subaru's are the same...
Mitsu: .Autocrossing, or timed competition, is classified under the warranty terms as racing. It.s difficult for us to know if you.re out there racing, but if there is evidence of racing damage, we.re going to look into it and you may have warranty restrictions placed on certain parts of the vehicle..
Subaru: .If the damage looks to be racing related, you.re not going to be covered,. says Subaru spokeswoman Larkin Hill. .We don.t want to punish the person who goes out once in a while and autocrosses.and that shouldn.t cause any problems with the car anyway. However, autocross is considered competition and the warranty does not cover abusive driving or competition. If you.re out there racing every weekend, you can.t expect us to fund it..
I dunno why that copy pasted funny.. but you get the jist.
john
| KC | 07-06-2004 10:26 AM |
Getting back to the original point....
Why was there a restriction on the Mitsu owners car before he brought it in for warranty service?
--kC
Why was there a restriction on the Mitsu owners car before he brought it in for warranty service?
--kC
| robmarch | 07-06-2004 10:40 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Getting back to the original point....
Why was there a restriction on the Mitsu owners car before he brought it in for warranty service?
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly. if they inspected it, saw damage, then concluded it was from abuse, that would be fine. the article makes it appear that the warranty exception was for "racing" and that it was preemptive to the warranty service. All at the same time Mitsubishi is advertising the fact that their warranty is superior to other companies.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent for the industry, and it has to be extremely seductive to the warranty accountants.
There's a big, meaningful distinction between [COLOR=green]inspecting a part and concluding that it failed due to abuse[/color], and [COLOR=red]putting a mark on someone's record that they participate in a racing event, and allowing service technicians to deny warranty work without even inspecting the damage to verify that it was caused by abuse.[/COLOR]
[B]Getting back to the original point....
Why was there a restriction on the Mitsu owners car before he brought it in for warranty service?
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly. if they inspected it, saw damage, then concluded it was from abuse, that would be fine. the article makes it appear that the warranty exception was for "racing" and that it was preemptive to the warranty service. All at the same time Mitsubishi is advertising the fact that their warranty is superior to other companies.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent for the industry, and it has to be extremely seductive to the warranty accountants.
There's a big, meaningful distinction between [COLOR=green]inspecting a part and concluding that it failed due to abuse[/color], and [COLOR=red]putting a mark on someone's record that they participate in a racing event, and allowing service technicians to deny warranty work without even inspecting the damage to verify that it was caused by abuse.[/COLOR]
| DrBiggly | 07-06-2004 11:14 AM |
Robmarch,
I agree. I hope that Mitsubishi will be on a boat by themselves on this.
I agree. I hope that Mitsubishi will be on a boat by themselves on this.
| robmarch | 07-06-2004 12:38 PM |
I think now would be a good time to let your favorite manufacturers how you feel about autocross and your warranty.
I sent a short letter saying pretty much what I've rambled about here, that it's good driver training, explores, but doesn't exceed, the normal limits of the stock car under warranty, and that the timing isn't for determining a winner or prizes, primarily, but to track whether a driver is improving from run to run, and encouraging them to raise their own limits.
I'm not sure how the warranty treats a defensive driving school, or the like, which would place similar limits on the car, with higher expense to the driver. Do they void the warranties of the long term test vehicles that the magazines do instrumented tests on? That seems like harsher abuse, and it's definitely timed and compared to other magazines results, which could be construed as racing too.
Voiding a warranty for learning the limits of your car and it's emergency reactions in a safe environment just doesn't feel right to me. Politely letting Subaru know how their performance buyers feel about the issue will help them set their future policy in the matter.
I sent a short letter saying pretty much what I've rambled about here, that it's good driver training, explores, but doesn't exceed, the normal limits of the stock car under warranty, and that the timing isn't for determining a winner or prizes, primarily, but to track whether a driver is improving from run to run, and encouraging them to raise their own limits.
I'm not sure how the warranty treats a defensive driving school, or the like, which would place similar limits on the car, with higher expense to the driver. Do they void the warranties of the long term test vehicles that the magazines do instrumented tests on? That seems like harsher abuse, and it's definitely timed and compared to other magazines results, which could be construed as racing too.
Voiding a warranty for learning the limits of your car and it's emergency reactions in a safe environment just doesn't feel right to me. Politely letting Subaru know how their performance buyers feel about the issue will help them set their future policy in the matter.
| AndyRoo | 07-06-2004 01:14 PM |
let us know if they void your warranty ;)
| Opie | 07-06-2004 08:11 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by robmarch [/i]
[B]I agree with your argument with the "mod" issue too, but don't think autocrossing a stock car is abusive, and think that it should have no bearing on warranty whatsoever. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have one issue with this statement...autocrossing really isn't the issue, abusive driving is. A driver/owner can abuse their vehicle just as quickly at an autocross as they car driving to work. It IMHO all depends on the individual drivers habits, drivers with good habits have few problems, drivers with no-so-good habits do and the warranty specifically covers defects...not abuse.
Cliif notes:
I agree autocrossers should not be "blacklisted" just for the fact that they autocross..
I also agree that some autocrossers (and some drivers) are abusive to their cars and that shouldn't be covered if this abuse is documented.
[B]I agree with your argument with the "mod" issue too, but don't think autocrossing a stock car is abusive, and think that it should have no bearing on warranty whatsoever. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have one issue with this statement...autocrossing really isn't the issue, abusive driving is. A driver/owner can abuse their vehicle just as quickly at an autocross as they car driving to work. It IMHO all depends on the individual drivers habits, drivers with good habits have few problems, drivers with no-so-good habits do and the warranty specifically covers defects...not abuse.
Cliif notes:
I agree autocrossers should not be "blacklisted" just for the fact that they autocross..
I also agree that some autocrossers (and some drivers) are abusive to their cars and that shouldn't be covered if this abuse is documented.
| robmarch | 07-07-2004 10:26 AM |
100% agreed. abusive driving is abusive driving. I've tried to make this point also, that the abuse issue should be considered completely independently of the autocross issue.
which goes back to the question of how many times should you be able to test your car's 0-60 time or quarter mile time or skidpad or slalom speed, etc., without voiding the warranty?
My personal belief on the matter is that you should be able to drop the clutch on a performance car at a reasonable RPM and the wear should be on the tires and the clutch, both wear items, and both items that the driver should pay to replace more often with more aggressive driving. AWD makes it tough, but the WRX clutch release delay valve is an example of a measure that can be taken to preserve the tranny at the expense of the clutch. Having said that, I've never done a clutch drop on any car I've driven or owned, and haven't launched the STi hard at all.
ps...AndyRoo - I'm going to go back to autocrossing the Altima (160k miles and no warranty;)) and look to switch into a different vehicle for the subaru challenge, possibly. I have some friends with cars that I could probably drive that don't have the same warranty concerns.
I believe and trust that the event organizers aren't going to be recording VIN's or looking for ways to void warranties. I have an extended warranty to protect, though, and have kept the car bone stock (minus all weather floormats :P) and plan to do so until the warranty expires.
which goes back to the question of how many times should you be able to test your car's 0-60 time or quarter mile time or skidpad or slalom speed, etc., without voiding the warranty?
My personal belief on the matter is that you should be able to drop the clutch on a performance car at a reasonable RPM and the wear should be on the tires and the clutch, both wear items, and both items that the driver should pay to replace more often with more aggressive driving. AWD makes it tough, but the WRX clutch release delay valve is an example of a measure that can be taken to preserve the tranny at the expense of the clutch. Having said that, I've never done a clutch drop on any car I've driven or owned, and haven't launched the STi hard at all.
ps...AndyRoo - I'm going to go back to autocrossing the Altima (160k miles and no warranty;)) and look to switch into a different vehicle for the subaru challenge, possibly. I have some friends with cars that I could probably drive that don't have the same warranty concerns.
I believe and trust that the event organizers aren't going to be recording VIN's or looking for ways to void warranties. I have an extended warranty to protect, though, and have kept the car bone stock (minus all weather floormats :P) and plan to do so until the warranty expires.
| Phlash23 | 07-08-2004 01:19 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Opie [/i]
[B]...autocrossing really isn't the issue, abusive driving is. A driver/owner can abuse their vehicle just as quickly at an autocross as they car driving to work. It IMHO all depends on the individual drivers habits, drivers with good habits have few problems, drivers with no-so-good habits do and the warranty specifically covers defects...not abuse.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to chime in here and agree with Opie. Warranties are for defects, not the defects driving the car. I am good friends with the current owner of his old RS. I saw Opie drive the hell out of that car at several auto-x's and the car, with 80k on the clock, is one of the cleanest, most tight cars around. Did he auto-x the car- yes, did he abuse it-NO. There is probably marginaly more wear and tear on the car than if he drove it like my 81-year-old grandmother drives her Buick, but it wasn't abused.
Is what Mitsu reportedly doing wrong? In my opinion yes and it just may come back to bite them in the butt. I know several Subaru owners who had legitmate problems with their trannys and they got fixed and others who "abused" their cars and were denied.
You have to pay to play.
-M
[B]...autocrossing really isn't the issue, abusive driving is. A driver/owner can abuse their vehicle just as quickly at an autocross as they car driving to work. It IMHO all depends on the individual drivers habits, drivers with good habits have few problems, drivers with no-so-good habits do and the warranty specifically covers defects...not abuse.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to chime in here and agree with Opie. Warranties are for defects, not the defects driving the car. I am good friends with the current owner of his old RS. I saw Opie drive the hell out of that car at several auto-x's and the car, with 80k on the clock, is one of the cleanest, most tight cars around. Did he auto-x the car- yes, did he abuse it-NO. There is probably marginaly more wear and tear on the car than if he drove it like my 81-year-old grandmother drives her Buick, but it wasn't abused.
Is what Mitsu reportedly doing wrong? In my opinion yes and it just may come back to bite them in the butt. I know several Subaru owners who had legitmate problems with their trannys and they got fixed and others who "abused" their cars and were denied.
You have to pay to play.
-M
| robmarch | 07-08-2004 08:47 AM |
the downside comes when a defect is blamed on abuse, when the car wasn't abused.
How do you blow a turbo autocrossing, for example?
How do you blow a turbo autocrossing, for example?
| Jon Bogert | 07-08-2004 09:42 AM |
[QUOTE]the downside comes when a defect is blamed on abuse, when the car wasn't abused. [/QUOTE]
This has been your point all along, and it's a good one. You could make the same point about mods. Maybe the answer is that you should put a few thousand miles on your new car, through several oil changes, before you do anything non-approved to it? Once you're confident that you don't have a lemon, then you can cut loose with the understanding that it's very likely that if something breaks--you were the cause. :)
This has been your point all along, and it's a good one. You could make the same point about mods. Maybe the answer is that you should put a few thousand miles on your new car, through several oil changes, before you do anything non-approved to it? Once you're confident that you don't have a lemon, then you can cut loose with the understanding that it's very likely that if something breaks--you were the cause. :)
| robmarch | 07-08-2004 09:54 AM |
definitely :) this isn't really as much for me, as I've decided to keep the car stock until my warranty (and extended warranty) expires, and I have another car to autocross. My STi has 6000ish miles on it in the year I've owned it. That extended warranty is going to last a long time ;)
I'd just really like to see Subaru and other manufacturers move autocrossing a stock car into the approved column, while still holding their ground on mods and abuse.
I'd just really like to see Subaru and other manufacturers move autocrossing a stock car into the approved column, while still holding their ground on mods and abuse.
| Porter | 07-11-2004 11:14 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrBiggly [/i]
[B]I assume my vehicle has no warranty as I think Subaru's warranty is relatively useless. I've heard of too many denials to even want to waste my time dealing with it. Perhaps if it were something rather mundane like the A/C system or an electic window motor or what have you I'd consider it, but overall I think Subaru shouldn't really bother to offer much warranty and stop selling the extended warranty; they won't honor it anyway.
I can't think of a time that I've heard of anyone getting warranty work done when it was deserved.
~
The Subaru warranty is a waste of my time. I'll enjoy my autocrossing and not worry about it. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
You couldn't be more wrong. Subaru Added Security basically gives you coverage that makes the SoA regional reps MUCH more likely to cover a failure, regardless of the situation. I've seen some pretty wild stuff covered under warranty in the last year... ;) Cars that I wouldn't have dreamed of covering under warranty, yet Subaru stepped up and took care of the customer.
I guess my point is that everybody has an anecdote about somebody who got screwed... in my experience those situations are 99% created by the dealership in question.
[B]I assume my vehicle has no warranty as I think Subaru's warranty is relatively useless. I've heard of too many denials to even want to waste my time dealing with it. Perhaps if it were something rather mundane like the A/C system or an electic window motor or what have you I'd consider it, but overall I think Subaru shouldn't really bother to offer much warranty and stop selling the extended warranty; they won't honor it anyway.
I can't think of a time that I've heard of anyone getting warranty work done when it was deserved.
~
The Subaru warranty is a waste of my time. I'll enjoy my autocrossing and not worry about it. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
You couldn't be more wrong. Subaru Added Security basically gives you coverage that makes the SoA regional reps MUCH more likely to cover a failure, regardless of the situation. I've seen some pretty wild stuff covered under warranty in the last year... ;) Cars that I wouldn't have dreamed of covering under warranty, yet Subaru stepped up and took care of the customer.
I guess my point is that everybody has an anecdote about somebody who got screwed... in my experience those situations are 99% created by the dealership in question.
| DrBiggly | 07-11-2004 11:43 AM |
My car actually has the "extended coverage" or what have you on it. No idea when that runs out; it's probably gone by now regardless. :p
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét