" love responding, can't you tell?

Would you like to provide any evidence at all to your specific claim of a 40% survival rate for Mitsu in the US?

Lets be serious, the US is Mitsu's second largest market, if they pull out of the US they are done anyway (which is now not a likely scenario).

Please dont let your personal bitterness toward Mitsu (which may indeed be justified) blind you from the reality of the situation."

I don't have any personal bitterness. It's a ****ty company, that is well documented, and with the ever mounting difficulties, ie, dipping sales, arrests, etc... they are not inching any closer to survival. Granted my offering up 40% was an arbitrary figure, and to further add, only my opinion. It makes no matter to me. I'll keep the Evo because I like it, but my next car will be a Skyline or Porsche...I'm sure both of those companies will have long productive corporate lives.

Percy

 

I just had to pop in after reading through all this. I think Mitsu's conduct towards it's EVO owners is outrageous. This car is obviously developed and marketed for motorsports enthusiasts. As an autocross participant, I can definitely say without a doubt I put more stress on my car Mon-Sat than I do on the odd Sunday.

In addition, autocrossers and racers in general have to be, as a group, the most competent and particular people possible when in comes to care and maintenance of their vehicles.

Other manufacturers go as far as to pay contingency money for winning drivers representing their brand. Here is a link for a company that really knows how to support it's enthusiast owners, and Mitsubishi should really take note and rethink this fatally misguided policy.

http://www.miniusa.com/link/motoron/...ngtoday/owners

Mitsubishi would give these people a kick in the nuts rather than a pat on the back

Here is another link for BMW, who not only recognizes motorsport but actually puts on and sponsors the events...

http://www.bmwusa.com/Joy/EventsandPrograms/UDE/

I am going to this event next Sunday, and they may very well sell me on a BMW as my next vehicle, if for nothing else, their clear understanding of the intended use of "The Ultimate Driving Machine"

 

Here's an update:
1. I haven't heard anything back from . I called the infamous customer service line to inquire about arbitration, but after 57 minutes ... I gave up.

2. I have done several interviews with auto focused magazines. In a discussion with one writer today, he mentioned that claims that they are not proactively searching the Internet for event registration and results. is also claiming that they're not voiding warranties, but rather just putting "warranty restrictions" on vehicle service records -- then evaluating warranty coverage on a claim by claim basis. The story tells sure does change depending on who they talk to!

The facts:

• Car participated in an SCCA Solo 2 event on 16-May. This was 6 runs around a cone course set up in a parking lot. Each run was about 54 seconds each (1st & 2nd gear), spaced out with about 10 minutes between each run.
  
• Motor started making a bad noise on 29-May and was towed to dealer
  
• district service manager indicated to dealer and to me that all warranty work on motor and drive train is denied do to participation in SCCA event on 16-May. When asked explicity whether any future repairs for motor and drive train would be covered the answer was an emphatic no from both the district service manager and customer service rep I spoke to later. Even after ALL repairs for this incident are covered by me, I'm told that no warranty repair will be covered by . With all that agreed to, neither person would admit that the Evo warranty had been voided. It's a painful game of symantics. FYI -- Dealer provides a 12 month 12,000 mile warranty on the specific work they did.
  
• The auto press have taken notice of this thread and the many similar threads that have started on other boards such as sccaforums about this. It seems very likely that there will be coverage of this in the coming weeks. I hope there is. This is an issue that warrants coverage.

Most seem to be surprised that 6 minutes of autocrossing at one SCCA Solo 2 event is enough to void the warranty on the Evo motor and drive train. I remain convinced that the Evo saw far more abuse during its initial 179 miles put on the car before I purchased it "new". I'm an idiot for not insisting on purchasing NEW car with the typical 6 to 8 miles on it.

-Michael

 

I guess with Mitsu's disgusting choice of action on this matter, they deserve to have the flood waters opened up on them.

Sorry Mitsu, you made your bed, now you get to lay in it. I hope all those who decided along this course of action get fired and names mentioned so future attempts at employment might be as difficult as deserved for such bad decisions.

 

Irregardless of the warrany definition, they must prove that the specific event caused the specific damage. They must prove that the Evolution is not designed to withstand 40 to 60 seconds of cone bashing. Isn't that ironic? I wonder if that will be in the next brochure?


Speedlimit..

 

Unfortunately, it seems like the complete burden of making this happen is on the individual consumer. I keep hearing and reading that must prove that it was the SCCA event that caused the damage, yet getting from here to there with this seems like a very long and painful process.

I can see why most, like racerferrari, simply give up and move on.

 

Is the Evo off warranty on the whole engine if u make a single mod to it

 

I really hope that this gets to a wide audience. The same nonsense that is going on in their home market is taking place here...it’s all a big cover up to save money. However, they forget that customer service is an important factor in making money.

 

Hi,

There are many threads on mods and warranty so please use the search button for additional info. We are asking members to keep this thread specifically on the topic of warranty denials as a direct result of participation in SCCA events. Thanks.

Speedlimit...

 

I somewhat disagree. I don't think this has anything to do with SCCA events. Many other car clubs organize SoloII (autox) events and they are all practically the same. It just happened that the original person was at an SCCA autox event.

I think for the most part almost everyone here is fair and reosoneable. No one is asking for anything that is out of the ordinary. I think the main issue here is that other car manufacturers are suporting and encouraging participation of entry-level motorsports activities such as SoloI and SoloII. Other manufacturers are being neutral and are not being stupid about it. However, Mitsu decided to be not like the others - it is their right. They decided to be completely on the other end of the spectrum and void warranties for participation in the above events. I think this is what is unacceptable to us (the customers) and I think this is what this thread is about.

I'm sure we would have no problems to agree that:
1) Solo I, Solo II and DE (Driver Education) should not void warranty - especially in the novice and stock classifications. For the majority of the participants it is just for people to get to know their car in a safe environment, they only go out once or twice a year. You really need to be an experienced driver to put stress on the car in these events and by the time you get good enough to do that, you would mod the car and void the warranty (for the related components) anyway. The EVO was advertised for such activities - a damn good sprts car.
2) Drag Strip racing is very hard on the drivetrain. Mitsu did not advertise this car as a drag racer. Therefore drag racing should void drivetrain warranty.
3) Any type of Track Racing (other than Solo I) should void warranty. Like others have said, Mitsu is not your sponsor.
4) Any sort of Rally Cross or Rallying should void warranty... as we all know, there is plenty of extra stresses the second you go off road.
5) I think we could all agree that the new sport (uhm, ugh) of drifting should also void warranty, I'd say it is at the same level of stress as drag racing?

 

Very good points xtnct!
When I bought my Evo they sales person stressed that "this is not any ordinary car!" I thought I understood what he was talking about...you don't even have to take part in an event for them to put a warranty restriction on the car. As long as you are not the editors of a major magazine trashing your car, you are doomed!

 

xtnct,

The thread was started based upon voiding warranty at an SCCA event and the discussion can certainly expand to other organized events. I don't think most who have an interest in this issue (actual participants in SCCA or other organized events) want to wade through 26 posts asking "if I add a turbo timer does that void my warranty?" Thats all. And I agree with everything else you said.

Speedlimit..

 

Hahaha, the really funny thing is that I drive a Toyota.

 

You would expect Mitsu to just throw up its hands and fix anything and everything?

If you have a complaint then pursue it, if you dont wish to pursue it then you get what you deserve.

I suppose you can believe what you want, but this issue (and its 100,000 views or whatever [have you considered that almost all of those views are from the same people over and over again?]) is a mere drop in the bucket. In fact I would not be surprised in the least if this was a dealer issue and had nothing to do with Mitsu corporate.

The wild eyed claims that have been made in this thread are just that, claims. There has been one or two claimed occurances, and I'm sorry, but we dont even know the whole story behind those claims.

This is just like when people where saying that Mitsu was doing to shut down. It was very "chicken little" then, and it is very "chicken little" now.

 

These idiotic comments about it most likely being a dealer issue are tiresome. Several have mentioned it. NO one has explained why it is most likely a dealer rather than a issue. Can you explain to me why a dealer would ever have an issue covering a warranty claim? A dealer has ZERO motivation or incentive to deny a claim. The dollars to cover a warranty repair are paid from the manufacturer to the dealer. That is why manufacturers have employees such as district service managers whose job it is to review and approve all substantional warranty claims.

Are you implying that this is the only incident of denying a warranty claim? If so, you may actually want to read the topical posts -- you can skip the ones like yours -- in this thread and others on the forum.