Just joined this site and wanted to say that reading these last 16 pages and 230 messages has made me totally reconsider buying an EVO vs. and STI or SRT-4.
I got this thread from a San Francisco Bay Area Auto Cross list and the dude there got it from a Porsche list.
I will not buy an EVO that is still under warranty at this rate, unless I get a stupidly killer deal, at which point I'll assume the car is NOT under warranty. AND I would only do this through private party channels. Won't touch a Mitsu dealer with a 10-foot pole. They can cry, "not us!" all they want.... as long as Mitsu corporate can arbitrarily keep the dealers from honoring warranties on low mileage cone-dodging EVOs, those same dealers get NONE of my business.
Showed this thread to two car buffs at work today. When I mentioned the thread and the problems that have been brought up, they vehemently (SP?) denied that anything like this could happen. After argueing my case for about 10 minutes, I finally just Emailed them the link to this thread. Not that they were EVO-minded to begin with, but they just left my work area after stating that it seems that I'm not blowing smoke. Yep, this is definately bad juju for Mitsu.

MSM_S2K, could you please provide a link to a scan of your warranty flag or any written info that you have? Block out anything you don't want known by the masses. This would just help to corroborate your statements to the nay-sayers on this thread.

Regardless of what has been said here and elsewhere, I do not believe that a warranty should be voided due to autocrossing or participating in a non-racing driving school with a stock car that is within its warranty mileage.

Oh, and ringthree, I agree with you:
MSM_S2K should screw the bastards!!!
---------Andymon

 

FYI, original thread here: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=85595 (Not sure why this thread was not yet merged to here?)

Cut and Paste from: http://media.mitsubishicars.com/deta...60287&mime=ASC

Statement On Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Warranty
June 18, 2004 -- Cypress, Calif. --
Mitsubishi Motors and our dealers strive to be reasonable in evaluating each customer' s vehicle that is brought into a dealership for a possible warrantable condition in order to provide excellent customer service. We give the benefit of the doubt to everyone and appreciate their respect for the terms and conditions of our warranty. Mitsubishi does not have any automated web search system looking for Lancer Evolutions involved in race events. This is absolutely false.

Mitsubishi clearly states in its Owner's Warranty and Maintenance booklet that problems or failures related to racing, alteration and/or vehicle modifications are not covered conditions. This policy is standard throughout the automotive industry, and is even less restrictive than some manufacturer warranties, such as BMW and Subaru, that prohibit operating a vehicle in any type of competitive event.

If a Lancer Evolution is brought to Mitsubishi Motors dealer for a diagnosis as to a possible warrantable condition and the dealer determines that modifications were made that may have caused the problem, or could be instrumental in causing future problems, the repair will not be covered. The dealer and if necessary, MMNA staff, investigate each case, always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt. If the dealer does indeed find that serious vehicle modifications have been made that relate to a vehicle problem and/or damages, then it is possible that a restriction will be placed on that vehicle's warranty coverage as it relates to the specific modification, damaged component(s) and impacted vehicle systems. The entire vehicle warranty is not voided.

 

Funny, I get "cannot find server" when I hit the link. Wonder if they are modifying the site or getting clobbered. Anybody else having this problem?
---------Andymon

 

Hahahahaah. Official Word from Mitsu on this. Some people must realize how much blood they're losing from shooting themselves in the foot. They point out "failures related to racing", but is driving around cones in a parking lot in a SCCA STOCK class racing? I sure hpoe not, becuase the daily "race" has much more stress and wear on a car than the 6 minutes of dodging cones in a parking lot.

How can they deny this.. When someone walks in the dealership and is told they're warranty is already void becuase of results on a web page, how else is that proactive warranty voiding?

Does Mitsu really think a press release will make this go away? They should be promoting the Evo the way BMW, Porsche and Subaru do by inviting owners out to sponsored track and autocross events.. Instead they pull this and try to cover with a press release. Talk about digging the hole deeper.

Mitsu has about 1 option. Clearly define racing. And if running in a stock class around cones is their definition of racing, they don't have a clue the height of the cliff they are jumping off of, nor the depth of the waters they are plunging into, as if that matters due to the pointy rocks and sharks in the water..

I hope they resolve this using more than the cumulative 6 brain cells they usually use before the MR shows up. MR - Mitsubishi Racing - Haha If that isn't the irony of all ironies. I wonder if just having the MR badge since it's a "Racing" bade voids your warranty.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

has time to do press releases about this, but no one has time to talk with me about it. Lot's of claims of interest in providing excellent customer service and "...always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt," but consider the contrast of these statements with my situation:
1. Warranty restriction
- According to warranty restriction was placed on my car on 16-May
- First trip to the dealer service dept ever was on 29-May. Dealer was closed so their first look at the car was on 1-June.
- I would expect that "... always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt" would include at least taking a look at the car to determine what was wrong and whether or not the failure was more likely based on mfg defect of customer abuse.
- It took 4 days before I was able to finally speak with the District Service Manager. At which point, I was once again told that a Warrant Restriction on the motor & drive train including transmission was placed on the car because my son and me participated in an SCCA Solo 2 event.
- At this point NO one had even taken a look at the motor. The dealer started the Evo and came to the same conclusion we did ... "sounds serious". That was the extent of the diagnosis that went into giving us the benefit of the doubt.

No benefit of the doubt in my case. No one even bothered to try to listen to my perspective on the situation. In trying to get an explanation from the District Service Manager and to explain my perspective, I was told very succinctly that it wasn't his decision and there was no point in discussing it further.

Warranty work was denied for my Evo before the dealer even diagnosed the issue with the motor. No benefit of the doubt. No discussion. Awful customer service. No explanation other than to say "warranty restriction due to customer abuse" with the proof of abuse being the Solo 2 event results -- 6 minutes of driving around in a parking lot around cones in 1st and 2nd gear.

2. Warranty coverage
"Mitsubishi clearly states in its Owner's Warranty and Maintenance booklet that problems or failures related to racing, alteration and/or vehicle modifications are not covered conditions."

provides no definition of what constitutes racing. Does getting on the throttle and a green light when next to a Mustang mean racing? I would assume not. Does participating in an SCCA event which by definition and enforcement by safety stewards is:

The National Solo Rules, SCCA (2004) say:

Rule 1.6

A Category II Solo Event is a non-speed driving skill contest such as, but not limited to, autocrosses and slaloms. These events are run on short courses that emphasize the Driver's ability and the car's handling and agility. Competition licenses are not reuqired and hazards to spectators, participants and property do not exceed those encountered in normal, legal highway driving.


I would also assume this is not racing. Wanting to know for sure, I claried such with the dealer before purchase of the Evo. Lesson learned -- next time get it in writing ... and yes I'm an idiot for not doing so, but this is the first time in my 43 years that I've EVER had a warranty issue.

3. Modifications
simply ignores the question of the definition of racing and focuses on modification. Would I expect a dealer to cover an issue related to an aftermarket turbo or any other modification? I don't. It's also completely irrelevant to this situation as the car was and is absolutely stock.

With no modification to the vehicle whatsoever, I have been told that the Warranty Restriction on my Evo means that will not cover ANY repairs to the motor or drivetrain including transmission PERIOD. I clarified this with every person I spoke with and received the same answer. Even after the $8 thousand in repairs that I paid for out of pocket, will not remove the warranty restriction. The ONLY warranty on the motor & drive train now is the 12 month dealer warranty for the specific work they did. That's it. If would like to clarify this with me in writing, I will gladly post the clarification here.

Two rods on a Mitsubishi Evo failed with only 3,070 miles on the car. That's unacceptable product quality, which is not standing behind. I do not believe that the 6 minutes of SCCA Solo 2 had anything whatsoever to do with the failure. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusion. My intent with this and other posts is to make others aware.

-Michael

 

Someone asked me to post a scan of the Vehicle Service Inquiry (see below). There is not much of anything in these of interest. Only relevant item is the entry at the top of the page that says "!!! Warr Restrict: (M) Customer Abused !!! No entry in the Vehicle Service inquiry about when, why and how the restriction was put in place. As I mentioned in my previous posts, it was only through conversations with the dealer, the customer service line and primarily directly with the District Service Manager that I was able to get any info. I was told that the (M) refers to Mitsu/mfg ... but the service guy who told me that wasn't completely certain.

If anyone has any questions or would like to talk with me personally about this, pls feel free to PM me on evolutionm.



You'll notice in the claim history that there were a couple of warranty claims before I bought the vehicle. One is for paint, not sure what the other is for. When I purchased the car new from the dealer, it had 179 miles on it. When I bought the car, not only wasn't I told that SCCA would void the warranty ... I was assured that the car had never had any body or paint work! Which once I saw this ... was also clearly a misrepresentation.

 

Thanks for the clarification. That certainly clears up whats going on in a concise manner. And it looks like Mitsus press release still has quite a few mistakes/hidden meanings/flat out intended mistruths. With the recent arrests of Mitsu Officials, I wonder which one of those three people view will view this as.

 

Thanks Mister. I neglected to mention that the person from Autoweek that interviewed me told me that they are definitely doing an article. I gave him all the info that I had including the contact names and phone numbers for the dealer and customer service.

It would be nice to see someone from press get a definition from for racing. I'd also be interested in take on how 6 minutes of parking lot driving at an SCCA event caused two rods to fail on an Evo with 3,070 miles on it!

 

Did it die at the event, or did you get it home okay and drive it for a while before the engine trouble?

 

I hope they also include the non disclosure of damage to the vehicle prior to purchase, and how much abuse was done to the car during the first 150 miles prior to purchase.

I imagine most of the neglect was done by the dealership itself. WIth that many miles on a *new* Evo and undisclosed paint repair, I'd say their character is poor enough to probably have abused the car. And then to claim the use of the car in cone dodging is grounds for warranty denial is beyond ludicrous. Most autocrosses I've driven with keep their cas so well maintained they're motors go 150k miles and only on the rarest occasions do they need warranty work. Every time I am aware one has had a failure it has been from a defect. Never from neglect or abuse. On the same note, I know of plenty of cars at dealerships that get completely abused and fail prior to ever being sold, some on test drives, and some when the new owner attempts to drive it home. I've heard all sorts of stories. From all this I've found 1. Dealerships tend to be the place more damage is done to customer cars then any daily driving or autocrossing. 2. Autocrossers know smooth and proper driving is critical to reliability and success.

Good luck, especially after that press release, Mitsu deserves an incredible amount of press on this. They want people to know about things they have press releases on, right? I thought so.

 

Not to be harsh or anything, but are you serious? May 16th car is driven in a parking lot. May 29th it goes in for warranty work.. Nearly two weeks there. When you have a question try listening closer, or rereading..

 

No need to hold yourself back... Just seeking clarification. This thread is cross-posted everywhere, and the thread now is so long and screwed up the details get lost around page 8.

Just trying to figure out the timeline and how many miles...

Finally found the owner's post on page 15.

 

I half agree with you, but I think you don't see half the story either. The Evo is not a drag racing car and hard starts are particularly abusive to the drivetrain. I don't have much pity for those looking for clutches and trannys under warranty because of drag racing. It is a rally car, but that is also pretty bad unusual for a street car and low hanging parts can be easily damaged by rocks.

However, since it is a performance car sold on race heritage, the car should hold up to being driven hard, although not abused. What is hard, but not abusive driving? I think track events on road courses like Laguna or Infinion raceway or autocrossing should not be considered abusive. I've driven on the racetrack and I'm not any harder on the car than when I drive on the street. This is why timed events in those sorts of competitive settings should not void warrantees. These events probably do less damage than stop and go traffic if the car is driven properly. I mean sure, you're using the maximum braking, power, and cornering, but the car is being driven in a smooth manner. If you're not smooth on the track, you don't know what you're doing. It's nothing like abusive drag racing starts or running over a rock at a rally. I honestly wouldn't point to the cause of any problem with the car to proper track time over hard street driving. I think it's despicable to deny warranty for autocrossing because I see that as normal use.

 

Have you ever seen the start of a Special Stage in the WRC?

They launch the car off the rev-limiter.