View Poll Results: Warranty claim problems/ No claim problems.
Submitted claim, wasn't honored or had problems
129
58.90%
Submitted claim, no problems getting it fixed.
93
42.47%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll
Warranty Issues <Mega Merge>
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Funny they list subaru as worst, yet why then did subaru give buyers of at least the 02 intro year WRX get free SCCA membership? To hang out on the sidlines and watch? Ha hA!!
Originally Posted by xtnct
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.
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.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MSM_S2K
Ringthree, my disagreement is with the suggestion that this is a dealer issue. Whether it is a clutch or the entire motor, a dealer can not do ANY warranty repair work whatsoever without first doing a vehicle service inquiry. In my case, according to what I was told by the dealer and by 
a "warranty restriction" was entered on my Evo on 16-May. Based on that by own addmission they proactively restricted the warranty on my Evo before I'd ever taken it in for it's first service. Nothing to do with the dealer.
Whether or not is doing it automatically through a web crawler or doing it manually, one thing I know for certain is that they are denying warranties for participating in SCCA events. And at least in my case, they claim to have done it before I took the car in for service. Based on that it seems logical to assume that they may be doing it based on an automated approach -- if not then in my case they did it manually. Makes no difference to me at the end of the day which approach was taken. It is not my primary concern HOW made the connection, but that they proactively voided the warranty for my doing precisely what I told them when purchasing the vehicle I'd do.
I'd like to keep this thread focused on topic. People who pop in here making claims about that it's really the dealer and make exagerated statements about what is being said here (you're reference to the sky is falling, 100,000 views, etc) add no value to the thread.
-Michael
a "warranty restriction" was entered on my Evo on 16-May. Based on that by own addmission they proactively restricted the warranty on my Evo before I'd ever taken it in for it's first service. Nothing to do with the dealer.Whether or not
is doing it automatically through a web crawler or doing it manually, one thing I know for certain is that they are denying warranties for participating in SCCA events. And at least in my case, they claim to have done it before I took the car in for service. Based on that it seems logical to assume that they may be doing it based on an automated approach -- if not then in my case they did it manually. Makes no difference to me at the end of the day which approach was taken. It is not my primary concern HOW made the connection, but that they proactively voided the warranty for my doing precisely what I told them when purchasing the vehicle I'd do.I'd like to keep this thread focused on topic. People who pop in here making claims about that it's really the dealer and make exagerated statements about what is being said here (you're reference to the sky is falling, 100,000 views, etc) add no value to the thread.
-Michael
Although YOUR primary concern is not how Mitsu made the connection, that is MY primary concern.
I dont think it is a logical conclusion at all to say that Mitsu is having a web crawler find names and somehow attach them to drivers and cars. I think that would be pretty far from logical. It seems much more "logical" to say it was done locally, rather than by a likely illegal approach that you hypothetically propose but have no proof of.
I would not doubt that your dealer would do the search manually, but again that is a dealer issue not a Mitsu corporate issue.
Either way, it sucks and shouldn't happen, I am just saying that we dont have all the facts. I would also like to state that a little injection of reality is what this thread needs. People that "pop in" should know that we dont have all the facts, and that you are presenting one side of the story, and that their maybe more than what has been seen in this thread.
Ultimately, I can't say that their isn't some kind of web searching device that Mitsu is using to deny warrenty claims to autocrossers. I am just saying that is not the most likely logical conclusion.
Again, in the end, I bet this all works out for you if you pursue it. And in the end, I hope it does.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mister2zx3
ringthree is most likely attempting to confuse this thread and try to minimize it. But proactive warranty denial for safely driving around cones is so absurd and this deserves the very negative attention it is recieving as it spreads like wildfire across many forums. I hope whoever looked up SCCA results online is looking at this and thinking of where they are going to be looking for a paycheck next.
And I dont even want to get into the little use that something that "spreads like wildfire across many forums" has.
Last edited by ringthree; Jun 21, 2004 at 07:17 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mister2zx3
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.
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.
The burden of proof, BY LAW, is on Mitsu. This is the reason, that I suspected this from the beginning. This is the reason that I believe that the original guy will get his warrenty coverage (or that he did in fact do something to cause the damage not to be covered).
BY LAW, Mitsu can't just unilaterally deny all warrenty claims. By law there is no such thing as a voided warrenty.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by nos
Funny they list subaru as worst, yet why then did subaru give buyers of at least the 02 intro year WRX get free SCCA membership? To hang out on the sidlines and watch? Ha hA!!
Last edited by ringthree; Jun 21, 2004 at 11:00 AM.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 154
From: Why do they always call the Evo the Dark Side?
OK, so do you have any documentation that your warranty was flagged on May 16th? Or any documentation other than the "CAR ABUSED" printout? You gotta start doing things in writing. It will take longer certainly but be better evidence later.
The fact that this has "spread like wildfire" with so little documentation is kind of disturbing. You might wanna even start naming people at Mitsu's names (I spoke to customer service rep Joe Schmoe etc etc)
I am going to PM you with a suggestion about this, I don't want it on the forum.
john
The fact that this has "spread like wildfire" with so little documentation is kind of disturbing. You might wanna even start naming people at Mitsu's names (I spoke to customer service rep Joe Schmoe etc etc)
I am going to PM you with a suggestion about this, I don't want it on the forum.
john
Last edited by Butt Dyno; Jun 21, 2004 at 08:43 AM.
Originally Posted by Butt Dyno
OK, so do you have any documentation that your warranty was flagged on May 16th? Or any documentation other than the "CAR ABUSED" printout? You gotta start doing things in writing. It will take longer certainly but be better evidence later.
The fact that this has "spread like wildfire" with so little documentation is kind of disturbing. You might wanna even start naming people at Mitsu's names (I spoke to customer service rep Joe Schmoe etc etc)
I am going to PM you with a suggestion about this, I don't want it on the forum.
john
The fact that this has "spread like wildfire" with so little documentation is kind of disturbing. You might wanna even start naming people at Mitsu's names (I spoke to customer service rep Joe Schmoe etc etc)
I am going to PM you with a suggestion about this, I don't want it on the forum.
john
is not willing to document anything. I've asked them for something in writing about why the warranty was denied and why the warranty resctriction was put on the car. Nothing, zippo, nadda. What I've posted here, as I've always said, is based on what I've been told by the
district service manager, customer service and the dealer. I have the contact names and numbers and have shared those with the press including the contact info for the service forman that did the work on the car, the dealer service advisor who was the first person to tell me that a warranty restriction was placed on the car on 16-May and that the service needed on my car on 2-June was denied because of the warranty restriction. The grounds for the warranty restriction being 6 minutes of SCCA autocross. The district service manager would not give me a copy of any of the documentation he had including the Vehicle Service Inquiry. Only way I got a copy of that is through the dealer.
Last edited by MSM_S2K; Jun 21, 2004 at 09:25 AM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Hey MSM-S2K' I really feel for you. Getting the run-around like you have would frustrate me into past-postal rage.
There are a few interesting tid-bits you have recently posted that leads me to believe the dealership may be the cause for your pain (please read on, to me this "could" make sense).
OK, OK it sounds like a conspiracy theory... :P
IMHO the dealship is trying to cover itself for having sold you a car that might potentially have been used (179 miles) and returned for defects (based on the scan you provided).
Since the dealership knew you would solo II the car, they had due reason to believe (given the proior knowledge of the cars condition) and submitted info to (hence the pre-dated submission for denial of warranty).
I say, sue the dealership. Comments welcome (puts on flame-retartand suit)
There are a few interesting tid-bits you have recently posted that leads me to believe the dealership may be the cause for your pain (please read on, to me this "could" make sense).
OK, OK it sounds like a conspiracy theory... :P
IMHO the dealship is trying to cover itself for having sold you a car that might potentially have been used (179 miles) and returned for defects (based on the scan you provided).
Since the dealership knew you would solo II the car, they had due reason to believe (given the proior knowledge of the cars condition) and submitted info to
(hence the pre-dated submission for denial of warranty).I say, sue the dealership. Comments welcome (puts on flame-retartand suit)
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ringthree
Well apparently, because they choose not to cover my transmission difficulties for those that did drive "aggressively."
or what ever car company that it is up to them to prove that it was the specific actions of the owner in order to void/ deny the warrenty. I tried to find a link on nasioc to an article that talked about some lawsuit that made it that way. Excuse my poor memory, but it boiled down to a lawsuit of that stemed from a person having installed non factory part son their car, then the car crapped out and the company denied him. So in the court case, the ruling essentially stated that the company can't just point to some non factory things and say that voids it. They need to prove that the owner is at fault. Again sorry for the poor summary, but I read it a year ago. Side not, lots of companies have these issues. Subaru, what I drive is one. In fact, there is quit a bit of talk about warrenty claims especialy with tranny. I'm lucky to have not had any issue with the three subys that I have owned "knock on wood," But I would be very surprised if I had a warrenty approved for any engine/driveline issues, since my mods like a full scooby sport/STI exhaust and MBC etc. would keep me from having a strait face talking to the dealer saying it's the manufacture's defect for some busted up gears or something.
Originally Posted by evomk8
Hey MSM-S2K' I really feel for you. Getting the run-around like you have would frustrate me into past-postal rage.
There are a few interesting tid-bits you have recently posted that leads me to believe the dealership may be the cause for your pain (please read on, to me this "could" make sense).
OK, OK it sounds like a conspiracy theory... :P
IMHO the dealship is trying to cover itself for having sold you a car that might potentially have been used (179 miles) and returned for defects (based on the scan you provided).
Since the dealership knew you would solo II the car, they had due reason to believe (given the proior knowledge of the cars condition) and submitted info to (hence the pre-dated submission for denial of warranty).
I say, sue the dealership. Comments welcome (puts on flame-retartand suit)
There are a few interesting tid-bits you have recently posted that leads me to believe the dealership may be the cause for your pain (please read on, to me this "could" make sense).
OK, OK it sounds like a conspiracy theory... :P
IMHO the dealship is trying to cover itself for having sold you a car that might potentially have been used (179 miles) and returned for defects (based on the scan you provided).
Since the dealership knew you would solo II the car, they had due reason to believe (given the proior knowledge of the cars condition) and submitted info to
(hence the pre-dated submission for denial of warranty).I say, sue the dealership. Comments welcome (puts on flame-retartand suit)
Thanks for the theory. The dealer that put the miles on the car is in Arizona. The dealer I bought the car from is in Orem Utah -- they sourced the car from Arizona. The dealer I took the car to for service is in Salt Lake City. But who knows.I drove the car a bit this weekend with my son. It's a great car!
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by evo8usa
Have you ever seen the start of a Special Stage in the WRC?
They launch the car off the rev-limiter.
They launch the car off the rev-limiter.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 154
From: Why do they always call the Evo the Dark Side?
Originally Posted by Yargk
I stand corrected and apologize for my lack of memory. Ok so the car was meant for drag style starts. However, isn't this still abuse? Clutches and gears are consumables for those at the strip, are they not?
john
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Butt Dyno
Just because the million-dollar race-prepped WRC car launches off the rev limiter, with a transmission that costs MORE THAN YOUR EVO, doesn't mean your street car is "meant for drag style starts"
john
john
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, TX
$70k ProDrive 50ms shift 7 speed Sequential Transmission = can't afford that in one of my cars..
http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=152
http://www.prodrive.com/default2.asp?M=152
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Butt Dyno
Just because the million-dollar race-prepped WRC car launches off the rev limiter, with a transmission that costs MORE THAN YOUR EVO, doesn't mean your street car is "meant for drag style starts"
john
john
Notice that I still don't consider it normal use or something to be covered by warranty. I merely meant to say that one could not argue that drag style starts are not part of the evos heritage. At some level or another the Evo was designed to withstand the punishment of drag style starts. This is obvious in the race cars and some of this durability should carry over to the street versions. In my original post, I had forgotten about the rally starts and attempted to say that this type of competition had nothing to do with the car. The idea, had it been correct, would be the same as saying that since Porsches race in sports car series with rolling starts, drag racing is not something that the model was ever designed for, nor is it in the spirit of the model. My point: so drag racing may be in the spirit of the evo, but certainly not it's sole application nor normal use for the street version.
Last edited by Yargk; Jun 21, 2004 at 01:14 PM.