A couple of points on this thread:

1) The owner of said vehicle on which the warranty was voided, claims that the dealer told him that they would stand behind the car after he implied/stated that they would "Stand behind the car" regardless of these facts.

This is one of the funniest aspects of this thread. A Mitsubishi *DEALER* tells you this to sell you a car, you buy it, break it racing, and then ***** about Mitsubishi *Corporate* denying your claim.

For that matter, did you get this in *writing* from said dealer? If so, you have a legal dispute with the dealer--but not Mitsubishi on this case. If you're simple enough to believe that a dealer can change the factory warranty conditions, you need more help than just "legal".

2) "Well, Mitsubishi advertises this car as having racing heritage, lists the 0-60 times, yadda, yadda, so we should be able to race it and not lose our warranties!"

Please. Are you people that narrow-sighted? Just because the car has a "racing heritage" by no means states "Race your car, beat the crap out of it, and we'll fix it for you". Do you think that rally teams call up Mitsu and expect them to fix their car when they break it as well? Not saying that? Oh, I see...1+1=3 in this case.

0-60 times can be found on mini-vans. That means that they're supposed to be used in racing by your philosophy as well. Surprisingly, I see very few at racing events.

3) "Auto-xing your car is by no means racing, and doesn't abuse the car any more than regular street use".

Yep...and drag racing causes no more abuse than launching the car at a redlight. Ahh--yes, true. But at the same time, this would fall under the category of "abuse/misuse". Just when you do it at a redlight, there's no proof that you did it for someone to find later (providing you don't get a ticket for it). The Joker stop-light racing would be denied warranty as well if they had proof of it. While auto-xing isn't neccesarily the most violent on a car, it's still a more wear and tear on the car then normal street driving. Dispute that? Well, drive the car on the street like you would on the auto-x course, and if it's not more aggressive, tell that to the cop who writes you the ticket that suspends your license, I'm sure the judge will let you off with that new-found knowledge.

Last I looked (and participated in), auto-xing is a *COMPETITION EVENT* where you're competeing against other drivers in speed and agility through a course. Hmm..Competition Event....Speed...Handling..times given...

Sounds like "Racing" to me.

Mitsubishi advertises the car one with racing heritage, and "spirited performance" and...as a *STREET CAR*.

You play, you pay. I've been doing it for years. With the money put into just one of my cars worth a smidgen of the price of a new Evo, I could have purchased one in cash easily. It's all part of the game.

Sounds like the only real gripe you have is with the salesman that sold you the car and lied to you to get you out the door in your new Evo.

I'd love to know how two rods went out under these "normal driving conditions" that you speak of.

On the flip side, I get pissed when a person who hasn't beaten the crap out of their car gets denied warranty claims as well (which isn't the case with yours). However, it's kinda like the little boy who cried wolf--if there weren't 5 people out there racing/modding/beating the **** out of their car, then trying to get it warrantied, I'm willing to bet that Mitsu and other Manufacturers wouldn't be nearly as quick to stamp "DENIED" all over your work order.

Flame away at me, and the way life is. But those of you who may have a legitimate warranty claim down the line--those that are trying to get the car they abused warrantied are making it harder for you to get your legitamate claim through. Food for thought...

<edit: No, I don't work for Mitsu, before someone tries that angle. However, I have seen a lot of people try to get warranties on cars that have been abused/raced/modded more times than I can count. And yes, I agree that Mitsu as a company sucks at times.>

 

Unevo, all of the questions you've asked are answered in the thread, but here's a quick recap:

1. Dealer and warranty clarification
- Yes, I clarified before purchase with the dealer that participating in an SCCA Solo 2 event would be okay
- No, I didn't get it in writting and I have admitted multiple times in this thread that was a mistake
- It is not the dealer's decision whether to cover the car under warranty or not. It's is 's

The central issue to all of this is definition of racing. They don't provide one. They leave it up to the reader to interprit. I did so, with clarification from a dealer. Only recourse is with .

Other concerning aspects of this:
- proactive warranty restriction based on SCCA event information on the Web
- No diagnosis or evaluation of the failure whatsoever before denying warranty
- Blanket warranty restriction (read that no coverage at all) for motor and drivetrain for the balance of the original warranty EVEN after car is completely repaired by dealer

2. Advertising and implied use
- These are primarily points brought up in the thread that are not central to my complaint against
- I think everyone, however, can clearly agree that target market for this car is performance enthusiast. A much clearer definition of "racing" and other activities that can result in warranty restriction (read that voided warranty ) need to be much more clearly defined.

In talking with the press and with me, is using terms to define racing that are no where in the warranty. As the warranty provider, the burden and obligation are on the mfg to provide a clear definition. They have not. in their press release makes claims with respect to other manufacturer warranties including BMW. Those claims are misleading. BMW & Suburu do NOT warranty restrict (void) customer warranties based on SCCA event participation. My hope and my expectation is that 's claims will be shown to be false in upcoming articles from Autoweek and Car & Driver.

3. What is "racing?"
You seem to assume that definition of racing is "a competitive event". That is not the case, nor would it be a reasonable definition. They provide NO definition or examples of what they consider to be racing.

There are numerious auto events that are competitive that I think we can all agree should not void a warranty. Have any of you ever done a timed road rally? No, I'm not talking about any kind of "race" ... at least not per my expectation of racing that should result in a warranty restriciton. I'm talking about the timed events where the objective is to go from one point to another to another at precisely the speed determined for the segment on regular roads, obeying all traffic signals, speed limits, etc. These are fun events. Are they competitive? Yes! Does it constitute "racing" in the customer abuse / restrict (void) the warranty sense? No! All of these type of events I've participated in have been in my SUV with typical speeds of 15 to 45 mph. It's all about timing and navigation.

The unfortunate fact in this, is that provides NO definition of racing and is being extremely aggressive in its own interpretation and proactive enforcement.
I've made it very clear in this thread, that if provides a clear definition of racing that includes making it clear that participating with a stock car in an SCCA Solo 2 or other types of autox events will result in a restricted (voided) warranty, I'll drop my claim.

By definition, SCCA Solo 2 events are designed and enforced to not exceed "hazards" to car as those encountered in normal, legal highway driving.

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 required and hazards to spectators, participants and property do not exceed those encountered in normal, legal highway driving.

You may disagree with the SCCA's definition and claims about their events. I don't. Regardless, per the definition, it is reasonable for a car owner to assume that the warranty on their car will not be restricted (voided) for participating in an SCCA event.

Further, makes claims in their press release about giving their customers the benefit of the doubt, conducting diagnosis to determine whether a failure is the result of customer abuse. Are those claims true?

Let's look at my specific situation:
1. Car participated in an SCCA Solo 2 event (6 min of autocross, 6 timed runs of about 55 seconds) on the 16-May
2. Two rods failed nearly two weeks later on 29-May
3. No diagnosis was done on the motor whatsoever. The warranty on my Evo was proactively restricted based on 16-May SCCA event two weeks before the motor actually failed. And again, the motor failed TWO WEEKs after the event.

No diagnosis, no benefit of the doubt, no customer service.

Per the suggestion of my attorney, I had the dealer do the repair work, took pictures of the failed parts and sent the parts to a specialty shop for failure analysis. Any signs of customer abuse? No.
- Clutch disk was in excellent condition. No signs of abuse whatsoever
- Other components of the car ... ditto. Brakes, tires, drivetrain ... all in excellent condition.

In this thread and others there are a fair number of examples of motor failures. Almost all of them have been rod failures. They've also primarily been low mileage cars. In some cases, like mine, cars participated in SCCA and in some cases they did not. In all cases I'm aware of, one consistent theme -- denies the warranty claim.

This from a company that has a demonstrated record of covering up known defects and denying warranty claims on the same. See the articles linked earlier in this thread.

For the most part, the Evo motor seems to be fairly solid. Whether it is customer abuse or a quality assurance/defect problem there do seem to be more low mileage motor failures with the Evo than expected. My car was not abused and shows no signs of abuse. Unfortunately, in my case and with others it's the new owner that is getting stuck with the $5 to $8 thousand in repairs.

-Michael

 

k im sorry.. but i was reading this thread for advice cause i, too, have been having problems with my car (problems not related to racing it,etc)... and i dont have an evo8.. but..this arguement really pisses me of... so please dont use this argument again.. its the dumbest argument ever... im no lawyer but i'm pretty sure this is false advertising or soemthing around that...

the whole point of the advertisement is to make sure people know the difference between their product and someone elses.. what is the point of buying and evo if you have to drive it as if it is a camry (or some other family car)? buy it for its looks? or its "potential" of doing all those amazing things and telling everyone that your car is capable of doing it but you cannot actually do that stuff cause it will void warrenty?

its like buying one of those spalding basketballs with the pumps built into it and not being allowed to use the built-in pump... that pump is what differentiates that basketball from the other ones.. if you are not allowed to use it then what is the point of paying that extra money to get one?

similarily, when mitsubishi advertises the car's "racing heritage" etc to get poeple to buy their car, they should expect these sort of problems (tranny problems etc) and fix them.... what did they think would be happening with their cars when they advertise its amazing abilities? i dont know about you but when i bought my car i chose it over a few others cause it had some features that i liked over the other cars.. and i was able to actually use those features.. if i was restricted from using those additional features, i might as well have bought the cheapest car cause they were essentially all the same...............

ii guess this is a rant.. but seriously.. it gets me pissed when soemone posts something like this.. i understand that when you abuse the car you shouldnt expect it to be covered under warrenty but mitsu was asking for it when they advertised their car this way... i fyou dont wanna have to fix cars that have been abused liek this then dont advertise the car in the way it has...............

 

Not sure if this has been posted or if it'll even help... but I found out about your dilemma @ http://www.ricehatersclub.com (not what you think ) and, even though I'm one of those "ignorant Mustang owners" I thought I'd pass it along. Good luck w/everything. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act:

http://mach1review.com/Magnuson-MossWarrantyAct.html

 

That doesn't apply to this situation at all. MMWA says you can't void someone's warranty for aftermarket parts unless you can prove the parts were the source of the problem. MSM's car is stock and he already knows about arbitration.

john

 

I'm sorry but the only real idiot is the person that believes that any warrenty from any company will cover all conditions. Advertising DOES NOT EQUAL intended use. Honda uses F1 cars in its advertising, but does not intend to have their cars used like F1 cars. That is just as stupid as the claim made that advertising that the EVO is used for rally means that you can use it for rally and get things fixed under warrenty.

You may find that some dealerships are nicer than others, and generally domestic dealerships are better than foreign when it comes to this, but you can have problems anywhere and you can get stuff covered that shouldn't be covered anywhere. Largely it depends on the dealer.

This also has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

I remember when I bought my evo my dealer fed all sorts of lies to me about the warranty, what PitPass was, etc. I only cared about the deal so I ignored him but really stuck it to him with JD Power when they asked for a satisfaction survey. I even emailed JD Power to let them know that they bribe owners with free oil changes to get a perfect survey.. but that bit me in the rear when JD Power forwarded my email to the dealership with all my contact info. That resulted in an uncomfortable phone conversation with the guy who sold me the car.. and I never sent in the survey as a result. Some fights are not worth fighting.

At least I live in a different city now and have a much better dealership as a result.

 

Wellnow, I am in the process of buying a RS, and the sales manager told me a few things....he said that he will warranty the car and guessed that the stories that I had read on the internet about failures not due to racing that were not covered by warranty(this thread and others) were half truths. This service manager said he would stand behind his product 100% because the EVO was brought here to build a customer base, but he will not stand behind a car that was abused and has repeated problems because of this. He also told me something I allready knew, but I was still surprised that he would mention it: he told me that any aftermarket mods would not void any warranty unless they caused a malfunction due to inapropriateness (ie huge turbo w/o huge injectors) of the mod or due to bad instalation. I know that this is the letter of the law, but still, to have a service manager pretty much give you the green light because he knows that it is your right to do mods was pretty surprising.

 

I find this very interesting because it sounds like its the opinion of the SCCA people who wrote this rule book. I don't see the endorsement from any state, city or county departments of motor vehicles collaborating or signing off on that statement. I also don't see where Mitsubishi has signed off in agreement on that staement either. I would like to see anyone try to run some sort of organized time trial of competitive vehicles on public roads during regular traffic and not get a ticket for reckless driving. There are many ways to receive a moving violation and still be under the speed limit. Then of course, we could block off the streets, or use a parking lot and organize it so there are only the competition cars out there at one time - that would be, of course, and organized racing event and Mitsubishi says: No racing.

 

There are law firms which handle these issues. Here's one directed at Subaru.

http://www.girardgibbs.com/subaru.html

 

i dont expect the warrenty to cover everything.. but something like what msm is talking about seems to be what the car is for.. its hardly anything from the strenuous rally racing.. but if the car is having troubles after doging some cones at under 60mph once.... there is something really messed about the car.. hell my friend uses his 92 camry to do stuff like that and he doesnt even have problems with it.... but i guess thats just toyota quality over mitsu (he also doesnt expect to get covered since his warrenty is long over.. and this is just his case and another issue of reliability)

also, its not like they drive the car like this everyday, it is just every so often.. when honda made their car's with higher redlines than usual, they expect people to use it every so often and they actually back up their warrenty.

and when i say advertising.. i also include what the dealer says.. cause i believe what they are doing is trying to sell you the car.. (like what a tv ad does)

anyways. i got to writing this because someone else brought up the topic of advertising making msm think this car is blahlbhalbha.. read the post i quoted before....

 

Well I was ready to buy an 04', cash in hand (not financing, cash) and Mitsu just lost me b/c of this very issue.

I will not deal with a company who's ethics stink this bad.

Hope you're happy Mitsu...that's one less first customer for ya. Get control of your dealers and their seemingly random warranty policies.

Laters Fellas

 

Get it in writing. ... and BTW if puts a warranty restriction on your car, there is absolutely nothing your dealer can do about it for you.

As to the SCCA definition of a Solo 2 and the comment from GPTourer.
- The well defined rules for a Solo 2 event from the SCCA are clear. You may disagree and you're entitled to that opinion.
- Since the SCCA's position is that a Solo 2 event does not result in any additional hazard to the car than normal legal street driving, it's reasonable for others to accept that position
- It is precisely because many of us will interprit what "racing" is differently, that should provide a clear definition.

If SCCA event is customer abuse, shouldn't that abuse be otherwise visible in other components of the car? Clutch disk? Brakes? Tires? Interestingly enough all of those are in excellent condition on my Evo. And for those of you not reading all of the thread, keep in mind that the rods failed nearly two weeks after the event.

 

Yeah, because there is any proof that this is a corporate issue as of yet. One car denied on warrenty for reasons that are not whole clear by a dealership, and it is Mitsu coporates fault...

 

Ringthree, once again you've demonstrated your inability to read. I've posted a copy of the MMNA Vehicle Service Inquiry for my Evo with a very clear text across the top of the report indicating the warranty restriction. We've been through this repeatedly in this thread and yet you come back to it over and over again. The warranty denial has nothing to do with dealership.

The reason for the proactive warranty restriction is well known and readily admitted by . Participation in an SCCA Solo 2 event on 16-May.

The failure itself is clear as well. Two rod failures (cylinder 1 & 2) on 29-May.

Send me a PM and we can have a conference call with customer service and if you'd like also with my dealer.

BTW -- I'm also not the only one whose warranty has been denied. Read through the thread or have someone read it out loud to you.