hmm, perhaps ringthree is saying that the dealership redflagged your car, not Mitsu corporate? who knows. my dealership says they won't redflag a car that they don't think was abused....

 

Turbo that's the problem he is misreading and cuasing confusion. Mitsu Corporate redflagged the VIN. Period. Clear as can be.

 

Yeah, true, I thought I had a grasp on what was happening until I read that post. That being the case, pretty much lends credibility to the idea that Mitsu is fishing for information, be it web search, etc.

 

OK, I'm gonna sound like a broken record here (yep, I'm that old)
web fishing is speculation.
However, as I did post before (remember, broken record...) dealerships inform the auto manufacturer (in this case ) of warrantable work to be done and also tend to provide an opinion, usually based on physical inspection, if the work should be warranteed.
The issue here is, that somehow the car was red-flagged before the dealership even saw the broken rods and that NO physical inspection was done to prove "racing" or whatever was the cause.
I still question the dealerships honesty in this case, since:

1) the EVO had elevated mileage

2) the dealership (and only the dealership) knew you were going to solo II the car

Putting 1 and 2 together (yeah, I'm reeeaaal smart ) it appears to me that the deaership might be hiding something that they knew about the car (abusive driving by the dealership personnel, the car may have already been sold once, but they got it back and re-sold it as "new" etc...)
Conspiracy theory, I know.
Anyway MSM_S2K I really hope that the arbitration is moving along and you get your dough back. I still like , but this kind of behavior really pisses me off.

 

Well on a good note i have multiple mods on my car and had to take it in for a transmission problem. I figured i was gonna have to fight to get any work done under warranty. But come to find out i got a phone call saying bring your car in we have a brand new tranny sitting here for you. So i bring it in and they threw a new tranny on for me but before they installed the new one they asked if i wanted a new clutch so i said sure and went out and bought a ACT clutch and pressure plate and they installed it for only $150 and since they installed it they said it was under warranty. NICE!!!! Oh ya and they paid for the rental car while mine was in the shop.

 

It sounds to me as though there are a lot of mixed feelings on this board. I think the biggest point being missed here is that mitsubishi has the right to void your warranty for racing, and although many don't identify solo II as racing on this board, I'm willing to bet almost all of us who have raced soloII have at one point or another stated to someone that we "race" autocross. I don't believe that rod failure on cylinder 1 and two would be a cause of a solo II event, but let's be realistic, solo II causes a lot more stress on your car than everyday driving. How many broken wheels have you seen on different boards because of undue stress caused by solo II. How many times have you seen a car three wheeling while working the track at your local solo II event, and in turn how many times have you seen that on the street in normal driving situations. I race in the utah scca solo II. Last season I raced a wrx in which I felt the synchros dramatically worsen after each event, and after two transmission replacements, realized how stressfull solo II really can be. You can't blame mitsubishi for red flagging an autocrossed car. But by doing so, they need to not completely deny warranty work, but at least investigate and see if it was infact the cause of failure. If such was the case the owner should accept the consequences, if not, then mitsu should warranty the failure. There is no reason to badmouth a company who has delivered the car enthusiast a car such as the evoVIII for trying to cover there assets.

MSM S2k, I've watched you and your son autocross on various occasions. Your driving habits on the course wouldn't cause rod failure IMO. I hope that you can at least get mitsu to investigate, but at the same time, I have to agree with some sort of red flag on mitsu part for a car that has been autocrossed.

 

i'll say it b4 msm does, you need to read the whole thread. the car came from another state and was purchased from another dealer than the one he took it to for warranty work.

if any of you knew msm personally, i don't think you'd be arguing with him. he is probably smarter and more honest than most of you guys combined. he is not trying to screw mits and it definitely was not the dealer trying to screw him. i know cause i've worked with the same dealer. get it through your thick skulls, well even if you did it wouldn't do you much good since you guys don't have any brains.

ringthree, what the ***** is your problem? you gotta be a mits employee

 

Well, I personally have seen a car on a dealer's lot for sale, it had 3,500 miles on it, and the owner of the lot drove it as his personal car for those miles. I would bet it was abused, and feel bad for the guy who buys it. I hope when I get my RS that my dealer would have enough integrity to at least offer to make the situation right if I found myself screwed by Mitsu corporate. Mitsu wants to build a customer base in the US with the EVO, and it looks like it's up to the dealers to take care of the customer despite the corporate culture.

 

Autoweek Article:

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=02612566

 

All that says is that most manufacturers don't cover damage IF you break something CAUSED BY RACING. Shocker. If I mess up a wheel bearing or something from autocross I should have zero expectations of getting coverage on that part. And that's fine with me, you gotta pay to play.

The real question is whether Mitsu is proactively denying warranties which is something that article does not say and something Mitsubishi denies.

john

 

Eh eh, the Co-Op Advertising plan for July just came out today. The new sales slogan for Mitsu in July is "Best Backed Cars in the World Event"

 

it's funny how they didn't mention that the car wasn't even looked at, but miss little makes it sound like they at least LOOK at every car..

i like ford's deal though. too bad there isnt any turbo awd focus!

 

Thanks for posting the link to the article! I'm glad to see it published. I was hoping that autoweek would force to comment on why the warranty restriction was proactively placed on my car. Oh well, at least the article makes it very clear that the warranty restriction happened before the motor failed and that the motor did not fail at the SCCA event.

Adds Mitsubishi’s Little: "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."

The writer told me about this quote in my follow up interview. I asked him to have explain what happened in my situation. Unfortunately, he didn't. doesn't even bother to deny that the proactive warranty restriction on my car for participating in one event -- they just ignored it.

If nothing else, I'm pleased that the word is getting out that autocross will cost owners their warranty ... if the mfg finds out.

Kudos to Ford!

 

a friend forwarded the autoweek article and a link to this thread to me. warranty repairs for my evo were recently denied due to "customer abuse" the car was not race and was not abused. ****ers did not even both to take the car apart to figure out what was broke! once dealer told me it was not covered by warranty I took the car to another shop and the took it a part and found that the turbo failed. total bull **** for a car with less than 5k miles on it

 

You'd be hard pressed to break any decent set of wheels on street tires... and if you blew TWO transmissions you have to consider the possibility that the problem might be your technique. Other than the launch and the 1-2 shift your transmission shouldn't be doing anything out of the ordinary, and unless you are clutch-dumping both of those your transmission's going to be fine..

john