BTW, I can testify with 100% certainty that ringthree is not a Mitsubishi employee.

john

 

Anyone bring this guy up before? He fought Mazda over a warranty void due to autocrossing and HPDE's, took them to court and won.

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/lemon_site/saga.htm

 

I wish Ford had a AWD turbo Focus too.

 

clarifications...

http://media.mitsubishicars.com/

then

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.

 

Wow, you guys are gonna flip when Mitsubishi announces their new warranty plan tomorrow.

I finally had my first taste of a restricted warranty. An evo in our service department has dropped a couple of synchros. Unfortunately, the owner did not take the five minutes needed to remove his manual boost controller before bringing into service at a rival dealership where he purchased the car. The dealer called the district rep and then the restriction was added, no dealer can restrict your warranty nationwide, but they sure aren't going to order a bunch of expensive parts before making sure who's going to pay for them. Now the car is sitting in our shop, we went to bat for him, couldn't convince Mitsu and he's having to pay for it out of pocket and then will go to arbitration. The best part to top it off, he brings in a SPEC Stage 3 clutch and al flywheel to be put in place of the the OEM stuff.

The Autoweek article proves what we already know. No manufacturer will pay for damage due to mods or racing, I feel sorry for the guy, but I can't understand why someone would bring in a car with mods seeking drivetrain warranty work?

 

I read a lot about these warranty disputes but I never read about people using an independent arbitrator. Its in the warranty manual, if you have a warranty dispute you try every option then you contact the arbitrator listed in the manual. You and Mitsubishi then legally agree to let the arbistrator make the final call. Thats what I would have done.

Thats not proof, its just circumstantial heresay, its not even evidence. Even if you communicated your intentions to race, is it possible you changed your mind? Yes! They are assuming he was racing the car that needed warranty work. Its possible that your son was racing a similar but different Evo. Maybe he was driving a friends Evo, a rental Evo, or maybe even a stolen Evo. All possible. Or he could have allowed a friend with a similar Evo to use his SCCA membership. Then you could say to the service manager "You Mitsubishi employees shouldn't jump to paranoid conclusions, let me recommend a good therapist because Acute Paranoia Disorder, APD, is a serious mental health issue that you should have treated."

 

Huh!?

Alexe001xe001, Where are the clarifications?

The PR info has been posted and commented on with a fair number of questions raised. How about helping with clarifications on disparity between these direct Mitsu quotes and my situation and those of other Evo owners:
- "We give the benefit of the doubt to everyone..."
- "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"
- "The dealer and if necessary, MMNA staff, investigate each case, always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt."
- "Adds Mitsubishi’s Little: "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."

I expect that "benefit of the doubt" would include at a minimum the "diagnosis" that Mitsu claims as part of "investigated each case". So what was done in my case? Or in the case of the failure posted by Arc, racerferrari and others? By the way arcs post was just above yours, did you bother to read it before posting the supposed "clarifying" spewage from Mitsu? I can speak with authority for my situation.
- NO diagnosis or investigation of the issue whatsoever
- In my case, I know for a fact and the dealer readily admits that no diagnosis or investigation of the issue was done before the warranty denial. NO one even looked at the car to determine what had failed -- let alone whether it was related to participating in a single SCCA event 2 weeks before.
- I was told that the warranty restriction was put on my Evo on the 16-May, two weeks BEFORE the motor failure. Is that true or is it more BS from Mitsu. I have no idea. Either way, I know that no one did any diagnosis or investigation on the failure. PERIOD.

How about clarification on Mitsu's spokespersons (Ms. Little) statement that "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."
- What a bold face lie. That is PRECISELY what happened in my situation and no one at Mitsu denies it. Maybe someone from Mitsu would like to comment in this thread? Not likely, but I wish they would or at least answer the phone and speak with me about it.
- The Autoweek article makes my situation fairly clear and Mitsu completely ignores it. I wish the writer would have forced Mitsu to comment on these disparities.

Finally, let's take a look at this "clarifying" statement about warranty.
- "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."

First issue is what constitutes racing? The link above about the Mazda case and the earlier posts about State Farm's definition of racing that explicitly excludes SCCA/autocross events from their definition of racing makes it very clear that other companies disagree as to whether autocross = racing. It's a matter of interpretation that warrants clarification on the part of the warranty provider.
I did NOT consider SCCA Solo2 as fitting what I assumed was racing per the Mitsu warranty. I even received clarification from the dealer on this. Yeah, yeah ... I know ... I should have got it in writing ... I'm an idiot and a bit naive.

Second issue is that the warranty is explicit that it is problems or failures related to racing that are not covered by warranty. Is the failure of two rods in my Evo weeks after the SCCA event related to racing? A diagnosis would help, some investigation as to whether that is the case would help ... unfortunately NO ONE from Mitsu or the dealer even bothered to evaluate the car or even determine what had failed before denying the warranty.

Does the warranty say anywhere that participating in one "racing" event automatically gives Mitsu the right to permenently void (warranty restrict) the motor and full drivetrain? Absolutely not, but again that is precisely what Mitsu has done in my case.

Does anyone reading this thread really believe that 6 minutes of autocross -- 10 separate runs through the cones of about 55 seconds each in first and second gear -- is the cause of the two rod failures? I don't.

Where there any modifications on my Evo? Nope, not one single mod ... zip, nadda, nothing.

What about other signs of customer abuse? Nope, clutch disk looks fine, brakes look fine ... even the tires look fine.

I'd appreciate clarifications. You're post provides none. Don't link to the blantant spewage from Mitsu claiming that there is any clarification there. There is not.


MaxR, thanks for your post. You're right, I could lie. I'm not going to do that.

Arc, sorry to hear about your turbo. Mitsu is clearly taking the position of denying any significant claim. Their attitude seems to be ... ***** the customer ... and good luck Mr. or Ms. customer navigating the bureacracy and the arbitration process.

-Michael

 

ARC, that SUCKS. If you need a new turbo, let me know. I can get you a new CHRA for $370 shipped, NEW, but you have to let me know ASAP, as my source will not have it for long AT ALL! Check your PM box or email me @ maestrosales@comcast.net ASAP!!!!

 

If your tires look fine after 10 runs through an autocross course, then you need to take them off and save them for evidence. You either drove very slow and conservative, which would help your case, or your tires don't look fine. I've autocrossed 2 previous vehicles on street tires and near r-compound tires, and the outside of the tire never looks fine. The reason I haven't autocrossed the Evo yet is because of this thread. Good luck.

 

That is, and has been exactly what I have been saying. The dealership could easily have been the one to do that. It is a thousand times more likely that a dealership would do it instead of the corporate level denial before you have done anything wrong.

 

This is NOT in evidence AT ALL. There is no proof that Mitsu Corporate did this. The "red-flagging" could have easily been done by the dealership?

Occum's Razor, people.

 

Those arbitrators work for companies that are contracted by the corporations, but are certified independent (meaning that the arbitrators that work for the arbitration companies don't have any interests in the cases they hear). I didn't mean to imply that automobile manufacturers go out and find independent arbitrators for every case.

 

Look, MSM_2SK got his warrenty denied. It was for a screwed up reason. It should be covered. All of this is fine and good.

Does this mean that Mitsu is unilaterally denying warrenty coverage to autocrossers? No.
Does this mean that Mitsu is unilaterally denying warrenty coverage by searching the internet? No.

That is all I have been saying from the beginning.

 

That was arbitration, I dunno if you can call it "court". Either way, MSM this is worth looking at - it proves there is SOME kind of precedent for your claim.

john

 

The SCCA Event was in the E-Center parking lot in SLC. It's sealed asphalt and very slick. I don't think I drive very slow, but some might agree with you.