wow...i can't help but laugh, you obviously have no concept of what I just tried to explain...

and you contributed nothing to this thread.

 

<----crackles knuckles and rolls neck.

1. I have yet to see one documented case of some unrelated failure not being covered because of mods or aleged abuse. i.e show me someone who can't get their sunroof, radio, A/c etc fixed because of exhaust, BOV, flashing windshield nozzle, CO2 purge kit, etc.

2. The big clutch thread. Ladies and gentlemen, there are over 9000 Evos on the road right now. The clutch thread has like 500 voters and the "Have you had problems with your evo?" thread has like 400. Neither of those has a large enough sample to draw any sort of usable conclusion. My conclusion is that nobody here has any real clue as to "how well" the Evo is doing. But I suspect most of it is just internet hype and speculation. No news is good news and most people who get good service, or get away with something they shouldn't have (like warrantied work for something they didn't deserve) don't come on here and post about it. If the failure under 12K people get a new clutch for free, they probably also got a stern warning from the service department that it would the only time. PEople hate getting "told" what they can and can't do, so they come on here and post. The ones that lose their clutch over 12 either just man up and face the reality that they a. drive hard b. can't drive or c.need a heavier clutch for their use. But again, they may or may not choose to post about it. AFAIK we've only done one clutch job at our service department to date.

3. Some of you are expecting too much for burden of proof. It would be great if Mitsubishi could fly in a team of forensic engineers from Japan to totally disassemble your Evo and determine if your ROTFL blow off valve or big bore exhaust caused your cars failure, but they won't and they don't have to. Maybe they should, I'm not arguing that point - but I live in a place called reality and the long and short of it is, when it comes down to it, they just have to prove one thing. A. Warranty is for people with stock power levels. B.This part is desigened to raise power. C. Car failed because of operation above stock levels. The end. That's all the judge is going to want to hear and he's not going to be some car guru wanting to hear some whiney story about how all you wanted was a cool sound and that the power change is insignificant. The same goes for competition use. No grey area, no room for intepretation.

4. People who got the shaft and Mitsu turned their back. Now this is for those who got a defective car. I haven't heard of a case where someone with a stock, non abused car has been turned away.

 

A response to point number 2-

I would speculate that the vast majority of EVO owners have no idea EVOM even exists, so using your numbers as a conclusion that most EVO don't have any problems can simply not be supported in fact one way or the other.

A response to point number 4-

To sum it up quickly, my car was stock, I know how to drive, I didn't abuse the car, and it was broken in per the manual, and the clutch started slipping at TWO FRIGGIN THOUSAND MILES-THATS CRAP. AND surprise, I got turned away. Granted your statement is correct in that you don't personally know me, or haven't personally heard of me though, I will obviously admit to that. And the car was advertised and promoted in person as a high performance car. It should be built to handle it...period.


I think all you head-in-sand people should read this article on webmd.com-

http://my.webmd.com/hw/emotional_wellness/te7728.asp

With the most pertinent sentences being these-

The victim (the EVO owner/lover in this case) is often confused and holds on to the hope that the batterer (Mitsubishi in this case) will change. The batterer may ask for forgiveness, make promises to stop (best backed cars promotion), and be affectionate and doting. Along with painful times (see any number of problem threads), there may be loving moments and happy memories (driving the EVO in this case).

Victims often feel tremendous shame and embarrassment and use denial as a way of coping with the abuse.

I am not trying to be a smart-aleck and for sure not trying to minimize true domestic abuse, but really, look at this text in the article I truly feel some of the same issues apply to the EVO/Mitsu cheerleaders.

 

Agreed, but I said it is in my opinion that there isn't a widespread problem. Notice what I said here:
I'd love to see a larger sampling to prove the point either way. The consensus here is that there is an unresolved issue based on the traffic through here. I'm not trying to propose my opinion as fact. Only that my dealership has sold 26 evos, and I have personally sold nine. None of my clients have come back to me with any of these problems, certainly if it was an epidemic as it is made out to be here at least one would have come back, right? The one clutch we did do was on a demo that had 5000 miles.

For every story I've heard of clutches going out early, I know of cars that have tens of thousands of hard miles that don't. I really can't speculate on you ar your car just like you said.

I don't see the correlation of battered women to cars. Sorry.

 

And all this that comes from somebody who doesn't own an EVO, and quotes from SSC. I've bought my share of those.

Magazines like C&D, and GrassRoots Motorsports have more merit.

BTW, I'm a statistics nut by minored degree in mathematics, tell me with justification how many EVOs out of 9000 you have to have to get an appropriate sampling?

Thank you,

jcnel.

 

No thanks. Get over yourself.

 

As GPTourer's true colors show

I really want to buy an EVO from you.

j.

 

Hey if you want to play games with me take it to PM's. I'm not going to be brought down to your level of slinging insults. If your smart and not smart assed, you can answer your own question about how many evos it takes to get a good sample out of 9000+ units. Why are you asking me? And you still haven't answered the question of why the fact that I don't own one has anythign to do with anything. The fact that I sell them and know many owners doesn't give me the right to particpate in this discussion?

I think it does. And whatever lame point your trying to make now is just trolling.

 

I'm not trying to sling mud @ koolade9 but i have to agree w/ the above.
There has got to be some sort of " medium " where my warranty doesn't get voided cause i have a HKS filter on my car. i mean if the motor hydrolocked, then i can see a point, but if the head gasket blows, what does that have to do w/ my filter?
BTW: i drive every car i have ever owned like a race car.

 

May I make it abundantly clear with this lineup:

Post 700: I made my opinion with reference to MMNA's warranty and support on the EVO.
Post 701: You made this statement
That was a strong statement with reference to me personally about my choice of a vehicle.

Post 703:
That is an attack statement. You want me to stop something I don't believe I even started.

Post 709:
Perhaps I may agree with you on that, but then again, have you understood what I've said? Understanding is a two way street.

Post 731:
Again, another attack.

And finally:
Post 733:
Please name my insults? Owning an EVO, and referencing from SCC are statements. From your own account listing (the bar on the side of one of your posts) you do not own an EVO, and you have referenced from SCC Mag. in previous posts. If I have to clarify, I apologize, I did not mean them as insults.

Who is playing games with who? I have not seen a PM from you. If you think it is to that level, where is your PM? Also I feel it is not necessary to use such language as "smart assed" in this forum. Such worded comments detract from a higher standard of language evolutionm.net members should uphold.

I have stated my opinions, apparently with too much jest for your taste. I apologize if that upset you.

Listed above was certainly you throwing down the gauntlet numerous times. Anytime a "you" is used, "you" run the risk of drawing an inaccurate conclusion of somebody's beliefs. Don't expect favorable responses when such "you based" comments are made. With that thought, I'll probably have to swallow my own medicene here if you are to reply to this post.

If I may tie up ends with regards to owning an EVO. The EVO is a 30 thousand dollar car. The figures are, in my opinion, slightly above an average American's cost in a sedan of its size. The EVO can and will be used as a daily driver vehicle. With those two ideas the car has the perception, in my mind, of being used for as many things as its capable of. It is not unreasonable to find the EVO going fairly slowly up a dirty road to have some outdoor fun. Nor is the EVO uncapable of tootling around in the snow. That comes out of its AWD features. Frankly, I feel safe in my EVO. The AWD works wonderfully, as do the Brembos, as do the Recaros, and the other pieces there to keep my informed of the road, and its conditions. I love the way the EVO communicates to me on the road.

From my understanding you sell cars at a Mitsubishi dealership, and you understand a lot about the EVO. That's good, not many Mitsu. dealership employees do. You are to be commended. Additionally, I feel that you have a feeling of helping customers 'fit' into their vehicles, so that they feel like they've made the right car choice. Perhaps that is why "you" suggested I chose the wrong vehicle when I reference going on a dirt road and installing a towing hitch. That is your opinion and I can respect that.

I respect the fact that you can state any opinion you may have on this forum. I ask for the same favor in return. Furthermore, in my "opinion" SCC is not a terribly factually oriented magazine. It comes with a lot of hype and street racer conjecture. That is again, my opinion.

From deep down, I did not choose the wrong vehicle. I feel the EVO was the best choice I made in 2003. Getting back to the subject of owning an EVO. Having had one sit in my garage, and run me around for over 1.5 years gives me, in my opinion, a little more justification as too how I've been treated as to warranty situations and vehicle usage. I feel very lucky as an owner to have been treated very nicely by my dealership. Unfortunately, I feel that MMNA holds a doom cloud over my head, if something really does mechanically go wrong, the burden of proof lies on me, to such a degree that I might as well not have had a portion of the thirty thousand dollar EVO cost go towards a warranty with an EVO in stock condition. It is my opinion and understanding that stock EVOs have had warranties denied without an acceptable investigation.

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions. They have certainly made this warranty discussion more insightful.

Thank you,

jcnel.

P.S. From the way I understand it, with the math I can pull out now without going to the actual clutch poll here on evolutionm.net. This is my development: 1 out of 27 total EVOs (26 sold + 1 demo) you've seen have had a clutch problem. That is approx. 3.7 percent = 1/27. 3.7 percent of 9000 EVOs is about 333 EVOs. (This now is where it gets sketchy.) If 500 EVOs have been reported with clutch problems, out of 9000+ you're probably right on target statisticswise to have your demo car had a clutch go out on it.

Hope that helps,

j.

 

I stand by that statement because I believe the marketing on the evo is not for the "active outdoor lifestyle person" i.e. the Subaru Outback, the Nissan Xterra, the Toyota Tacoma. The car can go up a state park trail yes, but when you brought up rallying and said "last time I checked that means a lot of dirt" or something to that extent, it was an asinine statement on your part and had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I am glad you love your car, but to criticise Mitsubishi for what I believe are unreasonable complaints lead me to believe you were unhappy with the vehicle and had unreasonble expectations. It doesn't really matter to me, that is of course your right to criticise and be unhappy, but it is also my right to say that I think that its unreasonable.
Indeed. Which is why I point out things that you bring up as "points" that I believe are irrelevant, like Vishnu towing a trailer, being able to phyisically put a tow bar on an Evo (which I said from the jump was possible), and that the car's rally heritage has something to do with driving on park roads and hauling bikes.

I said get over yourself because you start talking about your degrees in math and want me to humor you in figuring out would would be a proper sample, then insinuating I don't belong in the discussion because I don't own the car. My sample of Evos is too small for a scientific conclusion to be drawn also, I just said that since I have personal hands on experience with several owners and cars, my feelings tend to lean towards the other direction. It bothers me when I hear stories like "Stockfornow's". I give him the benefit of the doubt, I believe him and think he deserves a free clutch. But I also know that a clutch is a wear item and that service depts will claim abuse to avoid footing the bill and I give them the benefit of the doubt too from my experience at work. But OTOH, some people on here can only go on internet conjecture. There is little burden of proof here. Anybody can post claiming they own an Evo, vote in polls, claim they've had/haven't had problems and be part of the evolutionm.net experience. Just because my opinion is unpopular, doesn't mean I don't have the right to be heard.

I referenced SCC only in regards to the commentary article about Mitusbishi and warranty in the issue before last. It talks about how they can't be held responsible for mods or competition use. Your holier then thou promotion of other mags for their literary content is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think their writing, test procedures or photography or whatever is better - the point is, the SCC article pertains to this very discussion. I could care less if it was in Better Homes and Gardens or the National Enquirer - the point is the commentary surmises what I think, and more importantly, Mitsubishi thinks (and the rest of the auto industry) is true. Before you pass judgement on me, or SCC - maybe you ought to read it.

Our demo car saw hard use and a wide range of drivers. I would not include it in any sort of statistical analysis.

 

On the mathematical subject again, I did go and lookup the poll results so far.

They are here: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/po...lts&pollid=790

I did contribute to this poll when it first came out.

From raw data: 500 total samples / 177 samples that reportedly had a clutch go out = 0.354 => 35.4% had a clutch go out for some reason.

I will post later concerning where I think this fits according to a statistical curve, probably gaussian. There is a strong trend towards milages between 5k and 10k. That's odd, but let's say half of those 177 are "liars" in their report to evolutionm that their clutch really didn't give out, and half of those don't know how to drive, and have a tendency to put a lot of load on a clutch. That is 177/2 for the "liars," and (177/2)/2 for driving habits. That would mean 44 people had a clutch go out. 44/500 = 0.088 => 8.8%.

That's still in the 8 percent range, and in my statistical mind at this point, very disturbing.

Is Mitsubishi willing to cover 8% of 9000 EVOs for clutch jobs? I don't think so, which is why I think people are clammoring on this board. It would have been better from the start to put in a stronger x-fer case, and stronger clutch for the extra $1000.00 or so dollars and then sell the EVO. That's 20/20 hindsight on their part, and I'm glad they are putting in LSDs for all the 2005+ models. Let's hope a stronger clutch made it in there also. A clutch that doesn't require a restrictor pill to save the x-fer case / front diff that resides in the x-fer case.

To bring this back to this thread. It would be nice to see the statistical data Mitsubishi is working with, with regards to warranty coverage or denial on at least the clutch.

jcnel.

 

The fact that you would persecute him for not owning an evo is asinine... he owns a dsm, which makes him 150% more qualified to talk about the evo, then 90% of the people on this board that do own an evo...




we need an evenly distributed sample and post your findings, not just those here on the board, we're a skewed group.




because this turned into a clutch issue....there isn't much of a grey area here. mitsu warrenty's the clutch for 12k.

for those of you who with that feel the clutch slipping...instead of complaing here about it. take it to the dealer and tell them to adjust it. it will be on record that you came in to have them double check it, and will cover your *** if it does go out while under warrenty.

for those clutch claims that were denied...were there heat marks on the flywheel? and was there anything done to the car that would increase the bhp of the car? those would be the two warrented reasons to deny.

to clarify my initial post. none of what i said has do deal with the rest of the car...just the drivetrain. i.e. no dealer in his right mind would deny a sunroof claim because of an exhaust. and yes, i agreed that there should be a medium..and in reality, there is. correct me if I'm wrong. but I haven't heard of a case where a person just had an aftermarket filter, and they had a warrenty claim denied...but again, that's up to the dealer's descretion. the warrently clearly states, any modification to the drivetrain will void it.

the amusing part is...there really isn't anything wrong with the evo. they have fixed every little quirk over the years, and refined it into an amazing machine. only those of you who've owned dsms can really appreciate that. and remember...the clutch was designed by mitsu, as a fuse to protect the rest of the drivetrain. understand that fact, and you're golden

 

I am willing to bet they won't cover 8% of them either. There are a lot of consumer watchdog organizations out there designed for this very purpose and I don't think there is enough stastistical data to force Mitsubishi to do such a thing. I don't argue that they should probably goodwill a few clutches and TCs and according to some members here, they have. But goodwill is goodwill, not a requirement.

Some people say to avoid the first year of any car because of "bugs" and kinks. I think thats a bit of an outdated belief. Competition is too tight these days and consumer tolerance is way too high for a company (especially one in Mitsubishi's predicament) to risk beta testing on its public. Still, stuff does happen. Do 2004's have the same problem? I haven't heard of many '04 owners clamoring about clutch problems. People say it was only early '03 builds, perhaps hit or miss. Like I said, I know of several still on stock clutch, with and without mods and tens of thousands of miles. One particular car sees regular track use at Barber Motorsports park ASFAIK, he hasn't come in complaining about anything.

If enough people lodge legitimate complaints, I guarantee you Mitsubishi will be forced to do something, it won't matter what numbers they have. But by then, the number of plaintiffs will decrease dramatically because you'll have to remove all the modded cars, the people who entered competitive events, and the people who do regular clutch dumps. By then, I suspect the true number of real plaintiffs will be small

 

I wish I had seen this post four days ago before I spent $36,000 on my new MR! I don't think I am gonna race it now, since a big selling point for me was the 10 year warr, and 5 year powertrain warr! Sue the pants off the dealership for false statements, and sue MMNA for false advertising!