MisterSpoot

The problem I see here is the 80/20 rule. Where 20% of the customers file 80% of the warranty claims. I think something better would be to expand the PitPass program for enthusiast types, having several levels of PitPass membership. The more you put into PitPass, the more your replacement parts is subsidized.

So while the work may not be covered under the regular vehicle warranties, you might get 30% off the clutch you use in your drag Evo. And the guy who managed to blow a strut at Infineon Raceway might save 30% as well on the strut and having it installed.

Regardless, Mitsu better rethink their advertising strategy.

Az3ar

iTrader: (18)

You know what. If that post was on few months ago I would be on KurtP side however, its not. I took my car to Mitsu to see why rotors keep wrapping, I mean for god %$^%$ I treat them so well and worm them up and cool them down. Its amazing what there answer was they said they fixed once and they wont fix it again. To make the story short am a guy that does not like to argue to much with a service manager that was intrduce to an EVO last year and I have known about them since early 90's. Anyways, I took my car back and I decided that I love it and Mitsu will never see me buying car from them again and I will always fix it on my own. My S4 was chipped with %$^%$ high *** after market parts and AUDI of america just spent more than $10000 reparing tranny and engine. so F$#%$# that because they could not prove that my after market parts had any thing to do with faliure. i will always buy AUDI, BMW, Benz

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Honda did the same thing with the S2000. To achieve their advertised 0-60, you had to do a 6000-7000 RPM clutch drop. The results after a few of these type of launches are pretty predictable. When you took the car in with a snapped half-shaft or tore up rear diff, the Honda DSM would void the warranty without hesitation. So, Mitsubishi is hardly alone in this behavior.

Advertising pretty much has no relation to reality. Service/Parts doesn't have to back up what Advertising claims; only what's in the paper warranty that comes with your car. Unfortunately, as someone posted, racing (even cone dodging) is enough justification to void warranty for just about any mechanical defect. I'd be curious to see how well MMSA stood up to claims it encourages street racing (since that's not actually racing by definition).

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Civil courts exist to settle disputes between two parties. Both sides have quite valid points, in this case.

The owner(s) were sold a car that was advertised (by Mitsubishi) with a racing pedigree, tons of go-fast features, a low 0-60 time, a high top speed, etc. At the time of purchase, the sales staff (employees of Mitsubishi) indicated that participating in SCCA Solo events would not be a problem warranty wise. Mitsubishi has demonstrably failed to back up all of those claims.

The company has a paper contract stating that failures resulting from racing will not be covered under warranty. What they don't have is a concise definition of racing (is 'street racing' really racing? No timing, no proof, just a car moving at a high rate of speed on the highway. Likewise is SCCA cone dodging really racing?), nor do they have language defining what portions of the warranty can be voided due to cone-dodging, if it is indeed considered racing.

I know who will win this battle in court if a single owner sued; a class-action may go the other way. It will also by a pyhrric victory, as Mitsubishi will probably stop selling the Evo here if they actually have to cover warranty claims.

denom

Sometimes it seems as if street racing is a better alternative all around. I mean you aren't covered under warranty if you race on a track and crash, whereas on the street you are Now this comes up.

KurtP

^ thats a perfect example of what makes me sick.

"they say racing isnt covered...but what really IS racing...." you want to mince words all up and make up a BS loop hole when you know full well what racing is.

all civil court is these days are free slots. need some money? just sue someone. dont have a case? who cares!! chances are theyw ill settle and you can get paid. the legal system of this country disgusts me.

personally, i think you all SHOULD make a class action lawsuit, and i hope you win!! that would increase the probability of mitsubishi going out of business so then youd have no warranties or support at all.....hopefully other car makers will see that and start to drop all the performance lines out of the market and go to hybrids. we screamed to get this car for years so we could beat the pants off of other cars. we got it. now that we have it and weve done that people are *****ing that things break when they beat the **** out of the cars.

what did you expect??

Tanner_Hall

whoah...easy there kurt. i won't defend street racing but a sanctioned autox is another story. i would guess that well over 1/2 of the participants that run in scca solo II drive late model stock cars, representing nearly every car manufacturer. do you think all of the other manufacturers are denying warranty for racers? the answer is no....and neither should mitsu.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Apparently you didn't actually read my post.

I know what racing is. The point is, the warranty contract is not explicit in what constitutes racing. Autocrossing is not demanding on car, far less so than an average commute in Chicago traffic. Track days, on the other hand, are very hard on a car but aren't really racing since no time is kept. And, again, Mitsubishi's advertising and sales staff encourages high speed driving (up to and including racing the car) but they (Mitsubishi service/parts) will not back it up.

Also, the Federal Trade Comission (FTC) has laws on truth in advertising.

Mitsubishi has deceptively advertised this car as a "race car for the streets". The consumer has no recourse but to sue if he feels he has been wronged. This isn't about profiteering, it's about righting a perceived wrong (either financially or via a change in official policy at Mitsubishi).

Just because you don't like our court system (which admittedly has some major problems) doesn't mean this isn't a legitimate issue.

MSM_S2K

iTrader: (2)

Kurt, you're certainly worked up about this.

The definition of what constitutes racing is core to my situation. I went so far as to confirm with the dealer that sold the car that SCCA Solo II would be fine. You seem to ignore this in every one of your posts. According to dealer before I purchased the car SCCA is fine and "... a cool way to keep my son from getting in trouble on the street." After the purchase, the warranty on the car is voided after participating in exactly what I told the dealer we would -- an SCCA Solo II in a local parking lot. How you assume that is equivalent to beating the **** out of the car is beyond me. Starts are designed to not allow WOT starts with almost immediate turns right at the start of the course. Courses are designed and enforced by safety stewards to keep speeds below 60mph.

You are entitled to your opinion. I'd be more interested in hearing your opinion, if it were well-formed and grounded in the context of this thread. To me, it seems you've failed to understand the simple basics of my complaint:
1. I was sold car with expectation clearly set from dealer conversation that SCCA events were fine and would not be a warranty problem
2. Post sale an entry is made proactively into the service record of the car, voiding the warranty for participating in an SCCA event.

Walk into a Mitsu dealer tomorrow, have them do the paperwork on a new car purchase, and ask them as your finalizing the purchase if participating in an SCCA Solo II event will be a problem? Ask them if it will be a warranty issue? Kudos to the dealer if they tell you it will. In my case, they did not.

To me, that is an issue worth fighting for. To me, that is part of the amazing benefit of this wonderful country -- I have rights and legal means by which to protect my rights. Does the system get abused? Yep. Is my case an abuse of the system? I don't think so. You seem to feel it is, yet your comments in this thread strike me as emotional rants; you make no reference to the specific merits or lack thereof with respect to my proposed action. Instead you rant and rave about the general woes of the American legal system and the "sue, sue, sue" mentality.

Stop&TurnFreak

I was in the same situation as the original poster. I bought the Evo, for it's abilty, and because, THE DEALER TOLD ME POINT BLANK THEY WOULD STAND BEHIND THE CAR. Package deal. I was up front and honest, 5-10 open-tracks per year, and I would be modding the car. His reponse, that is fine, we will stand behind you with our service. I have sold 5 of those freaking things for them at the track, after people rode in mine, so pardon me, I do feel they owe me a little something for my time, and energy. Granted, I didn't have to do that, I coudl have been a p*cker, and said no, you can't ride in my Evo, even though you are a very nice guy, and a great student.

If they weren't, I would have kept my Stang, and been beating happily on it at the track, but they said, they would. So, IMHO, if they said they would stand behind it, despite what other literature is there, it is an agreement, above and beyond the purchase, a condition of the purchase, or an adjustment of terms.


Granted, (knocking on wood violently), I haven't had any problems. I think my wife has done more damage to the car learning to drive a stick, than I have at open track. Oh, and for you clutch complainers, 10000 very hard miles, and the stock clutch is rock solid.

KurtP

i give up. sue the pants off them.

EVO Neil

iTrader: (6)

Let's not forget that on a single autocross day, you may have three minutes, total, time on the course. Many people will abuse their Evo more on the street than this three minutes competing in an SCCA Solo II event, so maybe under this thought process Mitsubishi shouldn't even offer a warranty. I mean, if it can't handle three minutes...

KazzEvo8

iTrader: (2)

If this happens to me, I'll drive it to the wall with two words and you can all jump on or in, your choice: CLASS ACTION

KurtP

yeah!!

Stop&TurnFreak

No, Kurt, your points were more than valid, but it seems on some of our cases, we were sold the car under other pretenses. If the sales/manager guy would have said, no we can't stand behind the car, consult the literature, that is different, but they said they would. I know open tracking a car is VERY hard on the car, but, so is not changing the oil, slam shifting it on the street, racing some sentra SE, because you feel you have something to prove. And, then taking it to the dealership because you stock clutch died.

I don't think they should stand behind cars people race, but, by the same token, I don't want to think I was lied to, outright.