superbovine

iTrader: (23)

The K members will be inspected for adequate corrosion in applicable areas to justify replacement. If there is not adequate corrosion in the applicable areas to justify replacement, they will receive a undercoating in specific trouble areas to prevent it from forming.

If an owner had previously had to replace the K member and has a receipt for the repairs, reimbursement is usually doable up to the cost of correct repair. If some shop slammed you on ten hours in labor, that isn't Mitsubishis fault of course, they will usually pay exactly what it costs to replace. This is a case by case basis when this is done however, and further details on this individual recall are still pending. Whether or not they will do reimbursements for previous repairs has not been stated yet... but usually they will.

Mitsubishi is not going to pay you for destroying your LCA though, nor for cutting open your K member for repairs (whether you did it yourself or had a shop do it). However if there was adequate corrosion to the member and it was "fixed" rather than replaced, even though it is "fixed" now it would still qualify for a replacement if there was justifiable corrosion in the applicable areas.

We got an auto-shipment of the undercoating last week, so I am hoping to have full details including acceptable/unacceptable corrosion levels as well as reimbursement information in the next 30 days or sooner.

gsrboi80

iTrader: (38)

Thanks for putting together the info on this, I'm stoked to bring mine in I can use a new Subframe

Locdizzel

iTrader: (14)

finally, i might be able to get my cusco LCA brace on i've been holding for 5 years

heel2toe

iTrader: (41)

Thanks for getting back to me. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. In my case like many other members on here I went to remove my LCA's to replace the bushings and the horizontal bolt was seized to the bushing which resulted in the nut backing out of the cage in the subframe.

This was actually the one job that I didn't do on my vehicle and had my alignment guy take care of it for me since I didn't have access to a lift or welder at the time. I spent close to $1000 getting this done as he was working at it for many hours and he also realigned the car after the fact too which added to the cost.

Im not expecting Mitsu to pay out in full for something like this but I would be curious what type of reimbursement if any they'd be willing to offer. My subframe certainly has rust on it but I cleaned it up and painted it to try and cope with the spreading of the rust.

I dont think a new subframe is really that expensive ~3-400 IIRC but once you add in labor alignment and other misc associated costs I can see this costing a pretty penny.

Thanks again for the information and I look forward to any updates feedback advice you have moving forward!

superbovine

iTrader: (23)

No problem. Again if your K was not replaced, they are not at all likely to reimburse. Since the recall is for replacement of the member, they will (again usually... I see no reason this instance will be different) reimburse for replacement of the recalled part if it was done prior to the recall. Subsequent damage is never reimbursed (As they have no way of knowing if it was related, if it was avoidable etc), and "similar" failure repairs like it sounds like you had are not what the recall is for.
Again if you have substantial corrosion to justify replacement, you will still be eligible for the replacement even if yours has been modified or substantially repaired etc... they don't care about that.
Any attempt for compensation for repairing of the member however will be an uphill battle. The best thing to do is once the recall is official and your VIN is called, have them ask the district representative before they replace your member (again, if justified). Worst they can say is no. Or maybe hell no. Possibly "pound sand". But essentially, either they will or they won't, it doesn't hurt to ask.

heel2toe

iTrader: (41)

Yes I agree with you it will certainly be an uphill battle but I have nothing to loose trying to fight it.

As the recall states: "In affected vehicles, the front lower control arms may detach due to the front cross-member corroding from salt water exposure, such as from road salt use. A detached front control arm can result in the loss of control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash."

I dont know of any evo owner that has had the LCA fall off due to rust but what I experienced is extremely common and I suppose is the start to the problem which if left alone will get progressively worse.

The thing that gets me and Im not trying to argue with you as I know its not your words but I don't understand how they would offer compensation if the k member is replaced yet they wont re compensate if it is repaired.

For now I will sit tight until I receive a notice in the mail and then maybe Ill test my luck and see what they have to say. Im not keen on people touching my car but if I can get some money back or a new clean subframe then it might be worth it.

barneyb

The thing you must understand and remember about a recall is that it is done by dealerships. An owner, manager or mechanic at the dealership reads the above information and what it says and what they think it says often is completely different.

The DSM transfer case recall called for a leak inspection, and if found, the replacement of the drive shaft yoke - the actual leaking part. Only when obviously damaged was the transfer case to be replaced. Some dealerships were chucking a new transfer case into every recalled car - sometimes without lubricant. Others didn't understand the characteristics of the leak and declared leaking cars perfect.

When this recall starts I suggest watching here for what actually is occurring in the field before taking your car in.

heel2toe

iTrader: (41)

Agreed, if I decide to do anything with this recall it'll be after I see how it pans out for others on here. Hell, I havent replaced my passenger side airbag yet. I'd imagine there isnt an allotted time that you have to adhere to being that its a safety item since you could have bought the car used recently and the previous owner may have not done it so I am not in a rush.

superbovine

iTrader: (23)

Because if the component is bad, it should not be repaired, only replaced. If the corrosion was so minor that it just needed minor cleaning and sealing, then there wouldn't be a substantial repair involved (just treating/sealing of the areas). If there was substantial corrosion and for instance you did lose a control arm (not to be confused with you tried to remove the LCA and the sleeve seized... that is not what this is about at all), then the shop that serviced it should not have repaired it. They should have replaced it. That is why it will be difficult to get compensation for a repair, because the component is either considered good or bad, not repairable.

Think of it like this... {completely hypothetical sitiation} suppose you had a vehicle that developed a head gasket leak and was part of some recall later on that gasket. You took it to a shop for repair and they poured leak stopper in it and retorqued your head bolts. When the recall for the head gasket comes out, Mitsubishi is not going to compensate for that. If they replaced the head gasket that would be one thing and they would reimburse for that without much issue. However if the part (head gasket, K member) is deemed faulty and is recalled for part replacement, a band aid fix regardless of the caliber is not something they are going to support. They will reimburse for the proper repair procedure outlined in the recall, anything beyond that is going to be a bit of a struggle unless special allowances are made in this case.
As I mentioned before though, previous repair attempts will not prevent you from getting the recall done and if it is necessary getting the member replaced even though it has had repairs done to it already.


And yeah like barneyb said, some dealerships are total ****shows just like with any manufacturer. Blanketing all dealerships like that is inaccurate though. There are ways to help determine where to go and where not to, but that is for another topic, another day. In the meantime, word of mouth works best.

barneyb

It wasn't my intention to make a blanket statement concerning dealerships. And there's been so many recalls since the DSM recall that hopefully the dealerships are much more skilful in understanding and processing these. And, it is more probable that someone will post to the internet when they've had a poor recall outcome.

On the other hand, some of the things I heard about during the DSM recall were so disappointing I purchased the campaign part and performed the recall myself.

superbovine

iTrader: (23)

Oh I know, that wasn't aimed at you or anything. I didn't think you meant it that way, it was just a separate thought and clarification.

heel2toe

iTrader: (41)

I understand that the sleeve for the LCA bushing seizing to the LCA bolt is not what this recall is for. But I think you are missing my point. The whole reason the sleeve seizes to the bolt is due to corrosion on the subframe. Water and salt trickles down there as its a low spot and it slowly corrodes the subframe specifically the LCA bolt area.

This recall is centered around the safety implications of the LCA falling off which I get but what Im saying is that what I experienced as well as many others is early signs of the subframe rotting out and if left untouched will only get worse i.e necessitating a replacement.

While I understand your analogy regarding the HG I think that is a little bit of a stretch. Leak stopper to repair HG is a hack fix and is never proper. The proper fix is to pull the head have it checked for flatness and replace the gasket and headbolts/ studs.

The way I see it is as follows. You have some rot in a body panel...you can either replace the whole panel or cut out the troubled areas and weld in new sheet metal. If done correctly its just as good as a new panel and isnt hackish. You can get a solid replacement that is as good as factory but might save you some money vs buying a whole new piece.

My subframe certainly could have been scrapped for a new one but it didnt seen necessary at the time. Id imagine if I brought it to the dealer or probably a general mechanic they would not be allowed to touch a subframe and would say I have to replace it.

Either way I think Im getting way off topic here. Im gunna sit tight and see how this whole ordeal pans out. I too doubt they will offer compensation for my repairs but I'd imagine at the very least they will offer to replace my entire subframe. Best case scenario for me which I doubt will happen since I believe recalls need to be performed by the dealer is that they will pay out for a new subframe and then I can do it at my leisure.

superbovine

iTrader: (23)

Yeah, stretching off topic here and all details are not in yet. When the full specs come out it may even explicitly say something about LCAs. For now though, it is what it is. If you have rust in the K member, it will qualify. If you do not have rust in the K member, it will not qualify.
The LCA sleeve does not necessarily have anything to do with rusting K members apart from both are functions of corrosion. The sleeves seize up on perfectly rust free examples too. A rusty K member certainly isn't going to help the LCA sleeve issue, but the LCA sleeve issue is not at all dependent on a K member issue.
I'd be interested in seeing what yours looked like for more context (perhaps off the thread to keep it on topic at least until notices start going out and the thread gets all crapped up anyway). Knowing what you had to work with or what was done exactly could shed more light on the subject with regard to implications in the recall.

That's correct.... they aren't going to give you the member to change or anything like that... they have to change it otherwise there is no evidence that the part was ever changed. Just like with the catalyst recall a while back and people thinking they were going to walk in to a dealer with a copy of their registration and get handed a new catalytic converter.

barneyb

The LCA sleeve is going to be a big deal because every subframe needing replacement that hasn't had a fresh bushing service is going to require drastic measures, hopefully off of the car, to remove the LCA. If nothing else maybe this will convince Mitsubishi to introduce corrosion resistant bushings in new vehicles. I used to do front end work on seventies era cars, back before manufactures had any interest in rust proofing, and I never had problems with rust welded bushing bolts. Knowledge has been lost somewhere along the way.

superbovine

iTrader: (23)

Ya ya, it's going to suck ***. I dread taking control arms out of these and the PS cars, they all seize up frequently even on the cleanest of vehicles. Having to deal with cars that are rusted up too you know they are going to be a giant pain. I sincerely hope there are large considerations when the final recall comes out to accommodate removal and potential replacement of the arms in severe cases. I have a feeling as bad as these seize up on clean cars, the ones that actually need new members are going to be gd nightmares to get apart.