Being that my clutch is *probably* going to go out (as a 'wear' item) before the EVO is 30k miles old...I've already started a savings accnt. to get a nice upgraded one. I'm willing to accept the clutch as a "oh crap Mitsu. didn't do a very good job here, but I like the EVO so much, I'll just give it the clutch it deserves."

Apparently one of my old DSM buddies blabbed this info. about me upgrading my clutch to a Mitsu. tech, and today when I was pricing some air cooling guides the tech. who handles my EVO came back and said if I get an aftermarket clutch the 'whole' drivetrain (including motor) would be unwarrantied. The train of thought he mentioned was that the clutch was built with a bit of "slip" so that the transfer case would survive.

So...here's my thoughts (along with this thread's ideas.)

The weaker clutch was probably put in the EVO due to:

1.) Accountant's idea of using a cheaper part.
2.) An engineer's idea of getting a bit of slip to unload the TC a little better.
3.) An executive's decision to try to unload the warranty onto the customer.

Unfortunately the cards are stacked against us here. The TC is far back enough in line in the system to not cause an immediate safety hazard, thereby we can't provoke a consumer group to take action against Mitsubishi.

I'm willing to believe the whole weak clutch / restrictor pill that's put in the system is a move to try to remedy a problem that should have been taken care of in good engineering of the TC, and good yield in production of the TC.

I'm sure if Mitsu. would have built some 'weak' tires that would break loose during accel. that would have been a different matter. We (the consumer) would have purchased new tires (all DOT legal), broke the TC, and then blamed Mitsu. and actually would have gotten something done about it.

Now...I come to my conclusion. Mitsu. doesn't want to warranty clutches because they are a 'wear' item. So the next logical solution is to put in a really good aftermarket clutch with the same clamping force, but better grip / higher heat tolerance yada,da,da,da so that we don't have to fork out $1000.00 per clutch job that has to be done between 2k miles and 20k miles. I'm sorry...even for a performance car that sucks. I'm thinking around 60k miles before a clutch change if the EVO is a daily driver. If I hammer on the thing, I'd think about doing a clutch every 20k-30k.

Now if we put in an aftermarket clutch we get hammered on a TC or rear end without any good evidence as to why it 'may' break. This is a vicious circle and has to stop somewhere. Preferrably not with the consumer.

M2C.

Cheers,

jcnel.

 

whoa, SAFETY issue? Id say having a 2g c-walk on you in the middle of the freeway raises some safety concerns.

 

When was the last time having an engine crap out on you was a safety issue? All that happens is your car won't move anymore, not that it'll explode in your face. It's very very very annoying, and expensive to fix, but it's no safety issue.

The balljoint recall, now THAT was a safety issue. Having your car's wheel turn in 90 deg is a bad thing, especially at highway speeds.

 

you thought that was long?

2GDSM, you said:

This may be the case, but we're really yelling to each other across a divide of semantics. Proof, as a word, is very definite. Proof, as an accomplishment achieved in a court of law, is very vague. One need look no further than the situation where OJ was essentially proven with DNA tests to have been the murderer, yet he's a free man.

I've been in enough court rooms to fight tickets (many, many tickets) and I watch all the other cases before mine carefully to see where people screw up and what makes a judge decide what has/hasn't been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" - which is what we're REALLY talking about and which is quite different than the scientific meaning of "proof".

Mitsu can claim "aftermarket clutch blew the TC because the clutch is too strong". Based on the rulings I've heard in traffic court, I believe any local Judge would instantly consider this to be the clenching point. He's gonna be convinced right then and you have to unconvince him somehow.

Judges aren't engineers, they're usually text-book-educated average schmoe's who know nothing about mechanical workings. The only argument that will affect a judge's mind in the way you want is something he can understand, like statistics, coupled with a well-put argument.


Your best response would be something like this:

"X% of stock-clutched Evo's have experienced broken TC's. the failure rates for the other major driveline pieces are X% for X part, and so on. The most directly-coupled component to the engine is the transmission, and it's failure rate with a stock clutch is X%.

Comparing the TC failure rate to the failure rate of their other driveline pieces, you can plainly see that Mitsubishi has made their transfer case disproportionately weak in comparison to the rest of the driveline.

The constistent (possibly "STAGGERING") difference in failure rates between these major pieces clearly indicates that the weak link is the transfer case, regardless of whether the stock clutch or an aftermarket clutch is being used."

In my opinion, Johnnie Cochran spittin' game like that would have a slight chance of winning, but I still think the Judge is more likely going to come back with "Well, if the TC is so close to breaking with the stock clutch, why on earth did you install a stronger clutch? You decided to do this yourself and Mitsubishi cannot be held financially liable for your decision."

But, hey, I could be wrong.



An even more accurate argument would be saying something like this - gotta suit up -

"In reality, your honor, Mitsu has, with a concious intent, offered an oddball driveline (in relation to the rest of the world) to the US market to test it here and fatten their profit margin in a weak segment of the world. The weak link of said oddball driveline is the transfer case (insert statistic comparisons).

They compensated for the weak transfer case by using an undersized clutch unit whose size is not adequate to handle the NECESSARILY elevated RPM point at which clutch slippage must occur. This necessity of higher RPM's is dictated by using a very small engine with a very potent turbocharger. Such an engine has an incredibly low amount of low-rpm torque to get the car rolling and clutch failure is the number one result.

This leads the owner with a genuine and respectable want to fix a problem rather than band-aid it redundantly at up to $1900 per repeat. A twin disk clutch like the one installed on the plaintiff's car spreads the load of slippage over literally double the surface area. This mathematically doubles the wear life, but in reality it lasts even longer because of the time it spends at normal temperatures (low wear rate), rather than elevated temps (high wear rate).

This is a perfectly sound, reasonable modification that has had no necessarily detrimental effect on any driveline component. The stock restrictor pill that effectively governs the rate of clutch engagement (explain how this thing works) is still in place and working properly, per Mitsubishi tech "Mr. Mitsu Technican".

The aforementioned statistics obviate a substantial likelyhood that I got one of the "lemon" transfer cases. On the other hand, mitsu has shown no evidence, tangible or otherwise, that my aftermarket clutch operating through their governing device has unduly broken an otherwise perfectly sound transfer case."


It might work.


jcnel_evo8, you said:

ehh... how about just leaving the stock clutch and driving it carefully so that it doesn't get wasted? wouldn't that prevent the "vicious circle" from starting?

 

Turbo...you have a semi-valid point. Of course, traffic court is not the same as regular court. OJ got off on a technicality, that happens in the courtroom. I've already said this twice, I wouldnt suggest the lawsuit as a first or second option. Small claims court doesnt have lawyers and usually doesnt have judges either, (unless the parties cannot arbitrate successfully).

 

In a MM case I would think one would want to research other cases to use as reference of what is legal standard for proof in these cases. 2G may have more info on this than I have. Otherwise, we are just taking guesses based on kind of related cases. I don’t know if you are familiar with the Getrag/Redline Supra story, so here is a link: http://www.mkiv.com/techarticles/get...ne/getrag.html This is the kind of proof I would expect to see. (Also something to keep in mind when contemplating changing drivetrain fluids.) When dealing with mechanical and technical discussions of proof, logic doesn’t prove anything. Generalizing this a little more in the legal aspect, your points of logic are circumstantial evidence. A failure analysis is hard evidence.

You asked how Mitsu can prove that the clutch caused the failure vs. the TC being faulty by design. Although his tactics are improper, Ducaticorse has contested in several posts and threads that the cause of the TC failure is related to improper shimming. A failure analysis may well be able to show whether the failure is related to pure stress from increased clamping force in the clutch or a failure caused by shimming issues. I don’t know for a fact that it is possible for them to prove one way or the other. Manufacturer’s do this type of analysis all the time when new vehicles have failures that they need to diagnose. For instance, when 350Z trannies started failing shortly after the cars began shipping, the failing trannies were pulled and shipped back to Japan for analysis.


“Why is the owner replacing the clutch?...this point simply CAN NOT be overstated.”

Wouldn’t slipping the clutch put less stress/shock on the drivetrain, i.e. TC?

“Either way, they built the car the way they did, and we all DECIDED to buy them.”

Did Mitsu provide any disclaimer that they designed weak points throughout the driveline which require extreme care in driving to keep from damaging the components? Did they say “Beware: The clutch in this car cannot handle driving styles that 99% of the cars on the market can handle”?

I don’t see how this line of thought applies to the discussion at hand.

D

 

Riiiight. But follow the dialogue...the person i'm quoting is drawing a distinction between crankwalk (as being a non-safety issue) and transfer-case failure (as being a safety issue). The transfer case won't explode in your face either. He's saying there is a difference between the two, and i'm saying there isn't. Clearer now?

 

yes, but you're taking it out of context. the excessive slippage makes the clutch wear out prematurely, which leads to a legitimate want to replace it for the sake of longevity, not necessarily "high performance".




I guess you're one of those people that agrees with the hot coffee disclaimer. My experience with my car hasn't upset me one bit. Nothing is perfect and most things are far from, yet most people seem to have a demanding expectation for utopian living whenever their Evo is involved. Go look at my thread on Baer's brake rotors and you'll find some folks that act like Hal Baer should be castrated for failing to produce a perfect product - that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I feel my opinions are more down-to-earth and err on the conservative side for a nice safety margin. My line of thought is for one who decides that preventing the ordeal is better than struggling to show righteousness amidst it; The centerpiece of my stance being my belief that driven properly and carefully, clutches will live a normal life, preventing the need for a stronger clutch in the first place, and the prevention of warranty denial in the second.

I'm also NOT saying that the TC is not a complete pile of crap... it probably is for all I know. The insights above about the hardcore analysis were very enlightening and if there IS in fact some sort of precedent indicating that Mitsu is required to have this level of proof, then I think that's an excellent tool for the consumer and Mitsu to find the truth about why the TC really broke.

So, wouldn't that be the next step in this guy's case?

 

i beg to differ. If you search around, there are plenty of people with messed up t-cases. I am on my 3rd t-case (covered under warranty) and I still have my stock clutch. you might be tired of people blaming the dealer, well I am tired of people blaming the driver for a part which f#$%ed up.

EVO8..if you need help with any help, just let me know. I can send you my Work Orders for 3....thats right, 3, t-case jobs, if that will help.

I think that we all need to stick together on this one. It is already by documented that the t-cases are messed up from the factory. Shepherd Racing has already stated that the gears are shimmed to close together from the factory and when they took apart a t-case, all the tolerances were way off from factory specs.

 

No sh*t. Mine broke on me while I was driving. 25mph thank god.

The t-case if it freezes up while your driving the rear wheels

would lock up and send your evo out of control. When your motor

blows up (I've had that happen aswell) you drift to the side of the

road and wait for the flat bed.

 

This is mad...I guess no modding here . When I first bought my evo, everybody said that the evo has bullet proof engine and trannies, well, now I know nothing is bullet proof. I'm at 13K and the stock clutch is still good. Is this only an EVO's problem, how is the STI guys doing, it seems like they have very little trouble with their trannies and engines.

 

Regardless of the EVO being high performance or not is the fact that asking about t-case and clutch failures would NOT be a normal question to ask during purchase negociations, nor do I think Mitsu. would gladly offer empircal evidence as to how and why the t-cases break.

For myself...I did ask and reseach as much as I possibly could about the EVO's driveline, and came to the conclusion that it was definately better than the stock USDM WRX drivetrain, but a step below the Sti drivetrain. I came to the conclusion that I should probably drive the EVO "Porsche style" which is as smooth as I possibly can and not drag the crapola out vehicle on launches. BUT I should be perfectly warrantied on the drivetrain AFTER the clutch would go and I would put in an aftermarket clutch.

Another 2c.

jcnel.

 

My last response... I am not going to even bother discussing who is at fault in that guys case, but if I had to guess I would say mitsu is. Getting to the lawsuit thing, to clarify what articflury said, the courts wont allow you to sue in a regular court for one transfer case issue. The only way it would be allowed would be in a class action case (which is irrelevant in this issue), or if you were suing because of a death or grave injury. Suing just to get them to fix the transfer case would come in the form of a small claims suit. Small claims court is run differently from regular court, like I already said, no lawyers, and usually no judges, just a 3rd party to act as a liason. You wont need to prove via technical evidence that one thing or another happened. Just go to court with some information that you gathered, and assuming that you are well spoken, you stand a good shot at getting what you want. I am sorry that the lawsuit thing was even brought up because real lawsuits are probably out of most of you're guys leagues and finances. My suggestion still stands that you should try another dealer or two first. Then contact mitsubishi and you're state's consumer protection board, and then if that does not work, take the dealer to small claims court. At this point in this discussion, I do not even remember who was having this problem, but if that person has any questions they are more than welcome to email me. My email is betechnology@yahoo.com .

 

adding...that you didn't have to pay for.

This thread started about whether mitsubishi should cover Evo8's TC even though he had many mods done.(self-proclaimed in his sig.)

I've read these threads, and the bottom issue that is being ignored on the ORIGINAL topic is the accountability of people for their actions, and not running to a lawyer when you screw something up and don't want to pay for or learn from your mistakes.

As far as three TC's being replaced, I figure it's like being married three times. After three times, maybe the problem is in the mirror.

I'm sure the flames are coming, intelligent conversation is usually the best bellows...

 

i dont think they should warranty your transfer case either hehe... the law is, an aftermarket part will not void the warranty only if its clearly not related to the part in question