Why I bought the extended warranty

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Between my wife and I we have put a grand total of over a million miles on our last 7 cars (4 mine and 3 hers) and have spent the horribly excessive amount of $180 in repair work that would have been covered by an extended warranty. That was to repair a headlight mount that broke when 1000K out of the regular warranty. These were all Mitsubishis and one DSM! The only expensive repair was to my Talon when it threw the timing belt and that wouldn't have been covered anyway since it happened at 180K and should have been changed at 100K.


Now I did consider the extended for the FRS since it was a new and unknown car but I would have chewed up even the extended by now and have not had to have a single thing fixed.


Damnit you changed the future on us! We were supposed to have all sorts of cool shit by now.

Yup, this thread doesn't change my opinion on the matter at all. I'd still tell the OP congrats, they got lucky. Now it's time to cancel that extended warranty before they piss away all the money they just saved paying for little to nothing for years to come.


That's pretty shitty they didn't cover the headlight mount though. I've heard of many problems just barely outside of warranty being covered anyway as a goodwill gesture.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

Yup, this thread doesn't change my opinion on the matter at all. I'd still tell the OP congrats, they got lucky. Now it's time to cancel that extended warranty before they piss away all the money they just saved paying for little to nothing for years to come.


That's pretty shitty they didn't cover the headlight mount though. I've heard of many problems just barely outside of warranty being covered anyway as a goodwill gesture.

The dealership had been sold and the new owners (owned about half the car lots in town) were real ****s. The old dealer would have fixed it in a heartbeat. It was just the start of a bad breakup between me and Mitsubishi that got far far worse as it went along.

[~el~jefe~]

To place a bet on a sporting game with a bookie is laying out $100 to risk $110. They call this the "Vig". it is the way bookies make money, they do not make it on your loss, they make it when they have 50% of people in the win, and 50% of people in the lose category by the end of the week. The Lose people pay out an extra $10 dollars on every $100 dollars, and this goes to the bookie.

Now look at auto financing department and extended warranties. It has to pay the finance department salesperson, the manager of the dealership, the owner of the dealership and the corporation of Subaru. All of them have to make a profit.

I would gather that it is MUCH more than 5% profit. Remember, the vig is 10% of losses, so only $10/200, 10% of the loss category not that full amount transacted during a given betting week.

It is clearly much better to make an informed bet on sports than it is to buy an extended warranty "insurance". Is it a stupid idea to buy the insurance with the manufacturer? No, not really. I think it is ok. I would hope that it is paid for without interest, removed from the loan, bought at a later date, and strongly shopped around and negotiated. You can negotiate and shop around for the same warranty if it is a true manufacturer's warranty. I do not know if they are locked into regions and distributor's groups however. Most warranties for products are sold in relation to stock purchased from a buying group. That is why they ask for serial numbers and not just model numbers when you do a warranty claim on any product. It has to link to a distributor list, some sort of buying group, as a product that had a specific warranty agreement prior to consumer purchase.

I also have learned that the prices for warranty work are crushed by the manufacturer. Their labor rates are denied and are forced to use Subaru's, or whatever company, rates not shop rates. They also make little on parts if at all, vs customers which have super high jacked up rates, and super high part prices on their bills. If a dealer can "prove" the work is out of warranty coverage agreements, the shop can charge you often double the amount or more.

The $5000 dollars saved that was quoted might be only $2000 saved as the original claim for this might have been denied by subaru, paying them only $3000 for the work. The bill shown and quoted to you was to make YOU happy and was a hopeful pitch to subaru that probably, probably was not fully the amount shown that was truly paid to the dealership's shop.

[~el~jefe~]

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...game/index.htm

Consumer reports here. I do not want to make people feel stupid for buying one. I am considering it myself! I know that is odd for how much I shot it down. It is particular to one's plans and plots. If I bought a Mini Cooper all4 S like I planned on before getting this brz 2017 limited, I would have asked for and negotiated an extended warranty. I knew that the parts can wear out before 90k miles, some major ones.

I think I would buy an extended on a WRX. Definitely on an STI. A few years from now one could get pounded by a very expensive upmarked part and labor.

My suggestion is really just to negotiate and to figure how good you are at saving and paying for unexpected things. Also, if you know the dealer and their service for many years and have good relationship. I know my dealer 0 days. My mini dealer i know for 11 years and they really are fond of me.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

[URL]I think I would buy an extended on a WRX. Definitely on an STI. A few years from now one could get pounded by a very expensive upmarked part and labor....

On the flip side of that, I would never buy a car (or anything else for that matter) where I thought I needed to buy an extended warranty because it was going to have expensive (non-maintenance) repairs within the first half of it's useful life (in the case of a vehicle I consider half-life 100,000 miles).

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

On the flip side of that, I would never buy a car (or anything else for that matter) where I thought I needed to buy an extended warranty because it was going to have expensive (non-maintenance) repairs within the first half of it's useful life (in the case of a vehicle I consider half-life 100,000 miles).

the introduction of complicated drive trains and super hot turbos and direction injection makes these marketing beast cars worrisome to me for that key area of 80-100k miles in which things can blow.

The reason this FRS/BRZ is so awesome is it has 5 of 5 things that have a good chance of being reliable, in my limited scope of figuring things:
1. made and parts from Japan
2. no turbo or supercharger
3. manual gearbox taken from a great car line
4. non integrated "infotainment" system. You can rip out the stereo and have a hole there and the car wouldnt know the difference.
5. has fuel injection squirting out the black junk + direct injection

Because of this warranties are less of a concern I am guessing. You should see my forum on Mini Cooper's and BMW's.... jeez. Infinite expensive issues not repairable 100%.

[FR-Sky]

My car is the first year, 2013, so I bought extended warranty just in case as well.
Mine was $2000 8 years/120000 0 deductible, whichever come first.

Glad you got it covered.

[Xxyion]

So the interesting thing is that for the 2016 year and upwards Subaru just changed their Warranty plan.
1
Year Unlimited Mileage
Replacement Parts and Accessories Limited Warranty

2
Year 24,000 Miles
Federal Specification Emissions Performance Warranty

3
Year 36,000 Miles
New Car Limited Warranty, Federal Specification Emissions Defect Warranty

5
Year 60,000 Miles
Powertrain Limited Warranty

5
Year Unlimited Mileage
Rust Perforation Limited Warranty

7
Year 70,000 Miles
California Specification Emissions Extended Defect Warranty

8
Year 80,000 Miles
Federal Specification Emissions Extended Defect Warranty

Lifetime Lifetime
Seat Belt Lifetime Limited Warranty

And the best thing they added was that i can take my car to ANY mechanic willing to work with Subaru to get the money for the warranty repair. I'm 100% sure of this because i repeated what they said back to me like 5 million times and they always confirmed. (and then i had them write it down on an official form)

If it wasnt for that last part i would not have bought the warranty.

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by FR-Sky

My car is the first year, 2013, so I bought extended warranty just in case as well.
Mine was $2000 8 years/120000 0 deductible, whichever come first.

Glad you got it covered.

wow!! that is a great warranty. 8 years and 120,000. Clearly something goes wrong at that point. I wonder what is covered under warranty at that point that is not "wear and tear".

[Calvin27]

Originally Posted by FR-Sky

My car is the first year, 2013, so I bought extended warranty just in case as well.
Mine was $2000 8 years/120000 0 deductible, whichever come first.

Yeah I would have taken that up too - great value. Does it cover track use though?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

Yup, this thread doesn't change my opinion on the matter at all. I'd still tell the OP congrats, they got lucky.

The fuck I did. How is it lucky to have an oil pump come apart at 65,000 miles and take out an engine? Why do people keep saying I "won" or "got lucky" to lose an engine? You people have a seriously fucked up sense of what winning looks like.

Bang! Rat-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at-at.

"Yay! I hit the jackpot!"

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

On the flip side of that, I would never buy a car (or anything else for that matter) where I thought I needed to buy an extended warranty because it was going to have expensive (non-maintenance) repairs within the first half of it's useful life (in the case of a vehicle I consider half-life 100,000 miles).

Neither would I. And I didn't. I expected the car to well outlive its original warranty.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The consumer purchases the product because they believe they will need the product within the timeframe the insurance company has determined that statistically they will not need it.

You keep saying you understand the purpose of insurance, but then you say something like this that demonstrates clearly that you don't. The purchaser does NOT generally think they'll need the insurance. A lot of people here have comprehensive coverage on their cars without being required to have it, but they don't think they're going to go out and wreck their cars. They buy it because they know there's a risk that something might happen, and they want to turn the uncertainty into a known cost that they can plan for and manage.

A better example is my field. I work in the title insurance business. When you buy a house, the settlement agent will search the courthouse records to make sure the seller has the right to sell it to you and there are no liens outstanding against the property. But what if they miss something? What if someone else pops up with a deed to your house? What if someone pops up and says they have a lien against your property from a prior owner's debt?

My company provides insurance against that. If it turns out the seller didn't have the right to sell the property, an owner's policy will pay your losses. If you take out a loan, the lender will require you to purchase a lender's policy to protect their collateral.

NOBODY buys a house thinking he's going to lose it. NOBODY. And no lender accepts a mortgage on a house thinking that the collateral will be lost. If someone told you he was buying his dream home, but he thought somebody would come take it from him next year, you'd think he was a fucking idiot for buying it in the first place. If a lender said, "Yeah, we'll give you this money, but we expect to lose it all next year," you'd wonder how that lender could possibly stay in business. The title insurance is there not because anybody expects it to happen or is betting it will, but because they would be in a seriously fucked up situation if it ever did.

So no, I didn't buy the warranty on my car because I expected to win big when my engine blew. I doubt anybody would. Someone who thinks he's lucky in my situation would be a fucking moron.

[FR-Sky]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

wow!! that is a great warranty. 8 years and 120,000. Clearly something goes wrong at that point. I wonder what is covered under warranty at that point that is not "wear and tear".

Basically almost everything in the car except, tires, light bulb, clutch, body and any tear and wear stuff.
But sadly, its already taken 3 years from me since my car is 2013,
i bought it 2015 DEC , so i have 5 years left.

[FR-Sky]

Originally Posted by Calvin27

Yeah I would have taken that up too - great value. Does it cover track use though?

Obviously it doesn't cover track use........but I dont think you would say
"Oh my engine blow during track" <<< ofcause they not gonna fix it...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

You keep saying you understand the purpose of insurance, but then you say something like this that demonstrates clearly that you don't. .

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I agree with you that insurance is to manage risk. My point is that you also have to weigh that against the cost versus the benefit you get IF you need the insurance.

I insure my home for less that 0.5% of its cost annually because that is a reasonable price to pay for something I cannot self insure, it would be a catastrophic loss. However, I don't own an "extended house warranty" choosing to self-insure through those issues.

Same with my car, I have auto insurance to cover the vehicle but chose to self-insure through repairs based on nearly 40 years of car ownership experience.

If you see value of an extended warranty, then good for you, and you should purchase it. I do not, and don't

Again, we both understand how it works, we just view its value differently.