So my FR-S is officially a lemon...

[Demandred7]

Originally Posted by frsinpa

You guys seem to not understand the following...

1) This issue has been recurring... go do a search if you want some pics

2) If I have to fix the same issue OVER and OVER again.... it's obviously a defect.

It's not a reasonable expectation that you should have to get your taillights fixed 1X a month for the forseeable future.

I know it's a tough crowd around here, so I knew to expect some of this type of backlash.

If you want to pay $30K for a car... only to have to fix the tail lights 1X a month, then go for it. But I'm DEFINITELY not that guy.

I didn't plunk down all my hard earned cash so I can ride around in a defective car that is perpetually in a state where it needs repair. That's not me at all.

I think that when there are others in the forum that have had CEL issues, this (while tremendously annoying and disappointing) may seem like small potatoes. I am by no means trivialising your issue. I would be super frustrated as well.

Keep pushing up the chain of command - corporate if you have to. You are obviously not alone in this and those of us early adopters need to ensure that the issue gets the proper attention that it deserves so that another poor sap doesn't end up in the same boat down the road.

Fight the good fight. It is the right thing to do.

[#87]

Originally Posted by FirestormFRS

repair or correct any defect which substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle

This will be extremely difficult to prove. That word is so vague and broad you'll be hard pressed to get a lawyer that A: will fight with Scions legal department for years and B: be able to prove it.

The only bright side of the whole thing is if they fight it and lose they pay your attorney fees. The down side is if you can find a lawyer that can't define substantial you're stuck with the car. Good luck.

I think it would qualify for substantially impairing use. Say you do have to bring it to the dealer once a month for taillight. That's 1 day for them to look at it and 1 day to install. 2 days per month. I drive to work 20 days per month. That's 10% of commute days interrupted.Or if you want to look at it the other way, you have say 8 to 10 days off per month so that is 20 - 25% of your free days ruined by going to the dealer.

Maybe you can call someone above the dealer and complain, see where that gets you?

I have the condensation in my lights since the first month but I haven't bothered to go fix it yet since like you I don't really have much time for that nonsense. Hopefully when I do go, it's only once.

[fistpoint]

I'm all for taking a piece of shit back to the manufacture, but if I enjoyed a car so much and something like replacing a tail light(for free) was the issue between making it a lemon I would have to strongly reconsider if that isn't the only issue I really have.

I can almost assure you the problem lies with your dealership. The TSB in regards to the tail light specifically mentions which screws to turn first, and how much screwing needs to be done. $100 says they ignored the text instructions and just looked at the picture. Think about it, how hard is it to put a tail light assembly back in place? Why would you even bother "reading" the text? It only goes in one way, and has holes and screws.

Now then, you need to talk to at least two people at the service bay: the service manager and the guy who is actually going to install it(who will swear up and down he READ the instructions but clearly didn't). Tell them the screws need to be turned in a specific order or the problem will happen again.

[4U-GSE]

As others have pointed out "substantially impairs" is going to be the key language. You would have a clear cut case if the car was literally undrivable. I think you would also have a good argument if the condensation prevented the rear light from illuminating. Pennsylvania law requires that every vehicle "shall have at least one red stop lamp on each side of rear of vehicle, which shall be illuminated immediately upon application of the service brake." 67 Pa.Code. S175.66(e). If your rear light can't do this then the car would be unable to abide by Pennsylvania law and this would be a clear example of substantially impairs. Furthermore, your car would simply not pass inspection and you would not be legally able to drive your vehicle. No judge would rule against you if that was the case.

However, if your rear lights are still illuminating and are clearly visible (but maybe a even a little cloudy) I don't see a judge ruling that the condensation substantially impairs.

I would give the dealership a few more bites of the apple before hiring an attorney. I would even take my car to another dealership to try and fix the problem. It might be an annoyance but it's better than paying a couple hundred dollars in consultation fees.

[jadewbj]

I see very little chance of you getting the car lemon law over this. Your car is not prolonged in the shop, like the CEL issue. It is an in and out thing.

Good luck.

[BlaineWasHere]

There is no way this car will get lemon law'd over the tail light condensation. Many other cars have this defect as well and they are all still on the road (Pretty much every mid-90s GM car).

No matter what the OP thinks, this is NOT a major defect.

[BlaineWasHere]

Also why won't the OP toss up some pics? I have condenstaion in my left tail light but it has never been even close to enough to keep another driver from seeing my tail light/brake light/or signal indicators.

[Rayme]

Get those light changed, spend 10$ on silicon or pay somebody and fix it for good.

That's way easier and quicker than going with the lemon law. I can't beleive someone would make a fuss about this to this extend.

[Razz]

Different tail light, different issue.

It has to be repaired at least 3 times.

[86'd]

Originally Posted by frsinpa

You guys seem to not understand the following...

1) This issue has been recurring... go do a search if you want some pics

2) If I have to fix the same issue OVER and OVER again.... it's obviously a defect.

It's not a reasonable expectation that you should have to get your taillights fixed 1X a month for the forseeable future.

I know it's a tough crowd around here, so I knew to expect some of this type of backlash.

If you want to pay $30K for a car... only to have to fix the tail lights 1X a month, then go for it. But I'm DEFINITELY not that guy.

I didn't plunk down all my hard earned cash so I can ride around in a defective car that is perpetually in a state where it needs repair. That's not me at all.

Well that (bolded) couldn't be further from the truth. There are so many fanboys in here this forum is in a perpetual state of agreement.

However a lot of people here are reasonable and would 1. Ignore this issue, 2. Fix it themselves.

Especially if it's not dangerous.

My wife's Focus which was in the shop 3 times for transmission issues (which was dangerous, as it locked up and jerked at speed) was finally fixed the 3rd time. We would have tried to lemon it if it didn't work out, but we sold it to a family member and it was totaled (not due to the transmission, just driver error).

I guess if you want to go through the hassle of lemoning the car, you'd have to prove that 2 separate tail lights are a singular thing.

[Rampage]

@OP. I do not know if you will have any luck with the Lemon Law but I agree that over time condensation in the taillight assembly could become a safety issue if it causes corrosion and/or taillight failure. You have every right to be mad as hell about having these type of recurring issues with a brand new car. Good luck.

[Braces]

Definately understand the frustration although have been very lucky with my FRS. I once had a convertible car where the top malfunctioned at least 4 or 5 times. The dealership understood the frustration and offered to take the car back in trade for a different car. They gave me a decent deal due to the problems. You may want to consider this option.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by FirestormFRS

repair or correct any defect which substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle

This will be extremely difficult to prove. That word is so vague and broad you'll be hard pressed to get a lawyer that A: will fight with Scions legal department for years and B: be able to prove it.

This is exactly correct. There is no way in hell that any company will lose a lemon law case because there's a little condensation forming inside the taillights. It simply will not happen.

BTW, I've been through a lemon law case, so I understand how it works. Although the laws vary from state to state, generally you have to sit down with a moderator (not a judge in court) and present your case against a representative of the car company. If you can't prove that your defect substantially impairs the use of the vehicle, the moderator will toss the case right out. Condensation in a taillight housing does not in any way substantially impair the use of the car. Is it annoying? Sure? Does it impair the use of the car? Absolutely not.

[bestwheelbase]

Hate to hear you're having such trouble. Do what you must, especially if your safety is at risk, but what would it hurt trying some sealant around the housing? Maybe it will work for a week. Maybe it will work forever...

You can buy a 20-pack of dessicant packets for $3.99. Hide one inside the back of the housing. Can't hurt right?