Oh-Oh's, I Think I Broke It!

[blu_]

Originally Posted by pcasso87

Agreed seems like some people want others to get screwed and not covered geez.

No offense but after reading this thread, its more that you come across as completely dismissing the strong possibility that your modification caused the failure. I understand that you want to get your motor replaced. I have hid a tune from a dealer when going in for warranty work (I'm not sure you are or not tbh). But don't pretend to be approaching this in the strict interest of getting at the truth, if the dealership doesn't know about it.

[Silverdub]

if they can pass it on warranty they will, they get paid for it anyways, to them warranty work is better then no work at all

[Justin.b]

Toyota wants to change its image, and the FR-S is a big part of that for them. Guys willing to take first-year cars with untested motors out to race tracks are doing some serious uncompensated promotion for Toyota.

It benefits Toyota to keep people like this happy. It's the early adopters who will get these cars noticed, and get the Scion brand name in the results listing. They will also often be the same cars that get featured on website profiles and in magazines.

If Toyota covers the replacement costs, it's more of an unstated quid pro quo than the customer putting one over on the manufacturer. If it gets to a point where the costs of operating this way are too high for them to accept, they will stop letting things slide. If they want to get extreme with the denials, they can pay someone to search scca autox results and cross reference the drivers' names to the warranty database and void their warranties before they even make a claim like Mitsu did with the Evo.

-Justin

[ft_sjo]

You're dreaming if you think a manufacturers warranty department thinks like that.

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by ft_sjo

You're dreaming if you think a manufacturers warranty department thinks like that.

The warranty department is a tiny cog in the Toyota machine. If the people in charge tell them to operate a certain way, that's what they will do. The warranty guys certainly aren't running the show, although they may have a bit more pull than the purchasing/sourcing department after those bad pedal sensors.

-Justin

[AllDayJonRay]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

If they want to get extreme with the denials, they can pay someone to search scca autox results and cross reference the drivers' names to the warranty database and void their warranties before they even make a claim like Mitsu did with the Evo.

-Justin

This is not legal. A warranty cannot simply be 'voided' without a claim ever being submitted. Furthermore, a warranty cannot be voided, period. All a manufacturer can do is deny a claim for a warranty repair if they have reasonable means of verifying that the problem was caused by a modification made to the vehicle, or if they can prove that the user of the vehicle excessively abused the vehicle.

And if a claim is denied, this does not mean the warranty is 'voided'. It simply means that the part in question will not be covered for whatever reason. The warranty is still intact, and a claim may still be submitted and approved for a different part.

[ft_sjo]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

The warranty department is a tiny cog in the Toyota machine. If the people in charge tell them to operate a certain way, that's what they will do. The warranty guys certainly aren't running the show, although they may have a bit more pull than the purchasing/sourcing department after those bad pedal sensors.

That's my point. The 'people in charge' don't get involved. That's not how large corporations work. The warranty team have a remit.

And yes, for the record, I have a warranty team just down the hall from me here.

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by AllDayJonRay

This is not legal. A warranty cannot simply be 'voided' without a claim ever being submitted. Furthermore, a warranty cannot be voided, period. All a manufacturer can do is deny a claim for a warranty repair if they have reasonable means of verifying that the problem was caused by a modification made to the vehicle, or if they can prove that the user of the vehicle excessively abused the vehicle.

And if a claim is denied, this does not mean the warranty is 'voided'. It simply means that the part in question will not be covered for whatever reason. The warranty is still intact, and a claim may still be submitted and approved for a different part.

Legal or not, Mitsubishi did EXACTLY that. The most memorable case I remember was a guy who bought an Evo to autox with this son. The car developed a problem, he went in for warranty service and found that his warranty had been voided by someone at headquarters who had cross referenced scca results to owner records and voided the warranties.

There were other cases as well, but I think this guy actually fought it. Most people don't have the time or money to fight something like this - and they also usually can;t afford to have their car out of service waiting for a resolution. Luckily this guy had some money and the car was bought only for autox - so leaving it sitting didn't leave him without a ride to work.

-Justin

[Justin.b]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20040705/free/407050725

[clayrush]

All I know is that Toyota would cover all sorts off user mishaps with the Celica GT-S. The biggest one was people mis-shifting. Dropping from 6th to 2nd. I personally know 3 people that were taken care of after they mis-shifted. Hell I had a friend lean on the window when the door was open and broke the electric roll up and they fixed it under warranty for me. I burned up the stock clutch, had bad synchros, and pealing tint on my sun roof all fixed under warranty. Plus random stuff fixed with my Highlander. Having all that stuff fixed was the #1 reason why we got a FRS over a BRZ. Because Toyota took care of my shit it pretty much made me a Toyota fan for life.

[was385]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20040705/free/407050725

That's different than voiding the warranty. They found that it was being used in a competitive event and put a restriction that all future drivetrain work would not be covered under the warranty if and when it was submitted.

[Justin.b]

If I had to keep going back for broken stuff, I'd probably stay away from that brand. Going to the dealership is a pain in the ass. I went in for my first service on the FR-S and they had me parked in the waiting room for 3 hours. Had I known in advance that they would need that much time to complete an oil change, I would have just bought the oil and done it myself. There's nothing 'free' about an oil change that take an entire saturday morning.

In any case, I had an xB before this that was never in for warranty service. That factored in to the FR-S decision. If I had been back multiple times I may have bought something else, or held off until the first year bugs were worked-out.

-Justin

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by was385

That's different than voiding the warranty. They found that it was being used in a competitive event and put a restriction that all future drivetrain work would not be covered under the warranty if and when it was submitted.

You knew what I meant. Don't be a douche.

-Justin

[GavinAnt]

Originally Posted by clayrush

All I know is that Toyota would cover all sorts off user mishaps with the Celica GT-S. The biggest one was people mis-shifting. Dropping from 6th to 2nd. I personally know 3 people that were taken care of after they mis-shifted. Hell I had a friend lean on the window when the door was open and broke the electric roll up and they fixed it under warranty for me. I burned up the stock clutch, had bad synchros, and pealing tint on my sun roof all fixed under warranty. Plus random stuff fixed with my Highlander. Having all that stuff fixed was the #1 reason why we got a FRS over a BRZ. Because Toyota took care of my shit it pretty much made me a Toyota fan for life.

And I bought a Subaru because my Toyota Landcruiser back door cracked after my wife's friend opened it roughly and they didn't help me. The saddest thing is their engineer justified it by giving the static loading capacity of the door: he should have looked at the dynamic load as the door swung open and hit the stop! Anyway, I just got it fixed but it left a sour taste...