Has anyone had a warranty claim denied? Seized engine! Pics of teardown added 6/5

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Of course. However I don't see much evidence of excessive user abuse in this case. Unless you know something the rest of us don't...

I've seen engine, trans and clutch failures on other brands in the 20-50k mileage range, I don't know anyone who's had that denied due to track use (vs misshifts, etc).

Nate's ITR went to the dealer with track numbers on it, 49,xxx miles, cage, etc with a bad clutch, replaced no questions asked. Craig's motor went at 10k, spun a bearing, determined that it was an issue despite the cars track usage, replaced without an issue.

The problem here, IMO, is that it doesn't seem like Subaru is even willing to really determine what happened. If it was the DI injector seal problem then they should cover it. If it was a misshift, they should not.

The CSG car is a tracked car, it's not a race car though.

I don't know the original poster, or how he may or may not have "used" his car and don't have any information on his case.

I do know that Subaru repair's many things as warranty that are found to be "defects" on their vehicle's regardless of use (just like Honda) and they repair even more things that NOT due to a defect as customer goodwill gestures.

I also know if Subaru is flat-out denying this claim, they have already found something that is clearly not warrantable. They don't make denials without having a pretty good reason to do so, and they just don't go around posting what they have found on internet forums.

[Fish Eagle]

Originally Posted by Opie

I don't know the original poster, or how he may or may not have "used" his car and don't have any information on his case.

I do know that Subaru repair's many things as warranty that are found to be "defects" on their vehicle's regardless of use (just like Honda) and they repair even more things that NOT due to a defect as customer goodwill gestures.

I also know if Subaru is flat-out denying this claim, they have already found something that is clearly not warrantable. They don't make denials without having a pretty good reason to do so, and they just don't go around posting what they have found on internet forums.

Subaru made my self-levelling rear shocks problem on my 2003 Forester go away free of charge in 2011.
They admitted that there was an issue with them, which they fixed free despite the problem only appearing after 8 years/130,000 kms.

I've got no crit whatsoever for Subaru. When I needed them, they were there for me - well done!!

But that's just my personal experience. I hate reading things which go contrary to that - it's like being told Santa doesn't exist...

[P@ul]

Originally Posted by Opie

You are speculating that our ECU mapping doesn't already account for this. If you haven't noticed, this isn't South Africa.

L O L, the date on the SA TSB is 3/20/2013, the change IS BRAND NEW! The provided TSB has a ROOT CAUSE analysis FROM THE OEM, specifically highlighting a condition "... observed during track usage, and a unique aggressive driving style" resulting in damage to the DI injector that COINCIDENTIALLY looks exactly like what is happening over here. That's a little more that speculation. The quoted post is from a guy in GEORGIA, on 5/24/2013, who got the JDM ROM from a guy in EUROPE, describing table changes that are explained by the SA TSB.

In addition to walking on water, sideways, does the US spec Jesus mobile also have at time machine? Is that how we already got the table change, something that was magically noticed after comparing it to a new calibration?

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Tell that to my Honda.

LoL, I think Subaru just told YOU to go tell that to Honda.

Seriously, chill out and wait for the TSB to hit stateside and go talk to them again. The dealer isn't going to touch your car because all warranty work is charged to corporate.

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by Opie

I also know if Subaru is flat-out denying this claim, they have already found something that is clearly not warrantable. They don't make denials without having a pretty good reason to do so, and they just don't go around posting what they have found on internet forums.

Well since you "KNOW" this you should be telling us why.

Oh right, you don't Know this you are ASSUMING this.

as you stated you don't know the OP or how he used his car. It seems (from other posts) that you work with or at a Subaru dealership and I can appreciate your loyalty to your employer, but your "help" in these matters is...well not help...you keep making assumptions and leaps in logic, which you are apparently not qualified to make.

Please atleast hypothesize what they could have possibly found that makes this clearly not warrantable.... You have no more proof that his DI seals didn't fail from the same issue covered (in several threads now) on this forum, than you have proof of Sasquatch.

Please refrain from attempting to sound like an authority when you are guessing, In posts where you provide DATA your help is much appreciated, but in this case you are simply over your head and annoyingly underinformed.

[SubieNate]

Car companies are in it for the money. For all their "love" advertising, Subaru is not going to want to put two new engines into a single customer's car. That's cutting into their profits on that sale by a good amount. Right or wrong, if they get any hint that they can get out of it, they'll try.

Saying that Subaru wouldn't try to get out of a claim like this shows an amusing amount of naivete.

The bottom line is that the car wasn't raced in any real competitive events. The engine is completely stock. There's no reason for a completely stock NA motor to grenade itself unless it was overrevved. With less than 20k miles on the motor, one should be able to rev right up to 7400k as many times as wanted without any problem. The F series Honda motors are just as or more potent than the FA20 and are extremely reliable.

Even if the car is tracked/raced, if the motor is 100% stock, I feel that the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that the operating conditions, and not a manufacturing or design flaw, caused the failure. At that point they can deny coverage. Especially when they've marketed the car as a weekend warrior track car.

This whole thing has me worried that our California horse piss gas is a bigger problem than we would like to think, even though it's clear that there is a design defect.

Cheers
Nathan

[Marrk]

"an amusing amount of naivete"


Elegantly stated, my friend. :happy0180:

[DylanFRS]

I would be curious to hear if anyone is having these same issues in other countries where they can actually get ethanol free 93 octane gas.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

Well since you "KNOW" this you should be telling us why.

Oh right, you don't Know this you are ASSUMING this.

as you stated you don't know the OP or how he used his car. It seems (from other posts) that you work with or at a Subaru dealership and I can appreciate your loyalty to your employer, but your "help" in these matters is...well not help...you keep making assumptions and leaps in logic, which you are apparently not qualified to make.

Please atleast hypothesize what they could have possibly found that makes this clearly not warrantable.... You have no more proof that his DI seals didn't fail from the same issue covered (in several threads now) on this forum, than you have proof of Sasquatch.

Please refrain from attempting to sound like an authority when you are guessing, In posts where you provide DATA your help is much appreciated, but in this case you are simply over your head and annoyingly underinformed.

What I know is that Subaru does NOT deny warranty unless they know that the denial will stand up in court. Thus, by denying this warranty I'm sure they have their basis covered.

I'll stop attempting to sound like an authority when the rest of the posters of "fact" in this thread do the same, everyone except the OP and Subaru are side line guessers in this thread.

What I can look up are failure rates, and BRZ DI seals are not problematic.

Originally Posted by SubieNate

I feel that the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that the operating conditions, and not a manufacturing or design flaw, caused the failure. At that point they can deny coverage. Especially when they've marketed the car as a weekend warrior track car.

Cheers
Nathan

Agreed. But it is highly unlikely that Subaru would ever come on an internet forum to discuss the specifics of a failure on a customers vehicle.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Opie

What I know is that Subaru does NOT deny warranty unless they know that the denial will stand up in court. Thus, by denying this warranty I'm sure they have their basis covered.

I'll stop attempting to sound like an authority when the rest of the posters of "fact" in this thread do the same, everyone except the OP and Subaru are side line guessers in this thread.

What I can look up are failure rates, and BRZ DI seals are not problematic.




Agreed. But it is highly unlikely that Subaru would ever come on an internet forum to discuss the specifics of a failure on a customers vehicle.

Please refer to this thread. It seems there's been a lot of people lying in the woodwork.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36008

Also, while Subaru most likely will not engage in active discussion on a forum, they most certainly are watching.

[SubieNate]

Originally Posted by Opie

Agreed. But it is highly unlikely that Subaru would ever come on an internet forum to discuss the specifics of a failure on a customers vehicle.

Wasn't expecting that. But their flat out refusal to even really look into what happened (according to Mike) doesn't come across well. There's only so much you can figure out from, "We took the oil pan off and there were metal shavings."

Cheers
Nathan

[Opie]

Number of claims with P/N: 16607JB000 (Direct Injector Insulator) = 0
Number of claims with P/N: 16608JB000 (Direct Injector Seal) = 0

Source: Subaru of America

[whtchocla7e]

Originally Posted by Opie

Number of claims with P/N: 16607JB000 (Direct Injector Insulator) = 0
Number of claims with P/N: 16608JB000 (Direct Injector Seal) = 0

Source: Subaru of America

Lets check again in a year.

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by Opie

What I know is that Subaru does NOT deny warranty unless they know that the denial will stand up in court. Thus, by denying this warranty I'm sure they have their basis covered.

I'll stop attempting to sound like an authority when the rest of the posters of "fact" in this thread do the same, everyone except the OP and Subaru are side line guessers in this thread.

What I can look up are failure rates, and BRZ DI seals are not problematic.




Agreed. But it is highly unlikely that Subaru would ever come on an internet forum to discuss the specifics of a failure on a customers vehicle.

What is annoying is it seems to be enough of a problem to change the transient retard settings in the factory rom on all recently manufactured cars.

I should be able to walk into a dealer and get the most current rom flashed to my car when ever if it's not up to date. Instead they seem to have the mentality to let something break first even though there is something very simple that can be applied to prevent the problem.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by vtmike

What is annoying is it seems to be enough of a problem to change transient retard settings in the factory rom on all recently manufactured cars.

I should be able to walk into a dealer and get the most current rom flashed to my car when ever if it's not up to date. Instead they seem to have the mentality to let something break first even though there is something very simple that can be applied to prevent the problem.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2