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

[ATL BRZ]

Originally Posted by vtmike

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.

Completely agree, this frustrates the hell outta me. :mad:

[vtmike]

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

There have been quite a few people on here with the issue.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Dave-ROR]

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.

I know how CSG used the car and know locals who have seen him use it. That usage has never been described as harsh or abusive. LD and myself both have cars that get work done by Mastro obviously and both are used the same way the CSG car is. Both of us have used timing equipment for self-improvement. Neither of our cars are raced or abused, just used within reasonable limits with excessive maintenance being done on them to help ensure nothing fails due to the usage the cars see. CSG/Mike's case is no different from that perspective. I know how Mike maintains his personal S2K and if the CSG BRZ is anywhere close then I know this isn't a maintenance related issue. It hasn't been raced by most technical definitions. The failure is currently "unknown" but there's metal in the engine. Why? Oil pump failure? Lack of oil? ran lean and popped a piston like some Scions on here (which were repaired under warranty BTW)?

Unfortunately what seems to be missing is what SOA actually found. Metal can be from a lot of things as you know, could be from a failure or from abuse. They appear (based on the SOA emails) to have stopped at that point. If there's an oiling issue (and I went to a higher weight oil because I detected low oil pressures in my own BRZ) how is that CSG's fault?

My point is still that I don't believe SOA has any evidence to show this failure was caused by abuse and they are not authorizing any further investigation into the matter based on the emails we've seen. If there were obvious signs of abuse I'd be right there with you on this discussion, but I don't see any of those signs here. :shrug:

[SkullWorks]

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

...ok and this proves what? That you don't understand the topic at hand WHATSOEVER and should quit trolling people looking for intelligent conversation about an issue they are having?, I can find (and you have already been offered) photographic proof of no less that 2 complete failures (related directly to the seal failing)

Now the funny thing is no one is blaming the seal, I don't know if you are dense or playing ignorant but the issue (as acknowledged by toyota who sells the exact same powertrain in a very similar vehicle made on the same assembly line) has been defined in a TSB and seems to relate far more to a bad engine control strategy concerning rate of acceleration and related timing values immediately following an upshift at or near redline.

I have an Audi DI, a Nissan DI, and a Chevy DI, sitting on my desk that have the same seal in the same location and the same apparent tolerances, (yes I fully dimensionalized them) none of the other users of this design DI have had failures of the seal while on factory ECU.

Please simply remove yourself from discussions you don't get, your trolling is reducing what credibility you may have previously established.

[track_warrior]

Here is the paperwork that i got from the dealer stating an injector seal malfunction caused cylinder #2 to fail. BTW my car had 4000 miles when the engine failed.


[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/nismo350z/Scion%20FRS/250396D5-7246-48AD-89FB-***E27D2B313-1032-00000132D6BCC474_zps686e4a0a.png[/IMG]


A message to Toyota and Subaru: If you really want this car to succeed in being the next S2K or Miata you should focus on keeping your customers loyal and making sure the car is fit to handle spirited driving and HPDE'S. I have never in my life seen mazda denying warranty on a MX5 for tracking (I have seen 2 engine failures in person and they covered it.). Even though 98% of your customers buy it as a daily driver and the cars will probably never see a race track they focus on the people who are tracking since it shows what the car is really made up of and how much it can handle, remember 10-30 thousand miles on a race track = around 80-100k miles of a regular car. If 98% of your customers see that the cars are having problems while being tracked and you guys are denying warranties you are scaring them off. Its a great little car, dont ruin it by denying warranties and denying issues that are really happening with the car.

[CSG Mike]

Definitely borken.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

...ok and this proves what? That you don't understand the topic at hand WHATSOEVER and should quit trolling people looking for intelligent conversation about an issue they are having?, I can find (and you have already been offered) photographic proof of no less that 2 complete failures (related directly to the seal failing)

Now the funny thing is no one is blaming the seal, I don't know if you are dense or playing ignorant but the issue (as acknowledged by toyota who sells the exact same powertrain in a very similar vehicle made on the same assembly line) has been defined in a TSB and seems to relate far more to a bad engine control strategy concerning rate of acceleration and related timing values immediately following an upshift at or near redline.

I have an Audi DI, a Nissan DI, and a Chevy DI, sitting on my desk that have the same seal in the same location and the same apparent tolerances, (yes I fully dimensionalized them) none of the other users of this design DI have had failures of the seal while on factory ECU.

Please simply remove yourself from discussions you don't get, your trolling is reducing what credibility you may have previously established.

Trolling? Funny...so because I refuse to jump on your side of the discussion I'm a troll.

The DI seals have been faulted by many a poster in this thread, that's why I looked up their failure rates.

I do understand the topic at hand, member had an engine failure and everyone else here seems to have figured out what caused it via the magic of the internet. Because none of them have diagnosed the car themselves.

Lot's of fear mongering and mis-information all over this thread.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

My point is still that I don't believe SOA has any evidence to show this failure was caused by abuse and they are not authorizing any further investigation into the matter based on the emails we've seen. If there were obvious signs of abuse I'd be right there with you on this discussion, but I don't see any of those signs here. :shrug:

And I would believe they do have evidence, they just don't go posting it. As I said, they wouldn't risk the legal, financial and bad publicity risk of denying a claim otherwise.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Opie

Trolling? Funny...so because I refuse to jump on your side of the discussion I'm a troll.

The DI seals have been faulted by many a poster in this thread, that's why I looked up their failure rates.

I do understand the topic at hand, member had an engine failure and everyone else here seems to have figured out what caused it via the magic of the internet. Because none of them have diagnosed the car themselves.

Lot's of fear mongering and mis-information all over this thread.

I'd like to point out that our FIRST engine had a DI seal failure. It did not completely fail, but we did agree to cover the diagnostic cost (which ultimately was not charged) to figure out what was wrong. A master tech at Irvine was taken out for a ride, and immediately told the driver to take the car back to the dealer as soon as they pulled out, because the misfire was replicated.

I can have someone dig up our original repair order if necessary, but consider this a 100% confirmed case of a DI seal failure.


I'd also like to point out that Irvine Subaru has been nothing but fair to us, and has graciously provided us with a loan vehicle for the ENTIRE time the BRZ has been there (it still is, and we still have the loaner as of this post).

[SkullWorks]

Im sorry but despite your self confidence you DO NOT understand. Nevermind I'm tired of trying to teach a brick to read, I know you aren't as stupid as you are currently pretending so I'm gonna quit troll feeding.

@CSG Mike

Have you considered forwarding this thread or the Photos TrackWarrior provided to Subaru, the dealer and SOA both?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

Im sorry but despite your self confidence you DO NOT understand. Nevermind I'm tired of trying to teach a brick to read, I know you aren't as stupid as you are currently pretending so I'm gonna quit troll feeding.


@

Have you considered forwarding this thread or the Photos TrackWarrior provided to Subaru, the dealer and SOA both?

We're still actively working with the dealer, but ultimately their hands are tied by SoA.

[Opie]

CSG Mike - Did they (Irvine) actually tear down the first engine? Or did SOA give them a long block to swap out so they (SOA) could tear it down & diagnose it themselves?

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Opie

mis-information all over this thread.

With the large majority of the misinformation provided by you...

[SubieNate]

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

That's funny, since the DI seals were reported as the cause of the first motor issue in the CSG car, as well as a number of other people on here who have documented service involving the seals.

Me thinks your database may not be 100% up to date, and probably also doesn't interface with Scion's.