Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Not sufficient. Who did they announce it to? I don't remember hearing anything. What GM needed to do was to send out a notice to all registered owners - the same ones that would be notified of a safety recall, telling them of the change in the oil specification for their vehicle. Something along the lines of "tear out pages 420-422 of your owners manual and replace them with these 3 pages".
So then, what does, or should the oil that meets the Dexos standard say in regards to the (now) obsolete GM6094 spec?
How 'bout "Can be used in place of, and is fully compatible with earlier oils meeting the GM6094 Standard"???
I'm deciding if I need to sue Shell with cardoc as my expert witness for damages to me and mine for misleading me with their document on the oil container of Pennzoil Platinum 10W-30 synthetic oil. It apparently doesn't meet GM6094M requirements for cars after my 2003 which required GM4718M oil.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While not replacing any manual pages, that's exactly what Nissan did a couple of years ago regarding the specified transmission fluid for their CVT's. It was in a form letter that also notified owners the factory warranty had been extended to 10 years/120K miles.
I'm sure you've been severely traumatized and emotionally scarred for life from that whole experience :P . Should be worth several million dollars, at least.
Me - I can hardly walk down the oil aisle without breaking out in a cold sweat and developing a nervous tic!
Wondered how that worked.
I notice that Edmunds "search for inventory" uses dealerships that supply info to AutoCheck, while Cars.com uses Carfax. Don't care much for AutoCheck as they don't include service records. :sick:
I had another experience with them, when I bought a car with a "clean" CARFAX, and then **two years later**, an "accident" shows up on the report from *four years** before I bought the car!
CARFAX just told me, too bad, pound sand buddy.
There are far better experts than I on this matter. I'm just passing on a little bit of the little bit that I have learned.
Just think how appealing it was to see when someone claimed that GM's dexos1 specification licensing requirements were all about trying to make themselves some money. Once most people saw that, they really stopped looking at the rest of the issue as it got clouded over by the alleged money grab. Even now this has taken a lot of effort just to get a handful of people to understand what the specs actually mean. How could anyone get the word out to a bigger audience without it being a real big hassle to even try.
Yep, that was my point in a previous posting.
When folks start inferring things, such as a clean history based on the absence of any reported information on a Carfax report, they're apt to get a big surprise later on in life...
Really? I'm supposed to be ashamed for what, getting people to see past the media's hype that this was supposed to be all about the licensing fees?
Besides what I said there was no apology for anybody. The information was published about two years ago. "Experts" still hadn't sat down and figured it out and tried to explain it to the public. Or wait, maybe they did but didn't have the nerve to recan't the earlier stories and have to justify why the $21.95 oil and filter changes might not be appropriate for some consumers car.
If you're saying that ron's little article beat down General Motors' Info Budget, I'm gonna hafta chuckle.
Are you trying to deflect something with that comment?
http://www.carfax.com/manifest/bbg/termsConditions.cfx
I'm no attorney, but I think there's some legalese term that refers to something I'll call "best case information at the time", which only requires a manufacturer to publish the most applicable requirements at the time of publication, and absolves the manufacturer from any future liability due to "after the fact" unknown conditions that are discovered at a later time, unless that information was knowingly or intentionally withheld. Of course, anything tied to safety defects falls under a different category....and different requirements.
Maybe one if the posters here is a lawyer and can shed some light on this subject.
Aye... As they say, that's the rub...
That's why I suggested someone with a legal background give us a clue.
There really are 2 questions here...
1-Is the manufacturer required to notify owners of new requirements discovered after the fact/sale?
2-Is the manufacturer still required to cover failure if no notification of new requirements has been made?
I honestly do not know...
Add to that, if one suffers engine lubrication failure even after the warranty period due to using original, yet later superseded specs, is the manufacturer liable?
That one is easy. The warranty is an agreement between the manufacturer and you and it has time and mileage limits. It would be no more fair for them to deny warranty coverage before the end of the term as it would be for you to try and change the agreement and want coverage after it. If the vehicle made it through the warranty period, that's the end of it.
It's kinda funny how everyone argued against the updated spec but now that you realize you really should have adopted it now you want to blame someone else for not forcing you to. And you wonder why the manufacturer had to word it the way that they did.
If they would have forced you to have to upgrade they would be bad guys for doing so. By not forcing you, they should get to be the good guys but since you would have actually benefited, they are still the bad guys. What's more the people who confused the whole issue and should have advised you that the new oil would have benefited you were the good guys, and now that you know the difference, you aren't upset with them at all for the way they worked to mislead you. They helped someone else say that the spec was all about the money, while not licensing a product was clearly about the money. Too bad Abbott and Costello are gone, they would have had a ball with this one.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I don't see it as a slam-dunk...
Courts routinely find that a manufacturer is still liable for repairs beyond the warranty period, simply because a reasonable person (in the court's eyes) would have a reasonable expectation for the product to last longer.
I think most reasonable people have a reasonable expectation that a modern car drive train, suitably maintained, should last longer than 5 years and 60,000 miles.
We're getting off topic here, so maybe we need a thread for legal car issues...
It's kinda funny how everyone argued against the updated spec but now that you realize you really should have adopted it now you want to blame someone else for not forcing you to. And you wonder why the manufacturer had to word it the way that they did.
I never argued against any updated specifications, nor am I blaming anyone for anything.
One maneuver is to cast the big corporation as evil (Goliath, Satan, etc) and the consumer as a frail helpless human being (David, underdog, etc).
Casting Doc's garage as evil wouldn't work so well :P
Speaking of which---Doc! I think I have your diplomacy problem solved. Is it possible that when you first chose your name of CarDoc you thought the cars were the patients but now you think the car owners are your patients?
One maneuver is to cast the big corporation as evil (Goliath, Satan, etc) and the consumer as a frail helpless human being (David, underdog, etc).
Yep, it's all about who can do the best convincing...
Here's a link where post-warranty suit was filed and settled. This one was for short-lived TV sets, but the same scenario applies to cars...
http://hdguru.com/samsung-settles-hdtv-lawsuit-millions-affected/7459/
When I would do my tour of duty in Small Claims Court I had a big advantage over my co-workers because so many cases involved automobiles. What continually amazed me was the number of people who would take their car to "Billy Bob's Tanning Salon, Tattoo Parlor, and Auto Repair" and pay money to people who looked like extras from Deliverance. I will say those shops were the exception. In any event, all the shops knew that they couldn't BS me so things moved along very quickly. Well, there was one shop that replaced a radiator- and the car began leaking ATF the same day. When the customer brought the car back to the shop she was told that it wasn't the shop's fault; one of the metal trans cooler lines had "worn out." I played dumb and asked the mechanic if it was common for metal transmission lines to wear out. "Oh yeah, happens all the time."
Guess who ate the cost of the new line...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
LOL..
The nick is quite simple. I've always been told that my hand writing is so bad that I should have been a doctor. It has nothing to do with my ability or lack there of to work on cars.
Well I hope none of you still believe that you go to court for "justice" or "truth"---
That's exactly what I expect. If you have to cheat or lie to get something then you didn't earn it in my book, you are a thief and stole it.
Any tactic that accomplishes that is "ball in play
And when I told them that a signed disclaimer is written proof that the car wasn't repaired correctly when it left....
Guess who ate the cost of the new line
Steel lines corrode and get weak through the years. This certainly wouldn't be the first time one failed simply because it didn't tolerate the activity associated with replacing the radiator. Had the radiator not failed, the line probably would have failed on its own in a relatively short amount of time.
So now we have to weigh the options and consider what did this lesson teach that shop.
The shop replaced the radiator, and didn't up-sell the cooler lines even though they may have appeared to an experienced eye to be close to failure. If I polled 100 consumers at this point they would all applaud the shops not gouging the customer and selling them something that they didn't "need".
Take a more experienced shop/tech who notices that the lines are near failure and advises the customer of the condition loyal customers would be glad that this was noted because it prevents a trip back to the shop or especially helps reduce the risk of a breakdown. Other customers who have been trained by consumer experts would react badly to the news of the lines being in questionable condition would be reporting that they never had a problem before, so the shop must be trying to rip them off.
Sometimes the different reactions that we get from different customers over identical situations makes the job a lot harder than it needs to be. Cars I can fix, customers can be quite a challenge sometimes. :sick:
What continually amazed me was the number of people who would take their car to "Billy Bob's Tanning Salon, Tattoo Parlor, and Auto Repair" and pay money to people who looked like extras from Deliverance. I will say those shops were the exception.
That BTW suggests that they probably have cheaper prices than the top shops in the area, they would darn sure have the appearance that suggests a cheaper price, and since many consumers only understand to call around and ask the price first, well.....
So now we have the inevitable, a line fails. It could have been related to replacing the radiator, but it doesn't actually have to be. If you have seen and repaired enough of these lines through the years you would have the experience to understand why that is accurate.
So what should the shop have done at that point?
They needed to get get the car back in and make sure what happened. Now if it was definitely caused by a mistake while doing the radiator repair they should fix it for the customer N.C. If it wasn't then to be fair they simply need to inform the customer about what happened and why and that the line will be $$. The customer really has two choices at that point, remain a customer and allow them to repair it or to actually stop being a customer.
In your court case it would appear they chose the latter, to stop being a customer and probably blamed the shop for the problem, quite possibly unfairly.
These are tough situations, it could be the shop had it within their capability to have avoided the situation, and it could be that this is just another car doing what cars do, break whenever it darn well wants to. The question for the shop is whether this is really worth going to court over. IMO it's not.
Through the years I've encountered both types of people, but it has never had to go to court because the solution is quite simple. Either way I replace the line and send them on their way. The ones who don't pay for it and should have are never coming back into my shop. We can be friends on the street, we just won't do any business anymore. My Choice.
Let's say two consumers, cardoc3 and Sally Stay-at-Home-Mom both sue a manufacturer for failing to cover engine damage while the vehicle was under warranty. The manufacturer, GM in this case, says both failures were the result of using a non Dexos1 oil in their 2007 vehicles, for which the owners manual said to use a GM6094 product.
Cardoc3 would probably have a hard time convincing the judge or jury that he was confused about which oil to use because he has a lot of expertise in the field (for which the defense could pull up all of these forum posts as evidence thereof), and so a reasonable person would think he should have known better. So the court rules against doc.
However, Sally, who is dumb as rocks so far as cars go, could probably make a case that she was confused over which oil to use, because of the manufacturers conflicting recommendations (at least to Sally) and lack of communications when the oil standard for 2007 vehicles changed. So the court finds in her favor.
Consumer "A" changes his own oil and never reads that the owners manual where it states to use an oil that has the API starburst AND meets GM4718M specification. His engine suffers a timing chain failure outside of the warranty period.
How does it work out if he sues to try and have the repair done under warranty?
Consumer "B" uses quick lubes, and has receipts demonstrating that he jumped from one cheap price or discounted service to the next. None of the receipts he has reflected the use of GM4718M specified oil.
His engine suffers a timing chain failure outside of the warranty period.
How does it work out if he sues to try and have the repair done under warranty, and who does he sue?
Meanwhile;
Consumer "C" our customer doesn't experience a failure but reads on some website that we were taking advantage of him because all he had to do was use an oil that met the vehicles specs, or "an equivalent". They (on the website) allege that we have been selling him overpriced oil that he didn't need. What do you think he does?
I dunno how it would work out, but If I were his lawyer, I would proffer to the court that the wording used in the owners manual (which almost always says "recommended", and not "required", and not "the owner shall") implied that the stated oil was optional, not required (else they would have said so).
Or I would try this approach. If the use of the proper oil was really that important, then the car manufacturer should have provided an information page at the time of purchase, that the owner signed, that stated what the required lubricants are for that vehicle. Lawyer addressing the jurors - "I mean, how many of you have really read, thoroughly, your owners manual?"
Consumer B-
He sues the quick lube place. After all, they're supposed to be the experts in the field of car maintenance, at least compared to the car owner.
Consumer C-
Sues someone, anyone, for emotional distress. His wife sues for loss of companionship. Seriously, he doesn't have
anymuch chance as he really hasn't suffered any harm, unless you count the increased cost of using the proper oil.Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
We have cars that age that need every fuel line, brake line and the transmisison lines because of corrosion from road salts during the winter months..
and at that time I had a 1974 Monte Carlo that was 15 years old- with no worn out lines.
That has no bearing on the condition of someone elses car.
I suspected that they had screwed up a line during the install and were trying to shift the blame.
It's possible, but around here it's more likely that corrosion was the cause and it was a trap just waiting to spring on them.
The normal routine is to show the customer the replaced parts and they can have them if they wish. If they don't they go right into the recyling bin or the trash which ever is appropriate. If they call even just three days later, it's likely the parts are history.
Actually I would, but not acting as his own "expert"--I'd hire someone else for that--not because Doc isn't as good as a hired gun, but because he would not be viewed as a disinterested party when making statements as an expert.
Now if he were the shop owner being sued, then of course he'd have to plead his case as an expert. But in your scenario, he's the victim of GM's alleged carelessness.
In a denial of warranty case, you have to play the wounded victim.
I don't know what he does next, but Doc attempts to get as much publicity as possible, then pitches a reality-based show to cable TV channels based upon the headaches car repair shops deal with, and we watch his show weekly on the Learning Channel.
Hilarity ensues, and Doc gets wealthy, never having to skin up his knuckles again.
Doc later has a special in which he services the Kardashian's cars...
It's the new American way.
I think the best a mechanic can do in this case, is show the customer and explain all of the above. Point out that a careful job might only shorten that used line's life by a couple of its next 6 to 8 years. Or even with carefulness, might cause it to fail much sooner than that.
Grey areas all over the place.
In doing my own work, I do presoak a suspect corroded connection. In cases where it can be done safely (not in this case however) I will also use a hammer and flat faced punch and tap the penetrating oil into place. I have soaked suspect joints as much as a dozen or more random times over more than a month in advance of starting repair. Sometimes it still twisted, but many times those efforts were rewarded. But with a shop like Doc's, this type of time investment isn't practical. What he can do however tho..in some cases..is let the customer presoak his own joints ahead of the scheduled repair. Some customers will say great and thanks for suggesting, others won't be interested in being that proactive even if it might save them money.
* proactively go to little (or varying degrees of) effort in order to save their customer money.
thecardoc3, "A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood" #879, 20 Jan 2013 7:52 am
I'd even be willing to drive my poorly maintained train wrecks to Doc's shop in PA. :shades:
Not sure I have what it takes to make it in comedy.
and Doc gets wealthy
That would probably be a waste, wouldn't know what to do with the money.
, never having to skin up his knuckles again
Not have to? That would be nice, but I couldn't imagine living and not working on cars, so the skinned knuckles are always going to be there.
I dunno... You could just walk around screaming at everyone like the head dude on the Orange County Chopper TV show...
I'd watch you.
I live in the Louisville KY are and the corrosion issues aren't nearly as bad as in Indiana and Ohio.
The mechanic specifically said that the line "wore out "- he acted as if it was almost a consumable part like a rotor or clutch disc. Had he said "The line had corroded and was starting to leak at a thin spot in the tubing." I would have viewed his testimony in an entirely differnt way.
You almost never saw the good shops in small claims, and if you did, 9 times out of 10 the customer was being unreasonable or eccentric, or both.
With Billy Bob and his clientele, odds were that both sides were being unreasonable and/or eccentric.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
That's something that I like about Billy Bob. I prefer that he keeps his clientele.
You almost never saw the good shops in small claims, and if you did, 9 times out of 10 the customer was being unreasonable or eccentric, or both
Yep. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
http://www.bimmerforums.co.uk/forum/f3/bmws-condition-based-service-cbs-t8509/
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
My 2005 Odyssey was the first one with that system, but I cheated and used the schedule in the manual for my Accord (and eventually Acura TL) to see what to expect. Then did the trans fluid every 30K out of paranoia.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Did you look it up on the Edmunds Car Maintenance Guide?
Often I'll find a schedule there when the owner says there's nothing in their owner's manual. And we supposedly get the schedules from the manufacturers. Can't remember your rides but looked up '13 TLs and RDXs and they had schedules. Ditto '05 Odysseys.
The Mercedes schedules in the guide are often just "A-Service" and "B-Service". The '12 BMW 5 Series I looked up was "Inspection 1, Inspection II and Every Other Inspection II".