Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

andres3

OK, I'm sure you are all tired of the tire talk, so I'm moving onto an update on why I have an A3 loaner for the 2nd day today, and about my TTS being in the shop 2 whole days.

1) Seat trim parts came in and they installed those.
2) told them about the ulltra slow (maybe a drop/day) rear-diff leak and.....

First, the Service Advisor states it is probably just Cosmoline lubricant melting off that was put on in the factory. This eases my worries as we both figure most likely that's the cause since this is a new Audi. Note the culture at Audi, it can't be anything wrong with the car, it's probably just some excess protective coatings melting away. Another example of how I appreciate this culture to one where "oh yeah, that part always breaks down." Even if this wasn't a sincere guess as to what was happening (I believe it was), it seems to be the better attitude to just saying "parts just break down."

Techs cleaned the undercarriage off, and at this point they knew it wasn't just some Cosmoline. They put some kind of leak detection on the cleaned-off car, and then drove it. This helped them find the leak that indeed was the AWD solenoid that had a seal that was leaking slightly.

The seal part should come in this morning, and I should have my car back this afternoon. Waiting to hear another update.

28firefighter

Wife's X1 is at the dealer having the right-rear tire replaced under the original Pirelli road hazard warranty. I had them drop me off at my office since it is close by and I didn't want to deal with parking a loaner in my tight garage.

My wife took the GTI today with my son - she has not really driven it much since we got it because she prefers to sit higher up. I received a text message a few minutes ago that said "It turns out I really like driving your car. It's fast!" Took her long enough to come around...

jwm40517

Our two most recent vehicles came with Michelins and lasted very well. I replaced them on the Odyssey at 56K and they still had a good bit of tread, but it was October and a 3K trip to Maine was coming up plus a normal winter approaching.

I bought the 07 Mercury GM from the estate of 92 year old guy a year ago and the original Michelins had 73K when I replaced them. They had tread but you could not pull away from stop without spinning easily. Put on new Coopers and it is hard to make them spin even when wet.

andres3

28firefighter said:

Wife's X1 is at the dealer having the right-rear tire replaced under the original Pirelli road hazard warranty. I had them drop me off at my office since it is close by and I didn't want to deal with parking a loaner in my tight garage.

My wife took the GTI today with my son - she has not really driven it much since we got it because she prefers to sit higher up. I received a text message a few minutes ago that said "It turns out I really like driving your car. It's fast!" Took her long enough to come around...

Sounds good, and all it took was her driving it! I feel like when I sold my Accord V6, all it took was someone coming by to look at it and drive it! Took forever to get someone to do that, and that's why it was the last time I tried to sell an over $13,000 used car privately.

andres3

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

suydam

berri said:

I've never had a decent pair of Bridgestone or Firestone tires, OE or aftermarket.

Just the opposite here. Had very good luck with them

jmonroe

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.

Why would you want to drive a car with tires at the "wear bars"?

I thought you were a car person and likes to drive fast. In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket.

The fore coming explanation otta be good.

jmonroe

CA is very dry so tires at the wear bars still have some good dry life left in them. They actually can exhibit better turn-in traction characteristics, since they have less "tread squirm." Sort of like a "slick" concept. Great for dry weather, not so good for rain or snow, but as long as the driver knows this, is aware of this, you can compensate accordingly.

Usually you'd do this to get a few more summer months out of them, or perhaps that one last track weekend to "do them in." From what I've gathered over the years, as long as you don't have cords showing, you are A.O.K.

Yes, it is a ticket, but it is a "fix-it" ticket. Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?" Close to nil, only way you get this ticket is if you were pulled over for another reason.

Pretty weak explanation but not unexpected.

I my post I said, "In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket". I DID NOT say, "Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?"

jmonroe

ab348

Winter just does not want to end up here. Last night we got 4"-5" of snow with some ice pellets mixed in for god measure. It was really heavy, messy stuff. More of the same predicted for tomorrow night. Kind of depressing in all honesty.

jmonroe

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

fintail said:

Can you imagine if turn signal, crosswalk, lane discipline, distracted driving, etc regulations were enforced in such zealous ways? Roads would be safer and we could pay the national debt (or fund those sweet sweet CA pensions).

andres3 said:

I understand that if you show your speedometer was reading 5 MPH lower than actual speed, and you testify you were going the speed limit, you were indeed speeding. However, it doesn't pass the "absurdity" test as has come up with a frozen truck case on our most recent Supreme Court nominee.

Depends also on where you were speeding. In a school zone they are very strict, for instance. If the ticket *really* says just 5 mph over, the judge might toss it. That was a very chickengobble thing for the officer to do, in that case. But if he wrote him 15 over, no chance he'll get off.

I think I mentioned this before, but during my last live in-person traffic violators school, everyone was asked to raise their hand for being there because of speeding (about 27 of 30 people raised their hands). Then he asked how many where there for 15 over or more (24 people kept their hands up). 3 people where there for 5 to 10 over, so it does happen, but quite rare.

andres3

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.

Why would you want to drive a car with tires at the "wear bars"?

I thought you were a car person and likes to drive fast. In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket.

The fore coming explanation otta be good.

jmonroe

CA is very dry so tires at the wear bars still have some good dry life left in them. They actually can exhibit better turn-in traction characteristics, since they have less "tread squirm." Sort of like a "slick" concept. Great for dry weather, not so good for rain or snow, but as long as the driver knows this, is aware of this, you can compensate accordingly.

Usually you'd do this to get a few more summer months out of them, or perhaps that one last track weekend to "do them in." From what I've gathered over the years, as long as you don't have cords showing, you are A.O.K.

Yes, it is a ticket, but it is a "fix-it" ticket. Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?" Close to nil, only way you get this ticket is if you were pulled over for another reason.

Pretty weak explanation but not unexpected.

I my post I said, "In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket". I DID NOT say, "Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?"

jmonroe

What is weak about it? It is simply a choice to get all the bang out of your buck. Changing brake pads with 3 mm left doesn't make any sense to me either, but that won't stop brake shops from recommending it.

Even if you are pulled over, I doubt most cops would even look at your tires, and for sure wouldn't look close enough to realize they are under the law's tread depth minimums. Also, they'd have to measure these in a careful way for it to hold up in court. Eyeballing it would probably not be sufficient. Also, what if 3 tires are legal and 1 is illegal? Does the majority rule?

andres3

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car.

The only thing the service adviser did was incorrectly minimize my report of a leak by saying it was probably just melted rust inhibitors and lubricant when I dropped off the car. Most of the time he might be right.

If this was Chrysler, perhaps the advisor would say sounds like you need a new transmission (and he'd probably be right!)

jmonroe

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.

Why would you want to drive a car with tires at the "wear bars"?

I thought you were a car person and likes to drive fast. In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket.

The fore coming explanation otta be good.

jmonroe

CA is very dry so tires at the wear bars still have some good dry life left in them. They actually can exhibit better turn-in traction characteristics, since they have less "tread squirm." Sort of like a "slick" concept. Great for dry weather, not so good for rain or snow, but as long as the driver knows this, is aware of this, you can compensate accordingly.

Usually you'd do this to get a few more summer months out of them, or perhaps that one last track weekend to "do them in." From what I've gathered over the years, as long as you don't have cords showing, you are A.O.K.

Yes, it is a ticket, but it is a "fix-it" ticket. Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?" Close to nil, only way you get this ticket is if you were pulled over for another reason.

Pretty weak explanation but not unexpected.

I my post I said, "In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket". I DID NOT say, "Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?"

jmonroe

What is weak about it? It is simply a choice to get all the bang out of your buck. Changing brake pads with 3 mm left doesn't make any sense to me either, but that won't stop brake shops from recommending it.

Even if you are pulled over, I doubt most cops would even look at your tires, and for sure wouldn't look close enough to realize they are under the law's tread depth minimums. Also, they'd have to measure these in a careful way for it to hold up in court. Eyeballing it would probably not be sufficient. Also, what if 3 tires are legal and 1 is illegal? Does the majority rule?

It's weak because anyone one that wants to drive safely doesn't want to drive a car with tires worn to the wear bars and maybe even to cover themselves if it rains in Southern CA.

I've talked to more than one local and several PA state troopers who told me when they pull people over, as they walk up to the car, they always look at the rear tires. If they get any lip from a driver they look at the car more in depth and can usually find a reason to give another ticket. Yes, they have tire gauges to prove it in court if that is the way the driver wants to do it. And yes, 3 good tires and one bad tire is a ticket. It's not majority rules nor is it a democracy...it's a dictatorship. But who am I to be telling this to a charter member of the "ticket of the month club".

I know weak when I see it.

jmonroe

graphicguy

andres3 said:

berri said:

Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

Andres....I was thinking that same thing. The lawyer present and whomever the Cadillac HQ person was remotely for the hearing will probably take heat for losing a case to a "peon" like me.

That would be misplaced blame.

jmonroe

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car.

The only thing the service adviser did was incorrectly minimize my report of a leak by saying it was probably just melted rust inhibitors and lubricant when I dropped off the car. Most of the time he might be right.

If this was Chrysler, perhaps the advisor would say sounds like you need a new transmission (and he'd probably be right!)

Once again I'm confused with an answer from you. You said:

"Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car".

What do you mean by the last sentence, "He gave the list without even seeing the car"?

You said this after saying in your first sentence, "Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi".

You don't have to answer my question because I probably won't understand it anyway.

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright

graphicguy said:

andres3 said:

berri said:

Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

Andres....I was thinking that same thing. The lawyer present and whomever the Cadillac HQ person was remotely for the hearing will probably take heat for losing a case to a "peon" like me.

That would be misplaced blame.

Nah, I don't think so. It's pretty impersonal. Your "opponent" in a arbitration might not even be a GM employee.

stickguy

JM, he asked a guy on the Internet a conceptual question. I do that all the time!

No different than if I asked you why there was a little water on the floor under my dishwasher. I'm sure you could give me a nice list of likely causes without seeing it in person.

stickguy

Weather and roads around here are too iffy for me to risk milky that last little bit of tread. But when I walk the go, I always glance at parked cars, and some have tires so bald I don't know how the driver stays on the road. Well into dangerous territory.

graphicguy

stickguy said:

I still can't understand how they had a massive design defect that only impacted 3 cars. Very odd.

That is a stumper. Was wondering that, myself. Had to have been early in the 2016 model year manufacturing run. It's not like they hadn't been making the CTS4 with the 2.0T the previous two model years.

The only thing I can think is it had to have had something to do with the new 8-speed transmission to cause them to reroute the wiring harness from previous years (who only used the 6-speed). Someone along the line didn't think to re-check the wiring routing. Someone noticed and they had to do a wiring re-route design, with apparently some sort of parts change, too.

Someone (some people?) were too lazy to flag the 3 cars that got by. Or, someone didn't think it was worth doing a retrofit, thought they could fix it in the field (that gets my vote). Or, someone with a terrible hangover installed the wiring harness very poorly.

That said, these days, there's only one way to install any given part or assembly in a car. I vote for my second scenario.

jmonroe

stickguy said:

JM, he asked a guy on the Internet a conceptual question. I do that all the time!

No different than if I asked you why there was a little water on the floor under my dishwasher. I'm sure you could give me a nice list of likely causes without seeing it in person.

OK, I get it now. I went back to the original post and saw where the question was posed to a "knowledgeable mechanic".

FWIW, you're right about dishwashers. We are on our 4th and we've only been in this house since 1998.

@driver100 would never read all of that tale.

jmonroe

andres3

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car.

The only thing the service adviser did was incorrectly minimize my report of a leak by saying it was probably just melted rust inhibitors and lubricant when I dropped off the car. Most of the time he might be right.

If this was Chrysler, perhaps the advisor would say sounds like you need a new transmission (and he'd probably be right!)

Once again I'm confused with an answer from you. You said:

"Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car".

What do you mean by the last sentence, "He gave the list without even seeing the car"?

You said this after saying in your first sentence, "Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi".

You don't have to answer my question because I probably won't understand it anyway.

jmonroe

Let me try to clear the mud at least.

He = a random mechanic that knows about Audi's but has nothing to do with this dealership or Audi servicing my car right now.

Service Adviser also happens to be a he, since he's male, but he's not the one that gave me the list. I haven't asked him what the cause might be. It's a seal, and I get the impression it isn't a common or frequent failure. When I get the impression that a failure is common and frequent, that is when I get more upset.

Also, I should add that the "random" mechanic and I both felt all of the above list would fall under warranty no matter what. A car is designed to be driven on the road, so if road hazards cause a failure, then the car wasn't properly designed (using the reasonable person standard).

I know tire shops changed the language on their tire warranties to exclude "punctures caused by collisions/accidents." Prior to that, I'd of figured collisions were a road hazard and taken advantage of the "road hazard additional cost coverage."

imidazol97

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car.

The only thing the service adviser did was incorrectly minimize my report of a leak by saying it was probably just melted rust inhibitors and lubricant when I dropped off the car. Most of the time he might be right.

If this was Chrysler, perhaps the advisor would say sounds like you need a new transmission (and he'd probably be right!)

Sounds like you've gotten a bad Audi. Trade it for another car before it strands you on the road. LOL

imidazol97

andres3 said:

It's a seal, and I get the impression it isn't a common or frequent failure. When I get the impression that a failure is common and frequent, that is when I get more upset.

Service advisors aren't going to say, "Mr. Audi owner, your car has a problem that many of your model are going to show. It seems to be something they designed wrong at the factory. Just suck it up that your car's not perfect despite the $95,000 you paid for it. You should have bought a Chevrolet and likely had a better chance to no failures since they're not nearly as complicated and temperamental as your TT."

How long would that guy have a job at that store?

andres3

imidazol97 said:

andres3 said:

It's a seal, and I get the impression it isn't a common or frequent failure. When I get the impression that a failure is common and frequent, that is when I get more upset.

Service advisors aren't going to say, "Mr. Audi owner, your car has a problem that many of your model are going to show. It seems to be something they designed wrong at the factory. Just suck it up that your car's not perfect despite the $95,000 you paid for it. You should have bought a Chevrolet and likely had a better chance to no failures since they're not nearly as complicated and temperamental as your TT."

How long would that guy have a job at that store?

Well, not like that!

but the "it's probably just Rust Inhibitor/Lubricant melting" was a pretty good line, although it raised my expectations which turned out to be falsely raised.

However, Audi of America is known to write letters to owners for problematic parts that list those parts that are being problematic and to state that you are covered for 7 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, and if you already spent the money, you can get reimbursed. I received at least 2 of those letters covering at least 4 parts in my '06 A3 (one of which I had to be reimbursed for; the other 3 never failed on me up to 106,000 miles). I'm still waiting on a single letter from Chrysler offering reimbursement for a single very common Neon repair, but I'm not holding my breath!

Even worse than having common frequent failure prone parts is ignoring them and acting like they don't exist!

That being said, I'm watching this Hungarian assembled Audi like a hawk now. Can't they just do it perfect like the Germans!

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

ab348 said:

jmonroe said:

@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe

Thanks JM. The frustration is that the surgeon who worked on me in 2009 said that given the hard time I had after that, my valve be replaced using a TAVR procedure where they snake the new valve up through an artery via the groin instead of opening you up. So today I met with the surgeon who does that and she's not so sure about doing that given my history. So it looks like we start the whole process again from the top with new tests, etc. What fun.

The only funny part of the day was when the surgeon, an attractive lady of maybe 35 or so, called me "a young man". Wish other 35 year old women I meet would call me that.

Calling you "young man" is good. How would you like it when they call you Dad? Like when one youngin said to me, "hey Dad, put your feet up here". The only thing worse would have been, "hey grandpa..." :@

jmonroe

I wonder if they call me "Sir". Is that a show of respect or because they think I am a lot older?

Maybe they think you're a general.

The day a young woman held a door open for me was the day I knew I was old.

28firefighter

graphicguy said:

andres3 said:

berri said:

Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

Andres....I was thinking that same thing. The lawyer present and whomever the Cadillac HQ person was remotely for the hearing will probably take heat for losing a case to a "peon" like me.

That would be misplaced blame.

I would be willing to bet the only heat will be focused back at customer care.

My suspicion is that this was taken as far as it was because of how many times you have been through this with Cadillac (receiving replacement vehicles). The idea being that if someone were repeatedly "making up" problems because they didn't like the car, they would choose not to pursue it in a scenario where they would be publicly humiliated.

The fundamental problem with that approach in this case is that your problem was an acknowledged manufacturing defect that they were having trouble correcting in a timely fashion. A reasonable customer care rep would have seen that immediately and done everything in their power to make you happy to avoid a binding outcome like this that will cost them WAY more than some of the alternatives.

Just an semi-educated guess.

imidazol97

.

Michaell

@graphicguy - now that you've gotten your ruling, take a moment and update your signature line!

jmonroe

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

I asked a knowledgeable mechanic why a seal might fail early in life and was given these reasons:

1) Seal could twist during assembly.

Other reasons you might have a leak:

2) a bolt not torqued properly.
3) threads not cut deep enough to hold torque.
4) a road hazard that hits a part causing a hairline crack.

Comments about the seal failure that the service advisor gave you:

1) If the seal was an o-ring, this is the result of a poor installation. O-rings MUST be lubricated before installing to prevent "twist". Not when you feel like it but ALWAYS. This is an Audi factory installation problem.

2) Another Audi factory installation problem.

3) An Audi design problem.

4) Possible but not likely. Typical service advisor BS.

So, 3 out of the 4 are on Audi and the 4th is a service advisor that doesn't know when to shut up and wants to impress the customer.

Service advisors should not try to sound like they have all the answers. If I had gotten those answers, at least the first 3, I'd begin to wonder why I bought an Audi.

If this were a GM dealership almost everyone would be saying, "yeah, what would you expect" !

jmonroe

Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car.

The only thing the service adviser did was incorrectly minimize my report of a leak by saying it was probably just melted rust inhibitors and lubricant when I dropped off the car. Most of the time he might be right.

If this was Chrysler, perhaps the advisor would say sounds like you need a new transmission (and he'd probably be right!)

Once again I'm confused with an answer from you. You said:

"Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi. If it was I would have stated as such. This list was from simply a question I posed about rear differential leaks, and what might be the cause. He gave the list without even seeing the car".

What do you mean by the last sentence, "He gave the list without even seeing the car"?

You said this after saying in your first sentence, "Oh, the list above wasn't from the service adviser at Audi".

You don't have to answer my question because I probably won't understand it anyway.

jmonroe

Let me try to clear the mud at least.

He = a random mechanic that knows about Audi's but has nothing to do with this dealership or Audi servicing my car right now.

Service Adviser also happens to be a he, since he's male, but he's not the one that gave me the list. I haven't asked him what the cause might be. It's a seal, and I get the impression it isn't a common or frequent failure. When I get the impression that a failure is common and frequent, that is when I get more upset.

@stickguy already cleared this up about the advisor thing.

Now, "common or frequent problems" get to me too.

I mentioned this before, when I got 'the '15 Genny it had a shimmy at around 35/40 MPH. When I test drove the car I guess I didn't dwell on that speed long enough to notice it. So, on my own dime I took the car to the Firestone store I deal with and had them do a lifetime balance to fix the problem. The balancing did not fix the problem so I take the car to the local dealer and the advisor says something that led me to believe there was a known problem with the tires but he would not elaborate. He then said it could be in the drive train. I didn't feel good about hearing that but that was just thrown out there. He wanted me to bring it in as soon as he could get me an appointment.

I get an appointment for the next week. When I show up for the appointment, after they check it out, the advisor says, "just like I thought, the tires have to be replaced " This of course will be at no cost to me but that will take another appointment after they order the tires.

Before I could get to the appointment for the tire replacement I got a recall letter about the "tire problem". Turns out the OEM Hankooks were not as round as they should have been and some gobalee goo about the side wall flexing too much. In any case the tires were replaced with Continental's. No more shimmy. But, I'm out 60 something bucks because I jumped the gun and went to Firestone first and not the dealer.

When I asked the advisor if they would refund any of my wasted money, he looked at me like I had two heads. :@

jmonroe

driver100

jmonroe said:

stickguy said:

JM, he asked a guy on the Internet a conceptual question. I do that all the time!

No different than if I asked you why there was a little water on the floor under my dishwasher. I'm sure you could give me a nice list of likely causes without seeing it in person.

OK, I get it now. I went back to the original post and saw where the question was posed to a "knowledgeable mechanic".

FWIW, you're right about dishwashers. We are on our 4th and we've only been in this house since 1998.

@driver100 would never read all of that tale.

jmonroe

You have been doing fine lately, nice and brief and anyone could have been confused by Andres posts and knowing he he asked what. I was with you all the way on those points, especially those reasons this mechanic gave for a part failure....I know very little abought technical issues and I could have made up better reasons than those.

About the dishwashers.....let sleeping dogs lie..........

andres3

imidazol97 said:

So it's okay to build them wrong, as long as the company writes a letter? Reminds me of one of the Honda transmission problems where folks were on their 3rd transmission at 100,000 miles, when a car is just getting broken in nowadays. Would anyone want to own that vehicle for the next 50K miles? But Honda had written a letter and extended trans coverage to 100K.



It's not just a letter, it is standing behind the product because that is the right thing to do when mistakes are made. I don't give a crap about the letter; that's just words. But those words were honored to the tune of a nearly $700 reimbursement. Now that's real dollars and cents!

When a company won't stand behind the product it leads me to believe it is because they've made so many mistakes that they cannot afford to stand behind the product and stay in business (or at least be profitable) in the short-term. Turns out they can't stay in business in the long-term either, but that's another issue that doesn't have an effect on this year's bonus.

It is either that, or they just don't like paying for their own mistakes. Either way, I don't want to do business with companies like that.

ab348

imidazol97 said:

Sounds like you've gotten a bad Audi. Trade it for another car before it strands you on the road. LOL

I think he should file for a buyback. We're going to be short on entertainment here for a while.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

ab348 said:

jmonroe said:

@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe

Thanks JM. The frustration is that the surgeon who worked on me in 2009 said that given the hard time I had after that, my valve be replaced using a TAVR procedure where they snake the new valve up through an artery via the groin instead of opening you up. So today I met with the surgeon who does that and she's not so sure about doing that given my history. So it looks like we start the whole process again from the top with new tests, etc. What fun.

The only funny part of the day was when the surgeon, an attractive lady of maybe 35 or so, called me "a young man". Wish other 35 year old women I meet would call me that.

Calling you "young man" is good. How would you like it when they call you Dad? Like when one youngin said to me, "hey Dad, put your feet up here". The only thing worse would have been, "hey grandpa..." :@

jmonroe

I wonder if they call me "Sir". Is that a show of respect or because they think I am a lot older?

Maybe they think you're a general.

The day a young woman held a door open for me was the day I knew I was old.

I held the door open at our tennis bubble for two, quite a bit younger than me women, They took the door out of my hands and told me they were quite capable of opening their own door. :@

That made me feel old and out of touch with the younger generation.

andres3

ab348 said:

imidazol97 said:

Sounds like you've gotten a bad Audi. Trade it for another car before it strands you on the road. LOL

I think he should file for a buyback. We're going to be short on entertainment here for a while.

I know you and @imidazol97 must be joking, but I'm about 28 days and 3 problems short of having a viable lemon-lawsuit.

Now if it had leaked out fast enough that it materially affected the car's drive-ability (or worse, caused something to seize/break/catch fire), then I might only need 2 problems total.

driver100

28firefighter said:

graphicguy said:

andres3 said:

berri said:

Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

Andres....I was thinking that same thing. The lawyer present and whomever the Cadillac HQ person was remotely for the hearing will probably take heat for losing a case to a "peon" like me.

That would be misplaced blame.

I would be willing to bet the only heat will be focused back at customer care.

A reasonable customer care rep would have seen that immediately and done everything in their power to make you happy to avoid a binding outcome like this that will cost them WAY more than some of the alternatives.

Just an semi-educated guess.

After my experience with Audi and other companies I would say customer care department has NO power. Customer Care is taught to try to stonewall you and get rid of you as quickly as possibly. If a company is really smart, like Apple, customer care people are given a lot of power to actually be able to do something. I am sure all customer care at most car companies can do is read you their policy and try to get rid of you as quickly as possible - they try to convince you that you aren't covered.

I only got results with Audi when I wrote directly to the president, and that made them move quickly. Threats help too. I like giving them a deadline, if this isn't done by such and such a date my next step will be........

Same with the insurance company that was about as slow as could be...finally had to go over the agents head!

cdnpinhead

In dry dry Arizona traction isn't the primary issue. I want the new tires on what we used to call the steering axle. In the event of a tread separation, blowout or other sudden deflation I contend that the effect on steering is a much bigger deal than the rare event that someone is taking a corner so quickly that one end or the other of the vehicle loses grip.

I've given up having this discussion with the cretins at Discount, given that they overinflate the tires routinely, relative to the pressures clearly displayed on the placard on the door jamb. Fortunately I've found an old-school tire shop in a small town in rural AZ that will do exactly what I ask them to do. Imagine.

driver100

I know we will never know the answer but it would be fascinating to know exactly what had to be done to GGs Cadillac. It would be interesting to know what the new route was and where the harness went, and to know why it was designed incorrectly in the first place.

I'd pay $25 to know the whole story, and the thinking that went on at head office that they would take their lame case to arbitration.

My guess is it is just corporate thinking.....the rule is we take every case to the max because only 10% of the population will go to arbitration, and we have a 50% chance of winning. If we settle every case it will cost us way more total dollars, so fight to the end in every case.

andres3

Perhaps former GM CEO's are available to play arbitrator, and @graphicguy just got lucky. Imagine if he had to go up against Rick Wagoner or Bob Lutz or Barack Obama

andres3

Okay! I should have knocked on wood! The Hungarians may have made me a lemon.

Got a bad news phone call that the rear-diff was leaking, that the Haldex seal fix wasn't the only issue and that the 2 different fluids should NEVER mix. Regional Audi rep trying to decide on another seal-type fix or whole new rear differential (which could take a while to get here from Germany).

Time-Frames are critical right now. I need this car back in full working condition soon!

murphydog

Hello all - give all the tire talk I will toss this out there -

Time for new tires on the 2013 X3. Currently running the 19 inch M package with the Goodyear run flats. I have not issue with run flats, and there is no room for a spare anyway.

However there seems to be a very limited choice of run flats for this car. Any suggestions on tires? We got 38K out of the originals and they are pretty evenly worn on all 4 tires.

Any suggestions on where to buy? Usually go to my local Discount tire, but they don't seem to carry many run flats...

graphicguy

Michaell said:

@graphicguy - now that you've gotten your ruling, take a moment and update your signature line!

Michaell...I made it so!

driver100

murphydog said:

Hello all - give all the tire talk I will toss this out there -

Time for new tires on the 2013 X3. Currently running the 19 inch M package with the Goodyear run flats. I have not issue with run flats, and there is no room for a spare anyway.

However there seems to be a very limited choice of run flats for this car. Any suggestions on tires? We got 38K out of the originals and they are pretty evenly worn on all 4 tires.

Any suggestions on where to buy? Usually go to my local Discount tire, but they don't seem to carry many run flats...

Murphydog....I was truly surprised but I got great pricing from my BMW dealer when I needed RFTs. Before winter they had prices that were much lower than dealers for snow tires. They would send me specials on tires from time to time. I think it is a case of they buy in bulk and they want a part of that business. They are experts at knowing what works on BMWs too, so they are a good source of information for what is best for your car.

I may have been lucky, but it worked for me and I have sent other skeptical people and they were all pleasantly surprised.

driver100

graphicguy said:

Michaell said:

@graphicguy - now that you've gotten your ruling, take a moment and update your signature line!

Michaell...I made it so!

That's better, but should read:

2016 Infiniti Q50 3.0T-1998 Mustang Cobra Convertible 2016 Cadillac CTS - never ever and ever again

graphicguy

driver100 said:

graphicguy said:

Michaell said:

@graphicguy - now that you've gotten your ruling, take a moment and update your signature line!

Michaell...I made it so!

That's better, but should read:

2016 Infiniti Q50 3.0T-1998 Mustang Cobra Convertible 2016 Cadillac CTS - never ever and ever again

LOL!

graphicguy

Murphydog...the local BMW dealer by me advertises they'll beat anyone's TOTAL cost on tires. Might ask your dealer.

28firefighter

I'll echo everyone else's suggestions to check with the dealer. BMW Seattle replaced a RFT for my wife under road hazard warranty, but I saw the invoice and their price would have been $225/tire installed, which is less than tire rack charges for just the tire. 

Btw I have no complaints either about the Pirelli runflats on the X1 - handle nicely and pretty quiet, too. 

stickguy

can also check tirerack. at least see most options possible. might even find your local tire place is one of their installers, so can order and have shipped directly.

venture

graphicguy said:

andres3 said:

berri said:

Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

Andres....I was thinking that same thing. The lawyer present and whomever the Cadillac HQ person was remotely for the hearing will probably take heat for losing a case to a "peon" like me.

That would be misplaced blame.

I doubt anyone will get blamed. I suspect that they expect to lose any case that goes as far as yours did - up to and including the possibility you didn't show up. I also suspect very few go that far because people just give up.

abacomike

Just an update for my tests and treatment.

Tomorrow morning, I am going for and endoscopy for my upper gastrointestinal tract.  I just had to sign a permission slip for anesthesia and the procedure.  I guess they think this is caused by something in my stomach.

Guess they think this is caused by something in my stomach or intestines.  Will know more about it tomorrow.

Thanks for all your support everyone.

tbirdmarco

@graphicguy glad you one and are done with that car!