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
Looking back, if they want to deny the claim you guys are right in that they should have retained the fluid and checked it in a more controlled way.
Which reminds me that I need to get my front diffy seal done for the 2nd time on my Armada as I keep seeing fluid under it.
Then go back to your regular mechanic and tell him he drained the wrong thing during the oil change. That is not suggest that the whining noise wasn't the differential in the first place but he still misdiagnosed. If your mechanic has any ability maybe he'll repair the car since Subaru won't cover it. Since they won't it doesn't seem to me that it ought to matter to them where you take it.
1. put everything in writing
2. choose your oil change place carefully
3. stand your ground
4. hold people accountable
5. don't depend on help from SOA customer service
6. ask lots of question and..............
7. turn to the folks at this site for advice and expertise
Better log off Edmunds immediately -- because you'll find a similar story here for every single manufacturer, and if you hold true to your "one strike and you're out" rule, you'll be left with 30K to spend on a hot-air balloon or pack mules or some other form of alternative transportation.
From that perspective I would say absolutely buy a Subaru. My son's legacy has over 200K on it. My wife's '04 OBW has 45K without a minutes headache.
SOA on the other hand, imho, could use some work. Phone calls not returned, no real critical thinking about how to help me solve my problem while 400 miles away from home. Seemed more interested in getting me off their plate. District rep refused to speak with me directly about the issue. Communication is the key in conflict resolution and SOA didn't do well in my book.
Fore warned is fore armed. I will be prepared to be more direct in my own problem resolution if I ever have another problem.
Yes, you can read every issue per vehicle manufacturer. But you cant deny the fact that this issue will sway many possible first time Subaru owners.
We'll just see how the court goes.
I'd like to know, as a percentage, how much less SOA reimburses its dealer compared to the "retail" price that we pay and how does that impact on a dealers objectivity. Also if there is a time issue. The dealer gets my check today, how long does it take for Subaru to reimburse the dealer? Once again does that affect whether a dealer declares a repair to be out of warranty.
Are there rebates to a dealer as an example if they have a lower than average warranty repair rate. Are there other incentives that the individual consumer will find impossible to compete with for a fair determination.
Anyone aware of any other arbitration vehicles available to bring a neutral third party into the process?
Perhaps our new Governor "Bulldog" Spitzer will task his new AG to investigate this. Perhaps we should help him make this decision.
What I said wasn't a defense of Subaru; it was a defense of using common sense when researching a vehicle purchase. I'd have responded the same way if you were talking about Chevy, Honda, Mercury, whatever.
To rule out a make on the basis of one completely unconfirmed, one-sided account you've read on an internet message board strikes me as overreaction, is all. Like I said, you could pretty easily dig up a similar tale of woe for every single make out there.
Instead of focusing on one isolated incident, I'd make my choice on the basis of a larger sample size. And the overwhelming odds with *any* make are against your needing to have a major warranty repair made.
SoA on the other hand did nothing to help. As I said before, should I ever have another major problem I'll handle things directly with my selling dealer and the dealer that I take my car to for repair.
Given you have found a good, honest dealer, SoA becomes unnecessary for you. So it shouldn't matter.
I'd like to know that too. I bought a 2007 Legacy the other day on the advice of a friend. I really like the car, but the clutch pedal is squeaky and my feeling is that if I paid for a new car, I'm entitled to have the problem fixed.
The warranty says that you can take the car to any dealership, but it's starting to look like this is a lie. The dealer I took the car to gave me the runaround. I called SOA and they were supposed to have another dealer contact me, but nobody contacted me.
Another dealer I called claimed that clutch pedals always squeak in the winter and I would just have to live with it.
The obvious explanation for all of this is that Subaru of America underfunds its warranty work to the point where dealers try to avoid doing the work. I suspect that if the car were out of warranty, the dealers would be all too happy to do the work and charge me a premium rate for the repairs.
Anyway, I'm an attorney and I'm not going to put up with this nonsense. I sent SOA a threatening letter yesterday, and I will file suit next week if necessary.
One way to insure it will go positively is to go in armed with as much factual info as possible. I have always felt that if you can show them both the necessity and possible causes of the problem, you have the best chance of getting them to take it on, and fix the issue.
I'm not sure what more info I could arm myself with. The clutch pedal is squeaky. The car is new. I like the car a lot, but I paid for a new car and I want it to be working perfectly. Call me fussy, but there it is.
"Thus they would in some cases rather turn you away at the door than get stuck in the middle in a no-win situation."
I wouldn't call it a "no-win" situation so much as a "no-profit" situation. A legitimate business honors its obligations even if it won't make as much money. If the business is unable to honor its obligations, then it should file bankruptcy.
Just my humble opinion.
Agreed. And, "squeaky in the cold" is a line if I ever heard one. Of all the complaints I have with my '07, which is ~ 6 weeks old now, the clutch is not among them. Even at -40F, there is not a bit of squeak - works perfectly and silently, as it should. In the last week, the warmest temperature has been -16F, and the lowest -44F. No squeaks. But, maybe they mean it is "normal" for just your car. :sick:
I have had excellent experiences with two dealerships. For most of the others I would recommend public floggings or perhaps stoning as a just punishment for how they disrespect customers.
We have two OBW's we bought one at each of the dealers in Syracuse, NY. In my opinion both are good. Romano diagnosed the problem and subsequently helped me recover from Valvoline.
I think it might carry some weight with SoA as well.
Frankly, I had the feeling he was BSing me. However, the squeak does seem to have subsided for the time being.
My previous car was a Honda, which was nearly 100% perfect for the 6 1/2 years I owned it. Essentially the only work necessary was routine maintenance and replacement of parts that wore out. (The only non-routine problem with my Honda was that the headlights burned out more frequently than one would expect.) So perhaps I'm a little spoiled.
In fairness, I should say that besides the clutch pedal issue, I love the car so far.
Changing the engine oil would seem to be such a simple procedure. Yet a mistake can yield catastrophic results. The transmission in the photo above was being replaced due to a differential failure. The differential failure was not caused by a part failure, but rather by operator error. The differential fluid had been drained during an oil service, rather than the engine oil. The drained fluid was not replaced, and a few hundred miles later, the differential was destroyed. This error may have been caused by unfamiliarity with Subaru vehicles or simple inattentiveness. In any case, it’s not a mistake any of us would want to make. Although we ran this information in an earlier End Wrench, seeing the destroyed transaxle drove home the fact that some technicians still need to be reminded of the correct service procedures.
All in all I was very fortunate in this whole episode. I learned a lot! I had asked the Valvoline manager if he was aware of any technical bulletins that VIOC had sent out cautioning against this kind of mistake but at that point he wasn't going to acknowledge anything like that. I'll bet there is one now if not before. My Subaru dealer did tell me that Subaru doesn't send these kind of service advisories to places like VIOC any more. Too bad.
Before donning the collar I spent 38 years selling medical products, mainly custom wheelchairs, power wheelchairs etc. and drove Astro vans and Caravans and beat the daylights out of them. Finally blew an engine on the Washington beltway on my last Dodge at 180K. Even with great abuse and very poor maintenance they seemed to last well into 150K plus.
I guess I have to be a bit more attuned to the needs of my little OBW. Tanny and other systems are fine. Whew!!
I'm having a problem getting coverage under the Subaru Extended Warranty, I'm hoping to get some constructive feedback here.
The extended Warranty expired in late Dec., 2005.
I purchased a new Outback in Dec, 1999.
All was well (mostly) until March, 2004 (odometer:40K). Then one day I turned the AC on and there was no cooling until after 15-20 minutes of driving. The-compressor-was-not-engaged (trust me on this). As it was a very intermittent problem, and because going to the dealer was a real pain, I did not bring it to the dealer's attention until mid Nov, 2005. They said the refrigerant level was very low and recharged the system for which they charged me $200, which I paid, figuring that if it fixed the problem I was getting off cheap. Afterwards the frequency of malfunctions actually increased. I took the car back, more than once, in 2006. After several visits (most ended as "all OK, no problem found"), eventually I proved to them that it was still not working and they replaced some parts for no charge but the repairs did not do the job and now they say additional parts need to be replaced...expensive ones. These they want me to pay for.
Am I unreasonable to expect this to be covered by the warranty? If so, how does one "motivate" them to take care of this? Is it reasonable for me to pay part of this (as they seem about to suggest)? I have been in contact with a Subaru customer service rep but they don't seem to be on "my" side.
In the case of your compressor, if it was not kicking on, the parts were not being lubricated, and thus some of the parts that you would like them to cover under warranty, could have actually broken due to your lack of bringing it in in a timely fashion to be repaired.
Sorry but you are SOL with SOA on this one, and I'm the biggest advocate of having an extended warranty, but if you don't hold up your end of the agreement I can't hold them responsible for it.
Given we're well into 2007, it's quite a stretch.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I would have tried to document the problem some how, maybe with a home video, before Nov. '06.
It's kind of late now.
Call 800-SUBARU3 and be REAL nice, plead your case. Ask them to check their records to see how many times you went in before Nov. 06, so they can understand your frustration.
At best I imagine they'll share the cost, but even that's not guaranteed.
Good luck and keep us posted.
As for if the compressor was damaged by lack of lubrication, keep in mind that most of the time prior to Nov, 2005 it did kick in, so I think it got an average amount of lubrication.
So far they haven't given me any rationale for their position other than that the warranty expired in Nov, 2005 and it's now March, 2007. The problem with this, of course, is that it implies that you're SOL of they can't properly diagnose and fix the problem within the warranty period.
Problem is, that's tough to prove. They're not going to admit their repairs weren't done properly, as that would be shooting themselves in the foot. :sick:
After the events of last month I contacted Subaru primarily to get some technical help for the dealer...they are clueless (fresh vs. recirculate??). The technical help didn't seem to happen but now I'm discussing the issue of covering the cost with them. The rep I've been in contact with has essentially said that it's up to the dealer to decide what will be covered by "goodwill". The fact that I did bring it to their attention before the warranty expired does not seem to carry much weight.
Although it was functioning at the Nov, 2005 service, they say that the refrigerant was very low and recharged it. So they know that a.) I claim that sometimes it doesn't work, and b.) It was low on refrigerant. So something wasn't right prior to that date.
BTW...I don't have a video camera.
So, the issue now is to find a shop that can diagnose the problem. Without knowing the problem, there is no way that SOA is going to agree, at any level, to address it. Your refrigeration system aside, the problem now is that the service department you are dealing with currently is incapable of addressing the car's malfunction. If you keep bantering with them, they are going to keep wasting your time, and before you know it another year or two have gone by...... Time is a critical factor at this point since you are in the "goodwill" phase....
I expect that, regardless of the outcome, at least some repair expense will be borne from your pocket.
By the way, as far as fresh vs. recirculate goes, recirculate will ultimately allow the system to achieve a lower cabin temperature since the intake air through the cooling fins has already been cooled by them and is thus lower than fresh, hot, air. If the system is not cooling at all though, how could it make any difference?
He would just have a much better "goodwill" case.
It is all a moot point though unless the problem can actually be diagnosed. Otherwise, everyone is just speculating.
I'd actually be more embarassed that I was trying to get my warranty covered a year after it expired.
For example, with my car's "little things", like cracking shift boot, copious rattles, etc., even fixing is not the end. I had the car in back in January, they say "yes, it has these problems, we will order parts and you bring it back in two weeks." Okay, I do. They address a couple issues, but say "Sorry, we had wrong part on shift boot, bring it back in two weeks." I do. I call them the day prior to the appointment to ask if they can have the car done no later than 1400, as I need it early. They say that is fine. I take the car in and go to work. 2pm, I am there to get the car. Guess what?! They have only had it in the shop for 45 minutes! Well, that should be plenty of time considering they just have to swap out the shift boot and glove box..... NO! They give it back to me completely untouched. I take it back in just on Tuesday of this week. They swap the shift boot (same cheap material as last one, so it will have to be replaced again), but now the trim around it is loose and rattles, plus the glove box was the wrong part (surprise!), so it has another appointment. I think they are making me regret my decision to ever take it in for these petty annoyances! I just want to get it ironed out before I sell it, but I am worried that the touch-ups are just going to snowball the more I take it in.
Whoa - sorry about that... speaking of snowballs!
Anyway, Larry has an uphill battle for sure and it is likely to culminate in an unsatisfactory outcome for him. But, until the problem is diagnosed, it is all just a frustrating mystery.
At least for future use.