Chevrolet taking a cue from the boys in Stuttgart.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1537860

 

I don't think they have. Boardwalk in Dallas just replaced the syncos in my tranny at no cost. This was after they had already replaced the original due to the 2nd gear popping out problem, also at no cost. Monday it goes in for some hydraulic adjustments after the tranny repair and at no time did they question whether to pay for the repair.

Mind you, all this is on a certified car, not even in the original factory warranty, AND I didn't purchase it at their dealership (unfortunately, because I would have preferred to)

Sounds to me that this is very regional.

 

I guess no matter which manufacturer you go with, you'll have to put up with some sort of b.s.

The difference is with a Honda I expect it... but when you get up to a Z06 or 911... that's a bid odd.

 

From what I understand, the problem with the transmission occured BECAUSE of the overrev. This overrev occured BEFORE he purchased the car from the PORSCHE dealership. Porsche and the dealer are using track abuse as an excuse to get out of paying the repairs. Sad IMO. Keep us up to date Mo.

 

that's a pity. get a lawyer and fight it. voiding of warranty due to tracking or mods is nothing new. if you track or mod be prepared to lose your warranty. (or if your a jerk or a tool)

 

Or buy a car with an already expired warranty

OH wait, that's me

 

Yea - buy it used, warrenty is expired during ownership - beat it, break it - apply Marvins Mystry Oil - sell it to a Honda SU2000 owner that thinks they are trading up !!!

 

In my case, we are pretty certain the overrev's occurred after the transmission had failed – couldn’t get into third and shifted to second instead. However, determining the precise clock time of overrev's is nearly impossible since the time is stored in ‘engine time’. But the overrev thing is merely PAG’s excuse to avoid the cost of repair and not the cause of the damage. I continued to be floored at PAG’s response to this tracking/transmission issue on these higher end models. The damage to the Porsche image is way beyond the cost of repair. They have created blood enemies out of some of us who otherwise would be the most effective cheerleaders for the brand. Their actions may make the spreadsheets look better for the accountants, but does massive damage to the brand.

Essentially PAG is, by its actions, establishing that they make fast, expensive cars that cannot be reliably tracked/autocrossed. So I’m not certain what to do with my X50. Maybe keep it in the garage; shine it up with Zaino, and show it to the lawn bowling club on Sunday after church? But I can’t fit my walker in the boot ….

 

I would SUE THE HELL OUT OF PCNA for False Advertising. First off.. Its against the law to sell the car as being used as a track car and once you put it on the track you void the warranty. When you buy the car they must inform you of the warranty and what voids it. And state that when using the car on the track you must bring the car in and so fourth.. I will tell you I LOVE PCNA as of now... They were a pain with my Turbo but they have done the best in my opinion to make me happy and for sure will be back to buy a GT3RS or GT2... unless a cayman turbo gets made...

But I feel your pain on the GT3... The dealer is at fault for issuing the warranty. If anything you get to own a dealer... HEHE

 

Yeah... sell it to a Honda S2000... wait a minute... THAT'S ME!

 

 

You might want to take a look at these two cases to get a better feel of the law on the issue:

2> Universal Motors v. Waldock, 719 P.2d 254 (Alaska 1986) (BMW N.A. case): BMW denied warranty for alleged overreving. Owner relied on MM Act to enforce warranty and forced BMW to try and prove overrevving and not some other defect in material was cause. BMW failed and Owner won...the court held that "Once the consumer offers credible evidence that the defect is materials or workmanship related, the burden shifts to the warrantor to prove consumer abuse [was the actual cause]."

3> Cline v. DaimlerChrysler Co., 2005 OK CIV APP 31, 20 (Okla. Ct. App. 2005)
similiar to above...but a w/ dodge truck. Truck failed, owner tried to push start it. Dealer denied repair saying overrevved when pushed...court ruled for owner, based on fact that original failure happened before overrev so it was not proof enough as cause of problem and could not be basis of denial.

In each, the car owner was also awarded all costs and attorney fees...

Best of luck...
dw

 

Any more updates Mo?

 

You,my friend, are a much more patient man that I. I would probably already be in the litigation process. Good luck with this and keep us posted!

 

+1... ...