Turbos & Superchargers void your Miata Warranty
bri...@igener.com
I have a 99 Miata with the JR SC. I have had problems with the drive train prior to installing the SC but as soon as the dealership/district manager saw the SC they/he said that the engine power train warranty has been voided due to the "heavily modified engine". I called MazdaUSA to see my warranty status with them. They said that the DM informed them that my warranty is not longer in effect.
(A rather scummy maneuver to avoid fixing the pre-existing problem)
If the SC caused the problem then I would understand Mazda not covering the repair, but I know the SC didn't cause my problems (the SC was installed after I had taken the car back several times with its problem). Unfortunately I am going to have to fight Mazda over the issue of warranty.
If anyone has fought this type of fight with Mazda regarding the Supercharger voiding the car's warranty, I would love to hear from you. If anyone else has info on how to handle Mazda on this issue please comment.
I doubt I am the first person to put a SC in a new Miata, so I doubt I am the first to have the warranty issue with Mazda.
If I am the first, and MazdaUSA is able to set precident in voiding the warranty due to add-ons, a lot of other Miata owers will face the same void warranty.
Thanks,
Brian Weltman
Portland, Oregon
email bri...@igener.com
Miata Guy
warranty. Why would you have installed the supercharger if you had a
pre-existing problem? Unless it was the #4 mian bearing cap (recall),
you're probably totally SOL.
<bri...@igener.com> wrote in message news:397C0166...@igener.com...
Henry_Barta
> Hi,
> I have a 99 Miata with the JR SC. I have had problems with the drive
> train prior to installing the SC [...]
Exactly what was the problem?
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
hba...@enteract.com Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
Teryaki
you have their mechanics install your aftermarket upgrades. Kinda a nasty
hit in the wallet for labor you could do yourself, but if you just got the
car, it's better to still have the warranty.
It's worth asking beforehand, at least.
Teryaki
22% of Americans would favor missile attacks against Sweden. But only if
the "current embargo isn't working."
-The Awful Truth
bri...@igener.com
The problem was excessive freeplay in the drivetrain. Most likely it is
insufficient
gear tooth engagement or u-joint slop (if the Miatas have u joints in the
drive
shaft).
I believed the problem to be fixable by a good mechanic familiar with
Miatas.
I was told that the District Regional Manager would have to OK the repair
work.
I did not expect the District Manager to try to use the one-week-old
supercharger
to dismiss the claims from the the prior 5 months to the SC's installation.
Terrible customer service if you ask me!
Regardless of the pre-existing problem, I now have to fight Mazda to proove
that
my warranty is not void nad that it is illegal for Mazda to breach their the
Miata's
Warranty [contract] without grounds (ie. prooving that the SC caused the
problem).
How would you approach this problem?
chuck
sell you the car and never see you again. Obviously, this is one of them.
My parents in law once had a problem with a new In warrenty Caddy. They
bought it in the Chicago area, where they live, and drove it to our home in
Georgia. Along the way, the headliner started coming unglued, and the car
started having idle problems. One of the two TB fuel injectors was either
sticking or clogged.
The local dealers shop forman tried to tell them that he wasn't going to
work on it under warrenty because they didn't buy it there. Big, big
mistake! My wife was with them, and happened to be the leader for the girl
scout troup that the dealers daughters were in. She picked up the phone on
the service desk, called the dealer, and told him what his service
department was trying to not do, then handed the phone to the service
manager. I don't know what the dealer told the service manager, but, he
almost turned white, said yes sir several times, hung up the phone, and told
my wife (very politely) that the car would be repaired, the oil changed,
washed, and anything else it might need within the hour at no cost, warrenty
or no warrenty.
<bri...@igener.com> wrote in message news:397C0166...@igener.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have a 99 Miata with the JR SC. I have had problems with the drive
> train prior to installing the SC but as soon as the dealership/district
> manager saw the SC they/he said that the engine power train warranty has
> been voided due to the "heavily modified engine". I called MazdaUSA to
> see my warranty status with them. They said that the DM informed them
> that my warranty is not longer in effect.
chuck
(up front) you state that a turbo is installed, and they issue the warrenty,
you have at least basic coverage that doesn't require a mazda dealer to do
the work.
"Teryaki" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:teryt-24070...@ip117.cleveland4.oh.pub-ip.psi.net...
Sonny
> The problem was excessive free play in the drivetrain. Most
likely it is
> insufficient gear tooth engagement or u-joint slop
This is a well known problem with certain 1999 Miatae.
Supposedly, it only effected vehicles within a certain VIN range.
However, many PowerList subscribers have described blown engines
secondary to excessive drivetrain free play OUTSIDE the VIN
range. There have been a few PowerList subscribers who have
successfully had their vehicles repaired under warranty but I
don't remember who and where. I suggest you go to the PowerList
Archives (http://www.miatapower.net/) and do a search. You can
also subscribe to the PowerList and ask the list about this
issue.
It sounds like you should've been on the PowerList in the first
place to help your pursuit of more hp.
--
Later...
Sonny & "Bonnie"
Turbo Miata STO #679
STO Homepage: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~sonny200/
If everything is coming your way,
You're in the wrong lane.
Rob Hafley
information on how to deal with denial of warranty. Basically, the
dealer must prove that installation of non-factory parts caused the
problem. If you had identified a problem to the dealer before you
installed the SC, they should fix it.
rob
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:16:17 GMT, "Miata Guy"
<mx5_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The short answer would be....duh! No kidding they're going to void your
>warranty. Why would you have installed the supercharger if you had a
>pre-existing problem? Unless it was the #4 mian bearing cap (recall),
>you're probably totally SOL.
>
Robert A. Hafley R.A.H...@LaRC.NASA.GOV
Mail Stop 188A Materials Research Engineer
2 West Reid Street Metals and Thermal Structures Branch
NASA Langley Research Center Materials Division
Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Building 1205, Room 213
Phone +1 757 864-8078
Fax +1 757 864-7893
BUrnup
dealers are. Shall I say, Scum of the earth? Yea that'll
suffice. When I bought my Miata there was a short in the fog
lights, which they agreed to fix before I bought it. They
didn't, I just forgot about it because it was daylight when I
actually bought it. Also when I bought it, there was a short in
the inginition(I think) and you had to wiggle the keys while in
the ignition to get the fan on the heater/AC and airbag light to
come on. Well, they fixed it when I bought it, and a couple days
later, it broke again. It seems that the dealer rigged it to
last just long enough for me to buy it. Well, it was used so
they refused to touvh it after that. So, I simpathise with you.
It'll be a long, hard fight for you to win your warranty back.
Burnup
red '90 Miata "greddycharged!!" w/ a loonnnggg gone warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Rich Wilkman
SEMA's read on it is obviously biased. In practice it does not boil
down to "the dealer must prove that the installation caused the
problem". If there is a reasonable relationship (say you reduced the
back pressure so now your valves are a little cooked), then you are on
your own.
Magnussen-Moss goes a long way, but in practice (i.e., in court) it's by
far a slam dunk for the consumer.
-Rich
M. Rosbrugh
jury with the consumer as the defendant. No jury in the world, or at least
in our world, is going to side with the dealership or the dealer. If they
can't prevent it from a trial they will settle. Push their buttons and see
what happens. I still strongly suggest contacting Jackson and SEMA
directly. Both sources can provide you with a strategy for resolving the
issue.
BTW, just my opinions, YMMV.
Matt Rosbrugh
Carolinas Miata Club
95 M Edition - Scarlett
m. rosbrugh
> SEMA's read on it is obviously biased. In practice it does not boil
> Magnussen-Moss goes a long way, but in practice (i.e., in court) it's by
> far a slam dunk for the consumer.
However, the last thing a dealership or a manufacturer wants is to face a
jury with the consumer as the plaintiff. No jury in the world, or at
least in our world, is going to side with the dealership or the
manufacturer. If they can't prevent it from a trial they will settle.
Push their buttons and see what happens.
I still strongly suggest contacting Jackson and SEMA directly. Both
sources can provide you with a strategy for resolving the
issue.
BTW, just my opinion, YMMV.
Rich Wilkman
Perhaps you got one of the very few sales contracts that doesn't have a
binding arbitration clause in it? These don't go to jury trials, I'm
afraid.
-Rich
chuck
> binding arbitration clause in it? These don't go to jury trials, I'm
> afraid.
You might argue that the dealers actions concerning the warrenty are not
directly related to the sale.
The big thing would be to get written evidence that Mazda denied warrenty
service, based on the Mazda reps actions. This should let you avoid the
arbitration issue.
"Rich Wilkman" <ri...@formlessvoid.com> wrote in message
news:397FAC1E...@formlessvoid.com...
m. rosbrugh
> "Rich Wilkman" <ri...@formlessvoid.com> wrote
> > binding arbitration clause in it? These don't go to jury trials, I'm
> > afraid.
By the mere presence of that clause the terms unconscionability and
contract of adhesion spring forth. While that is not certain to get you
to a jury, that is why I said punch their buttons and see cause if you
can get to a jury they will settle.
Matt Rosbrugh
Carolinas Miata Club
95 M Edition - Scarlett - who is leaving for the Gap in 30 minutes.
chuck
When there is a problem that is serious enough to pose a hazard or cause
further damage, repair might be indicated, warrenty or not. (Due care might
apply?) Mazda will pay for outside repairs, if warrenty coverage is
reaffirmed. In fact, after multiple trips to the dealer, outside repair and
a claim against mazda for the cost of the repair was justified. The basic
mistake was to modify a vehicle with a known problem, giving a possible out
to the dealer, who (for whatever reasons, did not repair the problem to
begin with.
A good reputable licensed shop should be able to find the cause of the
problem, and repair it.
Several years ago, I had a problem with an MPV. One mazda area rep
recognized the problem, and recommended a step by step process to solve it.
We started the process. Unfortunately, I had to change jobs and areas. when
I tried to go to the next step, with the dealer in the new area, and
naturally, a different mazda rep, I got the infamous what problem, no
trouble found bit.
The problem had to do with a unique cupping pattern that developed on the
front tires when the MPV was operated mostly on the interstates at high
(legal) speeds.
The power rack and pinion was known to be the major culprit. There was a
small amount of free play that allowed the tires to oscillate at speeds in
the 60 to 70 MPH range. A new R&P would solve the problem for about 20
thousand miles, until it loosened up. Mazda knew they had a problem, and
delivered new MPVs of the same year with a high setting on a friction pad,
thereby masking the problem for about one year of normal use. Later models
had a redesigned R&P assembly.
"m. rosbrugh" <m.b.rosbr...@attymail.com> wrote in message
news:m.b.rosbrughnotspam-...@news.mindspring.com...
Tom Brenholts/Mosca
"What Is Not Covered/ Factors Beyond the Manufacturer's Control/ 1)
Misuse of the Mazda vehicle... and 3) Alteration, modification,
tampering, etc.". I would think that either an independent arbitrator or
a judge would both find adding a supercharger to be "alteration,
modification, tampering, etc." Also, remember, you would not be suing
the dealer, you would be suing Mazda. The dealer gets paid for fixing
your car under warranty. Although with a jury you might win on the first
go-round (but I would doubt it), there is without question ample prior
case law in favor or the warrantor, and the decision would go to the
manufacturer on appeal. IMO, this is a slam-dunk case for Mazda.
"I doubt that I am the first to have a warranty issue with Mazda
[regarding supercharger add-ons etc]"; No, you're probably not, and
Mazda probably feels as if they are on very safe ground on this issue.
Brian, I have to ask you; why did you put a supercharger on a car
with a known problem? And don't you think it would have been prudent to
call the 800 number in the warranty book and ask if installing a
supercharger would void the factory warranty? I believe that you want to
have your cake and eat it, too.
Tom Brenholts
bri...@igener.com
The actions of Mazda's District Manager in voiding the warranty without any grounds is contrary to Federal Law. The problem was reported to the dealership prior to the installation of the SC. Therefore the issue of the SC is moot, since the SC could not have caused the problem in the first place. Secondly, the dealership has further refused to perform repairs due to recalls (clearly not affected by my installation either).
Lastly I did tell both the Service Manager and the Sales Manager of my intention to install a SC. When the issue of warranty came up they did not say "install a SC and you will void your warranty". They did confirm that failures that result from the installation of the SC are not covered.
I believe the District Manager breached the warranty contract and acted contrary to Federal Law. Being an agent of Mazda, he told dealership not to perform the required work impeding the completion of services. Also, the actions of the dealership in the events leading to this situation show they acted in bad faith. With the D.M.'s actions they are no longer responsible for the refusal of service.
Not such a slam dunk for Mazda, as first thought. Madza would
be within its rights to refuse the warranty if the SC caused the problem,
but clearly the modification couldn't have possibly caused the problem.
Rich Wilkman
If the problem was reported but not confirmed by the dealership you
don't have a leg to stand on in court. If they ack'd the problem, then
that's a different story. Just having a "symptom" logged with the shop
doesn't mean anything.
-Rich
Tom Brenholts/Mosca
still take Mazda's side, but I've got no problem being wrong, either.
Tom Brenholts
chuck
"void" the
warrenty. Mazda has honored the warrenty in the past concerning known
defects covered by recall or service note, even though the cars were
modified. In some cases, the needed parts were shipped to the non mazda
facility that installed the supercharger or turbocharger.
It's usually not a good idea to ask "officially" if installation of a
modification will void or affect a warranty.
Especially if you and a dealer are going around about fixing a problem.
Another thing that can happen when your car is in a dealers shop repeatedly
is that the dealer may use your warrenty to order parts for similar cars
that are not under warrenty for some reason. One case involved a dealer
that replaced worn interior parts on a used trade in. Another seemed to be
sheer lazyness on the part of the dealers shop.
"Tom Brenholts/Mosca" <tho...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:3980FF73...@intergrafix.net...