7500 miles done, engine gone, Subaru saying warranty is invalid
22 April 2010, 01:52 PM
#31
i am a reasonable man and would hold my hands up and accept responsibility if i had caused the engine demise, but its 100% clear it isn't down to me or my driving or exhaust and I don't take light to being taken for a mug for something that I am and have been passionate about since my first scooby 8 years ago.
22 April 2010, 02:06 PM
#32
Personally I'd initially write a letter to whoever you're going to email and send it recorded delivery requesting that they response in X days or you'll be taking legal action.
Then get yourself a solicitor and print off all the known engine issue links/information that you can find and let him take care of it.
I can understand IM's decision to a certain degree in that you did mod the car with something thats engine related sadly.
But - they've no proof that the exhaust caused the failure.
22 April 2010, 03:34 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil's advocate here... free flowing exhaust = less back pressure for turbo = more chance of spike etc = engine problems = your fault.
I'm not saying in anyway that the exhaust has done anything at all, it really shoudn't. If you'd de-ccatted then I could really see the point its just that I can imagine what will be said already and how the exhaust will be blamed.
5t.
I'm not saying in anyway that the exhaust has done anything at all, it really shoudn't. If you'd de-ccatted then I could really see the point its just that I can imagine what will be said already and how the exhaust will be blamed.
5t.
22 April 2010, 04:04 PM
#36
Like for like 'catback' change, it's a PPP STi.
Subaru are talking horse **** and they know it. You don't get a more OEM modified scooby than Mark's, look at the overpriced STi wheel nuts he has FFS.
Give them both barrels Mark, I think AMC have let you down big time with this, haven't looked after your interests at all IMHO
Subaru are talking horse **** and they know it. You don't get a more OEM modified scooby than Mark's, look at the overpriced STi wheel nuts he has FFS.
Give them both barrels Mark, I think AMC have let you down big time with this, haven't looked after your interests at all IMHO
22 April 2010, 04:36 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would ask IM / your local dealership to prove that the engine failure is as a direct result of the exhaust system having been changed from the standard system.
I work in the motor trade and have done for nearly 20 years and we would not dare to jump to such conclusions unless we had definitive proof of the failure being caused by any non standard part fitted.
I could see the point of IM / Subaru's argument if a non genuine oil filter had collapsed causing catastrophic oil starvation and thus causing the engine failure.
I would also get the supplier / manufacturer of the exhaust system involved as well as if Subaru are questioning the quality of the components used and then 'blaming' it for the failure.
If for instance you took your car to a specialist / independant garage for your servicing and they used non genuine parts to service your car then I think under EU legislation under the block exemption regulations I don't think that IM / Subaru can specify that genuine parts are required to maintain the warranty of the vehicle.
They are required to be 'matching original specification are used and the manufacturer's service schedule is followed', so if this can be said for service items and if IM / Subaru class the exhaust as a consumable item then surely the same criteria can apply. Link from the AA below:
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...-campaign.html
There are other sources of information available but this is a more concise version and easier to quickly digest.
In closing I believe that Subaru can at best be accused of 'sharp practice' and at worst of hiding from an obvious problem, times must be desperate for them if they will not even honour their own warranty.
I work in the motor trade and have done for nearly 20 years and we would not dare to jump to such conclusions unless we had definitive proof of the failure being caused by any non standard part fitted.
I could see the point of IM / Subaru's argument if a non genuine oil filter had collapsed causing catastrophic oil starvation and thus causing the engine failure.
I would also get the supplier / manufacturer of the exhaust system involved as well as if Subaru are questioning the quality of the components used and then 'blaming' it for the failure.
If for instance you took your car to a specialist / independant garage for your servicing and they used non genuine parts to service your car then I think under EU legislation under the block exemption regulations I don't think that IM / Subaru can specify that genuine parts are required to maintain the warranty of the vehicle.
They are required to be 'matching original specification are used and the manufacturer's service schedule is followed', so if this can be said for service items and if IM / Subaru class the exhaust as a consumable item then surely the same criteria can apply. Link from the AA below:
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...-campaign.html
There are other sources of information available but this is a more concise version and easier to quickly digest.
In closing I believe that Subaru can at best be accused of 'sharp practice' and at worst of hiding from an obvious problem, times must be desperate for them if they will not even honour their own warranty.
Last edited by Cannon Fodder; 22 April 2010 at 04:42 PM.
22 April 2010, 04:50 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is such a crying shame, Subaru USED to be famed for and prided itself on its reliability but this really taints things terribly.
It also further taints the image of the hatch and just gives ammo to the haters............
I've had 6 new Subarus in 10 years, all UK & all main dealer bought. Had a couple of issues in that time but if IM (via Subaru warranty) involved then resolved OK. However...... I have found a slide in attitudes and general helpfullness over the last few years though (resting on laurels after jd power successes!?).
What is most frustrating though is that the Hatch is a cracking car - once sorted!
In the right colour (there are only 3 it suits), with 18's, fogs and a lip spoiler it looks superb, i'm pleased to walk out of the house and see mine every day - whereas my 05 STi was hideous.
Once PPP'd It totally outclasses previous UK offerings in terms of driveability and performance, i can only assume those who criticise either drove a standard car or didn't notice the S# switch; sport sharp is simply brilliant.
It grips much much better than the 03 and 55 STi's I had (tested on a few fave corners) and reminds me of the classic turbo 2000 in terms of chuckability. Maybe a racing driver will criticise body roll or steering feel but i'm not one and drive it on real roads & it's OK by me.
So, I love my hatch, want and plan to keep it and enjoy driving it with spirit, but am very very concerned now that Subaru are prepared to produce a product clearly with a significant flaw then fail to address it properly. By that I mean recall to put proper pistons in it! Wont cost much as they haven't sold many!!
It also further taints the image of the hatch and just gives ammo to the haters............
I've had 6 new Subarus in 10 years, all UK & all main dealer bought. Had a couple of issues in that time but if IM (via Subaru warranty) involved then resolved OK. However...... I have found a slide in attitudes and general helpfullness over the last few years though (resting on laurels after jd power successes!?).
What is most frustrating though is that the Hatch is a cracking car - once sorted!
In the right colour (there are only 3 it suits), with 18's, fogs and a lip spoiler it looks superb, i'm pleased to walk out of the house and see mine every day - whereas my 05 STi was hideous.
Once PPP'd It totally outclasses previous UK offerings in terms of driveability and performance, i can only assume those who criticise either drove a standard car or didn't notice the S# switch; sport sharp is simply brilliant.
It grips much much better than the 03 and 55 STi's I had (tested on a few fave corners) and reminds me of the classic turbo 2000 in terms of chuckability. Maybe a racing driver will criticise body roll or steering feel but i'm not one and drive it on real roads & it's OK by me.
So, I love my hatch, want and plan to keep it and enjoy driving it with spirit, but am very very concerned now that Subaru are prepared to produce a product clearly with a significant flaw then fail to address it properly. By that I mean recall to put proper pistons in it! Wont cost much as they haven't sold many!!
22 April 2010, 06:38 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
That's a bummer and I feel for you .... but, the warranty is quite clear (well, it was 10 years ago when I bought mine new - don't mess with it or warranty void) ... which appears to be what has happened here.
Don't forget, they don't have to prove the exhaust broke the engine - just that you had broken the terms of the warranty ... they have that proof.
However, Subaru are famed for their Customer Service - they were. They are also famous for 100% reliable vehicles (which they are if not messed about with).
The Exhaust change would result in a better flow rate ... something which takes the car out of its design parameters. Now, I agree that it is unlikely that this caused the fault - and therefore Subaru should offer some payment (and I think they will).
As for cars which are tracked ... I remember many years ago IM filming track days and events and data logging reg numbers ... then if a claim came in they could refuse as it had been tracked and they had proof.
I do understand both sides .... why should Subaru honour a warranty on a product to someone who changes it, breaks it and then comes back to them claiming?
Try unscrewing the back of a 50" Plasma TV (just to have a look how it works), then claiming 3 months later that it is faulty - they will know the back has been off and will, rightly, deny the claim.
Don't forget, they don't have to prove the exhaust broke the engine - just that you had broken the terms of the warranty ... they have that proof.
However, Subaru are famed for their Customer Service - they were. They are also famous for 100% reliable vehicles (which they are if not messed about with).
The Exhaust change would result in a better flow rate ... something which takes the car out of its design parameters. Now, I agree that it is unlikely that this caused the fault - and therefore Subaru should offer some payment (and I think they will).
As for cars which are tracked ... I remember many years ago IM filming track days and events and data logging reg numbers ... then if a claim came in they could refuse as it had been tracked and they had proof.
I do understand both sides .... why should Subaru honour a warranty on a product to someone who changes it, breaks it and then comes back to them claiming?
Try unscrewing the back of a 50" Plasma TV (just to have a look how it works), then claiming 3 months later that it is faulty - they will know the back has been off and will, rightly, deny the claim.
22 April 2010, 06:46 PM
#43
That's a bummer and I feel for you .... but, the warranty is quite clear (well, it was 10 years ago when I bought mine new - don't mess with it or warranty void) ... which appears to be what has happened here.
Don't forget, they don't have to prove the exhaust broke the engine - just that you had broken the terms of the warranty ... they have that proof.
However, Subaru are famed for their Customer Service - they were. They are also famous for 100% reliable vehicles (which they are if not messed about with).
The Exhaust change would result in a better flow rate ... something which takes the car out of its design parameters. Now, I agree that it is unlikely that this caused the fault - and therefore Subaru should offer some payment (and I think they will).
As for cars which are tracked ... I remember many years ago IM filming track days and events and data logging reg numbers ... then if a claim came in they could refuse as it had been tracked and they had proof.
I do understand both sides .... why should Subaru honour a warranty on a product to someone who changes it, breaks it and then comes back to them claiming?
Try unscrewing the back of a 50" Plasma TV (just to have a look how it works), then claiming 3 months later that it is faulty - they will know the back has been off and will, rightly, deny the claim.
Don't forget, they don't have to prove the exhaust broke the engine - just that you had broken the terms of the warranty ... they have that proof.
However, Subaru are famed for their Customer Service - they were. They are also famous for 100% reliable vehicles (which they are if not messed about with).
The Exhaust change would result in a better flow rate ... something which takes the car out of its design parameters. Now, I agree that it is unlikely that this caused the fault - and therefore Subaru should offer some payment (and I think they will).
As for cars which are tracked ... I remember many years ago IM filming track days and events and data logging reg numbers ... then if a claim came in they could refuse as it had been tracked and they had proof.
I do understand both sides .... why should Subaru honour a warranty on a product to someone who changes it, breaks it and then comes back to them claiming?
Try unscrewing the back of a 50" Plasma TV (just to have a look how it works), then claiming 3 months later that it is faulty - they will know the back has been off and will, rightly, deny the claim.
How exactly is this true on a replacement PPP 'type' exhaust where no cats are removed. Utter booolax. No different to changing tyre brand, oil brand, filters etc or even upgrading the cars head unit.
22 April 2010, 06:48 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit poo what subaru are doing to get out of this but TBF you did send it in with a modified exhaust system.
Wouldn't have been hard to have the standard one back on then they've got no arguments.
Wouldn't have been hard to have the standard one back on then they've got no arguments.
22 April 2010, 07:07 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
22 April 2010, 07:09 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
A goodwill gesture may come along, I'm sure it will.
22 April 2010, 07:12 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IM also check this forum (still - I hope) and might just see how much extra negative publicity these chocolate pistons are giving them.....................
Last edited by STIste; 22 April 2010 at 07:13 PM.
22 April 2010, 07:17 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 2.1 Spec-C .......Pimms O'clock!!
Posts: 2,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear this Mark, hope it gets resolved by IM properly, rather than just fobbing you off as seems the norm these days!
As previously mentioned in this thread, Subaru used to be respected for their reliability and customer service, seems this isnt the case anymore and they are very good at worming out of any warrenty work of late which are no fault of the owners.
Don't let them get away with it Mark, all hatchback engine failures and reasons for them need to be documented and filed, then get VOSA involved, there must be plenty of evidence for them to make a case against IM!!
We all know about the crap ECU maps that are on these cars and so do Subaru!! Not fit for purpose if you ask me, should never have been sold in the UK until the ECU mapping was sorted properly!
Good luck mate
As previously mentioned in this thread, Subaru used to be respected for their reliability and customer service, seems this isnt the case anymore and they are very good at worming out of any warrenty work of late which are no fault of the owners.
Don't let them get away with it Mark, all hatchback engine failures and reasons for them need to be documented and filed, then get VOSA involved, there must be plenty of evidence for them to make a case against IM!!
We all know about the crap ECU maps that are on these cars and so do Subaru!! Not fit for purpose if you ask me, should never have been sold in the UK until the ECU mapping was sorted properly!
Good luck mate
22 April 2010, 07:24 PM
#50
Indeed, a duly warranted one So a cat back exhaust of the same type would make no difference whatsoever to flow rate.
It's like running Toyo 888's and being accused of exceeding the lateral parameters of OEM grade oil. Subaru 
So a cat back exhaust of the same type would make no difference whatsoever to flow rate.
...something which takes the car out of its design parameters
22 April 2010, 07:40 PM
#51
Thats Bollocks, Now if i took mine in yes I'd accept a rejection straight away but since it was a ppp car that allready had a cat back exhaust fitted as part of the ppp kit what difference does it make.
also why has it gone bang, Next question whys mine still running at 380 with no cats whatsoever and a custom map ??
So the map is to blame top and bottom of it. irregular combustion at higher rpm causes it to run lean and det.
Oh and one more thing if you question subaru uk they will turn around and say there isnt an issue its a case of miss use of the gearbox and over reving the engine
Last edited by rob84; 22 April 2010 at 07:41 PM.
22 April 2010, 07:51 PM
#52
Get it sign written with "don't buy one if these they blow up in under a year" Then dump it outside the dealership. Sure it worked for someone a few years ago with a KA.
I'd also tell them your standing in the scene and you're gathering info of dozens of similar faliures and going to motoring mags with the findings.
I'd also tell them your standing in the scene and you're gathering info of dozens of similar faliures and going to motoring mags with the findings.
22 April 2010, 08:09 PM
#54
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subaru are going to try and get out of this one on the technicality that you fitted a non-approved/non equivalent part to the car.
BUT I don't think any engineer in their right mind would identify a cat back exhaust as a cause of such premature engine failure.
They're adhering to the letter of the warranty, but none of it's spirit or the customer service/reliability for which Subaru is supposed to be renowned. I would send a recorded letter to Subaru UK and point this much out and say that you wil take the matter further, including getting an engineers report and go to the press, with it if necessary, as you believe that a manufacturing fault with the car is to blame for the failure and that they are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility by blaming you for a minor exhaust modification, the likes of which are available without engine mapping from IM!
Draw attention to the fact you've been a loyal customer etc...
I'll bet they fold and at least give you a generous good will gesture!
BUT I don't think any engineer in their right mind would identify a cat back exhaust as a cause of such premature engine failure.
They're adhering to the letter of the warranty, but none of it's spirit or the customer service/reliability for which Subaru is supposed to be renowned. I would send a recorded letter to Subaru UK and point this much out and say that you wil take the matter further, including getting an engineers report and go to the press, with it if necessary, as you believe that a manufacturing fault with the car is to blame for the failure and that they are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility by blaming you for a minor exhaust modification, the likes of which are available without engine mapping from IM!
Draw attention to the fact you've been a loyal customer etc...
I'll bet they fold and at least give you a generous good will gesture!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 23 April 2010 at 09:41 AM.
22 April 2010, 08:52 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with this, a good dealer would have fought your corner and made sure it was sorted under warranty, even if it meant not mentioning the aftermarket exhaust system.
22 April 2010, 08:59 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really really feel for you, been there 3 times myself, albeit in 2 different classics though, TBH 7.5k takes the p*ss for the engine letting go, no way could a cat back exhaust make the engine pop, i presume the hatch as got 2 cats like the newages, so all this crap about flow rates etc etc is the biggest load of ***** i've ever heard, when you've got 2 cats strangling the engine and affecting the flow of exhaust gases.
Are IM actually aware of scoobynet? If not i think they need pointing in this direction and showing the customers who have bought there cars over the last 15+ years are fully behind you and find there conduct totally unacceptable, even going back to the classic's IM knew they kept popping bottom ends but why should they recall them when it's not a safety issue and end up costing them millions.
This seems to be happening all over again and i think if "us" guys can kick up a fuss things might just change.
Are IM actually aware of scoobynet? If not i think they need pointing in this direction and showing the customers who have bought there cars over the last 15+ years are fully behind you and find there conduct totally unacceptable, even going back to the classic's IM knew they kept popping bottom ends but why should they recall them when it's not a safety issue and end up costing them millions.
This seems to be happening all over again and i think if "us" guys can kick up a fuss things might just change.
22 April 2010, 09:04 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West yorkshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its bollox the warranty has only been made void on the part you have taken off. i have had work done under warranty on my golf and its got lots of mods. They are just trying to get out of it
22 April 2010, 09:06 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cumbrian Scoobs
Posts: 2,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subaru warranties seem to be getting worse. When my hawkeye engine went, they refused it under warranty but kindly offered to sell me a motor for £7500! 
That's when it went to API
That's when it went to API
22 April 2010, 09:12 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See this is why I think it depends which dealer you go to. When my engine went on my hawkeye, they couldn't have been more helpful, everything sorted under warranty. And now my rear struts have gone which are also getting sorted under warranty (extended) with no problem at all.
22 April 2010, 09:14 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All my sympathy.
I have in the past had a "warranty" issue (non subaru), which went round in circles for weeks.
"Money talks" - pushed my car out of the dealers, left it parked legally on the road and covered the inside of the window with a very big poster saying "I bought my car from here, the engine has failed, and the warranty is not being honoured".
Went home.
1 hour later garage manager turned up on my drive, gave me the keys to his car, and said I would have mine back in under a week repaired - it was.
I have in the past had a "warranty" issue (non subaru), which went round in circles for weeks.
"Money talks" - pushed my car out of the dealers, left it parked legally on the road and covered the inside of the window with a very big poster saying "I bought my car from here, the engine has failed, and the warranty is not being honoured".
Went home.
1 hour later garage manager turned up on my drive, gave me the keys to his car, and said I would have mine back in under a week repaired - it was.