I totally disagree Jive:eek: . I happen to work in service department for an automotive dealership. Let me paint you a picture. You are a customer who just spent a big chunk of change on a vehicle and don't know a whole lot about cars in general
. Visiting the service department of a dealership for you can be equated to visiting the dentist
. Every time you do, you are guaranteed to spend a good amount of money in the event that something is wrong, and there will be some measure of pain involved. You put your faith in this department, staffed with people that you don't know very well, and trust them to tell you the truth when they could easily extort large sums of money from you, and also to believe you when you submit a warranty claim. If an automobile manufacturer didn't gain the trust of the customer in the first place, then they would never sign on the X and there would be no sale, hence no work for their shop. Are you seeing it yet? If not let me spell it out for you. This is not a business where you can hold the philosophy of guilty until proved innocent. How would the customer, who doesn't know much about cars, prove to a service manager that the issue with their vehicle is in fact a defect and not stemming from driver abuse. They would have to recreate the same exact situation in which the malfunction occurred with the same exact vehicle. And I mean the same exact situation. Down to transmission age and temperature, throttle position, load, speed. Everything. At the same time all of this has to be done in a controlled environment while under the supervision of a professional mechanic who is being paid a large sum of money by the hour. Is all of this adding up now? It is cheaper for a dealership to replace the transmission than it is to question and investigate the customer. They may save money in the short term if, after the investigation, they discover that it really was driver abuse, but if it really was a mechanical flaw and the customer's claim was completely legitimate, then they have pretty much lost a customer, not to mention all the money they would have spent if they had continued with their normal service schedule. Think about whether that customer will return to spend money in the future after essentially being called a liar. It may cost them money to replace the trans now but it is worthy investment in the future of the customer/dealership relationship. It is a way of further establishing a bond with the customer, ensuring that they return again for their major services (occurring at 30, 60 and 90k miles in most cases), which by the way are not covered by warranty and, depending on the vehicle, can be quite costly (I.e. Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac, Infinity, etc.). Those are the ways the dealerships make good money off of customers. If they turned down every customer with a warranty claim then they would lose their customer base and have no business. Now am I saying that every average Joe can claim warranty issues and get away with it? No, of course I'm not. That would be idiotic. The company would be out of business in months. That is why there are specific parameters in which the warranties are created (3 yrs/36k miles in the case of Subaru and Honda. See http://www.subaru.com/owners/warranty/index.jsp)
. What I'm trying to get through to you and everyone else is that every situation has its own set of circumstances which are considered when making decisions regarding large sums of money changing hands in return for services, especially in the automotive business. Of course if there is evidence stacking in the other direction, and trust me if there is a pro will catch it, then it will be brought up with the customer and deliberated via a service manager. This attitude about dealerships being all about money and nothing beyond has been so badly inflamed and swollen that it sickens me.
I intend not to sway you all, just inform you of the facts.