- #19 of 24
-
Re: That would be a bad idea... [craigbrooks]
by backy
-
Aug 16, 2007 (7:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: craigbrooks (Aug 16, 2007 7:50 pm)
Your sarcasm aside, this program has really only one major difference from others out there, including Hyundai's. The difference is there's no expiration date or mileage limit if the original owner keeps the car. People have the same misconception about the Hyundai/Kia warranty--that you have to have service done at a dealer. That question pops up a lot on the Hyundai discussions. And the answer is the same--you don't have to have service performed at a dealer, as long as you document that you maintained the car. If you do that, Chrysler has to prove, if they want to reject a warranty claim, that the problem was caused by improper maintenance. That can be hard to do, unless someone never puts oil in the car (and I've heard of that...).
Since most owners will need to have their cars serviced around five years of ownership (e.g. 60k service), I don't see the requirement to have a free (that's as in, FREE) inspection every five years to be a big money-maker for Chrysler. Keep in mind most people get rid of their cars before vive years anyway--so none of those cars will need an inspection, since they won't be covered by the "lifetime" warranty anymore.
|
- #20 of 24
-
Re: That would be a bad idea... [backy]
by joe97
-
Aug 17, 2007 (5:59 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 16, 2007 7:36 pm)
Backy, I stand corrected. I went back and reviewed the nuts and bolts. I need to work on my short-term memory. 
Anyway, here are the details, for anyone interested.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/905883029_fea9e237b2_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/905883079_519761fc9e_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/905883093_80ef990fd1_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/905883119_65698fe057_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1115/905883143_705e631e5d_o.jpg
|
- #21 of 24
-
Re: That would be a bad idea... [backy]
by robert1955
-
Aug 17, 2007 (9:17 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 16, 2007 7:36 pm)
Thanks for the correction. I also found the FAQ's and I find it hard to believe Chrysler is not requiring the maintenance be done by a dealer  . Lets see how long this lasts.
|
- #22 of 24
-
Re: That would be a bad idea... [robert1955]
by backy
-
Aug 17, 2007 (1:41 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: robert1955 (Aug 17, 2007 9:17 am)
Not to worry. It's unreasonable to require a buyer to go to the manufacturer's dealers for maintenance to keep a warranty intact. Think about some owner who lives 200 miles from the nearest dealer. They are going to be required to go to the dealer for all maintenance? No. But it is reasonable for Chrysler to require that the car be maintained, as lack of routine maintenance (e.g. oil changes and tranny flushes) could affect drivetrain components.
|
- #23 of 24
-
Re: That would be a bad idea... [backy]
by earbuckle
-
Jul 04, 2008 (8:17 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 17, 2007 1:41 pm)
Not only unreasonable, but against federal law (Magnuson Act, I believe). No manufacturer can REQUIRE that service be performed only at authorized dealers. ANYONE can do the maintenance, just so long as it is documented that it is performed. Of course, if the maintenance is done improperly, then recourse is with whoever performed the maintenance, not the manufacturer.
|
- #24 of 24
-
hyundai sonata 99 w/2.5v6
by bmach
-
Aug 08, 2008 (8:04 am)
-
|
{08/08}
cust. came in asking if can find out which side of this *2.5v6* [side-way] engine is #1 BANK *his words"
THANK U
butch 
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
