Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:23:13 -0700 From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> Subject: Re: Saab's High Pressure Turbo Engine Questions
Interesting. IN that same vein, a friend bought an Audi A6 4.2 V8 off lease. He took it in for a maintenance schedule and with basically nothing wrong with the car, ended up spending almost $3500 for various and sundry items in preventative maintenance. Makes me very scared of Audis... On 4/20/03 10:46 AM, in article b7umd80ebinopsams1.newsguy.com, "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> wrote: > Very true. I always wonder about an odd item like that is replaced under > warranty. (Not that the item is odd; but replacing it that early is.) > Sometimes it seems that the dealer 1) doesn't really know what the fault is > and performs an involved repair in a shotgun effort to solve the problem 2) > has mechanics that aren't very busy and is eager to have a big project to > generate revenue 3) wants to pacify the customer by making an expensive > repair. Many times, all three points apply to some degree. > > BTW, this type of thing isn't necessarily limited to dealers making repairs > under warranty, and some shops do this to the mutual benefit of the shop and > the customer. I brought a car (Ford) in for its final service under the > warranty. They were asked to do an oil change (I had a free coupon) and > change some transmission parts (also free). When I picked up the car, they > had me sign all these additional forms for extra work they had done at no > charge to me. It seems that Ford had published some service advisories that > the dealer had decided to implement while they had my car. So in addition > to the oil change and transmission modification, I got two new rotors and a > new starter motor -- none of which actually needed repair at the time. The > brilliant part was that under the warranty they were paid for the labor for > installing the rotors and starter motor, but no additional labor was needed > because those parts were easily accessible due to the transmission work - > also under warranty. > > Walt Kienzle > 1991 9000T > 1990 Ford Taurus SHO > > > "Grunff" <grunffnopsam.com> wrote in message > news:b7uini$4kv8k$1nopsam52899.news.dfncis.de... >> Johannes H Andersen wrote: >> >>> I hate to say it, mine was changed at 75k miles. This may be a bit > early, >>> but it was recommended because of the noise. The cost is still bearable >>> when divided with the mileage. >> >> That may be so, but it isn't the norm. Defficiency in oiling >> would be on my mind if I had to replace at 75k. >> >> Also, just because some owners choose to have them replaced, >> doesn't mean it's always necessary. >> >> -- >> Grunff >> > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
