In message <d4b6e7$tkm$2@news.ya.com>
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snip]

> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
> warranty?

The only fault which has affected the drivability any of our Audis, in a
total 11.5 years of ownership was when a fuel injector failed on my 1996
A4 2.6. It failed about 2 months out of warranty but Audi UK covered
the repair at no cost to me.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <d4b6e7$tkm$2@news.ya.com>
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snip]

> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
> warranty?

The only fault which has affected the drivability any of our Audis, in a
total 11.5 years of ownership was when a fuel injector failed on my 1996
A4 2.6. It failed about 2 months out of warranty but Audi UK covered
the repair at no cost to me.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

Point taken, but check this, just for starters:

http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml
>
>> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
>> warranty?
>
> The only fault which has affected the drivability any of our Audis, in a
> total 11.5 years of ownership was when a fuel injector failed on my 1996
> A4 2.6. It failed about 2 months out of warranty but Audi UK covered
> the repair at no cost to me.
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
> 'bellfamily')

 

Point taken, but check this, just for starters:

http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml
>
>> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
>> warranty?
>
> The only fault which has affected the drivability any of our Audis, in a
> total 11.5 years of ownership was when a fuel injector failed on my 1996
> A4 2.6. It failed about 2 months out of warranty but Audi UK covered
> the repair at no cost to me.
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
> 'bellfamily')

 

Point taken, but check this, just for starters:

http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml
>
>> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
>> warranty?
>
> The only fault which has affected the drivability any of our Audis, in a
> total 11.5 years of ownership was when a fuel injector failed on my 1996
> A4 2.6. It failed about 2 months out of warranty but Audi UK covered
> the repair at no cost to me.
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
> 'bellfamily')

 

In article <d4b6e6$tkm$1@news.ya.com>,
JP Roberts <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wolfgang, did you read my reply to those links posted above?
>>
>> Have you read the links I looked up for you as far as other brands are
>> concerned?
>
>These are still a minority when it comes down to general satisfaction with
>the treatment received. Just do a search in Audiworld.
>> In your (understandable) bitterness you are now trying to ask for the
>> impossible. As has been discussed numerous times, the folks who got
>> their Audi serviced properly, quickly and who were taken care of have
>> absolutely no inclination to write that down.
>
>There's no denying that these newsgroup is a valuable asset, but no matter
>how impressive your figures are, you're neglecting the fact that the vast
>majority of Audi Owners will never take to the internet to vent their
>frustrations with the make out.

If your intention is to convince readers here that all Audis are "under
engineered" and that we've all been ripped off, you will never succeed.
Those of us reading the group who have had good value and satisfactory
products from Audi, will sympathise but dismiss your story as a one-off.
That's the natural reaction if our experience doesn't match yours.

Time to move on, unless you're trying to speculate on a "class action".

--
David Nesbitt

N.B. Email sent to "nospam" will be rejected. Please use Reply-To address.

 

In article <d4b6e6$tkm$1@news.ya.com>,
JP Roberts <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wolfgang, did you read my reply to those links posted above?
>>
>> Have you read the links I looked up for you as far as other brands are
>> concerned?
>
>These are still a minority when it comes down to general satisfaction with
>the treatment received. Just do a search in Audiworld.
>> In your (understandable) bitterness you are now trying to ask for the
>> impossible. As has been discussed numerous times, the folks who got
>> their Audi serviced properly, quickly and who were taken care of have
>> absolutely no inclination to write that down.
>
>There's no denying that these newsgroup is a valuable asset, but no matter
>how impressive your figures are, you're neglecting the fact that the vast
>majority of Audi Owners will never take to the internet to vent their
>frustrations with the make out.

If your intention is to convince readers here that all Audis are "under
engineered" and that we've all been ripped off, you will never succeed.
Those of us reading the group who have had good value and satisfactory
products from Audi, will sympathise but dismiss your story as a one-off.
That's the natural reaction if our experience doesn't match yours.

Time to move on, unless you're trying to speculate on a "class action".

--
David Nesbitt

N.B. Email sent to "nospam" will be rejected. Please use Reply-To address.

 

In article <d4b6e6$tkm$1@news.ya.com>,
JP Roberts <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wolfgang, did you read my reply to those links posted above?
>>
>> Have you read the links I looked up for you as far as other brands are
>> concerned?
>
>These are still a minority when it comes down to general satisfaction with
>the treatment received. Just do a search in Audiworld.
>> In your (understandable) bitterness you are now trying to ask for the
>> impossible. As has been discussed numerous times, the folks who got
>> their Audi serviced properly, quickly and who were taken care of have
>> absolutely no inclination to write that down.
>
>There's no denying that these newsgroup is a valuable asset, but no matter
>how impressive your figures are, you're neglecting the fact that the vast
>majority of Audi Owners will never take to the internet to vent their
>frustrations with the make out.

If your intention is to convince readers here that all Audis are "under
engineered" and that we've all been ripped off, you will never succeed.
Those of us reading the group who have had good value and satisfactory
products from Audi, will sympathise but dismiss your story as a one-off.
That's the natural reaction if our experience doesn't match yours.

Time to move on, unless you're trying to speculate on a "class action".

--
David Nesbitt

N.B. Email sent to "nospam" will be rejected. Please use Reply-To address.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> >> So, it's nothing a
> >> couple more bucks investment couldn't have solved in an instant.
>
> > At the time of VAG's coil pack problem, how many manufacturers
could
> > have supplied, at a one-week notice, a batch of one hundred of
those
> > specified coil packs?
> >
> You very well know it was not a one-week notice period, but at least
a
> couple of months that we're talking about, so yes, just about every
other
> manufacturer could have done so easily.

What's with the mixed top and bottom quoting?

Anyway, your claim is that they could go to some other supplier and
just get enough to cover all of them, including new manufacture, "in an
instant".

That suggestion is 100% false. There was *one* supplier for the
particular part, and VAG had to get a different manufacturer to supply
both the new and replacement parts.

Like I said, you can't wave a wand and have parts appear. They need to
made, shipped and stocked. Which takes time.

> > Then why bother having a warranty period, hmmm? If it breaks,
we'll
> > fix it, no matter how old the car? No matter what mileage, no
matter
> > what sort of abuse or modification? OK, so that's the silly
extreme,
> > but there does have to be a line drawn somewhere. You happened to
fall
> > on the other side of it, and your dealership is taking a hard line
and
> > saying "tough luck."
>
> You know one of the virtues in life is that of showing some
flexibility?
> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
> warranty?

Again, why should they cover something out of warranty? Why bother
having a warranty period AT ALL? I know of plenty of folks that have
had things not recalled covered out of warranty. But those things were
generally small, and the cars were close to the end of warranty.

In addition, VAG did cover the electric window lift clip thing outside
of warranty for lots of cars that were FAR outside the period. Look it
up.

You keep avoiding the question - why have a warranty period at all, if
folks expect free repairs for the life of the car?


> > You admit you're not an automotive engineer, so in this case I
guess I
> > really am right. Making your "clear case" comment is just so much
> > prattling on.
>
> You're right it's only your guess, which happens to be wrong.
>

You admitted that you weren't an automotive engineer. So, I guess some
pedant can hop up and down and say "I told you so," but that doesn't
make his training or experience any more relevant to the issue. So
you're an engineer. You're not an AUTOMOTIVE engineer, so you are not
qualified to judge the quality of the engineering from mere inspection.
In fact, I'm not sure a real automotive engineer is qualified to judge
from mere inspection. Real testing is required.

> >> Also, upon inspection deterioration is so obvious that there's no
> > denying
> >> the bad engineering.

> > Except you're not an automotive engineer, so your "inspection" is
> > meaningless. A few stories and some hearsay from some folks who
have a
> > monetary interest in getting your car on a hoist is not evidence.
I
> > suppose in your courses of study in engineering you had to take
some
> > classes in real, hard sciences, right? You can tell the difference
> > between hard and anecdotal data, yes?
>
> Let me put it this way, when you see you're bleeding badly, do you
need to
> be a cardiovascular doctor to know if there's something seriously
wrong?

If the part is snapped clean off after driving out of the dealer's lot,
then your analogy would be apt. But it's still functional (or was,
until someone told you it needed to be replaced.) We do not know if
that assessment is accurate.

> Even a child would understand something like this.

Then why can't you?

> > All the more reason to name this dealer. Because now it's *your*
> > credibility that I'm questioning. Normally, I give the benefit of
the
> > doubt to the customer, and assume the dealer is the problem. Now
I'm
> > beginning to get another idea in your specific case.
>
> I've long been questioning yours, as you fail to maintain a logical
argument
> by slightly diverting from the main topic all the time.

No, the main topic is your inability to accept that the warranty period
is over, and your parts aren't covered now. There's no recall, which
means you're going to have to pay to have them replaced. Life's hard.

Again, why should Audi cover something outside of warranty that's not a
recall?

And nice diversion from the question. Wasn't somebody just complaining
about slight diversion somewhere? LOL.

What's the name of this so-called dealer? Do they exist, even?

> >> I would dare to say that the good stories
> >> are the rare exceptions.
> >
> > Why? I've heard of more good stories in this thread than bad.
> >
> This thread, but just conduct a search in Audiworld.

Why? You were complaining about good stories being rare. They aren't.

> > LOL. You think the car should come with some all-inclusive
lifetime
> > warranty for everything, including stuff that other people have had
> > replaced under warranty.
> >
> Again, you're failing to remember that it's a case of
underengineering, so
> another reason why your own credibility is close to nil.

Your *claim* is that's it's underengineering, without any sort of
credentials or testing data. I have not forgotten that at all - but I
do recognize that it allows you to pursue the circular logic that it
should be replaced at no cost to you. Why? Because it's
underengineered! How do you know? Just by looking at it.

If my credibility with you is nil, so what? You're the one trying to
convince me that you are somehow correct, so my opinion must be
important for some reason.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> >> So, it's nothing a
> >> couple more bucks investment couldn't have solved in an instant.
>
> > At the time of VAG's coil pack problem, how many manufacturers
could
> > have supplied, at a one-week notice, a batch of one hundred of
those
> > specified coil packs?
> >
> You very well know it was not a one-week notice period, but at least
a
> couple of months that we're talking about, so yes, just about every
other
> manufacturer could have done so easily.

What's with the mixed top and bottom quoting?

Anyway, your claim is that they could go to some other supplier and
just get enough to cover all of them, including new manufacture, "in an
instant".

That suggestion is 100% false. There was *one* supplier for the
particular part, and VAG had to get a different manufacturer to supply
both the new and replacement parts.

Like I said, you can't wave a wand and have parts appear. They need to
made, shipped and stocked. Which takes time.

> > Then why bother having a warranty period, hmmm? If it breaks,
we'll
> > fix it, no matter how old the car? No matter what mileage, no
matter
> > what sort of abuse or modification? OK, so that's the silly
extreme,
> > but there does have to be a line drawn somewhere. You happened to
fall
> > on the other side of it, and your dealership is taking a hard line
and
> > saying "tough luck."
>
> You know one of the virtues in life is that of showing some
flexibility?
> Again, where's your link showing our make covering something out of
> warranty?

Again, why should they cover something out of warranty? Why bother
having a warranty period AT ALL? I know of plenty of folks that have
had things not recalled covered out of warranty. But those things were
generally small, and the cars were close to the end of warranty.

In addition, VAG did cover the electric window lift clip thing outside
of warranty for lots of cars that were FAR outside the period. Look it
up.

You keep avoiding the question - why have a warranty period at all, if
folks expect free repairs for the life of the car?


> > You admit you're not an automotive engineer, so in this case I
guess I
> > really am right. Making your "clear case" comment is just so much
> > prattling on.
>
> You're right it's only your guess, which happens to be wrong.
>

You admitted that you weren't an automotive engineer. So, I guess some
pedant can hop up and down and say "I told you so," but that doesn't
make his training or experience any more relevant to the issue. So
you're an engineer. You're not an AUTOMOTIVE engineer, so you are not
qualified to judge the quality of the engineering from mere inspection.
In fact, I'm not sure a real automotive engineer is qualified to judge
from mere inspection. Real testing is required.

> >> Also, upon inspection deterioration is so obvious that there's no
> > denying
> >> the bad engineering.

> > Except you're not an automotive engineer, so your "inspection" is
> > meaningless. A few stories and some hearsay from some folks who
have a
> > monetary interest in getting your car on a hoist is not evidence.
I
> > suppose in your courses of study in engineering you had to take
some
> > classes in real, hard sciences, right? You can tell the difference
> > between hard and anecdotal data, yes?
>
> Let me put it this way, when you see you're bleeding badly, do you
need to
> be a cardiovascular doctor to know if there's something seriously
wrong?

If the part is snapped clean off after driving out of the dealer's lot,
then your analogy would be apt. But it's still functional (or was,
until someone told you it needed to be replaced.) We do not know if
that assessment is accurate.

> Even a child would understand something like this.

Then why can't you?

> > All the more reason to name this dealer. Because now it's *your*
> > credibility that I'm questioning. Normally, I give the benefit of
the
> > doubt to the customer, and assume the dealer is the problem. Now
I'm
> > beginning to get another idea in your specific case.
>
> I've long been questioning yours, as you fail to maintain a logical
argument
> by slightly diverting from the main topic all the time.

No, the main topic is your inability to accept that the warranty period
is over, and your parts aren't covered now. There's no recall, which
means you're going to have to pay to have them replaced. Life's hard.

Again, why should Audi cover something outside of warranty that's not a
recall?

And nice diversion from the question. Wasn't somebody just complaining
about slight diversion somewhere? LOL.

What's the name of this so-called dealer? Do they exist, even?

> >> I would dare to say that the good stories
> >> are the rare exceptions.
> >
> > Why? I've heard of more good stories in this thread than bad.
> >
> This thread, but just conduct a search in Audiworld.

Why? You were complaining about good stories being rare. They aren't.

> > LOL. You think the car should come with some all-inclusive
lifetime
> > warranty for everything, including stuff that other people have had
> > replaced under warranty.
> >
> Again, you're failing to remember that it's a case of
underengineering, so
> another reason why your own credibility is close to nil.

Your *claim* is that's it's underengineering, without any sort of
credentials or testing data. I have not forgotten that at all - but I
do recognize that it allows you to pursue the circular logic that it
should be replaced at no cost to you. Why? Because it's
underengineered! How do you know? Just by looking at it.

If my credibility with you is nil, so what? You're the one trying to
convince me that you are somehow correct, so my opinion must be
important for some reason.

E.P.