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.

 

The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so read
GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and now
lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your convincing
logic. The proof is all there as there have been wide recalls and that's
because they had lots and lots of problems. Now it's not right for the make
to say, sorry our campaign is over and your arms did not need replacing at
the time so that's it.

You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the coilpack
potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary parts in
just under two months - it seems to have taken over five! The proof that
this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for a car
order to be delivered to the end customer? Generally between one and three
months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a whole car
we're talking about, right? There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers from
having to go back repeat times to the dealer

No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated because
of the reasons above. I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and whoever
fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the real
problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply making the
facts clear, because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not backing up
their customers as they should.

End of thread.

 

The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so read
GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and now
lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your convincing
logic. The proof is all there as there have been wide recalls and that's
because they had lots and lots of problems. Now it's not right for the make
to say, sorry our campaign is over and your arms did not need replacing at
the time so that's it.

You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the coilpack
potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary parts in
just under two months - it seems to have taken over five! The proof that
this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for a car
order to be delivered to the end customer? Generally between one and three
months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a whole car
we're talking about, right? There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers from
having to go back repeat times to the dealer

No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated because
of the reasons above. I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and whoever
fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the real
problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply making the
facts clear, because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not backing up
their customers as they should.

End of thread.

 

The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so read
GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and now
lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your convincing
logic. The proof is all there as there have been wide recalls and that's
because they had lots and lots of problems. Now it's not right for the make
to say, sorry our campaign is over and your arms did not need replacing at
the time so that's it.

You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the coilpack
potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary parts in
just under two months - it seems to have taken over five! The proof that
this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for a car
order to be delivered to the end customer? Generally between one and three
months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a whole car
we're talking about, right? There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers from
having to go back repeat times to the dealer

No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated because
of the reasons above. I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and whoever
fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the real
problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply making the
facts clear, because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not backing up
their customers as they should.

End of thread.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> Point taken, but check this, just for starters:
>
> http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml

So the dealer (DEALER) is saying that the SR is not covered. Under
Magnuson-Moss, the guy could get legal relief. Audi will take care of
it, one way or another. But the dealer (DEALER) is making it tough on
the end-user.

And not all dealers (DEALERS) are the same.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> Point taken, but check this, just for starters:
>
> http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml

So the dealer (DEALER) is saying that the SR is not covered. Under
Magnuson-Moss, the guy could get legal relief. Audi will take care of
it, one way or another. But the dealer (DEALER) is making it tough on
the end-user.

And not all dealers (DEALERS) are the same.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> Point taken, but check this, just for starters:
>
> http://forums.audiworld.com/tt/msgs/869113.phtml

So the dealer (DEALER) is saying that the SR is not covered. Under
Magnuson-Moss, the guy could get legal relief. Audi will take care of
it, one way or another. But the dealer (DEALER) is making it tough on
the end-user.

And not all dealers (DEALERS) are the same.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so
read
> GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and
now
> lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your
convincing
> logic.

Again, this is *circular reasoning.* There were some replacements on
some cars. Not all, and it wasn't a recall item (lowers, at least.)
So, the "underengineering" is speculative. That's real logic for you.

You can argue all you want that this should somehow be a freebie for
you, and I am still unconvinced. You cannot answer the questions
posed, and continue to run around shouting your unproven assertion of
underengineering.

> You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the
coilpack
> potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary
parts in
> just under two months - it seems to have taken over five!

There was ONE supplier. Now you bring the red herring of "potential."
Yes, there were several companies with the capability of producing the
part. And in fact, that's exactly what happened - VAG contracted with
another company for the part, both the replacements and the ones to go
into new cars. But only one company had parts production capability
*at that particular moment.* Do you have any idea how long it takes to
get from a spec sheet and drawing to a finished part? Five months is a
phenomenal job. Again pointing out how little you know about
manufacturing.

> The proof that
> this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for
a car
> order to be delivered to the end customer?

>From a drawing and spec sheet? Years.


> Generally between one and three
> months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a
whole car
> we're talking about, right?

Hey, dimwit - all the parts are already in the pipeline and headed for
final assembly. Hell, it takes less than a day to completely assemble
a car from parts, but the parts *have to exist first.* And when you're
using a single supplier, and then have to change suppliers, well, it
can take some time.

> There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
> if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers
from
> having to go back repeat times to the dealer

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

> No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated
because
> of the reasons above.

Yes, it's fun to play the victim. That way, you don't have to be
responsible for the choices you make. Your reasons are all weak,
lacking in logic, or just plain wrong. But you can't back away now,
because your ego is involved.

> I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
> not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and
whoever
> fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

Funny how not all of them were replaced, and how the lowers are hardly
ever talked about. I guess the design is just bad for some people, and
not others. Your reasoning is what lacks credibility. Maybe you need
to take some courses in logic?

> To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the
real
> problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

Who said cheaper? Lexus and Acura (Honda outside North America) make
some fine luxury cars. And if money is not a problem, what's your
whining all about, FFS???

> And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply
making the
> facts clear

Except none of your facts are actually facts. The coil pack thing you
have completely wrong, and the control arm stuff is half-baked
speculation at best.

> because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
> comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not
backing up
> their customers as they should.

Because they refuse to give you some wear item for free, long after the
warranty period is over. Sure thing.

Good luck with that, no matter what car maker you ultimately choose.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so
read
> GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and
now
> lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your
convincing
> logic.

Again, this is *circular reasoning.* There were some replacements on
some cars. Not all, and it wasn't a recall item (lowers, at least.)
So, the "underengineering" is speculative. That's real logic for you.

You can argue all you want that this should somehow be a freebie for
you, and I am still unconvinced. You cannot answer the questions
posed, and continue to run around shouting your unproven assertion of
underengineering.

> You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the
coilpack
> potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary
parts in
> just under two months - it seems to have taken over five!

There was ONE supplier. Now you bring the red herring of "potential."
Yes, there were several companies with the capability of producing the
part. And in fact, that's exactly what happened - VAG contracted with
another company for the part, both the replacements and the ones to go
into new cars. But only one company had parts production capability
*at that particular moment.* Do you have any idea how long it takes to
get from a spec sheet and drawing to a finished part? Five months is a
phenomenal job. Again pointing out how little you know about
manufacturing.

> The proof that
> this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for
a car
> order to be delivered to the end customer?

>From a drawing and spec sheet? Years.


> Generally between one and three
> months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a
whole car
> we're talking about, right?

Hey, dimwit - all the parts are already in the pipeline and headed for
final assembly. Hell, it takes less than a day to completely assemble
a car from parts, but the parts *have to exist first.* And when you're
using a single supplier, and then have to change suppliers, well, it
can take some time.

> There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
> if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers
from
> having to go back repeat times to the dealer

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

> No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated
because
> of the reasons above.

Yes, it's fun to play the victim. That way, you don't have to be
responsible for the choices you make. Your reasons are all weak,
lacking in logic, or just plain wrong. But you can't back away now,
because your ego is involved.

> I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
> not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and
whoever
> fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

Funny how not all of them were replaced, and how the lowers are hardly
ever talked about. I guess the design is just bad for some people, and
not others. Your reasoning is what lacks credibility. Maybe you need
to take some courses in logic?

> To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the
real
> problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

Who said cheaper? Lexus and Acura (Honda outside North America) make
some fine luxury cars. And if money is not a problem, what's your
whining all about, FFS???

> And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply
making the
> facts clear

Except none of your facts are actually facts. The coil pack thing you
have completely wrong, and the control arm stuff is half-baked
speculation at best.

> because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
> comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not
backing up
> their customers as they should.

Because they refuse to give you some wear item for free, long after the
warranty period is over. Sure thing.

Good luck with that, no matter what car maker you ultimately choose.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> The fact that you refuse to accept the generally accepted fact - so
read
> GENERALLY in capitals - that the upper front arms and tie rods, and
now
> lower arms are underengineered does not speak much about your
convincing
> logic.

Again, this is *circular reasoning.* There were some replacements on
some cars. Not all, and it wasn't a recall item (lowers, at least.)
So, the "underengineering" is speculative. That's real logic for you.

You can argue all you want that this should somehow be a freebie for
you, and I am still unconvinced. You cannot answer the questions
posed, and continue to run around shouting your unproven assertion of
underengineering.

> You also fail to answer how on earth it was not possible for the
coilpack
> potential suppliers - many more than one - to produce the necessary
parts in
> just under two months - it seems to have taken over five!

There was ONE supplier. Now you bring the red herring of "potential."
Yes, there were several companies with the capability of producing the
part. And in fact, that's exactly what happened - VAG contracted with
another company for the part, both the replacements and the ones to go
into new cars. But only one company had parts production capability
*at that particular moment.* Do you have any idea how long it takes to
get from a spec sheet and drawing to a finished part? Five months is a
phenomenal job. Again pointing out how little you know about
manufacturing.

> The proof that
> this could have been done is really simple. How long does it take for
a car
> order to be delivered to the end customer?

>From a drawing and spec sheet? Years.


> Generally between one and three
> months, and that's with all the extras you can ask for, and it's a
whole car
> we're talking about, right?

Hey, dimwit - all the parts are already in the pipeline and headed for
final assembly. Hell, it takes less than a day to completely assemble
a car from parts, but the parts *have to exist first.* And when you're
using a single supplier, and then have to change suppliers, well, it
can take some time.

> There is almost nothing that cannot be achieved
> if a company is willing to invest more money to keep their customers
from
> having to go back repeat times to the dealer

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

> No matter what you say, it is perfectly legitimate to feel cheated
because
> of the reasons above.

Yes, it's fun to play the victim. That way, you don't have to be
responsible for the choices you make. Your reasons are all weak,
lacking in logic, or just plain wrong. But you can't back away now,
because your ego is involved.

> I am never saying that Audis are ***, which they are
> not, but the front arm design and/or materials of the B5s were and
whoever
> fails to admit that is not worth of my credibility, period.

Funny how not all of them were replaced, and how the lowers are hardly
ever talked about. I guess the design is just bad for some people, and
not others. Your reasoning is what lacks credibility. Maybe you need
to take some courses in logic?

> To those who said I should buy a cheaper car, well, money is not the
real
> problem, it is legitimacy that's at stake, you see?

Who said cheaper? Lexus and Acura (Honda outside North America) make
some fine luxury cars. And if money is not a problem, what's your
whining all about, FFS???

> And no, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm simply
making the
> facts clear

Except none of your facts are actually facts. The coil pack thing you
have completely wrong, and the control arm stuff is half-baked
speculation at best.

> because while the car is still a much better car than many, it
> comes as a bit of a disappointing thing to see that they are not
backing up
> their customers as they should.

Because they refuse to give you some wear item for free, long after the
warranty period is over. Sure thing.

Good luck with that, no matter what car maker you ultimately choose.

E.P.