| Author | Message | ||
     Newfie_buell |
Seeing the bike was in twice and then a third time only to be denied warranty because of an aftermarket muffler is absolutely NUTS. I'd be damm upset too. On that note - back to my stator, How Does a Non Moving Part wear out????? I know its the only failure in 44oookm but still strange!!! | ||
| Newfie_buell |
As for the Denial of Warranty for a Slip ON, If that is actually true Dyan Those with XB9s and XB12s with Drummers, Vance & Hines, Supertrapps, D&D's, Force (I remember Scott had a wicked one on his last year at the 20th) and other pipes better be prepared when getting TPS reset or other warranty work I am sure others will agree but thats a pretty •••••• lame excuse. They could have come up with a better one than that. (Message edited by Newfie_Buell on September 01, 2004) | ||
| Dbird29 |
Dyna, By the looks of the bike it appears someone told you to F*** OFF! | ||
| Blake |
So what was the outcome of the whole deal? | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Yeah Dyna, Seeing you posted this much dirty laundry and we only know some of what went on, What is the actual deal????? If court action is still brewing then I'd recommend you keep quiet until its over!!!!! I guess another question is: 1. How many of those oil pinion gear failures have occurred? 2. Can the failures be traced back to a bad batch of pinion gears by way of the serial numbers on the bikes? Going out on a limb here but maybe there was a run of bad pinion gears and maybe anyone that has lost them can post the numbers somewhere on the site. | ||
| Coolice |
He's gettin a REVO engine retrofit kit. And its gonna ROCK!! I still think it would be a awesome revival of Dyna's X1. Just call it a VX1.... oooo I like that model, VX1,VX1..... | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Newfie...I havent said anything here that hasnt already been said & not well known. Its true I have a court case & its finally scheduled for a jury trial in November. The defendants tried in vain for over 18 months to have the case thrown out on a variety of lame excuses that so far the judge has shot down. The truth will come out then. And yes they attempted to claim the slip on muffler was the cause. I have warned folks repeatedly to be careful & dont trust their dealers. DBird...the dealer actually made my case that much easier to prove by opening the motor up & allowing the evidence to be shown. Nothing like a bag full of broken gears & teeth to prove to a jury of shoddy work & parts. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Thats a big can thats opened up!!!! If it were my dealership and I opened it to that mess I would have quickly repaired and got the bike back to the owner. For the sake of a proper rebuild compared to the legal expenses. I'd say a replacement motor or rebuild would have been much more cost effective, not to mention looking good to the general public. | ||
| Dbird29 |
Still a crying shame. | ||
| Captainkirk |
Dyna; I find it weird that they wouldn't take care of this. It doesn't look like that big a deal, compared to, oh....let's say FiremanJim's little posting last week. What's got me confused is (1) Why they kept the bike 23 months, and (2) Why you had to keep making the payments while they had it, and (3) Why it looks like they spent an afternoon disassembling the top end and then stuffed rags in it and put it in the corner for 22 months and 29 days. Please enlighten, if you can.  | ||
| Whodom |
Newfie: sounds like the root cause of these problems could be something other than the gears themselves. The machining of the mating faces of the oil pump and case, the placement of the mounting holes in the oil pump, or the placement of the mounting holes in the case would all affect the meshing of the drive gears. Maybe this thing could be traced back to a batch of oil pumps, or a batch of cases, or maybe it's just a completely random thing where the tolerances occasionally stack unfavorably resulting in high wear between the gears. It does sound reasonable that if you see NO signs of wear at the first inspection, it's probably OK to button it up and never check it again. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Yeah I understand that but like Kirk indicated. Weird for them to take it apart, leave it for so long then call and request it be removed from the shop. I guess they are going to take their chances in court. In most cases (I will say most) when a major corporation is the defendent the jury almost always sides with the little man (sorry Dyna - no offence meant). They should have sucked it up - fixed it and moved on. Like I posted before "What is the cost of a Buell Motor to Harley Davidson compared to the legal expenses that have incurred to date and to be incurred when this goes to court?" OR are they going to make some kind of settlement offer on the steps of the courthouse minutes before!!! If this was the first time the bike blew up and was out of warranty then I can see their argument but wasn't this the third time this occurred??? Obviously there was somekind of inherent problem with the engine that the technician did not discover the first two times. Its OK to rebuild a motor but unless you determine why it failed then your just wasting valuable time and money. Can you imagine the praise that could have been earned from this situation had they just shipped another motor from the factory and installed it. If it were me and I was in that situation I'd never go to them again. I would love to see the transcript of that one when its over. Good Luck Dyna!!! | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Newfie, you nailed it. I never understood that myself. Cheaper...much much cheaper..& easier for them to have just tossed a new motor in. I dont understand the thinking behind some of the thinking thats going on with corporations now days. You would think positive feedback & a good showing would be important? If you had any idea how much has been spent to date on legal expenses for this case you would 5hit. | ||
| Uwgriz |
Does anyone here know if the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act applies to motorcycles? | ||
| Whodom |
UWgriz- Magnusson-Moss has been quoted here (and elsewhere) many times, especially in reference to HD telling people they HAD to use HD oil and that synthetic oil would void their warranty. I think it covers anything made in the U.S. that has a warranty. Are you thinking Dyna might be able to use this in reference to installing a non-Buell muffler? Hmmmmm. | ||
| Lake_bueller |
Overivew of Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act: This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of this law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle makers brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part: “No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name....” (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)). I think there are 2 sticky points in Dyna's case in trying to use this act. 1) Does the Buell warranty explicitely state that an aftermarket exhaust can not be installed? 2) They (Buell/Uke's) are claiming the exhaust caused the part failure. Dyna would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aftermarket muffler could not have caused this failure. I'm not sure how the first point would hold up in court. I'd think the latter would be fairly easy to find an expert witness to attest to. Having been involved in prior lawsuits, most times they get settled out of court at the VERY last minute. Or at least they try to settle. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I don't know what got fixed at who's cost by when, but the irony is that the valve problems *could* have been caused by a low flow exhaust (though that is much more unlikely on the fuel injected bikes). The stripped oil pump drive gear that ultimately was the death blow to his X1 is a pretty clear defect though, but I don't know if Dyna's bike should still have been under warranty by that point (based on mileage or age). Was there bad blood brewing as a result of the first two issues that made somebody decide that they would rather loose money and fight then save money and solve the problem? | ||
| Uwgriz |
Dennis, I thought it was the other way around i.e. the manufacturer would have to prove that the aftermarket component caused the failure, not consumer proving it didn't. I could be wrong. I'm not trying to get in the middle of Dyna's case, I'm sure his lawyer is handling this if it's relevant. Just asking for my own information. (Message edited by uwgriz on September 02, 2004) | ||
| Reepicheep |
And as a side note here, the ultimate lesson is not that you should not put aftermarket parts on the bike, the lesson is that warranties are ultimately only as good as your dealer, and as good as your relationship with your dealer. Choose a good dealer, keep a good relationship with them, and remember that no matter how bad it is (two different dropped valve instances) it can always get worse (stripped oil pump drive gear) so make sure that if you are burning bridges, its worth it to you. | ||
| Mikej |
As always, the "Dealership Factor" is often the most major factor affecting the Buell ownership experience. Newf, Some things can not be understood. Only dealt with and moved past as best as one can. Still scratching my head over the quid pro quo comment. Must be some behind the scenes off camera comments brought forth as some sort of injecture or something. | ||
| Uwgriz |
warranties are ultimately only as good as your dealer, and as good as your relationship with your dealer. While a agree a good dealer and a good relationship with that dealer is very important, I disagree with this statement. I spent a fair amount of time as a warranty engineer and spent a significant amount of that time with the legal department at my company working on warranty agreements. Warranties are as good as what is written on paper. The quality of the dealer and the relationship determines how much crap is to be waded through to get the issue resolved, and whether or not they throw up roadblocks on your way to a resolution. You always have the option to take legal action and that's when what's on paper rules the day. (Message edited by uwgriz on September 02, 2004) | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Mike, Sometimes it better to just accept and move one!! In Dyna's case and if I were on the corporate end looking in on this, I'd put a motor in it. That's the advice that the Corporate Lawyers should have given. | ||
| Mikej |
Yep, just ship him a new engine in a crate (and apparently some missing bodywork and parts), and take his old broken stuff back for testing and post-mortem analysis. They could even send out the windowless primered van and do the swap in his driveway after midnight on a dark and stormy night in late October. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I don't really disagree Griz, but by the time it involves corporate and the fine print, my assumption is that I have already lost. If a warranty is to work to my benefit, my assumption is that I just take my bike to the dealer, and the dealer does whatever corporate voodoo they need to do to make my fix happen. If the dealer has decided that they don't want to solve my problem (for whatever reason), I assume they will do whatever corporate voodoo they need to do to make sure I *don't* get my fix made. My resolution then is to start the court fight, but even if I win that (based on fine print) I loose. There are very few failure modes (including the one on this thread) that would be worth leaving the bike down for a year or two just to make the motor company pay for it. I'd have fixed it, sold it, expressed a warning, and moved along. | ||
| Uwgriz |
corporate voodoo they need to do to make sure I *don't* get my fix made That would be one of the roadblocks I'm referring to. The dealer can't ultimately negate what's written in a warranty (and they're generally not as much fine print as people seem to think), but they can certainly make the journey a nasty uphill battle, as can the consumers. Disclaimer: I am in no way implying anything about anything related to Dyna's case, these are just some of the facts of consumer/dealer/manufacturer warranty relations. | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Was there bad blood brewing as a result of the first two issues that made somebody decide that they would rather loose money and fight then save money and solve the problem? I would say thats a fair assumption. Still scratching my head over the quid pro quo comment You & me both, but then how many times have we heard useless tidbits like that? Too many. If the dealer has decided that they don't want to solve my problem (for whatever reason), I assume they will do whatever corporate voodoo they need to do to make sure I *don't* get my fix made. My resolution then is to start the court fight, but even if I win that (based on fine print) I loose. There are very few failure modes (including the one on this thread) that would be worth leaving the bike down for a year or two just to make the motor company pay for it Reep, I have other bikes to ride so it wasnt that big a deal to leave it down. Sometimes it comes down to responsibility & doing the right thing. Someone doesnt want to own up to their side of a bargain, then they sometimes need to be forced too. Perhaps it wont help the plaintiff, but it may possibly help future litigants. | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Court, I read that post before you deleted it. Wrong...dead wrong. "commercially reaonsable" solutions have been offered and summarily rejected. 100% pure fabrication there. No offers of any type have been made at any level & I have the paperwork & letters to back that up. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Posts Deleted!!!!! Interesting, didn't think we could delete them!!! | ||
| Clydeglide |
Posts Deleted!!!!! Interesting, didn't think we could delete them!!! You can't! But others can! Altered or deleted posts are nothing new on this site. It just hasn't happened much lately. (Or at least that I have been made aware of. Hmmm....might have to call....... "my source".) I have copied some posts into Word for....further review.  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I believe you can delete your own posts within a particular window of time. |
