George @ BostonAudi

Before people go and flame the hell out of me, let me start off by saying I agree 100% with Ed that he's being screwed. But I think 95% of the people posting about it are, frankly, off their rockers.

Its way too easy on here to look at things from the standpoint of mass hysteria and a belief that at some point Audi will screw you. Most people who calmly deal with Audi don't get screwed. In some cases lawyers get involved, but thats still not necessarily reason to have a fit and make all sorts of inane threats about calling the media, etc.

AoA is clearly profiling Ed, and denied the warranty work, without him signing a document that his car was not at any point modified before the work behand. So why would they do this? Think about whats involved when Audi gets a car in for service.

Skipping over how one knows turbos are blown, their first step is to replace the turbos. Question is, if the car has been modded we all know you're SOL these days for your warranty. How can Audi know for sure that the car failed because of manufacturing issues or because of mods? They have to take the car apart and see whats actually wrong. Thats an awfully expensive process. In the case that its an obvious failure, thats fine -- they pay for it. But if they determine it happened for an undetermined reason and they choose to take the route of not covering it, they're already out a thousand dollars in labor, which they can't recoup if the owner takes the car elsewhere to pay for the repair (which makes total sense that they would -- dealer repair rates are outrageous).

So what does AoA do in Eds case? (After being very poorly communicated via the dealer...) They ask him to sign an afidavit saying he hasn't modified the car, and they'll fix it. So thats fine, **** happens. Some cars come bad from the factory. Difference is, if Ed was lying (not saying in any way he is), then Audi has him over a barrel. They can easily deny coverage once the repair has begun and hold him liable for costs that have been incurred.

So, given that, how would those of you who are throwing a fit other then Ed deal with this if you were AoA. Keep in mind a few facts. There are lots of people who took advantage of Audi and got turbos replaced because of failures due to mods. Period. Even if 95% weren't, 5% were fraudulent claims. Turbo kits are becoming more common, so the odds of a customer-paid-for turbo repair being at the dealer is getting very low, so your dealers will end up being screwed if you don't pay for diagnostic time. Chips are becoming more agressive, with *zero* long term info about what that will do to your engine.

So what would you do?

I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd deny coverage unless I had a legal document from the customer that either 1) the car is unmodified or in the case that it is modified that 2) all costs of determining if its a manufacturing defect and thus covered even if chipped will be paid for in its entirety by the customer if the customer chooses to have it repaired by someone else.

Basically exactly what they're doing. I hope I'd be more up front about it though, but god knows how corporate communications work. Even if that was the specific policy at Audi, that being communicated to the service writers is not very likely.

TipSter

that AoA has the legal burden of proof here. As much as they might dislike it, they have to prove the car was modified before they deny coverage. If they have absolutely no evidence to support any modifications, why should they even ask for him to sign anything? If they do have evidence, I say put up or shut up!

NewYorkS4

good points George, I think you've hit the nail on the head as it were.

noeltykay

Considering his car has less than 300 miles on the clock and knowing a certain someone *cough* NASA RACER *cough* who experienced similar crap from AOA...I think it is becoming way to common for Audi to pull this type of crap. If they are gonna pull this type of crap on a consumer when their product goes bad from the beginning why not have all customers sign a waiver when they purchase the car?

We put our money down trusting that Audi has provided a sound product...why are we the victim when their product fails?

George @ BostonAudi

Magnuson-Moss only vaguely applies, and AoA isn't denying his coverage, they're not willing to start work until he has provided a legal document that can be used to hold him legally liable if it turns out he's misrepresented the situation.

Thats not a denial. There's a lot of hot tempers flared here because SO many people are afraid they'll be on the receiving end of this sort of treatment, but Ed's got a very simple solution. Sign the document if he hasn't modded the car at all, and they'll replace the turbos. Questions at that point as to replacing the car are between him, his lawyer, and Audi. Given the time the replacement is likely to take, he may be able to lemon it in short order, and would have a case with asking Audi to buy back.

But I disagree with others saying he's just asking for trouble in the future if he signs the document. The exact opposite is true, he's not documented that the car had serious problems from the factory, and any future failures would have to be considered taking that into account.

NASA racer

a citizen who enters into a contract cannot then be asked to PROVE that he's entitled to coverage under that contract.

The way it works is that the warrantor has to PROVE that there was some reason they would be entitled to rescind the contract in order to even THINK of asking such a thing.

This REALLY goes against the fundamental principals of law and justice that the country was founded on and is an absolute outrage.

NASA racer

Audi has sold Ed a warranty without fully informing him of his rights under lemon law. Additionally they are attaching a condition to the warranty that was NOT AGREED UPON or DOCUMENTED IN THE WARRANTY as a condition to honoring the warranty.

The whole POINT of Magnusson Moss is to prevent someone offering a warranty then changing the terms and conditions or misrepresenting the warranty coverage to the consumer. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AUDI IS DOING TO ED and it's just flat illegal.

UnderPressure

Some good points, however:

Ed claimed that warranty was denied on <b>suspicion</b> that the car was modified. Allegedly AoA did not offer one iota of evidence that it was modified. Maybe they knew he was associated with APR?

Imagine you got into an accident and the police arrested you for drunk driving without giving you a breathalyzer or other tests. The reason is because you worked for the Jack Daniels Distillery.

Phillip G

to fix because they believed a 3rd party damaged it...WITHOUT PROOF THAT THEY DID)

AOA is wrong!!! #@$@#$#@$ wrong.

So what he modified last A4......he had the finances, hired knowledgeable people, and knew the risk.

For AoA to PROFILE ED (since it's wrong for cops to profile people and check them out without cause, neither can industry profile people and deny them warranty work), and to make him sign and affidavit to PROVE THAT HE didn't mod his car is down-right WRONG!!!

other than that, your post made great sense.

noeltykay

Hey you look like your doing real well in fantasy Bball...Go Lakers!