Warranty (A discussion about them)

Always wondered what people consider to be a fair? And what I mean by this is what is fair when something goes wrong and you have to use it. I always get irritated when some one purchases a widget and then after it is out of warranty they expect replacement when it fails. On the other hand if you purchase something that is supposed to be a 100K miles item and only has a 1 year 30K mile warranty and it fails at 3 years 40K should there be a recourse? I say no. You purchase something knowing the warranty. If you don't like the warranty terms it don't purchase it. But I see time and time again people posting and piling on about going after the seller when something like this happens.

Another interesting thing I have found when purchasing large components for cars is that the warranty for used is sometimes as good or better then a new / rebuilt part.

Case in point. I was shopping transmissions for my X type (turned out it did not need it) and I was surprised to find that I could get a used one for about 1/4 the price of a rebuilt one with the same warranty.

Same went for the transfer case I ended up getting. Used it was about 1/3 the cost of a rebuilt one and both had a 1 year warranty. I went used. I did flush it out completely multiple times to inspect for damage and ware (there was none) and I install new seals and filled it with with the best synthetic gear oil I could get. So that did add a bit to the cost but that was me adding "value" to my purchase.

Ideally, a warranty on a part or an assembly means that the part or assembly is more valuable (the part, plus some 'insurance'). Therefore, if two parts are equally priced, a buyer would often pick the one with the warranty. I would pick the one without because it should mean that more money was put into producing a good part, and less was spent on insurance.

Anyway, warranty contracts must be treated by both buyer and seller as exactly what they are. Insurance. Want more insurance? Pay more money. Want less? Pay less. If the contract does not say it is covered, you cannot expect it to be covered.

Finally, I like to buy only the things I want, and I generally don't like products being lumped together. Warranty's are basically selling two products at once, and given the option, I would rather buy my products and my insurance separately.

to add to the above, I guess that if people got to choose when buying a new car (like you get to choose at HF for example), "would you like no warranty for $0, 100k for $5,000 or 200k for $20,000?"

They would make a decision, and there would be a lot less griping about the repairs that happened at 102k miles because it was the buyers choice.

Well, there is warranty and there is merchantability.

A used car, even with the "no warranty" clause in writing is expected to make it more than around the block before blowing up. That is merchantability.

Here's what I consider fair.

1. They honor the terms of the warranty.
2. The terms of the warranty are clear up front.
3. The warranty is not written in intentionally confusing terms.
4. They don't place a ton of unreasonable restrictions on the warranty that make it worthless.

Most automotive extended warranties tend to have problems with items 3 or 4 on the list.

If a part had a 1 year, 30,000 mile warranty, and failed after 3 years and 40,000 miles, I'd totally understand the manufacture saying, "Sorry, it expired." It's right there in the terms. If it was something I'd expect to last 100,000 miles, I wouldn't be annoyed that they failed to honor the warranty, but I might be annoyed at them for making crappy parts.

I think that (if the terms are clear) warranties are ironclad. If you have a 30k mile warranty on something and it dies at 30,000.2 miles, tough. It sucks, but that's how they work. They are a light switch. Once one of the limitations is met, the warranty is over. Period.

Many aftermarket parts you'll notice you can buy the Value-blob version with a 1-year warranty for $17.99 or the Dura-chunk version with a lifetime warranty for $35.99. Its the same part. You're more or less buying an insurance policy. They are simply collecting more profit on the part in case you remember where you bought it 5 years from now when it explodes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4

In my opinion, a warranty is for manufacturing defects. The warranty period should be 2-4x as long as one would expect a defect to show up, just because weird things happen. Nothing lasts forever and if you get 40k on a 36k warranty item, well that is how the cookie crumbled.

In short a warranty isn't to shield you from the reality of things wearing out. It is there to make good on a manufacturing fault.

I presume its till the same, but there was a situation that came up occasionally when I was in the dealership. You have a 1 year warranty on your car. Your part fails on day 364, and the part is replaced free of charge. On day 374, it fails again, with no fault to the installer. You have no warranty on that part, because it was covered under the cars plan, which has now expired. You now purchase and install another new part, and it is covered by the parts warranty for a year.

That occasionally caused a certain amount of stress.

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

According to the local Hyundai dealer the warranty coverage is based on which one ends later.

For example the engine in my Elantra was replaced at 89,000 miles under warranty. The car has a 100,000 mile warranty and the replacement engine has a 12,000 mile warranty. So according to the dealer, the engine is covered until 101,000 miles by the warranty on the replacement engine. If the engine had been replaced at any time before 88,000 miles it would be covered until 100,000 by the car warranty.

I'm hoping that I don't need to test that claim.

Aftermarket warranty companies are the devil - every service rider ever

In reply to jstand:

My time there was 30 years ago. It certainly could have been changed since then.