I just got a letter from Subaru of America letting me know that
the warranty on my CVT has been extended to 10 years or 100,000
miles. There was also a form for getting reimbursed for any CVT
repair expenses already incurred, but I haven't had any so I
threw that away.
I couldn't find any official announcement of this change on the
SoA website, but it's being discussed in various owners' forums
if you want to read those.
Don't know who started it first but Nissan also extended their CVT
warranty but to 120K or 10 years instead of 100K or 10 years. Didn't
bother to check the details of Nissan's extension.
(short URL: http://tinyurl.com/y9qgx5lz )
That document lists specific models and model years as applicable to the
extended CVT warranty. The latest applicable model year is 2015, so
forget about the extension if you have a later model year. We just
bought a 2017 Outback and, according to that doc, it isn't covered.
Interesting. I have a '16 Forester and really like the CVT. I suspect
if us newer owners had problems after 5 years, Subaru would also cover us.
Retired, I only drive about 6,000 miles per year and had similar problem
with head gasket failure out of warranty but it happened at such low
mileage that Subaru reimbursed me about 1/3 of the repair cost.
I was lucky as I had complained to dealer about head failure at low
mileage but out of warranty with no help. But, I happened to bump into
family friend at SOA and he suggested I call their help line and sure
enough I got that help. All they wanted was service record and accepted
records I kept where I did my own oil changes, etc.
I had a similar experience several years back with a low mileage,
properly maintained but out-of-warranty Honda Accord: About $700 worth
of repairs on a failed fuel injection system.
A polite letter to American Honda HQ got me a refund check for about two
thirds of it.
Never admit anything, even on your death bed. You might unexpectedly
That is good to know.
Decades ago I had severe problems with a Ford dealer and Ford that was
only resolved by taking to magistrates court. It was settled to my
satisfaction but I will never consider buying a Ford again.
We had a Mazda that ran great for over 10 years and 100,000 miles until
it was stolen and striped. My wife refused to consider buying another
because of Ford having acquired interest in Mazda.
These companies need to know that buyer loyalty works both ways.
I have a 2014 Forester Limited that has a bit over 70,000 miles on it,
it's out-of-warranty. I recently discovered that the vinyl trim in the
side of the driver's seat was cracked and the seam on the front portion
was split (right below where the leather is on the seating surface). I
contacted SOA and asked for a goodwill repair and they did as I requested.
Not often but sometimes, the dealer is badly caught between the company
and the buyer. And the dealer may or may not react responsibly. Many
years ago (you can tell from the model year...) I bought the only car I
have ever bought new, a 1968 Plymouth Valiant. From the beginning it had
a slow leak of steering fluid, where a hose fitting screwed into the
high pressure valve on top of the steering gear. Of course I took it
back to the dealer: A day or so later it was reported fixed, I picked it
up, it was leaking again before I could get home.
Call that step 1. It got repeated at least seven times. Finally I
managed to get by the service manager and talk to their steering
specialist who was being told to work on the car. He told me that their
was a hairline crack in the casting encasing the valve, the casting
would have to be replaced, and that Chrysler corp would never approve it
and refund them the cost of the casting, so his management was telling
him to clean it up and then tell me it was fixed.
I went home, unscrewed the hose, worked some Permatex into the threads,
screwed it back in, and it worked fine for the remaining 145,000 miles
we had that car. (The threads forced the Permatex out into the crack all
along its length.) But it convinced me that the argument "buy new so
that you can depend on the vehicle" was not for me!
A bit in the opposite direction: the dealer wanted me to pay for repairs
that had been agreed they would cover before I bought a used car from
them. The prior owner had a dog that chewed on the ends of the stalk
controls on the steering column and the tires were bald. I said that I
would buy the car if they repaired both items.
They knew that I was serious about buying that car. They agreed to let
me take it to my shop of choice where I had it inspected at my cost of
about $120. I do that with every used car that I buy and it has saved
me from buying lemons. That car came back with high marks with only the
previously discovered stalk and tire problems. They knew I was a
motivated buyer if I'm willing to spend that much just to check it out
but, no, I'm not trusting the seller to do the inspection to say, gee,
it's all okay.
When I returned later to lay down the money to buy the used car, they
had repaired the stalks but the tires were still bald. They tried to
excuse themself by saying the steering column repair cost more than they
expected and that both repairs were not included in the deal. I told
him that I would go home and look at the sheet that listed the repairs
as to what we agreed would get done. If both stalks and tires were
listed, and the sales rep signed the list, then I wasn't coming back.
The salesman said, "Are you going to let this car go at such a good
price for the cost of a set of tires?" I turned it back on him and said
"Are you going to let this sale die for the cost of set of tires which
you can get more cheaply than I?"
He talked to his manager and they replaced the tires in an hour. I paid
and that car lasted me 24 years. Yeah, they were cheap tires but they
were new. Wasn't my fault the dealer didn't check with their service
department to find out the stalks couldn't be replaced alone but instead
the entire column assembly had to be replaced. Stalks and tires: that
was the deal for me to buy. They tried to renege on tires. I was going
to walk. I wasn't paying until AFTER the agreed work had been done on
the used car.
No money had yet been exchanged so I could walk away. I've done it at
grocery and other stores: if there is a disagreement in the sale, I just
leave all the items piled at their counter and walk away. Nothing they
have cannot be purchased elsewhere and rarely is it an emergency (must
buy now) purchase.
I can see why a dealer would appear friendly in performing an out-of-
warranty repair. If the corporation is going to pay for the repair or
pay for part of it and the customer pays for the rest, it's just like an
in-warranty repair to the dealer. They're not out any money. No cost
to them for a good-will repair that someone else is paying for.
I've been buying new since I bought my first used car in 1958.
Fortunately buying Chevy's my brother working at dealers always got me
good prices and low cost repairs. He's retired now too and having
worked all his life in the car business is now a happy Forester owner.
Fortunately now, my switching to Subaru and now with a friend at SOA, I
get vip purchase and do not have to go through most of the hassle.
Here's a bit more information from Forbes:
They quote a Subaru spokesman as saying there isn't a sole reason
for the extension, although they do mention some problems with cars
stalling as they're coming to a stop. The article makes it clear
that only people who've actually experienced problems need to have
their cars serviced.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.