CVT warranty extension

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: Dated: 06/21/17

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.

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.

Must have been a _very_ long time ago -- Ford bought their first stake in Mazda in 1979.

That's right. I did not pin down the date and my point still holds. Screw me once and you're history.

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.

Patty

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! Bob Wilson