VW customer service - frustrating

[Umai Naa!!]

Car manufacturers have to offer some sort of warranty by law in Australia. Regardless of how reliable they are.

As well all know, warranty is a great marketing tool. It worked well for Hyundai, and Mitsubishi is doing quite well out of it too, these days.

I'm not 100% sure what line of work Maverick is in, but I'm seeing this whole thing from the other side of the workshop roller door.

[Maverick]

No doubt. However Maverick, with no direct knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, appeared to condone VGA threatening a customer in a most serious way.

I didn't condone it at all.

There are two sides to every story and very limited information has been posted.

If you bothered to read what I wrote it was clear that I was sitting on the fence and not taking "sides".

Unless you were making threats and ranting and raving Volkswagen wouldn't have made threats to sue you and to contact your employer.

Volkswagen aren't going to go out of their way to help anyone in that situation and treating the staff with some respect goes a long way.

Point out where I condoned VGA threatening a customer?

If true, I can think of very few circumstances in which such conduct on VGA's part could not be considered appalling (but probably the act of a low-level customer service person in need of counselling).

You've assumed that it's true based on someone who hasn't posted anything to back up his claims of the threats made (which were via email and could be posted).

Without knowing the facts and both sides of the story because I'm sure there is a hell of a lot more to it than we've been told there is little point in placing blame with anyone.

When I complained in writing about the apparent lack of snow chains compatible with the GTI, a low level operative in VGA marketing sent a most unsympathetic and somewhat discourteous reply referring to Australian standards, expressing little sympathy for the inconvenience I experienced on a trip to the snowfields.

What would you like them to have done?

a) write a letter explaining the facts (as they did) or
b) send around some dancers to deliver the message in song?

[Dubya]

If the car was so reliable that it wouldn't break down in the first three years they would offer something else like a guarantee ...

But Guarantee / warranty / replacement - - - they're all assurances in the form of contractual obligations a manufacturer might undertake in addition to its statutory obligations and quite inconsistent with your notion of not offering a warranty for a totally reliable product (but now you try and weasel out of your original statement by splitting hairs by raising other comparable assurances such as guarantee etc). How disingenuous can you get?

I've read you never admit when you're wrong, Maverick.

You could have just admitted your comment made no sense, but instead you go on about BMW and Mercedes warranties which have no bearing on the logic or otherwise of your statement that VW might offer no warranty if their car was totally reliable.

Previously you have claimed VAG lost money on every Golf made without direct knowledge or providing any evidence (other than what you read in the press). This is just one more example of how unrelentingly you are when your statements are refuted.

[Greg Roles]

[Brendan_A]

Nice one!!

[Dubya]

I didn't condone it at all.

Point out where I condoned VGA threatening a customer?

You may be infuriating, Mav, but I do appreciate the sense of humour! However, that does not excuse your relentless hair-splitting, issue-shifting, general sophistry and refusal to admit when you might be wrong.

For instance, can you point to a single post where you have conceded you might have been mistaken, let alone were so? Or where having been challenged you have acknowledged the validity of another person's contrary view?

As for not condoning (ie to overlook, disregard, give tacit approval to), one condones a particular behaviour when one says something like, as you did, "VGA would not have threatened to call your employer (and sue you) if you had not ranted and raved or threatened" and then fail to condemn the conduct (of VGA in this case). Instead, you provide an explanation, if not justification, for the threat the OP claims VGA made and which, for the purposes of this discussion, we presume is true, at least from the perspective of the OP.

And if you do not condone VGA's alleged conduct as you say is the case, then you appear to condone, which is tantamount to condoning, as the effect on others is the same as if you really do condone the behaviour of VGA. You see, others cannot tell whether you condone or merely appear to condone (as it is done tacitly) and those who respect your opinion, Maverick, may believe you really do condone such conduct.

Anyway, it is just another case where, instead of clarifying your comment or admitting your mistake, you, in this particular case, deny the obvious and natural inference to be drawn when someone explains away errant behaviour without offering the concomitant opprobrium required to avoid the natural inference being drawn by others.

[Maverick]

But Guarantee / warranty / replacement - - - they're all assurances in the form of contractual obligations a manufacturer might undertake in addition to its statutory obligations and quite inconsistent with your notion of not offering a warranty for a totally reliable product (but now you try and weasel out of your original statement by splitting hairs by raising other comparable assurances such as guarantee etc). How disingenuous can you get?

A guarantee and a warranty are completely different. You're also thinking of a voluntary warranty which is what a manufacturer offers

The length of the warranty has nothing to do with the quality of a product and nor does having a long warranty give this perception to anyone who does some research.

Miele still only offer 1 years warranty on their products despite their products having a 25 year design life. People still pay a premium price and they don't care that they only have a 1 year warranty as they know they will have many many years of trouble free use.

I've read you never admit when you're wrong, Maverick.

I'm not saying I'm not wrong but you have misunderstood/twisted my comment around and taken it out of context.

Let's look at what you said.

Wouldn't the warranty a manufacturer is prepared to offer be longer the more reliable the car?

The manufacturer of a really reliable car wouldn't say "Trust me - our cars will be fault free for the first three years!" which would beg the question, they would say "We will rectify any defect in manufacture that occurs within three years." And if they knew their cars would be defect-free for longer, they might even offer a longer warrranty for the competitive advantage such a statement about the reliability of their cars would give them.

As I mentioned above Miele offer 1 year warranty and nothing more but constantly are on top of reliability surveys performed by Choice magazine in Australia (and other organisations overseas). This 1 year warranty doesn't affect sales and doesn't change customers perceptions of them as being a top quality product that will last a very long time. They have a reputation that is based on this and people buy from them and pay the premium price over many other alternatives which offer 2,3, 5, 7 and even 10 years warranty.

You could have just admitted your comment made no sense, but instead you go on about BMW and Mercedes warranties which have no bearing on the logic or otherwise of your statement that VW might offer no warranty if their car was totally reliable.

They're entirely relevant just like my Miele example.

Previously you have claimed VAG lost money on every Golf made without direct knowledge or providing any evidence (other than what you read in the press). This is just one more example of how unrelentingly you are when your statements are refuted.

Do you think maybe there was a reason why VW rushed forward the Mark 6 which was not due for another 2 years? Why they used the Mark 5 and made alterations to drop the cost like changing the door design and removing the reskinnable outer skin? That they cut costs and manufacturing times in a big way?

There is a heap of info out there including in VW's own press releases.

This is from businessweek, which you will no doubt claim is inaccurate.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2006/gb20060822_430027.htm

Volkswagen Still on Shaky Ground
The German auto maker has been touting big turnaround plans, but it still loses money on each car exported to the U.S.

Europe's largest auto maker, Volkswagen (VLKAY), has tantalized investors since 2004 with its bold restructuring plans and robust profit targets for 2008. In anticipation of a vigorous VW revival, the company's stock has doubled over the past two years, to around €61 ($77) a share.

But at headquarters in Wolfsburg, progress toward the company's ambitious goals seemed to be bogging down. Product mistakes, boardroom battles, and labor resistance to job cuts have conspired to undermine the turnaround.

Then suddenly this spring, VW's overhaul ignited. Second-quarter sales took off—even in the tough U.S. market—driving the VW brand group's anemic operating profit up 168.5% from a year earlier, to $763 million. New models helped Volkswagen boost its European market share for the first half of 2006 to 19.2%, up from 18% a year ago and near historic highs.

LOSING PROPOSITION. So, is the much anticipated turnaround at hand? Not quite. With first-half revenues up 14.2%, the $122 billion auto maker is steering in the right direction, but it still faces big challenges. The second-quarter sales vroom isn't sustainable, analysts say, because Volkswagen is at the peak of its yearly product cycle. Worse, the turbocharged profits mask problems that haven't gone away.

The big one: VW is bedeviled by production costs that are twice the level of its competitors. In fact, its costs are so high that the German auto maker still loses money on every car it exports. Last year VW's U.S. losses totaled $1.1 billion. That's roughly $3,500 per car, nearly 33% more than the losses GM suffers per vehicle.

VW's ongoing restructuring will help Volkswagen bring its U.S. losses down to $832 million in 2006, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas forecasts. But top management concedes that it won't be able to turn a profit in the world's largest auto market for several years. "The problem is not European sales, it's a European cost base applied to North American revenues," says Jonas.

WORK ETHIC. To fix what ails VW, Chief Executive Bernd Pischetsrieder must deliver on a plan to cut 20,000 employees from the company's bloated 100,000-strong German workforce and clinch a vital pact with labor to boost VW's workweek to 35 hours, up from the current 28-hour week, without a pay increase.

As part of a plan to bring VW's pretax profit up to $6.5 billion by 2008 (more than quadruple the $1.4 billion earned in 2004), Pischetsrieder has targeted some $2.6 billion in annual labor cost savings. In addition to shrinking the workforce and lengthening the workweek, his plan also calls for paying lower wages to new hires.

So far, 9,700 VW employees have agreed to an early retirement package and another 2,500 have accepted a voluntary severance package. Pischetsrieder, who is eager to book the 20,000 job cuts by the end of 2006, is now offering workers an "early booking bonus" of $69,000 for agreeing to depart by Sept. 30.

DOWN TO SIZE. That's on top of severance packages running from $50,000 to $250,000. The company also is introducing a pay scheme for new hires that eliminates the 20% premium VW's existing workers currently are paid above the average German auto worker wage.

Volkswagen's labor problems have proven intractable to date, since the state of Lower Saxony still owns 18% of the company's shares and has long sought to protect jobs in the region. But the cuts are essential if VW is to regain competitiveness. Its German factories run at a loss of several hundred million dollars a year.

As Japanese and Korean auto makers ratchet up their drive to sell cars in Europe, VW's traditional 18% to 20% market share will come under heavy assault and is likely to ebb, European auto industry experts warn. "In 15 years, VW's market share in Europe will look dramatically different," says Jonas.

CLOUDY VISION. If Volkswagen starts to cede market share to Asian rivals without getting its costs down sharply, it will end up in the same vicious spiral of red ink, excess capacity, and job cuts that plagues General Motors (GM) and Ford (F). Already, VW's six German factories run at only 60% of capacity—way below a level that ensures profitability, analysts estimate.

"The stock market has recurring visions of a super-competitive Volkswagen. But management is working hard just to maintain its existing position," says Stephen B. Cheetham, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in London.

To restore real competitive muscle, Volkswagen has to prove it can sustain operating margins of 4% to 5% over the long term. It hit 3.3% in 2005, and analysts forecast a 3.6% operating margin this year. But the figures are misleading, since the company has slashed capital expenditure and must invest far more annually to sustain competitive products and factories. "VW's spending level is unsustainably low," says Jonas.

NEWER, CHEAPER. Much is riding on a revamp of VW's flagship compact, the Golf, which is due out in 2008. The fifth-generation version, unveiled in late 2003, was roundly criticized as overengineered, overpriced, and "boring." Analysts believe VW makes no money on the current version of its largest-selling car because it was forced to pack it with extras or reduce the price in order to drive sales.

Production chief Wolfgang Bernhard is now speeding a revamp of the sixth-generation Golf to market, which market researchers say will be priced as much as €1,000 ($1,280) lower than the existing model.

At the same time, Bernhard has warned labor leaders that the next Golf may not even be built in Germany if labor costs cannot be lowered sufficiently. "It's ridiculous not using expensive machinery three days a week," says Patrick Juchemich, analyst at brokerage Oppenheim in Frankfurt. "Bernhard needs to bring the cost level down enough to export profitably to the U.S."

[Maverick]

As for not condoning (ie to overlook, disregard, give tacit approval to), one condones a particular behaviour when one says something like, as you did, "VGA would not have threatened to call your employer (and sue you) if you had not ranted and raved or threatened" and then fail to condemn the conduct (of VGA in this case). Instead, you provide an explanation, if not justification, for the threat the OP claims VGA made and which, for the purposes of this discussion, we presume is true, at least from the perspective of the OP.

I never condoned anything, I merely said that VGA would not have unless ....

There are two sides to every story and as I said I suspect there is a whole lot more to it. The complainer didn't offer any real information, didn't post the letter and didn't go into any detail.

Clearly for any company to take the steps that VGA is accused of taking it would take more than being polite as the complainer claims to have been.

And if you do not condone VGA's alleged conduct as you say is the case, then you appear to condone, which is tantamount to condoning, as the effect on others is the same as if you really do condone the behaviour of VGA. You see, others cannot tell whether you condone or merely appear to condone (as it is done tacitly) and those who respect your opinion, Maverick, may believe you really do condone such conduct.

Blah blah blah

Anyway, it is just another case where, instead of clarifying your comment or admitting your mistake, you, in this particular case, deny the obvious and natural inference to be drawn when someone explains away errant behaviour without offering the concomitant opprobrium required to avoid the natural inference being drawn by others.

WTF do you think I did earlier when I answered your anal hair splitting post by saying that I was not condoning anything and went into the two sides to every story spiel.

[Dubya]

If the car was trouble free for 3 years for everyone VW wouldn't bother offering a warranty.

Claiming to have been "misquoted" and taken "out of context" is another of your favourites, isn't it, Maverick?

But above, quote, unquote, is the statement you made and have failed to justify after it has been shown to be so wanting in logic.

And the shortness of warranties offered by manufactures of better-engineered and more reliable products lends no support to your suggestion that VW would offer no warranty at all if their cars had a 0% product failure rate in the first three years.

You said it, and you have said nothing to show VW or any other manufacturer would be so foolish as to withdraw their warranty (or any comparable obligation) if they found their product was 100% reliable.

It simply does not stand to reason and you refuse to admit it.

Par for course, Mav, and just as I and others who've crossed you on this forum have come to expect.

It is as unrewarding as it is frustrating engaging in a debate with you as you consistently change the subject, or miss the point, and never make a concession.

Over and out.

[Maverick]

Claiming to have been "misquoted" and taken "out of context" is another of your favourites, isn't it, Maverick?

But above, quote, unquote, is the statement you made and have failed to justify after it has been shown to be so wanting in logic.

Once again you've take the comment out of context.

I was responding to a statement that "The whole idea of buying a new car is to trouble free for atleast 2-3 years..."

And my full response was

"I think you have unrealistic expectations if that's what you believe, many people will have years of trouble free motoring and some will have problems which is unfortunately what you're experiencing.

If the car was trouble free for 3 years for everyone VW wouldn't bother offering a warranty."

Read what I wrote, many (not all) will have years of trouble free motoring and some (not all) will have problems. I than said that if the car was trouble free for 3 years (which is impossible for any car and really any product with more than one moving part) that VW wouldn't bother offering a warranty.

You have taken out of context my comments which were directed at the claim that a new car should have no problems.

[Dubya]

WTF do you think I did earlier when I answered your anal hair splitting post by saying that I was not condoning anything and went into the two sides to every story spiel.

You simply do not get it, do you Mav?

Saying "their are two sides to every story" but then suggesting the OP must have done something bad to make VGA threaten him is hardly admitting YOUR mistake or not taking sides. But it is an attempt to explain VGA's alleged outragreous conduct of threatening a customer with reporting them to their employer.

Consistently, you are a VGA apologist, even telling a poster on this thread to buy an Audi if they want a loan car! How anti-consumer can you get?

VW's should be sufficiently reliable that a loan car is affordable for VGA to provide in such circumstances without affecting unit cost and if not, then the cost of repairs and loan cars should encourage VW to raise their standards. But no, you say the owners of a $50k Golf should not expect a loaner when the trasmission fails inside 6 months.

Hardly Ralph Nader, are you, Mav?

And once again, your last post, Mav, is another example your being unable to engage in a rational debate.

You simply do not get it so there is no point employing logic and reason where you are concerned.

[Maverick]

You simply do not get it, do you Mav?

Saying "their are two sides to every story" but then suggesting the OP must have done something bad to make VGA threaten him is hardly admitting YOUR mistake or not taking sides. But it is an attempt to explain VGA's alleged outragreous conduct of threatening a customer with reporting them to their employer.

Where is the proof? You have one person posting with little detail, he claims that he never did anything to upset VAG and so forth yet they took the steps to inform him not to contact them again or they could sue him. The whole story sounds like BS. But by all means you believe it was he tells it, until I see some proof I'm sitting on the fence.

Consistently, you are a VGA apologist, even telling a poster on this thread to buy an Audi if they want a loan car! How anti-consumer can you get?

Volkswagen don't market themselves in the same way that Audi do, it's not reasonable to expect VW to offer a loan car. I'd like to know how you work out that being realistic is "anti-consumer" in your eyes?

I've never known a dealer to keep cars on hand (except for the brands like Lexus) in the event of a sudden failure.

VW's should be sufficiently reliable that a loan car is affordable for VGA to provide in such circumstances without affecting unit cost and if not, then the cost of repairs and loan cars should encourage VW to raise their standards.

If you want to pay another $5K on your car it probably is possible.

Read the warranty terms for brands like Mercedes and BMW, they all say in the event of a breakdown that they are not responsible for any costs other than the repair of the car.

Why don't we have VAG reimburse us for our time as well? Perhaps loading and unloading of the car? The telephone calls involved with the repair work?

But no, you say the owners of a $50k Golf should not expect a loaner when the trasmission fails inside 6 months.

I wouldn't expect one because I know it's not realistic to have cars sitting around waiting for breakdowns and the cars in the service department are booked out 4 week ahead.

And once again, your last post, Mav, is another example your being unable to engage in a rational debate.

Perhaps I'm a realist and can look at it from both sides rather than living in a fantasy world where the customer is always right and should get everything that they demand given to them on a silver platter with dancing girls.

[Dubya]

Once again you've take the comment out of context.

I was responding to a statement that "The whole idea of buying a new car is to trouble free for at least 2-3 years..."

And my full response was

"I think you have unrealistic expectations if that's what you believe, many people will have years of trouble free motoring and some will have problems which is unfortunately what you're experiencing.

If the car was trouble free for 3 years for everyone VW wouldn't bother offering a warranty."

Read what I wrote, many (not all) will have years of trouble free motoring and some (not all) will have problems. I than said that if the car was trouble free for 3 years (which is impossible for any car and really any product with more than one moving part) that VW wouldn't bother offering a warranty.

You have taken out of context my comments which were directed at the claim that a new car should have no problems.

Sorry, mate, if I missed your main point, but your supposition is still WRONG.

If VW cars were completely reliable VW WOULD still offer a warranty and might even increase its length.

VW would not turn around and remove the warranty, as YOU SAID VW would.

That is what you said.

It is unsustainable.

You refuse to admit it. As per usual.

Just because you said it to make the point that no make is, on average, 100% reliable does not make the statement any less false and illogical.

But you appear to lack the magnanimity to say, "I agree the statement is wrong, I only said it flippantly to make a point - bad example."

Instead you dance a merry dance of avoidance and denial, changing the subject and splitting hairs between guarantee and warranty when the resulting obligation on VW would be same - ie to rectify the defect.

And the futility of trying to get you to understand. The futility.

I only take you on with such zeal, Mav, because a number of posters have sent me PMs lamenting your obstinance in the face of all reason and I don't mind a bit of intellectual pugilism.

However, your dogged determination to deny all reason and prolong the bout makes me feel a bit of a bully.

I'd rather admit defeat, my fingers mangled, and merely plead you go a bit easier on other posters, drop the patronising "buy an Audi" type comments, and generally give this forum the benefit of your considerable knowledge about all things double-u in a kinder, less opinionated way.

[Greg Roles]

Dubya it's quite simple mate. Mav is always right. Always. He loves anyone who dares say different, gives him another chance to prove he's right. And to his credit, from time to time he actually is!

[Maverick]

Dubya it's quite simple mate. Mav is always right. Always. He loves anyone who dares say different, gives him another chance to prove he's right. And to his credit, from time to time he actually is!

Once again Cogdoc drops in to offer nothing except some cheap shots and attempt to start an argument. How many posts of yours have been deleted recently?