So I went to a fair trading seminar

[gecko2k]

Dude! R u trollin'?

[gareth_oau]

I think you will find that a car thats manufactured to TUF in Germany, and then exported to Oz isnt downgraded to meet ADR.

I think the very valid point about autobahns is that if a car is capable and warranted to drive at 300kph in Germany is capable of driving at 300 in Oz, and so if it does this in Oz, should therefore be covered by the manafacturer.

If the car does 300 on Oz racetrack, it isnt necessarily being abused any more than that same car dpoing 300 on an autobahn.

Its a reasonable expectation that the manufacturer should need to demonstrate "abuse" before a warranty claim can be outright rejected, just becasue its been on a track.

If my car goes on a track, and the radio, or the headlights subsequently fail, is it fair that those items are no longer covered?

Its a reasonable and valid argument.

[gecko2k]

If you bought a kettle and dropped it from the 5th storey floor , would you take it back and claim "it shouldnt have done that , it should be stronger"

I think we can both agree that kettles are not made to be dropped from any height. Certain cars are made to 'perform' and not only transport people from A to B. Hence they even get delivered with performance tyres. I would like to declare 'Apples to oranges' too.

You could sit at 6000rpm for 24/7 for 365 days then come in for a service with less than 100kms and that still wouldnt be considered abuse since its within the operating conditions of the car and within the service schedule ?

Sure thing, but don't you think there should be a meeting point in the middle between 'Babying the car' and 'lost warranty because it was on a race track'? There are heaps of driver training lessons conducted on race tracks even for beginners and learners. Should they all lose their new car warranty for doing voluntary safety education?

Also it seems like the current system has worked all the years before and why does it have to be changed right now? Its not like every second car has been raced to near death before the warranty ends. Wouldn't it be more then fair then to void the warranty on 4WD if they get taken off road?

Its a reasonable and valid argument.

Thank you!

[SMOK3Y]

I think you will find that a car thats manufactured to TUF in Germany, and then exported to Oz isnt downgraded to meet ADR.

I think the very valid point about autobahns is that if a car is capable and warranted to drive at 300kph in Germany is capable of driving at 300 in Oz, and so if it does this in Oz, should therefore be covered by the manafacturer.

If the car does 300 on Oz racetrack, it isnt necessarily being abused any more than that same car dpoing 300 on an autobahn.

Its a reasonable expectation that the manufacturer should need to demonstrate "abuse" before a warranty claim can be outright rejected, just becasue its been on a track.

If my car goes on a track, and the radio, or the headlights subsequently fail, is it fair that those items are no longer covered?

Its a reasonable and valid argument.

this question was answered in OP

They are thinking of doing a blanket ban on any car thats driven at a track , eg once its on a track no warranty on any drivetrain / engine related parts (no chance to get a hearing with the Consumer tenancy tribunal)

and no not here to troll gecko

[Transporter]

Its a reasonable and valid argument.

Thank you!

Hm, the cars in Germany are sold with the variable servicing interval, where in Australia with the fixed servicing interval. This means, IMO, that your warranty would be busted, if you took your car to the race track. You could also be surprised how much data from today’s ECU can be extracted to find out how the engine/car was driven. But hey, I maybe wrong and you guys could be right, so please take it as my opinion only.

[Bug_racer]

I think you will find that a car thats manufactured to TUF in Germany, and then exported to Oz isnt downgraded to meet ADR.

I think the very valid point about autobahns is that if a car is capable and warranted to drive at 300kph in Germany is capable of driving at 300 in Oz, and so if it does this in Oz, should therefore be covered by the manafacturer.

If the car does 300 on Oz racetrack, it isnt necessarily being abused any more than that same car dpoing 300 on an autobahn.


Its a reasonable expectation that the manufacturer should need to demonstrate "abuse" before a warranty claim can be outright rejected, just becasue its been on a track.

If my car goes on a track, and the radio, or the headlights subsequently fail, is it fair that those items are no longer covered?

Its a reasonable and valid argument.

Your making the assumption that our roads are the same , our driver training is the same , our conditions are the same , our fuel is the same etc etc .
The importer is the one who tests the cars and will warrant them based upon what they beleive is right for our country .

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

I think we can both agree that kettles are not made to be dropped from any height. Certain cars are made to 'perform' and not only transport people from A to B. Hence they even get delivered with performance tyres. I would like to declare 'Apples to oranges' too.



Sure thing, but don't you think there should be a meeting point in the middle between 'Babying the car' and 'lost warranty because it was on a race track'? There are heaps of driver training lessons conducted on race tracks even for beginners and learners. Should they all lose their new car warranty for doing voluntary safety education?

Also it seems like the current system has worked all the years before and why does it have to be changed right now? Its not like every second car has been raced to near death before the warranty ends. Wouldn't it be more then fair then to void the warranty on 4WD if they get taken off road?



Thank you!

A kettle was never designed to be dropped from an extreme height , but you can also say the other way that a kettle should not break if its placed on a bench . Then it starts getting more complex , if a kettle is knocked over should it break ? If it falls off a bench should it break ? If it falls off the bench and down a flight of steps should it break ? There is no clear black and white on how much abuse a kettle can take before it wont be covered under warranty .

Cars warranty should be more black and white . Drive within the law on the streets - warranty is fine
Do any time trail events in the car - warranty void

And please stop using driver training as an example , I keep saying Time trials , I have never seen a timed driver training day so please learn the difference between the two !

And I will keep emphasizing the point of whats in the contract . A car sales contract for Porsche GT3 will probably be different for one for a Toyota Camry !

[SMOK3Y]

totally agree Bug_racer, i dont get the arguments they keep trying to make...

[gecko2k]

And please stop using driver training as an example , I keep saying Time trials , I have never seen a timed driver training day so please learn the difference between the two !

Sorry mate, but you are on the wrong path here. When I say 'driver training day' I also mean 'driver training day' and not 'time trials'. That is an examples where the law would disadvantage every day drivers!

A car sales contract for Porsche GT3 will probably be different for one for a Toyota Camry !

Totally agree with you here.

[jamesatfish]

totally agree Bug_racer, i dont get the arguments they keep trying to make...

SMOK3Y, Bug_racer,

Keep in mind I'm respectfully coming at this from the consumer point of view, as I don't have the skills or knowledge to do so from a service, mechanical or sales point of view. My comments are made as someone purchasing this type of car.

Basically, Porsche advertise and market their GT3 and GT3 RS cars as being road-legal track cars. In most cases they come from the factory with full roll cages, 6 point harnesses, fire extinguishers and barely street suitable R-Spec tyres. I will dig out one of their full-page print advertisements from a recent magazine when I get home but basically the message is that the car is designed to be used at 10/10ths on a race track.

With that in mind, I walk into my preferred Porsche dealership, tell them I want a car to drive in some CAMS Speed events on the track, give them a cheque for $300K, and drive out in a GT3.

If I then take that car to the Drive Bathurst CAMS event, I drive it very hard but within specified operating limits (i.e. changing up at or before redline, not over-revving on downshifts etc) and the engine fails down Conrod, then yes I expect this to be covered under Porsche warranty.

This is akin to the toaster failing when used to warm up a piece of bread - a warranty repair is due because the product did not perform the function for which it was sold.

If Porsche plug in their diagnostic equipment and find that I drove the entire length of the Bathurst circuit in 2nd gear with the car bouncing off the rev limiter - that is, driving outside the specified operating limits - then I would expect them to reject my warranty claim. This is akin to dropping the toaster out of the window - the toaster wasn't marketed as being able to survive a 5 story fall, just as my GT3 wasn't marketed as being able to be driven in 2nd gear in this manner - hence no warranty claim.

I should add that Porsche actually do cover their cars under warranty regardless of whether they are driven on a track, as the cars are designed, built, tested and marketed with this use in mind. I speak from personal experience here where they covered a major driveline replacement under warranty knowing full well that the car had been used on the track - the repair even came with an apology for the inconvenience of the car needing the repair work after only a few track outings.

[gareth_oau]

but even if did you drive at redline in 2nd gear James, I would still expect it to be covered under warranty.

the car has a rev-limiter, designed specifically STOP YOU from going outside its 'designed for' operating parameters.

If i recall, one of the manufacturers advertised that their car drove around some racetrack virtually non-stop at excessive speeds for thousands of kms. Now if they advertise this, they shouldn't be able to back out of a warranty because of some industry-driven legislation

[SMOK3Y]

but even if did you drive at redline in 2nd gear James, I would still expect it to be covered under warranty.

the car has a rev-limiter, designed specifically STOP YOU from going outside its 'designed for' operating parameters.

If i recall, one of the manufacturers advertised that their car drove around some racetrack virtually non-stop at excessive speeds for thousands of kms. Now if they advertise this, they shouldn't be able to back out of a warranty because of some industry-driven legislation

you'se seem to be taking things too 'literally' imo your statements sound akin to that bloke who got a car years ago "for a song" as that what it was advertised for in the ad. when you are at a track the car spends 90% of its time in the last coupla thousand revs of its range. now the GT3 might be built for it but even a GTI/R is not, it should not be warranted if it is doing lots of this imo and im speaking as a consumer. when i had my ute i got a cam put in it with 6000ks on it i took the risk & knew if my motor died id be up for it. but holden/dealer said car was still warrented just if it was found that the cam was the cause the motor would not be. i understood & accepted this was my decision.

[jamesatfish]

...now the GT3 might be built for it but even a GTI/R is not...

I guess that's the issue that concerns me.

This discussion came about from Bug_racer reporting that the NSW Fair Trading body was trying to introduce a blanket warranty ban for all cars used on a track. Whether a particular car should be covered under warranty for track use is not a 'one size fits all' matter but rather is related to the specifics of each car (but I'm not going to get into whether a GTI / Golf R / <insert car here> should be covered or not as that's a whole other can of worms).

A blanket ban by NSW Fair Trading trying to override this displays ignorance on their part as to the scope of vehicles sold in NSW as well as being a futile attempt to violate consumer's rights under the ACLs.

[SMOK3Y]

ya i understand where ya comin from but i think it will still be up to the actual car maker weather they will cover or not. and no doubt if that blanket ban does come in some will use it to hide behind if they are suspicious.

[gareth_oau]

not being too literal at all smok3y, merely stating that if a manfacturer makes a claim in an advert, it must back it up.

SAAB 900 GOES 'ROUND THE WORLD' IN LESS THAN EIGHT DAYS!

A standard production Saab 900 turbo today, Thursday 24 October, completed an astonishing 25,000-mile non-stop journey at an average speed of over 140mph to set new international speed records.

This remarkable feat of endurance was accomplished over 180 hours at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Stopping only for fuel and driver changes, the car was continuously driven flat-out by Saab test drivers under the watchful eye of supervisors representing FIA, the international motorsport authority.

The distance covered, equivalent to a circumnavigation of the globe, was achieved at an average speed higher than that of specialist sports cars competing at the famous Le Mans 24-hour race.

Announcing the successful outcome of its Saab 900 Talladega Challenge, Saab Automobile's Dan Chasins, responsible for the development of Saab 900, said: "We have just completed the world's fastest quality control test. This achievement is a vivid demonstration of the quality and durability of a car that is identical to those driven by our customers.

[SMOK3Y]

honestly... i give up..