 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / June 2005QUINCY IL DODGE DEALER SUCKS
My 2000 Ram 1500 Dodge truck was a great runner. No Problems at all. Good gas mileage. Just a damn fine truck. Then the service engine light came on. Took it Shottenkirk Dodge on Broadway in Quincy, IL. The service manager said the code said it was a transmission problem. I have a drive train warranty, so no problem. THREE MONTHS LATER. When I went to get it the first time and started home, it would shift 1st to 2nd ok but, when you went to slow down, there was this clunk like it was trying to shift up or down. THEN, when I went to speed up from 40 mph it started to shudder. After several times in the dealership, sometimes for a couple of days, sometimes for a week. They would change the shift patterns so the shudder would move up paqst 60 mph. But, when they did that, it screwed up the shift pattern. 1st to 2nd ok. 2nd to 3rd ok. 3rd wouldn't shift in 4th until 53 mph, and at 52 mph it would downshift to 3rd. After 3 months, SHOTTENKIRK of QUINCY IL. gave me my keys and said they couldn't fix it. So, I drove it that way for 3 or 4 months when another Dodge Dealer, LITTLE JESS DODGE OF EDINA MISSOURI contacted me about a new truck. When I told him about my problem with SHOTTENKIRK of QUINCY, IL, Little Jess said they could fix the problem. 6 solid weeks later, he sent the truck to another dealer and told me I could go there and pick it up. NOW, the truck is worse than before. LITTLE JESS said they rebuilt the transmission completely. Now, from 1st to 2nd up to 15mph. But in 2nd, you have to go faster than 35 mph for it to shift into 3rd and at 30 mph it will downsfit to 2nd. It will stay into third until 45 mph and under 40 mph it will downshift to 3rd. It will not shift into 4th until 53 mph and under 53 mph it will downshift to 3rd. When it is in 2nd and you speed up to say 32 or better and you let up on the gas it will clank and shift into 3rd and if you give it any gas, it will downshift back to 2nd. The gas mileage has gone down 20%. I contacted DODGE Company and they said they can't get into any disputes and refuse answer any emails. I guess I will end up trading back to a CHEVY. Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money back  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > My 2000 Ram 1500 Dodge truck was a great runner. No Problems at all. Good > gas mileage. Just a damn fine truck. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > I guess I will end up trading back to a CHEVY. Exactly. 3 repairs on same item...can't be fixed....it's a lemon. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money > back [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >> >> I guess I will end up trading back to a CHEVY. > Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money > back Maybe cause its a 2000 model year and out of basic warranty?? Denny Does the Lemon law not apply to the drive train warranty as well? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money > > back > > Maybe cause its a 2000 model year and out of basic warranty?? > > Denny > Does the Lemon law not apply to the drive train warranty as well? > >> > Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money >> > back >> >> Maybe cause its a 2000 model year and out of basic warranty?? SO what? The POWERTRAIN has 10 years or100,000 miles > SO what? The POWERTRAIN has 10 years or100,000 miles Since when? This isn't a Hyundai... (or was that Kia?) > Does the Lemon law not apply to the drive train warranty as well? Nope. 3/36 only if I remember correctly. Denny > > Does the Lemon law not apply to the drive train warranty as well? > > Nope. 3/36 only if I remember correctly. Oh well, that sucks. Thanks for the response. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving on a 2000 ?????? you're even dumber than I thought > Why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money back > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > > > I guess I will end up trading back to a CHEVY. Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. I don't know if the lemon law applies to that or not, that is why I asked. Now why is it that you have to jump in and be a f.cking a.shole all of the time? I must agree with Beekeep, it must really suck to be you. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > on a 2000 ?????? > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > > > > > I guess I will end up trading back to a CHEVY. > Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. Even if it did, that's a limited extension to the warranty (gotta read the fine print). > I don't know if the lemon law applies to that or not Most lemon laws are restricted to the first 2 or 3 years, or 24,000-36,000 miles (varies by state). Here in NJ, for example, it's 2/24K. There is NO state that has a lemon law that extends out 5 years... that's just rediculous. > that is why I asked. But that's it - you didn't ask. Asking would be, "would that be covered under your state's Lemon Law?". Your 'question', "why don't you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money back?" reads, to me anyway, "hey, idiot - just hire an attorney and sue them for your money". Here's another example: Poster: My transmission won't shift into overdrive. Me: Why don't you just put some kerosene in it to clean it out? You: Hey moron, that isn't going to fix his problem Me: Well, I didn't know - that's why I asked. Now - in that example, was I really asking if kerosene in the ATF would fix his problem, or was I just being completely ignorant about the situation, and assuming I knew a lot more than I did? P.S. - 150% > > Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. > > Even if it did, that's a limited extension to the warranty (gotta read the > fine print). There is always the fine print. > > I don't know if the lemon law applies to that or not > > Most lemon laws are restricted to the first 2 or 3 years, or 24,000-36,000 > miles (varies by state). Here in NJ, for example, it's 2/24K. There is NO > state that has a lemon law that extends out 5 years... that's just > rediculous. Why should it be ridiculous? If they warranty it for 7 years, then they damn well should be forced to honor it and if they can't, then they should either replace it or give the owner his money back. What exactly is the purpose of a warranty if they have no intention of honoring it. > > that is why I asked. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anyway, "hey, idiot - just hire an attorney and sue them for your money". > Here's another example: The funny thing here is that your comprehension of what I said really doesn't mean anything and BTW, was wrong. If I meant to say what you thought I said, your translation is pretty much exactly how I would have said it. > Poster: My transmission won't shift into overdrive. > Me: Why don't you just put some kerosene in it to clean it out? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his problem, or was I just being completely ignorant about the situation, > and assuming I knew a lot more than I did? LOL, I don't know, only you can really answer that one. Since we have no idea why the transmission would not shift into overdrive, your example is kinda dumb. Now if the poster said that the fluid was gunked up and the trans would not shift into OD, then your response could possibly be a question as to if a cleanout would clear the problem. In my case, the Lemon Law does exist to help with this specific problem (unable to repair the same warranty item multiple times) and what I asked was a question as to would it work for him since the drive train (the part still under warranty) was the problem. Denny answered it clearly and to the point. There was simply no need for a response like Gary's other than he just likes being an a.shole. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > either replace it or give the owner his money back. What exactly is the > purpose of a warranty if they have no intention of honoring it. Not arguing that point, but that's not a lemon law situation. Again - they only apply to the first few years of ownership. > idea why the transmission would not shift into overdrive, your example is > kinda dumb. Not any dumber than suggesting a Lemon Law claim after more than five (or up to 7, by your thinking) years of ownership. > question as to if a cleanout would clear the problem. In my case, the > Lemon > Law does exist to help with this specific problem (unable to repair the > same > warranty item multiple times) But this 'specific' problem is on a vehicle WELL beyond the Lemon Law period. You might have just as well advised him to use that 'Buyer's Remorse' law that most states also have on the books. > problem. Denny answered it clearly and to the point. There was simply no > need for a response like Gary's other than he just likes being an a.shole. Again, it's all in the interpretation. I interpreted Gary's response as, "No, TBone - a Lemon Law claim wouldn't be valid against a 5 year old vehicle". Maybe you're just looking for things to complain about... :) > > either replace it or give the owner his money back. What exactly is the > > purpose of a warranty if they have no intention of honoring it. > > Not arguing that point, but that's not a lemon law situation. Again - they > only apply to the first few years of ownership. Fine, I didn't know that. I never had to use it, just knew that it existed. > > idea why the transmission would not shift into overdrive, your example is > > kinda dumb. > > Not any dumber than suggesting a Lemon Law claim after more than five (or up > to 7, by your thinking) years of ownership. In what way, a lemon is a lemon. Please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon. > > question as to if a cleanout would clear the problem. In my case, the > > Lemon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > period. You might have just as well advised him to use that 'Buyer's > Remorse' law that most states also have on the books. Buyers remorse is obviously something that is delt with in the begining of the purchase. A lemon is a lemon and the Lemon law deals with multiple attempts of the same warranty repair. There is nothing obvious in it having a time limit prior to the end of the warranty. > > problem. Denny answered it clearly and to the point. There was simply no > > need for a response like Gary's other than he just likes being an a.shole. > > Again, it's all in the interpretation. I interpreted Gary's response as, > "No, TBone - a Lemon Law claim wouldn't be valid against a 5 year old > vehicle". Maybe you're just looking for things to complain about... :) Oh, bull sh.t Tom. "you're even dumber than I thought" is nothing more than an a.shole comment made because he just acts that way to people he doesn't like. I guess that's the same reason you do what you do as well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > In what way, a lemon is a lemon. Please point to the definition that > claims > only a new car can be or become a lemon. A lemon is a car that, despite being NEW, needs more repair than an old car. Why else would it be a lemon? In addition, if you actually read these laws, (which you admitted you hadn't) they DEFINE a lemon as a new car within certain time limits from purchase. WTF do you ask for us to beat you about the head with facts so easily accessed? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > either replace it or give the owner his money back. What exactly is >> > the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > an a.shole comment made because he just acts that way to people he doesn't > like. I guess that's the same reason you do what you do as well. >> Not any dumber than suggesting a Lemon Law claim after more than five (or >> up to 7, by your thinking) years of ownership. > > In what way, a lemon is a lemon. Please point to the definition that > claims > only a new car can be or become a lemon. Gladly... as an example (since the laws vary slightly from state to state), let's look at NJ. Take a look at http://www.lemonlaw.com/njstatute.html, and read the second paragraph. You'll notice they specifically say "applies to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles. > Buyers remorse is obviously something that is delt with in the begining of > the purchase. A lemon is a lemon and the Lemon law deals with multiple > attempts of the same warranty repair. There is nothing obvious in it > having > a time limit prior to the end of the warranty. There is to anyone who's bothered to do a half a minute's worth of research before offering advice on it, or maybe reading the little handbook that comes with any new vehicle purchase. By the way - how is the restrictions of Buyer's Remorse any more obvious than the limitations on the invocation of a Lemon Law claim? > >> Not any dumber than suggesting a Lemon Law claim after more than five (or > >> up to 7, by your thinking) years of ownership. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and read the second paragraph. You'll notice they specifically say "applies > to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles. Unless I missed something which is entirely possible, he is the origional owner of the vehicle so it is not a used vehicle unless you are indicating that he used it bit that would make it a used vehicle the minute he drove it off of the lot and the law would apply to nobody. Perhaps you might want to look at the third paragraph where it tlaks about the federal breech of warranty laws that also use the three repair attempt condition. Even though the State lemon law might not help him, the Federal one might. > > Buyers remorse is obviously something that is delt with in the begining of > > the purchase. A lemon is a lemon and the Lemon law deals with multiple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > before offering advice on it, or maybe reading the little handbook that > comes with any new vehicle purchase. I simply gave a suggestion and I don't recall the handbook talking about any federal breach of warranty laws, perhaps because I never needed to bring the truck in for anything but the converter well after the factory warranty was done. > By the way - how is the restrictions of Buyer's Remorse any more obvious > than the limitations on the invocation of a Lemon Law claim? Because Buyer's remorse is what it is and usually doesn't appear years later but a warranty does last for years and a vehicle can become a lemon (despite the industry definition) at pretty much any time. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Unless I missed something which is entirely possible, he is the origional > owner of the vehicle so it is not a used vehicle unless you are indicating Now you're twisting like a leaf... I said the Lemon Laws only applied to new vehicles. YOU said, "please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon". I did just that. Now you want to spin it around to talk about original vs. second owners. I never said his truck was a used vehicle... my claim this whole time was that his vehicle was TOO OLD to qualify under a Lemon Law. > off of the lot and the law would apply to nobody. Perhaps you might want > to > look at the third paragraph where it tlaks about the federal breech of > warranty laws that also use the three repair attempt condition. Even > though > the State lemon law might not help him, the Federal one might. But we weren't talking about Federal breech of contract laws... we (specifically, YOU) were discussing Lemon Laws, which are administered by the State, and ONLY APPLY for a limited amount of time to NEW vehicles (in other words, to the original owner). > I simply gave a suggestion and I don't recall the handbook talking about > any > federal breach of warranty laws That's because they DON'T... because they're not covered under LEMON LAWS - which is what you initially suggested. You didn't even know the difference until you read the page that I linked for you. >> By the way - how is the restrictions of Buyer's Remorse any more obvious >> than the limitations on the invocation of a Lemon Law claim? > > Because Buyer's remorse is what it is Well, who can argue with THAT definition.... "it is what it is". Fascinating... > and usually doesn't appear years later > but a warranty does last for years and a vehicle can become a lemon > (despite > the industry definition) at pretty much any time. Wow... "to hell with what the laws say... if I think something is so, then it's gotta be". Yeah - you could refer to any vehicle at any point in it's lifetime as a "lemon" - that's just a slang term. But when you start invoking Lemon Laws, that's a specific legal remedy that has very specific restrictions placed on it, so regardless of what you think, or how you feel, a 5-year old vehicle can NOT qualify for remediation under any state's "Lemon Law". Period. End of story. Period. End of story. You know it's not the end, I know its not the end, everybody here knows tbone will never let you get the last word in... <BG> Denny > > Unless I missed something which is entirely possible, he is the origional > > owner of the vehicle so it is not a used vehicle unless you are indicating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was a used vehicle... my claim this whole time was that his vehicle was TOO > OLD to qualify under a Lemon Law. Really??? How about where you said " You'll notice they specifically say "applies to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles." You were the one that specifically mentioned used cars, not me. I thought that you were trying to make a particular point on something that I may have missed but now I see that you are just being an a.shole. Now who is twisting like a leaf? > > off of the lot and the law would apply to nobody. Perhaps you might want > > to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the State, and ONLY APPLY for a limited amount of time to NEW vehicles (in > other words, to the original owner). Yea, and your point is? I simply made the comment based on your post that even though the State Lemon Laws will not help him, the federal ones may. Now I see that you are once again mentioning the original owner. Unless the OP in not the original owner, perhaps you could tell me WTF that has to do with the discussion? > > I simply gave a suggestion and I don't recall the handbook talking about > > any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which is what you initially suggested. You didn't even know the difference > until you read the page that I linked for you. I don't recall saying that I did and I don't recall anything about any Lemon Law specifics either. It does mention in the fine print that certain states have some laws that can get your money back but no specifics, imagine that. > >> By the way - how is the restrictions of Buyer's Remorse any more obvious > >> than the limitations on the invocation of a Lemon Law claim? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, who can argue with THAT definition.... "it is what it is". > Fascinating... And your definition is, smartass? > > and usually doesn't appear years later > > but a warranty does last for years and a vehicle can become a lemon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wow... "to hell with what the laws say... if I think something is so, then > it's gotta be". Where exactly did I say that or is this just another one of your half-assed interpretations? Yeah - you could refer to any vehicle at any point in it's > lifetime as a "lemon" - that's just a slang term. But when you start > invoking Lemon Laws, that's a specific legal remedy that has very specific > restrictions placed on it, so regardless of what you think, or how you feel, > a 5-year old vehicle can NOT qualify for remediation under any state's > "Lemon Law". Period. End of story. The only person that you are arguing with is yourself. I simply made a suggestion and was told that there are limits on those laws and this vehicle didn't qualify. I don't recall arguing it or insisting that it did so WTF are you whining about? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Really??? How about where you said " You'll notice they specifically say > "applies to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles." You were > the one > that specifically mentioned used cars, not me. I thought that you were > trying to make a particular point on something that I may have missed but > now I see that you are just being an a.shole. No, Tom - I'm not being an a.shole (at least I'm not trying to be). I will 100% guarantee that you were first to bring up the "new vs. used" point. It's all here in this thread, but I'm going to consolidate (and heavily paraphrase, for the sake of brevity - all the previous posts are right here in this thread if you care to fact-check) it down to the relevant portions. TB: (That's you) Claimed (or asserted, or asked - whatever) that a Lemon Law claim could help the owner of a 2000 Ram with an apparent habitual problem. GG: (That's Gary) points out, in his own unique way, that you're incorrect TL: (That's me) Says that lemon laws are restricted to the first 2-3 years, depending on the state. Gives an example of NJ's laws. Claims that no state extends LL coverage to 5 years TB: Re-claims that the warranty is in effect for 7 years, so LL coverage should apply TL: Agrees with the concept of "it should be covered under warranty", but says it doesn't qualify for a LL claim. TB: Asks me 'please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon'. NOTE: first time the concept of "new car" is brought up. TL: Posts a link to a site that says, "applies to new cars" - as a direct response to your challenge of 'only a new car can become a lemon'. TB: Argues that the OP is the original owner, so it's not a used vehicle (although no one ever claimed it was). TL: Claims TB is twisting things around... TB: Claims that I was the one who specifically mentioned used cars', then calls me an a.shole for it Okay... now, after looking through that, I can see where the confusion came. When you said, "please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon", I interpreted that as, "Any car, new or used, can be a lemon". That's why, when I posted the link, I pointed out that it specifically said "new", and mentioned nothing about used. So, if that's where the confusion originated, and you didn't mean to imply that a used vehicle (as opposed to new) could be classified as a lemon, then I apologize for making that inference (although it seemed a pretty logical inference to make, given the wording)... Oh - and I see you've resorted to name-calling... hmm... what was that you said about someone who does that? :) > > Really??? How about where you said " You'll notice they specifically say > > "applies to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles." You were [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Oh - and I see you've resorted to name-calling... hmm... what was that you > said about someone who does that? :) LOL, it was not so much name calling as getting pissed for being lectured when I am already in agreement with you and then having to deal with Gary's childish actions on top of that, well, enough said. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> I apologize for making that inference (although it seemed a pretty logical > inference to make, given the wording)... Apologies while appreciated are not necessary. Just take it easy and give me a chance every now and then. I'm not always the bad guy and am trying to get away from the BS I used to do in the past but old habits do die hard. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > The funny thing here is that your comprehension of what I said really > doesn't mean anything and BTW, was wrong. If I meant to say what you > thought I said, your translation is pretty much exactly how I would have > said it. Mr. Clinton?!?!? MR. CLINTON??? Come on out now, its ok..... thats right, the hearings are over, you're a former president now. Its ok, you can stop talking.... THWIPPPP(sound of tranq dart hitting muscle) OK boys, on three, lets get him in the truck. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > problem. Denny answered it clearly and to the point. There was simply no > need for a response like Gary's other than he just likes being an a.shole. >> > Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > either replace it or give the owner his money back. What exactly is the > purpose of a warranty if they have no intention of honoring it. T-Bone: Five years is patently ridiculous! First of all, Lemon Laws vary from state to state, there is no uniformity in time and mileage nor in the relief the consumer is entitled to. Secondly, a lemon is commonly defined in the industry as a vehicle that for whatever reason has been improperly assembled and thus causes the owner an inordinate amount of aggravation in getting corrected. Having said that, a "true" lemon would exhibit it's flaws early on in the ownership experience, thus the reason for the time limit in state lemon laws. Problems that occur later in the vehicles life can (and many times do!) occur due to the owner's driving habits, lack of maintenance, etc. which I'm sure (hmmmm maybe not!) even you would agree are NOT the manufacturers responsibility. Mike >> > that is why I asked. >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > problem. Denny answered it clearly and to the point. There was simply no > need for a response like Gary's other than he just likes being an a.shole. > T-Bone: > > Five years is patently ridiculous! First of all, Lemon Laws vary from state > to state, there is no uniformity in time and mileage nor in the relief the > consumer is entitled to. I am aware of that and that is why I asked the question but thanks for pointing out the obvious. > Secondly, a lemon is commonly defined in the industry as a vehicle that for > whatever reason has been improperly assembled and thus causes the owner an > inordinate amount of aggravation in getting corrected. Thank you for the industry definition. That make a few things clearer > Having said that, a > "true" lemon would exhibit it's flaws early on in the ownership experience, > thus the reason for the time limit in state lemon laws. Fair enough but that still doesn't change the fact this particular would fit within the Lemon Law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. The part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same problem have been unsuccessful. > Problems that occur > later in the vehicles life can (and many times do!) occur due to the owner's > driving habits, lack of maintenance, etc. which I'm sure (hmmmm maybe not!) > even you would agree are NOT the manufacturers responsibility. If the failure occurs do to the above conditions then yes, I do agree but that has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem here is that they have been unable to fix the problem after repeated attempts even though the part is still under warrantee and they ARE responsible to make whatever repairs they do perform correctly or make good to the customer in some way. Do you not agree? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> T-Bone: >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > way. > Do you not agree? I agree that they have an obligation to the customer to make things right. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your previous suggestion that he persue the Lemon Law. It doesn't apply in this case. Mike > >> T-Bone: > >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > I was just pointing out the fallacy of your previous suggestion that he > persue the Lemon Law. It doesn't apply in this case. I think that you are kinda beating a dead horse here. It was simply a combination question / suggestion that was shown not to be usable in this situation but the dealer is not fulfilling his obligation to the customer just the same. It does appear however that there is a federal law that does not have the same time limit and perhaps the OP might want to look it up and proceed from there. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Fair enough but that still doesn't change the fact this particular would > fit > within the Lemon Law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. Yeah... and if my aunt had balls... Bottom line - vehicle is too old - doesn't qualify under Lemon Law (unless you can find me a State statute that extends Lemon Law protection to, say, 7 years and/or 70,000 miles). There's no "almost qualifies", or "gee, it's so close"... it's black or white. It either does or it doesn't. In this particular case (despite to your inference to the contrary), it doesn't. > The part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same > problem have been unsuccessful. We all agree that that's not right, and can be addressed through other means. Lemon Law filings aren't one of them. > > Fair enough but that still doesn't change the fact this particular would > > fit > > within the Lemon Law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. > > Yeah... and if my aunt had balls... Does she? > Bottom line - vehicle is too old - doesn't qualify under Lemon Law (unless > you can find me a State statute that extends Lemon Law protection to, say, 7 > years and/or 70,000 miles). Fine. I thing that point has already been more than established. > There's no "almost qualifies", or "gee, it's so > close"... it's black or white. It either does or it doesn't. In this > particular case (despite to your inference to the contrary), it doesn't. Is there a particular reason for you being such an a.shole? I simply said that it followed the general requirements as far as problems and attemps to repair to be covered under the lemon law and it does. I was unaware of specific state lenght of time requirements and thought that they covered the vehicle for the entire length of its warranty. Now that I an aware of this limitation, I am not arguing the point so what are you whining about?. > > The part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same > > problem have been unsuccessful. > > We all agree that that's not right, and can be addressed through other > means. Lemon Law filings aren't one of them. I am not saying that it is. I thought that it could be and now I know different so exactly what additional point are you trying to make? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > Fair enough but that still doesn't change the fact this particular >> > would [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I am not saying that it is. I thought that it could be and now I know > different so exactly what additional point are you trying to make? I think he was just trying to show how fuckin' clueless you are. >>Does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > P.S. - 150% Wow ................ I've gotta start checking this group more often now. Haven't been ignoring it that long and old Tom has gone from the guy with answers to a regular little shade tree troll. What the hell you guys been feeding these people......lol..... Jerry |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.