Ford Inspector for Warranty Repair-Update:Warranty Denied Claim Due to Off Road Racing

[Cobra Jet]

Roll bar caused the transmission failure, gotcha

what’s next, hanging my garage door opener off the sun visor is another mod that voids my entire powertrain warranty?

racing is not generic. You need a timer or a winner. Hpde is not officially timed and there are no winners. You are over complicating this to an extreme level.

also, do you park your car in your garage? If so, you musta just voided your warranty for going “off roading” sorry, you should have read your contract better.

You're not getting it - instead of READING you're reading INTO the response and making your own interpretations.

I didn't say the "roll bar" caused the trans to fail - the roll bar falls into MANY different parts of the warranty wording for another reason for denial of claim - and where it is interpreted the car HAS BEEN modified.

You're pretty smart - but for some reason you're just trying to turn this into some BS bicker fest. Re-read my posts - because they're inline with @Creedog response above in his Post 195.

Many of you are focused on the "racing" term and that the car was designed to be tracked or pushed to x-limitations - the problem is AND the way that ESP is worded, a warranty claim CAN BE DENIED for a multitude of reasons as WORDED in the document.

I'm not saying it's right - never did. I'm pointing out that the lingo in that asinine doc leaves very few options for a "win" for ANY Consumer. There's too many "but not limited tos" where an installed ROLL BAR alone gives reason for the ESP Company, the servicing Dealership OR an Inspector to deny a claim because the vehicle HAS BEEN modified beyond its As Built factory specs PER the WORDING outlined in that doc. Doesn't mean the roll bar was the cause for a mechanical failure - it means ASIDE from any other mention of off road or "racing" in that doc and REGARDLESS if it was a non-competitive HPDE event,, that a warranty claim CAN BE rejected for OTHER reasons as defined in that doc...

If some of you are so inclined to put forth your belief the OP has any leg to stand on to getting his vehicle fixed under a warranty claim based on THAT ESP doc, then why don't you offer to tow his vehicle to your side and you get it fixed for him, totally free of any out of pocket expense?

The way that ESP doc is laid out as to how and why a Warranty can be denied is ridiculous - because it's pretty much saying "hey, thanks for buying a worthless trash warranty that does NOT cover ANYTHING once the vehicle has been modified OR taken off road! Which the 2 facts we know are, the vehicle is modified per the doc wording AND it was taken off road.

I'm for the OP - I'm merely trying to show that the DOC is worded in such a manner that the OP (or anyone else with that type of ESP and situation) is SCREWED regardless of the mechanical failure.... because of the BS legal mumbo jumbo tactics being used in THAT DOC to easily deny any claim.

Where's Jim Owens?

Sponsored

 

[Creedog]

You're not getting it - instead of READING you're reading INTO the response and making your own interpretations.

I didn't say the "roll bar" caused the trans to fail - the roll bar falls into MANY different parts of the warranty wording for another reason for denial of claim - and where it is interpreted the car HAS BEEN modified.

You're pretty smart - but for some reason you're just trying to turn this into some BS bicker fest. Re-read my posts - because they're inline with @Creedog response above in his Post 195.

Many of you are focused on the "racing" term and that the car was designed to be tracked or pushed to x-limitations - the problem is AND the way that ESP is worded, a warranty claim CAN BE DENIED for a multitude of reasons as WORDED in the document.

I'm not saying it's right - never did. I'm pointing out that the lingo in that asinine doc leaves very few options for a "win" for ANY Consumer. There's too many "but not limited tos" where an installed ROLL BAR alone gives reason for the ESP Company, the servicing Dealership OR an Inspector to deny a claim because the vehicle HAS BEEN modified beyond its As Built factory specs PER the WORDING outlined in that doc. Doesn't mean the roll bar was the cause for a mechanical failure - it means ASIDE from any other mention of off road or "racing" in that doc and REGARDLESS if it was a non-competitive HPDE event,, that a warranty claim CAN BE rejected for OTHER reasons as defined in that doc...

If some of you are so inclined to put forth your belief the OP has any leg to stand on to getting his vehicle fixed under a warranty claim based on THAT ESP doc, then why don't you offer to tow his vehicle to your side and you get it fixed for him, totally free of any out of pocket expense?

The way that ESP doc is laid out as to how and why a Warranty can be denied is ridiculous - because it's pretty much saying "hey, thanks for buying a worthless trash warranty that does NOT cover ANYTHING once the vehicle has been modified OR taken off road! Which the 2 facts we know are, the vehicle is modified per the doc wording AND it was taken off road.

I'm for the OP - I'm merely trying to show that the DOC is worded in such a manner that the OP (or anyone else with that type of ESP and situation) is SCREWED regardless of the mechanical failure.... because of the BS legal mumbo jumbo tactics being used in THAT DOC to easily deny any claim.

Where's Jim Owens?

I am using “racing” as merely the main topic and possible denial of coverage. To me it does not matter the exact reason why, the ESP regional rep determined no basis for providing coverage. I have been through a claim with ESP and was covered. That’s all I’m going to say, so I know exactly how this works with them. I have also discussed similar claims that were denied, with no exact answer as to why. They went all the way up the Corp chain, denied and Ford/ESP stopped replying to claimant at the end. Long drawn process for me and them because they take their time because they can, simple as that. Once denied extremely difficult to change their decision.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

You're not getting it - instead of READING you're reading INTO the response and making your own interpretations.

I didn't say the "roll bar" caused the trans to fail - the roll bar falls into MANY different parts of the warranty wording for another reason for denial of claim - and where it is interpreted the car HAS BEEN modified.

You're pretty smart - but for some reason you're just trying to turn this into some BS bicker fest. Re-read my posts - because they're inline with @Creedog response above in his Post 195.

Many of you are focused on the "racing" term and that the car was designed to be tracked or pushed to x-limitations - the problem is AND the way that ESP is worded, a warranty claim CAN BE DENIED for a multitude of reasons as WORDED in the document.

I'm not saying it's right - never did. I'm pointing out that the lingo in that asinine doc leaves very few options for a "win" for ANY Consumer. There's too many "but not limited tos" where an installed ROLL BAR alone gives reason for the ESP Company, the servicing Dealership OR an Inspector to deny a claim because the vehicle HAS BEEN modified beyond its As Built factory specs PER the WORDING outlined in that doc. Doesn't mean the roll bar was the cause for a mechanical failure - it means ASIDE from any other mention of off road or "racing" in that doc and REGARDLESS if it was a non-competitive HPDE event,, that a warranty claim CAN BE rejected for OTHER reasons as defined in that doc...

If some of you are so inclined to put forth your belief the OP has any leg to stand on to getting his vehicle fixed under a warranty claim based on THAT ESP doc, then why don't you offer to tow his vehicle to your side and you get it fixed for him, totally free of any out of pocket expense?

The way that ESP doc is laid out as to how and why a Warranty can be denied is ridiculous - because it's pretty much saying "hey, thanks for buying a worthless trash warranty that does NOT cover ANYTHING once the vehicle has been modified OR taken off road! Which the 2 facts we know are, the vehicle is modified per the doc wording AND it was taken off road.

I'm for the OP - I'm merely trying to show that the DOC is worded in such a manner that the OP (or anyone else with that type of ESP and situation) is SCREWED regardless of the mechanical failure.... because of the BS legal mumbo jumbo tactics being used in THAT DOC to easily deny any claim.

Where's Jim Owens?

Completely agree, I made a similar comment about being caught up on the term "racing" There isn't a legal definition of it. The dictionary definition of racing takes you to race which has many definitions lol.

You can argue that it's wrong all you want but ultimately it will be end up via either a judge decision or a jury that will decide if the denial is justified. The argument can be made that HPDEs by nature of them being called literally "High Performance Driving Event" can be considered as 'competitive driving' due to the sheer fact you are driving at an event where you are learning high performance driving techniques. It may not be defined as "racing" outlined in the warranty but it can still fall under competitive driving.

I remember there was a change in the wording for the 2020 GT350 Owners supplement from the previous years and it had more ambiguity. Jim Owens responded saying that there was nothing to worry about. People were raising the alarms that Ford trying to quietly shaft 2020 GT350 owners. I've seen alot of posts like this over the years sadly and its why I decided to not bother with the ESP. Sucks seeing people getting burned by Ford Corporate.

 

[Cobra Jet]

I am using “racing” as merely the main topic and possible denial of coverage. To me it does not matter the exact reason why, the ESP regional rep determined no basis for providing coverage. I have been through a claim with ESP and was covered. That’s all I’m going to say, so I know exactly how this works with them. I have also discussed similar claims that were denied, with no exact answer as to why. They went all the way up the Corp chain, denied and Ford/ESP stopped replying to claimant at the end. Long drawn process for me and them because they take their time because they can, simple as that. Once denied extremely difficult to change their decision.

Right - and that is the problem as outlined - doesn't matter why or how the mechanical part failed (transmission), but if the vehicle falls into any other category specified in that doc that would be cause for denial of claim - it seems the Inspector (in this specific case) "made the shoe fit" to deny the claim based on the mods done to the vehicle.... even though the car wasn't "raced" and even though the other mods had absolutely NO bearing on the mechanical failure.

It's a trash warranty, period.

In fact reading the additional docs the OP posted, that ESP (like many others) started the day the car was invoiced - meaning it ran concurrently with the 3/36 and the 5/60. Any mechanical repairs (drivetrain) necessitated during the 3/36 would have been covered by the 3/36 not the ESP. Once the 3/36 expired, any subsequent mechanical repairs (drivetrain) would come under the 5/60, not the ESP. Only AFTER the 3/36 and 5/60 was depleted by expiration of miles or years (which ever came first) would the ESP kick in.

Many buyers of these "extended" warranties do not know that and are not told that. With that said, I don't know how many years/miles this particular ESP was for, but my guess is at this stage, there isn't much left of it going by years, as I believe the longest term available was 7 or 8 years (100k or 120k miles)? If the plan was for anything below 7 years, there isn't much remaining because it will expire quicker than the miles accumulated.

This is why I've always said to do due diligence when buying any ESP, it's not only the fine print or what isn't covered to be concerned about, but that many are unaware when buying a new car and a new ESP Plan at that time of sale, it runs concurrently with already (2) comprehensive factory backed Warranties.

 

[mikedahammer]

I'm for the OP - I'm merely trying to show that the DOC is worded in such a manner that the OP (or anyone else with that type of ESP and situation) is SCREWED regardless of the mechanical failure.... because of the BS legal mumbo jumbo tactics being used in THAT DOC to easily deny any claim.

Where's Jim Owens?

I agree with you. The only counter point to make is that the disposition gave a reason as to WHY coverage was denied. Not hypothetical reasons. The ESP didn't cite or use any of the many reasons you mentioned above if they are valid. They gave me the EXACT reason they are not covering it (well to be fair they got two bites at the apple by "clarifying" their first response). They are required to state the actual cause of failure and why it is noncovered item.

They said the clutch was the causal point of failure. The dealership just gave me a proposal to "fix" the car. What I find fascinating is that there is no mention of the clutch in the repair order so I am not sure the cause of failure is really the clutch. I am still organizing all the info I have and gathering documents but you may find the following interesting:

The lead inspector said the following: going to the track is not racing - it's neglect and abuse. He also acknowledges that under the original warranty some track use is covered. But the ESP is no warranty. They are a “mechanical repair insurance.” I was also told that as soon as you leave the public road (did not specify in more detail) you have the ability to use the car freely and without restriction which is neglect and abuse -- even if the car is capable. If discovered that the car was off a public road the inspector can't trust it, and since they do not know how the vehicle was used and since they cannot prove it and you can't prove it to them, then the warranty company is out (ie they will not cover any components).

This is not a money issue for me, and you won't hear me whining. Rules are rules and if I am wrong that is fine but I want to play it out as it may impact potentially hundreds of mustang owners and honestly it is deceptive practices. All of this could have been much easier if they just put the verbiage in the contract and I wouldn’t have purchased it. If they are that adamant about not taking the car off a public road, using it above normal highway speeds, or that you cannot go to a track -- just put in the contract. I have a problem when you tell me to look at 7d and it falls under six words: losses due to negligence, including racing. Don’t try to interpret it in there after the fact when I actually need to use it. The only reason I bought it was because I don’t trust the quality of Ford components and they are expensive if they break especially for this car and original warranty covered powertrain for on track use - as it should for this car as long as you use the car within its manufacturer's specifications.

I bought the warranty because I have first-hand knowledge on how bad this car has treated me. I wouldn’t have purchased it if it defined racing as any on track activity or off road use. Off road use to me is “off roading "in the sense of trucks and Jeeps – the plain language and use of off roading (since left undefined). Racing is defined in the original warranty as competitive driving and for time. So if HPDE wasn’t allowed then why was anything warrantied before? Why did no one say you can’t do that or deny coverage? This car has had all of the oil changes and maintenance (besides brakes and rotors) performed at the Ford dealership.

If the warranty was more specific it is simple then. However the warranty company chose their words with purpose and in my opinion as a user of the contract I made my decision based on those words. We are both bound by the contract. Why did they choose to leave certain words out and certain definitions out if they are so confident with their position that it should never see a track? If you read the contract they exclude very specific actions and very specific track and performance vehicles from Ford and other manufactures. Why did they not exclude the GT350 - I don't know why and I don't care except that they chose not too?

Not to get down the rabbit hole but there are also implied warranties and since this a track ready / track capable, has track apps, has track maintenance schedules, they send you to a free track attack school, and then to say that track use on any kind voids the warranty. For those who say they are not warranty and are a service contract they are still an owned Ford insurance company, backed by Ford, sold by Ford dealerships and Ford on their website uses words like extend warranty so you have no gap in coverage, etc. Which to the me and the other average users make it appear that this is nothing other than Ford itself.

Ford needs to do better and maybe they will listen or maybe they don’t care. Either way it matters to me as principal. I don't enjoy the journey I enjoy the destination.

 

[Cobra Jet]

I agree with you. The only counter point to make is that the disposition gave a reason as to WHY coverage was denied. Not hypothetical reasons. The ESP didn't cite or use any of the many reasons you mentioned above if they are valid. They gave me the EXACT reason they are not covering it (well to be fair they got two bites at the apple by "clarifying" their first response). They are required to state the actual cause of failure and why it is noncovered item.

They said the clutch was the causal point of failure. The dealership just gave me a proposal to "fix" the car. What I find fascinating is that there is no mention of the clutch in the repair order so I am not sure the cause of failure is really the clutch. I am still organizing all the info I have and gathering documents but you may find the following interesting:

The lead inspector said the following: going to the track is not racing - it's neglect and abuse. He also acknowledges that under the original warranty some track use is covered. But the ESP is no warranty. They are a “mechanical repair insurance.” I was also told that as soon as you leave the public road (did not specify in more detail) you have the ability to use the car freely and without restriction which is neglect and abuse -- even if the car is capable. If discovered that the car was off a public road the inspector can't trust it, and since they do not know how the vehicle was used and since they cannot prove it and you can't prove it to them, then the warranty company is out (ie they will not cover any components).

This is not a money issue for me, and you won't hear me whining. Rules are rules and if I am wrong that is fine but I want to play it out as it may impact potentially hundreds of mustang owners and honestly it is deceptive practices. All of this could have been much easier if they just put the verbiage in the contract and I wouldn’t have purchased it. If they are that adamant about not taking the car off a public road, using it above normal highway speeds, or that you cannot go to a track -- just put in the contract. I have a problem when you tell me to look at 7d and it falls under six words: losses due to negligence, including racing. Don’t try to interpret it in there after the fact when I actually need to use it. The only reason I bought it was because I don’t trust the quality of Ford components and they are expensive if they break especially for this car and original warranty covered powertrain for on track use - as it should for this car as long as you use the car within its manufacturer's specifications.

I bought the warranty because I have first-hand knowledge on how bad this car has treated me. I wouldn’t have purchased it if it defined racing as any on track activity or off road use. Off road use to me is “off roading "in the sense of trucks and Jeeps – the plain language and use of off roading (since left undefined). Racing is defined in the original warranty as competitive driving and for time. So if HPDE wasn’t allowed then why was anything warrantied before? Why did no one say you can’t do that or deny coverage? this car has had all of oil changes and maintenance (besides brakes and rotors) before at the Ford dealership.

If the warranty was more specific it is simple then. However the warranty company chose their words with purpose and in my opinion as a user of the contract I made my decision based on those words. We are both bound by the contract. Why did they choose to leave certain words out and certaind definitions out if they are so confident with their position that it should never see a track? If you read the contract they exclude very specific acitons and very specific track and performance vehicles from Ford and other manufactures. Why did they not exclude the GT350 - I don't know why and I don't care except that they chose not too?

Not to get down the rabbit hole but there are also implied warranties and since this a track ready / track capable, has track apps, has track maintenance schedules, they send you to a free track attack school, that a track voids the warranty. For those who say they are not warranty and are a service contract they are still owned Ford insurance company, backed by Ford, sold by Ford dealerships and Ford on their website uses words like extend warranty so you have no gap coverage, etc. Which to the me and the other average users and extension of Ford.

Ford needs to do better and maybe they will listen or maybe they don’t care. Either way it matters to me as principal. I don't enjoy the journey I enjoy the destination.

I'd like to know how that clutch assembly was the so called failure point as well. In your images, I don't see any way that clutch assembly was the culprit for a transmission failure. With only 9k on the car, that clutch disc still has plenty of life left in it - I don't see any damages to the surface of it or the pressure plate. I don't see any deterioration of the clutch disc material in those images either or failure of the metal structure/springs. I don't recall if there was an image of the flywheel, but if so, highly doubt there was anything wrong with it.

You revealed in your above statement that the car was repaired under warranty before and nothing was questioned then, so why now... Was the car still dressed in the same manner with the mods as noted when it went in for prior repairs? Have you ran that across both the Service Writer and the ESP Inspector to more or less drive a point across to them that there wasn't any issue with prior repairs?

Or was the prior repairs covered under the 3/36 or 5/60 before the ESP kicked in based on when those prior repairs were done....

I'm totally on your side as are others - maybe my posts aren't coming off in the right context - but the way that ESP provisions are drawn up and worded, essentially ANY claim can be denied based on one singular word in that doc OR by multiple paragraphs/lines in that doc... They shouldn't be selling such and ESP for a Performance vehicle - then in the same warranty doc, it clearly states exclusions of all or many Performance Vehicles in section V....

LMfAO - what a joke (not you, but the plan and the plans trickery with the wording). I mean seriously, when reading that from top to bottom, essentially they're selling a plan to people where the plan isn't really providing "insurance" or coverage, because there are too many damn loopholes for them to totally deny any claim...

 

[mikedahammer]

You revealed in your above statement that the car was repaired under warranty before and nothing was questioned then, so why now... Was the car still dressed in the same manner with the mods as noted when it went in for prior repairs? Have you ran that across both the Service Writer and the ESP Inspector to more or less drive a point across to them that there wasn't any issue with prior repairs?

It was the 5/60 original warranty. I have never hidden or altered the car. I was encouraged by the dealer to take to the track for HPDE and they knew it went. The rollbar and fixed seat backs were recommend as additional safety because I have the convenience package. I agree and didn't take any offense to your post and appreciate any all responses --besides hotdog man--. I was just bring it back to my particular situation and to encourage discussion. It's good to have varying perspectives and not an echo chamber.

Like one of posts said, I am basically done with any HPDE events for 2023 since the car has been there since August 16. My wife likes not having it in the driveway and at this point the car usually sits until April. So time is not an issue at this point.

 

[WItoTX]

For those who say they are not warranty and are a service contract they are still an owned Ford insurance company, backed by Ford, sold by Ford dealerships and Ford on their website uses words like extend warranty so you have no gap in coverage, etc. Which to the me and the other average users make it appear that this is nothing other than Ford itself.

This is the one that gets me. Especially when you then look at how other companies manage their track based/focused cars.

I appreciate the insights. Very interesting to follow along.

 

[MikeR397]

Completely agree, I made a similar comment about being caught up on the term "racing" There isn't a legal definition of it. The dictionary definition of racing takes you to race which has many definitions lol.

You can argue that it's wrong all you want but ultimately it will be end up via either a judge decision or a jury that will decide if the denial is justified. The argument can be made that HPDEs by nature of them being called literally "High Performance Driving Event" can be considered as 'competitive driving' due to the sheer fact you are driving at an event where you are learning high performance driving techniques. It may not be defined as "racing" outlined in the warranty but it can still fall under competitive driving.

I remember there was a change in the wording for the 2020 GT350 Owners supplement from the previous years and it had more ambiguity. Jim Owens responded saying that there was nothing to worry about. People were raising the alarms that Ford trying to quietly shaft 2020 GT350 owners. I've seen alot of posts like this over the years sadly and its why I decided to not bother with the ESP. Sucks seeing people getting burned by Ford Corporate.

Let’s start here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/auto-racing

next, please look up what HPDE stands for cause it’s not a “driving event.”

I find it pretty hard to reconcile the definition of auto racing from dictionary.com with “high performance driving education.” If you have never done one, then let me say in the 70 or so I’ve done, I’ve never once “competed” against anyone, nor have I ever seen a race with protocols for sticking your hand out the window to signal “go ahead and pass me.” Please google “is Hpde racing” for more clarification.

you are very right about FORD warranty language changing in 2020 for the worse. That’s not at issue here though, it’s not a 2020 car and most importantly the only active coverage is the language of his esp. speaking of following the language of the esp, let’s stop introducing terms that are not mentioned as exclusions to coverage like “competitive driving”…that is unless you are applying for a job at the ESP in which case I think job hire credentials are strong.

apologize if this is overly snarky, I just don’t get why people are introducing their own terms as exclusions to coverage under OP’s particular esp?

 

[passwords]

I agree with you. The only counter point to make is that the disposition gave a reason as to WHY coverage was denied. Not hypothetical reasons. The ESP didn't cite or use any of the many reasons you mentioned above if they are valid. They gave me the EXACT reason they are not covering it (well to be fair they got two bites at the apple by "clarifying" their first response). They are required to state the actual cause of failure and why it is noncovered item.

They said the clutch was the causal point of failure. The dealership just gave me a proposal to "fix" the car. What I find fascinating is that there is no mention of the clutch in the repair order so I am not sure the cause of failure is really the clutch. I am still organizing all the info I have and gathering documents but you may find the following interesting:

The lead inspector said the following: going to the track is not racing - it's neglect and abuse. He also acknowledges that under the original warranty some track use is covered. But the ESP is no warranty. They are a “mechanical repair insurance.” I was also told that as soon as you leave the public road (did not specify in more detail) you have the ability to use the car freely and without restriction which is neglect and abuse -- even if the car is capable. If discovered that the car was off a public road the inspector can't trust it, and since they do not know how the vehicle was used and since they cannot prove it and you can't prove it to them, then the warranty company is out (ie they will not cover any components).

This is not a money issue for me, and you won't hear me whining. Rules are rules and if I am wrong that is fine but I want to play it out as it may impact potentially hundreds of mustang owners and honestly it is deceptive practices. All of this could have been much easier if they just put the verbiage in the contract and I wouldn’t have purchased it. If they are that adamant about not taking the car off a public road, using it above normal highway speeds, or that you cannot go to a track -- just put in the contract. I have a problem when you tell me to look at 7d and it falls under six words: losses due to negligence, including racing. Don’t try to interpret it in there after the fact when I actually need to use it. The only reason I bought it was because I don’t trust the quality of Ford components and they are expensive if they break especially for this car and original warranty covered powertrain for on track use - as it should for this car as long as you use the car within its manufacturer's specifications.

I bought the warranty because I have first-hand knowledge on how bad this car has treated me. I wouldn’t have purchased it if it defined racing as any on track activity or off road use. Off road use to me is “off roading "in the sense of trucks and Jeeps – the plain language and use of off roading (since left undefined). Racing is defined in the original warranty as competitive driving and for time. So if HPDE wasn’t allowed then why was anything warrantied before? Why did no one say you can’t do that or deny coverage? This car has had all of the oil changes and maintenance (besides brakes and rotors) performed at the Ford dealership.

If the warranty was more specific it is simple then. However the warranty company chose their words with purpose and in my opinion as a user of the contract I made my decision based on those words. We are both bound by the contract. Why did they choose to leave certain words out and certain definitions out if they are so confident with their position that it should never see a track? If you read the contract they exclude very specific actions and very specific track and performance vehicles from Ford and other manufactures. Why did they not exclude the GT350 - I don't know why and I don't care except that they chose not too?

Not to get down the rabbit hole but there are also implied warranties and since this a track ready / track capable, has track apps, has track maintenance schedules, they send you to a free track attack school, and then to say that track use on any kind voids the warranty. For those who say they are not warranty and are a service contract they are still an owned Ford insurance company, backed by Ford, sold by Ford dealerships and Ford on their website uses words like extend warranty so you have no gap in coverage, etc. Which to the me and the other average users make it appear that this is nothing other than Ford itself.

Ford needs to do better and maybe they will listen or maybe they don’t care. Either way it matters to me as principal. I don't enjoy the journey I enjoy the destination.

Admit it, you were using it as a stationary power source weren’t you? j/k

Edited to add: one of the exclusions in a version of the ESP was using the vehicle as a stationary power source. That wouldn’t be obvious if you missed it in one of the attachments.

I know more than a handful of people who have tried and lost. All of them the same situation. Modded the car, tracked it, things went wrong and wanted Ford to fix it. All spent more money and time wasted. He will not win. He took the chance on tracking his car and things went badly. Now wants Ford to cover his losses. If you can’t pay to play, don’t play. Of course you will be there by his side all the way right? Helping him fight this battle financially of course too? I bet not. I’m being brutally honest. You just don’t like it.

I would love to hear the details of all those people you know who have tried and lost, including details of how much time and money they spent. I’ll hold my breath waiting.

I’m really not sure how helping OP financially will do much good, but I’d be more than willing to kick in half of that whopping $50 filing fee. I’ll probably need to put that on a payment plan though, you know $25 doesn’t come around every day.

Your post still just boils down to “he MIGHT lose so don’t try.” There’s no actual substance to it.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Let’s start here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/auto-racing

next, please look up what HPDE stands for cause it’s not a “driving event.”

I find it pretty hard to reconcile the definition of auto racing from dictionary.com with “high performance driving education.” If you have never done one, then let me say in the 70 or so I’ve done, I’ve never once “competed” against anyone, nor have I ever seen a race with protocols for sticking your hand out the window to signal “go ahead and pass me.” Please google “is Hpde racing” for more clarification.

you are very right about FORD warranty language changing in 2020 for the worse. That’s not at issue here though, it’s not a 2020 car and most importantly the only active coverage is the language of his esp. speaking of following the language of the esp, let’s stop introducing terms that are not mentioned as exclusions to coverage like “competitive driving”…that is unless you are applying for a job at the ESP in which case I think job hire credentials are strong.

apologize if this is overly snarky, I just don’t get why people are introducing their own terms as exclusions to coverage under OP’s particular esp?

Nowhere in any of the terms is the word auto racing irrelevant lol you are only further proving my point. Anecdotal experience at an HPDE event is irrelevant to the matter, just because you aren't "competing against others" by definition of literally what compete means. Dictionaries have different terms and if you use a real dictionary like Merriam Webster it can be argued that at an HPDE you can be competing against yourself.

Taken from NASA's website:

What exactly is NASA’s HPDE program?

NASA’s High Performance Driving Event welcomes enthusiast drivers to learn the fine points of high performance driving on America’s greatest road courses in a safe and controlled manner.

You literally are learning to become a better driver. Different organizations have different definitions of what an HDPE means, but thats besides the point. It may not be considered racing in vernacular but it can easily be grouped into it due the ambiguous terminology in a contract warranty. This is why many guys get burned by OEMs from denying claims from track use. If HPDE is really not considered to be racing then this wouldn't be the case.

Introducing new terms like 'auto racing' lol? Only interpreting what the terms and agreement says, and the agreement can be made to deny which is intentionally left ambiguous. The fact of the matter is OP is not alone, I've seen guys on here be in similar situations like OP and get burned. You can rage all you want that HPDE is not racing but its not stopping Ford/ESP from warranty denials. Im saying these things because I have gone through similar issues with the VA and DOD where as you'd say "introducing my own terms" in order to advocate for myself and on behalf of others. I also worked at a VSO so I know what it means to read between the lines and the BS that screws you.

 

[Johnny Rockit]

Forgive my ignorance but I thought Mach1 and GT350-500 were race cars. Sorry the OP has to go through all this trouble to fight for a fix.

 

[WItoTX]

Forgive my ignorance but I thought Mach1 and GT350-500 were race cars. Sorry the OP has to go through all this trouble to fight for a fix.

The issue isn't whether or not they are a race car. It's what the ESP covers vs the factory warranty. And a quibbling inspector for the ESP.

 

[passwords]

Attached is the contract minus the first page that has all my info on it.

Thank you. Your term sheet looks to be basically the same as mine. Sections 3 and 7 are the same. I’m sure there are some unrelated differences - your document is dated 2019, mine is dated 2021 - but that could be as simple as an address change.

 

[ice445]

The issue isn't whether or not they are a race car. It's what the ESP covers vs the factory warranty. And a quibbling inspector for the ESP.

It's interesting to me, since usually it seems like ESP pays out without much trouble for most things.

IMO Ford should be applying pressure in these situations for GT350/500 owners. They don't seem to understand that satisfying halo customers is paramount, even if it's expensive (which is on them in the first place). Telling them to pound sand to save a dollar today means a whole lot of dollars lost tomorrow...

Sponsored