passwords
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say anything about Ford Performance parts, I was talking about the company itself as an example in the context of the ESP denial. My GT350R window sticker includes both Ford and Ford Performance. Using your logic then, my car is an “aftermarket” car. Is it a Ford Mustang, or is it a Ford Performance GT350R. The answer is yes. To both. The language you posted was specific to Ford Performance parts and is not relevant here.Can you repeat after me :
All ford performance parts are aftermarket parts
Ford performance parts are not genuine ford parts
So I guess that because you’re wrong on your first point,,you’re also wrong on you second point
A few minutes of research would have spared you this embarrassing moment
I can also point to another direct contradiction in post #272 where Ford Motor Company itself provided an affirmation of the FMSC denial. Note FMC did not attempt to argue FMSC is an aftermarket company and, therefore, has no affiliation with FMC. The lack of any statement toward that point is telling.
The reason I brought this distinction up in the first place is because while the basis for the denial has been viewed as “racing,” the basis for denial has also been stated as “negligence or racing.” The FMC letter even stated that “aggressive driving” will cause wear that is the source of the failure. So what does “negligence” mean for a GT350? What does “aggressive driving” mean for a GT350? When FMSC wrote the ESP, did FMSC not have any reasonable understanding of the use case for the GT350, viewing it no differently than an ecoboost convertible? Of course they did, because they are a part of the Ford family of companies. Therefore, because the ESP did not make ANY attempt at limiting reasonable use of the GT350 under the ESP from the way it was originally marketed, it is perfectly reasonable for all GT350 owners who purchased a FMSC/Ford Protect ESP to believe they can continue to use their cars on track and that subsequent failures that occur on track will be covered by the ESP. It is not reasonable in any way for FMSC to equate HPDE use as “negligence” or some form of prohibited “aggressive driving.”
We all know that track use is harder on mechanical components than driving to church on Sunday at speeds under 25mph. That fact is irrelevant as well. FMSC entered into a bilateral contract where the risk of loss was skewed toward FMSC when the ESP purchasers use their cars on track. That’s not unfair, it’s a poor business decision.
I’m not going to get into a pissing match here, so this will be my last post on this topic.
Sponsored