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

[mikedahammer]

So their main argument (besides that ESP is not Ford) was that your clutch had some wear and the tires also showed high wear ? Damn if that's their case, then most of us should have our warranties voided lmao!

Their argument is it appears to have been used in a race like manner. Read my post above. I think they are only going to look at big ticket items. I guarantee they pulled the data from the car and couldn't find anything (missed shifts or over revs - which they won't).

Sponsored

 

[ecoboost321]

To the OP, thank you for giving us updates and feedback during your initial claim and arbitration process. Makes me feel that despite having a factory warranty or an ESP contract, once our Ford Mustangs put one wheel on a race track or other off-road event, we are likely on our own for any big ticket claims

 

[5550snotamerc]

They tried to paint the picture that racing is on or off track and acted like it was impossible for a Ford product to fail due to workmanship.

OP to Ford, "Two questions: Who was I racing? Who won?"

 

[WItoTX]

Okay mister armchair quarterback....Just messing with you...when it is your turn (which I hope never comes) that is a great idea and I can help you if you need it! It was a lot of junk to present on the spot and digest in a short format on the fly, but I feel good about it.

Regardless of the ruling my take way is that Ford is not going to back down and make sure your car is bone stock and even then if they think the failure was something catastrophic they will say you were racing. They tried to paint the picture that racing is on or off track and acted like it was impossible for a Ford product to fail due to workmanship.

It the words of Antoine Dodson: Hide your kids, hide your wife...

Hahaha I'm sorry...it sounds like you presented a really good case, and Ford showed up with some junior in house attorneys.

We all know HPDE isn't racing. But showing that, without presenting any actual data showing rpms, g force, or video in car is just so tough. And how does one show that feeling a person gets when they are racing their buddy at a go cart track, their buddy passes them, and that desire to put their buddy in the wall because no one wants to lose?

And then show that feeling at HPDE when you enter the corner exactly as you have been trying to do for 3 sessions, and the car rotates exactly as predicted, and you feel like the car is wrapped around you like a glove, all the while with no one around you, and it's just you, the car and a track?

I know those two things are different. But how do you show that to someone who likely knows little more about cars than when the tire light comes on, go to discount tire?

It sure sounds like you put forward a great argument. I hope you can post the hearing. In my other life, I do dispute resolution in construction projects, and making arguments based on the merits, rather than what a word does or doesn't mean is oddly fun to me.

 

[gone_n_60]

Man! this is some kinda sideshow but with a lot at stake. Great write up and seemed to me you handled it as best could be. You didn't mention in closing that thousands of Mustang owners are watching this outcome (LOL maybe not that many but they don't know that)?

 

[GrabberBargeCaptain]

Their argument is it appears to have been used in a race like manner. Read my post above. I think they are only going to look at big ticket items. I guarantee they pulled the data from the car and couldn't find anything (missed shifts or over revs - which they won't).

Right.. but those items can wear on the street.. hell every other car around here has bald tires. Dumb.

 

[sukhoi_584th]

He comes out and says that using the vehicle on track is not the reason for the denial and that using the car on the track is not automatically the reason for a denial. It is my specific use of the vehicle is the reason or the denial.

This is the part I find strangest. They admitted you're fine driving your car at the track as long as you don't drive it too hard, but won't define too hard except to say at some point it becomes close enough to racing they won't cover it. Huh?

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

This is the part I find strangest. They admitted you're fine driving your car at the track as long as you don't drive it too hard, but won't define too hard except to say at some point it becomes close enough to racing they won't cover it. Huh?

It's not strange as if they had said that the whole "track-ready" spiel for gt350/gt500/mach1 would be impossible to maintain. So unlike that warranty-dofus, they obviously understood they could not say anything but that he's fine taking the car to the track.

You do have a good point regarding at what point did his activities cross the border into what they consider racing that they don't want to warrant though. It could have been good to have capitalized on it there and then, as I'm suspecting it would be 1) difficult for the Ford guys to quantify there and then unless they were better prepared than they sound, 2) it would probably be something the OP could easily deny he was doing, perhaps even show he was not doing.

 

[BlkMach10510]

Al of us waiting for the result of this...

 

[Tomster]

It all comes down to the definition of racing and how it is interpreted.

 

[WItoTX]

Al of us waiting for the result of this...

I'm pretty sure OP said 3 days after the hearing, so end of today/early tomorrow.

IIRC, it's non-binding arbitration, so Ford paying out is something totally different from admitting they are wrong.

 

[mikedahammer]

I am interested in the analysis, if any, the arbitrator puts in his decision. I hope the arbitrator actually puts in the effort to define racing as he sees it and to recognize/link the inconsistencies between the FMSC and FMCO. I also hope he keeps in mind how the contract intentionally left racing undefined in the terms of the contract and how that could mislead consumers if track use/HPDE/racing is considered synonomous by the contract servicer.

It really is a shame on Ford though, that if you review the information from the very start and what I was told by Austin (off the public road or closed course you are automatically denied due to racing) to what they said in arbitration. There is zero accountability from what I can tell. Ford needs to be spanked for this. This should eithe rbe from an internal or external force. I am curious how many claims there are from GT350 owners or how many claims Ford expects and that is why they are preparing for this (just my thought).

The frustrating part is that Ford can do and say whatever they want but then when the record matters they can ignore what Austin said about why it was denied and then on record say it is fine to go to track --makes no sense.

To me it is classic big business strong arming the little guy and making me be their circus act by having me jump through all of these hoops to potentially have the outcome be what it should have been from the start. Ford has lost my respect and my business. I believe their unwritten policy is if you take it to the track it is a rubber stamp denial if the failure is related to power train. I would really like to sit with a higher up at Ford just to understand the rationale.

Regardless of the decision I am glad I pursued it.

Don't get hung up on the 3 days because I am not sure that is actually the requirement, but it shouldn't be much longer at this point.

 

[BlkMach10510]

I am interested in the analysis, if any, the arbitrator puts in his decision. I hope the arbitrator actually puts in the effort to define racing as he sees it and to recognize/link the inconsistencies between the FMSC and FMCO. I also hope he keeps in mind how the contract intentionally left racing undefined in the terms of the contract and how that could mislead consumers if track use/HPDE/racing is considered synonomous by the contract servicer.

It really is a shame on Ford though, that if you review the information from the very start and what I was told by Austin (off the public road or closed course you are automatically denied due to racing) to what they said in arbitration. There is zero accountability from what I can tell. Ford needs to be spanked for this. This should eithe rbe from an internal or external force. I am curious how many claims there are from GT350 owners or how many claims Ford expects and that is why they are preparing for this (just my thought).

The frustrating part is that Ford can do and say whatever they want but then when the record matters they can ignore what Austin said about why it was denied and then on record say it is fine to go to track --makes no sense.

To me it is classic big business strong arming the little guy and making me be their circus act by having me jump through all of these hoops to potentially have the outcome be what it should have been from the start. Ford has lost my respect and my business. I believe their unwritten policy is if you take it to the track it is a rubber stamp denial if the failure is related to power train. I would really like to sit with a higher up at Ford just to understand the rationale.

Regardless of the decision I am glad I pursued it.

Don't get hung up on the 3 days because I am not sure that is actually the requirement, but it shouldn't be much longer at this point.

Who pays the arbitrator?

 

[mikedahammer]

Who pays the arbitrator?

The arbitrator is part of a panel and I believe gets a stipend from the BBB. They are probably obligated to do a minimum number of dispute resolutions and probably get an increase if they do more. However there is no compensation paid by Ford or by me for this one case.

I had to pay $50 to file the complaint with the BBB.

 

[Mrhavasu]

The arbitration decision is normally binding on the car maker,
but not on the consumer. I have been thru it 6 times and won
5 out of 6. Documentation is key along with being perceived as
reasonable in my opinion. I think Mike did a great job and
should prevail. Of course, a good arbitrator is key.

Sponsored