No 2020 GT500 warranty for track use?

[ZRacerLE]

My engine had a defective part that gave out during a track session. i got a new engine under warranty. The dealership mechanic told me Ford likes the Mustang out their driving against Camero.

There are TONS of S550 mustangs at HPDEs now. Ford needs to keep this trend going.

Sponsored

 

[luc]

Ok, I just had a long conversation with Jim Owens. He is a track enthusiast just like us. He is happy to see us out on the track enjoying the car the way it was engineered to be driven and the way Carol Shelby would like to see us use our vehicles.

Now, pertaining to the warranty.....

I was assured by Mr. Owens that the spirit of the warranty is not to exclude track use. When he returns from his vacation over the holiday he will review the warranty and issue a written statement to that effect.

Any update?

 

[Tomster]

Any update?

Yes. The sentiment is that FP endorses the car to be driven as built (on the track) as it was intended to be driven. The issue I am having is that although I was issued an official statement that satisfied the discrepancy, I asked for it in writing with an authorized signature in a form that could be distributed. The answer was no (so far). Talks continue.

I'm sure that FP doesn't want everyone to email in and ask for the newly interpreted warranty intent in writing on a case by case basis. I wouldn't want to do that to FP. We are not at that point. What I am trying to say is that although they have committed to supporting the vehicle for the track in writing to me, they are (FP) shy to issue a memo with a signature on it for the masses.

The issue is semantics. The word in question is "damage". I think they chose their words carefully. Damage in a verb context is to intentionally cause harm or render unserviceable...... abuse (as in YOU damaged the item). "Damage" as a noun or adjective is the description of the serviceability of the part (engine, trans, etc). Let's say that the engine or trans blows because of a defect in materials and workmanship. By the strictest definition of damage, and if it occurred on the track, you are not covered due to the exclusion clause.

So the intent of the warranty, as conveyed by FP and Jim Owens is that Ford encourages you to track your vehicle as it was built and intended to be used. Ford is trying to protect themselves (IMHO) from fraudulent warranty claims and abuse. The problem that I have with this is that the warranty can be interpreted two different ways. This leads to some degree of subjective enforcement that I find unacceptable. I believe Ford chose the wording of the warranty exlusion so that any claim can be evaluated and approved or denied on a case by case basis.

I'm fine with that as long as Ford puts in writing, for the masses, the interpretation I received.

I believe Ford has their heart in the right place, but until each owner of one of these track cars receives an official document (or one is made available) clarifying the intent of the warranty towards track use, then this isnt done.

Give me a few more days to see if I can come to some kind of resolution before we all bombard FP for their own personal "official statement" via email.

 

[stanglife]

Id be surprised. In these days where everyone sues everyone...I doubt their attorneys would sign off on that and I doubt an employee would write something like that for us and risk his job without having an attorney approve it.

I have to wonder if someone abused this and at some point Ford said "we have to do something here". I wish it was worded differently but your theory and logic behind why it is what it is, is totally believable.

 

[Tomster]

Id be surprised. In these days where everyone sues everyone...I doubt their attorneys would sign off on that and I doubt an employee would write something like that for us and risk his job without having an attorney approve it.

I have to wonder if someone abused this and at some point Ford said "we have to do something here". I wish it was worded differently but your theory and logic behind why it is what it is, is totally believable.

I dont think so. You may text me for more info.

 

[BeastAR]

Yes. The sentiment is that FP endorses the car to be driven as built (on the track) as it was intended to be driven. The issue I am having is that although I was issued an official statement that satisfied the discrepancy, I asked for it in writing with an authorized signature in a form that could be distributed. The answer was no (so far). Talks continue.

I'm sure that FP doesn't want everyone to email in and ask for the newly interpreted warranty intent in writing on a case by case basis. I wouldn't want to do that to FP. We are not at that point. What I am trying to say is that although they have committed to supporting the vehicle for the track in writing to me, they are (FP) shy to issue a memo with a signature on it for the masses.

The issue is semantics. The word in question is "damage". I think they chose their words carefully. Damage in a verb context is to intentionally cause harm or render unserviceable...... abuse (as in YOU damaged the item). "Damage" as a noun or adjective is the description of the serviceability of the part (engine, trans, etc). Let's say that the engine or trans blows because of a defect in materials and workmanship. By the strictest definition of damage, and if it occurred on the track, you are not covered due to the exclusion clause.

So the intent of the warranty, as conveyed by FP and Jim Owens is that Ford encourages you to track your vehicle as it was built and intended to be used. Ford is trying to protect themselves (IMHO) from fraudulent warranty claims and abuse. The problem that I have with this is that the warranty can be interpreted two different ways. This leads to some degree of subjective enforcement that I find unacceptable. I believe Ford chose the wording of the warranty exlusion so that any claim can be evaluated and approved or denied on a case by case basis.

I'm fine with that as long as Ford puts in writing, for the masses, the interpretation I received.

I believe Ford has their heart in the right place, but until each owner of one of these track cars receives an official document (or one is made available) clarifying the intent of the warranty towards track use, then this isnt done.

Give me a few more days to see if I can come to some kind of resolution before we all bombard FP for their own personal "official statement" via email.

Its good that FP supports racing and that nature. I get all the attorney stuff, but you would think they should be able to put out a memorandum stating "we support racing, and will warranty you vehicle as long as you are not competing in time trials or competition sanctioned event(s)" and this is what we meant to say... However, it is stated for the gt350 models (Sorry, at work...)

Good job keeping on top of this! Keep up the good work.

Id be surprised. In these days where everyone sues everyone...I doubt their attorneys would sign off on that and I doubt an employee would write something like that for us and risk his job without having an attorney approve it.

I have to wonder if someone abused this and at some point Ford said "we have to do something here". I wish it was worded differently but your theory and logic behind why it is what it is, is totally believable.

It really is sad that this is the world we live in.... Common sense is out the window, and everything literally has to be stated. "coffee HOT"...

 

[PUR_SPD]

Been following the thread since inception. @Tomster thank you for bird dogging.

I had the engine blow on my Boss 302 when only about 3000 miles - yes it was on the track - yes Ford knew. Within 3 days I had a new crate motor and transmission housing delivered to the dealership and installed - all under warranty. They did a great job and FP took care of it all.

They did the right thing.

 

[Tomster]

Im not really worried about it right now. The formalities just need to be buttoned up due to the warranty verbiage.

 

[luc]

Yes. The sentiment is that FP endorses the car to be driven as built (on the track) as it was intended to be driven. The issue I am having is that although I was issued an official statement that satisfied the discrepancy, I asked for it in writing with an authorized signature in a form that could be distributed. The answer was no (so far). Talks continue.

I'm sure that FP doesn't want everyone to email in and ask for the newly interpreted warranty intent in writing on a case by case basis. I wouldn't want to do that to FP. We are not at that point. What I am trying to say is that although they have committed to supporting the vehicle for the track in writing to me, they are (FP) shy to issue a memo with a signature on it for the masses.

The issue is semantics. The word in question is "damage". I think they chose their words carefully. Damage in a verb context is to intentionally cause harm or render unserviceable...... abuse (as in YOU damaged the item). "Damage" as a noun or adjective is the description of the serviceability of the part (engine, trans, etc). Let's say that the engine or trans blows because of a defect in materials and workmanship. By the strictest definition of damage, and if it occurred on the track, you are not covered due to the exclusion clause.

So the intent of the warranty, as conveyed by FP and Jim Owens is that Ford encourages you to track your vehicle as it was built and intended to be used. Ford is trying to protect themselves (IMHO) from fraudulent warranty claims and abuse. The problem that I have with this is that the warranty can be interpreted two different ways. This leads to some degree of subjective enforcement that I find unacceptable. I believe Ford chose the wording of the warranty exlusion so that any claim can be evaluated and approved or denied on a case by case basis.

I'm fine with that as long as Ford puts in writing, for the masses, the interpretation I received.

I believe Ford has their heart in the right place, but until each owner of one of these track cars receives an official document (or one is made available) clarifying the intent of the warranty towards track use, then this isnt done.

Give me a few more days to see if I can come to some kind of resolution before we all bombard FP for their own personal "official statement" via email.

Thanks for the update
If I read you correctly, they assured you in writing ( email I imagine) that they will cover you for any track related damages but are not willing to do the same for every owners by changing/modifying/updating in a formal and binding way, their warranty policy
Obviously you have some “connections “ that the regular owner don’t have and therefore they are willing to treat you differently
It’s not at all a critic directed at you, especially because what you are trying to accomplish for all owners, but simply the reality of Ford not wanting to officially and bindingly change their warranty

 

[Tomster]

Thanks for the update
If I read you correctly, they assured you in writing ( email I imagine) that they will cover you for any track related damages but are not willing to do the same for every owners by changing/modifying/updating in a formal and binding way, their warranty policy
Obviously you have some “connections “ that the regular owner don’t have and therefore they are willing to treat you differently
It’s not at all a critic directed at you, especially because what you are trying to accomplish for all owners, but simply the reality of Ford not going to officially and bindingly changing their warranty

I can't share anything in writing at this time, but as I was verbally told by Jim Owens, the spirit of the warranty is that if your car is stock as delivered from the factory, and operated within the specifications in the manual, and you suffer from an issue that is the result of materials or workmanship, you are covered under the warranty.

Im Working on something for public consumption but that may take some time.

I'll be the first to tell you, I'm nobody special, lol

 

[JPC]

Does anyone know what they mean by "or other event"?? (car show)
Feels to me this gives Ford ability not cover a warranty claim

Please keep your GT500 in garage and don't drive it

 

[luc]

I can't share anything in writing at this time, but as I was verbally told by Jim Owens, the spirit of the warranty is that if your car is stock as delivered from the factory, and operated within the specifications in the manual, and you suffer from an issue that is the result of materials or workmanship, you are covered under the warranty.

Im Working on something for public consumption but that may take some time.

I'll be the first to tell you, I'm nobody special, lol

Any news ?

 

[Tomster]

we are all going to find out so

Any news ?

Nope. Ill ask one more time from all parties involved for written clarification that I can share. If they wont provide it, I'll let you know via this thread. At that time, I would say it would be fair for anyone and everyone with a concern to bombard FP with calls, emails, and live chats.

It is of my opinion that the verbiage was specific on their end. This leaves them discretion to handle each track related warranty claim on a case by case basis.

I suffered a failure of a CV joint on the track. Its small potatoes, so i don't think there will be any resistance to my warranty claim. The real test would be if someone blew an engine and/or trans.......

Give me until Wednesday.

 

[luc]

we are all going to find out so
Nope. Ill ask one more time from all parties involved for written clarification that I can share. If they wont provide it, I'll let you know via this thread. At that time, I would say it would be fair for anyone and everyone with a concern to bombard FP with calls, emails, and live chats.

It is of my opinion that the verbiage was specific on their end. This leaves them discretion to handle each track related warranty claim on a case by case basis.

I suffered a failure of a CV joint on the track. Its small potatoes, so i don't think there will be any resistance to my warranty claim. The real test would be if someone blew an engine and/or trans.......

Give me until Wednesday.

Was that driver or passenger side ?

 

[Tomster]

Was that driver or passenger side ?

Passenger

Sponsored