POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
08-08-2006 | 08:02 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:01:17 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:34:19 -0400, "hyundaitech"
><notpublic@not.public.com> wrote:
>
>>When Hyundai indroduced the 5/60--10/100 program, they intended for it to
>>be temporary. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away in about the same
>>period as the OP suggested. But, as has been pointed out, if it becomes
>>the industry standard, they'll be pretty much forced to keep it.
>
>Chrysler used to have the 7/70 thing, I bought two Chryslers during
>that period. Now I own two Hyundais...so I guess I like the ideafew
>months to a year. If they dropped the warranty it might affect my
>decision.
Just an additional note...with the Chrylser you NEEDED the 7/70
warranty. No issues at all with my 03 or 05 Hyundai Excel GT's.
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:34:19 -0400, "hyundaitech"
><notpublic@not.public.com> wrote:
>
>>When Hyundai indroduced the 5/60--10/100 program, they intended for it to
>>be temporary. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away in about the same
>>period as the OP suggested. But, as has been pointed out, if it becomes
>>the industry standard, they'll be pretty much forced to keep it.
>
>Chrysler used to have the 7/70 thing, I bought two Chryslers during
>that period. Now I own two Hyundais...so I guess I like the ideafew
>months to a year. If they dropped the warranty it might affect my
>decision.
Just an additional note...with the Chrylser you NEEDED the 7/70
warranty. No issues at all with my 03 or 05 Hyundai Excel GT's.
08-08-2006 | 08:02 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:01:17 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:34:19 -0400, "hyundaitech"
><notpublic@not.public.com> wrote:
>
>>When Hyundai indroduced the 5/60--10/100 program, they intended for it to
>>be temporary. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away in about the same
>>period as the OP suggested. But, as has been pointed out, if it becomes
>>the industry standard, they'll be pretty much forced to keep it.
>
>Chrysler used to have the 7/70 thing, I bought two Chryslers during
>that period. Now I own two Hyundais...so I guess I like the ideafew
>months to a year. If they dropped the warranty it might affect my
>decision.
Just an additional note...with the Chrylser you NEEDED the 7/70
warranty. No issues at all with my 03 or 05 Hyundai Excel GT's.
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:34:19 -0400, "hyundaitech"
><notpublic@not.public.com> wrote:
>
>>When Hyundai indroduced the 5/60--10/100 program, they intended for it to
>>be temporary. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away in about the same
>>period as the OP suggested. But, as has been pointed out, if it becomes
>>the industry standard, they'll be pretty much forced to keep it.
>
>Chrysler used to have the 7/70 thing, I bought two Chryslers during
>that period. Now I own two Hyundais...so I guess I like the ideafew
>months to a year. If they dropped the warranty it might affect my
>decision.
Just an additional note...with the Chrylser you NEEDED the 7/70
warranty. No issues at all with my 03 or 05 Hyundai Excel GT's.
08-08-2006 | 11:20 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
money... no company is going to do that.
On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
vehicle ownership.
The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
forth.
If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
residual values high.
The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
fairy and/or the earth is flat.
Tim
Matt Whiting wrote:
> nothermark wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
> >>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
> > should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
> > Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
> > something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
> > usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
> > their peril.
>
> Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
> a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
> warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
> quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
> Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
> People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> that seems logically!
>
> Matt
see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
money... no company is going to do that.
On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
vehicle ownership.
The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
forth.
If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
residual values high.
The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
fairy and/or the earth is flat.
Tim
Matt Whiting wrote:
> nothermark wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
> >>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
> > should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
> > Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
> > something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
> > usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
> > their peril.
>
> Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
> a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
> warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
> quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
> Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
> People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> that seems logically!
>
> Matt
08-08-2006 | 11:20 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
money... no company is going to do that.
On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
vehicle ownership.
The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
forth.
If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
residual values high.
The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
fairy and/or the earth is flat.
Tim
Matt Whiting wrote:
> nothermark wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
> >>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
> > should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
> > Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
> > something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
> > usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
> > their peril.
>
> Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
> a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
> warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
> quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
> Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
> People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> that seems logically!
>
> Matt
see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
money... no company is going to do that.
On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
vehicle ownership.
The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
forth.
If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
residual values high.
The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
fairy and/or the earth is flat.
Tim
Matt Whiting wrote:
> nothermark wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
> >>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
> > should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
> > Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
> > something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
> > usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
> > their peril.
>
> Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
> a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
> warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
> quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
> Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
> People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> that seems logically!
>
> Matt
08-08-2006 | 12:48 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
--
Bob
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
--
Bob
08-08-2006 | 12:48 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
--
Bob
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
--
Bob
08-08-2006 | 05:13 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
NotBloodyLikely wrote:
> Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
> see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
> Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
> certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
> warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
>
> I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
> they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
> money... no company is going to do that.
>
> On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
> on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
> vehicle ownership.
>
> The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
> The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
> shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
> time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
> manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
> warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
> it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
> hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
> doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
> forth.
>
> If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
> residual values high.
>
> The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
> doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
> with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
>
> I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
> poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
> fairy and/or the earth is flat.
The highest quality cars (Toyota) have fairly short warranties. Also
the cars that hold their resale value best (Toyota) have fairly short
warranties. So you won't buy a Toyota because the warranty is too short?
I look at it as the warranty only matters if a car has marginal quality.
With a Toyota, I wouldn't even care what the warranty was.
Matt
> Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
> see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
> Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
> certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
> warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
>
> I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
> they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
> money... no company is going to do that.
>
> On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
> on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
> vehicle ownership.
>
> The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
> The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
> shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
> time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
> manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
> warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
> it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
> hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
> doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
> forth.
>
> If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
> residual values high.
>
> The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
> doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
> with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
>
> I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
> poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
> fairy and/or the earth is flat.
The highest quality cars (Toyota) have fairly short warranties. Also
the cars that hold their resale value best (Toyota) have fairly short
warranties. So you won't buy a Toyota because the warranty is too short?
I look at it as the warranty only matters if a car has marginal quality.
With a Toyota, I wouldn't even care what the warranty was.
Matt
08-08-2006 | 05:13 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
NotBloodyLikely wrote:
> Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
> see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
> Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
> certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
> warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
>
> I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
> they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
> money... no company is going to do that.
>
> On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
> on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
> vehicle ownership.
>
> The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
> The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
> shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
> time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
> manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
> warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
> it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
> hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
> doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
> forth.
>
> If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
> residual values high.
>
> The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
> doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
> with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
>
> I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
> poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
> fairy and/or the earth is flat.
The highest quality cars (Toyota) have fairly short warranties. Also
the cars that hold their resale value best (Toyota) have fairly short
warranties. So you won't buy a Toyota because the warranty is too short?
I look at it as the warranty only matters if a car has marginal quality.
With a Toyota, I wouldn't even care what the warranty was.
Matt
> Do people actually associate a long warranty with poor quality? I can
> see where some may think that, but I bet they're in the minority.
> Although I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective, and I'm
> certainly no student of automotive history, I've always thought longer
> warranties make for better cars, for a few reasons.
>
> I think most people look at it from the manufacturers' perspective: If
> they build a crappy car and put a long warranty on it, they're losing
> money... no company is going to do that.
>
> On the other hand, if they build an average car and put a long warranty
> on it, they'll break even and both parties will share the headaches of
> vehicle ownership.
>
> The best thing for everyone is the offer of a very long warranty. Why?
> The manufacturer must be confident that their car will stay out of the
> shop, because otherwise they're on the hook for repairs for a long
> time. Everyone wins: the consumer gets a good vehicle, the
> manufacturer makes a good dollar and a good reputation, and the
> warranty is there for peace of mind even though very few need to use
> it. The only person who loses is the shop guy/gal (sorry
> hyundaitech)... although they probably could keep busy with work that
> doesn't fall under warranty, like accidents and modifications and so
> forth.
>
> If the warranty is transferable, it would also help keep resale and
> residual values high.
>
> The worst are the short warranties... because then the manufacturer
> doesn't care if their product winds up in the shop after 24-36 months
> with a pooched transmission... it isn't their problem.
>
> I agree that some may take the view that a long warranty is a sign of
> poor quality, but those same people probably still believe in the tooth
> fairy and/or the earth is flat.
The highest quality cars (Toyota) have fairly short warranties. Also
the cars that hold their resale value best (Toyota) have fairly short
warranties. So you won't buy a Toyota because the warranty is too short?
I look at it as the warranty only matters if a car has marginal quality.
With a Toyota, I wouldn't even care what the warranty was.
Matt
08-08-2006 | 05:14 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>that seems logically!
>
>
>
> I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
Matt
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>that seems logically!
>
>
>
> I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
Matt
08-08-2006 | 05:14 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>that seems logically!
>
>
>
> I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
Matt
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>that seems logically!
>
>
>
> I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
Matt
08-08-2006 | 07:17 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> >>that seems logically!
> >
> >
> >
> > I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>
> I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
> where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>
> Matt
I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
manufacturer has in his vehicles!
08-08-2006 | 07:17 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
> >>that seems logically!
> >
> >
> >
> > I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>
> I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
> where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>
> Matt
I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
manufacturer has in his vehicles!
08-08-2006 | 08:19 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Vineeth wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>>>that seems logically!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>>
>>I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
>>where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
> I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
> great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
> I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
> manufacturer has in his vehicles!
Sorry, history doesn't support that. Long warranties have always (I
can't think of a single exception, can you?) been offered by
manufacturers' who were having quality problems and needed a marketing
ploy to overcome that.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>>>that seems logically!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>>
>>I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
>>where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
> I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
> great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
> I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
> manufacturer has in his vehicles!
Sorry, history doesn't support that. Long warranties have always (I
can't think of a single exception, can you?) been offered by
manufacturers' who were having quality problems and needed a marketing
ploy to overcome that.
Matt
08-08-2006 | 08:19 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
Vineeth wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>>>that seems logically!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>>
>>I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
>>where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
> I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
> great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
> I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
> manufacturer has in his vehicles!
Sorry, history doesn't support that. Long warranties have always (I
can't think of a single exception, can you?) been offered by
manufacturers' who were having quality problems and needed a marketing
ploy to overcome that.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>>>>that seems logically!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I associate it with manufacturers that stand behind their cars.
>>
>>I associate it with manufacturers who need to! I'd rather have a Toyota
>>where I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
> I really don't think Toyota's & for that matter Hondas are really that
> great today! We all saw what a mess the new camry transmissions were...
> I think Bob has a point, Longer warranties just show the confidence a
> manufacturer has in his vehicles!
Sorry, history doesn't support that. Long warranties have always (I
can't think of a single exception, can you?) been offered by
manufacturers' who were having quality problems and needed a marketing
ploy to overcome that.
Matt
08-08-2006 | 09:54 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: POLL: How long do you think the 10 year Warranty will last?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:48:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
>>>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
>> should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
>> Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
>> something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
>> usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
>> their peril.
>
>Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
>a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
>warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
>quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
>Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
>
>Matt
Interesting that you say that. Everyone I have told about the Hyundai
warranty looks at it as a statement of quality from Hyundai. Perhaps
they recall that the Rolls Royce warranty was something like the life
of the owner. Perhaps it is a question of knowing the offerer. If
Ford or GM matched Hyundai tomorrow they would be looked upon with
suspicion, if Honda did it would be a recognition of their quality.
;-)
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:42:01 -0400, jtees4 <jtees4@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think it will be gone in about two years. Just won't be necessary
>>>anymore from a Company Standpoint. What do you all think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why drop it if they are able to maintain their quality and price? You
>> should look into some of what Malcom Baldrigdge preached and the
>> Asians bought into. Total cost of ownership is cheaper to build
>> something right the first time rather than pay for service over the
>> usefull life. Many folks understand that. Detroit ignores it at
>> their peril.
>
>Because it carries the stigma of the cars being low quality if they need
>a warranty that long to sell them. Remember, that almost all extended
>warranties like that have been instituted by car makers who were having
>quality problems (Chrysler with their original 7/70 plan and Hyundai and
>Kia when their stuff was junk).
>
>People tend to associate long warranties with low quality as backward as
>that seems logically!
>
>Matt
Interesting that you say that. Everyone I have told about the Hyundai
warranty looks at it as a statement of quality from Hyundai. Perhaps
they recall that the Rolls Royce warranty was something like the life
of the owner. Perhaps it is a question of knowing the offerer. If
Ford or GM matched Hyundai tomorrow they would be looked upon with
suspicion, if Honda did it would be a recognition of their quality.
;-)