SRT Warranty Claim Horrible Experience

[mnc2886]

I hate having to make this post. First, this isn't about an engine failure thank goodness. Andy from VE has been very helpful in guiding me through what steps to take in handling this. He tried to get the claim covered first, but was denied. I have tried and even was told I was going to be good to go only to get let down today. I filed this claim 6 weeks ago and I've refrained from saying anything up to this point, but I think it is time to vent here. Here is the email I sent Andy this afternoon summarizing everything;


Andy,

Per our phone call, I wanted to send you an email highlighting the experience I just had with SRT customer care.

As you are aware, I purchased a 2014 Viper that has the GT package, which according to the Moroney Sticker (attached), I am supposed to have the adjustable suspension. As you are also aware, I don't have the suspension on the car. It is missing. I called SRT customer care as you suggested to file a warranty claim. At first, the representative (John) was very helpful and responsive. I've sent him everything he has asked for, including copies of the Moroney Sticker. He states he has been in contact with you on the matter as well.

Two weeks ago, he updated me that everything was looking good to get the claim covered and he'd follow up with me soon.

A couple of points that need to be notated;


John said he couldn't pull a copy of the window sticker from their system, but he did see if the "build sheet" that my car did not have the adjustable suspension. That is proof the car was not packaged as per the description on the Moroney Sticker.
You had mentioned that your SRT rep said the Moroney Sticker was the ruling document as to what the car is supposed to have and so did John.
Last week he said he needed me to resend copies of the Moroney Sticker and was concerned that the previous owner or dealership may have removed the items prior to me taking ownership of the car. We know this is false because he had the build sheet showing the car never had it and using common sense would tell you that no one would go through that trouble. Not to mention, the car is even missing the buttons for the adjustable suspension on the dash. Even if someone wanted to remove the suspension, why would you also replace those buttons? You have to take out that entire module.


As of today, John has decided that SRT will not warranty the claim because they don't know what the previous owner may have done. He then subsequently denied ever having the build sheet showing how the vehicle was packaged. Lastly, he says he agrees that it defies common sense that someone would've changed the suspension and gone through the trouble of changing out the dash piece, but there is nothing he can do. So, apparently he is "on my side," all while lying to me and telling me he personally is denying it and no one in management will talk to me "as the decision is his alone to make."

This is beyond ridiculous and I'd hate to have to take this to the next level to get resolved. I am hoping that you might be able to assist.

Please call me if you need anymore details.

Any ideas? SRT messed up, the car hasn't been modified or touched, and they won't take responsibility. Seems to be a trend.....

[AZTVR]

Any ideas? SRT messed up, the car hasn't been modified or touched, and they won't take responsibility. Seems to be a trend.....

If you can't find someone associated with Dodge to make this right, then you need to consult a lawyer. Personally, I don't think that this is a warranty issue; and, they should have said so instead of some other cop out words, if that is what they really believe. ( caveat: I am not a lawyer ! )

The warranty says that it covers the parts that were on your car when it left the manufacturing plant. Those are very specific words for them to use. It appears that both you and the Chrysler rep agree that these parts were not on your vehicle when it left the plant.

This seems more like a case of misrepresentation. Perhaps it can be handled in small claims court. Just my opinion, FWIW.

[nx91notch]

There is a comment in the conversation with SRT about previous owners...did you buy the car used?

And there is reason to remove the dash piece with the buttons.....you would need that if you had a non dual mode suspension car and wanted to install dual mode.

Think of this scenario....guy has a Viper with the dual mode suspension....has a friend with base model suspension. Guy with dual suspension tells buddy he is trading in the car....guy with non dual mode says hey before you do that let's swap springs....they will never know. It could happen with how easily everything bolts up and goes on these cars.

If you bought the car new that's a different story. Dodge needs to fix it or you need to look into the dealer you bought the car from.

[The_Ruski_Driver]

There is a comment in the conversation with SRT about previous owners...did you buy the car used?

And there is reason to remove the dash piece with the buttons.....you would need that if you had a non dual mode suspension car and wanted to install dual mode.

Think of this scenario....guy has a Viper with the dual mode suspension....has a friend with base model suspension. Guy with dual suspension tells buddy he is trading in the car....guy with non dual mode says hey before you do that let's swap springs....they will never know. It could happen with how easily everything bolts up and goes on these cars.

If you bought the car new that's a different story. Dodge needs to fix it or you need to look into the dealer you bought the car from.

My thoughts exactly. If you bought the car new it's a different story but you bought it used and never checked if it had dual suspension? I'm not sure how this is a warranty issue, unless I misread?

[Dr.Ron]

Sorry you have this issue my man.

I don't see how this is a warranty issue either. I doubt they goofed on the production line also. Maybe it was removed by someone as mentioned above?
Did you not know it was supposed to have the adjustable suspension and didn't before you bought it?
That was one of the 1st things i was looking for in my search...those 2 buttons.

Good luck! I hope you get a satisfactory outcome.

Ron

[Dman]

Well, the OP says the rep from Dodge confirmed the build sheet was missing the suspension, and a GT pkg car is supposed to have it, so .... sounds like if someone took it, it was the guy on the assembly line, not the original owner.

OP, you need to secure that build sheet, that to me is your golden ticket, without it, it's a s/he said sort of thing. This is just FCA looking for any way to not cover an issue with a car, which we already know, even out most powerful dealers, like VE, have no pull now. This may not be a true warranty item, but it's an FCA issue to correct in mis-representing the car on the Moroney/sticker.

Maybe try calling Gerry Wood, they're the largest viper dealer on earth now, maybe they'll have some pull (tongue in cheek, kind of)

[Dr.Ron]

Well, the OP says the rep from Dodge confirmed the build sheet was missing the suspension, and a GT pkg car is supposed to have it, so .... sounds like if someone took it, it was the guy on the assembly line, not the original owner.

Ahh, didn't see that. I skimmed that email part....Yeah, sounds fishy!

[Ludington1]

This link was provided by donk_316 some time in the past and can possibly pull your build sheet. It is NOT the window sticker, maybe you can compare the two:

www.dodge.com/webselfservice/BuildSheetServlet?vin=XXXX

You replace the "XXXX" at the end with your VIN number. Good luck, sounds like a crazy situation.

Darren

[Voice of Reason]

If it's on the build sheet and not on the car then Dodge needs to own up and make good on the mistake, especially when the window sticker clearly states it's supposed to be on the car. And if they don't I'd talk to a lawyer.

[7TH_SIGN]

If it's on the build sheet and not on the car then Dodge needs to own up and make good on the mistake, especially when the window sticker clearly states it's supposed to be on the car. And if they don't I'd talk to a lawyer.

X2
How the heck can a manufacturer argue otherwise!?!? Well then again we saw the Arrow PCM and engine failure argument.

If this car was purchased new by you and you are the first owner and the window sticker states you are supposed to have that adjustable suspension, there should be no arguing the matter. FCA needs to fix the issue.

If your not the first owner of the car it's considered "used" and you will be fighting a very difficult battle trying to get the suspension back. It's sold "as is". They may not verbally tell you this but it's without a doubt in print. Most likely small fine print.

[plumcrazy]

SRT will always disappoint

[FLATOUT]

Very funny, albeit inaccurate ;)

The car was not purchased through us, new or preowned but I am helping the customer who is a service customer of mine to get this resolved. Hopefully Chrysler steps up and does the right thing.

It is worth noting that today was the first time Chrysler outright "denied" the claim, so I am hopeful that we will come to a reasonable solution. I am working it on my end as well so we'll see.

Andy


Well, the OP says the rep from Dodge confirmed the build sheet was missing the suspension, and a GT pkg car is supposed to have it, so .... sounds like if someone took it, it was the guy on the assembly line, not the original owner.

OP, you need to secure that build sheet, that to me is your golden ticket, without it, it's a s/he said sort of thing. This is just FCA looking for any way to not cover an issue with a car, which we already know, even out most powerful dealers, like VE, have no pull now. This may not be a true warranty item, but it's an FCA issue to correct in mis-representing the car on the Moroney/sticker.

Maybe try calling Gerry Wood, they're the largest viper dealer on earth now, maybe they'll have some pull (tongue in cheek, kind of)

[City]

Very funny, albeit inaccurate ;)

The car was not purchased through us, new or preowned but I am helping the customer who is a service customer of mine to get this resolved. Hopefully Chrysler steps up and does the right thing.

It is worth noting that today was the first time Chrysler outright "denied" the claim, so I am hopeful that we will come to a reasonable solution. I am working it on my end as well so we'll see.

Andy

Andy or the OP,

Can either confirm the purchase; new or used?

[FLATOUT]

Andy or the OP,

Can either confirm the purchase; new or used?

Purchased pre owned.

[Dman]

Very funny, albeit inaccurate ;)

The car was not purchased through us, new or preowned but I am helping the customer who is a service customer of mine to get this resolved. Hopefully Chrysler steps up and does the right thing.

It is worth noting that today was the first time Chrysler outright "denied" the claim, so I am hopeful that we will come to a reasonable solution. I am working it on my end as well so we'll see.

Andy

Hey I read it on the interwebs so it must be true. lol and facepalm.

[repiV]

Can't any dealer lookup the "build sheet"? I've had them do it on ram trucks I've bought to confirm gear ratios and such.

[7TH_SIGN]

Purchased pre owned.

He's out of luck. Quite frankly FCA has zero fault and I hate FCA but if any fault is to be delegated it falls upon the OP as he was buying a pre owned car and should have inspected it. Also I place blame on whoever he purchased it from for not disclosing the missing suspension. I don't believe the factory messed up and I wouldn't be surprised if the previous owner uninstalled the springs or even whoever the OP purchased the car from. Just my opinion.

[mnc2886]

Guys, I purchased the car preowned, but it shouldn't matter because the Moroney Sticker, which is the bible the manufacturers go by says the car should have it. The car doesn't and their build sheet says it was never installed. I thought it was a slam dunk and so did my rep. Then all of a sudden they are denying it and they are denying the existence of the build sheet.
By the way, I view this as a warranty claim and so did my rep. Not being the original owner shouldn't void my claim either. If that's thr case, no used car, not matter how new would ever be able to use it's warranty. It is a cop out and the guy knew it. I could tell by talking to him he didn't want to tell me no and he even said he agrees with me on the issue. This is SRT management stepping in. I'm betting because I'm probably not the only car with this mishap.

[repiV]

2140221403

[mnc2886]

He's out of luck. Quite frankly FCA has zero fault and I hate FCA but if any fault is to be delegated it falls upon the OP as he was buying a pre owned car and should have inspected it. Also I place blame on whoever he purchased it from for not disclosing the missing suspension. I don't believe the factory messed up and I wouldn't be surprised if the previous owner uninstalled the springs or even whoever the OP purchased the car from. Just my opinion.

Can't say this enough; the build sheet showed the car never had it. The sticker says it does. Buying a used car is as is from the dealer you are buying from, but just because your car is used doesn't mean you don't get the factory warranty if it is still within the term and mileage.

[7TH_SIGN]

Can't say this enough; the build sheet showed the car never had it. The sticker says it does. Buying a used car is as is from the dealer you are buying from, but just because your car is used doesn't mean you don't get the factory warranty if it is still within the term and mileage.

Brother I understand your frustration but I don't think a warranty covers something like this. I would think this is more of a legal issue. Also who's to say the previous owner or dealership that sold you the car didn't remove the suspension? Thats going to be your biggest hurdle in fighting FCA.

By the way, I purchased a 99 ACR with 800 miles on it from a dealership. I found later that it was missing the ACR suspension and wheels. Not sure who removed he parts but it was my fault for not catching what options were supposed to be on the car.

[mnc2886]

Brother I understand your frustration but I don't think a warranty covers something like this. Also who's to say the previous owner or dealership that sold you the car didn't remove the suspension? Thats going to be your biggest hurdle in fighting FCA.

By the way, I purchased a 99 ACR with 800 miles on it from a dealership. I found later that it was missing the ACR suspension and wheels. Not sure who removed he parts but it was my fault for not catching what options were supposed to be on the car.

I appreciate what you are saying, but you are missing the biggest point. SRT shows the car didn't receive it from the factory. They have the data that shows it was never installed. It was never there for someone to remove. SRT made a packaging mistake, they even agreed, and now they are backing out.

[Bruce H.]

I feel sorry for the OP but I can't see how FCA has any responsibility to anyone but the original owner at time of delivery regarding installed equipment and options. Warranty is the only thing that extends to a subsequent owner, and this is definitely not a warranty matter. Also can't see any responsibility on the part of the reselling dealer to verify or disclose any changes to original equipment, and they're covered once an emissions and safety certificate is issued where required I would think.

Buyers need to check used car purchases extremely carefully. FCA can have no way of controlling what is done to a car after it leaves the factory. What doesn't make sense to me is if the car didn't have the dual mode installed why the original owner didn't have it corrected.

[supersnake]

On the sticker is it in the options where it was charged money for, Or is it in the standard equipment on the left. I've seen other vehicles that say they have a certain standard equipment and its not there, But if it is a Option and charged for it should be there

[mnc2886]

On the sticker is it in the options where it was charged money for, Or is it in the standard equipment on the left. I've seen other vehicles that say they have a certain standard equipment and its not there, But if it is a Option and charged for it should be there

It is under the options, not standard.

[mnc2886]

I feel sorry for the OP but I can't see how FCA has any responsibility to anyone but the original owner at time of delivery regarding installed equipment and options. Warranty is the only thing that extends to a subsequent owner, and this is definitely not a warranty matter. Also can't see any responsibility on the part of the reselling dealer to verify or disclose any changes to original equipment, and they're covered once an emissions and safety certificate is issued where required I would think.

Buyers need to check used car purchases extremely carefully. FCA can have no way of controlling what is done to a car after it leaves the factory. What doesn't make sense to me is if the car didn't have the dual mode installed why the original owner didn't have it corrected.

I disagree with it not being warranty and when this started SRT thought it was as well. You buy something that is packaged and it is missing a component, it is a warranty claim on the package.

[ViperJon]

How many times has the phrase "FCA should step up and do the right thing" been used lately. They never do.

[lawdogg149]

Sounds alot like my car. I bought new however and it had two driver seat backs. Yea 9 months later I sold it and the seat still had not arrived. FCA has gone down hill fast.

21404

[Voice of Reason]

if my 2 mode suspension stopped working it would be a warranty claim right? Well the OP's 2 mode suspension has stopped working. This isn't a case of the original owner removing factory parts. In that case all subsequent owners are SOL. The OP said there's proof the build sheet is missing the components. Components that were paid for on the sticker as part of a package. It's a warranty claim. But the way Dodge is treating owners like garbage lately I'm not surprised and has me thinking of selling my car.

In the words of our president elect - Sad!

[AZTVR]

I disagree with it not being warranty and when this started SRT thought it was as well. You buy something that is packaged and it is missing a component, it is a warranty claim on the package.

The question is, where in the warranty does it say that. What phrase in the warranty are you referring to? I am not trying to claim that FCA should not be responsible, only that I do not see that the bumper-to-bumper warranty contract applies.

I'm just saying that you may be fixating on a remedy path (warranty claim) that has no legal basis. If FCA was a "good guy" that may have worked; but, you are saying that it didn't. Now, you need to pursue the correct path, IMHO.

I had assumed that you were the first owner when I made my post.
Do you have the original window sticker that was on the car; or, just one that was printed off the internet. Like others said, how do you know that the original buyer didn't agree to buy the car as is; without the dual mode suspension, and negotiated a price with the original dealer with that in mind

[7TH_SIGN]

I appreciate what you are saying, but you are missing the biggest point. SRT shows the car didn't receive it from the factory. They have the data that shows it was never installed. It was never there for someone to remove. SRT made a packaging mistake, they even agreed, and now they are backing out.

I apologize. I thought you meant that the window sticker stated it had the suspension.

If FCA is admitting that the suspension was never installed then they should obviously stand behind it and get you the suspension. However I have heard from owners who had failed motors and the Arrow PCM state that FCA admitted their engine was defective from the factory and the Arrow PCM did not cause the failure yet they refused warranty coverage.

I hope they come through for you.

[City]

I'm not about to offer much here as there appears to be a great deal of mitigating circumstances, some of which may require a court of law to decide. Making it more difficult here is that the OP is obviously hell bent on having FCA take care of this equipment omission problem, something with which I think we can all sympathize. Nonetheless, I do agree that the original buyer would have a far better case.

There are so many facts that are not evident to this discussion. For instance (and completely without accusation or knowledge): was the secondary purchase made without pre-inspection
what were the secondary purchase seller's representations with regard to options, i.e., was this problem hidden from the secondary buyer
was the secondary buyer aware of the equipment deficit at the time of purchase and, if so, was there an associated discount

I think it is difficult to come to any conclusion without significantly more information. I also wonder whether the liability lies with FCA or the secondary seller?

[Bill Pemberton]

Call me ---- 402-677-5864

[One Viper Bite]

If I learned anything from my 8 month Gen V ownership nightmare, it's that, when buying a used car, especially at this caliber, you absolutely MUST do all of your homework. Granted, all of the issues I had with my Gen V I could not have spotted, even with a pre-purchase inspection. I still should have been more thorough when purchasing my used 13 GTS.

If the car you purchased was advertised to you as having the dual mode suspension, that is something you should have checked for when test driving it and inspecting it before purchase. It's quite difficult to miss a detail like that, but I can understand being emotional when buying a car like this and missing something like that.

I'm sorry you are dealing with this issue and I really hope FCA comes through for you on this one, but, the way I see it, FCA has no obligation from a warranty perspective on this issue.

Take it from someone that learned the hard way! Be more thorough and attentive the next time you buy a used supercar/sports car!

[FLATOUT]

Call me ---- 402-677-5864

Thanks Bill,

We are just begining to work on this further with Chrysler. The Customer care case was opened and I have just sent everything along to our regional rep. Really no need to muddy the water even further. Now that it has been denied we'll work our angles as well to see if we can help him get it resolved.

It should be noted that the "correct" suspension was never installed on this car. The HVAC surround, the dampers, and even more telling the Can Bus connector in the trunk itself is neatly wrapped in the protective tape/foam and shows no signs of tampering.

I think the only real argument they could make would be that they don't need to replace due to it being the second owner. We'll see how it's handled.

Andy

[Dr.Ron]

SRT should make this right, but I wonder why the original owner didn't bring this up to SRT??

Ron

[AZTVR]

SRT should make this right, but I wonder why the original owner didn't bring this up to SRT??

Ron How do we know that the original owner did not bring this up, or if he negotiated a price based on how the car was delivered and accepted the car knowing the discrepancy ?

[Bruce H.]

I disagree with it not being warranty and when this started SRT thought it was as well. You buy something that is packaged and it is missing a component, it is a warranty claim on the package.

Well I guess it all comes down to defining what the warranty covers, or if FCA decides to allow a claim for something beyond what the warranty covers. I wouldn't hang your hat on the initial opinion of an FCA employee on the phone, and it still doesn't sound like a warranty item to me either.

Isn't this a case where FCA built a car with a base suspension instead of the dual mode and the dealer and original owner accepted it? The car could have been refused based on the contract not being properly fulfilled just the same as if they had painted it the wrong color. The purchaser would have had a valid claim at time of delivery based on the contract, not based on a service warranty, which claim he may have done and received some sort of compensation for...or not. Either way the car's build was accepted a long time ago, and I can't see FCA's obligation being anything more that to repair or replace original components that fail under normal use.

This just seems like a huge ask at this point, and if it were me I'd kick myself for not discovering that missing feature before buying it, and certainly wouldn't feel FCA had wronged me as a second owner. Not sure if Andy thinks you have any grounds for a claim with FCA, but props to him for making an effort!

[ViperSmith]

The warranty should cover the car with what it was delivered as. If the build sheet lacks the suspension and the car lacks the suspension (though it was supposed to have it) - then they should honor it as sold.

More shitty FCA bullshit.

[ACRucrazy]

Sounds alot like my car. I bought new however and it had two driver seat backs. Yea 9 months later I sold it and the seat still had not arrived. FCA has gone down hill fast.

21404

Fix It Again Tony

- - - Updated - - -


I appreciate what you are saying, but you are missing the biggest point. SRT shows the car didn't receive it from the factory. They have the data that shows it was never installed. It was never there for someone to remove. SRT made a packaging mistake, they even agreed, and now they are backing out.

Yep. I'd be pissed.

[7TH_SIGN]

The warranty should cover the car with what it was delivered as. If the build sheet lacks the suspension and the car lacks the suspension (though it was supposed to have it) - then they should honor it as sold.

More shitty FCA bullshit.

Basically. I'm waiting for someone to come in and bring up the "even the Porsche GT3's had engine failures" to make GEN V owners feel better. Its clear that the factory that produce these cars have some of the worst quality control. Is it safe to say that customer service from FCA is just as bad? Anyways so glad I don't have to deal with this anymore. Sucks seeing owners having to jump through hoops to get their six figure car right after the factory screwed it up.

[mnc2886]

I appreciate all the feedback and comments. Hope to get to a positive resolution soon.

[Terminator02]

I feel sorry for the OP but I can't see how FCA has any responsibility to anyone but the original owner at time of delivery regarding installed equipment and options. Warranty is the only thing that extends to a subsequent owner, and this is definitely not a warranty matter. Also can't see any responsibility on the part of the reselling dealer to verify or disclose any changes to original equipment, and they're covered once an emissions and safety certificate is issued where required I would think.

Buyers need to check used car purchases extremely carefully. FCA can have no way of controlling what is done to a car after it leaves the factory. What doesn't make sense to me is if the car didn't have the dual mode installed why the original owner didn't have it corrected.

Bruce come on! The build sheet says the suspension was never installed yet it was sold and stickers as if it was installed. So the previous owner paid for a suspension the car didn't have and now this owner paid for a suspension it doesn't have. By your logic, all new owners should have a viper tech go over every car in case something was missed during factory installation. No way. The parts weren't installed from the factory, there's proof of it and two owners paid sticker price for a suspension not on the car. That's a lawsuit.

[mnc2886]

Bruce come on! The build sheet says the suspension was never installed yet it was sold and stickers as if it was installed. So the previous owner paid for a suspension the car didn't have and now this owner paid for a suspension it doesn't have. By your logic, all new owners should have a viper tech go over every car in case something was missed during factory installation. No way. The parts weren't installed from the factory, there's proof of it and two owners paid sticker price for a suspension not on the car. That's a lawsuit.

Exactly. My understanding from the advice I've received so far is the Moroney Sticker is a legally binding contract from the manufacturer to the consumer. It is there to protect us from dealers messing with cars and manufacturers making mistakes. Ever asked a dealer to swap equipment on inventory? They won't ever do it and that's why. Even SRT said the Moroney Sticker is the "bible."

[Elganja]

This link was provided by donk_316 some time in the past and can possibly pull your build sheet. It is NOT the window sticker, maybe you can compare the two:

www.dodge.com/webselfservice/BuildSheetServlet?vin=XXXX

You replace the "XXXX" at the end with your VIN number. Good luck, sounds like a crazy situation.

Darren

this worked for me... I also have a GT package and the buildsheet shows this:

21408

OP, did you try this link? what does it say for the buildsheet?

[ViperSmith]

Exactly. My understanding from the advice I've received so far is the Moroney Sticker is a legally binding contract from the manufacturer to the consumer. It is there to protect us from dealers messing with cars and manufacturers making mistakes. Ever asked a dealer to swap equipment on inventory? They won't ever do it and that's why. Even SRT said the Moroney Sticker is the "bible."

So, factory doesn't install it. QA doesnt catch it missing. Delivering dealer doesn't catch it. Reselling dealer doesn't catch it.

But it's the 2nd owners fault that none of the above caught it.

Yeah that makes sense. /sarcasm

[Bruce H.]

So the previous owner paid for a suspension the car didn't have

We don't know that, and it seems highly unlikely that the original owner wouldn't have noticed and been compensated in some way. Wouldn't you have noticed a major feature like that after choosing to pay extra for it on that model? I know I checked all the major features of the model I ordered and paid extra for. FCA would have had to make it right, and would have been legally obligated to that buyer under contract as they didn't deliver what was ordered. What remedy was made at the time we'll never know, but it seems obvious to me that FCA's obligation for that remedy ends with the original owner's contract. Should FCA also remedy every owner like the current one, and then the next when he sells it? But I'm not sure any of that is even relevant.


and now this owner paid for a suspension it doesn't have.

We don't know anything about this owner's purchase agreement or any dealer representations that were made. That's the only place I can see possible grounds for a lawsuit.

Each poster is expressing their opinions to help the OP decide which action he wants to take next if his current efforts fail. If he chooses legal recourse I would think his lawyer will consider whether this is a warranty issue, a contractual issue between FCA and the original owner, or between the reseller and current owner to be the critical question. The OP seems to feel it's a warranty issue and a number of the opinions above have been that it's not. Hopefully there's a remedy for him somewhere, but I'm afraid it might be a case of Caveat Emptor.

[ViperSmith]

We don't know that, and it seems highly unlikely that the original owner wouldn't have noticed and been compensated in some way. Wouldn't you have noticed a major feature like that after choosing to pay extra for it on that model? I know I checked all the major features of the model I ordered and paid extra for. FCA would have had to make it right, and would have been legally obligated to that buyer under contract as they didn't deliver what was ordered. What remedy was made at the time we'll never know, but it seems obvious to me that FCA's obligation for that remedy ends with the original owner's contract. Should FCA also remedy every owner like the current one, and then the next when he sells it?



We don't know anything about this owner's purchase agreement or any dealer representations that were made. That's the only place I can see possible grounds for a lawsuit.

Each poster is expressing their opinions to help the OP decide which action he wants to take next if his current efforts fail. If he chooses legal recourse I would think his lawyer will consider whether this is a warranty issue, a contractual issue between FCA and the original owner, or between the reseller and current owner to be the critical question. The OP seems to feel it's a warranty issue and a number of the opinions above have been that it's not. Hopefully there's a remedy for him somewhere, but I'm afraid it might be a case of Caveat Emptor.

Andy indicated all the cables in the car were untouched (still had foam wrappers on end). Unless it is an overly elaborate con job - it was never insfalled as if should have been.

FCA is a terrible company I won't do business with again. They fail to do the right thing at every turn.

[Voice of Reason]

We don't know that, and it seems highly unlikely that the original owner wouldn't have noticed and been compensated in some way. Wouldn't you have noticed a major feature like that after choosing to pay extra for it on that model? I know I checked all the major features of the model I ordered and paid extra for. FCA would have had to make it right, and would have been legally obligated to that buyer under contract as they didn't deliver what was ordered. What remedy was made at the time we'll never know, but it seems obvious to me that FCA's obligation for that remedy ends with the original owner's contract. Should FCA also remedy every owner like the current one, and then the next when he sells it? But I'm not sure any of that is even relevant.



We don't know anything about this owner's purchase agreement or any dealer representations that were made. That's the only place I can see possible grounds for a lawsuit.

Each poster is expressing their opinions to help the OP decide which action he wants to take next if his current efforts fail. If he chooses legal recourse I would think his lawyer will consider whether this is a warranty issue, a contractual issue between FCA and the original owner, or between the reseller and current owner to be the critical question. The OP seems to feel it's a warranty issue and a number of the opinions above have been that it's not. Hopefully there's a remedy for him somewhere, but I'm afraid it might be a case of Caveat Emptor.

You're giving the average consumer WAY too much credit in knowing the features of the car they are buying. I still meet Gen V owners who have no idea how to use the various features of our infotainment center. 2 way adjustable suspension? That's the stuff of science fiction! Anyone who's posting on here knows what to look for. But the average buyer is more likely to fall for an email phishing scam than know what 2 mode suspension is.

[7TH_SIGN]

this worked for me... I also have a GT package and the buildsheet shows this:

21408

OP, did you try this link? what does it say for the buildsheet?

OP did you try this? Can you post it?

[commandomatt]

How do we know that the original owner did not bring this up, or if he negotiated a price based on how the car was delivered and accepted the car knowing the discrepancy ?

Definitely a tricky situation but I am agreeing with AZ.......unless the original owner of the car can confirm that he didn't know about the missing parts, I don't see how the OP can make any claims. Maybe the original owner did in fact point this discrepancy out and was sent the replacement suspension parts to install. Rather than doing that, decided to just sell them instead of going through the trouble of tearing into his car. Or as AZ says, maybe he was compensated.

I am not defending FCA as they have proven to be anything but customer friendly these days but there are way to many unknowns in this case to just lay the blame on them.

Track down and if possibly, involve the original owner to set the record straight and then move forward from there

[ViperJon]

So, factory doesn't install it. QA doesnt catch it missing. Delivering dealer doesn't catch it. Reselling dealer doesn't catch it.


And the original purchaser most likely didn't catch it either, suggesting that he did and negotiated a better price is laughably improbable.
This is just another case of FCA having a choice to do the right thing in the interest of customer goodwill or say FU to a guy buying a used discontinued car.
We already know their initial reaction. I'll be amazed if they change their stance on this.

[Bill Pemberton]

This is actually cut and dried and surprised Dodge is even trying to argue. Not even a warranty issue , it is a build issue , as the Monroney Sticker is a consumer protection device since there are 5000+ parts on the average vehicle. No way anyone would know what was on their car without said listing. Futile for them to even fight , and has nothing to do with second owner --- FCA will lose this as the Monroney is the proof of the vehicles build and if something was forgotten it is their responsibility to affect a repair/fix. Have had this happen on numerous cars over the years and never once did the manufacturer come out on top. Ludicrous for them to argue as imagine various State and National Statutes for consumer protection define the mandate manufacturers have to adhere to.

[sadil]

Totally agree with people siding with OP.

All you other gentlemen have gone soft or FCA paying you out loll.

There are lots of things that I would notice missing on my car because I am an enthusiast, but there are a whole bunch of things even I wouldn't notice. Some people are just not as "involved" with their vehicles. If there is factory documentation that the suspension was missed and its a Viper GT, what other proof do you guys need to bring this debate to a close?

No OEM manufacturer just says "oh shit, we missed installing that" and just sends you some parts to your door for you to install. GM would likely recall the vehicle or send the parts to the dealer to install. If parts were sent then the claim would have been recorded. Now if the dealer did some under the table deal to get the car sold without starting a claim, that is another story. However, that is what goodwill is all about.

[F2V]

"What doesn't make sense to me is if the car didn't have the dual mode installed why the original owner didn't have it corrected.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. Anyway, if the dealer advertised and/or sold the USED car as having this option, my claim would be with them. They are the negligent and responsible party here imo, for not checking the option claim for accuracy...but then again the old adage applies "let the buyer beware".

[Bill Pemberton]

Frankly many folks have no idea what all the options are , and if the first owner was unknowledgeable then he may never have been aware the item was missing. This was a 14 vehicle , the GT was a new option and likely the suspension was missed in the build since it still was technically an SRT. Again , not listed on the build sheet , but on the Monroney , Monroney holds sway and they can not even go back to the old message at the bottom of most brochures/websites / etc. of subject to change without notice, and tough , Monroney is the legal and final answer. A change can occur on a build option, but it has to be shown on the Monroney. No matter what, this is a simple case of consumer protection. Heck, Dealers have to make sure a new car has a Monroney sticker on every new car, or there are penalties, just for this reason. The fact that FCA missed something in a build is not a consumer's problem , it is the integrity of the manufacturer and a requirement simply stated right there on that Window Sticker. No buyer beware here, the system was not installed --- time for the "whoops" to be over and a correction made.

[Malu59RT]

I hate to ask this question, but does anyone else have a 2014 Viper GT? In 2013 you could buy a SRT Viper or a SRT Viper GTS. In 2014, they added the SRT Viper TA. IIRC, for the 2015 model year, they introduced the GT cars with the dual vent hoods, dual mode suspension, and leather/alcantara seats (2015 Dodge Viper SRT, Dodge Viper GT, Dodge Viper GTS, and Dodge Viper TA 2.0).

There was a "Grand Touring Package" for the 13-14 cars, but they didn't have the partial GTS options. If your car is a 2014 with the adjusted price on the Monroney sticker, they may have accidentally added the "GT" package on the monroney when they re-printed the sticker, since that was the option package for the 2015's.

Here is an example of a 2013 SRT with the Grand Touring Package and options listed out:

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/686251321/overview/

https://www.cstatic-images.com/supersized/SIY/14/11685114.1479793445900.674F5DE77AFE4C32AFA793677C7 31894.JPG

[Elganja]

Frankly a many folks have no idea what all the options are , and if the first owner was unknowledgeable then he may never have been aware the item was missing. This was a 14 vehicle , the GT was a new option and likely the suspension was missed in the build since it still was technically an SRT. Again , not listed on the build sheet , but on the Monroney , Monroney holds sway and they can not even go back to the old message at the bottom of most brochures/websites / etc. of subject to change without notice, and tough , Monroney is the legal and final answer. A change can occur on a build option, but it has to be shown on the Monroney. No matter what, this is a simple case of consumer protection. Heck, Dealers have to make sure a new car has a Monroney sticker on every new car, or there are penalties, just for this reason. The fact that FCA missed something in a build is not a consumer's problem , it is the integrity of the manufacturer and a requirement simply stated right there on that Window Sticker. No buyer beware here, the system was not installed --- time for the "whoops" to be over and a correction made.

is there a statue of limitations on claims?

hope the OP gets things resolved.. but dodge will do everything it can to NOT help out the consumer which is sad

[7TH_SIGN]

Frankly a many folks have no idea what all the options are , and if the first owner was unknowledgeable then he may never have been aware the item was missing. This was a 14 vehicle , the GT was a new option and likely the suspension was missed in the build since it still was technically an SRT. Again , not listed on the build sheet , but on the Monroney , Monroney holds sway and they can not even go back to the old message at the bottom of most brochures/websites / etc. of subject to change without notice, and tough , Monroney is the legal and final answer. A change can occur on a build option, but it has to be shown on the Monroney. No matter what, this is a simple case of consumer protection. Heck, Dealers have to make sure a new car has a Monroney sticker on every new car, or there are penalties, just for this reason. The fact that FCA missed something in a build is not a consumer's problem , it is the integrity of the manufacturer and a requirement simply stated right there on that Window Sticker. No buyer beware here, the system was not installed --- time for the "whoops" to be over and a correction made.

Makes sense. What argument does the OP have against FCA when they say "no we are not responsible because this car was sold used, as is, to the OP by the dealership and not us." Will FCA really buy the OP's claim that the current suspension on the car appears to never have been "tampered" with?

[Bruce H.]

This is actually cut and dried and surprised Dodge is even trying to argue. Not even a warranty issue , it is a build issue , as the Monroney Sticker is a consumer protection device since there are 5000+ parts on the average vehicle. No way anyone would know what was on their car without said listing. Futile for them to even fight , and has nothing to do with second owner --- FCA will lose this as the Monroney is the proof of the vehicles build and if something was forgotten it is their responsibility to affect a repair/fix. Have had this happen on numerous cars over the years and never once did the manufacturer come out on top. Ludicrous for them to argue as imagine various State and National Statutes for consumer protection define the mandate manufacturers have to adhere to.

That's really encouraging. And that being the case, FCA's best remedy would be to install the dual mode when discovered rather than compensate in any other way as the problem would resurface with subsequent owners and they'd have to deal with it all over again.

[AZTVR]

Totally agree with people siding with OP.

All you other gentlemen have gone soft or FCA paying you out loll.


So, you agree with the OP and others that this is an issue that is covered by the warranty ?

[City]

Frankly a many folks have no idea what all the options are , and if the first owner was unknowledgeable then he may never have been aware the item was missing. This was a 14 vehicle , the GT was a new option and likely the suspension was missed in the build since it still was technically an SRT. Again , not listed on the build sheet , but on the Monroney , Monroney holds sway and they can not even go back to the old message at the bottom of most brochures/websites / etc. of subject to change without notice, and tough , Monroney is the legal and final answer. A change can occur on a build option, but it has to be shown on the Monroney. No matter what, this is a simple case of consumer protection. Heck, Dealers have to make sure a new car has a Monroney sticker on every new car, or there are penalties, just for this reason. The fact that FCA missed something in a build is not a consumer's problem , it is the integrity of the manufacturer and a requirement simply stated right there on that Window Sticker. No buyer beware here, the system was not installed --- time for the "whoops" to be over and a correction made.

We're all hopeful for the OP. But I'm curious as to how FCA's obligation and liability runs to a second owner here. Again, and despite my poor reading comprehension skills, do we know if the original owner bought the car with knowledge of the missing option? Do we know if the OP repurchased the car from a dealer or private individual and what that dealer or reseller disclosed? I can clearly see the OP's recourse to the dealer/reseller, but without clear information regarding the original factory sale, I'm not clear on FCA's liability (regardless of their recent poor reputation).

[Terminator02]

We don't know that, and it seems highly unlikely that the original owner wouldn't have noticed and been compensated in some way. Wouldn't you have noticed a major feature like that after choosing to pay extra for it on that model? I know I checked all the major features of the model I ordered and paid extra for. FCA would have had to make it right, and would have been legally obligated to that buyer under contract as they didn't deliver what was ordered. What remedy was made at the time we'll never know, but it seems obvious to me that FCA's obligation for that remedy ends with the original owner's contract. Should FCA also remedy every owner like the current one, and then the next when he sells it? But I'm not sure any of that is even relevant.



We don't know anything about this owner's purchase agreement or any dealer representations that were made. That's the only place I can see possible grounds for a lawsuit.

Each poster is expressing their opinions to help the OP decide which action he wants to take next if his current efforts fail. If he chooses legal recourse I would think his lawyer will consider whether this is a warranty issue, a contractual issue between FCA and the original owner, or between the reseller and current owner to be the critical question. The OP seems to feel it's a warranty issue and a number of the opinions above have been that it's not. Hopefully there's a remedy for him somewhere, but I'm afraid it might be a case of Caveat Emptor.

Wow. I don't know what to say. The car was proven to have been built with this feature from the highest source possible unless you are assuming someone doctored the Monroney Sticker? The car never had the suspension installed. End of story. Everything else you are writing is actually conjecture from your end assuming people were up to no good. The reality is there are so many damn models and options of vipers coupled with many different types of owners. Even enthusiast owners of say the TA model can't even give 100% accurate facts of the models evidenced by a zillion page thread of what constitutes are real TA! I can completely see someone who is just a wealthy person wanting to "try out" a viper getting the car and making an assumption about the suspension. Maybe the owner barely drove it to even wonder where it is. Who know but who cares. The car needs to be fixed by FCA and FCA only for the customer per the Monroney Sticker. I won't be able to respond further as I have nothing left to contribute, so I guess we will just agree to disagree.

[steve911]

This is interesting. I had a similar situation on my 2016 Scat Pack Challenger Shaker.

I ordered it brand new right after the order banks opened in Oct 2015. And according to the Monroney Sticker it was supposed to be equipped with adjustable suspension. It did not come that way. When I contacted FCA, they told me we decided not to offer it on that model after production started.

They also said that they reserved the right to make model changes at will and that too bad for me. I fought hard afterwards but lost the battle.

[texasram]

Mine has advanced aero package on monroney sticker but didnt come on my vehicle, bought mine used as well

[ViperSmith]

Personally, I don't think it is a warranty issue. I just think dodge should fix the issue of the missing part and what was supposed to be delivered.

Then again, I guess you could claim "the dynamic suspension isn't working at all please fix it" 🖕🏼

FCA is clearly in the wrong here as they didn't deliver what they were supposed to. Maybe I just expect more out of customer service and how we manage our customer expectations when we mess up.

[Dr.Ron]

When you buy a used car, you have a period of time to return the car I thought. Was this caught within that time frame?

[Bill Pemberton]

Incorrect ............in most States there is no time frame that you can return a car , it is sold once you drive it off the lot.

Again , the issue for this gentleman is it is on the Monroney and frankly that is his legal leg to stand on.

[F2V]

Sorry Bill for being a bit thick here, but I'm not getting it.

The Moroney sticker applies to NEW vehicles, at least according to Wikipedia. This is a USED vehicle, even if it has the original sticker. So lets say the-or some sticker, says the car has air conditioning. Guy buys the car, comes back a few days later to the used car seller and says, hey , there is no AC compressor under the hood. Is this the manufacturers responsibility, warranty or otherwise....or the company/person who sold the used car without air conditioning?? Straighten me out, will ya :-)

[Bill Pemberton]

It applies to new vehicles , but the car still was misbuilt and misbadged -- GTs were supposed to have this as original equipment. It likely will become a warranty issue, when technically a build issue, but the consumer is likely going to win out here, in my opinion , as the car is not as stated - imho. This is not a case of something taken out, this is a case of something never there in the first place. I just know in the past when things were missing in vehicles Chrysler always ponied up.

[mnc2886]

This link was provided by donk_316 some time in the past and can possibly pull your build sheet. It is NOT the window sticker, maybe you can compare the two:

www.dodge.com/webselfservice/BuildSheetServlet?vin=XXXX

You replace the "XXXX" at the end with your VIN number. Good luck, sounds like a crazy situation.

Darren

Thank you so much for posting this. I used it and here is my proof it never had it;

http://i.imgur.com/Zmvx4lU.jpg

[Bill Pemberton]

Can you post the window sticker , since you have it ,as noticed that is not listed.

[City]

It applies to new vehicles , but the car still was misbuilt and misbadged -- GTs were supposed to have this as original equipment. It likely will become a warranty issue, when technically a build issue, but the consumer is likely going to win out here, in my opinion , as the car is not as stated - imho. This is not a case of something taken out, this is a case of something never there in the first place. I just know in the past when things were missing in vehicles Chrysler always ponied up.

Good to know and good for the OP. Doesn't quite jibe with my limited understanding of contract law, but everything concerning Vipers are always "extraordinary". :dude3:

[mblgjr]

Seems like a legit candidate for the VE/Tractive Damper system.... just sayin.

[Stealth]

+1 for those rooting for the OP.

+1 for those speculating that something has happened at FCA. Not to hijack, but this also relates to challenges with FCA. I had a dealer change the brake fluid, and accidentaly leave the caliper bleed screw loose on one front wheel. When I drove the car I noticed a small leak on the floor by the front wheel at issue and a soft brake pedal. Took it back to the dealer and the dealer diagnosed and admitted the leak of brake fluid from the subject wheel and fixed it. The Dealer pickup paperwork indicated that the leak was from the subject Front Wheel and that they had previously changed the brake fluid. When I got the car home I wiped it down a few days later and noticed some black dots in a wind pattern flowing from the vent behind the subject front wheel on the panel ahead of the door directly behind the front wheel vent, the front part of the door and the rocker panel. When neither me nor my body shop could remove the black dots, I took it back to the dealer. My body shop immediately said that this was brake fluid that had etched the paint! The dealer denied everything, even though they admitted that they caused a leak in the brake fluid on that wheel! The Dealer said the dots were tire dressing!! SRT Premium Care was polite but sided with the dealer. So now I either suck it up or sue the Dealer. This same dealer also scratched my X brace and the black tubular engine guards, but grudgingly fixed those.How about this etched paint for customer care after about $240,000 on Vipers! I will weigh my options and of course switch dealers. If a little Armor All etched paint then the company would be long out of business.

To be clear: I thank FCA for building a tremendous Gen V Viper and I love my Viper! This unfortunate experience will not change this. However, it remains to be seen whether or not most Dodge Dealers are really capable of caring for and servicing these cars properly. Vipers are not Trucks or Minivans.

Again, good luck OP on getting the suspension situation handled. It seems like an easy fix for FCA to handle.

[7TH_SIGN]

Stealth, what a nightmare. Paint damage is something that I dread on a new car and a dealership causing the issue is even worse. Your experience is why I NEVER took my Viper to a dealership for service and did it all on my own.

Screw that dealership and FCA for putting you through all this.

[Bruce H.]

Wow. I don't know what to say. The car was proven to have been built with this feature from the highest source possible unless you are assuming someone doctored the Monroney Sticker? The car never had the suspension installed. End of story.

When I said "we don't know that" it was in response to you saying the previous (ie original) owner had paid for the dual mode dampers, whereas I was suggesting the possibility that he may not have paid for it if he had been compensated with a price reduction or whatever. I agree that it is clear that the car was not delivered with it...so I suspect we're actually in full agreement :)

[mnc2886]

Sorry to hear that Stealth. I'd pursue action against the dealer. With those repairs, your paper trail would be solid in a case. Good luck.

[Andi]

This seems apropos...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a31741/ram-accidentally-put-hemi-badges-on-a-bunch-of-v6-trucks/

Ram Accidentally Put HEMI Badges on a Bunch of V6 Trucks

:-o

[Shooter]

It actually makes me think of this old headline from 2012

Chrysler ordered to rehire workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch

Maybe they migrated over to CAAP. Or, maybe the original street name is now more appropriate. Sad to see some Viper owners put through this.

[LateToTheParty]

I know this thread is 15 months old, but was there ever an outcome to this whole situation? I really hope FCA made it right, but it sounds like that was very unlikely.