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:

http://www.dodge.com/webselfservice/...rvlet?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]

image.jpgimage.jpg

[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.