SRT Warranty Claim Horrible Experience

[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.

Iphone 9-14 483.jpg

[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.

Iphone 9-14 483.jpg

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:

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

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

suspension.jpg

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:

suspension.jpg

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

OP did you try this? Can you post it?