Mitsu hates racing Evos

[iceburns288]

Read it in C&D, it generally says Mitsu looks for any signs that an Evo has been raced and if it has they void the warranty immediately. Which, really, defeats the purpose of an Evo. They are reported to even go to Auto-X events and get plates of Evos, track the numbers, and retract the warranty.

[///M3]

not sure if it was this forum, but i think its a repost.

[iceburns288]

Oh yeah, and Mitsu apparently searches the net for Evo owners posting 1/4 times, etc.

Ok, here's the article from the mag:

Car and Driver, September 2004
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution owners began posting notices on Evo-enthusiast websites saying their warranties had been cancelled because they'd participated in timed racing events or installed aftermarket goodies on their cars. Owners complain that Mitsubishi used the internet to dig up the names of these offenders. Owners found out about this when the visited dealers for repairs and were told that their warranties had been restricted because of the two activities.

An Evo owner in Utah told Car and Driver that two weeks after he'd competed in an SCCA Solo II Autocross, his car blew two connecting rods, which also ruined the turbocharger in the porcess. (Solo II racing involves coned courses in parking lots, and speeds rarely exceed 60mph) At the dealership, the owner said his warranty was voided even before the engine was examined, an action he said was based on computer information that he had participated in the autocross.

Warranty claims are examined individually and Mitsubishi may deny claims if there is obvious evidence of abus, modifcations, or racing. The restrictions or flaggin of the warranty does not cancel the entire warranty, though getting warranty repais done on a flagged car requires the approval of a discrict parts and service manager who oversees dealer warranty claims. When a warranty claim is questioned, Mitsubishi concedes that it may launch an investigation , which can include online searches for evidence the car was modifed or run in a timed competition. The company adds, however, that owners are always given the benefit of the doubt.
The Utah owner got a whopping bill- nearly $8000- that, in his view, didn't qualify as benefit of the doubt. He claims that Mitsubishi denied his warranty repairs before examining his car and that Mitsubishi's definition of racing is vague.

[///M3]

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.p...threadid=49165

[iceburns288]

Originally posted by ///M3
i think its a repost.

After typing all that? No way...