unpleasant Kizashi warranty surprise...

[Kizzy13SLSAWD]

I took my beloved and reliable 2013 SLS AWD in for what I thought would be a warranty repair. The front transfer case was dripping a couple drops each night in the garage... bad internal seal. Through an arduous process of dealing the sole remaining service provider in my area (Ray Skillman Mitsubishi, Indianapolis), my repair was denied by Suzuki. The dealer has been really good by the way... Suzuki has been the thorn in my side.

Suzuki claimed that my car was a "fleet" vehicle and therefore subject to the shorter 5-yr/60k mile warranty (I'm over 60k miles). The local dealer pulled the carfax and autocheck reports - neither showed fleet use (and the autocheck actually had a section that said "no fleet use").

Using the info on the carfax, I found and called the Virginia dealer that was recorded as selling the car when new to the first owner (I'm the second). They researched and explained that there was a company in California that purchased a bunch of Kizashis for fleet use. Then, when Suzuki backed out of the US, they decided to not use them. Instead, the California company turned around and sold brand new 0-mile cars to dealers at a huge discount. Supposedly there was some kind of documentation about the shorter warranty that went along with the cars at that time since they were being sold from a fleet.

My question is this. The Suzuki warranty page states "Vehicles placed in to use as [fleet]..." have the shorter warranty. Yes, my car was purchased for use as a fleet vehicle. However, it was never "placed in to use" as such... Any chance Suzuki (or arbitration) might consider that discrepancy as a reason to honor the 7-year/100,000 powertrain warranty?

The repair isn't huge... maybe $600, but it comes at a bad time with Christmas around the corner. I would do the work myself, but I have no lift. If I have to eat it, I will, I just think that as my car was never actually used as a fleet vehicle that the shorter warranty shouldn't apply.... but maybe I'm being too hopeful.

[Ronzuki]

I am sorry to here about your misfortune. I would agree with you and so might a judge. Unfortunately, Suzuki has no interest here anymore and their lack of response via your service centerse would force you to file a legal claim. Have you tried contacting ASMC in Brea (if that's where the still are) directly yourself to explain to them what you've explained here? Having documentation from the Virginia dealer and the California company would be 'must have' material. You could try small claims court, but I don't know how that would work, or if it would work, w/ a corporation. For 600 bucks, it sounds as though you're just going to have to eat it unfortunately.

[Kizzy13SLSAWD]

Thanks for the suggestions. While the initial interaction was between the dealer and Suzuki, the last 4 phone calls have been direct to Suzuki in California. I've not given up as my case rep finally seemed to catch on to what I had been trying to explain... That the car was bought for a fleet, but never used in that capacity... No fleet use. She apparently saw the "fleet" term and assumed, "case closed - why are we still discussing it?" Upon understanding that the car never drove a single mile for fleet use, she indicated she was going to pull some additional records and look into it. So at this point, I think there's a decent chance they will cover the repair. If Suzuki won't play ball, I'll pay the bill and then move to arbitration to attempt to get reimbursed. Arbitration is free to the consumer (but costs Suzuki something like $600... Which gives them some motivation to solve things before it gets to that point). The downside of arbitration is that it can take 40 days to get a decision and if it's in your favor, Suzuki has up to 30 days after that to comply with their decision. So, it could take a couple months. Nonetheless, I see it as a much easier (submit all docs via e-mail) and cheaper option than trying to pursue a legal venue. We'll see where it goes. I'm still hopeful, but I'm a little irritated that they're taking so long (this is day 3 with the Kizashi sitting in pieces at the dealer... Waiting to see if there's $$ to cover it or not). Suzuki is very difficult to get ahold of, and they've only managed to return one of my four phone calls/voice messages. I'm pretty persistent though when I think I'm in the right.

[Ronzuki]

Well keep at it and let us know how it unfolds. Think about it though, they really have nothing to lose by your dissatisfaction since they have pulled out of N. America. I wouldn't let your car sit in pieces at the dealer too long...the guy that yanked it all apart may not be around long enough to put it all back together.

[KansasKid]

Bad luck with the warranty trouble. Hope it pans out in your favor.

I took my beloved and reliable 2013 SLS AWD in for what I thought would be a warranty repair. The front transfer case was dripping a couple drops each night in the garage... bad internal seal.

I recently did the transfer case oil change on Azumi and noticed the same leaky transfer case issue. I assumed it was just because I hadn't done the "severe" interval transfer case changes like I should have been, and I have driven her pretty hard her whole life. Do you have any more info about this "bad internal seal"? I did the first transfer case change at about 41K miles, instead of the recommended 7500 miles (or some such).

[golftango]

If you can prove to Suzuki USA that the vehicle was initially registered and titled as personal / non-fleet use, than they have to legally stand by the powertrain warranty.

Unfortunately, Suzuki has no interest here anymore and their lack of response via your service centers would force you to file a legal claim

"Lack of interest" or Suzuki's current "status" in the US is completely irrelevant and therefore moot. They legally have to honor the warranty. I'm sure a quick filing of a small claim in your state to Suzuki will light a fire.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/smal ... manual.pdf

[Kizzy13SLSAWD]

The lady at Suzuki finally called me back today. For what it's worth, I've been civil with her the entire time, but I've not talked to such a rude, patronizing individual in a long time. She refuses to listen or reason and talks over you non-stop. At the end of the day, they are taking the stance that since it was originally PAID for as a fleet car, that it is a fleet car and therefore is only covered by the fleet warranty.

I will be taking this to arbitration. I don't care who originally paid Suzuki for the car. The warranty states that to be subject to the fleet warranty, the vehicle must have been "placed into use" as a fleet car. This is not the case. It never saw a single mile of fleet use. It was originally registered in Virginia as a personal car with a personal loan, and then I was the second (personal) owner. Hopefully, arbitration will be able to see this difference and rule in my favor. I'm not taking this to court, so arbitration will be my last hurrah before I just eat it and move on.

I truly hope that no one else on here has to deal with Suzuki on warranty issues as I am fully convinced that they are sitting around a boardroom trying their hardest to figure out how to NOT PAY warranty claims. I work as an insurance agent, and I literally do everything in my power to get my clients coverage from their policies when things go wrong in their lives... if I operated the way Suzuki is, I wouldn't have any customers left. At the end of the day, I know that arbitration costs Suzuki $600 each time a customer chooses it (free to us though). I don't want to be spiteful, but there's a certain poetic justice there even if I do end up losing.

As for the transfer seal leak, I don't actually know what's up there yet. The dealer hadn't given me an estimate or said what's wrong. As I'll be going to arbitration, I'll need to get that info soon.

[LPSISRL]

I'm sorry to hear that Suzuki has taken such a tough stance. My experience was the total opposlte and for a lot more money. This was about a year and a half ago and my car had 76K miles on it. I had a noisy CVT that otherwise worked perfectly. I took it to the authorized service center and the tech immediately heard the noise and checked to find metal in pieces in the fluid. He put in a claim to Suzuki who approved the claim with no delays and sent brand new transmission. The whole ordeal took about 4 days from first drop off to final pickup. I was very surprised that this expensive warranty repair was done without any questions back to me at all. Oh, and the service center gave me a rental car to use for free. I guess if it's free, it's not a rental.

[Ronzuki]

If you can prove to Suzuki USA that the vehicle was initially registered and titled as personal / non-fleet use, than they have to legally stand by the powertrain warranty.

Unfortunately, Suzuki has no interest here anymore and their lack of response via your service centers would force you to file a legal claim

"Lack of interest" or Suzuki's current "status" in the US is completely irrelevant and therefore moot. They legally have to honor the warranty. I'm sure a quick filing of a small claim in your state to Suzuki will light a fire.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/smal ... manual.pdf

Yeah, yeah, and 'legally' you're not supposed to speed, j-walk, roll through stop signs and a never ending list other things.
I agree with you, all I'm implying is that, as with any "legal" responsibility, we, the consumers, are going to have to want to spend the time, money and endure the aggravation to pursue this wonderful legal relief from the incident. Moot or not, the question is, is it worth 600 bucks? Not worth my time alone, and moreover the aggravation, I can tell you that. The 'vacation day' I'd have to waste (if simply just one) is worth more to me than that. If I were Suzuki, in their current status here, right now (nothing to gain or lose), I'd wager the average consumer wouldn't want to commit on following through...legally and all. So I'd say "no, not going to cover it", sit back, and wait for your next move.

I've often found that having a warranty is one thing, getting anyone to honor a warranty is a completely different matter, legal or not. All this goes to prove is that when it comes to purchasing used vehicles, buyer be aware. That would be the pessimist (realist) talking now.

[Ronzuki]

Oh, and the service center gave me a rental car to use for free. I guess if it's free, it's not a rental.

It's a rental, Suzuki paid the bill. Most dealers insurances don't permit "loaners" anymore. Haven't for a long time now. Paperwork that I'm not supposed to see from one of the many trips to the Heep dealer for the leaky freedom top showed the dealer overstating the amount of time they "loaned" me a JKU while they had mine . FCA paid them $200 a day for the rental. My insurance would have covered the vehicle for any loses.