Bat1

My first 10k service came up quite quick, but as I now only use the car as a recreational vehicle I do not put on a lot of km's. My 6 month service is due in a couple of weeks but I have only put on an additional 2.5k from the previous service.

My question to you guys is: "Should I still get the 6 month service or should I wait and do a 12 month service if I haven't yet got to the 20k mark?"

I don't want to screw up the warranty, but I also don't want to be parting with my hard earned dosh if I don't have to.


Cheers

Revolver

Mate, check out the scheduled service cost sticky.

You will see that I was recently in the same dilemma and went on and on about it at nauseating length. :o Some good advice by Gomez as to what you should do (who for mine always seems to offer the most sensible advice out of anyone here - no offence to the rest of you).

In short - get it serviced at least every six months no matter what kms you have put on it - even if all they do is an oil change.

BVD

Hi Bat1,

I would do whatever you feel comfortable with. If you're not a mechanical type of person then it may be reassuring to have the car checked over on a time basis.

However, provided that you are the sort of owner who knows what they're looking at (or listening to), I don't believe that there is much necessity to have a car checked every few months unless it's being kept in extreme weather conditions, or left unused for a long period of time.

I've owned cars for 45 years and have never serviced them on a time basis, only on distance travelled, and I have never had the slightest problem with this approach.

Usually, the mechanics will justify a "between service distances" service by changing the oil and topping up any low fluids, but apart from that it will be just a "look and listen" job. i.e a check that nothing is loose, worn, slack, etc. They will take it for a spin round the block and see if it feels and sounds OK and they'll have a peer round to see if everything looks OK. And if it was properly serviced at the last interval then it should be OK.

Not much goes wrong with a car when it's sitting in the garage not running - unless, as I said before - you leave it long enough between drives for things to start drying out or seizing up.

The last time we had my wife's car serviced at the local Mazda dealership their mechanic was so inept that he forgot to tighten up the sump plug! This meant that the car slowly began to drip oil! Had we not noticed it before it fell out the result could have been a seized engine and possibily even a fatal accident.

Taking your car to a garage is not any kind of guaranteed magical diagnostic and fix-all experience.

BVD

Just to add one more thing...

I would consider the type of driving you do to be far more important than the calendar time factor. I.e. 5,000 kms of stop/start short trip city driving is far more punishing to a motor than 5,000 kms done in longer country journeys in clean conditions (i.e. not dirt tracks or high dust conditions).

Revolver

Bat1, BVD is a rebel on this (albeit a persuasive rebel).

Just have regard to your warranty requirements when making a decision.

tachang

what is the latest flush we get in Australia??

Revolver

Umm, care to rephrase that Tachang?? :D

BVD

Ha! The warranty argument, and you're just the man to have it with - a lawyer. :D

To the best of my knowledge there is a basic legal principle applying to all warranties (car and otherwise) - that they can only add to your general rights in law, they cannot take away rights that you would normally have.

Usually these rights are covered by some such phrase as "fitness for purpose" - but the general idea is that a product must do what it could reasonably be expected to do - i.e. perform the job, and last for a reasonable time.

It was found that some manufacturers (and I think from memory that this was particularly true of some electrical goods) were using their "Guarantees" to actually try and limit consumers rights - especially by stating short time periods that the goods were "covered" for. When this was tested in British courts it was found to be illegal.

Car warranties are there to protect owners from issues such as faulty parts, design flaws, poor workmanship or crappy quality in general. The battle lines are drawn at the point were poor car quality meets owner neglect or abuse.

I do not believe that a motor manufacturer would have any case if they tried to maintain in court that having the vehicle serviced after (say) eight months could invalid the warranty for any kind of genuine failure. Provided that the required maintainance had been conscientiously and professionally done regarding the actual usage of the car then a bit of extra time time alone will not cause a car to fall apart.

And don't be fooled by manufacturers attempts to say that you must get a car serviced by their dealers either. Dealers can be as incompetent and dishonest as non-dealers. The issue is has the work been done at reasonable intervals and done competently - i.e using parts of an appropriate quality and properly skilled labour.

Revolver

BVD, not ducking this but I don't have time to get into it this morning (already wasted enough time mucking around here).

I'll come back to it later and address some of your remarks.

BVD

Fair enough mate.

Interesting thing the law. There's what you think it is, what it really is, and then there's what can be actually established beyond doubt. And then there's what everybody actually DOES! :D

Take EULAs - those long wordy "licence agreements" that come with computer games, but nobody ever reads (except me apparently )

They give a long list of things that the maker won't allow - including not re-selling or hiring the game. In some instances they seek to prohibit even giving it away!

But can they really establish that this is a legally binding contract just because you've clicked on a button - or is it just a wish list and a bluff?

If you say yes it's legally binding, are you sure? Everywhere? Every country around the world, or just the country of origin, or....?

After reading EULAs that expressly prohibited trading in of games I decided to test out what the law is in Australia, or even West Australia - as game shops in Perth routinely trade in games, and some even hire them out.

I rang the game shops - they didn't know, but said that it was OK because the cops regularly inspected their second hand stock for stolen goods and never said anything about the legality of the trading.

I rang the cops - several departments. Nobody had any idea that it was even an issue.

Over the course of a week I rang various consumer organisations, and numerous legal departments and organisations. NOBODY knew. Everybody either admitted their ignorance or gave me the number of some other body to ring. NONE of them had an answer - NOT ONE!

The closest I came was from a body that represented lawyers. They said that they might be persuaded to give me a list of lawyers who I could hire to mount a test case, so that we could all have some fun arguing it all out! They told me that on many issues (and often with fast changing areas like IT) that the legislative work had not yet been done, and that the position could only be clarified by a nice expensive test case to set a legal precedent. :D I gracefully declined the opportunity.

The best answer came from a shop owner who said that it depended on the distributor - some would hassle retailers about it, but most didn't. Nobody apparently quoted the law though. If they said anything it was "do what we say or we won't supply you". Sometimes this mattered, or worked, sometimes it didn't.

In my opinion automotive warranties are much more clearly defined and more often discussed and even fought over, but they are still not 100% cut and dried. There is room for further discussion.

Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I still believe that polite discussion with a dealer and a manufacturer should more often end with a fair and reasonable solution than not. It works for me anyway - maybe it's the grey hair and the educated accent... :p :D

Bat1

Thanks for all the feedback.

I was planning on going along the lines of BVD's thinking.

I do not abuse or miss-use the car :p , I also try and do 100km's of continual freeway driving for every tank of petrol :D (the missus has bought into that , so every now and then I get to go for a good spin). I regularly top up all fluids and give the car the once over when cleaning it. I do all the good stuff like warn up before drive etc.

.........but the Scottish blood in me says don't give your money away if you don't have to, if I did my ancestors would turn in their graves. :D :D :D

I'll get the next dealer service at 20k (will be about 16 months between dealer services) and will let you guys know what the service centre had to say.

Cheers

Revolver

BVD, haven't forgotten your warranty post (but my you have been busy today haven't you).

With respect to online agreements, PM your fax number to me and I'll send you a paper I've got on the enforceability of online agreements - it is only the slides from a power point presentation and is fairly elementary but you may find it interesting.

timbo

Also BVD, the EULA and software licence agreements in general, are simply that -- a licence to use. You actually don't get to 'own' the code that's on the CD or downloaded, and hence you have no residual rights to trade the licence on. Actually, I am surprised the software industry hasn't shut these shops that sell games secondhand down

BVD

Bat1,

Scottish blood - why didn't you say so before!

I'm afraid it's mandatory for all Scotsmen to have their cars serviced every THREE months - it's an English Act of Parliament or something...

Enough with the Scots jokes though. My lovely wife has Scottish blood and is one of the least tight people I know (ummm.. perhaps I should just rephrase that a bit... ).

By the end of the week her wallet is always empty, whereas mine slowly accumulates a mixture of currency and moths.....

One excellent side effect of my reputation as an astute and careful manager of our family finances is that (illogically) I can occasionally slip in breathtakingly large purchases (such as spending $120,000 on new cars in the last two years, or 'accidentally' building up a total of six computers in the house) because I'm generally careful when buying the baked beans and tend to wear the same sweater for ten years or until it falls apart - whichever comes first.

Ain't life grand.

BVD

Absolutely Timbo - violently in agreement again. :D

The interesting thing though is that the way we treat the "intellectual property rights" issues at the heart of software code is completely different from the way we traditionally treat similar "intellectual property rights" with regard to authorship of books.

Most people would be astonished if asked to buy a "site licence" in order to be able to read a story to all of their kids at once - or even a classroom of kids. We would be bemused if the second hand book trade was abolished, or we were banned from lending or borrowing books.

Instead we have libraries that not only lend the stuff out for free but actually provide photo copiers so that we can rip the author off even more assiduously and efficiently. Technically there is a limit on how many pages per book you can copy but I have never heard of any attempt being made to enforce it.

Of course, as always, there's what people try to establish (software as a licence to use not a purchase) - and there's what the community at large actually DOES (i.e routinely copy things without a second thought or blush. )

BVD

Yes, it's odd isn't it - I seem to have come down with some sort of "keyboard diarrhoea" today.

Quietly codgering along for years, and then a sudden spate of opionated typing.

They say it's the quiet ones you've got to watch - but I suspect that someone's been slipping speed into my raft of geriatric medications... :o

Thanks for the generous offer to view the slides. Will PM. I love learning new stuff. As they say "If you think the price of educating yourself is expensive, then you should try totting up the cost of ignorance sometime..." :D

Revolver

Now BVD, my favourite bush lawyer friend. :D

The first thing to remember about a warranty is that essentially it is no more than a class of contract. In exchange for buying their car, they promise to do certain things if defined things happen to it. So you are partially correct - it does create rights and obligations for both parties rather than removing them but if either side wishes to rely upon the warranty to enforce those rights and/or obligations, they will need to prove that they have complied with its terms and conditions.

As to your 'general rights at law', these have largely been codified in various consumer protection statutes, which have replaced the old common law. Apart from the federal Trade Practices Act, most states and territories have Sales of Goods Acts or similar. Not too sure about the wild west because I've never had to consider what goes on there in this area of the law.

Anyway, most such statutes contain provisions which forbid people contracting out of them. In other words, any contractual term which says they won't apply is void and you consequently end up with the situation where people have the protection of not only their warranty but also the relevant legislation.

Now the application of such legislation will of course depend on its provisions and it is misleading to say that 'fitness for purpose' is the only thing you need to worry about. For example, have a look at section 19 of the NSW Sale of Goods Act 1923 (I couldn't be bothered typing it out and it is freely available).

As to whether a manufacturer would have a case or not as suggested by you, I'd caution you against making wide generalisations. Every case depends on its own facts and in particular what the warranty and other documents which form part of the sales contract actually says. If the warranty is onerous in its terms and requires servicing by an accredited dealer at stipulated intervals, than you may be stuck with that, whatever commonsense may lead you to believe. The guiding principle is that court's will generally hold people to the bargain that they have struck unless it is illegal or formed under duress, etc. In short, read the fine print!

Same applies to who does the work. You may be able to demonstrate that you or your non-dealer mechanic are fantastically competent but if the warranty stipulates that a dealer must do the work in order for it to be binding, than that is usually what you're going to be stuck with, absent special circumstances.

So, while I believe you have a commonsense approach and for all sorts of commercial reasons most manufacturers aren't going to bother taking some breaches of a warranty to court, be careful about making too many assumptions until you have carefully read and understood the terms of the deal you have struck with the manufacturer.

Sorry to bang on, but you seemed genuinely interested in a serious response rather than my usual 'spam' as Taka would call it. :D :D

timbo

Great stuff! Now we just need labrat to provide the full technical explanation about the progressive breakdown of oil under different driving conditions...and we'll have this problem licked, once and for all

Gomez

Oh...and I've bush lawyered a little more on this topic in the sticky. Funny how people get so involved when the crux of the argument is money..... :p

BVD

AS you say "every case depends on its own facts" I would entirely agree. That's exactly what I've been trying to say - don't be too frightened by generalisations in warranty wording - pay more attention the relevant facts in each circumstance.

The thing is - I HAVE read the fine print, and have also been involved in warranty matters in the real world. I may not be a qualified lawyer but I am a qualified Motor Engineer.

The "fine print" regarding service by dealers for our RX8 cars says, among other things:

"You must retain evidence that proper maintenance has been carried out on your Mazda vehice, which an authorised Mazda dealer or other service provider should certify in this warranty booklet..." etc. (my emphasis). Yes, I do that, and I'd recommend everybody to do the same.

It also says - on the very first page of the warranty booklet:

"While it is your choice, we strongly recommend that you obtain your scheduled maintenance services from an authorised Mazda Dealer". Note use of "it is your choice".

It is indeed my choice, and as a qualified Motor Engineer I feel relaxed and confident about making my own decisions about who does my servicing and the details thereof.

And when I DID have an issue fixed under warranty by Mazda and I HAD gone past the recommended time, they DIDN'T attempt to hit me with it. What the heck am I supposed to be worrying about or apologising for here?? :D

tachang

Revolver: I've been reading the post from the RX-8 Discussion forum, and the ppl from the states saying that they get the latest R flash from their service. So i was just wondering do we get those flash when we update our computer?? or is it just different ??

Revolver

Are you trying to project manage this thread Timbo! :p :D

Revolver

Enjoyed that part of it too Gomez. Frankly, I think we're in broad agreement. If push comes to shove you may need to prove you have complied with the warranty in order to enforce it but in practical terms, as BVD says, most manufacturers will attempt to sort it out without involving the bloodsuckers (i.e. me :o ). Fortunately, most people attack a problem with the kind of commonsense BVD has employed in his arguments - it is only when they are suspicious about something that they start to look at black letter legalities.

Revolver

I don't think you need to worry about or apolgise for anything.

You asked for my view on certain points that you had made and I gave it, as objectively as I could.

You have obviously been through the relevant documentation and satisfied yourself that you can safely proceed to determine your own service intervals. Your dealer seems okay with that and most dealers probably would be 9 times out of 10 unless they thought the delay contributed to the problem.

All I am trying to point out is that if the manufacturer does want to dig their heels in over a particular issue, you might find that you come off second best if you have not complied with the terms of the warranty in a material way.

Revolver

Sorry Tachang - bad joke over your previous use of the word 'flush' instead of 'flash'

As to your query, I had my car serviced only a few weeks ago and I didn't get the new flash you are talking about. My service guy told me my flash was still current and it is definitely not the R flash.

Not sure if there are different flashes in different parts of the world - some of the tech heads on the forum might know.