PDA

View Full Version : My recent experience with Mastro and SoA


rv7
08-24-2006, 11:53 AM
My saga has come to an end. I did not want to post the details of what was going on until this issue was resolved. It is, and now I am. The following letter is exactly what I sent to SoA. It is extremely long, but I felt it had to be in order to cover all of the details. There will be no cliff notes. After having a horrible experience with Mastro Subaru, I called Subaru of America and began working with a customer service rep. I give him credit for being concerned about my case, but in the end, I still have no answers. Without further ado, here is the letter:

To Whom It May Concern at Subaru of America,

My name is Ryan XXXXXXX, and I am writing in regards to a recent experience I had at Mastro Subaru in Tampa, FL. I purchased my ’05 Impreza STi (VIN # XXXXXX) on September 11, 2005 from Williamson Cadillac in Miami, FL; the odometer showed approximately 8,500 miles when I bought it. I have wanted to purchase a STi since before they were available here and in 2002 I even filled out an online petition to help convince Subaru to bring the STi model to the U.S. I was thrilled when they finally showed up at dealerships and couldn’t wait to graduate college so that I could find a decent job and afford one. Needless to say, I was ecstatic when I had finally saved enough money and drove home in my slightly used STi. I chose to buy slightly used because I wanted warranty coverage, but I could not justify the additional expense of purchasing new. Overall, I have been very happy with the Subaru brand and I plan on putting my fiancé in a Legacy GT in a year or two. Subaru is the only brand I recommend to others. Despite all of this, my recent experience with Mastro Subaru has been nothing short of a nightmare and has nearly made me regret buying my car in the first place.

The whole ordeal began when my car shut off in a Wal-Mart parking lot. I had just pulled out of a parking space and began to accelerate in first gear when the car quit running. Thinking that perhaps I had clumsily stalled the car, I pushed the clutch in and tried to restart it. The starter was turning the engine; however, it would not start. At that point, I decided to look at my fuses to see if one had blown. When they all appeared to be fine, I knew that something was wrong and had AAA tow the car to my parents’ house. A few days later, I contacted Subaru Roadside Assistance and had them dispatch a tow truck to take my car to the dealership. They informed me that Reeve’s Subaru was the closest. However, I requested that it be towed to Mastro Subaru instead-a decision I would later regret. A friend of mine, who works in car audio, recommended that before the car was towed, I take a look at the ECU to verify that the wiring harness had not somehow come loose. I pulled the carpet back, removed the metal plate that protects the ECU, and looked at it. Everything seemed to be fine and all four wiring harness plugs were firmly snapped in place. I put the car back together. This was at approximately 4:00pm on 8/9/06. The tow truck arrived one hour later and took the car to Mastro Subaru so that the service department would have it in the morning; they were expecting it.

The next day, 8/10/06, I received a call from the service department and was informed that my ECU was corroded and needed to be replaced. The quoted total for parts and labor was $945 exclusive of tax. I was informed that the repair would not be covered under warranty because there was evidence that the ECU had been removed and was not reinstalled correctly. Specifically, I was told that the plastic cover that keeps moisture off the ECU was missing. This immediately alerted me that something was not right, because I had seen that plastic cover less than 24 hours prior when I inspected the ECU. At that time, I did not inform the service advisor that the plastic cover was present when the car was loaded on the tow truck. Instead, I inquired as to how the ECU could have gotten wet, and also asked where the ECU was physically located. The advisor then explained that the ECU was located in the passenger’s foot well area and that it somehow got wet because the plastic cover was not there to protect it. He apologized that they would not be able to cover it under warranty. In addition, he informed me that he’d left a message with the Subaru dealership in Miami (where the car was originally sold) to determine if they had any service records that involved removing the ECU. Since I needed my car back ASAP, I told the advisor to go ahead and order a new ECU so that it would ship out in time to make it here the next day. I realized that irregardless of warranty coverage, the car would need a new ECU and I wanted to get it fixed immediately. I asked for permission to leave work early, and drove to the dealership.

When I arrived at Mastro, I was greeted by the advisor that I spoke to on the phone. He brought me in to the service garage and introduced me to the service manager, John Coffield. Together, they showed me the corroded circuit board of the ECU and we briefly discussed it. I was again informed that the plastic cover was missing and for that reason it could not be covered under warranty. Then, the advisor and I walked through the service garage to go retrieve the metal case that houses the ECU. While walking, I asked the advisor, “Out of curiosity, what does that plastic cover look like?” I did this because I wanted to confirm that the plastic piece I had seen the night before was, indeed, the part that they said was missing. After he briefly described it, I knew it was the same piece. I then asked him, “What would you say if I told you that I know for a fact that the plastic cover was there because I saw it yesterday…because I did?” I explained that I looked at the ECU the previous day to verify that the wiring harness had not come unplugged and I had seen the plastic cover then. I also described the cover in detail, citing such items like the “F” that is embossed in the plastic as well as the arrow symbol that points towards the driver’s side of the car. He seemed taken a back, said it was “interesting,” and suggested that we go speak to the service manager, John. We then walked back over to John’s office, and the advisor informed him of what I had just said. I have never seen someone so speechless before. Never. John was silent for a few seconds and then began stumbling on words as he began speaking. He said that the bottom line was that my ECU somehow got wet and that it wouldn’t be covered under warranty. He also told me that there were other things that indicated the ECU had been removed; specifically, the bolts that secure the metal plate had been removed before. Of course they had! You have to remove those screws to look at the ECU, which is exactly what I just told them I did! In the brief conversation that ensued, John repeatedly indicated that the cover was not there. Every time he said this, I corrected him and reminded him that it WAS there, as I had seen it. He then informed me that he has to go by what the technicians say and he saw no reason why the technician would say it wasn’t there if it was. He had no answer when I asked “How would I be able to describe it (the cover) to a ‘t’ if I hadn’t seen it?” I told him that I thought it was “extremely odd” that the reason I was given for my service not being covered under warranty was that this piece of plastic was missing, when in fact it was not. Stressed and confused, I left for the day.

The next day, 8/11/06, I called the dealership at approximately 2:00pm to inquire about my car. I was connected to the same service advisor that I had previously dealt with. He said that they had just finished the car and it was ready to be picked up. He also informed me that they spoke with the dealership in Miami and they had no service records for my car other than the dealer prep work when the car first arrived. The advisor then indicated that the technicians looked at the car again and noticed that I had an aftermarket down pipe which had partially melted the air conditioner drain hose. He said that they could not tell if it was melted completely shut, but if it was, it may have caused water to back up and drain inside the car. Interestingly, I was also told that they had found the plastic cover in question. He said it was found stuffed under the passenger’s seat, “but it’s all crumpled up and looks like it’s been there for a long time.” I laughed at the irony, verified how late they were open, got off the phone, and drove to Mastro.

When I arrived, I found a salesman, and asked to speak with Pete Mastro, the owner of the dealership. I was hoping to speak with Pete about my situation and let him hear what I had to say before he spoke with the service department. Unfortunately, when the salesman went to look for Pete, he came back to inform me that Pete was already in a meeting with the service department. I then had a great conversation with the salesman, discussing all things Subaru: the Spec-B Legacy, the Limited STI, the ESX STI, and a slew of other stuff. Shortly thereafter, I was able to meet with Pete. I informed him that I would like to speak with him about the service that was performed on my car. The two of us then went in to the service manager’s office and sat down to begin what would turn in to a lengthy conversation.

Pete opened things up with a “Well, what can I do for you?” From his opening, I quickly got the impression that he had been briefed on my situation and was not going to be very open minded to hear what I had to say. I gave him the long-winded story from start to end. When I got to the part where the service advisor told me that my car was done and that they had also found the plastic cover, he interjected. Apparently, he was not informed that the service department found the missing cover earlier that day. Pete agreed that it was odd that I had seen the cover two days before, but yet it was “not” there when the service techs worked on the car. He offered to pull the parking lot security tapes to see if anyone had tampered with my car during the night. I thought this was ridiculous and told Pete that I didn’t think it was necessary. I said that I thought we could both agree that it was highly unlikely that someone broke in to my car during the night and removed my carpet and the metal plate, only to remove the clear plastic cover and then put everything back together. He seemed to agree. Pete also brought up the issue of my after market down pipe melting the A/C drain line. I informed him that yes, I was aware of the melting as I smelled the rubber burn for two weeks when I first put the down pipe on, but that the hose still drained fine. I then told Pete that I wasn’t trying to call anyone a “liar,” but that I found it odd that the reason I was given for my warranty being denied was completely untrue. Again I stressed that I knew for a fact that the plastic cover was there and again I asked “how I would have known what the part looked like if I hadn’t seen it?”

I then made a suggestion to Pete that he promptly dismissed as “impossible.” I asked him to consider the following scenario. The technician receives a car that is not running. He plugs in his diagnostic tools and learns that the ECU is dead. He then wishes to look at the ECU and begins disassembling to car. As he is removing the ECU, the clear plastic cover accidentally gets misplaced and is somehow pushed under the passenger seat. To me, this is a very real possibility. There is a minimal amount of room to work with in the passenger foot well area, and the plastic cover in question is not a very big part. Pete immediately dismissed this scenario, citing that their “Subaru Certified Master Tech” worked on the car and “he is way too meticulous to simply misplace a part.” I then said, “C’mon Pete, everyone makes mistakes,” to which he responded that there was no way it happened. He informed me that the “master tech didn’t earn that status for no reason.” He said that maybe one of the level two technicians could have done something like that, but not the master tech and the master tech is the one who worked on my car. Similar to what John told me, Pete said that he can only go by what the techs tell him and he saw no reason why the tech would say it wasn’t there if it was.

At some point in our conversation, John, the service manager, joined us. He was very short and to the point as he indicated that he had already sent pictures to the regional Subaru rep and that it was not going to be covered under warranty. John also told me that he though it was “very suspicious” that when I had originally spoken with the service advisor on the phone, I acted like I didn’t know where the ECU was. Then I came in and said that I did in fact know where it was, and I had even looked at it. What suspicions he had, he did not say. I then told them that I felt like they were questioning my integrity, but they assured me that they weren’t. Things were beginning to get heated and voice levels were steadily increasing, mine included. At some point I said, “John, you were speechless when you found out that I had seen that cover. Speechless!” To which he replied, “Yes, I was. I was speechless because I was trying to figure out why you acted like you didn’t know where the ECU was when you had actually looked at it.” I thought it inappropriate to laugh, so I didn’t. It was somewhere near this point that I said that I honestly felt like the whole thing was “fabricated.” This prompted Pete Mastro to stand up and inform me that there was “nothing else he could do for me and that he wouldn’t let me sit there and make accusations against his staff!” I then asked, “Pete, please tell me…how else am I supposed to feel? I don’t know what the hell to think.” He didn’t have an answer and again indicated that he can only go by what he is told by is staff. He also informed me that the dealership makes more money off of warranty work than it does non-warranty work. He said that he would rather cover it under warranty because then everyone would be happy, but unfortunately he could not do that. Pete said that I could take it up with Subaru of America and produced the phone number upon my request. I asked Pete how he would feel about me sharing my experience with others. He was doubtful that I would be able to do so objectively and said that I am obviously not pleased with the outcome, but didn’t say much more.

I then brought up the name of a fellow STi owner, Robb XXXXX, who purchased an ’06 STI from Mastro in October 2005. Robb is an enthusiast whom I met through a local Subaru meet. I began to explain to Pete that Robb’s car was recently totaled while his friend was driving and that he had already been in contact with Mastro’s internet sales manager, Dave Cardwell, regarding another STI. In fact, Robb and his wife were at Mastro the previous day looking at a white/gold STI as well as a Legacy GT. Pete then interrupted and told me that I can give what ever reference I wanted. I politely informed him that I was neither speaking of a giving a reference nor was I threatening to discourage people from going to Mastro. Conversely, this man had come to his own conclusion that he will not be buying a car from Mastro based on my experience. This, coming from someone who says he had a great sales experience at Mastro when he bought his first STI there. I said to Pete, “Again, don’t take this as a threat, but that is already one guaranteed lost sale.” He then politely replied that if his dealership wasn’t good enough for me and my friends, that we are more than welcome to go somewhere else.

At this point, I had been speaking with Pete for about 30 minutes and the conversation was clearly over. Though obviously not happy with the outcome, I made a point to offer my hand to Pete and we shook hands. I was then directed to the cashier to pay the bill. I noticed that the invoice included a $6 charge for a new plastic ECU cover. I then took the invoice back to the service desk and politely told Pete that “if anything, I’m not paying for the plastic cover.” He agreed and had it removed. John then walked the new invoice over to the cashier and I initiated a handshake with him as well. The total bill was $1004.57; a hefty amount for a newly-engaged, trying to buy a house, fresh out of college, type-person.

I’ve waited a few days to write this letter because I wanted to remove myself from the situation and clear my mind. I’ve only been minimally successful at doing so as I’ve thought about this every day. Looking at my experience as objectively as possible, I’ve come to a few conclusions. The first is that I will never go to Mastro Subaru for anything again, and I’d be a fool to do otherwise. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have listened to the Subaru Roadside Assistance employee when she recommended that they tow my car to Reeve’s Subaru. The second conclusion is that there are only two possible explanations for the “missing” plastic cover. One explanation is that it was, as I suggested, accidentally misplaced under the passenger’s seat. This is the suggestion that Pete Mastro immediately rejected, which, in my opinion, was an ignorant thing to do. Nobody is immune from making an honest mistake or misplacing a part and I would hope that Pete realizes he made a mistake by dismissing this as “impossible.” The only other logical explanation, and one that I was hesitant to suggest, is that someone was/is not telling the truth about the “missing” plastic cover. I know for a fact that it was there when the car was loaded on the tow truck. This only leaves the possibility that the dealership is the one not telling the truth. I can think of no reason why the dealership would have “fabricated” this story and I’m not 100% convinced that they did. It just doesn’t make sense for them to have done so and I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I prefer to think that the first explanation is, in fact, the truth. I think it is very possible that while removing the ECU, the technician misplaced the cover under the seat. Once he realized that the ECU was corroded, he went back to see if the plastic cover was there. When he did not see it (because it was under the seat), he erroneously concluded that it was missing. These are the only two possible explanations that I can think of, but as I told Pete, “please, suggest something else that does make sense.” He was not able to come up with anything else and neither can I.

I blame no one for my ECU going bad as I understand that things happen. However, I cannot understand why it would not be covered under warranty. Irregardless of the plastic cover fiasco, why would an ECU that has slight corrosion not be covered under warranty? To me, the only logical source for any moisture in that area would be the air conditioning unit that resides directly above the ECU. My previous car (an Acura) dripped water on the passenger’s floor mat (and their feet if someone was sitting there) every time I ran the A/C. Even if someone had spilled something in that area, the carpet is lined with plastic on the backside, which would have prevented anything from soaking through. When looking at the ECU as it is oriented in the car, the corrosion is limited to the lower right corner. This is the area where the wiring harness plugs in to the ECU; the one area that is not protected from water intrusion. The clear plastic cover is cut away in this area to make room for the wiring harness. Ironically, the rest of the ECU is encased in a metal box, which would prevent water from getting in anyhow. It appears that the moisture wicked its way in to the circuit board through the wiring harness as some of the wiring harness pins are corroded as well.

To me, this whole experience has been awful and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I’ve had to stay late at work in order to make up the lost time, my mind has been a wreck, and to top it all off, I’m out $1004. As I told Pete Mastro, I don’t really know what to think of the situation and I’m open to suggestions. I do know that over the past few days, I’ve experienced all sorts of emotions and have spent countless hours speculating and analyzing the whole thing. This letter is quite lengthy and I thank anyone that has taken the time to read it. However, in reality it only represents a small fraction of my thoughts. I truly hope that Subaru of America will give this matter serious consideration and treat me better than I feel I was treated by Mastro Subaru.

[/END LONG LETTER]

I know how I feel about the situation, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think? I have tried my best to present both sides of the story and have not purposefully omitted any information (which is why this was a 12 page letter.) In the end, SoA told me that they cannot cover my ECU under warranty. When I stated that "to make sure I understand things correctly, my ECU won't be covered under warranty because it somehow got moisture on it, yet there is no good explanation for where the moisture came from." I was told that they could only offer two possible explanations, one is the downpipe melting A/C drain line theory (I explained that it drains fine). The other is that the cover wasn't there. Yet again, this whole argument is right back where it started and I still have NO good answers.

WTFchuck
08-24-2006, 11:58 AM
cliff notes?

rv7
08-24-2006, 12:06 PM
cliff notes?
Too many important details. It looks intimidating, but only takes a few minutes to read.

WTFchuck
08-24-2006, 12:20 PM
i need to write a letter to soa about my buying experience there also.... long story short... i dealt with a guy there for a week tryin to get a 06 wrx... he says u need a co-signer an u can drive away... he already ran my credit, an i explained to him i knew i needed a co-signer an my rents who have 800+ beacon would co-sign... he says ok good... just have them sign these papers an ur good to go... so they sign an i give it to him... a day later he says we can't get u a loan... i said ok wtf u said i would be able to drive off with a co-signer an now ur backing out? thanks for ur non business an misdirection... i go to reeves explain them my situation... they said ok let us work with u... we go thru the same process... an within 5 min they get me financed, i ask the guy what the problem could've been with mastro... he jsut shrugged an said i have no clue because of amount u an ur rents make together plus there beacon score its outstanding there should've been no problem. so i will not go to mastro for anything, an i highly recommend everyone else do the same


also could u post this at www.FloridaSubarus.com (http://www.floridasubarus.com)

SnowMann
08-24-2006, 12:25 PM
Ummm..."Irregardless" is not a word.

Theres always 3-sides to a story. I wonder what the other 2 are?

hihobibo
08-24-2006, 12:37 PM
About the plastic cover, are you sure that maybe you didn't put it back on after you looked at it? Like you said, everyone makes mistakes, and while you did see it, maybe you accidentally left it off. Besides that, I guess the whole thing sucks, but you probably could have found a used ECU online for much less.

WTFchuck
08-24-2006, 12:52 PM
Ummm..."Irregardless" is not a word.

Theres always 3-sides to a story. I wonder what the other 2 are?

irregardless - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless&x=24&y=13)

Silver_Moss_S14
08-24-2006, 01:18 PM
hihobibo - I agree 100% that he could have left the cover off the ECU by accident but the fact remains that at that point the car was already dead due to a faulty/water-damaged ECU. If he had to remove this cover to see the damaged ECU it wouldn't have mattered as much as he knew for a fact that the cover was there and was able to describe it to the service department.

rv7 - I definately would like to hear the other side of the story as well. Your letter sounded objective enough to raise some flags at SOA...at least I hope. I am very interested to see what they have to say about this matter. I have to say, I'm quite impressed that you were able to keep your cool for that long and not blow up at anyone as that wouldn't have helped your case at all. I agree that there is something extremely strange about this situation and I personally think that it seems that someone is not telling the whole truth. I can understand why the owner did not want to admit that it was possible his master tech misplaced the ECU because then there could be a chance the blame would be put on him and his dealership. To me that just sounded like he was covering his ass.

I would really like to hear SOA's response to this. Make sure you update this thread!

DJC
08-24-2006, 02:05 PM
About the plastic cover, are you sure that maybe you didn't put it back on after you looked at it? Like you said, everyone makes mistakes, and while you did see it, maybe you accidentally left it off. Besides that, I guess the whole thing sucks, but you probably could have found a used ECU online for much less.
doesn't matter, the ECU was already dead from water with or without the plastic cover. Strange indeed--I don't see why Mastro didn't simply warranty that part. It isn't like the mechanic needs to pull the engine to replace an ECU. If in fact Mastro makes more $$ through warranty work, It doesn't make sense as to why they wouldn't go with it to make both parties satisfied. Something's fishy.

hihobibo
08-24-2006, 02:12 PM
I know that the ECU was already dead, but I was saying that this whole denial of warranty work was because the plastic case was removed when the tech looked at it, so if he did accidentally leave it off, the denial was because of his action and not Mastro's tech.

RobbC
08-24-2006, 03:17 PM
Man I still cant believe this. Bottom line is warranty would not cover it due to Corroded ECU on a 2005 STI. I have NEVER heard of a corroded ECU before on a car that was not exposed to flood damage that was 1.5 years old. The drain is fine as I have seen it drain exactly like my '06 did a few days ago. So because a plastic cover-that still wouldnt have blocked the wire connection area that was corroded-was missing from the ECU housing the warranty will not cover it? The area the ECU is in was not damp or wet in any way JUST the ECU so that makes no sense. Then, the dealrship found the cover and still same result?? They even said they had never seen it before- so instead of covering it under a freak incident it became the owners fault and he had to pay? Absolutely not.

The DP did not melt the AC drain line shut so the water "back up" theory is invalid. There is more to this story from a dealership standpoint that what is being told to Ryan and why it was not covered under warranty.

I have always had great experiences with Mastro and their staff so it came as a huge shock to me that the customer was immediately at fault due to a corroded ECU that no one has ever witnessed before. That couldve been me and my STI just like anyone else on here. I still cant believe its the owners fault for an unknown defect!

rv7
08-24-2006, 03:18 PM
hihobibo - I agree 100% that he could have left the cover off the ECU by accident but the fact remains that at that point the car was already dead due to a faulty/water-damaged ECU. If he had to remove this cover to see the damaged ECU it wouldn't have mattered as much as he knew for a fact that the cover was there and was able to describe it to the service department.

rv7 - I definately would like to hear the other side of the story as well. Your letter sounded objective enough to raise some flags at SOA...at least I hope. I am very interested to see what they have to say about this matter. I have to say, I'm quite impressed that you were able to keep your cool for that long and not blow up at anyone as that wouldn't have helped your case at all. I agree that there is something extremely strange about this situation and I personally think that it seems that someone is not telling the whole truth. I can understand why the owner did not want to admit that it was possible his master tech misplaced the ECU because then there could be a chance the blame would be put on him and his dealership. To me that just sounded like he was covering his ass.

I would really like to hear SOA's response to this. Make sure you update this thread!

I would love for you guys to hear the other side of the story. If I left anything out, I would truly appreciate it if someone from Mastro would point it out. I know for a fact that some Mastro employees read this forum, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will read this thread. I can honestly say that I tried my best to include every little detail possible. When I orignally asked Pete how he would feel if I shared my experience with others, I told him I would do so as objectively as possible, and that's what I'm doing.

As for the outcome from SoA, they basically regurgitated the same stuff that Mastro told me. I asked my customer service rep to confirm that I understood things correctly. My understanding is that they won't cover it under warranty because the ECU got wet, and they could only offer two possible explanations (missing ECU cover or A/C drain line melted) for the moisture on the ECU.

Please keep in mind that I'm aware that there are two sides to every story. It is not my intent to "bash" Mastro and I don't feel like I'm doing that. My objective is simply to make you all aware of what happened; you can draw your own conclusions.

Flaco_GST
08-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Just for kicks and giggles I think I'll call soa and maybe Mastro just to see what they say. Calling as a concern consumer. Probably not much but I'm curious to see what they'd say. I'm a subi fan, doesn't mean I won't buy one just not from Mastro. Your out money but here's some rep.

I'm Slow
08-24-2006, 03:48 PM
Unfortunately the moral of the story is don't mod your car if you expect anything to be covered under warranty. Sucks and it's harsh but it is true. The car should have been towed straight to the dealer , ECU shouldn't have been messed with and DP shouldn't have been on there. None the less, I think there is more to the story. Mastro has definetely been a mod friendly dealer and has covered repairs under warranty even though cars were modded. You might have gone about it in the wrong manner:dunno: just my opinion

rv7
08-24-2006, 04:01 PM
Unfortunately the moral of the story is don't mod your car if you expect anything to be covered under warranty. Sucks and it's harsh but it is true. The car should have been towed straight to the dealer , ECU shouldn't have been messed with and DP shouldn't have been on there. None the less, I think there is more to the story. Mastro has definetely been a mod friendly dealer and has covered repairs under warranty even though cars were modded. You might have gone about it in the wrong manner:dunno: just my opinion

You read the wrong story; there is no "moral" here. This has nothing to do with my car being modded or not. There wouldn't have been an issue to argue and SoA would have never been involved if I was just another uninformed customer. Thankfully I looked at the ECU before it went in, otherwise I would have believed that the cover was missing and that would have been the end of it. Is it not odd that they found it the next day after I insisted that it was there?

DJC
08-24-2006, 04:03 PM
I know that the ECU was already dead, but I was saying that this whole denial of warranty work was because the plastic case was removed when the tech looked at it, so if he did accidentally leave it off, the denial was because of his action and not Mastro's tech.

Well yeah, but realistically that wouldn't matter. The ECU was dead BEFORE (anyone) pulled the plastic cover. What is the difference if the OP pulled it versus the master tech? If the denial is solely based on this $6 plastic cover being removed after the fact...then I don't know what to say except that it's utterly ridiculous.

facts based on the OP's letter:
*No record of ECU modding(assumption on my part, i dont know his mods)
*A/C slightly melted but still flowing(can you prove that this line still flows?)
*The Plastic cover WAS present

I don't know.

I'm Slow
08-24-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't agree that you were denied due to the missing plastic which does not seal the ECU from moisture completely it is a cover not a wrap. The whole situation seems weird, continue your efforts with SOA and see what they can do. Maybe they will meet you halfway.

MotoMediaFx
08-24-2006, 05:37 PM
man....Sorry to hear that story from anyone. I have heard that Mastro is better than most with mods. The one statement that gets me is that "Warranty work pays the dealership more money than if the customer pays out of pocket". If this is the case it must not only be new, but also exclusive to Subaru. I know to many service managers that will tell you otherwise. Still a bummer all the way around.

I'm Slow
08-24-2006, 06:36 PM
Warranty work does pay more.

me2thaf
08-24-2006, 06:59 PM
Im sorry to have to read you'r story. I find it to be outrages that they would tell you "Warranty work pays the dealership more money than if the customer pays out of pocket." Now maybe Im just being ingnorant but that just doesn't sound possible. I know of a couple of people at the Subaru dealership in Jacksonville. Im going to ask them if that is so.

Now for you'r ECU to be corroded then it would probably have to be exposed to moisture for a decent amout of time. Have they proven or even figured out how that came too?

Also, how come they found the cover the next day after you said something? What made them look under the seat?

05_Flat_Faw
08-24-2006, 07:26 PM
I work at a dealer and warranty definetly does not pay more customer pay work is usually 2 hours more than what warranty pays but if the reason for them not covering the work was the eight dollar plastic cover that was so-called missing why didnt they just replace the cover and get soa to cover the work as if it was there. and usually if a car has water damage the insurance company takes care of a percentage or whole bill depending on the situation, cause if this is a situation where the dp closes the drain tube then maybee mastro shouldnt have a huge 4'' dp in there parts showroom then

JonLGT
08-24-2006, 08:07 PM
I work at a dealer and warranty definetly does not pay more customer pay work is usually 2 hours more than what warranty pays but if the reason for them not covering the work was the eight dollar plastic cover that was so-called missing why didnt they just replace the cover and get soa to cover the work as if it was there. and usually if a car has water damage the insurance company takes care of a percentage or whole bill depending on the situation, cause if this is a situation where the dp closes the drain tube then maybee mastro shouldnt have a huge 4'' dp in there parts showroom then


When I bought something from there I got the, "this part could void your warranty" spbhiel. So i signed it and had warranty work done from a different dealer. Where are all the mastro employees at? Usually they post in these threads.

MotoMediaFx
08-24-2006, 11:18 PM
The more of these stories I hear the more upset I get with SOA. To void a warranty for something this stupid is beyond me. I keep hearing how SOA denies transmission warranty work all the time. In the mid 90's I bought a Saleen s281s and I went through 2 clutches and 3 transmissions in 2 years. I never once even had a single issue getting the repairs covered 100%. My Jeep with a 4" lift and 33's snapped an axle, covered 100%, never an issue. I have brought cars in with Paxton supercharges on, nitrous bottles in the truck, everything imaginable and never once, not once was I denied. Sure they looked at me funny a few times, but always serviced my cars without missing a beat. yet, every Subaru owner I talk to has had, or knows someone that has had an issue. Sometimes it pays to call their bluff and take SOA to court, making them prove that you are at fault. Mediations usually fall on the consumers side. This story and others are a real bummer.

rv7
08-24-2006, 11:37 PM
The more of these stories I hear the more upset I get with SOA. To void a warranty for something this stupid is beyond me. I keep hearing how SOA denies transmission warranty work all the time. In the mid 90's I bought a Saleen s281s and I went through 2 clutches and 3 transmissions in 2 years. I never once even had a single issue getting the repairs covered 100%. My Jeep with a 4" lift and 33's snapped an axle, covered 100%, never an issue. I have brought cars in with Paxton supercharges on, nitrous bottles in the truck, everything imaginable and never once, not once was I denied. Sure they looked at me funny a few times, but always serviced my cars without missing a beat. yet, every Subaru owner I talk to has had, or knows someone that has had an issue. Sometimes it pays to call their bluff and take SOA to court, making them prove that you are at fault. Mediations usually fall on the consumers side. This story and others are a real bummer.

My original draft of the letter that I sent to SoA ended with "If I didn't care about warranty coverage, I would have actually considered buying an Evo." I then changed it to, "Now I know what it feels like to be a Mitsubishi owner." Finally, common sense got the better of me and since I wanted to keep my letter as professional as possible, I opted not to end on such a note.

late
08-25-2006, 12:42 AM
Reading this gets me curious about the whole warranty process. If Mastro decided to replace the ECU under warranty would SoA have sent a rep out to verify their decision? Because if that's the case I could see why Mastro would be inclined to deny warranty coverage with iffy problems. SoA could have come out to verify the problem and once they found out the circumstances they'd overrule Mastro. And if that happened too often SoA could punish Mastro for not enforcing the warranty. Just my speculation.

The whole thing sucks cause it just reinforces the idea that all dealerships are sheisty (sp?) and will cheat people out of their money every chance they get.
If you really don't agree with their decision then consult an attorney, cause from how you describe the details it sounds like they denied your warranty for flimsy reasons (a missing ECU cover that was found still in the car, and a blocked a/c drain line that's not really blocked).

KAX
08-25-2006, 05:41 AM
the problem is you are missing the point. the ECU had water damage, no matter what the cause of this water damage, it will not be replaced under warranty. from your quotes, thats what i gathered they were trying to tell you. No matter what the cause was, your warranty would not cover it. the plug was probably what they thought was the cause, so what if the cause is wrong? the end result is still the same, and that end result is not covered under your warranty. Youre getting hung up on the wrong part of the problem, claiming that missing plastic is the whole problem. Its not, the corroded ECU is, and (reitterating) it doesnt matter what the cause is, a corroded ECU is not covered.

on a more sympathetic note, i never deal with John. If i have a problem, and he is the service guy working on the car, I ask to talk to the tech, because they know the car, John doesn't so any arguments you have will leave him speechless (i also know from experience). However, Pete and Will have always been excellent to deal with and try to work with you, but i think Pete just didn't have any insight into the problem so could only side with his staff, something he was obligated to do.

I don't think you should take this entirely against Mastro as a whole, but just at John, as I see him as the only problem in the dealership - customer connection. Like I said, I have had my fair share of hickups with Mastro, one of them much MUCH worse then this one, and I have no problem going back.

as for your hindsight, your interraction with Reeves would have ended in the same thing, you being out $1004 dollars, they just wouldn't have given you any reason or tried to explain anything at all. "Theres the problem, give us the money" would have been their reply. Probably would have made things alot easier, but you'd be left in the same spot.

rv7
08-25-2006, 11:26 AM
the problem is you are missing the point. the ECU had water damage, no matter what the cause of this water damage, it will not be replaced under warranty. from your quotes, thats what i gathered they were trying to tell you. No matter what the cause was, your warranty would not cover it. the plug was probably what they thought was the cause, so what if the cause is wrong? the end result is still the same, and that end result is not covered under your warranty. Youre getting hung up on the wrong part of the problem, claiming that missing plastic is the whole problem. Its not, the corroded ECU is, and (reitterating) it doesnt matter what the cause is, a corroded ECU is not covered.

on a more sympathetic note, i never deal with John. If i have a problem, and he is the service guy working on the car, I ask to talk to the tech, because they know the car, John doesn't so any arguments you have will leave him speechless (i also know from experience). However, Pete and Will have always been excellent to deal with and try to work with you, but i think Pete just didn't have any insight into the problem so could only side with his staff, something he was obligated to do.

I don't think you should take this entirely against Mastro as a whole, but just at John, as I see him as the only problem in the dealership - customer connection. Like I said, I have had my fair share of hickups with Mastro, one of them much MUCH worse then this one, and I have no problem going back.

as for your hindsight, your interraction with Reeves would have ended in the same thing, you being out $1004 dollars, they just wouldn't have given you any reason or tried to explain anything at all. "Theres the problem, give us the money" would have been their reply. Probably would have made things alot easier, but you'd be left in the same spot.

I agree with you on some points. The main issue is that the ECU is corroded; however, I disagree as to whether it should be covered under warranty or not. Obviously, it hasn't been covered in this case, but I've still received no answer explaining why? I pose the same question that I asked the SoA customer service rep, "If something breaks on a car and Subaru can not explain why, the financial responsibility for the repair defaults to the owner of the car?" That doesn't make a ton of sense to me. As for the comment that "no matter what the cause of this water damage, it will not be covered under warranty." I disagree completely. What if the source of moisture was the A/C and it had nothing to do with my "melted" drain line? That wouldn't be covered? I would even argue that the "moisture" cover was defective from the start as it does absolutely nothing to protect the ECU from moisture.

I try not to hold a grudge against anyone, and I refuse to single out John as the "problem." I would agree that he probably isn't the best service manager. I don't say this because I didn't get what I wanted; rather, I say it because he simply does come across as being very customer-oriented.

Opie
08-25-2006, 12:40 PM
The ECU was not covered due to the water damage, not due to any other reason, period. This decision came from our district rep when we inquired to see if this was a known issue. Had we replaced the ECU and claimed it under warranty SOA would have denied the claim and we would not be paid for the repair.

Our warranty labor rate is $86 per hour, customer pay labor rate is $80 per hour, so yes we would have made more if we could have covered it under warranty.

JonLGT
08-25-2006, 12:45 PM
The ECU was not covered due to the water damage, not due to any other reason, period. This decision came from our district rep when we inquired to see if this was a known issue. Had we replaced the ECU and claimed it under warranty SOA would have denied the claim and we would not be paid for the repair.

Our warranty labor rate is $86 per hour, customer pay labor rate is $80 per hour, so yes we would have made more if we could have covered it under warranty.

So SOA denies any warranty claims due to water damage? What if an AC drain line breaks?

me2thaf
08-25-2006, 01:02 PM
The ECU was not covered due to the water damage, not due to any other reason, period. This decision came from our district rep when we inquired to see if this was a known issue. Had we replaced the ECU and claimed it under warranty SOA would have denied the claim and we would not be paid for the repair.

Our warranty labor rate is $86 per hour, customer pay labor rate is $80 per hour, so yes we would have made more if we could have covered it under warranty.

So no matter what the issue is with the ECU it would not be covered by the warranty? Even if it was a manufactures defect? So then what was the whole argument with the plastic cover? So even if the cover was still on then basiclly your saying he's shit out of luck because it wouldn't be covered?

rv7
08-25-2006, 01:50 PM
So no matter what the issue is with the ECU it would not be covered by the warranty? Even if it was a manufactures defect? So then what was the whole argument with the plastic cover? So even if the cover was still on then basiclly your saying he's shit out of luck because it wouldn't be covered?

These are the kinds of questions that I am trying to figure out.

And yes, according to John, pictures were sent to the regional rep showing the damaged ECU and, according to John, the rep said that it would not be covered under warranty. However, it is important to note that the rep was also told that there was evidence that the ECU had been removed or tampered with, which brings us right back to the issue of the "missing" plastic cover. Would the rep's decision have been any different if he was only sent pictures of the corroded ECU...with no comments about ECU "removal" or "tampering"? Who knows.

Opie
08-25-2006, 03:16 PM
If the water damage was directly caused by another warranty concern, such as an evaporator drain line failure the ECU would be covered as resulting damage. Since there was no evidence of any warranty component failure it was not covered, regardless of the missing ECU cover.

m0nk3y
08-25-2006, 03:51 PM
irregardless - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless&x=24&y=13)

way to prove him right :p

its a double negative, thus not regardless... and a common mistake in the english language, such as 'i could care less'.




anyhooter, good luck with SoA... this is yet another shining example of why I will NEVER go to mastro subaru. I purchased my 06 from Reeves, and had a GREAT experience.

KAX
08-25-2006, 06:35 PM
If the water damage was directly caused by another warranty concern, such as an evaporator drain line failure the ECU would be covered as resulting damage. Since there was no evidence of any warranty component failure it was not covered, regardless of the missing ECU cover.

this should answer your question completely. Like I said, Mastro could not find a cause for moisture, so there was no way it was a manufacturers defect. therefore not covered under warranty. the missing clip was just something they thought could have explained it.

SteelDragonSTi
08-25-2006, 08:25 PM
I'm sorry that you had to go through that ordeal. However, for what I've read, it seems like you are casting blame on the wrong party. The fact is that your ECU was damaged due to an aftermarket part damaging the AC line. As I've come to understand, SOA warranty is clear cut and down to the point. Your decision to modify your car is the root of the problem. I honestly do not understand why this simple plastic part would become the major factor on this issue.

This of course is my opinion based on what I read above.

I would tell you that you would have gotten a rotten experience with Reeves Subaru as well. I had a horrible service experience with Reeves over an exhaust part and held my car for over 11 days. It was apparent that they simply did not care about what was going on. Maybe it was becuase I didnt have a Porsche, a Ferrari or a Maseratti.

Will at Mastro has been awesome with my situation and has done everything possible to help me out with my situation. Something that I cannot say for either Courtesy Chrysler in Brandon and Reeves Subaru.

rv7
08-25-2006, 09:10 PM
this should answer your question completely. Like I said, Mastro could not find a cause for moisture, so there was no way it was a manufacturers defect. therefore not covered under warranty. the missing clip was just something they thought could have explained it.

Just because I've never seen the tooth fairy, doesn't mean she isn't real.

DJC
08-26-2006, 12:00 AM
Reeves tried to sell me a used 2002 BMW 325i at $20k :lol:

sorry (drunk)

me2thaf
08-26-2006, 02:04 PM
I'm sorry that you had to go through that ordeal. However, for what I've read, it seems like you are casting blame on the wrong party. The fact is that your ECU was damaged due to an aftermarket part damaging the AC line. As I've come to understand, SOA warranty is clear cut and down to the point. Your decision to modify your car is the root of the problem. I honestly do not understand why this simple plastic part would become the major factor on this issue.

This of course is my opinion based on what I read above.
I know that this is you'r opinion but I just don't beleive that the reason was because of the aftermarket part. If it truely is because of it then why didn't they just stick with that theory? They could'nt really come to a conclusion on how the ECU was corroded. From what I see is that the main issue was that there was no cover and thats basiclly why it was not covered under warranty. Thats my opinion.

Now I would like to know if it would have been any different if the cover was still there?

Opie
08-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Now I would like to know if it would have been any different if the cover was still there?

No it would've been the same result had the cover been there, the root cause of the ECU failure was that it was (somehow) exposed to moisture that was not the result of any other failed or defective component.

smooth_ej20
08-27-2006, 12:30 AM
Heres a big point that no one is bringing up. Your car is USED! who knows that the hell the previous owner did. For all you know he/she spilled a gallon of water on the passenger side and vacumed up some of it leaving moisture under the carpet thus screwing up your ECU. It sucks but i have to go with Mastro on this one. Since it was not the cause of anything else on the car then its not their job to cover it under warranty. How do they know if something like the previous happened? just my .02 anyway

dan
08-27-2006, 04:10 AM
Heres a big point that no one is bringing up. Your car is USED! who knows that the hell the previous owner did. For all you know he/she spilled a gallon of water on the passenger side and vacumed up some of it leaving moisture under the carpet thus screwing up your ECU. It sucks but i have to go with Mastro on this one. Since it was not the cause of anything else on the car then its not their job to cover it under warranty. How do they know if something like the previous happened? just my .02 anyway


agreed on the causes. i dont know how long you've had the downpipe, but ECUs dont corrode overnight. sounds like it was previous owner's fault, for all you know, that car could have been heavily modded, put back to stock and sold, before you got it. For all we know, it could have had been lying on the floor out of its position while hooked up to a tuning system or something, and got a few rain drops on it or spilt their coke on it. u never know. ECUs dont corrode over night but circuit boards contain so much solder and electrical stuff, it takes the right time and place for the wrong part to corrode.

and i don't understand the people saying the downpipe is at fault. yes, its a "warranty-voiding" part, but apparently it was verified that it drained the same as another car. did they stick their finger in there to see if something perhaps was slightly blocking it? could it have been blocked by a squirrel's hidden nut, or a bug or something at some point, causing moisture to leak inwards? possibly. even then, it would have to been blocked for a considerable amount of time to not only fill up the surrounding plastic box that houses the evaporator core, but also leak down into the area of the ECU.

sucks to hear though. i can see both sides and where subaru wants to cover itself. it seems they don't put much faith into 'the customer is always right' theory (which in this case if worked out to pay half or covered under warranty, it would have guaranteed continued business). it's a tough call.


sounds to me the problem lies deeper:

1) SoA needs to revise it's warranty guidelines. To customers, they need to read ALL warranty paperwork when buying the car, esp. with plans to modify it. CLEAR guidelines on what is and isn't covered under warranty, both with modifications or not. It's common sense that this car is an often modified vehicle..car manufacturers need to realize this (granted, anything can be modified, but to these extents).

2) Someone needs to be kicked in the shins in the enineering dept at Subaru. No matter if it's a completely sealed ECU inside an airtight box with a force field, you don't have the one part of the interior of the car that produces a water byproduct and contains the only two fluids entering the car (coolant for heater and freon for a/c) designed to sit above or near the ECU. my car is ten years old and if the box that surrounds the heater and evap core leaks, it would be on the passenger side of the transmission tunnel over the carpet, where there isn't a harness, wire, ecu, or kid taking a bath holding a radio below it. Granted, this does not take the customer error/modification aspect out of it happening, but it allows the dealer to provide the clear answer w/o any question on 'What if...'. Gray areas are bad for business.

to me, i'd at least see if you could get a free consultation with a consumer attorney to see if there was some sort of presentable case to at least get the payment cut in half or perhaps it will get the whole company to revise warranty information and design (points 1 and 2). lol get eric seidel at fox 13 on it :lol:

good luck.

BrewPuBeaver
08-30-2006, 02:29 PM
wow man that sucks...

but, there is no way of knowing what your buying when you get a used car.


Wish you the best in your ventures with any Stealership, SOA, and getting your car fixed.

rv7
11-27-2007, 10:04 PM
Wow, it's been over a year. I just stumbled upon this thread, reread a lot of it and am reminded of what a shitty experience it was. Necroposting....FTL.

AWDFURY
11-27-2007, 10:28 PM
i could say that from my experience working there. That they do not make more money on warranty work. Thats bullshit. The mechanics make next to nothing on it. So what could have happened was a certain mechanic removed it so that he would get paid by the book instead of by the warranty work book...Couldve happened. But they dont make more on warranty work. This is completely a hypothetical situation by the way. Not trying to shit on my boys at mastro!

Also, another thing is im sure some of you guys already know. But if your cars are heavily modified the labor either goes up like crazy, or ive seen a few times were they refused the work. Depends on the situation. Some customers can be assholes too and get refused as well.

twrxz
11-28-2007, 05:23 AM
yes that does suck....but i wish i would have never even read your story. one cause i will always have in the back of my mind if i take my car to mastro that they suck and will fuck up...P.S. your not the first to have a problem there..or at any car place.

and two cause when i finished i was greatly unsatisfied with the ending...you should of fought them..lol j/j

sometimes there isnt much u can do...fucking bad beats