My recent experience with Mastro and SoA
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Just for decoration
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
__________________
R.I.P. Brian Nichols 02/07/1989-11/24/2008
R.I.P. Brian Nichols 02/07/1989-11/24/2008
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
__________________
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
Last edited by rv7; 08-25-2006 at 08:52 AM.
So now I'm a liar...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
TR...where details aren't important if leaving them out makes the story bettAr!
TR...where details aren't important if leaving them out makes the story bettAr!
Just for decoration
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
R.I.P. Brian Nichols 02/07/1989-11/24/2008
R.I.P. Brian Nichols 02/07/1989-11/24/2008
ehh?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
