|
...its amazing how we accept or are forced to accept an inferior product like this...hell, this car is designed with the track, or at the very least, spirited driving in mind.
Trigem-
Using your logic,(not a knock, just a question) if the rotors had this problem at say 5k should they or would they have replaced them?
In this scenario he could have tracked it just after the break in period and they may have warped...should they have been covered then?
That said I had a 91 300ZX with 40k plus miles on the car and I purchased it in 93, second owner, and Nissan replaced the rotors under warranty for the same reason, warping (these were notorious for warping). If Nissan took the stance you referred to in your example I would have been left replacing both front and rear rotors that were warped under street driving conditions (at least while I owned it).
Now I know that was a very good example of service and standing by one's product but it sounds to me like 14k should be covered no matter how it happened given the premium that is .
I know I am rambling a bit but this topic really gets my goat because I was forced to replace pads and rotors all around on my Land Rover after only 15k of driving from new. Yes, a very different and heavy vehicle and all that but I was absolutely shocked when they told me the truck I had owned for just over a year needed breaks all around...
...alright I'm done....sorry for the length here fellas.
|
Threaded Mode
