Help Purchasing My First Wrangler

[Formattc]

Gawd, not another expert on the Magnusson-Moss Act...

Sorry, I have better things to do than get in a legal entanglement with a stupid dealer.

Sorry not sorry, the $5k I got back on my truck was definitely worth the minimal effort. I don't need to be a lawyer, either, because I had one and he had me take to a dealer other than where I bought and their refusal cost them. I used Krohn & Moss out of Chicago.

PS> I didn't sue the dealership, I sued General Motors in Federal court.

Sponsored

 

[TrailTorque]

A dealer doesn't have to work on your vehicle. They are not obligated to. It's usually in their best interest to do so, but again, they don't have to. Warranty work usually doesn't pay well, so many dealers won't mess with it If you didn't purchase it from them. If you're out of town, that's a different story.

If I was @Jennalee sister I’d be “out of town” every 5k miles LOL

 

[Columbus104]

I don’t understand the concept of leasing a rubicon. The only reason to buy a rubicon is because of its superior off-road capabilities. If you plan to take advantage of this ability, you’re likely to get your Jeep banged up to the point of thousands in repairs necessary at lease termination. And if you don’t plan to take it off-road, why get a rubicon?

 

[Gee-pah]

I don’t understand the concept of leasing a rubicon. The only reason to buy a rubicon is because of its superior off-road capabilities. If you plan to take advantage of this ability, you’re likely to get your Jeep banged up to the point of thousands in repairs necessary at lease termination. And if you don’t plan to take it off-road, why get a rubicon?

... or IMHO any Wrangler where the owner plans on effecting less than trivially removed mods.

 

[MDub51]

I don’t understand the concept of leasing a rubicon. The only reason to buy a rubicon is because of its superior off-road capabilities. If you plan to take advantage of this ability, you’re likely to get your Jeep banged up to the point of thousands in repairs necessary at lease termination. And if you don’t plan to take it off-road, why get a rubicon?

I agree and disagree. Rubicons are obviously the superior offroad trim and if you plan to lease a rubicon, you either need to be prepared to pay repair costs or just be cautious about what level of offloading you do. Leasing a Rubicon still makes sense to the point of the residual value still being really good. Someone leasing any trim of wrangler would most likely see equity in their lease after two years and be able to trade it in before the lease it up and make out pretty well.

 

[Pingbling23]

I don’t understand the concept of leasing a rubicon. The only reason to buy a rubicon is because of its superior off-road capabilities. If you plan to take advantage of this ability, you’re likely to get your Jeep banged up to the point of thousands in repairs necessary at lease termination. And if you don’t plan to take it off-road, why get a rubicon?

Some people go to a dealership, see a rubicon and a sport sitting next to each other, like the rubicons look better, and buys a rubicon. Not a hard concept.

 

[aldo98229]

Some people go to a dealership, see a rubicon and a sport sitting next to each other, like the rubicons look better, and buys a rubicon. Not a hard concept.

Indeed.

And two months later complain that Wranglers are hard to get in-and-out, ride too stiff, and suck too much gas.

 

[higbyz]

Gawd, not another expert on the Magnusson-Moss Act...

Sorry, I have better things to do than get in a legal entanglement with a stupid dealer.

So you'd prefer to just throw your money away ? I never understood taking that fork in the road !

 

[aldo98229]

So you'd prefer to just throw your money away ? I never understood taking that fork in the road !

My comments were about invoking the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Once you spend enough time on these enthusiast forums, you see the Magnuson-Moss Act thrown around regularly. Yet few understand it, have actually read it, or even knows what it involves. That’s all.

If you like to sue, go ahead. Keeps lawyers happy.

 

[Gee-pah]

My comments were about invoking the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Once you spend enough time on these enthusiast forums, you see the Magnuson-Moss Act thrown around regularly. Yet few understand it, have actually read it, or even knows what it involves. That’s all.

If you like to sue, go ahead. Keeps lawyers happy.

Aldo sir, I can understand your wish to not hear at great lengths about this law, including its interpretations and scope. It sounds to me like that would be a bit of a "been there done that," thing for you and I respect that.

But I also hope you appreciate that a warranty is only as good as the owner of defective merchandise can find, within reasonable distance and convenience, qualified people willing to honor it, with the ability to make things right.

Not that you've said otherwise, but when Matt @Formattc exercised his rights here I think we can agree that his law suit wasn't a "fake slip on the floor, cervical collar" for money thing. It sounds like he was shut out from a repair he was entitled to, after being inconvenienced numerous times--giving the dealer the opportunity to make things right--and his settlement not only provided him with the compensation to fix the problem, along with his time and aggravation, but his actions hold dealers and auto manufacturer's more accountable to all of us.

 

[Squibbles]

Now that I think about it, when I sued GM for breach of warranty back in 2002, my lawyer had me take it to a different dealership than where I bought it and we sued based on their refusal to repair (third strike). This ended up costing them $8000, $5000 settlement plus $3000 in legal fees, when it would have been FAR cheaper to just fix my truck.

What kind of truck was it and what was the issue?

 

[aldo98229]

Aldo sir, I can understand your wish to not hear at great lengths about this law, including its interpretations and scope. It sounds to me like that would be a bit of a "been there done that," thing for you and I respect that.

But I also hope you appreciate that a warranty is only as good as the owner of defective merchandise can find, within reasonable distance and convenience, qualified people willing to honor it, with the ability to make things right.

Not that you've said otherwise, but when Matt @Formattc exercised his rights here I think we can agree that his law suit wasn't a "fake slip on the floor, cervical collar" for money thing. It sounds like he was shut out from a repair he was entitled to, after being inconvenienced numerous times--giving the dealer the opportunity to make things right--and his settlement not only provided him with the compensation to fix the problem, along with his time and aggravation, but his actions hold dealers and auto manufacturer's more accountable to all of us.

Agreed.

If anything, this thread gives us a flavor for the regularity with which FCA dealers ignore franchise laws, and with which FCA looks the other way.

And while we have the law as a recourse, having to force FCA and its dealers to follow the law should not be regular procedure. That ought to be part of FCA‘s own ethics.

However, judging by the number of lawsuits and corruption investigations into FCA, and the paltry dealer rankings, that would appear to be expecting too much at the moment.

PS - I love my Jeep. But if I weren’t so obsessed with Wranglers, I wouldn’t be setting foot in a Jeep dealership. Period.

 

[rallydefault]

Some people go to a dealership, see a rubicon and a sport sitting next to each other, like the rubicons look better, and buys a rubicon. Not a hard concept.

I never got this line of thought. I think the rubi hoods are ugly, to be honest. I like the classic look.

 

[Formattc]

What kind of truck was it and what was the issue?

ZR2 Blazer with seriously torn seals on front end components and a clogged grease fitting on the pitman arm. Both lower and one upper ball joint were destroyed within the first 5000 miles as was the pitman arm They just didn't grease the pitman arm at the factory at all because they'd installed a clogged fitting. The steering was all over the place, not just loose, to the point where after a friend of mine and my sister drove it they said they'd never drive it again. What they didn't expect is that I knew how to inspect these things myself, and a third party mechanic called it "ridiculous". I could have demanded they buy the truck back but I thought the $5k settlement offer was fair and accepted it. Besides, I like the truck and I still have it, I just wanted the front end to be right. Once I got it fixed I started greasing everything at every oil change and I haven't had a problem since. The thing has never had really tight steering but it's a tall 4x4, and a Chevy, so that's to be expected.

 

[Gee-pah]

Agreed.

If anything, this thread gives us a flavor for the regularity with which FCA dealers ignore franchise laws, and with which FCA looks the other way.

And while we have the law as a recourse, having to force FCA and its dealers to follow the law should not be regular procedure. That ought to be part of FCA‘s own ethics.

...couldn't agree more.

​

However, judging by the number of lawsuits and corruption investigations into FCA, and the paltry dealer rankings, that would appear to be expecting too much at the moment.

..don't know the legal landscape here--certainly take your word. Law's a balance--sometimes not a very good one even with the best of intentions that seeks to allow for remedy for the truly disenfranchised, while not opening the floodgates for every owner with some unfair chip on their shoulder to sue the manufacturer---as doing so raises the cost of rigs for you and me.

​

PS - I love my Jeep. But if I weren’t so obsessed with Wranglers, I wouldn’t be setting foot in a Jeep dealership. Period.

Yeah, dealerships have to be my least favorite part of owning the rig we both love.

Sponsored