Wow, man that is bad.
I bought a new 95 Explorer, and bought the extended warranty from the Ford
Dealership when I purchased the truck. Last year, the transmission goes out
with 45,000 miles. The replaced it without a hitch, and even paid 20 per day
on the rental car my wife drove while it was being repaired.
--
Don Burnette
Palmetto Racing
Dburn on Ten
http://www.racesimcentral.net/%204.htm
> Wow, man that is bad.
> I bought a new 95 Explorer, and bought the extended warranty from the > Ford
> Dealership when I purchased the truck. Last year, the transmission > goes out
> with 45,000 miles. The replaced it without a hitch, and even paid 20 > per day
> on the rental car my wife drove while it was being repaired.
> --
> Don Burnette
> Palmetto Racing
> Dburn on Ten
> http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm
> > Did I GET HOOKED??????
> > 12/22/97 I took out an extended warranty on my 1993 Ford Explorer. The
> > policy states it covers everything from soup to nuts. I even took out
> > the expanded coverage thinking I
> > would really be covered if I needed anything major done. The policy is
> > with Automotive Warranty Corporation of America, out of Mobile, AL.
> > To make a long story short I took the Explorer in on 4/16/99 due to
> > excessive tire wear and a severe vibration when driving. Monroe Muffler
> > and Brake where I took the Explorer found the problem to be upper and
> > lower ball joints and tie rods. My warranty states these items are
> > covered.
> > Cut to page two, when I call in to make a claim the sales rep. first
> > states "this call is being taped sir" (just in case I plan to use any
> > foul language) then goes on to state my policy only covers manufacturing
> > defects NOT anything due to normal wear. The fact is if you see their
> > promo they do say "Unlike most warranties we even cover parts that break
> > due to normal wear and tear as well as the associated labor".
> > Buried under item 5 under EXCEPTIONS in their so-called warranty it
> > states "Failures caused by noncovered components and by other than a
> > manufacturing defect".
> > If this were an upstanding Corp. they would state in their policy "no
> > parts will be covered
> > due to normal wear" instead of trying to hide it in an ambiguous
> > statement.
> > Their policy is worthless if all it covers is manufactures defects. One
> > in 10 million parts fail due to manufacture defects.
Mike
> Wow, man that is bad.
> I bought a new 95 Explorer, and bought the extended warranty from the > Ford
> Dealership when I purchased the truck. Last year, the transmission > goes out
> with 45,000 miles. The replaced it without a hitch, and even paid 20 > per day
> on the rental car my wife drove while it was being repaired.
> --
> Don Burnette
> Palmetto Racing
> Dburn on Ten
> http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm
> > Did I GET HOOKED??????
> > 12/22/97 I took out an extended warranty on my 1993 Ford Explorer. The
> > policy states it covers everything from soup to nuts. I even took out
> > the expanded coverage thinking I
> > would really be covered if I needed anything major done. The policy is
> > with Automotive Warranty Corporation of America, out of Mobile, AL.
> > To make a long story short I took the Explorer in on 4/16/99 due to
> > excessive tire wear and a severe vibration when driving. Monroe Muffler
> > and Brake where I took the Explorer found the problem to be upper and
> > lower ball joints and tie rods. My warranty states these items are
> > covered.
> > Cut to page two, when I call in to make a claim the sales rep. first
> > states "this call is being taped sir" (just in case I plan to use any
> > foul language) then goes on to state my policy only covers manufacturing
> > defects NOT anything due to normal wear. The fact is if you see their
> > promo they do say "Unlike most warranties we even cover parts that break
> > due to normal wear and tear as well as the associated labor".
> > Buried under item 5 under EXCEPTIONS in their so-called warranty it
> > states "Failures caused by noncovered components and by other than a
> > manufacturing defect".
> > If this were an upstanding Corp. they would state in their policy "no
> > parts will be covered
> > due to normal wear" instead of trying to hide it in an ambiguous
> > statement.
> > Their policy is worthless if all it covers is manufactures defects. One
> > in 10 million parts fail due to manufacture defects.
Mike
