I couldn't help but laugh when I read this... I hate it for the owners but I'm sure they can beat it...

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.ph...25&page=1&pp=15

I saw this a few days ago, and thought it was just WRONG then too! I mean, anyone who has ever driven a typical Solo 2 course knows that the stresses endured there are no more than on the common street, when driven hard.

I know that, when I bring mine to the dealer, he sees the aftermarket suspension. Therefore, if he refused to warranty some part of the suspension, I wouldn't argue. But, if he refused to warranty the drivetrain (which I have never drag raced or really modified), I'd be pissed!

That pretty much covers my thoughts on the matter.

I used to think that until I watched a BMW snap a front spindle "right off the car" in the middle of a corner at an autocross. Then there was the Mustang with a rod hanging out of the block. I personally broke a trans mount in my 2000 GTI VR6 which caused the dealer to rebuild the trans (they didn't figure out it was a mount) over 3 weeks time. Then, the gearbox wasn't right when it came back and I waited until the mass air meter died (2k out of warranty) to take it back. They took 2 more weeks to fix 5th gear and simply reset my check engine light. They finally fixed the gearbox (that was never broken) and another dealer fixed the mass air meter (and that car was gone soon after). Also, I have seen cornering loads while autocrossing that allowed the flex in my rims to allow them to contact the front brake calipers in my F-body. I'd love to say that autocross is like a daily commute, but so far, that has not been my experience. I don't think 1G+ on race compound tires is exactly "driving to work".

I think the fact that they are searching for results online is a little "slimy", but if it looks like abuse and they call it abuse, bring your visa card. I'm not saying I completely agree with their tactics, but I think calling autocross and "hard street driving" the same thing is incorrect, based on my personal experience.

Consider if I broke a driveline part from "brake hop" at an autocross. I've never seen brake hop on street tires, it seems to be a race tire only problem (for me anyway). If brake hop snapped a clutch (or other driveline part), I'd think that is not GM's problem.

I'm not really trying to take the side of Corporate America here, but there is a reason we call autocross racing (though some don't think it is "real racing", it seems that it truly is racing). If I hit the strip, dump the clutch at 6 grand and break an axle, was I racing? If I had the stock tires on it, I may feel better about saying "that's the same as street use", but is it? Drag strip use is racing/abuse. That is why forums are full of "I just broke 3rd gear again" posts. If you drive it like you are trying to break it, don't be suprised when you do.

If someone really wants to believe that all the stuff we do to increase grip above factory levels and the resulting use of that extra grip is "just like driving a stock car on the street", you are even less of a realist than I am.

Just my thoughts.

[/end rant]

And, as I remember, you've broken more parts and such than most of us....

We will warranty cars with suspension (Ford). But if you come in with a Lightning that has abviously had a pulley swap then don't expect a new transmission....not unless the tranny guy is REALLY low on work.

Actually my car has been pretty reliable, considering the amount of abuse it has seen. It is still technically under factory warranty (2.6 years old and 35.3K miles), and the only thing that has been fixed under warranty is the spring that holds tension on the clutch pedal. The slave cylinder starting acting up a few months ago and the clutch was replaced with a Spec & new GM slave. Other than a bunch of worn out tires (36 R compounds) and brakes (lost count), nothing else has broke. I never considered having GM warranty the motor, and paid for that out of pocket. Now if a power window motor or headlight motor died, I would consider letting the warranty cover it.

I think the issue is how the cars were marketed. These are not your "normal" commuter cars by any stretch of the imagination. You don't conduct ad campaigns that suggest that this car is a high performance car and then go out of your way to not warranty what goes wrong. Read their ads. Also, read the comments by an attorney that posted on that forum.

So it's ok for Mitsu to assume that every failure is "race" related??? I say bullshit. If GM did this they would go out of business very quickly.

Obviously they didn't do their homework when it came time to designing appropriate parts to handle the stress that they implied the car was designed for. Now it's breaking and they don't want to honor their commitment. When you design a high performance car you do it with some level of abuse in mind.

No wonder they're going out of business.

Not every failure is race related. But, if they find your autocross results and two days later it comes in with a blown gearbox. I have a pretty good feeling that they and we know what happened to it. Again, this comes back to most of the drivers on the various forums that are "on their 4th clutch in 10,000 miles" or "just broke my gearbox....again", etc. You turn enough guys loose with high performance cars (or any cars) and they will manage to break them. The dealer should not be liable for those guys.

The root of this question is "if you mount drag slicks and break and axle or destroy the rear end, would you ask the dealer to pay for it?". (or, would you be suprised when they don't?)

Autocross is just a drag race with corners, we just run heads up (no brackets).

I mean, sure, they have to "prove" what caused the failure. But, if they know that autocross runs seem to destroy gearboxes and you autocross and blow a gearbox and they have your results, I'd say they could begin to provide a body of proof. Also, almost every EVO I know of has a boost controller on it. I'd think that would void your warranty right there.

I guess my point is, autocross is much harder on parts than many people give it credit for being.

If I go to McDonalds, get a coke, put a lid on it and drop it on the floor. Do I "warranty" that coke for a defective lid? Or, did I use it in a manor that it was not intended?

What if they know I dropped it? (many will say "it's a big company, they can afford it more than I can")

Now, as for the dealer marketing, that could be another story....

How has GM handled the "track" Z06's? Anyone know?

And that's part of my point, are Z28's and Corvettes not "abused"?? Do they go searching the internet for people that autocross or drag race our cars?? Were they not designed with those possibilities in mind? Sure if you keep coming back in with obvious "self destructing" parts I can understand not fixing it under warranty. But you don't sell a performance car and think that no one is going to drive it hard.

I could take an Evo on the Tail of the Dragon ( http://www.tailofthedragon.com ) and abuse it more than any autocross, 318 turns in 11 miles and still run under the 55 mph speed limit is alot more abusive than any autox I've driven ever driven yet would still not be on a track and not exceeding the speed limit. Isn't that was this car was designed to do???? Would they try to deny my warranty claim??

Let's face it, the cars are defective right off the showroom floor. NOTHING should break as easily as they do. Now they're trying to cover up and claim that everyone is abusing a vehicle that was marketed as a race and track ready car.

I've always contended there was a definite and distinct line between a warranty and a sponsorship.

Cars sold to the general public from a dealership are meant to be used on public roadways. Abiding by all applicable laws is implied and should be understood. That is the car's normal operating environment. Anything beyond that ....

Whether or not a car is subjected to the same stresses when driving 70 on a freeway vs the front straight at the local autocross is an opinion and very subjective. I've witnessed folks pussy-footing around the cones and folks wailing down the local off ramp.

Now, in the particular instance of the EVO driver 2 things come to mind ...

1) the evidence against them, other than the confession, was a name, model and color car, all from an internet website. Surely that car isn't a rare one off car ...

2) a salesman will tell you anything to make a sale ... the service department doesn't care what was told to you while signing the papers.

I'll not disagree that they seem underbuilt. But, after working for a Mitsubishi dealer as a salesman in 1995, I wouldn't buy one anyway (I stay far, far away from their stuff).

I agree that searching for results online is "slimy". I agree that the cars seem exceedingly fragile. And, I agree that performance cars get "beat on". However, none of that was the original issue. It was the dealer not covering "racing abuse", which is a fair and reasonable thing for them to do (not to do?).

My point was simply that if I race it and I break it, as a rule, I don't expect them to fix it. That's fair.

If the car has a "glass jaw", then that may be a reason to consider a class action suit or to persue some other remedy. I am not a fan of todays "sue me" society, but a class action lawsuit regarding durability and warranty claims may be of merit in a case like this. Though, as someone on that post stated, it may kill both the Evo and Mitsubishi in the process. If Mistubishi goes bankrupt (I don't think they are far from it), there will be no warranty work for anyone.

I agree that the car seems underbuilt and non-reliable. And, I agree with you that "something should be done" about that problem. However, I (as a whole) don't expect dealers to cover things I break while racing. Fair enough?

We are really working with two questions here, Mitsubishi's underbuilt EVO and a more general "should dealers cover racing damage" question. I guess I can sum it up by saying:

"Mitsubishi seems to have a problem on it's hands and needs a viable solution. But expecting any dealer to cover damage from participating in a timed motorsports event is not practical either (if the car with damage has a "known problem" then that situation may need specific rules applied to it)."

I think we are both on the same side here. We agree that the EVO is fragile and may be more prone than most to racing injuries. And, as a rule, track abuse is not covered under warranty, but the EVO may make a special case for extending that coverage.

I think Mitsu surfing the web finding offenders is pretty crappy and very dirty and thus would solidify the fact that I would NOT own one.

But, I don't blame them for not warranting broken parts on RACE CARS.

Much like Chuck said earlier... a window motor, radio...etc.. would be fine to warranty, but to expect them to warrant a blown motor for excessive boost or axles for running slicks is asking a bit much.

I know a fellow with an '03 Z06. Another of his friends has one, and it was seen by SOMEONE at a 1/8 mile strip, and it's warranty was voided. My friend went to the same track, but before he rolled into the gates, he pulled off his plate and put a sticky note over his VIN #. Later that night, he actuouly saw someone looking through his window at his sticky note. He went up and talked to the guy and the guy seemed startled at first and said "Nice car". He seemed as if he just wanted to B.S. about the Z06....

....now who the hell hire these guys? Is it a joint effort between the dealerships? I would think that just GOING to the drags could void your warranty.... if your car is parked inside the gates (and one of those assholes sees it).

i feel that it is the responsibility of manufacturers to build cars that can handle the job that they were built for...

the EVO is a performance car.. it should be built to handle high performance


i don't understand why you guys are so willing to bend over... if your work truck roasted a ring gear while pulling a heavy load, you would definately take it to the dealer and get it warrantied

I agree, and if it were your Evo that broke while you were autocrossing, you'd be PO'd beyond belief. I considered buying one for that purpose. I'd be VERY po'd if my $30K+ car that was supposedly designed to be "driven" crapped out and the Mitsu people backed out on their warranty claims. To me that's no different than a bait and switch scam. Lure me in with all these great performance claims, talk about how great it is on a track, then tell me they're washing their hands from it!!!!!

You make a good point, Josh ...

But

EXACTLY. And we get those in all the time... not just ring gear either. Powerstrokes make up 80% or more of our tranny guy's work. And have you ever noticed how most diesel drivers drive? Pedal to the metal constantly.

I do know of ZO6's going in for warranty work with numbers on the cars from a few locals. Can't remember what was done off the top of my head, but it was not trival like a window motor or wiper motor.

I can just as easily do a 6000 rpm launch on DOT tires at a stop light or in a parking lot like in an autocross. I can drive down the highway at 5000 rpm's in third if I wanted to. I can understand not covering suspension if it modified, but if the motor hasn't been touched I can't see how that can't be covered if I toss a rod if I never over reved it passed the factory cut off. Keeping the revs up for a 60 second run in the motor's designed operating range should be fine. I'm a fence sitter about a track day, if your keeping the rev's up for 20 min sessions then the internals are probably getting really hot and outside there normal environment. But it's still in the designed operating range so I don't know if I would take that in for warranty or not. Missing a gear and going into 2nd rather then 4th and kicking a rod out because you reved to 9000 should not be covered.

Since I have done a lot of suspension work to my car I wouldn't take it in for warranty if I broke a front or rear lower control arm even though they are 100% stock, that would be just trying to screw over GM. However if I had an engine problem that was not related to me messing up a shift or something like that I would take it to the dealer since my only engine mod is a lid, which I could of gotten as an SPL option which would be covered. So if a coil pack went out, I think that should be covered. If I killed a rear on a ProSolo launch I would probably suck it up and fix it myself out of my pocket.

I argee with you Mitch that a salesman will say anything to sell a car, but should the buyer pay for the salesman's loose mouth?

I would also say that the manufacturer has to clearly define what abuse is. I could easily argue that starting up your car when it's cold is abusive. How dare you grind your dry piston rings aganst the cylinders!

I don't think it's a willingness to bend over. I think it is based in the ability to accept responsibility for your actions.

If I dump the clutch at 6000 rpm and the clutch explodes, I expect that I'll be buying a new clutch. If I am running laps on a road course and melt down the rear axle, I will be buying an axle. I don't expect the dealer to cover extreme use. If autocrossing melts down a power steering pump, I'll buy a pump. If I break it, I bought it.

Let me put it this way.

If you sell me a clutch and I install it (new in the box, but sitting on your shelf until the manufacturers warranty is "over"), head to the autocross and it comes apart during a run. Should I call you and tell you I want my money back from you for the clutch? Would you give it to me?

That is the difference. You wouldn't likely "bend over" and give me my money back. Would you?

As for a truck. If I was pulling a rated load, I'd take it in. If I was pulling tree stumps out of the ground or running a truck pull, I'd probably not take it in. The difference is that trucks are "load rated" and if I am within that load and it fails they can fix it. In this case we have a "hard number" to denote abuse. Cars requre you to stick to "reasonable and prudent" and everyone has a different definition of that.

Wow, there were 5 posts while I was typing that last one.... This is growing quickly.

Do a 6000 rpm launch right in front of your dealers service garage, then pull in to have them replace the toasted clutch under warranty. What kind of response would you expect?

The oil would be what is outside it's normal range at that point and it would be the most likely thing to cause a failure (short of just shearing a rod bolt, or something).

GM walked away from my C5 the first year because it was an SCCA T1 car. I got 1 transmission and it was over. It is a mostly stock class...

They also stopped the warrenty on my 01 Tahoe. The transmission blew and they wouldn't replace it! Said something about it being a supercharged 6.0 Liter making 568 ft lbs of torque and 516 hp. For some reason the enigine computer had been tuned aswell. I was shocked!

Where do you park your truck. Do you think that if I left my car there, the "horsepower gnomes" would pay it a visit? I could handle being "shocked" like that.

I left it in Ohio at Mallett cars for a year. After several sacks of cash it came home that way.

So Kevin, are you independently wealthy or a male prostitute?

Dealer...

You know I made 1 million dollars racing, Because I started with 2.

I agree that doing stuff like that is very hard on the car, but my point was where do you draw the line, is 5000 rpm to much, 4000, 3000, 2000, maybe you have to slip the clutch a little to get the rev's below idle and then fully engauge the trans. What is abusive? Some cars can take it and are designed for it some are not, why can't I expect the car to take it? If we had never seen ANY problems with clutch's would you say it is OK to launch the car like that? Most people who know anything will say don't do that it's hard on the clutch, but if the maker of the car doesn't say what is abusive like "clutch releases over 4000 rpm is considered abusive to the drivetrain" then at any whim they can viod anything. They could viod your paint warranty saying sunlight is abusive and break's down paint.

Ever seen the option descriptions on Camaro's? I remember a friend of mine looking at a 98 or 2000 options manual (he had a 98 Camaro and sold it for a 2000 Camaro SS) before the power steering cooler was standard and it said something about recommended for gymkana events under the cooler option. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean gymnastic's gymkana, but autocross. I just can't see my car doing better on the parallel bars with a cooler. That's why I tend to be a little more liberal about taking autocross related stuff in for warranty with in reason. Luckly I havn't needed to (and I'm crossing my finger's now).

Edit: Can't spell

Could you tell me where to source said sacks of cash? I'll be glad to pick a few up.

What else do you need to know?

The folks at the Chevy dealership where I had all my work done on my 01 Z06 knew I took it to track days, BUT they are also pretty easy going as well. I have heard plenty of stories (true or not I don't know) over on CorvetteForum and Z06Vette.com about GM voiding warranties because people were at the dragstrip. I countered this by placing a piece of paper over my vin in the windshield. Of course, this also prevented thieves from writing down the VIN and getting a spare key made at a crooked dealer too (that happened to a Z06 owner in Dallas). Anyway, I don't have to worry about that crap with the Firehawk as it is out of warranty. However, we took my wife's RSX-S into the dealer when the engine blew up at the track, but that was definitely a manufacturer's defect (engine blew after one lap, no missed shifts, not taken past redline). My view, even if I'm at the track, as long as I didn't do something stupid (like miss a shift) and I think it's truly a manufacturer's defect, then I'm taking it in for warranty. When I buy a sports car, part of the reason I'm buying it is because it should be able to handle track days.

My opinion.

Don't sell a high performance vehicle that you are not confident will survive a high performance enviroment.

And to think that the EVO (especially the RS and MR versions) and the STI are ANYTHING but high performance vehicles that ARE marketed to those interested in a high performance vehicle is insane.


Racing is racing. But with a proper maintenence schedule their is no reason why a car would need anything considered substantial warranty claims work because of autoxing it.


Karens 961LE has well over 200,000 miles and a TON of autoxing.

it's not only about customers being responsible.. manufacturers need to take responsibility as well


cars are luxuries.. not neccessities...

if i buy a luxury product, i expect it will do the job that the manufacturer tells me it will do.. otherwise, i'm definately going to want my money back

I think what you guys are missing is that "designed for", "intended for", "built for", "made for", etc. hold no real legal meaning against "this warranty will be void if the car is used for ______". If it is spelled out in writing when you bought the car, that’s what you agreed to. Just because a car is "built to" race, does not mean that the manufacturer has to warranty anything on that car if you violated the contract. Regardless of what may seem obvious from our myopic perspective, a Z06 may be "built for" racing, but GM does not put that in writing.

Usually if you take personal responsibility for things, there isn't a problem. If you broke it, fix it. If it was really defective, and I don't mean "they should have known I was going to put slicks on this and do a 6K clutch drop", then talk to the service adviser. Usually if you are honest, and they don't feel like you are trying to get over on them, they will work with you. I think I could get my dealer to replace the power window motor or battery if I took it in with the numbers and race tires on the car, but I bet they would choke on a transmission rebuild or broken 10-bolt.

Don't get me wrong. Years ago I stuck GM hard when I had my '97 Z28. They paid for two T-56 rebuilds (first rebuild was hosed from the first day) and a shattered 10-bolt, all broken on nitrous (which was cleanly removed before being taken in). The T-56 was rebuilt under an aftermarket warranty after that. Damn drag racing...

So in other words, don't buy any high performance vehicle and use it as such, is that what I hear??

I don't pay the big bucks to buy a performance vehicle only to have the manufacture tell me they're not going to warranty my car if I autocross. Why even buy one then???? Why not just get a used one???

Read an attorney's opinion...

"Here is my perspective as an attorney and Evo owner (those who have been trashing attorneys thus far should feel to skip to the next post):

This is a warranty issue which means it's a contract dispute, an area attorneys know something about.

As the antimated debate on this post demonstrates, there is a wide range of opinon on what constitutes "racing".

Although the Mitsu warranty book (which I have read several times) says the warranty does not cover damage from racing, it never defines what the highly debatable term "racing"encompasses.

The rule for construing contracts is that the drafter bears the burden of showing what its terms mean and, ambiguities are construed against it: if the terms are unclear, that's the drafter's problem, not the buyer's. Here Mitsu's attorneys had total control of the warranty language, our input as buyers was zero: take it or leave it bub.

There is nothing in the warranty book about timed events voiding the warranty. Trying to add language to that effect, after the contract is signed and the car delivered is like the dealer sending you a letter two weeks after you bought the car saying he's just raised the purchase price $10K. Too bad Mitsu, you made the deal, you live with it.

My insurance coverage with State Farm defines racing. It says racing does NOT include auto-x or track days. Thus damage from that type of activity is protected by the insurance ( and I have the $3K check to prove it). I would argue that the insurance industry definition of racing is relevant in interpreting the term as used here.

There are no courtroom remedies here, our warranty specifies arbitration as the dispute resolution process.

Even if you do race your car, only that damage caused by racing is excluded, per the warranty. So, if the paint fades, that is still covered, even for the hardcore SCCA T-1 racers, duking it out with Vipers evey weekend.


See you at the track."

what was that comment about timed events void warranty then? i know i read that. it sucks but if it says timed events void warranty them suck it up cause you were told so. it doesnt matter if the car can or should handle it. it says what will void the warranty and you didnt listen or read the notice.

I see that I should have qualified what I said a bit more. Yes, since I've got race rubber and suspension work, I would not expect a dealer to cover a broken control arm or rear-end. Those kind of things can be shown, in a logical progression of mechanical stress, to be under greater loads than what one would normally find on the street. However, if I lost reverse or 4th gear in my tranny, I'd be a bit upset if the dealer refused to cover it because my "increased traction caused more wear on the parts". I don't often lauch in these gears. But, if I lose first, even while driving home from the track on street tires, I'm going to assume that 99% of the wear was done on the track.

But, there are many things that I've done with a car on the "street" that are much harder on pieces-parts than anything I encounter on the course. Consider these examples, before I ever raced, from when I had my 95 3.4L Camaro with an auto:
1) 30mph J-turns
2) slamming from N to D at 5500RPM
3) yanking e-brake at 80mph and sending the car into a slide
4) driving across cow fields and 15-foot high levees at about 60mph
5) getting the car up to 50mph, then cutting across muddy, rutted field when the road to my house was flooded out
6) selling the car w 117,000 miles; changed oil at 3000 and 10,000 miles - yup, only twice
7) leaving t-tops off during a hurricane (had 5 inches of water in floor)

All of the various mechanical and electrical work I had done under warranty were because of these "street" related problems.

Basically, I think that you and I are making the same point (as I agree with what you said!), but from different directions.

It would seem so.

OK, now my "lawyer side" is coming out (no, I'm not a lawyer, but I am accused of it often).

Ever watched their (or any car maker's commercial) and noticed the little writing at the bottom? The stuff that says, "Professional driver on a closed course"? Well, they are advertising a car for $30,000 that does those things on a closed course. So, if I paid $30,000, then went to a "closed course" (aka: autocross!), aren't I doing exactly what the commercial advertised that my car was capable of doing? So, if they are using "extreme maneuvers" on a "closed course" to sell the car, how can they refuse to warranty said car retroactively? Sure, if you signed something that says, "I promise that I will never drive the car like the advertisements depicted. If I do, I nullify all warrantied, implied and explicit." then that is one thing - but I never signed anything like that! Are they really using advertising that shows a car doing things that breaks the contract that they wrote? Seems like flawed logic, to me at least.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if you can legally advertise your product by showing doing things that nullifies a contract written by them. But, I am fairly logical - and this seems a bit off.

One last thing, then I'll let a few others have a chance.

I've NEVER been upset with a GM dealer for covering things. I bought my 2000 T/A used. I knew the guy before me had done a few things to it (Borla tips, carbon fiber air lid, chrome hood struts and latch). Well, gong down the road, I threw both belts. Come to find out, my harmonic balancer had come apart. So, being that it is still under an extended warranty, I gave it to the dealer.

About 2 days later, I got a call from them. They said that they really don't cover non-factory parts. I told him that, while I had suspension and exhaust work, that really shouldn't have affected the balancer (sort of the same arguement I made before). Then, he tells me that it is an aftermarket balancer. It turns out the guy had installed an ASP pulley! Well, either the guy felt sorry for me, or he was just really nice. They replaced the pulley with a stock unit!! Sure, I gave up a bit of power, but I didn't have to pay a dime over the $50 warranty charge. Now THAT is what makes me loyal!

That was very cool of them.

Very cool indeed! I have had lots of similar experiences with my local GM dealers, probably mainly because I always knew someone who worked there, and hubby worked for GM dealerships for many years. They know not to mess with me, and they usually ask about my racing!

This whole Mistu case might be an interesting one to watch as I bet it finds it's way to court.

If Mitsu prohibits racing in their manual, but doesn't define racing then I am sure someone will attempt this in court.

Although.. Most insurance companies and "prudent" people assume racing to be a timed competitive event..... However...what about non-timed, non-competitive events such as HPDE's???

I could see this type of court case having an effect eventually on insurance regulations.

A good argument for the Mitsu owners was brought up about the Commercials and mention of closed course driving though.

My guess is that if Mitsu prohibits racing with their cars and it is expressed as such in the manual, then I think they would win this case...but I am certainly not a lawyer.

There is a law the prohibits dealers from refusing to fix broken items that are not related to the other modifications. Since yours was an aftermarket part they didn't have to fix that.

If you had rpped out your suspension and started over and your balancer broke, they are required to fix the balancer, there is no relationship between that and the suspension. I can't remember exactly how the law reads now but I'll find it...

Its the Magnuson-Moss act of 1975....

http://www.enjoythedrive.com/content/?id=7253

As an ex employee of Jegs High Performance, I'm familiar with that one.

I have found that as I am older these days, I still drive hard, but I don't break things. I broke the 700-R4 in my '89 Formula 11 times (broke 6 sets of planetary gears, the car ran 15's). I destroyed 1 ring and pinion. I swapped to a 5 speed and trashed 3 clutches in less than 10k. It's guys like me that I was saying the dealer should not be held responsible for. There are guys that drive them like they are trying to break them, and they often do (I did). If you beat a car sensless and break it, tough luck. That was what I was trying to explain earlier. If I snap a crankshaft on a stock motor while autocrossing, I'd probably take it back (if I still had a warranty). If I snap it on a road course after running it all day long, I would assume that "I'm buying" (I may ask the dealer to look at it, but I'd not be suprised if they don't cover it). That was the difference I was trying to establish. Some guys just abuse stuff and expect the dealer to cover it. As I said, the guy on his 3rd clutch this year, or the guy who has broken multiple T-56s. If you are on your 4th rear end and still bitching at the dealer to fix it, you need to understand the error of your ways. A lightweight checkbook will usually fix those habits quickly.

I'm not just talking about aftermarket parts on cars, I'm speaking of the "chronic abusers" that buy a car and beat it to death from day one. Then they bitch when things go boom. GM should not have to pay for "abuse" (track or otherwise, though most track guys are less apt to just break stuff by sheer abuse, we may wear it out, but we usually don't just beat it up).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a clutch to toast......