Originally Posted by
pizzaguy
Agreed. The idea of offering an extended warranty to SOME customers and not others was asinine from the start. I got letters from Chrysler for my first two Roadsters, both were 05's and both were sold new in Georgia. I talked to KimPossible (Crossfire owner and dealer relationship manager for Chysler) and her she told me that she thought offering the extended warranty on the top was a mistake - if they were not going to warranty them all, they should not have warrantied any of them. I tend to see her point - all they did was admit they had a problem, but that they'd say "to hell with you" if you, or someone before you, bought the car up north. My position is that it should have been a recall, but calling it a "safety issue" is asinine. My window coming unglued did not threaten my safety.
And *someone* along the line figured out the ignition problem, as 07 an 08's do not have the two bad parts in them. It too should have been a recall, I did a search and could not find a recall on the SLK320/32AMG for this, and I am sure they suffered the same problem, unless, the design was modified for the Crossfire but I really don't believe that.
I agree that the lack of evidence (ie: accident/injury) does not support a safety related defect of our Roadsters. But it would be better for all if rear & side windows have DOT safety standards somewhat like windshields (different, of course, and not just convertibles.) My initial focus (& a few others) went to the Fed. Trade Comm., who has authority over such things as unfair business practices. Their response to us & our Senator was, in a nutshell, they can't $pend resources on such $mall potatoes!?!
Guess they didn't get enough complaints. Thanks for nothing; FTC.
I would bet Chrysler has some regrets as to how they handled the issue. My theory is they felt it necessary to do something, especially after the NHTSA inquired in late 2009, armed with complaints. Again, they should have offered the Warranty ONLY to all Original Buyers, and they would have been ahead of the game. What obligation should they have to subsequent owners? And the cars covered @ 100% were defined by VIN number as much as they were by State
The Bonehead that approved that idea should have been promptly in the unemployment line!
