[HelixBmw]

Local group, A user posted his issues with Audi Canada. The tranny failed completely

RS5 no drivetrain mods, no piggybacks,

The only mods he had:
Akrapovic catback
Club sport Brakes and Rims/tires



[IMG][/IMG]

[HelixBmw]

No sure why it's so blurry let's try again

[TrevorM3]

that is lawyer time.

[c1pher]

It says his suspension was modified too beyond your original list. Do you know this person well enough to say they are being honest? I find it hard to believe their technological design does not allow for any variation such that the car practically blows up.

[HelixBmw]

It was posted by his friend on another forum. I asked the question what was done to suspension and was it truly a tracked car?

[RickFLM4]

Anyone know how the law works in Canada? It almost sounds like are saying the modifications were done to allow him to track the car and tracking the car is what destroyed the transmission.

(Also, seems odd that he redacted the VIN but not his name.)

[The Wind Breezes]

In the USA this would be illegal (unless they can PROVE those unrelated mods damaged the trans) but you would have to pay for a lawyer to prove it.

No idea what the law is in Canada.

[HelixBmw]

The consumer act says they must prove modification effected the failure.

[lens]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

In the USA this would be illegal (unless they can PROVE those unrelated mods damaged the trans) but you would have to pay for a lawyer to prove it.

No idea what the law is in Canada.

It's the same BUT due to his non stock brakes and wheels, they can assume he brought his car to the track and broke the transmission due to that, why else would someone upgrade their brakes for the street when stock RS5 brakes are fine?

They don't care about the exhaust, but the brakes probably raised a flag and they probably assumed he was modified and reverted back to stock. I'm sure they rarely if not never seen the transmission fail on stock power.

I see nothing wrong with that, they have the right to void warranty if they deem it so, don't modify if you're worried about warranty.

[RickFLM4]

Well, I guess Oliver needs to ask them for more details on what exactly caused the transmission failure and then get an attorney who specializes in this area, if necessary. Maybe Audi automatically does this when they see a big repair on a modified car to and will ultimately relent with a little pressure. Maybe not and it will be a big PITA to get it resolved.

The fact that is was a CPO would also make me ask for any documentation of pre-ownership service records and the CPO inspection.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by chaungo

It's the same BUT due to his non stock brakes and wheels, they can assume he brought his car to the track and broke the transmission due to that, why else would someone upgrade their brakes for the street when stock RS5 brakes are fine?

They don't care about the exhaust, but the brakes probably raised a flag and they probably assumed he was modified and reverted back to stock. I'm sure they rarely if not never seen the transmission fail on stock power.

I see nothing wrong with that, they have the right to void warranty if they deem it so, don't modify if you're worried about warranty.

There is a thread on Audizine with people complaining about those stock RS5 brakes for MY2013-2015 and some switched to aftermarket when Audi said they would stop repairing them. Some claim there was a design flaw with the brakes.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...ere-AOA-letter

[JohnnyCanuck]

The law in Canada wouldn't be much different. Therefore, either Audi is saying that the suspension/wheel mods caused damage to the transmission (not inconceivable but somewhat remote); or, they are saying that the modifications were for the purpose of track racing and the transmission was damaged as a result of tracking the car.

If it's the latter, they probably have pretty good service advisor notes about the mods and their purpose from previous visits. The test as to whether Audi can defend this is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the proximate cause of the damage was tracking the car. It's the same test as "preponderance of evidence" in the US.

My guess is that Audi knows the car was tracked. Whether they can prove that on the balance of probabilities tracking caused the damage is another matter. I am pretty sure that there is wording in Audi's warranty that relieves them of liability for use of the vehicle in this fashion. The reference above to consumer protection legislation would only apply if they were saying that the mods caused the failure ... they are actually saying something different, that the car was used in a non-prescribed manner and the warranty is therefore null and void. They only have to prove that it was used that way ... it is reasonable foreseeable that tracking a car may cause transmission damage.

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by chaungo

why else would someone upgrade their brakes for the street when stock RS5 brakes are fine?

People make dumb upgrades they can't use all the time on the car. Brakes could easily just be for bling purposes or maybe he wants a feather-touch to stop the car for traffic lights. There are a million explanations that don't involve going to the track. But here's the thing: that doesn't matter because it's not up to the owner to prove he was innocent, it's up to the dealer to prove he's guilty. They have to show SPECIFICALLY why the aftermarket parts in question caused the failure in order to void the warranty. All they have is a totally unsupported hypothesis which you shouldn't even have to deny. The lawyer will handle all of it.

[ShopVac]

Moral of the story: Don't take the car back to the dealership for warranty work before getting everything back to stock.

[lens]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

People make dumb upgrades they can't use all the time on the car. Brakes could easily just be for bling purposes or maybe he wants a feather-touch to stop the car for traffic lights. There are a million explanations that don't involve going to the track. But here's the thing: that doesn't matter because it's not up to the owner to prove he was innocent, it's up to the dealer to prove he's guilty. They have to show SPECIFICALLY why the aftermarket parts in question caused the failure in order to void the warranty. All they have is a totally unsupported hypothesis which you shouldn't even have to deny. The lawyer will handle all of it.

The thing is also, they have an argument, I'm fairly sure they can prove easily he tracks his car causing the transmission failure.

Plain and simple. He'll pay more lawyer fees then the actual cost of replacement of the transmission. He can take it to court but I'm fairly sure audi would win this one. All they have to do is check the brake usage and vehicles ECU or whatever audi uses to check out what happened before it failed.

Either way, he now has to pay out of pocket, and audi has a full theory and evidence that his modifications were for the track.

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by chaungo

The thing is also, they have an argument, I'm fairly sure they can prove easily he tracks his car causing the transmission failure.

How so? And even if they prove he tracked the car, why does that mean the track days (or whatever) were responsible? A regular track day is something a healthy transmission should be able to tolerate with no issues.

I agree that lawyers will be more than it's worth in this case, unless a simple letter gets you the trans.

[lens]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

How so? And even if they prove he tracked the car, why does that mean the track days (or whatever) were responsible? A regular track day is something a healthy transmission should be able to tolerate with no issues.

I agree that lawyers will be more than it's worth in this case, unless a simple letter gets you the trans.

I believe in the warranty conditions it says any track usage will automatically void the warranty as it's not covered. It's not like Chevrolet where they'll cover any failures on the track with the camaro if you track it as they market it as a track ready car, the car also has to be stock with zero aftermarket modifications for the warranty to be valid.

It's like using launch control on the f30s, it says you can but if you do it too much and it breaks, then it's on you as the manual specifically says LC is bad for the transmission.

[Dang3r]

Not much more to say, consult a lawyer for clarification.
Aside from declining the warranty from Audi its the same like BMW: All afterwards installed parts are not part of the (extended) warranty. If they cause following failures and damage of the adjacent systems of the car (train, engine, (...), every dealer no matter what brand would refuse the repair under warranty aspects.
As a RS5 driver I know my car as it comes stock from the factory and its surely ready for track driving but if I would do that, this is at least a usage which is not foreseen into the terms of warranty, no matter if additional parts were installed. Thats every time your own deal.
But a very interesting question for me is, how the consulted dealer had connected the train damage to track driving.

[Dackelone]

Maybe the rims/tires were different over all diameter front and back? Like tall tires on the rear and short ones on the front axle. That could impact the tran's life.

I agree with the others... it's time to get a lawyer.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

Moral of the story: Don't take the car back to the dealership for warranty work before getting everything back to stock.

Moral of the story: Don't buy a piece of shit Audi.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by HelixBmw

No sure why it's so blurry let's try again

They are implying you tracked the car, and you had engine management software.

I wonder if the previous owners had a tune installed?

[phil_]

He could always go the small claims court route and represent yourself. The limit is now $25,000 (Ontario). Nothing to lose but a bit of time.