I would go back to the Audi dealership and kick up a bit of a fuss and try to get them to fix the the clutch. At least you may get them to do it for parts only
The clutch is part of the car that wears away over time. Buying a used car to save money also increases the odds part of the car will need replacing outside of any warranty.
Unless part of the purchase agreement included a warranty of some or part of the car, than you are SOL. For customer service reasons, they may offer a deal to replace the part.
Car in question is a 2009 Mazda 3 hatchback with 37,000km, purchased from an Audi dealer in greater Vancouver.
The car drove fine in our road test, but now just over four weeks later the clutch has worn out on it. One of those weeks we were in Disney World, so really only three weeks driving time.
A Mazda dealer test drove the car, confirmed the problem and gave me a quote for $1500.
I wouldn't claim to be hard on the clutch (our trade-in was pushing 220K on it's original clutch), but I can certainly see the dealers viewpoint - the car has been out of their control for 3+ weeks driven god-knows-how.
My question: should the dealer who sold me the car bear any responsibility seeing as this could be a preexisting condition before the sale? I waiting on their return call, but in the meantime thought I'd ask the CP braintrust.
Look for Exedy clutch set, wholesale price is well below 200 eur, if you are lucky you can get a deal.
Exedy is OEM for Mazda IIRC so you are paying HUGE premium for the same part from the same production line but in a different box.
Yeah maybe. This is from the BC Sale of Goods Act.
Quote:
Implied conditions as to quality or fitness 18 Subject to this and any other Act, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale or lease, except as follows:
[...]
(c) there is an implied condition that the goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease;
Arguing about what a reasonable period of time is having regard to the use for which it would normally be put is a matter for dem lawyers. But your question is, "should the dealer who sold me the car bear any responsibility?" and my answer would be "potentially yes".
Spoiler!
[1975] 1 All ER 139
Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Lord Denning MR
'The plaintiff, Mr Crowther, is a young man interested in art. In 1972 he bought a secondhand motor car from the defendants who were reputable dealers in Southampton. It was a 1964 Jaguar. He bought in on 17 July 1972 for the sum of £390. The dealers commended it. They said that 'it would be difficult to find a 1964 Jaguar of this quality inside and out'. They added that for a Jaguar 'it is hardly run in'. Mr Crowther looked carefully at it. He took it for a trial run. The next day it was tested by the Ministry of Transport officials. The report of the test was satisfactory. So Mr Crowther bought the Jaguar. He did not take the words of puff seriously. But he relied on the sellers' skill and judgment. There was clearly an implied condition under s 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 that the car was reasonably fit for the purpose for which he required it and which he made known to the sellers.
That was 17 July 1972. The mileage as stated on the mileometer at that time was 82,165 miles. Mr Crowther took the car. He drove it on some long journeys. He went up to the north of England and back. He went round Hampshire. He went over 2,000 miles in it. He found that it used a great deal of oil. But he managed to drive it for three weeks. Then on 8 August 1972, when he was driving up the M3 motorway, it came to a full stop. The engine seized up. The car was towed into a garage. The engine was found to be in an extremely bad condition. So much so that it had to be scrapped and replaced by a reconditioned engine. The car was out of use for a couple of months or so.
Mr Crowther brought an action in the county court for damages from the dealers. He called as a witness a previous owner of the car, a Mr Hall. He gave evidence that he had bought it from these selfsame dealers about eight months before. He had paid them about £400 for it. He had used it for those eight months and then sold it back in July 1972 to these very dealers. When he resold it to them he knew the engine was in a very bad state, but he did not disclose it to them. He left them to find out for themselves. He was himself an engineer. He gave a trenchant description of the engine:
'At the time of resale I thought the engine was clapped out. I do not think this engine was fit to be used on a road, not really, it needed a rebore.'
The judge accepted the evidence of Mr Hall. He held that there was a breach of s 14(1) of the 1893 Act. He awarded Mr Crowther damages in the sum of £460 with costs. Now there is an appeal to this court by the dealers. They say there was no justification for the finding that this car was not reasonably fit for the purpose. The mileage when they sold it was 82,165 miles. The mileage when it 'clapped out' was 84,519 miles. So that in the three weeks it had gone 2,354 miles.
Counsel for the dealers, who put the case very cogently before us, submitted that a car which had covered 2,354 miles must have been reasonably fit for the purpose of driving along the road. He drew attention to a case some years ago in this court, Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd. We emphasised then that a buyer, when he buys a secondhand car, should realise that defects may appear sooner or later. In that particular case a defect did appear in the clutch. It was more expensive to repair than had been anticipated. It was held by this court that the fact that the defect was more expensive than had been anticipated did not mean that there had been any breach of the implied condition. But that case seems to me to be entirely distinguishable from the present case. In that case it was a minor repair costing £45 after 300 miles. Here we have a very different case. On the dealers' own evidence, a buyer could reasonably expect to get 100,000 miles life out of a Jaguar engine. Here the Jaguar had only done 80,000 miles. Yet it was in such a bad condition that it was 'clapped out' and after some 2,300 miles it failed altogether. That is very different from a minor repair. The dealers themselves said that if they had known that the engine would blow up after 2,000 miles, they would not have sold it. The reason obviously was because it would not have been reasonably fit for the purpose.
Some criticism was made of a phrase used by the judge. He said: 'What does “fit for the purpose” mean?' He answered: 'To go as a car for a reasonable time.' I am not quite sure that that is entirely accurate. The relevant time is the time of sale. But there is no doubt what the judge meant. If the car does not go for a reasonable time but the engine breaks up within a short time, that is evidence which goes to show it was not reasonably fit for the purpose at the time it was sold. On the evidence in this case, the engine was liable to go at any time. It was 'nearing the point of failure', said the expert, Mr Wise. The time interval was merely 'staving off the inevitable'. That shows that at the time of the sale it was not reasonably fit for the purpose of being driven on the road. I think the judge on the evidence was quite entitled to find there was a breach of s 14(1) of the 1893 Act and I would therefore dismiss the appeal.'
Last edited by AR_Six; 03-05-2013 at 07:01 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to AR_Six For This Useful Post:
The Audi dealership is going to pay 50% of the bill! Surprisingly they don't insist on their mechanics doing the work, only that it be done by a Mazda dealership. Didn't need to argue (or have my wife crying in the background, either). Also this is after they accepted my offer of $1300 off their asking price on the car.
That's a pretty fair shake. I was dealing with Maxim from the Audi dealership in the Richmond Auto Mall.
Thanks for everyone's input!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BloodFetish For This Useful Post:
The Audi dealership is going to pay 50% of the bill! Surprisingly they don't insist on their mechanics doing the work, only that it be done by a Mazda dealership. Didn't need to argue (or have my wife crying in the background, either). Also this is after they accepted my offer of $1300 off their asking price on the car.
That's a pretty fair shake. I was dealing with Maxim from the Audi dealership in the Richmond Auto Mall.
Thanks for everyone's input!
I find dealers get a bad shake, and for good reason, but there are several dealers out there who run really good service departments.
I specifically remember my own case when a GM dealership did a $600 repair for me not covered under warranty and covered it because I had done all my oil changes through them and did my last tires through them (even though I had to push for a better price on tires).
I'm still on the original clutch on my 05 civic at 440 000. If someone destroyed the clutch that quick i would be worried.
Yeah, and I am but there's not much I can do about that now.
We consider this car an interim vehicle until some more diesel options are available in Canada. Can't afford Audi's or Mercedes, and VW are not cheap either. Mazda seems to be putting out 'good value' vehicles these days.
Diesel 6's are confirmed for the Canadian market and eventually I think we'll see the Mazda CX5. A diesel 3 would be awesome but I don't know if they're even producing that for overseas markets.
Hopefully in a couple of years we'll trade this in for something else.
Kunky and Hulky go to indy's to get their work done, nice!
If it's something I can't do, or is too much of a PITA to do on my own (which now turns out to be most things) absolutely. A good indy is worth gold! I've got two shops in town I like, with one being heavily favored. I think I've only taken the current car to the dealership once, because the guy I prefer to use was backed up for 2 months.
Ahhhh, clutches. Driving a wedge between customers and dealers since 1910.
Clutches, especially on used cars, are always a mystery item. The problem is, there is no way to truly tell if they are gibbled, especially on self adjusting hydraulic clutches until they fail out side of taking it apart. And there is no way to tell if the previous owner sucked at driving. I can say this. At least half of people I went on test drives with while I was on the floor, was completely unqualified to drive a manual transmission. Most people would drive with their foot resting on the clutch pedal, and even if you only apply a tiny amount of force, it will prematurely wear it at a ridiculous rate. Even if you told people that, they would argue "Don't tell me how to drive manual, I have been for 20 years!" Yeah, wrong for 20 years, what do you think that footrest left of the clutch is for? Decoration?. Also people tend to balance the car on a hill by feathering the clutch thinking they are some sort of clutch ninja, when again, you are causing a ton of premature wear by intentionally slipping it for sometimes up to a minute at a time. If you are that bad at hill starts, use the park brake, better yet, buy an auto.
The one gamble you can make, is to have the dealer replace it, and if they find oil on the clutch disk, then you have a legit claim. As that means you have a leaking front main seal. That is pretty much the only clutch repair covered by warranty. In all the clutch repairs disputed I have seen, it boils down to driver error 90% of the time once you ask some questions about driving habits and do some digging.
The worst one I ever had was a 2004 TDI I sold new. I get a call from the guy an hour after he picked up the car, that the car wouldn't move, and smelt like rotten eggs/sulfur. Right there I knew the clutch was blown. I called roadside assist, and had the car towed back. Started talking to the customer, and he was starting the car in 3rd gear, in the hopes he would save on fuel costs. He did this through the downtown core in rush hour, and grenaded it in under an hour on a brand new car right out of the wrapper.
Unfortunately, that is the one risk when you buy a used vehicle with a stick either privately, or from a dealer. You never know exactly how good at driving a standard the previous owner was.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Ahhhh, clutches. Driving a wedge between customers and dealers since 1910.
Clutches, especially on used cars, are always a mystery item. The problem is, there is no way to truly tell if they are gibbled, especially on self adjusting hydraulic clutches until they fail out side of taking it apart. And there is no way to tell if the previous owner sucked at driving. I can say this. At least half of people I went on test drives with while I was on the floor, was completely unqualified to drive a manual transmission. Most people would drive with their foot resting on the clutch pedal, and even if you only apply a tiny amount of force, it will prematurely wear it at a ridiculous rate. Even if you told people that, they would argue "Don't tell me how to drive manual, I have been for 20 years!" Yeah, wrong for 20 years, what do you think that footrest left of the clutch is for? Decoration?. Also people tend to balance the car on a hill by feathering the clutch thinking they are some sort of clutch ninja, when again, you are causing a ton of premature wear by intentionally slipping it for sometimes up to a minute at a time. If you are that bad at hill starts, use the park brake, better yet, buy an auto.
The one gamble you can make, is to have the dealer replace it, and if they find oil on the clutch disk, then you have a legit claim. As that means you have a leaking front main seal. That is pretty much the only clutch repair covered by warranty. In all the clutch repairs disputed I have seen, it boils down to driver error 90% of the time once you ask some questions about driving habits and do some digging.
The worst one I ever had was a 2004 TDI I sold new. I get a call from the guy an hour after he picked up the car, that the car wouldn't move, and smelt like rotten eggs/sulfur. Right there I knew the clutch was blown. I called roadside assist, and had the car towed back. Started talking to the customer, and he was starting the car in 3rd gear, in the hopes he would save on fuel costs. He did this through the downtown core in rush hour, and grenaded it in under an hour on a brand new car right out of the wrapper.
Unfortunately, that is the one risk when you buy a used vehicle with a stick either privately, or from a dealer. You never know exactly how good at driving a standard the previous owner was.
I was hoping you'd make an appearance. The Mazda dealer where I had the new clutch put in told me a story where a guy took a 3 out for a test drive and blew the clutch, so I guess it can happen.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned the Audi dealership stepped up a and will cover 50% of the charge. On Friday I'll go pick up a reimbursement cheque and drop off some cookies or something for them.
The new clutch is in and man does it feel different. Not better or worse, just different. Not nearly as stiff and I think it is further away from the floor by about a 1/2". Stalled the car twice on the drive home as it was so much more responsive .
Dreading the first time I'm in the passenger seat with Mrs. B driving. I'll be a study in biting my tongue...
Most people would drive with their foot resting on the clutch pedal, and even if you only apply a tiny amount of force, it will prematurely wear it at a ridiculous rate.
This. This. A million times; this.
To a lesser extent, from my understanding the same applies to leaving your hand on the stick. (obviously not the clutch itself, but the linkage in between)
Last edited by DownhillGoat; 03-06-2013 at 08:00 PM.
You're lucky you got a few weeks. I bought a used Nissan Sentra in a private sale a month and a half ago. Transmission died 2 days after I bought it. My cheap $4500 car is now a $7000 car.
. 
