Let me preface this by saying this is the 3rd Chrysler I've owned: 200 Sebring, 2004 Pacifica and now a 2008 h/t convertible. I've been VERY happy with the 1st 2 cars.

I have a 2008 sebring h/t convertible still under warranrty. The transmission failed last Thurs, 7/15. Car was finally assessed by dealership this morning, 7/21. Dealer offers no loaners. ALL my service/maintenance has been performed by Chrysler and they have the records.

I have 2 dealership claims that don't sound right to me and I wonder if there is someone here knowledgeable on this subject.

1. dealer claims that Chrysler only pays for 5 days of rental during warranty service. My questions are:
a) is the 5-day limit true?
b) if the dealer sits on the car for 5 days before making a final assessment, why does the 5-day limit kick in?

2. the dealer claims Chrysler has a 70/30 rule about repair vs replacement. What the HECK is this all about?

Needless to say, my warranty book is in the car at the dealer so I don't have zone-office contacts/numbers.

Thanks

 

If the warranty is from the manufacturer, you can bring it to any dealer (of that make). If it is a used car and came with a warranty from that dealer, then that's a horse of a different color. You'd have to bring it back to that dealer. Again, unless the warranty is a remaining mfg. one, you will be fine at any dealer of that particular make.

 

bob,

Can you comprehend English? I did not say I bought this car new though so perhaps That's the confusion?

The Sebring h/t convertible is a very "pretty" car but I am VERY concerned about the mechanical quality of the car: a concern I Never had with the other 2 Chryslers I bought new.

I've had the short block & 6 valves replaced (@ 8k miles); the trans shift lever & a left front tie rod replaced (@ 21k miles) and now major trans repairs (@ 28k miles). I live in Nevada and the lemon law only applies for the first 12k miles/1 year otherwise I would seriously investigate that avenue.

I'm not sure if Chrysler went down the tubes when Cerberus bought them but it's very coincidental. I realize Cerberus needs to make a return on their investment but perhaps they were too aggressive at cutting costs?