Track Day (pre And Post) Inspections?

[Duncan]

what a cute discussion.

Imagine people beleive that a service department and warranty are there for the customer. They are a simple profit centre for the dealer so their job is to

1/ convince the customer they have to pay for everything, or

2/ get nissan AUS to pay the bill as a warranty claim.

Obviously 1 is preferable and much better for profit because Nissan will pay rock bottom allowances for all work.

Simply put, whatever the sales people say and however the dealer and Nissan Aus argue, they need to meet the state Fair Trading rules that say the goods must be fit for the purpose they were sold for.

Gibo's points about the marketing materials are very relevent, as are Nissan's previous brave decisions like calling one 350z a "track" model.

If the value of the claim is high enough it will be worth taking the dealer to court. If you do with the right preparation you will be a shoe in for a full out of court settlement.

[Duncan]

BTW they are mad to introduce a "post track day inspection". Of course they are using it as a way to acheive point 1 (maximum revenue from each customer), but look what they are doing to their liability....they are taking responsibility for saying they are able to see and approve or fix every single issue after a track day in their inspection.

In racing they are moving from scruitineering to self-scruitineering for this exact liability issue. When there is scruitineering the organisers are taking responsibility for checkign your car is safe, under self-scruit it is your own responsibility. The result is miles apart in legal terms.

[scathing]

'Pound for Pound' Porsche is the most profitable car maker on the globe and one of the most profitable full stop.

That's possibly because they made most of last year's profit from trading in the stock market.

Its pretax profit for the 2007-2008 year was nearly 8.6 billion euros

...

Porsche said its stake in VW added some 6.8 billion euros ($8.7 billion) to its pretax profit

In other words, the vast majority of its recent profitability has nothing to do with making cars.

On topic, what's to say Porsche isn't overcharging for their product? They're resting on their laurels and know that their badge cachet will convince the ignorant to buy their product for reasons that don't relate to technical merit or cost.

Their vehicle-based profitability (assuming there is any) could be a function of charging too much, not because their competitors are charging too little.

Anyone who's ever driven an entry level 3 Series BMW will wonder how the company can get away with charging almost double the price of an Accord for a car that isn't much better. That doesn't make an Accord particularly good value for money, it just means a 318i is a rip off.

Edited March 10, 2009 by scathing

[FineLine]

OOPS!! wrong thread.

[LSX-438]

Update; my dealer tells me the following today:

1. Those which have ALREADY signed the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT will NOT have to sign the new one

2. There is a "requirement" for POST TRACK inspections only

3. First batch/ship is sheduled to dock in Brisbane March 20th, Sydney a week later, etc.

Take it with a grain of salt guys.

[R33GTRKid]

simple contract law defines that you do NOT HAVE TO sign any other agreements beyond your original agreement because Nissan are seeking to vary the terms UNLESS your original contract provided that Nissan could vary at their leisure but arguably such a clause would void the original contract for uncertainty.

Secondly, if you do not want to sign a variation to the original binding contract you have in place, tell them to piss off and tell them you will sue them for specific performance if they try to do anything other than deliver the car in accordance with that contract.

If you have now changed your minds, and Nissan insists on putting in new terms, tell them that their conduct amounts to rescission of the contract, which you will accept and elect to terminate.

Finally, at least in WA, if you enter into a contract to purchase a new motor vehicle and that vehicle is not delivered within 3 months of the contract date, you can terminate without penalty

Arguably you can rescind the contract for a number of other items, including:

1. the vehicle not being fit for the purpose it was bought for or is usually designed for; or

2. where the dealer/manufacturer has misrepresented any major feature of the car to the consumer and the consumer has relied upon that misrepresentation to enter

into the agreement.

This is wear possible Nissan can come into all sorts of grief with quoting times etc - it just needs someone motivated enough to run a test case, set a precedent and the gates of hell could possibly open up for Nissan.

I would offer my services for free for anyone so aggrieved just for a bit of fun, you pay the legal disbursements and you agree upfront that I am in no way liable for any adverse costs orders that may be awarded against you in the event that Nissan successfully defend the case

Edited March 10, 2009 by R33GTRKid

[kralster]

That's possibly because they made most of last year's profit from trading in the stock market.

In other words, the vast majority of its recent profitability has nothing to do with making cars.

On topic, what's to say Porsche isn't overcharging for their product? They're resting on their laurels and know that their badge cachet will convince the ignorant to buy their product for reasons that don't relate to technical merit or cost.

Their vehicle-based profitability (assuming there is any) could be a function of charging too much, not because their competitors are charging too little.

Anyone who's ever driven an entry level 3 Series BMW will wonder how the company can get away with charging almost double the price of an Accord for a car that isn't much better. That doesn't make an Accord particularly good value for money, it just means a 318i is a rip off.

lol resting on the laurels, porsche's have been getting better and better every year.

[N1GTR]

If you're comparing apples with apples, what's the worth of a "thrashed" R35 GT-R with no warranty, thanks to your track work?

Your cashed up social climbers wanting to be seen in a GT-R aren't going to buy a tracked example, especially it if Nissan gives them grief when it comes time to service it. Your enthusiast track day guys are too busy spending money on those consumables you mentioned to buoy up the prices.

It might be worth more than $50K, but relative to how much you paid for either car the R34 still makes a more cost effective vehicle for track work. At least with a modified R34 you can strip the upgraded parts out and try to recoup some of your outlay.

Define "hard".

If you were driving hard you'd go through a set of R-Comps in 3-4 track days if you don't street drive them in between (you might stretch it to 5-6 if you're not concerned about outright grip, or road legality). You'd probably go through a set of OEM pads in 10,000km mixed in with regular street driving if you did those 3-4 track days during that period. That's before you get into fluids that you should be changing after each "hard driven" track day, or other incidental costs. Nor does it include the cost of breaking something.

3-4 track days in 10,000km of daily driving might be a bit more than what a lot of people do, but if you consider your car to be a "race car for the road" and you plan on enjoying it in a legal manner then it's also not unbelievable that some people might do it.

You make some good points as usual mate

I can help to define "hard" on that particular GTR, as i drove it on several days. More than once it had to be driven home using the handbrake and engine as brakes as the new discs and pads were worn out (literally) after its on track adventures

[scathing]

lol resting on the laurels, porsche's have been getting better and better every year.

I never said Porsches haven't getting better and better from a technical standpoint.

However, that wasn't the discussion. We were talking about value for money, and in that respect Porsche is resting on its laurels (as do all manufacturers with a storied history, just look at what Ferrari can charge for their cars).

Porsche knows people will buy their cars because of the badge and what it means to some people. As such, they don't feel the need to be competitive in pricing.....just so long as their product is cheaper than a Fazza. Given that an entry model Ferrari is around $400K, and for the last decade or so we've been in a major economic boom so cashed up people are looking for brand names to show off, there hasn't been much call for Porsche's accountants to sharpen their pencils.

[writeoff]

Plus Porsche don't spend any money on design. All their cars are from the same DNA as a car designed over 40 years ago!

The statement that Porsche are the most profitable car manufacturer in the world (per car) and not withstanding the stock market events of November last year came from an English journalist years ago who just divided net profit by cars manufactured. Porsche rebutted this claim by pointing out that their posted net profit included revenue from the sale of accessories (caps, ties, pens etc) and 'other' means.

[sh@un]

Define "hard".

harder than your mum makes me, that's for sure

[scathing]

Plus Porsche don't spend any money on design. All their cars are from the same DNA as a car designed over 40 years ago!

And even "Porsche Design" stuff is pretty generic. Look at this external hard drive enclosure:

Look! A brushed aluminium rectangular box, with 4 cuts and the Porsche Design ogo on it! Their design team must have pulled some major all-nighters to come up with that design.

Don't even get me started on their phone - I don't think it could be possible to make a telephone look any blander.

Edited March 10, 2009 by scathing

[FineLine]

Looks like their phone was copied from one of their earlier designs.

http://jalopnik.com/242406/early-porsche-h...erdinandelefant