God Bless Suzuki.

Even though my Gixxer is 13 months out of warranty and has been abused
[1] Suzuki has agreed to help out. They will pay for the broken parts
and damaged caused by the clutch basket disintegrating.



Crank

#4 Con Rod

All the bearings

All gaskets

Clutch

Clutch basket

And anything else that was damaged.



So I will only have to pay for labour and fluids, about a grand.



I am a very happy lady right now.



[1] According to my dealer

 

Not wanting to rain on your parade, but I am intrigued.

Why would they agree to do this?

I had a struggle getting them to agree to change some warped discs on the (6
month old) SV - you've got them to replace most of the engine
on a bike out of warranty.

 

Hmm, sounds to me like they're admitting there was a problem. In which
case they should cover the labour too. Keep at them, they're on a
slippery slope.

And it's bollox, bouncing a bike off the rev limiter isn't thrashing it.
That's why it has a rev limiter.

 

It was the tight leather mini-skirt that swayed them, wasn't it?

p.s. *excellent* result.

 

That's because you don't look like Molly in leathers

 

Result

Cool - and I bet its not raining there either

 

[snip]

Kawasaki did a similar thing for me when the cams on my ZXR750
were found to be pitted during a service while it was six months
out of warranty.

 

I dunno, I think Suzuki's being quite good here. The bike's well out of
warranty and the dealer's no doubt told them that 'it gets wheelied
everywhere' they could have turned round and said 'no chance' and Molly
wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

That's a good start.

Ouch.


Buzby

 

<Monty Burns>

Ex-cellent.

It's not unusual for a manufacture to go part-way like this, accepting
the bill for parts, or splitting the total 50/50, without actually
admitting liability.

There would be a fair chance, perhaps, of getting a court to agree
that it was a manufacturing defect (in which case they'd be liable for
the whole lot and open to claims from anyone else with the same
problem) if it were ever to get that far, so it's common practice to
go for a no-liability settlement in the first instance.

It also tends to keep the cuetomer happier, although that's not the
most likely prime reason for such a policy, IMO :-}

 

Bollocks. There's a known issue with clutch basket disintigration.
"Warranty" is a scam, sale of goods act states that goods must be fit
for purpose and lasts for something like 6 years from purchase. A known
issue with clutch baskets combined with Molly's clutch basket failing
indicates goods were not fit for purpose. Ergo, Molly has two legs to
stand on.

 

Just because Ducati/importers are a waste of space, doesn't mean suzuki
are being good. merely that they are being better than ducati/importers.

Two bunches of wrongs don't make a right.

No, it's her statutory rights.

 

Really. So if Molly buys a bike and by her own admission wheelies the ****
out of it, bypasses the gubbins that Suzuki put in to restrict power in the
lower gears and if the clutch fails anytime in the next 6 years its all
Suzuki's fault.

 

It's a suzuki "known issue" - no case to prove.

 

mups wrote:

should not be an issue. Rev limiters are there to stop the engine being
thrashed beyond tolerance.

Has this been done? if so, then it's dodgyier ground.

No, but given there is a KNOWN ISSUE with Gixxer Thou Clutch baskets
disintergrating....

 

"warranty" is just a convenient way for manufacturers to service the
needs of an unhappy customer whilst appearing generous. It does not
affect statutory rights (how many times have you read that on the back
of a receipt?). ie SoGA will always trump a manufacturers warranty.

If you want back up reference, google for trading standards, sale of
goods act, distance selling regulations etc etc etc.

 

Crikey, that's still quite a lot, I reckon. What are bike dealers
charging for labour nowadays - 40 quid ph ?

 

Its not the rev limit as such more the stress the clutch is under when
pulling wheelies.

How many people had had road going ones fail. The only one's I've heard of
have been racing ones.

 

Andrewr At Work wrote:

I don't know, but they don't have to - assuming a local dealer/mechanic
or independant mechanic can attest to their knowledge of the issue.

Okay, bad wording, yes there is a case to prove, however given that
there (appears) to be a known issue I should have said

No case to prove [because it's not ever going to get to a court of law]

Again, it's never going to get to a court of law if it is a known issue.
A manufacturer the size of Suzuki are not going to waste the efforts
and expenses and bad publicity if deep down they know there is an issue
and will have to admit to it under oath.

see above.

 

I can't google groups from here, I presume therefore that this bike has
been tweaked, in which case as I said, dodgier ground, although, unless
the tweaks directly affect the clutch basket, it's not game over.

I don't know, and it's not like suzuki are going to tell you.