Kia 7 Year Warranty Problems

[FamousPheasant]

They are wanting £235, which is not a huge amount, but then money is relative. After some more complaining the dealer has agreed to push some goodwill with Kia UK, so lets see how that goes.

My experience of her driving doesn't suggest she rags it round, nor is it driving around 4 up all the time. Her previous cars have never required suspension work within such a low mileage.

I fully appreciate suspension components do wear out, but at what point do you draw the line? Would 5,000/10,000 miles been ok? Or are we saying new cars do not come with any warranty on suspension, or any other wear and tear components?

[Wait Here Until Green Light Shows]

DuraAce said:

N Dentressangle said:

Prof Prolapse said:

So cheap cars are made from cheap parts which fail quicker.

Who knew?

Quite. The rear discs and calipers on my dad's Hyundai were toast at 40k miles. These cars are cheap because they're cheaply made. Not to say they're no good - they're fine, but they have their limitations.

Do you think Kia make their own brake discs?

Or do they source them through TRW, Brembo etc? Same as every other manufacturer does.

Rear brakes are notorious on all makes for suffering corrosion, especially the inside pad/disc face.

OP..... Did you try another dealer for a second opinion? Not all dealers apply the warranty terms quote so strictly.
Won't be an expensive repair though. You can DIY or get an indie garage on it to save costs.

Edited by DuraAce on Tuesday 28th November 17:01

My Son has a 2007 Hyundai Coupe and I do all the servicing. The thing just screams 'built to a budget' when you work on it. The clutch went at 60k, rust on the inner rear arches, rusted in bolts, clips that snap off etc. Looks nice, but not built to last.

[hotchy]

Why would they cover your mother using speed bumps as take off ramps and those coble streets as a raceway?

[Sheepshanks]

Nanook said:

My view is that if they're knackered after 17k miles, there's not a manufacturing fault here, or they'd have been toast long ago.

Cars come with a warranty against defects or failures on suspension components. Wearing them out is not a defect or failure.

I did agree that 17k miles is a bit low, but I doubt Kia are going to cover any of the cost of repairing them, but you might get lucky.

Things are supposed to be "durable" - ie last a reasonable length of time.

I think the point the OP made about where do you draw the line is a good one - say they car had only done 5K or 10K, would them being worn enough to fail MOT still be hard luck?

And what about people who do 30K/yr - should they be replacing ball-joints every 6 months?

[covmutley]

perhaps ask them (or another dealer) if the work is done, would that be covered by any sort of warranty and use it against them?

[FamousPheasant]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Spotless, only 15".

[Alucidnation]

Krikkit said:

I think 17k miles for OEM ball joints to be worn out is a bit poor, even on Edinburgh's roads.

Have to say I agree 100%.

17k miles with worn joints suspension joints?

Poor quality and no wonder as they are cheap motoring.

Get it on their social media as that seems to be the way to deal with manufacturers these days.

[Willy Nilly]

Surely no matter how hard she drove it, the parts would last longer that they have done? I would expect if she was driving it in such a many to wear out the front suspension she would have had many issues with tyres.

[Sheepshanks]

Nanook said:

We don't have enough info.

I do. They failed in 3yrs / 17K miles. The OP seems sure it's not due to misuse. I don't need any more info.

Kia should replace them FOC. There shouldn't even be a discussion about it - if a Kia garage did the MOT they should have just changed them without even bothering the OPs mother. I'd be dismayed simply for it having an MOT fail against its record.

[FamousPheasant]

Willy Nilly said:

Surely no matter how hard she drove it, the parts would last longer that they have done? I would expect if she was driving it in such a many to wear out the front suspension she would have had many issues with tyres.

Still on its original boots!

[Ardennes92]

I don't think Kia are any different to other manufactures, it could be that the dealer picks up the cost of labour for warranty work so is reluctant unless they are given the parts.
Speaking to a local dealer to me that has franchises for Ford/Mazda/Kia amongst others Kia believe that customers have "unrealistic expectations" when it comes to what is covered; think the 7yrs is coming home to roost now sales are increasing.
The warrant is 7yrs or 100k Miles so presumably fair wear and tear is 15k/annum unlike Hyundai (same company/parts) which is 5yrs & unlimited mileage, so presumably durability isn't thought to be an issue of the overall product

[Willy Nilly]

FamousPheasant said:

Willy Nilly said:

Surely no matter how hard she drove it, the parts would last longer that they have done? I would expect if she was driving it in such a many to wear out the front suspension she would have had many issues with tyres.

Still on its original boots!

So the tyres lasted longer than the suspension?

[r11co]

Krikkit said:

I think 17k miles for OEM ball joints to be worn out is a bit poor, even on Edinburgh's roads.

Edinburgh doesn't so much have roads as a collection of potholes and speedbumps connected by the occasional piece of tarmac, not to mention the cobbles and tram-tracks.

Even the dual carriageways and motorway sections into Edinburgh aren't exactly billiard-table smooth. Having said that, family experience of the KIA 7 year warranty is that different dealers will take different approaches. When the sat-nav went screwy on my father's Sorento one dealer said the work wasn't covered by warranty and quoted £1200 for a new unit. Second opinion from a different dealer and it was fixed FOC by some securing of the connectors, and a software/map update was thrown-in for good measure.

Naming and shaming rules prevent me from saying who the two dealers were.

Sheepshanks said:

I'd be dismayed simply for it having an MOT fail against its record.

Seriously? Talk about first-world problems! The car I just bought has two MOT failures recorded against it. Once in 2014 for "Front registration plate dirty (6.3.1d)" and another in 2013 for "Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)".

I considered using these as bartering tools when buying the car, and if the garage refused to take money off for them (as the car was devalued because of its tainted record) then I was considering going to Consumer Advice and possible suing.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 28th November 18:03

[FamousPheasant]

Nanook said:

He think's it's not misuse. But we don't really know. Before speculating on it, I'd at least like to see/inspect the part.

If you don't want your car to fail MOTs, best not to present it in a condition where it'll fail. Wear and tear isn't covered under warranty.

OP, have you had the parts changed? Did they give you the old ones? Did you ask for them?

The repair hasn't been done yet.

Out of interest what would you constitute a wear and tear failure vs otherwise?

[Sheepshanks]

r11co said:

Sheepshanks said:

I'd be dismayed simply for it having an MOT fail against its record.

Seriously? Talk about first-world problems! The car I just bought has two MOT failures recorded against it. Once in 2014 for "Front registration plate dirty (6.3.1d)" and another in 2013 for "Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)".

I considered using these as bartering tools when buying the car, and if the garage refused to take money off for them (as the car was devalued because of its tainted record) then I was considering going to Consumer Advice and possible suing.

You should've walked away. If the previous owners couldn't be bothered to clean the number plate and put some water in the washer bottle who knows what horrors are awaiting you.

[BlackLabel]

Alucidnation said:

Krikkit said:

I think 17k miles for OEM ball joints to be worn out is a bit poor, even on Edinburgh's roads.

Have to say I agree 100%.

17k miles with worn joints suspension joints?

Poor quality and no wonder as they are cheap motoring.

Get it on their social media as that seems to be the way to deal with manufacturers these days.

Get on twitter and Facebook to complain.

[996TT02]

Prof Prolapse said:

So cheap cars are made from cheap parts which fail quicker.

Who knew?

There are many cars that are not classified as "cheap" where ball joints fail at low mileage. Porsche, from first hand experience, and just read an owner's write up on his Ferrari where he claims them to be practically service items.

I don't know what to say really yes it's disappointing to have them fail at low mileage but IMHO nowadays no matter what you buy, cars are built to a universal standard - the fastest to manufacture.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Krikkit said:

I think 17k miles for OEM ball joints to be worn out is a bit poor, even on Edinburgh's roads.

I think so too. But if its the roads, its not Kia's fault really... fk it, send the bill to the council. Maybe they might do something about the roads.

Round here they're totally abhorrent in places. I am not sure how its possible for a place like Britain to produce roads that might as well be un-metaled dirt tracks. One main road out of the village is so bad (its been dug up and patched over countless times by various people) that unless you're sporting the latest 70 profile balloon tyres, you can't actually travel at the speed limit.

[FamousPheasant]

I will certainly take a close look at the joint when I can.

I think her disappointment manifests to the 7 year warranty and it being the main reason she picked the rio over the competition.

[Countdown]

The "KIA used cheap parts which is why they sold the car cheap" isn't a valid argument.

If they know that it's a cheap car made from cheap parts they shouldn't warranty the car for 7 years.

The "wear and tear" argument is also a bit weak. After 7 years there aren't many component failures where they couldn't use the "fair wear and tear" as a get-out clause.