Kia 7 Year Warranty Problems

[kambites]

Kia's ball joints will almost certainly be made by the same people as just about every other manufacturer's. These are not the sorts of components that manufacturers make themselves, they're all churned out of the same few factories. If they've failed after 17k miles, either they were bad examples which slipped through quality control or the car has been abused. The same can happen on any marque and I know from experience that at least some of the "premium" marques won't cover it under the warranty when it does.

[tiger.banana]

If you’re that conserned, get another Kia Dealer to have a look.

[Boosted LS1]

If it's cheap then it has to have been built with cheap parts. I'd just pay to get them replaced, it shouldn't cost much. The grief with Ct or the dealer for your Mum would be upsetting. Even more so if she lost. Any local garage can do this work.

I've owned my 'work' 18 year old saab for 60'000 miles and not changed anything suspension related. It's almost at 200 k now and I've no idea when or if any parts have been replaced. It's an old car but was made to a higher price/quality back in the day.

[Hammer67]

Ardennes92 said:

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.

What makes you think dealers pick up the cost of labour for warranty? Cos they don't.

All the manufacturers I dealt with had a procedure for setting the labour rate they paid the dealer for warranty work.

This is usually based on the dealers retail recovery rate. Not the headline retail rate, the recovery rate is what the dealer, on average, recovers from retail work. The headline retail rate might be £100 per hour for example, but over a month for various reasons, the dealer may sell 1000 hours but only recover an average of £80 per hour. This, usually, is what the manufacturer will pay the dealer for warranty repairs.

Also another poster suggested another dealer might interpret warranty terms differently and do this under warranty. Laughable suggestion unless the dealer wants to pick up the tab. Kias Warranty Dept won't refuse an identical claim to one dealer and pay it for another.

I keep banging on about it on these type of threads, dealers are not the decision maker on warranty claims. They go through a set procedure, assemble the required info and pass the prospective claim to the manufacturer for authorisation. Some manufacturers allow dealers to self authorise up to set limits. The manufacturers also audit warranty claims and claim back paid claims where they find failures in the procedures. Warranty Audits were a major ballache and I'm so glad I'm out of the game....

[Hungrymc]

17k is far too early. Yes ball joints wear but so does any mechanical part. I’m pretty sure the internal durability standards Kia set are way beyond 17k. I’d be amazed if they aren’t aiming at 100k. Unless there is some evidence of abuse, it should be covered.

[carl_w]

Hungrymc said:

17k is far too early. Yes ball joints wear but so does any mechanical part. I’m pretty sure the internal durability standards Kia set are way beyond 17k. I’d be amazed if they aren’t aiming at 100k. Unless there is some evidence of abuse, it should be covered.

This. I'm sure some mention of fitness for purpose or merchantable quality would help. Push for a goodwill gesture (that way no liability has been admitted and no precedent has been set). 3 years and 17k for ball joints is nothing. If your clutch wore out every 1,000 miles would you suck it up as "fair wear and tear"?

[anonymous-user]

Just shows how worthless the extended warranty is
Publicity like this costs them more than the dodgy ball joints

[750turbo]

Ardennes92 said:

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

I really despair at time in here - It used to be so knowledgeable FFS!

Oh, and it is "Warranty".

[750turbo]

TooMany2cvs said:

FamousPheasant said:

My mum has a 3 year old Kia Rio that has just failed it's first MOT due to excessive wear of the lower suspension ball joints.

There y'go, then. Not covered. The warranty is quite clear that wear is excluded.

FamousPheasant said:

Now here is the rub - Kia are refusing to cover this repair under warranty due to fair wear and tear as it is a "common problem due to the roads in Edinburgh".

I'm sure it is.

FamousPheasant said:

She specifically bought a Kia due to the warranty so is clearly disappointed by this surprise cost. The wording of the warranty exclusions states "Gradual wearing of mechanical components in proportion to mileage."

Like I said - there y'go, then. Wear is not covered. These parts have worn.

FamousPheasant said:

To me 17K miles is certainly not proportional to suspension failure and would indicate a design failure - which should be covered.

I wonder what the average life of those OEM ball joints is. If it's a design failure, then it'll be short. If it's a usage-related failure, then your mother's car will be the outlier - unless you're claiming it's a materials or manufacturing failure with the particular joints on her car.

FamousPheasant said:

So opinions, does this sound reasonable? How can it be escalated if not?

Take them to court for the cost. Don't forget to have some kind of statistical analysis of average Kia balljoint lifespan versus other marques if you're suggesting it's a design failure, or an expert metallurgical report on your failed ones if you're suggesting it's a materials or manufacturing failure.

How big's the bill for a pair of balljoints? The parts won't be expensive, and it won't be a particularly long job. £50 plus an hour's labour, maybe an hour and a half? Change from a ton and a half all in?

Norris - Have you really got nothing else to do?

[Hammer67]

carl_w said:

Hungrymc said:

17k is far too early. Yes ball joints wear but so does any mechanical part. I’m pretty sure the internal durability standards Kia set are way beyond 17k. I’d be amazed if they aren’t aiming at 100k. Unless there is some evidence of abuse, it should be covered.

This. I'm sure some mention of fitness for purpose or merchantable quality would help. Push for a goodwill gesture (that way no liability has been admitted and no precedent has been set). 3 years and 17k for ball joints is nothing. If your clutch wore out every 1,000 miles would you suck it up as "fair wear and tear"?

You might have to. You "could" wear a clutch out in 100 miles by abusing it. Warranty pays for premature failure caused by manufacturing or material defects.

One thing springs to mind with the Kia issue ~ I wonder if the old girl has been doing multiple 75 point turns dry steering on full lock. Might explain it.

[Green1man]

I’m frankly amazed by the number of people on this thread that say this is normal wear and tear. These should be lasting at least 60k. Everything on the engine and suspension and brakes is a ‘wear’ item, in that they will eventually wear out, but there is a reasonable minimum expectation on how long these items should last and 17k miles for suspection components is embarrassing for Kia.

[kambites]

Green1man said:

I’m frankly amazed by the number of people on this thread that say this is normal wear and tear. .

I don't think anyone is saying it's normal wear and tear, I think people are saying it's impossible to know whether it's a manufacturing defect or abnormal wear and tear caused by bad driving and Kia, like all manufacturers in my experience, are erring on the side of the latter with their warranty Ts&Cs.

I know logs of Kia/Hyundai (same parts) owners and none of them have had any early-life suspension issues so something is different about this car. Either the owner has been exceptionally unlucky or they've abused it.

[Hungrymc]

Hammer67 said:

You might have to. You "could" wear a clutch out in 100 miles by abusing it. Warranty pays for premature failure caused by manufacturing or material defects.

Or design issues if the base design / spec isn’t up to it. Of course it is all about the type of use and checking for signs of abuse. Which is what they should be doing instead of just blanking it.

[steve-5snwi]

They seem to be common failures on Kias in the same way springs and drop links fail on Corsas. I'm pretty sure they can pressed in and the parts - aftermarket are cheap so you should see change out of £70 per side.

[kambites]

Hungrymc said:

Or design issues if the base design / spec isn’t up to it. Of course it is all about the type of use and checking for signs of abuse. Which is what they should be doing instead of just blanking it.

I doubt there's a mainstream manufacturer in the world that will inspect suspension consumables to try to work out whether they've failed due to a manufacturing defect or abuse. Even on much more expensive componants like clutches, it's often a chore to get them properly checked if they fail early.

I know someone who had pretty much exactly the same thing happen on a 911, and I know him well enough to believe him when he says he didn't abuse it... and Porsche's response was much the same as Kias. Of course Porsche's price to fix it was very much not the same as Kia's.

I'm not saying it's right that warranties don't cover this sort of thing, but it's completely endemic in the industry.

[DuraAce]

Green1man said:

I’m frankly amazed by the number of people on this thread that say this is normal wear and tear. These should be lasting at least 60k. Everything on the engine and suspension and brakes is a ‘wear’ item, in that they will eventually wear out, but there is a reasonable minimum expectation on how long these items should last and 17k miles for suspection components is embarrassing for Kia.

You have to factor in the usage profile though surely?

One of my Kia's has done 60k and never missed a beat. All suspension is original and fault free.

If (and I know it's an if) the car in question spent some of its 17k life being crashed into kerbs and big potholes, or on rough country roads etc then it'll suffer. As would any vehicle.

Hardly worth stressing about though. Just get any Indie garage to replace them. Won't be expensive.

[stevensdrs]

7 year warranty is a marketing exercise and nothing more. I would love to see a list of successful warranty claims on 7 year old Kia vehicles. I doubt such a thing exists as everything likely to fail would be due to reasonable wear. If the ball joints failed at 17k on a 1 year old car they just might have replaced them free but at 3 years, no chance. I have heard of rear disc braked Kia's handbrakes failing at 10k miles, not covered, stuck front caliper, charged for new brake pads etc. etc.
Just had the OH's Kia in for a replacement o/s mirror assembly at 6 months old. No charge but I doubt it would be the same story a few years down the line.

[r11co]

stevensdrs said:

7 year warranty is a marketing exercise and nothing more. I would love to see a list of successful warranty claims on 7 year old Kia vehicles. I doubt such a thing exists as everything likely to fail would be due to reasonable wear.

Case I mentioned earlier about sat-nav repair occurred in October this year on a car registered in August 2011. Same car also had both door mirrors replaced in May of this year because the folding mechanisms had failed. All under warranty.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 28th November 21:00

[kambites]

Johnny5hoods said:

kambites said:

I know logs of Kia/Hyundai (same parts) owners and none of them have had any early-life suspension issues so something is different about this car. Either the owner has been exceptionally unlucky or they've abused it.

Or, could it be very few owners contest it, so we rarely hear about it? Many owners are elderly folk who may not have the energy or the nerve to stand up to bully boy tactics. A 17K ball joint, on any road, is a deathtrap. Someone needs to raise the alarm.

I know enough people who own Kias who I talk to about cars enough to know whether they've had problems with them. I also know someone who has a Porsche who's had suspension consumables fail in the first 10k miles so presumably we should "raise the alarm" and get all these 911 deathtraps off the roads?... not enough to be a statistically significant sample, but nor is the one case we're discussing in this thread.

I have seem absolutely nothing to make me believe Kia's suspension components are lower quality than BMW's, Porsches, etc. I'm 99% sure they're all made by the same companies in the same factories from the same raw materials to the same tollerences anyway.

[kambites]

Johnny5hoods said:

FamousPheasant said:

On another note PH should really have a Kia/Hyundai sub forum - even more so with the launch of the Stinger and I30N!

Maybe if there was a Kia sub forum on here, word would get out about the "warranty" and Kia would have less customers. You know, they're taking a huge market share in this country now. Are they doing so under false pretenses???

Kia and Hyundai both constantly come near the top of UK customer satisfaction surveys... I think their customers are getting exactly what they think they're getting.