Anyone get a recall notice for the lower arms i guess rust issues and Subaru will either replace or paint under coating on them i think it is a joke i took my car today and they told me they do a punch test and if it passes they will just paint with a rust inhibitor if it doesn't they will replace them i ask if they take the parts off and clean them before they do it(spray them) and they said no, they paint it while on the car and let it dry for a 1hour then i can drive it home i told them that is a half ass job he didn't like that,i said i wanted them replace or the old ones removed cleaned and painted they said no so i left and went and call Subaru they were no better help so now i am getting a hold of the attorney general office
It sounds like you're as good with tact as you are with punctuation. Which dealership was this at? You do realize that the AG isn't going to be much help on this as you don't have a case. Subaru has outlined the pass/fail criteria for the parts, and they've outlined what the replacement guidelines are and what the remedy is for the ones that pass the test. They (and the dealership) aren't under an obligation to go further than that because of what you think a good job is and isn't. If you're that up in arms about it, why don't you pull the control arms off, have them cleaned and then coated? Sorry dude, you're on your own with this one.
The fix depends on how the arms specifically failed. The coating is a fine solution because it inhibits the problem. As far as how and where the arm is painted depends on how and where it fails. Subaru deems the need to remove the arm as unnecessary likely because it fails in an area that is easily treatable. Now if the arm failed at say the bushing mount location, then there would be a need to remove, disassemble, check, and coat/replace the part as needed. If the part is simply rusting through on a holistic level on a large open, surface, then you simply treat the arm holistically and coat the large, open surface which is likely easy to get to while it's on the car. They are checking specific locations of failure and treating the location of failure. As long as the treatment is sufficient to prevent failure in the future, all is well. You as an individual have no grounds for a case. You have no specific knowledge of the mode(s) of failure nor any knowledge on proper and effective methods of treatment. As well you have no knowledge of the longevity of the fix and how well it will prevent the issue. Does it make the arm last 5 more years, 10 more years, the life of the car? You don't know. I mean what exactly would you bring to the court? Understand that the court system is driven by data, not hearsay and opinion. You get to pay money only to have your case thrown out by basing it on hearsay and opinion. Cases are won/lost based on actual evidence, test data, paperwork, you know... tangible things, proven things, not crap you want or think you need. Understand that Subaru doesn't want to lose customers nor kill them. Subaru doesn't want to lose reliability ratings nor safety ratings. They wouldn't go about such an issue lightly because they've spent so much time developing a "safe" brand image. If you think they haven't don't environmental testing on the parts untreated and treated, you'd be mistaken. They have the data. They know the effects. They deem the warranty work is sufficient. Now if the dealer is half-assing the warranty work by not following specific manufacturer guidelines, you'd have a case, but you would need to know those specific guidelines in the first place. You'd have to know what Subaru is telling them to do and if they are actually following that work to the T. We have some folks who work at dealerships around here, so I think they could chime in and give you details.
I'm pretty sure that they don't "paint" anything. They more than likely are using a rust inhibitor...(anti-rusting paint). It's usually clear aka "colorless" and you probably won't even notice that they did anything if you were to look at it when they're done. Also, you would need a heck of a lawyer to defeat Subarus "team" of legal representation. GL though! Also...
I think the OP is a hit and run sort of poster. The AG probably told him to pound sand and now he's pissed.
It is my understanding that they are tapping the stamped steel control arm with a punch because the original coating didn't stop the surfaces from rusting underneath. The punch test checks to see if the control arm metal has rusted enough to become weak. If the punch goes through or deforms the control arm, then they replace it. If the metal is found to be solid, then the surface is prepped and the rust inhibitor is applied to make sure the problem doesn't happen. POR-15 is pretty nice stuff, once applied, you likely wont ever have rust in that spot again. Remember, you're driving an economy sedan/wagon. Subaru, as well as the rest of the automotive world, doesn't see an Impreza as an exotic show queen race car. A little spritz of rust inhibitor might not look good on the mirrored floor at HIN, but it serves the purpose of keeping your suspension from ****ting the bed due to rust, thus keeping you safe, and keeping you from a catastrophic car accident where you get to sue Subaru for faulty control arms due to the rust-proofing not holding up.
Yeah, I caught that on his first post. Like I said, he was probably pissed and wanted to vent online. Then he called the AG, was even more pissed and decided to take his ball and go home. It's likely a case of addition by subtraction if we've gotten all of two posts from him in 7 months.
