DRC Recall in US/Canada

[PetrolDave]

there will be owners in the uk running round with a mixture of gen1,gen2 and gen3 dampers which is not good enough.

Sorry but that's not true - Gen1 DRC was ONLY fitted to the B5 RS6.

The B7 RS4 came from the factory with Gen2 DRC, and AFAIK the difference between Gen2 and Gen3 is the seal on the shock absorbers.

I now have 2 Gen3 front shock absorbers , and 2 Gen2 rear shock absorbers - and I'm quite happy with that situation.

[sar]

Sorry but that's not true - Gen1 DRC was ONLY fitted to the B5 RS6.

The B7 RS4 came from the factory with Gen2 DRC, and AFAIK the difference between Gen2 and Gen3 is the seal on the shock absorbers.

I now have 2 Gen3 front shock absorbers , and 2 Gen2 rear shock absorbers - and I'm quite happy with that situation.

no worries i stand corrected, id still rather have 4 gen 3 shocks.

[Dom81]

If someone on here has communication established with Jeremy Hicks, why not ask him his thoughts on Audi UK adopting the same stance as AOA?

I would guess it would come better from someone who has already written to him rather than a bolt out of the blue stranger?

I'm on it in the morning (unless anyone's already sent one)?

[rs4v8]

so far <1% of the cars on the road have had DRC issues/replacement...

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 1% figure from ArthurPE?

128 RS4 owners have contributed to the failure log on here which seems quite a lot to me. I expect that owners posting on the log will be heavily outnumbered by people who don't use this site (but may well have had problems with their cars).

Using your 1% figure, and using the 128 recorded faults here (and the rather large assumption that every RS4 owner is a member of RS246), that would mean roughly 13,000 cars produced. How many did they build? Anyone know?

I will be happy to be proven wrong but I suspect the number will be significantly higher than 1%.

[ArthurPE]

it's considerably less than 1%...

there were >30,000 produced world wide...
and I would say since there is no option for people that didn't have a problem, it is over represented...
in fact internet polls usually cater to a select group, not typically a representative sample...
and who says they were all problems? or that list is accurate?
some are duplicates due to improper install...
some may have been done to appease the customer, some to make $$$ by the dealer on warranty...

Audi keeps track of these things, they know the numbers...in fact they are the only ones who do (other than KYB)
they can look up within seconds how many replacement sets were ordered, for example in the US...
but this is information they wouldn't, nor shouldn't share...

the fact is, to avoid litigation costs, and garner goodwill, they have decided to replace them on US cars...not because there is a problem, but to avoid a more expensive solution down the road...it's a financial decision
not technical...why do you think it's being done in the US?

shocks are a wear and tear item, some warranties don't even cover them...my M3 shocks were shot in 50k miles...so they could have waited this out, or given an extended warranty like the UK, which would cost them nothing since the failure rate is so low...

go to some German forums and see if it's considered a huge issue...for that matter, do the same for deposits or HP rating...and the Germans are car crazy, lol

MB UK
Hi,
I have a problem with right front shock absorber (fluid leak).
I went to Mercedes dealer but they say that shock absorber is not cover in warranty!

I wrote to "CustomerService.UK@cac.mercedes-benz.com" and they reply me with this:

"Thank you for contacting the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance Center Maastricht N.V.

In regards to your warranty query, I can confirm that the shock absorbers are considered a wear and tear item and would therefore not be covered within the warranty period."

You have some advise to me?
From my point a view the shock absorber is not a wear and tear item.

[ArthurPE]

just looked at my warranty books:

factory:
wear and tear covered for 12 mos/12k miles (the std including, but not limited verbage)

CPO:
covered suspension components: shocks are not listed, springs, etc. are....

wear & tear, no coverage, shocks not listed (the std including, but not limited verbage)
looks like Audi left it so they can make the call on a case by case basis...


so it appears Audi could make the case they are not covered and walk away from this clean, yet they took the road that benefits the customer...

[rs4v8]

Sorry ArthurPE I think you are kidding yourself. You still haven't answered the question. Where did you get the 1% from?

Assuming ridiculous data, 30000 cars, 100% of owners use this site and 50% of the log entries are lies (why would they be?)then that would mean 0.2%
(64/30000) * 100

Substituting the numbers for more reasonable ones of 30000 cars, 1000 owners are RS246 members and 90% log accuracy means potentially 11.5 % of owners have had problems.
(115.2/30000) * 30 * 100

I hear what you are saying about internet polls but in what way is the 128 entries not a representitive sample? This is a large enough number to discount the odd 'random' and it comes from a pool of enthusiasts / owners who stand nothing to gain from fabricating faults rather than joe bloggs asked on the high street about his opinion on something he has no knowlege or experience of. They have taken the time to document the fault, the mileage and the dealership who carried out the repair succesfully or otherwise? Even if 50% of the entries are lies it still means over 5% based on 1000 owners using this site (which I also believe to be too high an estimate).

The only reason they are replacing them in the States is to avoid litigation. The only reason.

I can understand this from a business viewpoint. It doesn't mean as a customer I have to agree / like it.

[ArthurPE]

it's much less than 1%, order of magnitude less...
you believe what you like
mine is working perfectly at 35k miles, and I have a new one waiting up to 2 years from now...so as far as I know, there are 0 failures...

it would seem in your case it's a 100% failure rate...
either way, it appears to be not covered by warranty (or at least at their discretion), but Audi put an extended warranty on the items, without any legal obligation to do so, other than take care of their customers...I say <<1%, you >10%...whatever it is, it is moot...it changes nothing

Sorry ArthurPE I think you are kidding yourself. You still haven't answered the question. Where did you get the 1% from?

Assuming ridiculous data, 30000 cars, 100% of owners use this site and 50% of the log entries are lies (why would they be?)then that would mean 0.2%
(64/30000) * 100

Substituting the numbers for more reasonable ones of 30000 cars, 1000 owners are RS246 members and 90% log accuracy means potentially 11.5 % of owners have had problems.
(115.2/30000) * 30 * 100

I hear what you are saying about internet polls but in what way is the 128 entries not a representitive sample?
Enthusiasts / owners who stand nothing to gain from fabricating faults? have documented the fault, the mileage and the dealership who carried out the repair succesfully or otherwise? Even if 50% of the entries are lies it still means over 5% based on 1000 owners using this site (which I also believe to be too high an estimate).

[rs4v8]

just looked at my warranty books:

factory:
wear and tear covered for 12 mos/12k miles (the std including, but not limited verbage)

CPO:
covered suspension components: shocks are not listed, springs, etc. are....

wear & tear, no coverage, shocks not listed (the std including, but not limited verbage)
looks like Audi left it so they can make the call on a case by case basis...

so it appears Audi could make the case they are not covered and walk away from this clean, yet they took the road that benefits the customer...

I now have absolutely no doubt you work for Audi PR!!!

Failure of an integral component of a vehicle (which even you will agree the DRC is yes?) can not, in any situation, be considered wear and tear on a vehicle which is only a few years old and / or has done a sensible mileage. Brakes / tyres / clutch yes. They are replacing the shocks under the standard 3 year warranty because they have to, absolutely not because they are being nice to the customer. The fact that they were decent enough to extend the warranty to five years on all UK cars due to the actions of certain members here is most definately an indication of some decent customer service. Although, I would suggest that this is an indication of how many cars have had problems (in the UK anyway) and that to avoid turning people away from the brand they have offered this blanket warranty rather than a case by case application to Audi HQ, as you contend above, a business decision not a technical one. I was once told by an Audi salesman that Audi are not in the habit of losing money. Why would they?

[rs4v8]

it's much less than 1%, order of magnitude less..

Answer the f*^%ing question!!!!! You keep quoting <1% but you have provided ZERO evidence to back this up. I make no bones about the fact that my figures are estimates, but they are based on sensible evaluation of the data available.

you believe what you like

You're you smug you could eat yourself.

mine is working perfectly at 35k miles, and I have a new one waiting up to 2 years from now...so as far as I know, there are 0 failures...

Good for you. I'm genuinely happy for you. I suspect you will be very quiet if it does fail. I have a large American-sized portion of humble pie waiting for you if it does....

without any legal obligation to do so, other than take care of their customers...

Take care because they don't want to lose customers to the competition and / or lose reputation. Not to be "nice"......

I say <<1%, you >10%...whatever it is, it is moot...it changes nothing

See comment above regs being smug. It seems that no-one can have an alternative view to you with without being belittled. Moot? kiss my arse.

[scaghead]

not long till your gone, so calm down jimmy

[rs4v8]

I am calm my friend. Very calm thanks

Can't be arsed feeling belittled by someone who refuses to even entertain someone else's point of view / opinion, even if it is way off the mark (I'm willing to admit I might be, unlike others). Just for the record I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I like using this site, I will continue to do so once I get my new car (even if I get barred for the above!).

My stands however!!

[rs4v8]

it's much less than 1%, order of magnitude less...

Just read this again! So you are saying that there is a 0.1% failure rate?

Assuming this is indeed what you are saying then at 30000 cars, that means there will have only been 30 failures? Worldwide?

Furthermore, what you are saying then is, of the 128 faults posted on here in the DRC log, 98 of these are fabrications?

To take it to the other end of the scale, an "order of magnitude" could mean a failure rate of 0.9% which will be 270 cars worldwide. Again, considering the fault log, even if only 50% of the people have had genuine problems then your statement of less than 1% seems shaky.

I smell something and it's not roses.........

[P_G]

It's like a red rag to a Bull with you RS4V8. BTW 1% of 30,000 is 300, not 30. Also if you have a look at the 128 entries on the post you refer to there are a few people with double entries, me included. Not justifying anyone's arguments just to be clear.

So neither of the figures quoted are accurate. I suspect the 1% Arthur refers to and he can correct me if I am wrong refers to the info. AOA gave him on US cars.

DRC failure does happen, there is a solution out there for it, Arthur has probably idenitfied the reason the US get this recall whereas the UK doesn't, litigation culture in the US.

As said someone see what the response from Jeremy Hicks is to the AOA's solution to the issue and see whether the UK will replicate it. I suspect not because they will say a solution is already in place. I seem to recall there was reported a Gen3 failure on an RS4 seen at Camberley; was it a forum users car or is there any way of fingin out whether the failure was the saem as on Gen2 or a production fault?

[rs4v8]

It's like a red rag to a Bull with you RS4V8. BTW 1% of 30,000 is 300, not 30.

Maybe I missed something there - where did I say that?

Also if you have a look at the 128 entries on the post you refer to there are a few people with double entries, me included.

and how exactly is that better?

So neither of the figures quoted are accurate. I suspect the 1% Arthur refers to and he can correct me if I am wrong refers to the info. AOA gave him on US cars.

I have openly said that none of my figures are accurate, they are based on a range of possible oucomes. I have repeatedly asked where he got his "cast iron" figures from and he hasn't given the reply! We were talking about worldwide failures also, unless they sold 30k in the US? Clearly it's not allowed to ask certain questions or have certain opinions, particularly if you're not in the groovy gang.

Holy smokes - another one making it up.

http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... &start=345

I will take your point about the red rag tho P_G. I'll shut up now as it doesn't affect me anymore.