RS246.com Forum :: The World's #1 Audi R, S and RS Enthusiast Community

This has been picked up from a US forum(Audizine), originally posted by ArthurPE.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthrea ... drc-recall

Does anyone here know how many RS4's sold in North America compared to those sold in the UK?


In any event, provides reassurance for prospective RS4 customers.

surely this has to be rolled out worldwide?,i know we in the uk have the 5 year 75,000 mile guarantee but its no where near as comprehensive as this.
there will be owners in the uk running round with a mixture of gen1,gen2 and gen3 dampers which is not good enough.
i know id rather have 4 new gen3 shocks fitted all at the same time than the mixture of different age and generation 1&2 that ive got fitted now!!.

sar wrote:i know id rather have 4 new gen3 shocks fitted all at the same time than the mixture of different age and generation 1&2 that ive got fitted now!!.

CORRECT!!!

sar wrote:surely this has to be rolled out worldwide?,i know we in the uk have the 5 year 75,000 mile guarantee but its no where near as comprehensive as this.
there will be owners in the uk running round with a mixture of gen1,gen2 and gen3 dampers which is not good enough.
i know id rather have 4 new gen3 shocks fitted all at the same time than the mixture of different age and generation 1&2 that ive got fitted now!!.

I expect Audi will be fair, worldwide.

Should be worldwide but knowing Audi, will only go to the US as Audi will be worried about US lawsuits and the likes......

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?

total cost to Audi, <$1000 per each of 2500 cars...2.5 mil
cost of litigation >10 mil, legal fees alone...

so far <1% of the cars on the road have had DRC issues/replacement...they expect to find the same during the replacement program...
it's cheaper to be proactive in the land of litigation
and very proactive of Audi to allay the concerns (justified or not) of the customer, rather than pay the lawyers...
good business, good finacially

aidanjaye wrote:Should be worldwide but knowing Audi, will only go to the US as Audi will be worried about US lawsuits and the likes......

bingo...it has already been done for the RS6...>1 year ago
has that happened in the RoW? nope, so don't count on the RS4 either...
DRC is not an issue (<1% failure rate)...the lawsuits would be the issue...
you can get 10 mil in the US for spilling hot coffee on yourself...
you don't have to be 'right', just sue and 'settle', it's the American way

anything circa 1% IS a significant failure rate, most high volume manufacturers will be aiming for a 6 sigma failure rate ... or that 99.9997% of units are perfect, especially on a safety critical system such as brakes or suspension.

The fact that they are on the third generation design as well ...why do you redesign something twice if there is no problem?

Mike_Bike wrote:anything circa 1% IS a significant failure rate, most high volume manufacturers will be aiming for a 6 sigma failure rate ... or that 99.9997% of units are perfect, especially on a safety critical system such as brakes or suspension.

The fact that they are on the third generation design as well ...why do you redesign something twice if there is no problem?

LESS THAN 1%, significantly less than...order of magnitude squared less than...
and >1/2 of those weren't failed, it was done to satisfy the customer...

it's not defined as a critical safety system like brakes
in fact they specifically say you can drive the car, I'm sure their lawyers wouldn't allow that...

yes, to improve it
the Model T was great, but cars have been continuously 'redesigned'
by your philosphy we'd be driving Porsche 901's and not 997's

Suspension is safety critical and it is checked yearly at the MOT in the UK , a leaky shock means your car is not fit for the road.

Your analogy is slightly off, technology moves on yes, but if you went to ford for a spare for your Model T you wouldn't find ford had redesigned because of improving technology ... spares only get redesigned either to save money,change supplier/change manufacturing process or to address in service problems.

So it still begs the question, why would Audi spend money changing the design of the DRC system twice if they are seeing acceptable failure rates?

then how do all the RS4 with the normal weepage/dampness pass MOT?
they pressure check them to make sure they meet spec...

the analogy is perfect...just not to your liking...cool

consider:
the RS6 had the exact same thing done >1 year ago....was it done for the RoW? no...why?
the UK extended warranty cost them almost nothing, and creates goodwill...why? because only Audi know the actual failure rate, and it is very low...

why does the US get this and not the RoW?
becasue of the legal climate...
this was a business decision, not a technical one...ie, cheaper to replace the systems, render null the chance of a suit, than pay lawyers...
even though there is NO issue...

Audi did not spend a dime redesigning the system...
and will probably change them out for considerably less than $1000

lol...mail came...so did the 'letter'
wifey just dropped it in front of me

ArthurPE wrote:then how do all the RS4 with the normal weepage/dampness pass MOT?

It's down to the discretion of the MOT Examiner - last year I had an "advisory" that I had weeping front shock absorbers but not enough to be a failt. This year the Audi technicians advised that the weeping had increased to the point of being an MOT fail.

ArthurPE wrote:they pressure check them to make sure they meet spec...

Nothing as technical as that in the UK, the MOT test is generic so pressure testing is not part of what an examiner will do.