AoA warranty denial

[Ti Kan]

Brad Wilson writes:
> Rob Andrews wrote:
> > I happen to know Ed quite well and know for certain he did not modify that
> > car.  For heavens sake he only had 280 miles on it.  Hardly enough time to
> > even drive it around the block a few times.
>
> Yeah, reading this current case, I'm astonished to find that the turbo won't
> be covered. I think perhaps Audi are over-reacting in response to the number
> of people who are pushing the turbo too far on this car, thinking it's a
> 5000 or something. *shrug*

Well, I just read the thread now too, and there is simply too little
information about what the nature of the failure was.  There was a
picture posted of a failed turbo (with the impeller all mangled up),
but that was posted by someone other than Ed P. and I am not sure if
that pic even pertains to this case.  Moreover, Ed states that since
he used to work at APR, he was denied the warranty "by association"
even though his car is stock.  Yet he claims the dealer is on his side,
and that it was AOA that denied the warranty.  Hmm, if the dealer was
on his side, why would AOA be involved?  Does the warranty people at
AOA know him personally?  Or did the dealer report that he worked for
APR and is therefore suspect?

I am not refuting Ed P., but I feel there are some details we
don't know in the whole story.  It is simply too far fetched to
have an unmodified car with only 280 miles denied of warranty repair
unless there is some real reason for such action.

The rest of the thread is mostly noise, nothing more than hot-headed
"me too" posts complete with expletives which really brings out why
there is a dichotomy between the "good 'ol Audi fans" vs. the "new
breed" (See the "Generations" posts here).  'Nuff said.

-Ti
01 S4 2.7 biturbo quattro
84 5000S 2.1 turbo
80 4000 2.0
--
    ///  Ti Kan                Vorsprung durch Technik
   ///   AMB Research Laboratories, Sunnyvale, CA. USA
  ///    ti at amb.org
 //////  http://www.amb.org/ti/
///