I don't remember where, or exactly what was meant, but i have read that the Hyundai's 5 year warranty was 'more comprehensive' than Kia's 7 year one. Also, my Mother in law recently bought a Hyundai i10 over a Kia Picanto, and while it wasn't a deciding factor, the Hyundai salesman told her the Hyundai warranty was better (not that i would place an awful lot of faith in that, he was after a sale, so he would say that!).
It is a source of some bafflement to me though!. They are effectively the same company, whose cars share platforms, engines, gearboxes and most other mechanical components, so why have different warranties?.
|
I don't remember where, or exactly what was meant, but i have read that the Hyundai's 5 year warranty was 'more comprehensive' than Kia's 7 year one. Also, my Mother in law recently bought a Hyundai i10 over a Kia Picanto, and while it wasn't a deciding factor, the Hyundai salesman told her the Hyundai warranty was better (not that i would place an awful lot of faith in that, he was after a sale, so he would say that!).
It is a source of some bafflement to me though!. They are effectively the same company, whose cars share platforms, engines, gearboxes and most other mechanical components, so why have different warranties?.
Warranty is just a marketing tool so there are differences - the main differences are that Hyundai is 5 years unlimited mileage while Kia is 7 years or 100,000 miles whichever comes first - both have similar wear/tear exclusions
|
It’s a full manufacturer backed warranty, as good as it gets. But it has to have a full Kia main dealer service history to remain useable.
That is not true. Kia cannot refuse to repair if its been serviced as per the manufacturers schedule using genuine parts. Because of the length of the warranty Kia quite sensibly state in the warranty T & C's that all receipts and proof of service work carried out are retained as in case of a warranty claim.
No proof, no cover and who can blame them. It also applies if a Kia dealer has carried out the work.
But if you had the proof and they refused to honour the warranty they would loose in court.
both have similar wear/tear exclusions
Which are no different to any other manufacturers exclusions.
Here is a link to the T & C's www.kia.com/uk/kia-promise-terms-and-conditions/
|
It’s a full manufacturer backed warranty, as good as it gets. But it has to have a full Kia main dealer service history to remain useable.
That is not true. Kia cannot refuse to repair if its been serviced as per the manufacturers schedule using genuine parts. Because of the length of the warranty Kia quite sensibly state in the warranty T & C's that all receipts and proof of service work carried out are retained as in case of a warranty claim.
No proof, no cover and who can blame them. It also applies if a Kia dealer has carried out the work.
But if you had the proof and they refused to honour the warranty they would loose in court.
both have similar wear/tear exclusions
Which are no different to any other manufacturers exclusions.
Here is a link to the T & C's www.kia.com/uk/kia-promise-terms-and-conditions/
That exemption also has to carry out all the tasks scheduled by the manufacturer - these days that often includes diagnostic connection and software updates using the car maker's own hardware/software making it almost impossible for independents to comply.
Rather than general wear/tear exclusion, Hyundai list the specific time/mileage limits applicable to main items.
|
“That exemption also has to carry out all the tasks scheduled by the manufacturer - these days that often includes diagnostic connection and software updates using the car maker's own hardware/software making it almost impossible for independents to comply.”
Correct. It is simply not possible for a non-franchise garage to maintain it fully in accordance with manufacturers guidelines. Any warranty claim could be rejected and most will unless there’s a full main dealer history in place. Yes Skidpan is right that the law is against it but you can understand why they’d expect such complex machinery to be maintained by their own dealers who’ve the expertise and equipment to do it right.
As my local VAG specialist also says if you want to use only manufacturer parts too then servicing will be near dealer money anyway so you’d save little. They use top quality non-VAG parts and service items but offer dealer trained staff with years of experience on the cars but they don’t advertise that you’ll retain your manufacturer warranty even if they do use manufacturer parts only but typically they only see cars which are well out of warranty anyway.
|
|
|
The problem with that argument as far as the proof of using genuine parts is that, apart from what's actually on or in (fluids) the car, how can you prove what happened in years 1-6?
The wrong type or quality of oil or other fluids could've been used (or none at all), replaced and replaced again in that time, leading to damage to components, and unless the indie garage used actually had each service thoroughly videoed, having receipts proves nothing: that's their word against KIA's or Hyundai's.
I heard of main dealerships (not either of these makes though) that have falsified service invoices to say they've changed this and that, and the car's owner has checked and found they didn't do any of the things said (mainly fluid and filter changes). Thus surely they could easily do the same if someone asked (or paid [though God knows why they would]) them to.
In the case of main-dealer-only serviced cars, then any issues with servicing not done correctly as above (first situation) would be between the dealer and the UK arm of the car manufacturer, and the car owner would get their car repaired.
|
I suppose dealer garages love it. Imagine a pensioner couple treating themselves to a new Kia as a second car. It does, say, 3-4,000 gentle miles a year. After 7 years I would have changed the oil and oil filter twice and the brake fluid, coolant, air and pollen filter not at all. Total cost - around £50. I wonder how much six or seven mandatory annual dealer services would cost, especially if persuaded to have unnecessary fluid and brake pad changes? More than £1000?
|
I suppose dealer garages love it. Imagine a pensioner couple treating themselves to a new Kia as a second car. It does, say, 3-4,000 gentle miles a year. After 7 years I would have changed the oil and oil filter twice and the brake fluid, coolant, air and pollen filter not at all. Total cost - around £50. I wonder how much six or seven mandatory annual dealer services would cost, especially if persuaded to have unnecessary fluid and brake pad changes? More than £1000?
Let us also suppose that the pensioner couple bought an example with a DCT gearbox, of which are now widely used in many new Kia's and Hyundai's (and a type of gearbox, thus far, not known for being reliable long term). Should that gearbox fail within the 7 years, they will get it replaced under warranty. But were they to follow your service schedule advice, the warranty would be invalid and they would have to pay for the gearbox themselves. Not sure how much that might cost, but i'd guess several times more than the £1000 they saved in servicing costs...........
|
In threads about warranties we tend to assume that manufacturers and dealers are the villains. And indeed there are plenty of examples of poor, even villainous service.
But equally there are punters who abuse their cars, from the boy-racer revving the nuts off it to the clutch-slipping pensioner whose driving is limited to a mile to the shops and back. Manufacturers and dealers have no control over how a car is used and driven; but they can at least require regular servicing to validate the warranty.
It's also a way for makers to support their dealers, or at least their parts wholesalers: without them they wouldn't sell their cars.
|
|
From what I gather then, whoever wrote that the warranty ONLY covers engine and transmission for the final two years was talking out of his rear.
That's cleared that up.
(must confess I didn't see yet another resurrection of John F's oil change regime cropping up again so soon after the last time ... it doesn't seem to take much).
For the record, I'm not in his camp - the Yeti has been back to the dealer for the past 8 years for it's annual servicing. I fall into the 'old retired beggar' category mentiond above who prefers peace of mind and can afford to have it serviced according to the book.
It's not exactly living the high life is it?
Edited by KB. on 28/04/2019 at 00:43
|
(must confess I didn't see yet another resurrection of John F's oil change regime cropping up again so soon after the last time ... it doesn't seem to take much).
Changing the oil every 10,000 miles is a fairly normal regime nowadays, isn't it?
|
If it's OK with you, John, I don't want to discuss your oil change practices on this particular thread .... it's not why I started id it, and you've aired your thoughts about it enough elsewhere.
|
If it's OK with you, John, I don't want to discuss your oil change practices on this particular thread .... it's not why I started id it, and you've aired your thoughts about it enough elsewhere.
Absolutely OK by me. I was merely responding to your post which named me, in case you had an erroneous idea of my regime of not letting an engine do more than around 10,000 miles between oil changes (around 5,000 for my TR7).
|
|
Let us also suppose that the pensioner couple bought an example with a DCT gearbox, of which are now widely used in many new Kia's and Hyundai's (and a type of gearbox, thus far, not known for being reliable long term). Should that gearbox fail within the 7 years, they will get it replaced under warranty. But were they to follow your service schedule advice, the warranty would be invalid and they would have to pay for the gearbox themselves. Not sure how much that might cost, but i'd guess several times more than the £1000 they saved in servicing costs...........
True but it must be said that the Kia Group DCT is just about the most reliable transmission of its type on the market. Shame about their manual clutches...
|
|
|
|
|
|