There used to be a widely accepted rule of thumb: Never buy a car (or any product) in it's first year of manufacture. I think I'll continue to stick to that- and besides, why pay a 5k dealer imposed premium for a car with a wee bit of mashed up bit of metal that makes it potentially collectable?
If I had bought that car, I would certainly hope an apology and an offer of replacement would be the response, I dont think its no big deal with how much money someone just paid for it.
redneckmama wrote: Much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teacup. It's a crappy little trim piece in the trunk not a structural piece that if it fails the car falls apart. From the looks of it it could have been someone getting caught on it and bending it a little. Probably someone in make ready or even someone putting the trunk lining in. If the robots couldn't have done it then it had to be done post robots. Methinks we have a few BRZ haters looking for something to blow all out of proportion.
Ahh.... good to see our resident fanboi is here. Yes, a crumpled structural piece is not a big deal at all. Nope.
Bobzilla wrote:redneckmama wrote: Much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teacup. It's a crappy little trim piece in the trunk not a structural piece that if it fails the car falls apart. From the looks of it it could have been someone getting caught on it and bending it a little. Probably someone in make ready or even someone putting the trunk lining in. If the robots couldn't have done it then it had to be done post robots. Methinks we have a few BRZ haters looking for something to blow all out of proportion.Ahh.... good to see our resident fanboi is here. Yes, a crumpled structural piece is not a big deal at all. Nope.
I don't get where it's a structural piece OR a big deal either.
I would be pissed if I bought a new car with that but it seems like people here are blowing it a bit out of proportion.
Knurled wrote:Javelin wrote:The 911 clogging a bay at work has a glass headlight that is fogged on the inside. Like, with real fog, since the seal's bad and moisture got in there. We can't find a replacement seal, it's only sold as a headlight assembly, which is Not Cheap. The Euro-spec lights have replacement lenses and seals available, but converting to Euro lights would cost about the same as replacing one US light. (I have seen water-filled sealed beams before, too)GameboyRMH wrote: Wait there are headlights and taillights that don't leak?Yep, they're made of this space-age material called "glass".
What year 911? If they're '87+ H5s, you can just take it out, pull the bulb and swirl some 90% Isopropyl Alcohol in there and they clear right up.
IMO, it is obvious that Toyoto sold a car with a serious quality issue that needs to be addressed. The repair is not a simple change out for a new part but involves drilling out spot welds and repainting. The repair will show up in the repair history and will therefore have an impact on the value of the car. I would think Toyota management would want to keep an issue like this from blowing up out of control, especially with a new car introduction. The fact that the car is of interest to enthusiasts whose opinions are valued among the car buying public makes it even more of an issue for Toyota. Plus we tend to share our experiences on the internet such as this. IMO, shame on Toyota for not immediately replacing the car and keeping this issue under raps. Their reputation is only tarnished by this situation.
carguy123 wrote:Bobzilla wrote:I don't get where it's a structural piece OR a big deal either.redneckmama wrote: Much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teacup. It's a crappy little trim piece in the trunk not a structural piece that if it fails the car falls apart. From the looks of it it could have been someone getting caught on it and bending it a little. Probably someone in make ready or even someone putting the trunk lining in. If the robots couldn't have done it then it had to be done post robots. Methinks we have a few BRZ haters looking for something to blow all out of proportion.Ahh.... good to see our resident fanboi is here. Yes, a crumpled structural piece is not a big deal at all. Nope.
so, you would be ok with it as is? If so, when you go to sell it would you think other potential buyers would overlook it also? Or would you want to have it repaired and have it show up on the Carfax? I can tell you, if I was buying the car from you in a couple of years and I saw the issue I would think the car had been wrecked and would more than likely walk away from it unless you were up front and gave me big $ off the price. I would also check CarFax before I looked at it and if there was a repair on it such as this I would expect you to be selling at a discount.
Whether or not a structual problem, it is a quality problem. How it slipped through to this point and how it happened is a mystery. Since it requires consisiderable body work to properly repair and being a brand new car. For the customer/owner, this is not acceptable and should be properly adressed by the dealer/manufacturer.
I would think that on a car this light, if it did not have to be there, it would have been left out. So, I'm going with critical structure.
The part shown forms a box section with the outer skin or trunk rain gutter being the top of the box. Picture pushing down on the body just outside of the top right hand of the trunk panel, and I imagine you would see some deflection due to the lack of this panel.
While I think that the title of the OP is deliberately inflammatory for reasons of his own, I also believe that Scions missed the boat on making this right; the car does have a serious build issue that can not be made "Right" for someone who just paid for a properly built new car. The Scion Suits should have cottoned to that right away. Just think of how all this ink could have been positive advertising for Toyota/Scion had they reacted in a more pro-active way. Regardless of reality, the story as written does not reflect well on the management personnel or culture at Scion.
Only recall on these cars so far being for manual labeling for the airbag, I think we are just seeing some knee-jerk reaction that internet forums can be notorious for. Keep in mind, this is about the biggest enthuast targeted car that has been released in quite some time, so therefore there is going to be much more scrunity on it from the internet forum community.
It looks like all it needs to fix it is for someone to reach up there and bend the tab back up.
carguy123 wrote: It looks like all it needs to fix it is for someone to reach up there and bend the tab back up.
And spot weld into place.
But that is probably why they want to remove the whole piece so it could be welded back in place.
carguy123 wrote: It looks like all it needs to fix it is for someone to reach up there and bend the tab back up.
It's not just a tab. Would you say the same if a piece of the roof structure was similarly bent? There are missing welds, the outer and inner panels will need repainted... all on a supposedly new car. If it was a bolted in piece then no problem but it's part of the welded shell. A structural part.
dculberson wrote:carguy123 wrote: It looks like all it needs to fix it is for someone to reach up there and bend the tab back up.It's not just a tab. Would you say the same if a piece of the roof structure was similarly bent? There are missing welds, the outer and inner panels will need repainted... all on a supposedly new car. If it was a bolted in piece then no problem but it's part of the welded shell. A structural part.
Some don't want to believe that the miracle car can have a flaw. They will fight you until the end.
Some are just contrary and will argue with anything. I think I know which one this is.
Margie
No you don't.
Yes she does.
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Some are just contrary and will argue with anything. I think I know which one this is. Margie
I'd never argue with you Margie. I'm married... I understand how futile that would be! lol
Oh, I know, you never do! Proving your intelligence 
Margie
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Oh, I know, you never do! Proving your intelligence
I like you! I don't care what Tim says! lol
NOHOME wrote: While I think that the title of the OP is deliberately inflammatory for reasons of his own, I also believe that Scions missed the boat on making this right; the car does have a serious build issue that can not be made "Right" for someone who just paid for a properly built new car. The Scion Suits should have cottoned to that right away. Just think of how all this ink could have been positive advertising for Toyota/Scion had they reacted in a more pro-active way. Regardless of reality, the story as written does not reflect well on the management personnel or culture at Scion.
The Scion Suits should have........ you very eloquently expressed almost all of them - OP original reasons 
WAAAAAAAY too MANY suits......
not enough quality/PRIDE of product.
Eh, if it were me, I'd make the dealership give me a small rebate or some free accessories. I'm not entirely sure why it's such a big deal myself. I can't see how the structure of the unibody is compromised by that.
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye I don't see that it's a big deal, but that wouldn't stop me from trying to get another $4k or so off the price 
If it were a big deal, then I'd be posting it all over everywhere and filing complaints with Attorney Generals and whomever I could.
I've been involved with a Lemon and I know the hoops you have to jump through because of what it does to the car on the Dealers end, but I might even try to return it for another, just not under the Lemon laws. You're much more likely to be successful with a "friendly" return
Sky_Render wrote: I can't see how the structure of the unibody is compromised by that.
Crash a car into it, and a "regular" one, and you will see the difference. Tears smaller than that on unibody Fox Mustangs have caused a lot of damage. In the actual "unibody", every piece of metal is load-bearing and affects the others...
You'll need to log in to post.
