What is the point of Lemon Laws, anyways?

[DRTDEVL]

I never understood why they even exist. I mean, the threshhold for attaining "lemon" status is so great that the laws are useless for most consumers. Take VA for example:

car must be returned 3 times for the exact same defect, and spend a total of more than 30 days in the shop for this defect during this 12 month period, excluding shop time for other defects.

What kind of crap is that? I bought a 2001 Kia Sephia in March of 01... By March of 02, I had to rid myself of this POS. It spent more time at the dealership than my house, yet did not qualify under the lemon laws of the state. The total probelms (that I can still remember):

2 injectors died
oil leak from oil pan x2
clutch pilot bearing seized (caused clutch replacement)
headlights died on the first night (wiring)
door handle fell off in first week
rubber trim on roof fell off
starting problems caused by bad fuel pressure regulator (6 visits alone just to diagnose this one)
exhaust silencer cracked after 3 months
coil died
radio died
vanity mirror cover fell off
transmission output seal leak
headliner fell down
fuel pump died
ignition switch locked up
valve cover leak

It spent a total of 12 weeks in the shop during the 50 weeks I owned it, but since none of the problems ocurred more than 3 times, it didn't qualify. Thank god for the 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty!



Oh, BTW: I noticed a lot of postings in here pertaining to whining about being burned in used car purchases... Y'all need to look up what lemon laws actually are. Caveat Emptor!

 

[teflon_jones]

Maybe next time you should research the reliability of a car before purchasing it. Kia ranks near the bottom of every reliability survey I've ever seen.

 

[DRTDEVL]

Yes, now they do... But in 2000, Kia deployed a new lineup of cars that ranked quite high in initial quality. Unfortunately when they went bankrupt in 2001, their quality suffered. Their workers went on strike in late 2000, and scabs were used to keep the production lines running for the interim. Apparently, this car was one of those made by the replacements. This has hounded the Kia lineup ever since, as you will not find a single reliable 2001 Kia on the roads.

Their 2000 models were good, as well as their 2003+ models. Just not the 2001-2002 models.

I have seen a LOT of Kia in action when I served in Korea. They were actually pretty good cars. I returned form Korea in 2000, and my experience with Kia in Korea swayed me to purchase the car.

Now that GM owns them, I won't trust another one coming off the line...

 

[teflon_jones]

Yes, now they do... But in 2000, Kia deployed a new lineup of cars that ranked quite high in initial quality.

No they didn't. They were in the bottom 3rd of cars. And that's only "initial" quality. Long-term reliability has always been very poor.

Their 2000 models were good, as well as their 2003+ models. Just not the 2001-2002 models.

Sorry, check the Consumer Reports reliability guide (and any other one you want).

I have seen a LOT of Kia in action when I served in Korea. They were actually pretty good cars.

Sure, compared to the other crap available over there.

Now that GM owns them, I won't trust another one coming off the line...

I'd be much more likely to trust one now!


You bought a piece of junk car that wasn't a lemon. It's just a piece of junk! Take it as a lesson and next time buy something else.

 

[jpritchett81]

I just stopped by to say Hondas rule!!!!!

 

[DRTDEVL]

No they didn't. They were in the bottom 3rd of cars. And that's only "initial" quality. Long-term reliability has always been very poor.


Sorry, check the Consumer Reports reliability guide (and any other one you want).


Sure, compared to the other crap available over there.


I'd be much more likely to trust one now!


You bought a piece of junk car that wasn't a lemon. It's just a piece of junk! Take it as a lesson and next time buy something else.

Ok, now take all of that data, and erase it. Now replace it with data from publications available in the spring of 2001. The publications painted a different picture back then.