Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby10
Wow......I thought it was only my husband that does that.
But to the OP - we too have been an exclusive Toyota family for the past 35 years and have had only one major issue, ironically with our first vehicle, which was rectified. But I appreciate knowing about your situation and will take it into consideration especially when we move to TV and are looking for a new or newer car - so, thank you!
Secondly, I'm intrigued by your electrical problem in the RAV4. Friends of ours (up north) just bought a brand new Honda CRV and are having similar problems. They have been stranded at least once, if not twice, with a breakdown having to do with their electrical system as well. Hearing your story makes me want to touch base with them again to see how it is being handled by Honda and if they have figured out what the exact problem is.
This seems to be highly unusual for both Toyota and Honda, but one wonders if there is a common factor here.
|
I would guess that the only possibility of this being a common issue for Toyotas and Hondays would be if both companies used the same parts manufacturer, where the same part is used by both manufacturers. Other than this very remote possibility, I feel that we're talking about two cars with an electrical defect that is not typical of either manufacturer but obviously can happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy-Guy
In reading your post I have several questions which I feel were left out of the story and would perhaps complete the whole story.
Was the defective car you purchased a new car or used car and what year? If it was a new car why was it not covered by the Florida Lemon Law? If it was a used car what year was it and how many miles were on the car at the time of purchase and how many miles were on it at the time of return for a new car also what was the time frame between purchase and return?
You refer to the new car you now have as the replacement car. Did you trade the defective car in on the new car or was it in fact replaced by Philips Toyota. To me trading it in would mean that you payed a difference amount where a replacement would mean that you did not pay a difference amount and the car was replaced at no cost to you.
The site for information on the Florida Lemon Law is. Florida Lemon Laws | DMV.ORG |
We bought the defective car—a 2016 RAV4 Limited Hybrid—brand new from Phillips Toyota in a very pleasant transaction. It had one electrical 'problem' from day 1: the panel lights didn't come on. We didn't realize that there even were panel lights, as the car was delivered to us with that switch off and no mention of it. The service manager made every effort to assist us in terms of adding an auxiliary light above the gauges to plug into the power plug when needed. But he didn't even know that there is a switch, that all he had to do was turn the switch on! That doesn't inspire confidence....
It didn't reach the point of Lemon Law; that involves three efforts on the part of the dealership to fix it and were unable. They took the car for one week to see if the problem would happen again, and it did not in one week. I pointed out that it took three months from the first to the second dead battery, and then it happened several more times. This is our only car, in which we had lost confidence after being stranded several times. Out of desperation we accepted the lesser car after being told that the camera was the only feature missing. This was not true, and they had to know it since we bought the car from them!
We viewed it as a replacement car and were told many times by three different Phillips personnel that it would have the same features as the problem car. If we had accepted a 2017 RAV4 Limited, there would have been no money changing hands. We opted for a 2018 model and paid a difference of $2,000. We didn't hesitate to pay this, as we were still expecting what we'd been told: a car with the same features as on our 2016 other than the hybrid system. Again it was our mistake to continue accepting what the dealership was offering when they put nothing in writing, so there is no way to 'prove' what was said. But it's obvious that replacing a defective car would be acceptable only if it had, as they said, the same features as what we already paid for in 2016. With the original car still under warranty, why would anyone consider agreeing to not the same car? From a decency point of view it just doesn't make sense....