1984 SUBARU GL User Comment / Complaint

The ignition switch failed and was replaced. the consumer is requesting reimbursement.  view

The vehicle was completely destroyed by an engine fire prior to the recall on intake and exhaust manifold that results in under hood fire.  view

The left front goodyear tire separation causing the vehicle to shake while driving, the tire separation caused damage to the left front fender. (attorney for client)  view

The left front goodyear tire separation causing the vehicle to shake while driving, the tire separation caused damage to the left front fender. (attorney for client)  view

The child?s car seat metal buckle lacked protective covering and the child received a second degree burn from the cosco car booster seat metal buckle. the consumer wanted a protective coating added to the metal buckle.  view

The consumers washed the vehicle and the next day noticed that water was behind the right headlamp indicating that it was leaking. they then notified the dealer and was told that they are aware of this problem, and under warranty, the consumers were instructed to leave the headlights on for 15 minutes, and this should take care of the problem, however it did not. the consumer then called ford to inform them that the problem still existed and wanted ford to replace the headlamp., ford in return stated that their policy on this problem was to turn on the headlights not replace the leaking headlamp. the consumer turned the lights on again for another 45 minutes,but there was still water behind the headlamp cover. the consumer feels that the water condensation on the headlight lamp cover will reduce the amount of light that is transmitted by the headlight to the roadway, limiting vision for night driving.  view

The consumer was requesting reimbursement of changes made by the dealer for reinstalling an after market starter while replacing the ignition switch that was on recall.  view

The consumer was unable to have air bag computer recall replaced due to inconvenience of leaving the vehicle full day at the dealership. the second dealer did not have the replacement part. consumer stated that recall problems should be required to provide convenient, courteous service to customers who are inconvenienced by their mistakes.  view

The vehicle had a twisted sector shaft.  view

The consumer states that in less than three years she has purchased 3 pairs of tires as a result of side wall blowouts on the back of the vehicle. the first blowout happenend in feb. 01, on the back driver's side, the second blowout happened on the expressway on jan. 25th 2002 on the back passenger side tire, and the most recent blowout happened on the expressway on the back of the driver's side and had less than 29k miles on them and had already been rotated to the back of the vehicle. (all were blowing out on the inside wall off the tire, which also caused the vehicle to drop and damage the rims) the consumer is requesting to be reimbursed for the tire(s) that have failed as well as the extensive damage done to the rims of the vehicle (goodyear eagle tires size 215-50-17).  view