Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mastercraft Hull Warranty??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JohnE
    replied
    Why are we dragging this thread back up?

    Leave a comment:


  • willyt
    replied
    Originally posted by j4rowell View Post
    And who the heck reads the owners manual? I understand its a pricey investment, but so is a new truck and hardly anyone reads that crap. It would put me to sleep. I'd rather read teen magazine and get the new Justin Beiber gossip.
    uh.... i read my owner's manual. 1) I'm a first time boat owner 2) first time mastercraft owner.

    might come down to how much time you're willing to put into your boat...

    Leave a comment:


  • j4rowell
    replied
    Blistering is not widely known. I've never known of it until I had it happen to me. I live on a lake and I'd say 1 out of 15 people know what it is.

    And who the heck reads the owners manual? I understand its a pricey investment, but so is a new truck and hardly anyone reads that crap. It would put me to sleep. I'd rather read teen magazine and get the new Justin Beiber gossip.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roonie's
    replied
    according to the Supra sales rep for 08 they now have 5 year gel coat coverage which includes blisters. I asked him and that is what he said so he may be lying to me? Their web site shows 5 year gel coat coverage but no mention of blisters.

    Leave a comment:


  • ttu
    replied
    roonie, 05 supra's blistering warranty was only good for 1 year from date of purchase. hull longer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roonie's
    replied
    Interesting as I have done some research. It turns out for inboards Supra, MB, and Wakecraft have limited blister warranty for 5 years.

    Cobalt has 100% warranty (not limited) for 5 years.

    Out of the sport boat category we have this info from 2001 from Boat/US magazine (so probably more warranties have blister coverage now i.e. Larson);

    Osmotic blisters are also widely excluded from protection. Only 16 of the 45 warranties we examined have blister coverage. Of these, some are limited to prorated coverage, requirements that the owner pay for the application of an epoxy barrier coat or stipulations that the gel coat can not be altered in any way.

    Some of the companies that don't warranty for blisters told us that they handle these complaints on a goodwill basis. Our experience shows that informal assistance -- usually no more than 50% of the repair cost -- is most common when original owner boats are less than five years old.
    Just some interesting info on the topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diesel
    replied
    Originally posted by P-hat_in_Cincy
    Who knows what the 'limited' conditions are...
    I can guarantee you if you leave your boat in the water all year without a bottom treatment it will not be covered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roonie's
    replied
    Mark my words they are headed in this direction of offering a limited blister hull warranty. The cruising boats have already started catching on offering limited warranties. I would hope MC is a leader and not a follower in this area, but if one of the inboard competitors adopts this warranty guaranteed MC will follow. If MC corporate has not considered this they should be.

    Leave a comment:


  • P-hat_in_Cincy
    replied
    It's kind of ironic that I read thru this thread yesterday and then get an email from BoatTEST and one of the headlines on the email is "5-Year Warranties Coming?" I open it up and click on a link to see this about Larson (sport and cruisers).

    "Osmotic Hull Blister Limited Warranty:
    * Five-year coverage against hull blistering caused by osmosis.
    * No declining pro-rate per year like some competitors – Larson covers repair costs for 5 years."

    Polaris will continue to support the community of Larson FX owners. The website will remain as a place for owners to access resources/information about their boat.


    Who knows what the 'limited' conditions are...

    I feel for you Beatle. Personally I know there is an expectation (quality, service, etc...) when buying an MC and if 'others' can offer...??? BUT if the limitations are clearly stated by MC...

    Anyway...I hope everything works out for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roonie's
    replied
    Originally posted by MYMC
    for MC to cover this and add it to the warranty program it will increase the price of the boat. There is no way around it...no company would add expense and not pass it through to the consumer. Every year the price goes up due to raw materials cost and added content. Each year there is a real struggle over what the market will bear in a price increase. To add more warranty coverage would drive the price even further.
    You know that it would make a great marketing campaign...... the only inboard to offer a limited warranty against blisters (don't know if this is true do other inboards have warranties for blisters?). I can bet that would draw some sales away from other competitors enough to maybe make it worth it, or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • bigmac
    replied
    Originally posted by MYMC
    All excellent points; however, (you knew that was coming right?) for MC to cover this and add it to the warranty program it will increase the price of the boat. There is no way around it...no company would add expense and not pass it through to the consumer. Every year the price goes up due to raw materials cost and added content. Each year there is a real struggle over what the market will bear in a price increase. To add more warranty coverage would drive the price even further.

    In this case the boat NEVER had the hull warranty transfer paid for and it was left in the water (a direct warranty violation). If you look at this from a neutral position nothing has been done that is/was required by the written warranty statement. Whether or not any other builder has the coverage is not relevant since the very basics of the contract were not completed...payment of the transfer forming a unilateral contract.

    I sympathize with the owner, but it is a slippery slope to start paying claims on seven year old boats that have not followed the rules.
    I agree that beetle's case is not illustrative. I also agree that, when it comes to warranty coverage, there ain't no free lunch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce
    replied
    MYMC Now you have gone and confused the issue with logic and business acumen. (Like you I do sympathize with the owner)

    Leave a comment:


  • MYMC
    replied
    Originally posted by bigmac
    Because it's a boat, and it seems pretty logical that a boat ought to be able to be in the water without being damaged by it.

    Having said that, I agree that MasterCraft goes to appropriate lengths to warn their customers about this and are certainly within their rights to deny warranty claims. I read my owner's manual, and I have adhered to the maintenance recommendations that MasterCraft makes in there. It's a simple enough document - people that don't read it, don't remember it, or ignore it, don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not arguing that they're being disenguous about the issue, I'm saying that lesser mfgr's provide a 5 year warranty against hull blistering, or at least don't take the same uncompromising stance that beetle says MasterCraft does. As a customer relations issue, MC's refusal of any warranty rhythm whatsover on this issue might be costing them more than it's saving them.
    All excellent points; however, (you knew that was coming right?) for MC to cover this and add it to the warranty program it will increase the price of the boat. There is no way around it...no company would add expense and not pass it through to the consumer. Every year the price goes up due to raw materials cost and added content. Each year there is a real struggle over what the market will bear in a price increase. To add more warranty coverage would drive the price even further.

    In this case the boat NEVER had the hull warranty transfer paid for and it was left in the water (a direct warranty violation). If you look at this from a neutral position nothing has been done that is/was required by the written warranty statement. Whether or not any other builder has the coverage is not relevant since the very basics of the contract were not completed...payment of the transfer forming a unilateral contract.

    I sympathize with the owner, but it is a slippery slope to start paying claims on seven year old boats that have not followed the rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diesel
    replied
    Originally posted by bigmac
    Because it's a boat, and it seems pretty logical that a boat ought to be able to be in the water without being damaged by it.
    By the same logic I should expect to be able to leave my truck out in front of my house and not be damaged by the weather but guess what it happens and I take the necessary precautions to make sure it is protected.

    Originally posted by bigmac
    Having said that, I agree that MasterCraft goes to appropriate lengths to warn their customers about this and are certainly within their rights to deny warranty claims. I read my owner's manual, and I have adhered to the maintenance recommendations that MasterCraft makes in there. It's a simple enough document - people that don't read it, don't remember it, or ignore it, don't have a leg to stand on.
    Amen, brotha.....


    Originally posted by bigmac
    I'm not arguing that they're being disingenuous about the issue, I'm saying that lesser mfgr's provide a 5 year warranty against hull blistering, or at least don't take the same uncompromising stance that beetle says MasterCraft does. As a customer relations issue, MC's refusal of any warranty rhythm whatsoever on this issue might be costing them more than it's saving them.
    I might be wrong but I have seen plenty of cases on this board where blisters were fixed at no charge.....even entire hulls swapped out at no charge to protect customer good will.

    I think it's ludicrous to expect a MFG to bear the entire expense of a customer's neglect......ahh but it tis' the day and age of zero personal responsibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigmac
    replied
    Originally posted by Diesel
    Why, is this not a clear case of misuse? I don't expect GM to fix my truck under warranty if I leave it out in a hail storm. In fact, MC goes so far as to warn you in all their literature that blisters will occur if the boat is left in the water.
    Because it's a boat, and it seems pretty logical that a boat ought to be able to be in the water without being damaged by it.

    Having said that, I agree that MasterCraft goes to appropriate lengths to warn their customers about this and are certainly within their rights to deny warranty claims. I read my owner's manual, and I have adhered to the maintenance recommendations that MasterCraft makes in there. It's a simple enough document - people that don't read it, don't remember it, or ignore it, don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not arguing that they're being disenguous about the issue, I'm saying that lesser mfgr's provide a 5 year warranty against hull blistering, or at least don't take the same uncompromising stance that beetle says MasterCraft does. As a customer relations issue, MC's refusal of any warranty rhythm whatsover on this issue might be costing them more than it's saving them.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X