The On-Star Ferrari

Until they started using Ecu feedback to analyze if you had your car on the track, so they could void your warranty. Most auto manufactuers seem less concerned about customer satisfaction, and more about improving their bottom line at any cost.

 

Tru dat, but I also see where he's coming from. I think it would be a great idea from the customer's point of view, as some problems in brand new cars can remain undetectable to even the most car savvy person. My only question is, what does Ferrari do when they have a model-wide problem, such as the valve guides on the 355's, and the bad publicity it gives them? From what I've gathered on this web site, Ferrari doesn't seem to like people knowing about major problems with their cars. Maybe this would drive them to produce ones that were more reliable.

Have to agree with the track thing, though...it might lead to them charging extra for a "Track Warranty" if you still wanted the said "Italia-Star" system. They've gotta know what the owners do to these cars, though.

 

This all will be hacked - thank goodness.

 

Ferrari would never zap guys who track there cars, right? Anyone been zapped for warranty work due to tracking their car? I felt the track is what owning a Ferrari is partically about.

Am i wrong? Does Ferrari deny claims just because you track your car?

 

Sounds like a wonderful idea though, but probably too wonderful. How can Ferrari deny knowledge of an expensive recall-type problem if there is hard evidence?

Just imagine how much money Ferrari would have lost if they had to pay for EVERY valve guide job, or EVERY blown manifold, or every bubbled dash rubber? Granted, they did warranty a few of these, but only as they saw fit, and only for a select few customers.

 

I heard about this sort of thing on heavy trucks thru gps and wireless.
The conversation was not only about the truck (not the driver) calling ahead for service but the ability to tune the engine for max fuel efficiency, ie max power available when going up hill and reduced engine power when on level or down hill roads.
On the flip side I seem to recall a test in Canada where the ecu and gps were linked to the road speed and either you could not exeed that speed or the police could be notified.
My BMW has no navigation system but it will display your longditude and latitude for the BMW version of onstar I have wondered who else could hook into this info.
I'm not paranoid but maybe the saying should read "The land of the free as long as big brother allows it"

Russell

 

Will it automatically get you another allocation if it detects an out of control engine fire?

 

Do you have a verifiable reference or is it just your opinion?

TIA,

Richard.

 

Do you have an article ?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. W/the exception of FXX's, etc, Ferraris are not designed for the kind of use/abuse that we put them thru at the Instructor/Advanced HPDE level.

BTW, an FXX is given meticulous attention by the best Ferrari techs prior to, during and after use. In contrast, I am the only person I know of, in the NW, who hires a shop to provide similar HPDE support for me.

Not I .... yet. <chuckle>

But then again .... I wouldn't ask Ferrarri, et al, to warranty parts which failed due to abuse.

Agreed. Is why I bought one .... to track it. Often!
OTOH, most Ferrari owners (and Lambo and Porsche, and so on and on) do NOT track their cars. Ever. <shrug>

I think you are. Sorry.

I am still trying to find someone w/direct, for attribution, knowledge (preferably a written determination UNLIKELY) of Ferrari's policies in that re.

Peace,

Richard.

 

<chuckle> I'm not a "Classic" lover nor a "Hater." <mo chuckles>

WTS; the concept sux wind. Life's hard enuff for consumers as it is. Cell phones are used for tracking and suveillance, now cars? It's not that Big Bro's keeping tabs on us which bothers me all that much .... that's what "Gubmints" do. <shrug> They (gubmints) claim to be benevolent and sometmes are. ;-)

But the Corporate world will use data to increase profit .... by any means necessary.

To our disadvantage as a whole. Are we not at enuff of a disadvantage?

"Knowledge is power." Consumers do not have the resources to amass and parse data like a large Corp.

Do you really want to give the corporate world even more power over you?

Peace,

Richard.

 

I believe that GM is going to s**t when they see the results of thier poll. Can't wait to see the results.
I personally would not like to have any 3rd party source having access to the data in my car. It's bad enough the factory can download as much info as they can from a cars ecu. This is already being used in civil cases trying to lay blame. The problem is , what an ecu reads is only one part of what happens in an actual accident. But when lawers get ahold of it.....
Pretty soon it will not be JD power getting the information, it will be your insurance company. And yes this IS going to happen, not if, but when? The insurance companys are already trying to access it.


Darrell.

 

Thx for taking the time to provide more grist for the mill.

I'm not familiar w/348 Challenge series cars. But the current Challenge cars are NOT street legal and are designed w/racing in mind. As for the Stradales .... different model. Ergo: Not applicable!?

Now, I don't want to sound argumentative so i'll keep trying to reach someone at FNA to confirm/deny and report back in a new thread.

Peace,

Richard.

 

Great points Darrell!

I think I have a solution: Make public data .... public. IOW, establish under federal law that information gathered become "Public Domain," available to all and subject to challenge and/or revisions by the affected party(ies).

An example would be the Insurance Cos you mentioned above: Under today's system it's very difficult (if not, practically speaking, impossible) to find out *exactly* what info your Insurer has on file and how it's being used. And, AFAIK, there is no method in place to ensure that errors are corrected.

A "Public Domain" law (yeah, i hate sounding like part of the "dere oughta be a law" crowd) would place us on a level playing field w/Insurance Cos (for example) while allowing us to amend erroneous info thru due process.

Of course, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that such legislation would EVER be enacted. Due to two primary reasons:

1) Business controls legislation. Business will NOT allow a level playing field. Period!
2) IMHO, the vast majority of people would much rather support the status quo, and suffer for it, than risk giving equal freedom/opportunity to their fellow citizens.

Peace,

Richard.

 

Ferrari North America corporate policy is "If the customer does not complain IT IS NOT A PROBLEM". Many times I generated warranty claims upon detecting a problem not noticed by the owner. It was in direct violation of unwritten Ferrari policy.

That was drilled into us over and over again.

Only items considered safety related or emission related are subject to recall and those would be of interest to be taken care of proactively.

As far as tracking was concerned in cases of a replacement of a major component it was our burden to convince them that the car was not used in track events. I had to do it on a number of occasions. It was never written, it was always verbal. No warranty denial would ever be made officially for track use. Also be aware whenever a Ferrari service rep visits a dealer there are notes taken and VINS recorded about cars in the work shop, wrecked cars, track modified cars etc. Those notes are for cars in warranty and kept in the event of a claim. If a car is seen with a tech sticker on the windshield and a set of Hoosiers I can assure you that information is headed for that cars file.


Ferrari and no other manufacturer for that matter is looking for ways to spend more warranty money to keep you happy. It is their mission to spend as little as possible.

 

If they use that data to find 3rd party supplier problems, who stands to gain the most from that info? I think they do, not the end user. Car dealers have shown that they will do whatever they can to deny warranty claims. K&N air filters have to include in the box, as well as on their website, a copy of the magnuson moss warranty act. Why? Because car dealers were trying to void warrantys because the air filter was replaced.

The technology is cool, and if they put it to proper use, it could be very useful for everyone. My opinion is that they will only use it to benefit themselves, and that will only cause more problems for the end user.

 

Ouch! Another can of worms opened.

The relationships between consumers and product/service providers (specially in re consumables) is adversarial due to the fact that Capitalism (the best existing socio-economic model) has been perverted by Imperialism. The end result in this case is that the Auto Mfg must assume that in order to maximize profits all means to deny warranty should be explored.

Meanwhile the end user is doing likewise (inverse).

As for the aftermarket Mfgs .... they play both off each other by telling car owners that Magnusson-Moss actually protects them. Clue 4 U: It doesn't!

Agreed. But human nature (and the nature of imperialism)predicts otherwise.

Agreed. But if car owners were able to access said info .... it might even things out a bit? Or not? <sigh>

I suppose the point is that technology WILL be used (misused?) by Imperialists to subjugate the populace. With the vast majority of our peers knowingly and willingly cooperating.

So here's a likely scenario: GM adds realtime (or storage based) ECU tracking. And the people think .... hmmm, safer cars will be the result. This is goood.

In due time they add DRIVESYNC(tm) tech. Once again the people think .... hmmm, safer cars. Goood.

Then Da Gubmint, in their benevolent wisdom, mandate that all new cars (retrofit older cars?) have such tech. Again, the people nod .... ooooh goody!

I say .... whatever. <shrug> Business as usual.

BTW; it's all for the children ya know. Think about our children. <tic>

Peace,

Richard.