Q. I am in a particularly sticky situation and seeking any and all information that I can find. I purchased an extended warranty on a used 1995 Dodge Caravan. The van was in great shape considering the age. After about a year, the left outer CV joint started clicking-clunking. The extended warranty specifically names the CV joints as covered components.
Well, the warranty company and I are in a battle now as to what constitutes a CV joint failure. Everybody I have spoken with agrees that when the joint starts to click-clunk, it is no longer any good and must be replaced.
What I am searching for is anything that I can present before a judge to help substantiate my case. What in your opinion would constitute a failure (any degree of failure, not necessarily total failure) within this component?
The warranty company is arguing that as long as the car is drivable, the joint is still functioning and has not begun to fail. My argument is that once the joint begins to click-clunk, it has begun the process of failing. Common sense tells me that once I noticed the part going out, it needed to be replaced.
— David Kelley
A. Yikes! This situation is completely opposite of what usually occurs with parts replacement concerns. Let’s take a look at something called MAP (Motorists Assurance Program). MAP is the consumer outreach effort of the Automotive Maintenance and Repair Association.
Auto repair companies and independents, parts and equipment manufacturers and suppliers, vehicle manufacturers and industry associations have come together to establish a set of uniform guidelines for automotive repair.
These standards, if followed voluntarily or by company policy, help reduce misunderstandings between motorists and repair facilities on repair-parts replacement issues. In a nutshell, MAP breaks down vehicle repairs into two categories: required and recommended.
An example of a required repair is that a part no longer performs its intended purpose, is missing or does not meet a design specification. Recommended repairs include parts near the end of their useful life, parts judged to be questionable or faulty based on a technician’s professional experience, those specified for replacement per a maintenance schedule and parts replaced to satisfy a consumer’s specific need or convenience.
On first glance a noisy CV joint appears to fall into the second category, as it is nearing the end of its useful life. But upon disassembly and inspection, I believe one would find evidence of wear and degradation, indicating a design specification problem (justifying replacement).
Also, according to Mitchell International and Alldata, (widely respected professional repair information sources), if the joint is noisy or badly worn, replacement of the complete joint is recommended.
Now, if I may inject a personal opinion: Go get em!
Brad Bergholdt teaches automotive technology at Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, Calif. E-mail him at under-the-hood@juno.com or write to him in care of Drive, Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190. He cannot make personal replies.
