"Marcio Watanabe" > wrote in message
news
> "Paul Aspinall" > wrote:
>
> >Because I paid £78000 for a car, and I believe it should have a better
> >warranty than 3 years.
>
> Reality doesn't agree with what you believe. A Bentley Arnage and a
> Rolls-Royce Phantom cost 2-3 times as much as a 745Li, and they have a
> 3-year warranty. A Ferrari 612 and a Lamborghini Murcielago also
> costs 2-3 times as much and have only a 2-year warranty. A Hyundai
> costs a fraction of what a 745Li costs, and the warranty of a Hyundai
> is 5 years. So, if you want to assume anything (and I don't think you
> can), one can assume that cars that cost more have shorter warranties,
> not the other way around.
>
> And if you think about it, it makes some sense. First, the more a car
> costs, the less price sensitive the buyer is. The less sensitive the
> buyer is, the less likely the person is to be driving an old car, so
> longer warranties make less sense on a $100K car than on a $20K one.
> Second, warranty is a marketing tool more than anything else. Less
> expensive brands lengthen their warranties compared to the competition
> to try to get more buyers, and prominently display their warranties on
> commercials. Buyers of more expensive cars care much less about that.
> A buyer of a $100K car should have no problem paying for a
> non-warranty repair, and the repair would be more an annoyance than a
> financial setback. A buyer of a $20K car, on the other hand, could be
> financially strained if having to pay for a major repair.

Well stated, Marcio.

Over here, Hyundai is offering 10 year warranties now. Does that mean their
engineering is that much superior to what it was 3 years ago? Of course
not. It's a marketing tool, that is more important in the lower end, as you
point out.

-Russ.