[ashwin489]

From reading this thread, I can sense that a quite a lot of replies seem to suggest that people that own luxury/D-segment cars:

a) should KNOW about these "advanced" cars
b) should be "okay" spending massive amounts of cash (e.g.1 you should've seen it coming, since you were okay plonking down millions to buy your car; e.g.2 I am sure you have enough money to fix it since you threw away millions to buy it in the first place)

Just making an observation!

Also, how can one assume that everyone that drives a car should be knowledgeable enough 1) to stop the car when there is a small puddle of water and 2) not restart the car after water has entered the exhaust, while waiting for Skoda authorized technicians to get to the scene.

So, I have a few questions:

1) Does Skoda mention explicitly in the owner's manual that driving its car through a puddle of water will cause damage and will not be covered under warranty? If so, how many centimeters of water can the car go over? Is that mentioned in the owner's manual as well?

2) Does the driver's license issuing body in India provide a course to people about the basic guidelines about maintaining/using an automobile in Indian conditions (besides the insipid multiple-choice sham of a test), before a issuing a license?

3) Does the Insurance company cover the costs of repairing the car, since the car was damaged an "accidental" occurrence? I call it an accident, since the customer did not willfully damage his car.

4) Will the state government reimburse the citizen for providing such crappy roads, since they are obligated to provided a safe driving zone for the money they plunder as road tax?

I am going to take an educated guess and I assume the answer to all the questions is a resounding NO. If all these parties involved (car manufacturer, insurance company, license issuing body or the government) are not responsible for the damage, why should the customer alone be held responsible? If someone gets raped in a night train, then it was the victim's fault of taking the night train, right? RIGHT? I am sure that's what our previous generation believed,but I expect more out of our generation.

How does one expect the average customer to stop an automatic transmission car in the middle of the road, if he sees all the other cars going right through it (I don't think this was a flood or anything). Also, if he stops in the middle of the road, don't you think people behind him would honk the living hell out of him? I have gone through similar situations.

I see people on the thread defending the company saying "don't buy the car if it has low ground clearance". I'd say don't sell a roadcar in India, if it cannot run under "normal" Indian road conditions. Or at least, explicitly state that your car is not designed to run under Indian conditions, like a warning on a pack of cigarettes.

This whole argument of "you should have known better" is extremely dangerous and helps maintain the status quo where corporations get away scot free.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by Passiautonate

To add further- There is a huge difference in buying a sports car and a normal luxury car. I believe every car company when ventures into India modify there vehicle as per the host country standards.

Imagine you buying a new car not designed to cater to extreme Indian climate and one day stranded on a highway with repair bills. Whom will you blame???

I do not buy this 'not suited to Indian conditions' argument. I was on the other side of it for a quite some time. But then I started reading.

India may have harsh summers, cold winters, humidity and rains and everything. But it's not all sunny and rosy every where else in the World. VW do sell their cars in other countries that are known for equally harsh climates, perhaps even worse.

Originally Posted by Passiautonate

I know 135mm GC with long wheelbase is a practical joke in our condition, so don't you think that-
Skoda should ethically (overstatement) advise its customers accordingly before making a deal

Afterall I do not see common sense as common, as common.

Two statements that seem contradictory prima facie.

Look at the side-profile of the Superb. One's got to be daft to believe that you can take it to Leh Ladak and expect it to perform like a SUV.

It's common sense not to drive into pot-holes and try climbing huge speed-breakers without slowing down. It's common sense not to thrash the car over less-than-perfect surfaces and expect it to hold up. Sometimes it is inevitable, but making the effort to take care of your car is common sense.

I for one don't believe that's it's the company's obligation to spoon-feed a customer. It's no Bugatti Veyron.

[SmartCat]

One of the reasons why Skoda gets so much bad press is that their cars have an un-premium pricing (meaning, they match the prices of Hyundai, Honda & Toyota), but when it comes to part replacement (either accidental or wear and tear), the bills go into the premium territory (Merc, Audi, BMW).

Skoda needs to do one of the following -

Raise the prices of their cars. Let the customers know that they are buying a "premium" product beforehand. Don't give an impression to the customer that they are getting a Mercedes E Class for Honda Accord money.

OR

Reduce the prices of the spare parts so that accidental/breakdown/wear & tear part prices are not too off from those of Hyundai/Toyota/Honda. Rs. 10 Lacs repair bill on a Rs. 30 Lacs car is 33% plus. With a Honda Accord, the bill would have been closer to Rs. 5 Lacs (15 - 20% max).

This is what happens when you want to have the cake (low initial pricing to generate volumes) and eat it too (high spare parts/repair costs for profits)

[azeemhafiz]

If the car's engined had seized due to a water clog, then me thinks the repair bills are a huge bargain.

Why?

I was toying around at Audi showroom the other day and while in conversation with a few folks at Audi, we came to the topic of Hydrostatic locks. Audi Bangalore strongly recommends that the customer's choice of insurance covers it, I asked why and they said it was simple - The cost to open it is 6.5 lakhs. Thats just to get the lock opened up not including any repair cost. And they have to open it in the event of water-logging cases.

For those of us familiar with 'Magic Boxes' in Bangalore (For those who aren't - Its a clever strategy devised by the government to retain rainwater on the roads to ensure that the traffic moment is slowed down. Retain, not harvest. One could argue that this slows traffic down and there by making dangerous conditions safe) A few brand new Audi's had the unfortunate incident of getting their engines water clogged and were stuck. The repair bills were a lot lot higher than the total repair costs for this superb.

As we all know that the Superb especially the 3.6 V6 provides comfort, luxury and safety comparable to the big German folks, It is safe to conclude that the repair costs are a bargain in comparison. I don't think we can compare this version of Superb to the other India famous marques like Maruti, Hyundai etc.

Most of us may choose to laugh at my logic above, nonetheless I firmly believe it is logical.
Just call BMW / Merc / Audi and ask them the average cost to repair a water-clogged engine - Be advised, I take no responsibilities of the aftermath in the event your heart decides to skip a few beats once you hear the number.

Thanks,

Azeem

[Rasputin]

One aspects beats me. Why would incidents like these NOT get covered under insurance. These are not consequential damages like someone breaking an oil sump in a speed breaker and subsequently suffering from engine seizure.

The case in point is no different from someone driving in poor weather conditions and sliding off the highway hitting the kerb. Believe the owner should be using his energy bringing the Insurer to book rather than chasing Skoda

[Ascari]

@Rasputin It needs to be seen if the insurance policy covers hydrostatic lock.If not insurance company just wash their hands of the claim.

[lapsi]

Originally Posted by ashwin489

...Just making an observation!

...So, I have a few questions:

1) Does Skoda mention explicitly in the owner's manual that ... how many centimeters of water can the car go over? Is that mentioned in the owner's manual as well?

...3) Does the Insurance company cover the costs of repairing the car, since the car was damaged an "accidental" occurrence? I call it an accident, since the customer did not willfully damage his car.

...How does one expect the average customer to stop an automatic transmission car in the middle of the road, if he sees all the other cars going right through it (I don't think this was a flood or anything). Also, if he stops in the middle of the road, don't you think people behind him would honk the living hell out of him? I have gone through similar situations.

Absolutely brilliant. A very well balanced post. Loved it.

Like Ashwin, I also believe that this was more of an "accident", something which happened inadvertently. I do not believe that this is a case of "sheer negligence and carelessness".

The car is high technology which makes me wonder if Skoda could have engineered an exhaust with one-way valves or any other systems that do not allow the engine to flood from the exhaust.

This car has sensors to turn on the wipers when it rains and also to change speed of the wipers with the change in volume of rain. They could have had sensors in the exhaust which shuts down the engine when it senses water entering the exhaust. The sensor could also give feedback before the engine starts, so if water is detected, the engine would simply not start.

If it could have saved heartburn to even one customer, then this type of technology would have been worth it.

Originally Posted by ashwin489

...If all these parties involved (car manufacturer, insurance company, license issuing body or the government) are not responsible for the damage, why should the customer alone be held responsible?...

Completely agree.

All the parties concerned should have got together and processed this in a way that would have taken care of the final consumer. More than anything else, a compassionate view should have been taken by Skoda and they should have done something about it.

This is the most expensive product sold by Skoda and they should have handled it in a much better manner.

Originally Posted by ashwin489

This whole argument of "you should have known better" is extremely dangerous and helps maintain the status quo where corporations get away scot free.

Again, I could not agree more. All consumers should come together and rally behind the owner.

Today the flood is far way, tomorrow it could be closer.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

...It is just that we Indians are like sheep. We tend to flock together seeking value and 'kitna deti hai' and the usual guff of that kind and do not have minds of our own...

I agree with the contents and views expressed by Shankar all through this post.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Too much anger against other brands,...

I do not think it is anger. It is merely disdain.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

I do hope the moderators are looking into this thread and specifically into this post!

There is this one very good thing about being on this forum. It really makes me feel as if I am back in school.

Ahhh, the good old days...

[bigron]

@ Apache - I am with you on how Shankar has penned his post. He is harping his gut out about how good his " yeti " is. Further is mocks the name " dzire". Yea , the name Yeti is so macho it makes me fall in love with utes. And what exactly is a Yeti. A bloated fabia ?
The Toyotas of the world do not break down in the middle of no where at the slightest instigation. A reputation not earned overnight. You are very pleased by putting down your dough on a car you think is ut of this world but you find people buying Toyotas' sheeps.

In you post you have practically run down every car manufacturer from the Japs to the Indians. Tone it down dude , its a public forum. Having an opinion is different than assuming what you doing is right and everyone else is a fool.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by dkaile

It may be a case of sour grapes for many bashers who are not Skoda owners but for the actual minority of Skoda owners who are left stranded, it is and will remain a cause of worry, and I genuinely sympathise with them.

Exactly, most of the bashers do not own Skodas, but have just heard from a few experiences. The after sales service like you said is no better or worse than Toyota or Honda. Mistakes happen everywhere, it is just that people expect the world since they are paying a bit more for a Skoda.

Originally Posted by ashwin489

From reading this thread, I can sense that a quite a lot of replies seem to suggest that people that own luxury/D-segment cars:

a) should KNOW about these "advanced" cars
b) should be "okay" spending massive amounts of cash (e.g.1 you should've seen it coming, since you were okay plonking down millions to buy your car; e.g.2 I am sure you have enough money to fix it since you threw away millions to buy it in the first place)

This whole argument of "you should have known better" is extremely dangerous and helps maintain the status quo where corporations get away scot free.

In India unluckily all most people want from their cars is 1) Mileage and 2) the status or image. Now there are 2 types of buyers 1) the type who walks in and says give me the top model 2) the type who does some amount of research and buys the car.

If you are buying a car worth 26l (which is not a small amount) I certainly hope some research was done before. Yes Skoda cars have more electronics, and are more delicate than a Honda or a Toyota which is much more abuse friendly. You CANNOT use a European car like a Japanese car. European cars give other pleasures, but being abuse friendly is not one of them.

If the person owned a BMW or a Merc I'm sure he would have been more careful through the water. The fact is that the Skoda is pretty much an Audi, running many similar parts and some even same. Just because the Skoda is cheaper does not mean it can go through more abuse than an Audi.

And no one is saying that he should have known better. It was an accident. Sometimes they can be prevented, but sometimes they cant. It was plain bad luck, and certainly not the cars or the manufacturers fault.

Originally Posted by lapsi

They could have had sensors in the exhaust which shuts down the engine when it senses water entering the exhaust. The sensor could also give feedback before the engine starts, so if water is detected, the engine would simply not start.

If it could have saved heartburn to even one customer, then this type of technology would have been worth it.

This is the most expensive product sold by Skoda and they should have handled it in a much better manner.

And what about when Skoda advertises that feature, people start taking their cars through the Pagal Nallah in Leh, water goes in and then we have more threads on how Skodas are bad? LOL

Even Rolls Royce will wash its hands of a car in which water has gone into the engine. Why should Skoda entertain it? In many Superbs where the DSG has failed Skoda is doing it under goodwill because it was their fault. What is their fault here?

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

In India unluckily all most people want from their cars is 1) Mileage and 2) the status or image. Now there are 2 types of buyers 1) the type who walks in and says give me the top model 2) the type who does some amount of research and buys the car.

If you are buying a car worth 26l (which is not a small amount) I certainly hope some research was done before. Yes Skoda cars have more electronics, and are more delicate than a Honda or a Toyota which is much more abuse friendly. You CANNOT use a European car like a Japanese car. European cars give other pleasures, but being abuse friendly is not one of them.

If the person owned a BMW or a Merc I'm sure he would have been more careful through the water. The fact is that the Skoda is pretty much an Audi, running many similar parts and some even same. Just because the Skoda is cheaper does not mean it can go through more abuse than an Audi.

And no one is saying that he should have known better. It was an accident. Sometimes they can be prevented, but sometimes they cant. It was plain bad luck, and certainly not the cars or the manufacturers fault.



And what about when Skoda advertises that feature, people start taking their cars through the Pagal Nallah in Leh, water goes in and then we have more threads on how Skodas are bad? LOL

Even Rolls Royce will wash its hands of a car in which water has gone into the engine. Why should Skoda entertain it? In many Superbs where the DSG has failed Skoda is doing it under goodwill because it was their fault. What is their fault here?

Two sides to this argument. Where in Skoda manual is it mentioned about the inches of water the car can ford through? Does it say if your exhaust is under water, the car will stall and engine will get ruined especially in a autobox equipped car? If this line is not mentioned, then sorry Skoda got to pay for a water damaged engine.

The other side is, where has the owner proved that he drove through only 135mm of water, just enough to wet his tail pipe, and didnt ford through a 3 feet deep ditch? Has he got documentation to prove otherwise?

Also majority of insurance providers add an exclusion clause for natural clauses, such as flood damage, so they try to wiggle out of insurance paying for water damages as such.

I fully agree one must know his/her ride before they take it to extreme levels or offroading as such, however a regular city drive which involves going through a flooded road or puddle, shouldnt harm a car, rather an owner expects the car to be able to handle 'indian' conditions per se.

Remember that a diesel engine is more prone to water damage especially a common rail, as compared to a carb petrol unit, which can be dried and cleaned.

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by ashwin489

1) Does Skoda mention explicitly in the owner's manual that driving its car through a puddle of water will cause damage and will not be covered under warranty? If so, how many centimeters of water can the car go over? Is that mentioned in the owner's manual as well?

That’s a good point. Some of the European car makers have the habit of having the owner’s manual loaded with features/instructions which are applicable only for certain countries (normally for the home country, and some others where in the car goes as CBU). Not sure if that is the case with Skoda. And even if these trouble scenarios are explicitly listed in the owner’s manual, it’s ideal for the owner to spend some time explaining those to the chauffer.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

VW do sell their cars in other countries that are known for equally harsh climates, perhaps even worse.

Yes, and if they (VAG or any other manufacturer) know that a particular model does not suits a particular country, why bother to market/sell it there?

………….

In this case, it’s easy to sympathize with the owner, and put blame solely on Skoda but we really don’t know the inside story, i.e.; how both parties went into this, what kind of discussions happened in the background, whether there were attempts for cordial negotiations or it was confrontational from the beginning etc.

[eq24]

Wow this is turning into a Skoda Vs World debate here. A few points from my side.

Lets not call the driver of the car a fool and what not. In our country it takes skill to maneuver on even the best of roads, I am sure he was trying his best when the fiasco took place.

Now regarding why he restarted when water had entered the engine bay, again this could be pressure from nearby motorists, frustration or even simply lack of knowledge.

Skoda should have informed him in the manual or somewhere about the potential risks of such an operation, if these are missing then well Skoda can be right fully blamed. If these are present well the driver should have read them.

Skoda as a brand in India is pretty much in the dumps actually they are pretty much in the dumps in the UK too, maybe other countries but can't say from first hand knowledge. You buy a Skoda in the UK and they usually laugh at you, the same if you buy a Passat or an A4, they commend you on your choice and laud the german engineering underneath it all.

The last thing Skoda needs at the moment is stuff like this happening and they should seriously get their PR wing to get the people to have faith in this brand. I actually feel bad for people who drive Skoda cars, their resale values have plummeted so low due to no fault of their's.

And ShankarBalan please do not justify your purchase by beleaming others'. I generally like your posts for the various points you put forward but I really dont think the owner in question is Sensationalizing his point, imagine to have to come to this what all he must have gone through.

[Warwithwheels]

How better should SKODA present this? I have never seen a manufacturer who has taken so much care to dedicate a separate header for driving thru' water.





Link to the Owner's manual

Originally Posted by ashwin489

...Does Skoda mention explicitly in the owner's manual that driving its car through a puddle of water will cause damage....

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

...Where in Skoda manual is it mentioned ....Does it say if your exhaust is under water...

Originally Posted by vb-san

...Some of the European car makers have the habit of having the owner’s manual loaded with features/instructions

Originally Posted by eq24

Skoda should have informed him in the manual or somewhere about the potential risks of such an operation...

[Ascari]

@Eq24 Incorrect.I am quoting from JD Power.

2012 UK VOSS Ranking Highlights

Jaguar (828) ranks highest in vehicle owner satisfaction among manufacturers and performs particularly well in the service satisfaction, vehicle appeal, and vehicle quality and reliability measures. Following Jaguar in the rankings are Lexus and Škoda (each with a score of 801). Rounding out the top five rank positions are Honda (797) and Mercedes-Benz (794).

You can read the original article here
http://autos.jdpower.com/content/pre...tion-study.htm

[F150]

Originally Posted by Warwithwheels

How better should SKODA present this? I have never seen a manufacturer who has taken so much care to dedicate a separate header for driving thru' water.

Attachment 1006435

Attachment 1006436

Link to the Owner's manual

Thanks a Ton bro.

Team,

Lets us not get too judgmental about SKODA. I remember reading MOD Jaggus thread about this CRV which suffered damage when wading thru water. HONDA didn't pay any thing. Did it ?

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/long-t...service-5.html

If the damage is purely due to water logging/ hydrostatic lock then SKODA is absolutely not at fault.

The logic of comparing a car's capabilities by its price is unfathomable to me. A Sedan is a sedan its not a SUV and it is not meant for water wading.