Coachman Warranty to Non-First Owners
Recently (about 2 month ago), I found out that all warranties for coachman RVs apply only to the first owner. This includes warranties for 3rd party items (other than the vehicle) If the roof, fri...
Forum Discussion
The issue for me is why is the RV industry allowed to get away with this practice?
Chevy/Ford/Toyota etc don't do this. The warranty conveys. So why do we as consumers allow these RV manufactures to get away with this.
The only person who has leverage is the original buyer and he/she probably not going to make an effort to seek a modification of warranty or walk away from a purchase.
So who is left? Who is the common bargaining voice for the consumer? I don't think it's RIVA. If it was this would not be an issue today.
Where do we turn? HUD is the only game in town. HUD and possibly the FTC.
SOAP BOX ON
And I'm not sure if I'm in the majority on this or minority. I truly believe HUD needs to be a force in the RV world. I originally didn't until my wife convinced me otherwise.
Whether part-time or full-time an RV is a dwelling: a bed, a bathroom, and a kitchen. That's a dwelling. And HUD is responsible for ensuring that all dwelling whether are lived in full-time, part-time, or recreationally are safe. The only way to force these RV manufactures to step up is to get HUD involved.
I bought my coachman used, the 2/3 of the screws on the bottom that hold the walls up were missing. Of the remaining ones about 1/4 didn't even create a join because they missed what they were suppose to screwed into.
The electrical wiring is atrocious and lacking. 15AWG - 18AWG wiring has been used in places where it should have been at least 10 - 12AWG. These are fire hazards because even RV tech didn't realize this is what had been done. Even they are astonished by this.
They simply add devices to these thinking the wiring must be properly rated for 15A (DC) but it isn't. I almost has a fire in my coach because of this.
My coach is barely (used) at 26 months old. And has less than 9500 miles on it. Already the roof seem is falling apart and the RV has only seen moderate use.
I could go on-and-on about the poor original quality of the coachman RV. And when challenged they simply say these are "recreational".
Recreational or not, they are still temporary dwelling places and they should not be built as a hazard.
The argument for telling HUD to stay out from RV manufactures is that the cost of the RV would go up to the point where consumers could not afford an RV.
Oh really. HUD stepped in to the housing in the late 70s. There was no significant increase in house cost beyond ordinary market conditions and inflation. (So proved my accountant wife!)
The law of Supply-Demand is not altered in RV world. If they are over priced, then demand will go down hurting sales and profitability of RV manufacture. So they are going to have to come up with better production methods and better arrangements with supplies just as contractors did in housing.
Moreover, look at my case. How much more does 10 ft of 10AWG cost over 10ft of 15AWG -- pennies more. The cost is mostly in labor.
So what is happening is we are allowing RV manufactures to be penny wise and pound foolish at the expense of the quality we deserve as the high price we are already paying for these RVs. 50 - 80K is at the low end. That is the same price as a house including land. And they are built according to HUD standards.
And truth be told, I fell for this. But the Mrs is an accountant as I said and she didn't fall for it.
How much with $5 or $10 effect their profit margin in a $50,000 RV?
The argument is yes, but in a 100,000 units $5 = $500,000. Okay, MBA dude, so how much is 100,000 units * $50,000 = 5,000,000,000. That's 5 Billion. So $500,000 against $5 Billion is still a pittance no matter how you look at. If logic rules, you can see the percentage is the same. It's trivially small.
Let's put that in to perspective -- In the vast majority of American's their lifetime income will meet $500,000. <1% will have a life time accumulated income of $5 Billion. So think of what a pittance $500,000 really is to $5 Billion.
And margins aren't that thin for these guys. How many times has a person gone in and seen an $90,000 coach and walked out with $80,000? If margins are really so thin that $5 extra bucks makes a difference then how can the price drop $10,000. Margins aren't that thin. So don't fall for this ruse.
So who is at fault? We are. We are allowing these manufactures to do this. We are allowing them to build hazard dwelling (part time, recreational time, full time what ever). Sill a safety hazard.
And HUD doesn't allow a manufacture to say "well 2nd owner, doesn't matter if the builder put a substandard wiring or failed to properly attached a wall per our code". HUD steps in and fines that contractor. And even has authority to force them to make repairs.
As I said RIVA is not the voice of the consumer. And so the only thing we can do is ask HUD step in. We have no collective group representing us otherwise.
SOAP BOX OFF.
Chevy/Ford/Toyota etc don't do this. The warranty conveys. So why do we as consumers allow these RV manufactures to get away with this.
The only person who has leverage is the original buyer and he/she probably not going to make an effort to seek a modification of warranty or walk away from a purchase.
So who is left? Who is the common bargaining voice for the consumer? I don't think it's RIVA. If it was this would not be an issue today.
Where do we turn? HUD is the only game in town. HUD and possibly the FTC.
SOAP BOX ON
And I'm not sure if I'm in the majority on this or minority. I truly believe HUD needs to be a force in the RV world. I originally didn't until my wife convinced me otherwise.
Whether part-time or full-time an RV is a dwelling: a bed, a bathroom, and a kitchen. That's a dwelling. And HUD is responsible for ensuring that all dwelling whether are lived in full-time, part-time, or recreationally are safe. The only way to force these RV manufactures to step up is to get HUD involved.
I bought my coachman used, the 2/3 of the screws on the bottom that hold the walls up were missing. Of the remaining ones about 1/4 didn't even create a join because they missed what they were suppose to screwed into.
The electrical wiring is atrocious and lacking. 15AWG - 18AWG wiring has been used in places where it should have been at least 10 - 12AWG. These are fire hazards because even RV tech didn't realize this is what had been done. Even they are astonished by this.
They simply add devices to these thinking the wiring must be properly rated for 15A (DC) but it isn't. I almost has a fire in my coach because of this.
My coach is barely (used) at 26 months old. And has less than 9500 miles on it. Already the roof seem is falling apart and the RV has only seen moderate use.
I could go on-and-on about the poor original quality of the coachman RV. And when challenged they simply say these are "recreational".
Recreational or not, they are still temporary dwelling places and they should not be built as a hazard.
The argument for telling HUD to stay out from RV manufactures is that the cost of the RV would go up to the point where consumers could not afford an RV.
Oh really. HUD stepped in to the housing in the late 70s. There was no significant increase in house cost beyond ordinary market conditions and inflation. (So proved my accountant wife!)
The law of Supply-Demand is not altered in RV world. If they are over priced, then demand will go down hurting sales and profitability of RV manufacture. So they are going to have to come up with better production methods and better arrangements with supplies just as contractors did in housing.
Moreover, look at my case. How much more does 10 ft of 10AWG cost over 10ft of 15AWG -- pennies more. The cost is mostly in labor.
So what is happening is we are allowing RV manufactures to be penny wise and pound foolish at the expense of the quality we deserve as the high price we are already paying for these RVs. 50 - 80K is at the low end. That is the same price as a house including land. And they are built according to HUD standards.
And truth be told, I fell for this. But the Mrs is an accountant as I said and she didn't fall for it.
How much with $5 or $10 effect their profit margin in a $50,000 RV?
The argument is yes, but in a 100,000 units $5 = $500,000. Okay, MBA dude, so how much is 100,000 units * $50,000 = 5,000,000,000. That's 5 Billion. So $500,000 against $5 Billion is still a pittance no matter how you look at. If logic rules, you can see the percentage is the same. It's trivially small.
Let's put that in to perspective -- In the vast majority of American's their lifetime income will meet $500,000. <1% will have a life time accumulated income of $5 Billion. So think of what a pittance $500,000 really is to $5 Billion.
And margins aren't that thin for these guys. How many times has a person gone in and seen an $90,000 coach and walked out with $80,000? If margins are really so thin that $5 extra bucks makes a difference then how can the price drop $10,000. Margins aren't that thin. So don't fall for this ruse.
So who is at fault? We are. We are allowing these manufactures to do this. We are allowing them to build hazard dwelling (part time, recreational time, full time what ever). Sill a safety hazard.
And HUD doesn't allow a manufacture to say "well 2nd owner, doesn't matter if the builder put a substandard wiring or failed to properly attached a wall per our code". HUD steps in and fines that contractor. And even has authority to force them to make repairs.
As I said RIVA is not the voice of the consumer. And so the only thing we can do is ask HUD step in. We have no collective group representing us otherwise.
SOAP BOX OFF.
