Results 2,031 to 2,040 of 4928
-
BANNED BANNED BANNED
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 8,492
December 2nd, 2015 05:53 AM #2031
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Posts
- 1,181
December 2nd, 2015 06:51 AM #2032I came from a manufacturing company, lahat ng parts na tested for QA, di naman pwede na kaunting discrepancy sa tinatawag na golden sample eh i-rereject mo na.
May mga parameters yan, kaya may mga binning, yung pinakamataas na quality, expect na iba category at market nyan. Iba rin ang parameters kung aerospace industry target mo.
Lahat ng kinakabit na pyesa rin sa isang assembled unit, may record yan kung kailan manufactured, lot number etc.. Ibig sabihin may traceability lagi.
Oh by the way, alam rin ng manufacturers kung san nila ibebenta ang mga assembled units nila na kung saan sila nag cut corners.
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Posts
- 1,181
December 2nd, 2015 07:04 AM #2033
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 824
-
December 2nd, 2015 07:58 AM #2035
Si Kabayad iniinterview isang victim sa Pampanga itong umaga...Woman driver. Even if there are over a hundred complaints with the same cause but with no scientific proof, it won't stand up in court.
Googling "scientific evidence" doesn't hack it either...
Driver error? No way!
So now, where does this place the constant and nearly 4-year stream of customer complaints on social media against SUA's by Mitsubishi Montero automatic? Almost all were attended to by the dealers and investigated by MMPC itself. Customers complain that they've lost so much time in these processes with MMPC failing or at least claiming to fail in duplicating the SUA incidents. Naturally, owners think this is all self-serving. And in the best US-style litigation-trigger happy complaint, owners fume that they were not either lent a car or promised a brand new replacement. But so far, MMC is abiding by our own anti-Lemon laws which are patterned after the US laws. And yet, MMPC offers to buy back the self-driving Monteros are spurned by the owners. Why not? Google, Apple and Mercedes-Benz are spending billions on research and poaching car executives to achieve autonomous drive cars or cars that drive themselves.
Filing suit
As in all cases of SUA, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It's really his (complainant) word and against theirs (the car manufacturer). Which is why, if ever anyone is preparing to file suit or complain to the DTI or write some Congressman who heads a committee on vehicle faults or vehicle safety, there is no substitute for doing your homework and preparing your prosecution.
Credible evidence
First, there has to be credible witnesses. If you are the driver, and most male drivers are genetically loathe to ever admit it's their fault, you have to have someone back up your claim that your Montero suddenly accelerated on its own accord. CCTV camera footage is good evidence, but remember, this is not conclusive. Witnesses attesting to the SUA is worthy, but again, it is not always conclusive. If a hired driver is the culprit, it doesn't help the owner's burden of proof of the said driver is not available for cross examination or investigation. It also doesn't help the claimants' cause if the driver, unskilled in driving an automatic, is coached to lie as cross examination by expert resource persons and lawyers will smoke this out.
Burden of proof
How about witnesses? The testimonies of co-drivers or spouses as witness to the SUA incident will also have to pass the burden of proof as defense lawyers interpolate. Expect questions like "Are you really sure that the driver was not pressing on the gas pedal when you witnessed this SUA incident?" Or, "how sure are you that there wasn't a rolled up floor mat lodged about the gas pedal?" Having 4,000 or 400,000 names post the same SUA experience on social media is not conclusive proof, either. The only proof that is acceptable will, under oath, more or less hew to a storyline like this:
"Being a hot day, I wanted to start the Montero so that the air con can start cooling the interior while I go back and fetch my passengers. So I opened the driver's door, stood standing beside it, slid the key into the slot, made sure the shift lever was in "P" and started the engine. All of a sudden, the engine rose to high revs and launched the car forward in a cloud of black smoke, ramming through the garage door, speeding down the driveway, crossing the street in front of our house, then ramming into my neighbor's just-delivered brand new Rolls Royce, [or Bugatti, or Bentley, or Porsche, etc.etc.] parked on his curb. My spouse witnessed it all."
Numbers is not proof
Even if all unhappy Montero owners and the 4,000 or 400,000 names posted the same SUA story above on social media, it is still not enough proof. Viva Voce or strength in numbers won't work here. Impartial lawyers will tell you that huge numbers parroting the same incident cause is not sufficient proof. Why? Because for these claims of SUA to be believable, said SUA-prone vehicles must be able to duplicate and repeat the SUA again, preferably witnessed by the owner, together with impartial and objective witnesses, relevant government agencies, experts and even the court itself. All it takes is for one SUA incident to be duplicated by one and the same "guilty" Montero. And that seems to be a problem of most of the Montero claimants. Try as they might, the SUA never seems to repeat itself under the same conditions. Wrong loading i.e. loading gasoline in a diesel Montero, will make the vehicle surge, but if claimants think they can fool an investigating panel, think twice as lab tests of the loaded fuel is quick and accurate. And it will also harm the engine. Court arbiters will have no choice but to find favor for the defense as there is no incontrovertible proof that some computer glitch caused the SUA and it's not the triple bound floor mats or the driver's Crocs being 3 sizes too big.
Read more: http://www.autoindustriya.com/the-in...#ixzz3t72lgQrI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: *autoindustriya on Twitter | AutoIndustriya on FacebookLast edited by Monseratto; December 2nd, 2015 at 08:16 AM.
-
December 2nd, 2015 08:08 AM #2036
As expected, no mention of MMPCs analysis of the "JR SUA"...but they gave more emphasis on the group of geriatric SUA victims "proof" that the buyback is an admission of guilt.
-
-
December 2nd, 2015 08:21 AM #2038
-
Tsikot Member Rank 3
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 1,251
December 2nd, 2015 08:23 AM #2039How about a faulty inhibitor switch? I can start the monty when the stick is on D but the indicator is blank, shake the shift a little and the indicator lights up. I can also do it the opposite way. While lighted, i move the stick a little and the indicator goes blank. Could this glitch coupled with developing a habit of not needing to step on the brake to change gears specially coming from park (for 2012 and older models), plus mistaking the fuel pedal as the brakes, contribute to it?
-
December 2nd, 2015 08:54 AM #2040
Ang ginamit kasi ng MMC ay abugado to do the problem analysis hindi technical guy, kaya deny to death lang. Even though wala akong Monty, i would stay away from these cars on the road. Who know's when it will create havoc and you don't want to be near the scene when that happens.
As expected, in response to Tesla’s entry into the Philippines market, Ford will be bringing in the...
Tesla Philippines