UKTJ Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 4 minutes ago, Surfer said: How do you know the issue was not there at point of sale when the Internet is litter with complaints about corrosion on Jeeps? My understanding is that it is due to galvanic corrosion and the chemical reaction between the two metals takes time to happen, it is not instantaneous. With a new Jeep there would not have been enough time for the chemical reaction to take place. I thought the basis of your claim had been that you could demonstrate the corrosion was definitely there at the time you bought your Jeep. That could be shown because of the previous repair. If no physical manifestation of the corrosion was visible on a brand new JL, how could one demonstrate that the corrosion was there? Maybe an expert would testify that within moments of putting the two metals next to each other on the production line the corrosion starts to form, even at a microscopic level and therefore the laws of material science prove it was there? But then I guess the other side would point out that it does not seem all JLs end up having corrosion. As I said a couple of posts up it would be really interesting to see what happens if somebody tried the legislation as a test case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Member Surfer Posted February 21 Platinum Member Share Posted February 21 3 minutes ago, UKTJ said: My understanding is that it is due to galvanic corrosion and the chemical reaction between the two metals takes time to happen, it is not instantaneous. With a new Jeep there would not have been enough time for the chemical reaction to take place. I thought the basis of your claim had been that you could demonstrate the corrosion was definitely there at the time you bought your Jeep. That could be shown because of the previous repair. If no physical manifestation of the corrosion was visible on a brand new JL, how could one demonstrate that the corrosion was there? Maybe an expert would testify that within moments of putting the two metals next to each other on the production line the corrosion starts to form, even at a microscopic level and therefore the laws of material science prove it was there? But then I guess the other side would point out that it does not seem all JLs end up having corrosion. As I said a couple of posts up it would be really interesting to see what happens if somebody tried the legislation as a test case. Nope it is poor design i.e. the two metal reacting with one an other that is causing the issue so the problem was there from day one. It would never get as far as a court as the dealer and the manufacturer know that would lose and lose even more due to bad publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTJ Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 36 minutes ago, Surfer said: Nope it is poor design i.e. the two metal reacting with one an other that is causing the issue so the problem was there from day one. It would never get as far as a court as the dealer and the manufacturer know that would lose and lose even more due to bad publicity. Given your success with this in your own situation it would seem JL owners are missing a trick by not giving this legislation a go. It would be generally helpful if it demonstrated fault, as opposed to the good will gestures that Jeep to insist on making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.