I don't get Red Devil's reasoning. Why should paint issues be looked at any differently than repetitive engine, electronic, or other problems? 
They shouldn't. If it's a repetitive problem that affects a majority of the product sold, then it is a design flaw that needs to be corrected in the manufacturing process. Like the initial head gasket issue was addressed. But where at what percentage of failure it is considered a basic flaw? 10 failures, 100 failures, 1000 failures? I don't know. I'm sure there is a percentage somewhere in the minds of designers where they accept a certain percentage of failures as not being a design or complete product failure. I'm sure there have been problems out there, besides the head gasket problems, that have happened to more than one or two people, or even 10 for that matter, but does that make it a design flaw and immediately condemn the whole line? I don't know the answer to that. Mechanical failures, for the most part, are internal, and won't be discovered until the vehicle gets some mileage on it.
On the other hand, cosmetic issues, one would think, should be caught right away. I can see a bad paint job right now, but I can't necessarily see a part that may fail in 5K miles, unless I've seen that same part repeatedly fail in the same time frame. Like I said earlier, I think if we look back at the postings for 95 and 103 engines, we'll find complaints about them. The 110 is no different. There are those that have had problems and there are those that haven't. Has the MoCo been totally vigilant in catching all the problems, obviously not, and shame on them for not.
Author
Topic: I Will Buy A New Harley When... (Read 36462 times)