No Censorship About Car Issues

As a lancer owner, I see Mitsubishi as an honest manufacturer and seller of the car.

There are those who have personal interests in ensuring that they meet their target at the expense of lives of the public and car owners.

Here is what I posted and got deleted. I have reproduced it (altho different), but the essence is the same.
================================================================================
Warning : 308 TH have big unresolved issues.

There are 2 issues which are unresolved. These issues need Peugeot to admit that the car is in fact a defect.

1) Use of V-Power desintegrates the engines (if you see 308 TH break downs, you know why). Word is warranty void if you use V-Power. Imagine a engine blow out at highway speed.

2) Alignment issues : Veering to the left due to fixed camber nut. Defect in design. Warranty void if you attempt to fix it at 3rd party premises. Imgine a car spin if you do an emergency brake at highway speed.

AW has been censoring these problems from the public, just to protect their self interest.

Looks like apart from the AL4, these issues are what Peugeot deem irrelevant.

THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR LIVES.

BE WARNED.

donyong, you may continue to voice your grievances / dissatisfaction here, but be warned against leveling baseless accusations and name-calling etc.

Hi donyong!

Not to say self interest but worry more on revenge attacks from car companies.
Mitsu is trying to repair its damage image. That's why more honest and humble these days. Thanks for the info. Wonder how could V-Power damage the engine? As far as I know, BMW once had an engine fitted in 7-series E38 that is allergic to fuel with high sulfur content. Back in older times before 2000, some petrol station mixed some kerosene into petrol to maximise profit. Some cars that can't take it get damage.

Gunner, do you remember this guy (probally more than 4 years back) who bought a very problematic small entry level National Car. And it was just his luck that his car was full of problems and what did he do, he started a blog about all his car problems which was very lengthy. The blog attracted a lot of attention and tt this point in time, the Car Company could not take any action cos it was basicaly factual.

As his problems grew worse, his frustration increased. Then he began to add in some 'salt & peper' to say how bad the company and management was. Now the Company could sue him and it saw the light of day. The Judged ruled that as long as you post facts its okay, but its not okay to put in unsunbstantiated facts and ordered that his blog be shut down.

Just to highlight some spices that the guy put on his blog;

"I cannot believe that such a company can be ISO certified. They must have bribed someone to get that certification".

Hence, its okay to say that I feel that there is a loss of power when using ABC Fuel compared to other brands cos its factual, its how you feel. You don't have tp prove how you feel. Its just a feeling.

However. its not wise to say that using ABC Fuel harms the engine cos both the Car Company and the Oil Company would not be happy and you dont have the research to back up your claims.

Stick to facts and you will be okay.

To be honest, I don't recall that incident.

However, what you said is right, as long as the man posted facts, it's all good, because you can't sue someone for writing/speaking facts.

Thanks to the power of Google


http://thestar.com.m...=...&sec=nation

Ruling to bar website upheld
PUTRAJAYA: A disgruntled engineer who had put up a website containing several defamatory allegations against Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn Bhd (Perodua) after purchasing a Kelisa with defects failed to overturn an interim injunction order barring the site.

Court of Appeal Justices Gopal Sri Ram, Azmel Ma'amor and Mohd Noor Abdullah dismissed Richard Fong Khee Choong's appeal and said they were satisfied that the defamatory passages in the website were open to interpretation.

“The High Court judge had applied the correct test when he granted the interim injunction,� Justice Sri Ram said, adding that since this was the first case of its kind a written decision would be delivered later.

Justice Sri Ram said that if the article, written by Fong, was a personal grievance and contained true facts, he could consider it fair comment.

“But he went further and attacked the reputation and integrity of that company,� he said.

Fong, 49, was appealing against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision on Sept 17, 2003, which granted Perodua, Perodua Manufacturing Sdn Bhd and Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd the injunction to bar his website pending the trial.

Fong's counsel Gobind Singh Deo said the trial judge had misdirected himself in law when he failed to recognise that Perodua cannot apply for an injunction on matters that were pleaded outside of their statement of claim.

“If a judge considers matters outside of the statement of claim, he would certainly prejudice my client,� he said.

Perodua's counsel Liew Teck Huat said the appeal should be dismissed as the entire website constituted one article and related to the subject of Fong's complaint about the defective car.

He also said Fong had failed to adduce any evidence in affidavits to show that such serious allegations made by him were true.

“There was clear evidence of the threat to continue publication. The learned trial judge was clearly justified in holding that the purported defence has no probability of success,� he told the three-men bench.

On Nov 27, Perodua and its subsidiaries sued Fong for defamation through his website www.geocities.com/ mykelisa2002 which alleged the company had practised corruption in procuring the ISO 9000 certification by bribing the UK Vehicle Certification Agency.

The company claimed that Fong's allegations in the website gave the implication that Perodua practiced deception and fraud for its own interest instead of the customer's needs.

It further claimed that Fong's allegations meant that the second national car producer was betraying the public's trust and was involved in a conspiracy to cheat the people.

Fong, who was named defendant in the suit, bought a Perodua Kelisa in August 2002 and it was delivered at the end of that month even though he claimed the car had defects. He then contacted Perodua by e-mail and made several allegations.

He proceeded to set up a website containing the allegations in October 2002.

Thanks thegunner. Actually, the word "sue" was used over the phone when someone complained about the issues.

That actually pisses alot of people/owners.

They know its a problem, won't actually aknowledge it and give the runaround to the owners. Frankly, they cannot give a solution at this time.

There are many threads like this in AW, but this with the car above, is really over the top.

Hi cfa!

Did he win at the end regarding the Kelisa lawsuit? If that guy won, that is something miracle.

I don't think so. There has been no follow-up in the press. The guy's issue was that he said that the company bribed to get thier ISO which cannot be substaintated. Other than that, it was all factual, and I was told be friends who read his blog, it was quite bad, the defects went on and on and the SC just could not rectify the defects and only made things worse.

Hence,its okay to say that my car has the tendency to drift to the left at high speeds but its not okay to say that every car produced has this tendency to drift cos u won't be able to prove it.

Cases like these will usually go unheard. Won't know the outcome unless you know that guy.