I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. (Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. They aren't talking
about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
narrow rather than expand the coverage. Obviously the original lifetime
warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
action.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On Aug 26, 1:19*am, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. *I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. *It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. *My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. *(Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). *He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. *They aren't talking
about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
narrow rather than expand the coverage. *Obviously the original lifetime
warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
action.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Lanciani
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ddl@danlan.*com

They’re making the heat exchangers thinner and thinner supposedly for
better energy efficiency but the real reason is because they are too
cheap to use more and expensive metals. The heat exchangers of my wall
furnaces from 1949 on the other hand don’t have any leaks because
they’re built like a tank. Every once in a while I’ll get a call from
these government crony companies that want to replace my wall furnaces
for free and I tell them to go …. themselves.

I'm re-posting this to alt.hvac

Dan Lanciani wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. (Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. They aren't
talking about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action
settlement to narrow rather than expand the coverage. Obviously
the original lifetime warranty wasn't restricted to failures
contemplated by the later class action.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On Sep 3, 9:55*pm, HVAC Guy wrote:
I'm re-posting this to alt.hvac



Dan Lanciani wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. *I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. *It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. *My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. *(Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). *He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. *They aren't
talking about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action
settlement to narrow rather than expand the coverage. *Obviously
the original lifetime warranty wasn't restricted to failures
contemplated by the later class action.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Lanciani
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ddl@danlan.*com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So much for Carriers claim to fame for quality , reliability, and
safety. May as well go with Goodman for a whole lot less money and
send your customer out for a nice dinner for the business.

On Aug 26, 3:19*am, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. *I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. *It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. *My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. *(Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). *He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. *They aren't talking
about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
narrow rather than expand the coverage. *Obviously the original lifetime
warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
action.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Lanciani
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ddl@danlan.*com

Post at www.Heatinghelp.com , at althavc you might get a polite
answer if you are real lucky

" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 9:55 pm, HVAC Guy wrote:
I'm re-posting this to alt.hvac



Dan Lanciani wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace. . .

stuff snipped about Carrier demanding increasingly unreasonable amounts of
work to file claim

So much for Carriers claim to fame for quality , reliability, and
safety. May as well go with Goodman for a whole lot less money and
send your customer out for a nice dinner for the business.

Carrier's playing with fire. As soon as someone dies from a defective
furnace that Carrier is clearly trying to elude repairing, the vampire army
of product liability lawyers will swarm them looking for blood, the Feds
will force a product safety recall and Carrier will likely join the list of
companies that slid under the waves and vanished. By trying to avoid
honoring their settlement they seem to be telegraphing the real size and
extent of the problem. They've been selling these suckers since 1984 or so,
which means there are a lot of them out there. One site says Michigan alone
has 250,000 units in place. A recall of that size has the potential to be a
real company killer. It sounds like they at first thought the problem was
manageable but once they claims started rolling in, they realized the true
scope of the issue and knew they had to put the brakes on. Making it hard to
file a claim is an age old practice that I am sure BP is looking into right
now.

Another site says: "All three complaints allege that in the mid-1980s
Carrier stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor of
cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel. Carrier switched to the cheaper
product despite the fact that the industry standard was (and still is) to
use stainless steel parts to prevent corrosion. Plaintiffs allege that the
polypropylene separates from the steel and degrades due to the high
temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to acidic
condensate. In some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger."

http://www.tousley.com/press/20061010.htm

The Carrier cock-up reminds me of an article about Dell computers trying to
foist off their purchase of millions of bad capacitors on consumers, telling
them that "they were doing too many complex calculations" and that's what
caused their machines to fail.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfai...f-deceit/10165

Dell employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. In one
e-mail exchange between Dell customer support employees concerning computers
at the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm, a Dell worker states, "We need
to avoid all language indicating the boards were bad or had 'issues' per our
discussion this morning." In other documents about how to handle questions
around the faulty OptiPlex systems, Dell salespeople were told, "Don't bring
this to customer's attention proactively" and "Emphasize uncertainty."

In reality, they had shipped thousands of machines with defective components
that would have leaked anyway, no matter what calculations they did or
didn't do. Sales reps and techs were given "lie sheets" that made sure they
admitted no responsibility ever. Ironically, the law firm that represented
them is suing them, too. You guessed it: they bought some of the defective
Dells, too and wanted *their* money back. You know you're in trouble when
your lawyer sues you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/te...gy/29dell.html

It's no surprise. If people are never liable for anything they do, which
should corporations behave any differently? When I called Samsung to report
that both my DVD recorders had failed within days of each other, the first
thing out of the tech's mouth was "we have no reports of failure on this
particular model." I figure if that's the first thing out of their mouths,
it's a big lie. I'll bet Samsung bought a busload of the bad capacitors,
same as Dell, and were looking to blame their customers. What a bad
strategy. I've been looking at 3D TV's and "DamnDung" has some nice
offerings, but they are on the "not ever again in a million years" list, so
I will look elsewhere. Same with Dell, Philips and Citibank.

Although I don't own one, I've been reading up on the Carrier issue and it's
pretty scary. Here's how one site summed it up:

Heat exchangers in many high-efficiency furnaces are made of stainless
steel but one company is being accused of using a cheaper grade metal and
misleading consumers. A class action lawsuit has been filed in Ontario
against Carrier and Bryant high-efficiency condensing furnaces. It's
alleged there are defective heat exchangers in 32 models made since 1984.
The lawsuit claims the exchangers are made of inferior metal and corrode
prematurely.
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/calga...e-033e3313765c

I am not surprised they are playing the "paper the claimant to death" route,
requiring 17 pages of documentation to file a claim. If there is a forced
recall that goes back to items sold 25 years ago, it most likely mean
bankruptcy for Carrier. They probably feel that if that's the worst
outcome, they have nothing to lose by screwing people around like that Monty
Python skit about the princess:

King Otto: Oh, very well. Before I can give my permission, young man, I
must set you a task, which, if you succeed, will prove you worthy of my
daughter's hand.

Prince Charming: (Michael Palin) Yes, sir, I accept.

King Otto: Good. At nine o'clock tomorrow morning, armed only with your
sword, you must go to the highest tower in the castle, and jump out of the
window.

I am sure that if Carrier could get away with asking claimants to first jump
off the roof before submitting a claim, they would. I'd be selling any
Carrier-related stock I owned right now. The things that they are doing now
seem pretty indicative of a company that's CTD (circling the drain). It
seems like a bad idea to start using new, untested materials on something as
critical and potentially lethal as a heat exchanger and a worse idea to try
to palm that bad mistake on their customers.

One legal website had a very interesting take on all this:

"Many times, a cracked heat exchanger will be a suspected cause of
emission problems. The mistaken belief is that exhaust gases will migrate
through the cracks into the heated distribution air, which is distributed
throughout the home via the ductwork. However, since cracks in the heat
exchanger normally occur in areas of positive pressure, the exchanger is at
most a minor contributor to the emission problem. This is because cracks can
allow air to blow against the burners, reducing the efficiency of combustion
and leading to a higher level of carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases." --
GAS APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS ASS'N, RESULTS OF GAMA REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL GAS
APPLIANCE STANDARDS (1976)

Source: http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles29.asp

So, is the Carrier heat exchanger problem a potential source of multiple
deaths or "no big thing?"

All things considered, I'd rather NOT have holes in my heat exchanger.
We've got 3 CO detectors in the house, since they are prone to failure, and
might even add another one after reading about all the ways CO can enter a
home. When I had my water heater replaced, the tech failed to reconnect the
vent to the chimney properly. Luckily, I noticed it by inspection, but
that's when I went out and bought two detectors, one for the basement, one
for the bedroom. I've since added a third in the kitchen area (gas stove),
just to be safe. All three cost a bit over $100, but once again, I asked
myself how much I would pay for CO protection *after* a disaster and $100
didn't seem like very much at all to help prevent it. We have at least half
a dozen CO deaths (often many more) in the DC area, and while some of them
are due to utter stupidity (running kerosene heaters indoors), others are
caused by defective or improperly installed furnaces and water heaters.

--

Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Another site says: "All three complaints allege that in the mid-1980s
Carrier stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor of
cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel. Carrier switched to the cheaper
product despite the fact that the industry standard was (and still is) to
use stainless steel parts to prevent corrosion. Plaintiffs allege that the
polypropylene separates from the steel and degrades due to the high
temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to acidic
condensate. In some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger."

http://www.tousley.com/press/20061010.htm

The Carrier cock-up reminds me of an article about Dell computers trying to
foist off their purchase of millions of bad capacitors on consumers, telling
them that "they were doing too many complex calculations" and that's what
caused their machines to fail.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfai...f-deceit/10165

Dell employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. In one
e-mail exchange between Dell customer support employees concerning computers
at the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm, a Dell worker states, "We need
to avoid all language indicating the boards were bad or had 'issues' per our
discussion this morning." In other documents about how to handle questions
around the faulty OptiPlex systems, Dell salespeople were told, "Don't bring
this to customer's attention proactively" and "Emphasize uncertainty."

But one big difference between the Dell and Carrier incidents is that
Carrier switched to cheaper materials while Dell used what were
supposed to be the highest quality parts, only the Japanese maker of
those parts, Nichicon, happened to really foul up their production for
a few years, around 2001-2004.

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message
...


Robert Green wrote:

Another site says: "All three complaints allege that in the mid-1980s
Carrier stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor
of
cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel. Carrier switched to the
cheaper
product despite the fact that the industry standard was (and still is)
to
use stainless steel parts to prevent corrosion. Plaintiffs allege that
the
polypropylene separates from the steel and degrades due to the high
temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to
acidic
condensate. In some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of
actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger."

http://www.tousley.com/press/20061010.htm

The Carrier cock-up reminds me of an article about Dell computers trying
to
foist off their purchase of millions of bad capacitors on consumers,
telling
them that "they were doing too many complex calculations" and that's
what
caused their machines to fail.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfai...f-deceit/10165

Dell employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. In one
e-mail exchange between Dell customer support employees concerning
computers
at the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm, a Dell worker states, "We
need
to avoid all language indicating the boards were bad or had 'issues' per
our
discussion this morning." In other documents about how to handle
questions
around the faulty OptiPlex systems, Dell salespeople were told, "Don't
bring
this to customer's attention proactively" and "Emphasize uncertainty."

But one big difference between the Dell and Carrier incidents is that
Carrier switched to cheaper materials while Dell used what were
supposed to be the highest quality parts, only the Japanese maker of
those parts, Nichicon, happened to really foul up their production for
a few years, around 2001-2004.

One big similarity is that the both lied their heads off trying to deny the
problems even existed. IIRC, the capacitor problems came about as a result
of someone stealing the formula for a new electrolyte that happened to be
mis-copied and turned out bad. While Dell was not at fault for the theft,
they appeared to know they had a problem a lot sooner than Carrrier did. In
both cases, Dell and Carrier used products that were unknowns, although I
agree that in Dell's case, they were not directly responsible for the change
in formulation. Still, they are "badder" guys here because they knew, and
like Bill Clinton, tried to lie their way out of it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ems-capacitors

"Amazingly, even after Dell identified the defective capacitor problem in
its OptiPlex PCs, the company decided to keep making a shoddy computer.
According to the AIT brief, Dell knew about a fatal problem with its
OptiPlex motherboards as early as January 2003 and knew specifically about
the Nichicon capacitor failures by January 2004. Yet Dell sold flawed
OptiPlexes to AIT as late as 2005." Source:

http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/compo...r-disaster.htm

I don't put a lot of faith or trust in a company that *knows* they've got
crappy components but continues to sell PCs with the bad motherboards (some
say over 12 MILLION). I think it took rather much longer for Carrier to
realize it had a problem. The evidence apparently showed up first in Canada
because they have a much longer winter heating season than the US. That was
quickly followed by reports of failure in Michigan and a number of other
northern US states. The bad capacitors became very quickly apparent to Dell
as machines started flooding back in for service. The interoffice memos
make it clear that they knew they had a problem from very early on but
continued to sell faulty machines to their customers hoping no one would pin
the blame on them. That sucks and Dell deserves to go out of business
because of their selling known faulty goods and trying every trick in the
book to keep their customers from finding out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/te...dell.html?_r=1

While reading through these websites I discovered that Samsung used the
faulty capacitors in their gear and there's a class action suit pending
against them. I will be opening up my two dead Samsung DVD recorders later
to see if there are any bulging or leaking caps and if their are, I may very
well opt into the suit. I just knew when the tech said "We have no reports
of problems with that model" that he was lying his fool head off.

--
Bobby G.

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message
...

Robert Green wrote:

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message
...

Another site says: "All three complaints allege that in the mid-1980s
Carrier stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor
of
cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel. Carrier switched to the
cheaper
product despite the fact that the industry standard was (and still is)
to
use stainless steel parts to prevent corrosion. Plaintiffs allege that
the
polypropylene separates from the steel and degrades due to the high
temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to
acidic
condensate. In some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of
actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger."

http://www.tousley.com/press/20061010.htm

The Carrier cock-up reminds me of an article about Dell computers trying
to
foist off their purchase of millions of bad capacitors on consumers,
telling
them that "they were doing too many complex calculations" and that's
what
caused their machines to fail.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfai...f-deceit/10165

Dell employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. In one
e-mail exchange between Dell customer support employees concerning
computers
at the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm, a Dell worker states, "We
need
to avoid all language indicating the boards were bad or had 'issues' per
our
discussion this morning." In other documents about how to handle
questions
around the faulty OptiPlex systems, Dell salespeople were told, "Don't
bring
this to customer's attention proactively" and "Emphasize uncertainty."

But one big difference between the Dell and Carrier incidents is that
Carrier switched to cheaper materials while Dell used what were
supposed to be the highest quality parts, only the Japanese maker of
those parts, Nichicon, happened to really foul up their production for
a few years, around 2001-2004.

One big similarity is that the both lied their heads off trying to deny
the
problems even existed. IIRC, the capacitor problems came about as a
result
of someone stealing the formula for a new electrolyte that happened to
be
mis-copied and turned out bad. While Dell was not at fault for the
theft,
they appeared to know they had a problem a lot sooner than Carrrier did.
In
both cases, Dell and Carrier used products that were unknowns, although
I
agree that in Dell's case, they were not directly responsible for the
change
in formulation. Still, they are "badder" guys here because they knew,
and
like Bill Clinton, tried to lie their way out of it:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ems-capacitors

"Amazingly, even after Dell identified the defective capacitor problem
in
its OptiPlex PCs, the company decided to keep making a shoddy computer.
According to the AIT brief, Dell knew about a fatal problem with its
OptiPlex motherboards as early as January 2003 and knew specifically
about
the Nichicon capacitor failures by January 2004. Yet Dell sold flawed
OptiPlexes to AIT as late as 2005." Source:


http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/compo...r-disaster.htm

I don't put a lot of faith or trust in a company that *knows* they've
got
crappy components but continues to sell PCs with the bad motherboards
(some
say over 12 MILLION). I think it took rather much longer for Carrier to
realize it had a problem. The evidence apparently showed up first in
Canada
because they have a much longer winter heating season than the US. That
was
quickly followed by reports of failure in Michigan and a number of other
northern US states. The bad capacitors became very quickly apparent to
Dell
as machines started flooding back in for service. The interoffice memos
make it clear that they knew they had a problem from very early on but
continued to sell faulty machines to their customers hoping no one would
pin
the blame on them. That sucks and Dell deserves to go out of business
because of their selling known faulty goods and trying every trick in
the
book to keep their customers from finding out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/te...dell.html?_r=1

While reading through these websites I discovered that Samsung used the
faulty capacitors in their gear and there's a class action suit pending
against them. I will be opening up my two dead Samsung DVD recorders
later
to see if there are any bulging or leaking caps and if their are, I may
very
well opt into the suit. I just knew when the tech said "We have no
reports
of problems with that model" that he was lying his fool head off.


You're absolutely right that Dell was just as bad as Carrier in the
cover-up of their defective products, but unlike Carrier, Dell didn't
initially try to cut corners by using cheap components, and the
components that did fail, Nichicon series HN and HM capacitors, had
previously been highly reliable. Also Dell had been trying to solve
the problem with later defective Nichicons even before 2003, as
evidenced by them changing from Nichicon brand to Rubycon brand
capacitors in the part of the circuitry subjected to the worst stress,
the CPU voltage regulator. Dell later even changed one Rubycon in a
different part of the circuitry to a Panasonic, also to improve
reliability.

I agree there's a substantial difference in how both companies got into the
"hot seat." Dell's problems should have been caught by a vigorous quality
control process that I've found a lot of companies don't have unless it's
forced upon them by contract or law. There's a lot of speculation about the
cause of the "great capacitor plague" but I feel Nichicon's problems
occurring almost at the same time as the Chinese and Taiwan manufacturers is
at least very suspicious.

The story about the stolen capacitor chemical formula doesn't apply to
Dell or Nichicon but to several Chinese and Taiwanese brand
capacitors. A Rubycon scientist was hired by China's Luminous Town
company (Ltec) and duplicated a Rubycon electrolyte formula. Then
some of his assistants tried to duplicate his formula and sold it to
several Chinese and Taiwanese capacitor makers, only they left out key
ingredients that prevented the formation of hydrogen gas, and this
supposedly led to many faulty capacitors being manufactured around
2000-2003. Nichicon never used that formula but always used its own,
and the failures of their HN and HM capacitors hasn't been officially
explained, but some people say they were due to the capacitors being
overfilled with water. However Chinese and Taiwanese capacitors
continue to fail at higher than normal rates, long after the so-called
electrolyte formula scandal ended, and I don't know the reason,
although a couple of researchers at the University of Maryland found
that Taiwanese capacitors were made of aluminum containing much more
copper than the aluminum used by Japanese companies.

It seems that high-end motherboard makers have switched to solid state
capacitors in order to get around the problem. I hadn't heard of the copper
contamination theory, but it's not hard to believe since there's also a lot
of tainted wallboard that has come from China. Somewhere, someone must have
made a switch in suppliers or in fabrication techniques. Nichicon may have
been burned up the supply line by one of *their* subs or suppliers.

Dell's problems, unlike Carrier's, are with subcontractors to be sure, but
big corporations are wise to remember that in the Navy, the captain is the
one who bears the responsibility when a ship runs aground for any reason.
Dell is the one who's going to take the biggest hit over this.

It's like Jack in the Box and ground beef. No one remembers the name of the
supplier who provided the beef that killed little kids. They DO remember it
was Jack in the Box, though. A company is only as good as its supply chain
and it is in their best interest to inspect, test and inspect again at every
point in the process.

You probably know, but some people would be amazed at how far "up the chain"
big food companies like Kraft go to test their ingredients at every step of
the way. They make the Feds inspections look pathetic in comparison. They
do it because once the "stink" of a bad product gets on you, it's hard to
shake. Ask some Wendy's workers about the "chili with extra thumb" jokes
they hear. (-: Hell, I still won't buy Turkey Hill anything since they
shipped ice cream in tankers that had transported raw eggs without a wash
down in between. The results were predictable.

--
Bobby G.

On Sep 3, 9:55*pm, HVAC Guy wrote:
I'm re-posting this to alt.hvac



Dan Lanciani wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. *I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. *It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. *My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. *(Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). *He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. *They aren't
talking about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action
settlement to narrow rather than expand the coverage. *Obviously
the original lifetime warranty wasn't restricted to failures
contemplated by the later class action.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Lanciani
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ddl@danlan.*com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Must you?

In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) writes:

| I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
| class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
| started giving problems in early spring. It came with a lifetime
| parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
| this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. My service tech
| had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
| some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
| this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
| months now with no useful results. (Oddly they did not ask for
| the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
| nominal value.)
|
| The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
| requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
| they will send a replacement). He says they also say that if when
| they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
| discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. They aren't talking
| about covering labor either.
|
| Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
| narrow rather than expand the coverage. Obviously the original lifetime
| warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
| action.

[following up to my own posting]

Just in case anyone else is having similar problems...

Bryant is now satisfied with the paperwork (or, more accurately, say
that they don't need more paperwork until after the job is done), but
the parts currently do not exist. The parts will have to be produced
at the "factory" and this cannot be started until at least the end of
September, with no commitment to a ship date. As it is beginning to get
chilly at night my service company suggests that I would be better off
buying a new furnace. I'm sure Bryant agrees...

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 3:19:00 AM UTC-5, Dan Lanciani wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. (Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. They aren't talking
about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
narrow rather than expand the coverage. Obviously the original lifetime
warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
action.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 3:19:00 AM UTC-5, Dan Lanciani wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck getting service under this
class action settlement. I have a 350MAV060120 AAKA furnace which
started giving problems in early spring. It came with a lifetime
parts warranty on the heat exchangers and my understanding is that
this settlement added a 20 year labor warranty. My service tech
had a fairly simple (~3 page) form to fill out with the results of
some tests (e.g., CO in the exhaust was off the scale) and I thought
this would be simple, but he has been going round with Bryant for
months now with no useful results. (Oddly they did not ask for
the pressure drop across the heat exchanger--it's about double the
nominal value.)

The last thing he said they sent was a new 17 page form that also
requests pictures (requiring the furnace to be disassembled before
they will send a replacement). He says they also say that if when
they get the heat exchanger back it does not have the type of failure
discussed in the settlement it will not be covered. They aren't talking
about covering labor either.

Seems to me that Bryant is trying to use the class action settlement to
narrow rather than expand the coverage. Obviously the original lifetime
warranty wasn't restricted to failures contemplated by the later class
action.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

We have a bryant that is only 7 years old. We have had no heat for a week and a half! We can't get anywhere with the manufacturer or companies to replace the secondary heat exchanger. Everyone that comes out wants to sell us a new furnace for $6,000. My question is has anybody just had a replacement for the exchanger and had any luck with that not breaking down. I will never go with this brand again! After paying 7,000 seven years ago we are forced to make a decision. New one
AGAIN or fix the part, any thoughts???