Respuesta: EVO O TWIN CAM
Bueno depende, los fallos que detectan pasado el tiempo dan el aviso a los compradores y se lo reparan. Y si se detectan fallos graves dan hasta 5 años/50.000 millas para pasarse por el taller a solucionarlo. En USA o te adelantas a los acontecimientos o te caen ostias por todas partes.
Supongo que en todas partes cuecen habas, pero la mayoría de marcas comerciales me temo que prefieren cerrar el pikito y pasar de puntillas para no hacer mala imagen.... JA! Suerte que tienen de no estar en el pais de los sueños y las libertades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cam Bearing Lawsuit:
In January 2001, the Company, on its own initiative, notified each owner of 1999
and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88®
and Twin Cam 88B™ engines that the Company was extending the warranty for a rear
cam bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles. Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a
putative nationwide class action was filed against the Company in state court in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed September
28, 2001. The complaint alleged that this cam bearing is defective and asserted
various legal theories. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for affected owners, an order compelling the Company to repair
the engines, and other relief. On February 27, 2002, the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was granted by the Court and the amended complaint
was dismissed in its entirety. An appeal was filed with the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals. On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative
nationwide class action against the Company in state court in Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue and asserting different legal
theories than in the first action. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory
damages, an order compelling the Company to repair the engines and other relief.
On September 23, 2002, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted by the Court,
the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and no appeal was taken. On January
14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's February 27,
2002 dismissal of the complaint in the first action, and the Company petitioned
the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review. On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the remaining claims in the
action. On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third action in the state
court in Milwaukee County, on behalf of the same plaintiffs from the action
dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This third action was dismissed by the
court on July 26, 2004. In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved
to reopen that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action. On
September 9, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court refused to allow the reopening
or amendment. Plaintiffs again appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and
on December 13, 2005, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court. On
January 12, 2006, the Company filed a petition for review with the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, which was granted, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear this
latest appeal. The Company believes that the 5-year/50,000 mile warranty
extension it announced in January 2001 adequately addressed the condition for
affected owners, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this
matter.
