2014 mountain sled sales (skidoo buying market share)

[Himark]

From strictly a business POV. If you have the market share and can not keep up with production currently....why would you offer more? ie, more warranty. Heck the smart move is to wein it down and offer less. I am not for that motto but it is business. Warranty COSTS money, and no doubt Polaris ate plenty with there 900's.

If you do not have market you go after the longer warranty to try and make up for your products short falls. This worked well with Lee Iococa and Chrysler. They had worst sales than pioneered the 10/100. Still do not like Chryslers but it worked.

 

[Mafesto]

I think multiyear warranty needs to become the standard as the sled prices keep increasing.

This will make the inevitable transition to 4/s easier also, as there is considerably less warranty costs with the 4/s. This could help hold down overall cost of snowmobile manufacturing.

 

[waxer]

Personally I think transferrable warranties help new sales. When used sleds sell for a fair price then people are more willing to buy another new one and buyers feel better about the used market. And when dealers don't take your trade- in that sends a bad message, just my .02 from an old Dude, lol

 

[rmk8000]

I chose ski doo for warranty, price, and 146 inch track. I do wish I had a dealer that was less than 2 hours away though

 

[AZ800]

Hmmm thought the e tec and Doo clutching were pretty solid?
Can't comment on that reliability cause I don't own one but one thing is undeniable. They finally have a mtn chassis that works well.
Guess they're all pieces of shat at some point in time just depends which piece of shart you're riding when it happens to fail!

 

[black swan]

5 Cats from 2004 to 2011-still ride a 11' cat for work.
Then tried a Poo 2011 assault till now...tps failed 1st ride..crank snapped at 600mi.

Then the Doo

300mi on '14 XM. Flawless. Original belt looks brand new, fit & finish best in market. After riding my poo yesterday, its parked and for sale.

poo vs doo were exact same price except warranty.

 

[cyoung]

Funny how often the issues are secondhand

Here are a few facts to consider. Bombardier's Ski-Doo division is a "for-profit" business. They calculate warranty expense exposure using statistical failure rates generated through testing (either there own or through trusted suppliers). When any manufacturer sets warranty policy, it's done knowing (worst case) what they are going to spend to cover the obligations set in that policy. I've been in the business of manufacturing products for 25 years and I've never seen an exception to this. So unless Ski-Doo is run by crack heads, they set that warranty policy with confidence that their associated warranty costs will still leave them with plenty of profit from the sale of the sled. Carry that to it's logical conclusion and you have to believe their testing indicates they are going to experience very low failure rates within the four year window.

No rational business person would execute a market-share strategy that leaves a large open-ended cost liability in it's wake. You just cannot make the math work on this approach because your warranty costs compound in future years and the business is destroyed.

One last comment just to vent... I REALLY appreciate people's firsthand experiences on the forum but I get frustrated with all the secondhand rhetoric where it's hard to separate people's personal agenda from reality. All this "I rode with a guy who had a problem once" is not super useful to me.

 

[WFO or go home]

All the xm's I rode with last year are at the 1 belt per 100 mile mark. The demo I had roached 3 belt in 2 weeks. Great engine in the doos but hate the chassis, same crap since 2008. I have a mountain of broken S and E modules.

I have been averaging about 600 miles per belt with 95% being hard boondocking.

Better tell the owners of said XM's to pay attention.

 

[icr]

Here are a few facts to consider. Bombardier's Ski-Doo division is a "for-profit" business. They calculate warranty expense exposure using statistical failure rates generated through testing (either there own or through trusted suppliers). When any manufacturer sets warranty policy, it's done knowing (worst case) what they are going to spend to cover the obligations set in that policy. I've been in the business of manufacturing products for 25 years and I've never seen an exception to this. So unless Ski-Doo is run by crack heads, they set that warranty policy with confidence that their associated warranty costs will still leave them with plenty of profit from the sale of the sled. Carry that to it's logical conclusion and you have to believe their testing indicates they are going to experience very low failure rates within the four year window.

No rational business person would execute a market-share strategy that leaves a large open-ended cost liability in it's wake. You just cannot make the math work on this approach because your warranty costs compound in future years and the business is destroyed.

One last comment just to vent... I REALLY appreciate people's firsthand experiences on the forum but I get frustrated with all the secondhand rhetoric where it's hard to separate people's personal agenda from reality. All this "I rode with a guy who had a problem once" is not super useful to me.

Offering a four year warranty or any length warranty does not imply they anticipate a low amount of failures in that time frame. It means they don't anticipate paying on many warranty claims in that time period.

There's a great difference between the two.

 

[Powderboy]

Offering a four year warranty or any length warranty does not imply they anticipate a low amount of failures in that time frame. It means they don't anticipate paying on many warranty claims in that time period.

There's a great difference between the two.

Semantics’. You’re just twisting his point around. He’s still saying the same thing as you. They know all angles of a claim including how many will be denied. Every company on the planet will limit some of their exposure by blocking claims. And if you owned the company so would you. It sucks to be that guy but the truth is some issues fall outside the scope of the warrantee.

 

[icr]

Semantics’. You’re just twisting his point around. He’s still saying the same thing as you. They know all angles of a claim including how many will be denied. Every company on the planet will limit some of their exposure by blocking claims. And if you owned the company so would you. It sucks to be that guy but the truth is some issues fall outside the scope of the warrantee.

Agreed except the last line of his first paragraph with the logical conclusion of low failures. That isn't the same as low approved warranty claims, which is my point.

 

[cyoung]

The key is to read and understand the warranty

The Ski-Doo warranty, as an example, is not squishy. They state that if there is a manufacturer defect, they will cover it. If you use their oil, follow the break-in procedure and leave the sled unmodified, you are on solid ground for a claim.

Ski-Doo has even gone a step further, they chip the new sleds so you really can't run them hard until they are broken in. They do this to lower their warranty exposure and much as anything.

Again, long warranties are an expression of statistical confidence in failure rates not an expression of planned poor customer service. Given the warranty language, the idea that a company like Si-Doo can just "plan to reject" is fraught with class-action legal liability. This leaves a future open-ended cost liability no rational business person would accept.

As a simple piece of anecdotal evidence, I have never had a warranty claim denied by Ski-Doo. Better yet, I've only ever had to make one and it was for the motor of a 2007 Summit. My dealer calls me occasionally to say that Ski-Doo has discovered a problem and they want us to put a new part on our sleds. From my experience, they are a professionally run company that wants people's repeat business.

 

[Murrin]

Love the Tommy Boy reference by Polarisfornow! I'm on an XM right now so i don't want to seem biased because i'm not brand loyal. The way I looked at it is,when I was spending so much loot on a new sled,I put a lot of research into it. In my opinion, between Ski Doo, Polaris and Cat, they are all great machines, all of which have their pros and cons. I think, in the end, it boils down to one or two minor differences when making a final decision, be it dealer location...warranty...one can do this, or the other can do that type of thing! Obviously there are brand loyal people out there(and I don't mean to call anyone out) but I think, in such a competitive market, and with all the great sled choices out there, being brand loyal is the most foolish thing ever! I can't speak for anyone else, but when I bought my sled, I added up the pros and cons of what each brand had to offer and what I ended up on was the Ski Doo. So I guess the answer to your question, the warranty was a factor, but definitely not the only piece in the puzzle!

 

[R J]

In regards to the original topic, I have never bought a sled based on what it has for warranty. Sure it's a nice thing to have but in all the years of riding I have never once had a sled that required a warranty claim. Some updates and recalls of course but no claims based on warranty.

I buy what I like or what I feel will be the best suited for me. What it comes with or what it doesn't is just what it is. Some others may give more or less but that doesn't change how it rides, performs or what it will do for you.