New Poo VR is the old bait & switch fraud

[leiterch]

R44guy, you are on the money with your assessment.

This is either a label error (#1 quality issue in manufacturing) or Polaris trying to get rid of old inventory.

This could be due to a parts supplier screw up, but this isn't the way a potential quality issue should be handled.

If this is an engineering change to fix a potential problem, then this def isn't the way to handle the change.

The above items are areas that I am very familiar with as this is my job running a Quality and Engineering Department on a daily basis.

I am not saying we don't practice these items, but we also know what happens when a customer "r44guy" catches the act. It is a risk reward deal. The cost of throwing away a large number of valuable product that "might" have a small percentage of defects vs. relabel and followup with corrected product.

Happens everyday. This is where I agree with milehighassassin. Every manufacturer performs this function, not just a polaris issue. They just got caught on this one.

JMHO

 

[chumbilly1]

So I agree that the update should be. But how many others have tried any of these options- adding venting to electronics cover ie drilling the pi** out of it, Adding venting that directs outside air on to the electronics, mesh hoods. I only bring this up because I have seen VR failure only once and it was on a completely stock chassis. I know we should not have to modify our machines for reliability but that is the real deal. If you want a mtn specific snowmachine, build one. I have also wondered if not using headlights can lead to VR damage (like the early m series). However I have got away with 2000 trouble free miles with no lighting at all. KNOCK ON WOOD. not to downplay your concerns, good luck on this one.

 

[rocket]

R44guy, you are on the money with your assessment.

This is either a label error (#1 quality issue in manufacturing) or Polaris trying to get rid of old inventory.

This could be due to a parts supplier screw up, but this isn't the way a potential quality issue should be handled.

If this is an engineering change to fix a potential problem, then this def isn't the way to handle the change.

The above items are areas that I am very familiar with as this is my job running a Quality and Engineering Department on a daily basis.

I am not saying we don't practice these items, but we also know what happens when a customer "r44guy" catches the act. It is a risk reward deal. The cost of throwing away a large number of valuable product that "might" have a small percentage of defects vs. relabel and followup with corrected product.

Happens everyday. This is where I agree with milehighassassin. Every manufacturer performs this function, not just a polaris issue. They just got caught on this one.

JMHO

I too come from the manufacturing world and that was the point of my earlier post. We all know that as manufacturers, we do "price shopping" for components. Suppose Supplier "A" was the one building the original "faulty" regulators under part #12345. Supplier "B" bid lower than Supplier "A" and is now building the regulators under the same part number. Now, the problem happens: The regulators built by Supplier "A" are identified as having a greater than acceptable failure rate, but by now, Supplier "B" has built a significant number of them as well and they aren't failing in service at the same rate. Now, does it really make any sense that Polaris scrap ALL the regulators manufactured under part number #12345 because those from Supplier "A" are potentially faulty? It seems like that is what you're suggesting would have been "proper" to do, even though the faulty regulators have been out of production for 8 months already. Its entirely possible that every regulator #12345 in Polaris' warehouses and on dealers shelves WAS scrapped if identified as being built by Supplier "A", and the rest re-labeled with the new part number. There is a bar code on that box and a code on the regulator itself - I think its safe to guarantee that someone can tell you exactly when and where that regulator was built and whether or not it was part of the batch of regulators that were potentially faulty. Sadly, I think there are a few people out there who would refuse to accept any explanation of this situation, even if it was the truth....

 

[leiterch]

I too come from the manufacturing world and that was the point of my earlier post. We all know that as manufacturers, we do "price shopping" for components. Suppose Supplier "A" was the one building the original "faulty" regulators under part #12345. Supplier "B" bid lower than Supplier "A" and is now building the regulators under the same part number. Now, the problem happens: The regulators built by Supplier "A" are identified as having a greater than acceptable failure rate, but by now, Supplier "B" has built a significant number of them as well and they aren't failing in service at the same rate. Now, does it really make any sense that Polaris scrap ALL the regulators manufactured under part number #12345 because those from Supplier "A" are potentially faulty? It seems like that is what you're suggesting would have been "proper" to do, even though the faulty regulators have been out of production for 8 months already. Its entirely possible that every regulator #12345 in Polaris' warehouses and on dealers shelves WAS scrapped if identified as being built by Supplier "A", and the rest re-labeled with the new part number. There is a bar code on that box and a code on the regulator itself - I think its safe to guarantee that someone can tell you exactly when and where that regulator was built and whether or not it was part of the batch of regulators that were potentially faulty. Sadly, I think there are a few people out there who would refuse to accept any explanation of this situation, even if it was the truth....

What you have stated makes sense if you want to defend hiding a problem, but as you know from being in manufacturing. This doesn't pass any type of quality/engineering control that would be audited by and outside service. ISO, TS and Old school QS. This would be a major certification violation. If an auditor came across this, they would read this just like r44guy. Simple wrong part in box (mislabel) and now you have to answer for the quality verification process.

As I stated in my post. This isn't a polaris issue, they just got caught. Oh, and if you have done this you know the OEM preaches, Do what I say not what I do. This is a major OEM problem. Plain and simple the new parts might be fixed, just wouldn't pass any type of real world quality/engineering control process, especially with the re-label deal. It screams "We are hiding something".

I actually get to go through our semi-annual TS audit next week.

JMHO

 

[pooguy]

What you have stated makes sense if you want to defend hiding a problem, but as you know from being in manufacturing. This doesn't pass any type of quality/engineering control that would be audited by and outside service. ISO, TS and Old school QS. This would be a major certification violation. If an auditor came across this, they would read this just like r44guy. Simple wrong part in box (mislabel) and now you have to answer for the quality verification process.

As I stated in my post. This isn't a polaris issue, they just got caught. Oh, and if you have done this you know the OEM preaches, Do what I say not what I do. This is a major OEM problem. Plain and simple the new parts might be fixed, just wouldn't pass any type of real world quality/engineering control process, especially with the re-label deal. It screams "We are hiding something".

I actually get to go through our semi-annual TS audit next week.

JMHO

Yeah what he said, I agree that is what I think too!

 

[R44guy]

Ok look at this way

If you bought a new Pro ride 800 RMK and found out it just had the 600 motor in it how would you feel? We could also just put a new sticker over the displacement number on the engine. But it could of possibly been bored out and really be be a 800?

 

[R44guy]

Now my VR Probably Failed

Good night to you all, I wish I was having a good night but it could be worse. Ok I was just moving my 09 D8 and after it warmed up I was just starting to move it and at first the headlight went out and then it stalled and quit.

I pulled it over and it started for 2-3 seconds and stalled out again. First of all I guess I think the VR just went out but please chime in.

The good news is that I am not suppose to leave until friday for Island Park. The bad news is my local dealer only has the VR in stock as posted above right now. I guess 9 hours of run time and 93 miles is too much for that orignal part number VR.

 

[R44guy]

Thanks for the Wake Up Post

Funny...someone brings a FACT to the forum and a here's a person saying the original poster is barking up a conspiracy theory, doesn't even ride the sled in question AND...is a moderator? What kind of information can you bring to the table to prove otherwise?


Turn in your card, game over! Let Eric and Seth handle this section. They do a great job.


Now here is a FACT RMK 2112...R44Guy is completely correct. I myself purchased the updated part number 4012930 for $142 and some change a couple days before Christmas. Box tag 4012930 cool.

Fast forward to McCall a week later. Opened up box, found the same 4012746 voltage regulator that was installed into my sled (09 Dragon) and same 3 digit code beside the part number. Nice.

Now I get the whole old inventory gig, but this is a little different. I've never seen an automotive manufactuer change a part number with a somewhat suspect part, and only update the part number. There was no vendor change here, anybody that has seen these VR's could tell you that. This is why in another thread with a gentlemen with a 2010 that had one go out in early mileage, I was asking him for the number on the VR that was replaced?

So...since this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, the question that I'd like answered is RMK...when can I buy the REAL updated regulator?[/QUOTE

Dave,

Thanks for being one of the few here with some support for sharing my info and story which takes some time to do.

I also want a real changed or upgraded VR not just another pile of S**t relabeled part number from Polaris.

 

[winter brew]

Are the "old" regulators being tested and/or updated too "new" regulator specs and then relabeled? This is VERY common in most industries.
Seems like the most likely scenario since Poo has already admitted a issue.....why would they purposely send out a VR they admit is bad when it would cost them even more $$ if they have to replace it again?
Has anyone called Polaris to see if there is a explanation?

 

[R44guy]

Waiting

Winter Brew:

Yeah we are waiting to hear from the Polaris Rep. but we may know more tomorrow. I will update everyone when I hear.

 

[xc6rider]

I really hope an answer is found soon, but I have a feeling their won't be one, and I'll continue to have problems.

Been out of sledding (owning one anyways) for 5 or 6 years. Took my chance with a '10 D8 155, and now it's torn apart in my garage with 51 miles on it.

I'll be on a different sled within days of any future problems. Only problem is, I don't know what, and or if I can afford it.

 

[thefullmonte]

Here is what I see has happened. Polaris does likely have a new VR. It is however going to take someone to dig in the back of the box they are stored in.

The new part # likely supercedes all other numbers. It is likely they relabled all remaining stock to the new part number to make sure those go out the door first.

 

[snowmobiler]

rmk is getting better.he didnt tell you guys,
dont let the door hit...................

 

[R44guy]

Polaris VR Update

Well the only update available right now is that carls cycle has three relabeled boxes as well with the old part number VR in them.

 

[xc6rider]

Wish I had the $ to have a good one made. Wonder if any aftermarket group has looked into it. Everybody would buy one.

Polaris OBVIOUSLY isn't trying very hard to solve resolve this issue, and if they are, they need to seriously re-evaluate the manner in which they are doing it.

 

[Tanman]

I have also ran across the same voltage regulators being re-distributed. The ones that are sent back on warranty and strenously tested, most fail and are destroyed but some pass then are repackaged and seen as good parts. The failures of the voltage regulators were not seen in all units, just some had faulty issues. I would replace the voltage regulator and if any problem still occurs it is in Polaris's Good Will Warranty to replace it. That is what I have encountered. Sorry for people feeling screwed around as I can see how that is viewed. This is from a technicians stand point, but also from an avid rider with concerned friends and customers. I hope this helps and doesn't provoke an argument. This is just how I have been informed after asking the same questions. - Tanner

 

[xc6rider]

I bet theirs alot more items changed or updated on the 2011 electrical systems than just VR's....

thats the scarry part.

 

[R44guy]

Tanman,

Thanks for the feed back, It is very unclear right now what if any update is done to the old part number that comes in the relabelled part box.

For the cost of these defective VR's we are hoping that the updated new part is the real deal to put the rest of this mess to bed but then we are starting all over.

If Polaris updated this old part number that is relabelled why dont they put a fyi piece paper in the box explaining what happened and dont paniac this old part has been changed to meet the new part number specs.

 

[R44guy]

Diamondave,

Just to clarify I was not happy when I found out the situation I am in with the part number and labeling on the new updated VR.

I was over descriptive with the heading bait and switch fraud but I wanted everyone to take the time to see what is going on with the long wait and sought after new VR fix. I was pretty let down by Polaris to find the same part number.

Now we still can not confirm that there has been any update but I hope and want to believe that there is. The gal at Polaris west told me she has already had some actual ones that were not relabeled and had the correct part number on the part and she claims she was told that the update was only for a defective wire that had been failing.

Polaris west has 8 VR's on order right now and they are all spoken for she claims. I wish Polaris communicated better with it's dealers and customers. It is possible that these relabeled units have had this wire replaced midstream in the production or manufacturing process but with no marking changes there is no way to verify that muchness to track them.

If I offended anyone here with the old bait and switch fraud statement I apologize that I blew up I was frustrated and upset. I can also tell you I was a littlenout in left field now looking back at it but I really feel bad for all the dragon owners that have been left stalled in the hills and then had to spend there hard earned money for repairs when Polaris has not backed up there sleds due to well known and proven defects.

 

[rocket]

Identifying the part as being built under one part number or another is a fair question. I don't know Polaris' policy for assigning new part numbers for components, so I don't know if the "updated" part number is issued because the parts are now made by a different supplier or if it means it was built to a different specification. Changing suppliers COULD be plausible, because I've seen Polaris update other part numbers and there is no physical difference between the old and new parts. Only someone "inside" can answer that. Even without that answer, if you look at the regulator pictured, there are 10 other letters/numbers ink stamped on the regulator body. Those may be a manufacturer code, build date code, serial code or other identifying information. We can't make sense of it, but someone else may be able to. There may also be other identifying features, such as a difference in the color of the epoxy the electronics are potted in, difference in the way the wires exit the epoxy, difference in the type of wire used, etc. that aren't obvious to just anyone. I also mentioned previously that the regulator housing appears to be a "generic" part, not necessarily unique to Polaris. It may be that Polaris buys those housings in mass quantities, ink stamped with the current regulator part number and hands them to someone who installs the electronics. In that case, the regulator bodies may be carried over from one part number build to the next and early regulators from the "next" build may be shipped in housings bearing the old part number. That would REALLY muddy the water, but could explain why it take so long for part numbers on the housings to change, yet the labels all have new numbers.