If all you have is a CEL lit and no adverse symptoms, good luck with the lemon law path. It might be a threat that helps spur more action from the dealer but based on the description of what the law covers you’re unlikely to get relief.
Keith, in this case we’re specifically talking about Massachussetts. In MA a CEL is not automatic failure. I’m living proof of that on several occasions and it’s stated in the inspection criteria. There is no substantial impairment. The OP says above they do not have the symptoms only the light.
I don’t want to appear unsympathetic to the plight because I can fully appreciate how frustrating this would be. Just trying to provide information so the OP can understand the obstacles and choose a path that is worth the effort.
Beginning to talk of a buyback and wondered if anyone could help me to understand this process. I’ve done some reasearch so have an idea but don’t know anyone that’s gone through this. What is this likely to cost me out of pocket to go this route? And how does that differ from a ‘repurchase’. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here is what the Reginial Subaru Tech Manager and some other guy from Subaru Regional say is the cause of throwing the ‘Cold Idle Start- P0505A code’ all these times after analyzing the data from my cars computer: “The code is being set due to the customer releasing the clutch without proper amount of pressure on the gas pedal and causing the CEL”. Does this make sense at all? I’ve driven manual transmissions continual since the early 1980’s and have never had this problem. What do you think?
That’s a bizarre reason, if you’re giving it enough gas not to stall you shouldn’t be setting a code. Have you posted your problem on Subaru-specific forums?
I Guess You’re Not Holding Your Mouth Right When You Drive This Car.
What Baloney. They Manufacture A Car That Has To Be Driven Riding The Clutch And It’s Something You’re Doing Wrong ? Wow, Just Wow.
" I’ve driven manual transmissions continual since the early 1980’s and have never had this problem. What do you think? "
That’s it ! Drive for 30 years in all different cars, get a new one that’s messed up and it’s up to you to learn to drive ??
I don’t think so, but I don’t have all the details on this particular code. Maybe someone else can confirm this, but in my experience with the other P050x codes, there is a timer involved, like a minute or two that the idle must be off by. That is to prevent setting the code for short term variations like releasing the clutch.
Keith…if I understand correctly there was a 12 second time period for the engine coolant thermostat to reach the correct temp. They did a recall - WQC-39 in late Nov. 2012 in which they have increased the time frame for this to happen without throwing the ‘cold idle’ code. The time period is now 18 seconds. They reflased my ccmputer with this newest software mid-december. And yet I got the same code 5 weekds later which was last week. That’s my understanding.
I have posted on Subaru Forrester forum also this morning and no one has written anything on if this might have any merit, just a suggestion to give the gas pedal a little more ‘juice’ and just see what happens.
So this sounds like a lot of ‘hooey’ because they don’t know what the problem is?
@berkshirebarks the manager gave you this BS explanation so that they’re 100% off the hook. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the car. You don’t know how to drive stick. You’re right. They don’t know what the problem is, but they don’t want to deal with you again, either.
I suggest you ratchet it up further. Call Subaru corporate. Go above this regional tech manager.
Find out who he reports to. Call them. Complain to them about your situation. Tell them that their manager told you that you’re too incompetent to drive a Subaru correctly. Keep records of your phone calls, emails, etc.
FYI, I have 25 years driving experience. I learned to drive stick. I drive stick every day. I’ve never caused any idle fault codes with my driving style.
I’m in full agreement with db that they’re going through a brushoff procedure because they don’t want to say they don’t know what the problem is.
Whether escalating it even more may not work. The Subaru reps I’ve known never worked as mechanics and are administrators more than anything else. That’s not meant to denigrate them as the ones I’ve known were good guys and I personally liked them; with the exception of one who was a service manager at a Subaru dealer where I worked and not nearly as sharp as he thought he was.
One wonders why after all of this they did not fling an ECM at it as a wild stab or consider the possibility of a temperature sensor problem related to voltage and resistance.
An iffy problem does not always set a code and considering how touchy this problem is…
One of the Subaru reps used to tell me that sometimes a guess has to be made and if a part such as an ECM is swapped then just make sure that ECM is no good when they see it.
That recommendation is why I made a wire harness with alligator clips and a 110 volt wall socket plug…
Done and done.
Last Thursday evening I spoke with my long-time incredible mechanic who is very knowledgeable about Subaru. Ran all this by him. The first question he asked was had anyone at Subaru observed me start my car…ah, no. He agrees that what they are saying is not valid or reasonable. He told me to call Sub of America and ask for copies of the freez frame data, the enable criteria that was used, and the tech bulletin for the recall on this code. I don’t know much about this but he said he would review it.
I reached a Sub America rep on Saturday, went through everything, asked for the data my mechanic requested. He said he would or someone above him would be back with me by Tuesday. So we shall see. In the meantime I’m going to go ahead and file the paperwork under MA Lemon Law, just so it’s filed. I don’t want to go that route but I also want Subaru know that I’m serious and am going to continue to pursue this.
There might be one other route as well, the EPA. I knew a guy who had a car whose check engine light came on every week. Every Monday morning, the car was at the dealership and every Monday afternoon, the dealer would claim that it is fixed. He started to file a lemon law claim but the light mysteriously did not come back on after the next visit.
A few months later, another mechanic noticed that the CEL didn’t work at all (2 seconds after starting) and found that the bulb had been removed. Instead of going back to the dealer, he contacted the EPA. The dealer could not buy his car back fast enough, and at an “undisclosed” cost at that.
This dealer was facing a hugh EPA fine for removing the bulb, something that your dealer has not done so contacting the EPA may not do any good, just a thought.
