I have NEVER EVER heard of normal wear items like floor mats - seats which are heavily abused from rough use - or even brake pads being covered by warranty.
This expectation is exactly why dealers charge $100 to change out a burnt bulb vs the $20 it really is costing them in parts and labor time.
If you drive your car through Alaska and get all sorts of road rash on the front end and then go to the dealer asking for warranty claim to replace or fix the damage - it is no different than tromping mud and ice and such into the car wearing work boots etc and wrecking the floor mats which are there to prevent damaging the actual carpet in the car - if the floor mats are damaged and worn out - they did their intended JOB! Why would this be acceptable warranty claim? The logic you have is a prime example of why warranty's have pages and pages of writing listing all the things they do and do not cover.
I'm not quite sure what your rant is about. My question was "why the discrepancy?"
Dealer #2 could have easily told me no but they didn't.
Subaru does cover brake pads and wiper blade inserts-wear items so that cost is built into the price of the car.
FYI- the car has 33K miles on it and I use all weather mats in the winter-(they are holding up)-
"Normal wear' was the excuse dealer #1 used to deny the claim despite the fact there were indicators of premature failure! The Service Manager made the determination without even a cursory inspection.
FYI #2- just as a comparison I also own a Chevy Impala with 47K and those mats are holding up fine!
You seem to have made a lot of assumptions based on your own biases. Perhaps you should go back and reread my original post carefully.
