Not sure if arbitrations method of settlment is right. Why should you have to pay additional over the original purchase price to resolve a problem DC can't fix? I can see the pro-rating and usage fee if the truck is several yrs old and has high milage. Then it actually might be a good deal on a new truck. But how about for a new truck, less than a yr old. Do they calculate in such things as aftermarket products which may not be able to be removed and put on the new truck (spray in bed liner, transmission mods, clutch, etc)? Is it fair for the owner to pay DC additional money for a trouble-free truck, re-pay for aftermarket products (or the labor to remove from old truck and put on new) all because DC can't fix a vehicle they built?? I feel DC should pay full replacement cost for the truck PLUS any aftermarket products/modifications which can't be transfered over to the new truck!!! Why should the consumer get screwed for DC's inability to fix something they built?
Am I the only one who feels this way?