Portuguese 
Spanish 
Case of a Dolphin Mini in Ponta Grossa exposes a dispute between consumer and manufacturer over coverage period, technical classification of parts, and responsibility for failures in components linked to the front axle, amid recent changes in BYD’s warranty rules in Brazil.
BYD does not honor 100,000 km warranty for Dolphin Mini axles, says owner
The denial of warranty for two consecutive repairs on the front axles of a BYD Dolphin Mini 2025/2026 has become a point of contention between Jonathan Machado de Souza, a ride-share driver from Ponta Grossa (PR), and BYD.
With 87,000 km driven at the time of the failures, the vehicle underwent repairs in May 2026 at the BYD Servopa dealership, where services totaled R$ 2,515.84, according to information published by Quatro Rodas.
-
Classic Volkswagen Beetles of Brazilian Presidents to Swap Museums in Historic Partnership
-
British Factory Transitions from Mechanical Parts to Producing 420,000 Electric Power Units Annually, Supplying 70% of Ford’s Electric Cars Sold in Europe
-
Toyota Shifts from Hybrid Cars to Electric Air Taxis with Joby’s 6-Rotor Aircraft, Capable of 322 km/h, Aiming for Mass Production to Electrify Urban Skies
-
Ferrari Unveils Limited Edition 12Cilindri Manuale: 6.5-Liter V12, 830 HP, 0-100 km/h in 2.9 Seconds, Top Speed Over 340 km/h, Only 1,499 Units Available
The central point of the impasse lies in the interpretation of the warranty, as Souza claims that the latest maintenance manual for the Dolphin Mini provides coverage of 24 months or 100,000 km for the involved component.
According to BYD’s version, however, the damages did not result from a manufacturing defect but from external factors, a condition that would exclude contractual coverage even with the vehicle below the mileage cited by the consumer.
Failures in the Dolphin Mini axles occurred in sequence
The first problem appeared on the front passenger side axle on Monday, May 18, 2026, when the owner sought service and did not have the replacement authorized under warranty.
Without the requested coverage, Souza paid R$ 1,285.77 for the replacement of the set, an amount recorded in the complaint filed by the consumer amid the discussion about the technical classification of the part.
Three days later, on Thursday (21), the other front axle also failed, leading the driver to return to the dealership for another repair on the same vehicle system.
This time, the charge was R$ 1,230.07, raising the total expense to more than R$ 2,500 in a short interval and increasing the doubt about the coverage indicated in the manuals.
The disagreement intensified when the store allegedly denied the first service on the grounds that the car had already exceeded the 60,000 km limit provided for warranty.
When comparing the documents, Souza claims to have identified a difference between the physical manual delivered with the vehicle, edition B4911*66-EV-MG05, from April 2025, and the digital version available on the BYD website, edition B4911*66-EV-MG06, from January 2026.
In the most recent digital edition, according to Quatro Rodas, there is a forecast of 24 months or 100,000 km specifically for the Dolphin Mini, a term that the consumer understands to be applicable to the case.
Also according to Souza, a phone contact with the manufacturer’s customer service reinforced the interpretation that the most current manual would be valid for the vehicle involved in the complaint.
BYD denies manufacturing defect in the axle shaft
Questioned by Quatro Rodas, BYD attributed the first case to damage to the rubber boot, a component that protects the lubrication of the axle shaft and the constant velocity joint against external impurities.
According to the manufacturer, the rupture or drying of this part allowed the entry of water, sand, and road debris, contaminating the system and causing damage to the replaced components.
In the statement sent to the report, the company stated that the failure resulted from “external factors associated with road conditions”, and not from a manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
Based on this understanding, BYD maintains that the repair would not be covered under warranty, even if the Dolphin Mini was below the 100,000 km mentioned by the owner.
Regarding the second axle shaft, the manufacturer reported that the assembly “suffered several impacts on the wheel and suspension”, again pointing to the action of an external agent as the cause of the problem.
With this justification, the company upheld the denial for both services and reiterated that damages of this nature would not be covered under the vehicle’s warranty conditions.
Complaint was taken to Procon of Ponta Grossa
The discussion advanced to Procon of Ponta Grossa, where Souza filed a complaint to request formal clarifications from the dealership and the manufacturer about the two charged repairs.
In the request, the consumer demands a clear definition of the warranty period, a detailed technical report, correct classification of the part, and reimbursement of the amounts paid for the services.
In response to the agency, BYD stated that the analyzed component would be linked to the “Rubbers” category, a group that includes items such as mounts, seals, bushings, and boots.
The company also declared that the technical classification applied to the case does not correspond to the suspension or steering box category mentioned by the consumer in his argument.
In the first occurrence, according to the manufacturer’s statement, marks caused by external agents and leakage in the analyzed component were identified during the technical evaluation.
In the second episode, BYD pointed out a break in the left front CV joint in the trizeta region, without elements to relate the damage to a manufacturing defect.
Consumer Challenges Classification of Parts
In response to BYD’s statement, Souza questioned the classification of the set as “Rubbers,” arguing that the repair charged involved mechanical components of the transmission system.
According to the owner, half-shaft, CV joint, and trizeta are parts related to the torque transmission from the powertrain to the wheels, while the boot only functions as rubber protection.
The charge made by the dealership, according to him, did not refer only to the boot, but to the half-shaft and CV joint set replaced after the recorded failures.
Therefore, the consumer considers it inappropriate to classify the main failure in the rubber category, since the service performed and the amount paid involved a broader mechanical set.
Another point raised by Souza is the absence, according to his challenge, of a complete technical report, detailed photos, measurements, material analysis, or objective explanation about the link between external agents and the breaks.
In the driver’s assessment, the mere mention of possible contact with a curb would not prove misuse nor sufficient impact to technically justify the warranty denial.
BYD Warranty Became a Sensitive Topic in Brazil
The dispute occurs at a time of greater attention to BYD’s after-sales rules in Brazil, especially after changes announced for 2026/2027 model year vehicles.
In May 2026, CNN Brasil reported that the automaker restructured the warranty policy, maintaining six years for private use, but with a limit of 200,000 km.
For commercial use vehicles, according to the same report, the coverage increased from two to six years, with a cap of 100,000 km.
CNN also noted that, according to BYD, the new rules would not be retroactive for 2025/2026 or earlier models, which would maintain the conditions in effect at the time of purchase.
In this scenario, manuals, contractual versions, and technical classification of parts become more significant in disputes involving consumers, dealerships, and the manufacturer itself.
In Souza’s case, the controversy is not limited to the coverage period, because the main disagreement involves the nature of the replaced part and the cause attributed to the failures.
On one side, the consumer argues there was a problem with mechanical components related to transmission; on the other, BYD maintains that the damages are associated with the boot, external agents, and driving conditions.
With two paid repairs in three days, a car still under 100,000 km, and different versions of the manual mentioned by the consumer, how far does BYD’s promised warranty coverage actually go in practice?
