Will Modifying Your Car Void Its Warranty? The Podcast

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 09/17/2015 at 09:00 • Filed to: None

17

100

One automotive topic laced with confusion is whether modifying your car will void its warranty. The short answer is No, but you still need to know what that means if you plan on modifying your late model car.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! but that was a long time ago. A year ago? How long have I been asleep?! So in this week’s podcast, I talk about the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and what it DOES and what it DOES NOT do regarding this.

It does say that manufacturers cannot condition their warranties upon you using certain brands of parts. So you are free to take any part off your car and replace it with another. Except -

The act also says that the manufacturer only has to honor their warranties so far as there is a defect or nonconformity that is the fault of the manufacturer. And if your replacement part caused the problem, then they don’t have to fix it.

Gray areas much? Of course. If you used a non OEM windshield and your catalytic converter went bad, they couldn’t deny the claim because of the window glass.

But you put in a new performance chip and slapped in a turbocharger that makes a little more boost - and your engine now runs rough? They might be okay with telling you that the likely suspect here is your modification. And if so, they are within their rights to deny your claim.

But they won’t “void your warranty.” They’ll just deny that claim. Might seem like a minor difference but it’s an important one. So, I discuss the above and more in this week’s Lehto’s Law .

Here is the audio:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

And here is the video:

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 23 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

drdude > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:05

13

I think you’re the only person I read here on Kinja that never gives advice I disagree with. You’re always correct (although sometimes it only specificlly applies in Michigan)

SteveLehto > drdude 09/17/2015 at 09:08

6

Thanks for the note. Hang in there; one of these days I’ll write something crzay.

drdude > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:10

0

Well to be fair, I am ignoring everything you say about turbine cars.....

.

.

.

.Eh.. who am I kidding.. Turbine engines are friggin cool.

SteveLehto > drdude 09/17/2015 at 09:11

8

And don’t forget I have a couple of books coming out next year. One of which is this:

nerd_racing > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:16

11

SHOgun!

One of the coolest cars Leno owns!

nerd_racing > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:18

1

I will be purchasing this one!

mazdaspeeder > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:20

1

I came here to ask a question, listened to the podcast, and you (of course) thorougly answered it. Great info, Steve, although it’s disappointing that the stealerships basically hold the cards here.

yeah, that guy > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:21

4

As an attorney, this is great stuff. As a car guy, it should be required reading.

SteveLehto > mazdaspeeder 09/17/2015 at 09:24

6

Which is why I suggest you un-modify your car when you take it in (if you can). Avoiding the argument in the first place is the ideal answer.

Thanks for the note.

Peptide > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:24

2

You are, as always, right on target with this post. Note that the actual warranty clause cited in most denials will pertain to “abuse”. Most OEMs are tolerant to a point, and there is no exact definition of “abuse” from any OEM that I’m aware of, but modifications such as nitrous oxide systems will always be classified as such. Cold-air intakes are usually overlooked, but even a suspicion of anything even remotely resembling N2O system-induced engine failure will result in an instant claim denial.

As I posted in a previous thread...don’t make any modification that might result in damage that you can’t pay for out-of-pocket.

SteveLehto > yeah, that guy 09/17/2015 at 09:24

1

Thanks. What state are you licensed in?

SteveLehto > Peptide 09/17/2015 at 09:26

3

And I suspect a lot of this stems from people talking to the people selling the performance parts - who are incentivized to tell you that the stuff won’t “void your warranty.”

Which is nice of them to say, considering that they are not the ones who are paying warranty claims (or denying them).

Peptide > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:30

3

Exactly. You can’t expect, despite what the parts companies claim, to bolt on a supercharger that increases the thermal and mechanical load by, say...30%, and expect the OEM to give you a pass. It isn’t going to happen...

SomethingElseCleverHere > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:34

2

I have a 2011 Audi A4, which is afflicted by the engine oil excess consumption problem about which Audi release a Service Bulletin. As a result of a class-action lawsuit, Audi agreed to fix thousands of these engines. But as Steve may remember my correspondence with him on this matter, Audi refused to fix my engine because I have aftermarket software (“chipping” the engine) installed. It was a pretty disappointing interaction with Audi USA, and I even engaged the President of Audi. The best they offered me was to split the cost of the $5,000 repair (they have to replace the piston heads and rings).

SteveLehto > SomethingElseCleverHere 09/17/2015 at 09:36

2

And that falls into that gray area. Could that chip have anything to do with that problem? I don’t know. An expert would, and that would cost money to pursue.

What did you end up doing?

Bad Idea Hat > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:37

0

Lion gonna win it all this year?

SteveLehto > Bad Idea Hat 09/17/2015 at 09:40

5

The Detroit Lions? Suggesting they’ll win it all is way too crazy for anyone to write!

SomethingElseCleverHere > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:40

6

Rant on the Internet and sign up on the waiting list for a Tesla Model III :)

Bad Idea Hat > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:40

1

Man, I thought I could do it.

hobbledarodgers > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:42

2

What’s the legality of removing a modification before bringing your car in when that modification could have caused the problem? If I chip my car and then have some type of engine problem or failure but remove the modification before bringing it in, is that fraud if it gets covered under warranty?

SteveLehto > hobbledarodgers 09/17/2015 at 09:44

4

The problem wouldn’t be there any more then, would it?

Phunkydiabetic > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:44

0

Awesome article Steve, very informstive. I have a question however.....

I have a 2014 Dodge Charger that DIDNT come with paddle shifters. I purchased an OEM wheel with paddles and had a company that specializes in airbags and associated electronics install it (I felt more comfortable not messing with the airbag). I then used a product called the TaZer that plugs into the OBDII port and using the EVIC I could enable the paddles. Everything works great, tons of fun.

If something were to go wrong with the transmission or engine could they turn around and refuse warrenty repair because my car didnt come from the factory that way? The only difference between my car and one with paddles is a sales code enabling it. Its an OEM part. Any thoughts?

davedave1111 > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:44

0

As far as I’ve seen, the more reputable firms will either warranty their own work, including for any knock-on effects it might cause, or they’ll tell you that it’s a major modification which might ruin the engine in a non-warranty-claimable manner.

Officer Jim Lahey is not a real cop > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:47

0

Thanks for a commentary on this subject that isn’t:

THE FORUM BROS SAID MAGNUSON-MOSS MEANS MY CAI AND EXHAUST ARE TOTALLY LEGIT, BUT MY TUNE VOIDED MY WARRANTY!

Like others have said, as a lawyer and car guy I enjoy and appreciate your contributions here.

Yamidan > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:51

1

I once had a warranty claim on a spun big end bearing denied on a 10,000km engine (a one year old car) on the grounds that I had lowering springs fitted that weren’t standard. They rebuilt the engine for a fee (5k from memory) then sent me on my way without reconnecting the alternator. My battery went flat on the way home so I called the most expensive tow truck in town to pick up the car and take it back to the dealer, I told the driver to include a hefty tip for his troubles and took great pleasure handing the bill back to the service manager. The car spun the same bearing another 10,000km later so I bought a motor for 1k fitted it in my garage and sold the car.

sgtyukon > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:54

1

The service manager at a Nissan dealer once suggested to me that the after market Panasonic head unit in my Frontier could void my warranty. My son is a lawyer, so I’m not too worried about that.

Tyler > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:55

1

warranty?

Xedicon > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 09:56

3

Not always. An engine modification could cause an issue that is not reversable. Chips like to cause an engine to run more lean than the factory settings to make more power but that can cause detonation within the engine. The resulting damage obviously will not go away after removing said chip.

Maybe you install a hotter camshaft without beefing up your valvetrain. Hot cam then proceeds to ruin your top end. Removing the cam and putting a stock one back in doesn’t return your top end to its original condition.

Jason > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:07

2

From someone who has been working at the dealership level for 20yrs this is how modified cars are handled.

Step 1 - ask customer if he has done any modifications to his vehicle.

Step 2 - Trust but verify. We CAN tell if the vehicle has been worked on, it’s what we do.

Step 3 - If the customer was honest with us we will do our best to take care of the problem under warranty unless it obvious that the modification caused the issue. If the customer lied to us in the first place then the likelihood that your car will be fixed under warranty will diminished greatly.

The best policy is to be honest with the service advisor when you drop off the vehicle to be diagnosed. If you lie or come in the door already looking for an argument then don’t expect us to help you at all.

Another good rule is this, talk to your local service manager about the modifications you are planning to do. He will advise you of the potential warranty issues each modification may cause.

SteveLehto > Phunkydiabetic 09/17/2015 at 10:10

0

They could argue that the modification is a problem. Did it cause your warranty claimed problem? If they say it did, then you’d have a fight on your hand. Be prepared to prove your case as best you can then and hope they’re okay with it.

SteveLehto > Jason 09/17/2015 at 10:13

1

My suggestion to un-modify the car is more for the things which should make no difference either way. Like the K&N air filter in my truck. I HAVE seen a warranty claim denied ostensibly because of a K&N filter. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that denial was valid (other than the people who denied the claim).

As for putting nitrous on the car and then removing it after you’ve blasted a piston through the ceiling - yeah, you’d probably best ‘fess up. That is, if you have the gall to see if that will be covered by warranty.

Justin Hughes > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:22

0

Very interesting - thanks for sharing! In writing about modifications, I’ve made the same mistake as many in talking about “voiding your warranty” when I should have said “deny your claim.” I understand the difference now, and will be more vigilant and accurate in the future.

It remains true that some manufacturers have voided warranties on cars they have seen racing, or engaging in motorsport activities. Subaru became infamous for this 10 or so years ago, when they would include a one year SCCA membership with a new WRX, yet void warranties on WRXs they caught autocrossing. Mitsubishi had a similar policy with Evos. Since I’ve written about my track adventures with my BRZ all over the internet, I’m probably screwed in that regard.

TheCraigy > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:24

1

Thanks Steve! Great podcast. Being right doesn’t matter, being able to win matters.

SteveLehto > Justin Hughes 09/17/2015 at 10:28

1

I have HEARD tell of people whose warranties were voided because they raced their cars. But are you really telling me that if the lock on the trunk malfunctioned during the warranty period, a MFR would deny the claim because the car was raced? Seems like a stretch.

But you still might want to not put the track sticker on your car until the warranty expires.

SteveLehto > TheCraigy 09/17/2015 at 10:29

1

I hate to get all philisophical during these but that point is very important. The world is filled with people who are right, but have still been wronged and have little recourse. The number one goal is to do what you can to avoid being one of them.

ateamfan42 > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:30

1

Great piece (as usual). I really like that you focused on the aspects around a manufacturer not being able to require their brand parts (and service!). I’ve heard numerous stories of folks having their claims denied because they didn’t pay to have a stealership perform all the maintenance. It is perfectly legal to perform all your own oil changes, etc., but proving the maintenance was performed (which is a necessary requirement to the warranty being honored) can be a PITA. Even receipts and logs are not always good enough if the manufacturer wants to weasel out of their responsibility.

ramajastang > Peptide 09/17/2015 at 10:31

1

Unless that super charger is OEM approved and installed at a dealer such as if it’s a factory option you added to a vehicle that didn’t initially have it. But even then you want to cross your t’s and dot your I’s to make sure you don’t mess up. Grey area for sure though.

Quade > SomethingElseCleverHere 09/17/2015 at 10:32

2

Audi refused to fix my engine because I have aftermarket software (“chipping” the engine) installed.

I like modding cars but, I’m 100% on Audi’s side on this issue.

The best they offered me was to split the cost of the $5,000 repair (they have to replace the piston heads and rings).

Which I consider to be pretty damn fair considering you messed with the engine/ecu first. If the class action required them to do all engines then I’d consider if unfair. If it only required them to repair engines showing excessive oil consumption, I’d assume you chipping could have made things worse.

And that falls into that gray area. Could that chip have anything to do with that problem?

It’s not very gray to me. He reflashed the ECU with a non-stock calibration or code. Audi has no way to verify what this reflash did. Why should they then be responsible for the engine in any way at that point?

Musabasjoo > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:32

3

State of sobriety

SteveLehto > ateamfan42 09/17/2015 at 10:35

0

I know people hate paperwork. But if you do your own oil changes on a car that is still under warranty, SAVE THE RECEIPTS. Yes, a receipt that shows you bought 4 qts of 10W30 and a filter for your vehicle will help you. I’ve had people say “But how do they know I actually did the oil change?”

The same way they know that QuickieLube actually changed your filter, even though you did not see them do it and you have no proof they did other than a receipt for one.

SteveLehto > Tyler 09/17/2015 at 10:36

3

DENIED!

Quade > Xedicon 09/17/2015 at 10:36

2

Not always. An engine modification could cause an issue that is not reversable.

His point I think, is that the evidence of the mod would be gone even if the damage is still there. It’s easier to just say “it’s broken” than it is to say “I changed it and now it’s broken”.

Justin Hughes > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 10:46

1

It does seem like a stretch. If I’m running wide sticky tires on wide aftermarket wheels, autocrossing every weekend, and have wheel bearings fail within the warranty period, I’m not going to claim that. But a failed trunk lock? Yes, I would.

And, to your point, how do we know that the person telling the story didn’t have their claim denied, rather than their warranty voided?

Phil > hobbledarodgers 09/17/2015 at 11:04

0

Don’t worry we can find out if you’ve “flashed” your car. If you blow a motor and we can find evidence that it was modified we can deny the warranty claim. Also, the manufacturer I work for encourages informing them of modified cars and your warranty gets “flagged” just in case you try to take the modifications off and go to another dealership.

Jason > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:06

0

The point I always try to make with my customer is talk to my service manager before making that questionable modification. Because the manufacture rep will 95% of the time back his play.

Superlucky > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:08

1

The problem with the car might not be there after removal of the modification, but the problem with your sense of values will still be askew. Why should every consumer out there have to pay inflated car prices to cover your potential warranty claims that were not true manufacturers defects?

If you modify it and something goes wrong with it you should eat it, not everyone else.

yeah, that guy > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:11

0

Maryland.

scotschris > SomethingElseCleverHere 09/17/2015 at 11:23

1

I hear they have really low oil consumption

Tim > Jason 09/17/2015 at 11:32

3

I would love it if all service advisors worked this way, but that’s not been my experience.

Tim > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:34

0

...because your car is 25 years old and has been out of warranty since Clinton was president.

RockDonkey > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:38

1

Great article, and I plan to listen to the podcast later today. I was wondering about warranties and aftermarket parts that were installed by the dealer. For example, I’ve had friends who purchased vehicles with lift kits (installed by the dealer) and who then have had issues with their transmissions or engine, only to be told that their claim would be denied due to the larger tires or aftermarket lift that had been installed.

So would it be that for an OEM part failure, the manufacturer (Jeep, Chevy, Ford, etc) would consider the claim and with a dealer installed option, the dealership themselves be responsible?

SteveLehto > RockDonkey 09/17/2015 at 11:48

1

That is a great question because I have had a client who had that happen. If the dealer installed it, THAT dealer better be able to do the warranty work. Whether the MFR pays for it or the dealer does, who cares? But if the dealer refuses to do the work and says the MFR denied the claim? Sounds like a great lawsuit to me (unless the dealer actually got you to sign something waiving your rights to pursue them later).

SteveLehto > ramajastang 09/17/2015 at 11:50

2

I’ve had a client who had all his aftermarket stuff installed by the dealer - who then told him later it voided his warranty claims.

Blue 300 > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 11:51

1

Great article Steve. This video should be a “sticky topic” in every automotive forum. I do have one question about the “change it back to OEM” before taking it in for warranty. I have been reading on a BMW forum that some people have been “blacklisted” for their modifications. Basically, your car information goes into the national BMW service dept data base as being modified after they deny the claim. And it’s permanent. If this is true, I can’t see it any other way than an attempt to void the warranty. Any thoughts on this?

SteveLehto > Quade 09/17/2015 at 11:51

2

I would, however, never advise a client to lie in that situation. This is why you need to do your homework before you do the mods.

SteveLehto > Phil 09/17/2015 at 11:52

0

Doesn’t surprise me. I have heard of MFRs that flag the cars which are modified so they can use that as ammo later. Seems kind of scummy to me - which is why not all MFRs do it.

SteveLehto > Superlucky 09/17/2015 at 11:53

1

You’re assuming the mod caused the problem. I have a K&N filter on my truck. The trans is slipping. You think it is dishonest (And will drive up the costs of other consumers!) when I swap the OEM filter back in before I take it in for warranty work?

SteveLehto > Blue 300 09/17/2015 at 11:58

0

Seems to be a German thing. Not sure what you can do about them blacklisting you but the mod would still have to be the cause of the problem. So, if your car is flagged and you have a problem not caused by the mod, they should still repair it.

Should.

As noted in the cast, that is where it can get ugly.

5mtFXT > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 12:04

1

Every Sunday we get our hopes up only to throw away leads and lose in the 4th. The life of a Lions fan....

SteveLehto > 5mtFXT 09/17/2015 at 12:06

2

The ONLY way that is ever going to change is if people finally start REFUSING to attend the games! The owners don’t care. They figure they can get away with a lousy team every year because people keep showing up. If attendance dried up, things would change.

But, they never will. The fans who go to those games get what they deserve.

MHunter905 > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 12:25

0

what is this? Are the piped corked? I don’t understand what I am seeing.

JustAnotherG6 > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 13:01

3

so the Lions are following the Viking’s playbook to a “T”? What do they think this is NFC North... oh, wait.

Krautastic > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 13:01

1

Hi Steve,

A friend is dealing with 3 of his 4 wheels being bent due to road construction in his area. These are factory M5 wheels, so not cheap wheels to replace. In particular it was the steel plates they often lay down at these road construction sites that caused the damage.

I’ve heard you can go after your DOT to pay for damage resulting from potholes/unmaintained roads and also from road work/repair. Any chance of an article relating to how best to go about recouping repair costs in these instances? Maybe its better to do a claim through insurance if you have a low deductible? A few particular things I’m curious about is when road construction extends for months to years and the roads are in terrible shape during this time if you could hold DOT liable for suspension damage, alignments, etc... If its a construction area, but large transitions/bumps are left unmarked are they liable? (the highway leading into town was torn up for 2.5 years and often had unmarked large bumps and potholes that I would hit, luckily never had a bent wheel, but I always thought a bump that must be navigated at less than 20mph on a 55mph highway is negligent on behalf of the DOT/construction crew). What about construction trucks (the big dirt haulers), can you go after them if rocks/debris bounces out and causes paint/windshield damage? What about a road that has been scraped and now manhole covers are sticking out too far and you rip out your oil pain or do other damage to the underside of the car (and is this dependent on whether the car is lowered or factory height)?

SteveLehto > Krautastic 09/17/2015 at 13:05

0

That’s the kind of article which is difficult because the law is different from state to state. CAN you make such a claim successfully in Michigan? In theory. But I’ve heard some amazing ones that were denied - like a guy who was driving along the freeway and they were painting on an overpass, just shooting paint onto passing cars like it was a bad porno.

Claim denied. In essence, they said “Prove it.” Despite the reams of evidence which did prove it. But litigating wasn’t worth it, even if he would have won.

Krautastic > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 13:20

1

That’s what I was thinking as well. Maybe in these situations a comprehensive claim through insurance would be the lower hassle method, no matter how much at fault the other entity is. I would likely try my luck at first contacting the company at fault (I’ve heard penalties for trucking companies not “securing their load” can be stiff, so they would rather not get reported for not having the dirt cover over top of their trailer for instance). I have seen the story of a car ripping their oil pan out on a manhole cover, but it was an extremely low stanced car and I would think the argument the other side could make would be all too easy. Thanks for the response!

Tohru > Bad Idea Hat 09/17/2015 at 13:25

0

If the Lions win more than 4 this year the fanbase will be deliriously happy.

Tohru > JustAnotherG6 09/17/2015 at 13:25

2

Iowa doesn’t have a pro football team because then Minnesota will want one too.

Rasher Bilbo > nerd_racing 09/17/2015 at 13:29

1

Mine certainly gets more attention than any other car I’ve driven...

nerd_racing > Rasher Bilbo 09/17/2015 at 13:35

0

Wait, you have a SHOgun?

Tohru > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 13:36

1

I hope he took a page from the Australians.

Tohru > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 13:39

1

I know someone who did that on a Saturn ION Redline. He damaged the motor internally while running “mad NAWS brah” so he took it back to stock and took it to the dealer. They opened it up, were able to tell it had nitrous used on it, and immediately denied the warranty claim.

SteveLehto > Tohru 09/17/2015 at 13:47

1

That’s what he gets for calling it “Nawsss” instead of “nitrous,” which is what normal people call it (notwithstanding what the actors call it in the F&F franchise.)

JustAnotherG6 > Tohru 09/17/2015 at 13:49

1

Just so we are clear, the Cyclones do not count as Pro, correct? We can see what sad state of affairs the Gophers are in trying to replicate Iowa State’s tactics.

Coalman > Justin Hughes 09/17/2015 at 14:23

1

include a one year SCCA membership with a new WRX, yet void warranties on WRXs they caught autocrossing

What the hell did they expect people to do with said membership? I’d never heard about this, but 10 years ago would be around the time their EJ22 engines were eating head gaskets just out of warranty as well.
I just don’t understand the Subaru fanaticism.

Bladecutter > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 14:31

0

Steve,

So here’s a similar, but different vein of question for a dealer warranty claim denial I was hoping you could shed some light on.

My wife and I went to our local Porsche Dealer on Saturday, to buy a Porsche oil filter and oil filter canister o-ring, so that we could change the oil at home on Sunday. I’ve owned a Porsche Boxster in the past, and have performed many an oil change on it, plus many other cars in the past, without ever taking out an engine. It also helps that I went to school for an ASE course, but that’s another story.

Anyway, while at the dealer, asking to purchase the oil filter and o-ring, the parts person started telling us that Porsche would deny any future warranty claims on the car if anyone but a Porsche Dealer performed the oil and filter change.

I called BS on him right then and there, and told him, that according to my owners manual, as long as I keep receipts of the products I used to replace the oil and filter, and that the products met the required Porsche specs (the Mobile 1 oil having the Porsche A40 oil spec, and the oil filter and o-ring being sourced directly from a Porsche Dealer, for instance), that there’s no reason how Porsche could ever deny my claim.

What’s your take on this twist?

Bearded Bastard > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 14:44

0

Steve, I'm sure you know this just as well, maybe even more, but, some people will die before they will take steps to preventative measures. A good example is the crowd defending leaving your life savings in your ashtray, because stealing is wrong and shouldn't happen, so why should I be so inconvenienced as to put change into my pocket.

Bearded Bastard > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 14:45

0

Just like the edmonton oilers. Some fans are just suckers for punishment

SteveLehto > Bladecutter 09/17/2015 at 14:51

0

The law says this could be true but ONLY IF Porsche can prove that there is a compelling reason for them to have done the service. And as far as I’ve seen, that arguement never flies.

So the guy was BSing you and/or trying to sell you an oil change.

SteveLehto > Bearded Bastard 09/17/2015 at 14:52

0

Yes, maintenance needs to be done and if it is not, then they are within their rights to deny the claim if the failure was the result of the neglect.

SteveLehto > Bearded Bastard 09/17/2015 at 14:53

0

You underestimate HOW badly the Lions can play and still pack ‘em in. It’s a testament to something . . .

Rasher Bilbo > nerd_racing 09/17/2015 at 14:54

0

Yes. I own the red.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > SomethingElseCleverHere 09/17/2015 at 15:04

0

You should have un-chipped it before bringing it in. And when bringing it it, erase the word ‘chip’ from your vocabulary.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 15:09

1

There is another way to avoid voiding the warranty... buy a car that is old and cheap car that it doesn’t have any warranty on it anymore.

I do that and as a result, I’ve never had a single warranty claim problem.

LOL

SteveLehto > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 09/17/2015 at 15:11

0

I’m with you on that one. I’ve owned 4 Ford Explorers in a row. The first three had full warranties (bought brand new) and never had warranty claims. Not a single one. Just bought the fourth one - no warranty - and I am not the least bit concerned.

nerd_racing > Rasher Bilbo 09/17/2015 at 15:18

0

That’s awesome. Do you drive it often? I’ve always liked the story behind them and the idea of the mid engine SHO power plant.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Krautastic 09/17/2015 at 15:19

0

Of course the real solution is to move to a smaller wheel and a tire with more sidewall.

Or the next best thing.. overinflate the tires he has by a few PSI above the recommended pressure.

If going over a 1-3” bump causes bent wheels, then clearly those wheels/tires are not suitable for on-road use.

SomethingElseCleverHere > Quade 09/17/2015 at 15:23

0

My view of the situation is that Audi admitted and publicized that the engine oil consumption issue was due to a design/manufacturing defect. It was born in to the engine in the factory. That’s how thousands of other (unmodified) engines from the same and different MYs were affected.

It is for that reason that I believe Audi is accountable for the repair. If it was not a known defect with that type of engine, then I would 100% agree with you and Audi.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 15:23

1

And even if something does break, chances are, fixing it will still be cheaper than the cost of having the warranty.

SomethingElseCleverHere > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 09/17/2015 at 15:27

0

I agree, I should have. However, I found out more recently that even if I had switched the ECU back to stock mode (done from the cruise control stalk at will), their engine diagnostic computer still would have detected the alternate software. It was in the same conversation that I learned that a reflashing package is available for sale from the ECU software dealer which entitles me to unlimited flashing between completely stock and the upgraded software I bought. If/when I do this with another car, all I’d need to do is drive 60 miles to the performance shop, get my car re-flashed back to stock, take the car in to the dealer for the warranty service it needs, then drive another 60 miles back to the performance shop to get the tune software reinstalled.

SomethingElseCleverHere > scotschris 09/17/2015 at 15:30

0

It seems to vary greatly. Some engines with this defect don’t burn much more oil than a healthy engine. Some defective engines burn a whole lot more. Some engines, like mine I’m noticing, are burning more as time goes on. I think the accelerated rate at which oil is burned partly depends on how aggressively I drive.

Quade > SomethingElseCleverHere 09/17/2015 at 15:46

0

Did Audi rebuild 100% of the engines or just the engines with high oil consumption? If they did 100%, then you flashing the ECU shouldn’t matter. If they only rebuilt engines with high oil consumption then I think it’s reasonable for them to claim you made it worse.

Now you know better but, you should have taken Lehto’s advice and put it back to stock before you let them look at it.

I don’t mod cars with a warranty, I just know it’s asking for trouble. You know that now too.

Krautastic > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 09/17/2015 at 15:57

0

So factory wheels with factory recommended tires on an early 2000’s M5 are not suitable for on-road use? That seems ludicrous. This was a period of time when tires still had plenty of sidewall.

I think the real solution is for DOT’s to stay on top of road conditions, especially roads that feature speeds in excess of 40 mph and in some cases up to 75mph. Slowing down for a feature from a legal 75mph to 40mph or whichever in in of itself creates safety issues.

ramajastang > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 16:05

0

Interesting was it all aftermarket aftermarket or company aftermarket (ford racing for Ford, TRD for Toyota)? To my understanding if you were to order say a ford racing suspension kit at the dealer and the dealer installed it then it should not void the warranty outright but that those parts may have to be warrantied under the warranty for those parts and not the overall vehicle warranty?

SomethingElseCleverHere > Quade 09/17/2015 at 16:12

0

I *think* all 2.0T engines from MY 2009-2011 inclusive were affected. My understanding of the class-action lawsuit settlement is as follows: Any car with an affected engine that is still under original or CPO warranty would be repaired (by replacing the piston heads and rings) at no cost, plus the owner to be refunded any money (s)he spent previously for related repairs or money spent to replenish engine oil consumed at a faster rate than what the Owner’s Manual states. For cars no longer under warranty, but were otherwise eligible for warranty extensions/repairs (unmodified cars), the same repairs and refunds were applicable.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Krautastic 09/17/2015 at 16:15

0

“So factory wheels with factory recommended tires on an early 2000’s M5 are not suitable for on-road use? That seems ludicrous”

I agree. Some of the OEM wheel/tire combos are ludicrous for on-road use.

“This was a period of time when tires still had plenty of sidewall.”

If he’s getting bent rims under those circumstances, either the tire pressure was low, there isn’t plenty of sidewall, or some combination of those two.

Update: Stock, the early 2000s M5 had 245/40R18 tires on the front, 275/35/18 on the rear. That’s about 3.8” of sidewall... not what I would call plenty, but not like some of the rubber-band tires some cars these days have. If these tires are properly inflated, hitting the kind of bumps you get with those metal plates shouldn’t cause a bent wheel.

“I think the real solution is for DOT’s to stay on top of road conditions”

That will require more staff, which will require more money, which will mean some form of higher taxes. You think that will happen?

Based on what I read about what Americans say about taxes, not to mention who they vote for, I think it’s pure wishful thinking that the DOT will ever be able to keep all roads and bridges in tip top shape.

http://t4america.org/maps-tools/bri…

SteveLehto > ramajastang 09/17/2015 at 16:20

0

Client had non-GM stuff installed on his car by the selling dealer. When he sought warranty work, the claim was denied by GM. Dealer said, “Sorry. That aftermarket stuff voided your claim.”

doubleshotpower > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 16:23

0

I didn’t know you wrote!

As a fan of every single article you write here, please consider researching and writing a book on the following: the return and growth of sports car racing after World War 2.

SteveLehto > doubleshotpower 09/17/2015 at 16:40

0

How could you not know? I harp on it all the time!

Sounds like a fascinating topic but also would require a ton of research into a field there are probably more qualified people to write about.

Meanwhile, I have two books coming out next year. One on Tucker and one on the Chrysler Winged Cars.

ramajastang > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 16:51

1

OK yeah I figured that had to be it, those wouldn’t have been OEM approved but if it’s the company’s in house aftermarket parts it should be a better outcome. I’ve never tried it since I don’t break my toys so I don’t know first hand.

Bladecutter > SteveLehto 09/17/2015 at 16:54

0

Is this covered under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, or a different set of laws?

I already know the part of my warranty maintenance book that has the statement from Porsche, but I’d love to know which actual laws give me the freedom to either work on my car myself, or bring it to whomever I want for routine windshield wiper replacement.

Those Porsche branded Bosh wipers are so tempting, however. Must stay strong and just buy the Bosch Icon wipers instead. Must stay strong.