Certification vs Recommends

[burla]

Originally Posted by tiger862
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Speaking about recommendations and certifications, I got curious about a particular car I'm thinking of getting, so I downloaded the 2018 Honda Civic Si owners manual. It's kind of an eye opener. The first thing they recommend is Honda Genuine Motor Oil (no specific weight given outside of a chart), then a 0W-20 detergent oil with the API certification (really the ILSAC starburst) seal. There is no specific letter standard (i.e. API SN) mentioned anywhere in the owners manual.

Quote
https://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2018/Civic-Si-Sedan/manuals
Recommended Engine Oil
• Honda Genuine Motor Oil
• Premium-grade 0W-20 detergent oil with an API Certification Seal on the
container

This seal indicates the oil is energy conserving and
that it meets the American Petroleum Institute's
latest requirements.

Use Honda Genuine Motor Oil or another
commercial engine oil of suitable viscosity for the
ambient temperature as shown.

You may also use synthetic motor oil if it is labeled
with the API Certification Seal and is of the
specified viscosity grade.


I'm not sure if maybe there's something on the oil cap that says anything more specific. I suppose it's always possible that someone finds or is given an older 0W-20 - maybe even as far back as API SJ.


This From Your Gov't....



The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. The manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select parts if those parts are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty. They can only require you to use Honda oil if they provide it for FREE, or they will loose in court. As that is a monopoly which goes against American principals. Go figure a car maker from a communist country would see it different, don't be afraid to deliver them some American justice if they mess with you.

The act is outdated so much so that Ashland and others are petitioning government to update language to include oils spec. The BIG3 are against this as they claim failure of unapproved oils cause damage in newer technologies needed to meet fuel efficiency requirements. If you keep records on oil changes dealers want receipt and if oil is not on list then it is unapproved and manual states that could void warranty. With long finance plans warranty is longer and the disabled such as myself will pay for 7 year warranty anyhow note is not as long. What gets me is one company will only certify conventional not synthetic but another will certify synthetic so that makes it tough on consumers. Oil companies try to combat this by having their own warranty but you are to use their product exclusively.


Generally why I posted a fact from the updated trade commision website was to bring this to a level of facts on not feelings or assumptions. If you say Magnusum Moss is no longer the law, a link would be great. As someone who won a 13k dollar case against GM because Chevy refused to work on my Avalanche under warranty, I can tell you the warranty act has worked for myself. I have no doubt the "big 3" would love to do away with the warranty act, but guess what, aint happening. The rule of requiring a "specific" oil, as in geniun honda oil, one point that fella was trying to assert, no addressing the other spec, just that one, is illegal on more levels then just the warranty act, it also goes against Monopoly laws. To be honest, when it comes to this I am on the Manu's side, but my position don't have jack to do with it. If a manu deny's warranty on anyone, they have rights and the rights are spelled out black and white. Why manu's deny people, they have the numbers that say this % of people wont fight. However, as any lemon law lawyer will attest, if they file a case, 99% they will settle, because manu's do not want to see a judge because they are on the consumers side and will hammer the manufactorer. My first offer was 10 g's, I told them to pound sand, then they offered 13g's to stay out of court on a suspension item that was little more then a nuisance, a cross member that clicked. And they offered me 13 grand because they were afraid of a judge on a small issue. I didn't think I'd win, I was just ticked they refused to work on the truck after 4 attempts. They just said we did our best, which was laughable, all they had to do was weld it. Point being, never take what the dealer says as gospel, hire a lawyer and take them straight to court. The lawyer don't get paid uness you do, if they take your case, manu will settle. Or, just wimper away and fester away for life because you are a coward and afraid to stand your ground or can't be bothered with it, whatever. Your rights are there, all you have to do is use them.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by burla
Generally why I posted a fact from the updated trade commision website was to bring this to a level of facts on not feelings or assumptions. If you say Magnusum Moss is no longer the law, a link would be great. As someone who won a 13k dollar case against GM because Chevy refused to work on my Avalanche under warranty, I can tell you the warranty act has worked for myself. I have no doubt the "big 3" would love to do away with the warranty act, but guess what, aint happening. The rule of requiring a "specific" oil, as in geniun honda oil, one point that fella was trying to assert, no addressing the other spec, just that one, is illegal on more levels then just the warranty act, it also goes against Monopoly laws. To be honest, when it comes to this I am on the Manu's side, but my position don't have jack to do with it. If a manu deny's warranty on anyone, they have rights and the rights are spelled out black and white.

To be fair to Honda, they leave an out in that a 0W-20 motor oil with the API certification marks would meet their requirements. Of course that would leave out those choosing to use boutique oils that for one reason or another don't carry the API marks, such as Amsoil or Red Line. However, it's not that hard to find something meeting those requirements.

However, what may be harder is when they specify Honda MTF or HCF-2. Or Honda Type 2 coolant. It may not be the same with electric power steering, but I've bought many bottles of Honda branded power steering fluid over the years. These are the ones where some aftermarket seller might specify an equivalent or "compatible" fluid, and then it gets tricky if they try to point to that as a source of a failure.

I generally agree with your stance on the MMWIA, but in the end if the dealer or regional service manager decides to play hardball, is it worth it for a customer to hire an attorney? The issue is that sometimes these are relatively small damages compared to the cost of hiring an attorney.

 

[burla]

Lemon Law Layers in this state work on contingency, they take cases from legal lemons which is 18 mos of new, or failure to perform under warranty IE Magnuson-Moss cases. Depends on the state you live in which auto manufactorers can get away with bullying people out of warranty work. In this state, the manu wont even go to court, they will settle every case out of court. More on the act, then I'll move along.


A BRIEF OVERVIEW
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act became federal law in 1975, at a time when it wasn't uncommon for manufacturers to use disclaimers or unfair warranties in order to generate more revenue. The Act exists today both to protect consumers and to help them make informed purchases. While it was created to cover a wide range of products, the Act also covers most vehicles.

Congress had four goals in mind when it passed the Act, and they're still essential to the Act today:

To ensure customers can receive all of the information about warranty terms and conditions.
To ensure customers can compare warranties before making a purchase.
To promote competition among manufacturers on the basis of warranty coverage.
To promote timely repairs under warranty obligations.
In addition, the Act has three major requirements for warrantors and sellers:

Warrantors must designate or title a written warranty as "full" or "limited." For reference, a full warranty covers the entire vehicle for a certain period of time. A limited warranty covers only certain components as listed in the warranty at the manufacturer's or seller's discretion.
Warrantors must explain certain aspects of the warranty in a single, clear, easy-to-read document. That includes discussing information like the parts covered under the warranty, how the warrantor will respond to a defect or malfunction, and an explanation on what actions consumers need to take and the expenses they need to bear in the event something breaks.
Warrantors and sellers must ensure warranties are available where vehicles are sold so that consumers can review them before purchasing.
In addition, the Act prohibits using "tie-in sales" provisions. This includes selling a warrantied vehicle while requiring the consumer to only receive services or parts from a single business. For example, a manufacturer can't require you, under a warranty, to only use a certain brand of tires in order to maintain the warranty.

 

[tiger862]

Burla
FTC Matter #P114406
File is PDF and to large but basically what oil companies want is the act to change language in a manufacturers manual from Dexos spec for warranty coverage to state Dexos or equivalent. They claim it is a burden to consumers and written in a way that forces oil companies to certified with all manufacturers individual specs which not only costly but cost sales. I just used this one example.

 

[burla]

I'm on your/their side on this one, but once a right like a warranty Guarantee is given, it isn't an easy thing to be taken. No matter if it makes sence or not, it would be suicide for a politician to do so. Especially when it comes to consumer confidence and the auto industry, If provisions are made against that act, it will be in the dark in some obscure defintion. Especially after the auto bail out, we see how sensitive consumer confidence is. Manu's can best provide oil formulations for newer applications, and that doesn't neccesarily mean that it would be expensive for the consumer. I see that review happened under Obama admin, so who knows maybe they did throw away our rights and we don't know about it yet. I couldn't find if they made changes, go figure. All I see was the comments from that matter. That matter was 2011, and the link I provided was 2015. God help this auto industry if they take away our warranty rights, nobody will buy a new car except the rich. But auto manu's and oil companies need to work together on the issues, or the cost for those warranties that are written into the price we pay, will go up considrably.

 

[tiger862]

Just an update. Valvoline has responded to my question about there oil and according to them their oil exceeds Chrysler specs therefore doesn't void warranty. I looked up Chrysler spec and found approved lubricants and Valvoline synthetic was on it. Went to manual under Synthetic and it states Synthetic can be used if it has engine mark and 5w20. Also noticed on certification paper most oils were conventional and spec was a SM rated. In order to get certification New York taxi run of 2 years and 100k miles then engine torn down and measured. Dodge even sent link on my Dodge app that stated oil changes are to be done by OLM which my dealer wants done with conventional at 3k. All questions were answered so thank you. Just an extra note Mobil1 has this API engine mark so just letting everyone know you can use it without worrying.