Engine Warranty & By-pass System?

[XS650]

quote:

---

At this wear rate my engine should last over 400,000 miles ..assuming I keep the car that long, my commute just dropped from 74 miles to 20 miles ..and I am loveing it !

[/QB]

---

I suspect that the majority of us are bored stiff with any car we have had for 200k miles. The primary beneficiary would be the person who buys our cars and who gives a rats arse about them?

Try putting an ad in the paper or on eBay saying you used TP oil filters for 200k miles and see how much more money it gets you. It might even make it more difficult to sell because you would sound like a wack job to the average buyer.

Those of you who enjoy playing with TP filters as hobby or the few who really want to run a vehicle 400k miles shouldn't feel the need to make excuses. Just admit you do it because you want to.

Unless It was a business vehicle and the $$made sense, I can't imagine sticking with the same vehicle for 400k miles, life is to short for that...unless it's your hobby, then more power to you.

 

[deepsquat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

At this wear rate my engine should last over 400,000 miles ..assuming I keep the car that long, my commute just dropped from 74 miles to 20 miles ..and I am loveing it !

---

I suspect that the majority of us are bored stiff with any car we have had for 200k miles. The primary beneficiary would be the person who buys our cars and who gives a rats arse about them?

Try putting an ad in the paper or on eBay saying you used TP oil filters for 200k miles and see how much more money it gets you. It might even make it more difficult to sell because you would sound like a wack job to the average buyer.

Those of you who enjoy playing with TP filters as hobby or the few who really want to run a vehicle 400k miles shouldn't feel the need to make excuses. Just admit you do it because you want to.

Unless It was a business vehicle and the $$made sense, I can't imagine sticking with the same vehicle for 400k miles, life is to short for that...unless it's your hobby, then more power to you. [/QB]

---

It is not about resale value ! It is about making the car last ...for my use ..not the next guy that comes along that may buy it..a car is not an investment , it is an expense..my house is an investment.
I try to keep my wealth in my house and not show it off in the car that i drive , i am not about trying to impress the Jone'es never have owned a new car and never will. What a waste of money! Drive it off the lot and loose 30% as soon as the tail lights hit the curb! WOW what a deal I'll take 2 !
I am 42 year old and bought my 1st car when i was 16 my second car when 23 my 3rd car when 34( bad purchase) my 4th car when 35 5th car 37
I still have the 4th and 5th car ...i run um till they die!

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by deepsquat:
It is not about resale value ! It is about making the car last ...for my use ..not the next guy that comes along that may buy it..a car is not an investment , it is an expense..my house is an investment.
I try to keep my wealth in my house and not show it off in the car that i drive , i am not about trying to impress the Jone'es never have owned a new car and never will. What a waste of money! Drive it off the lot and loose 30% as soon as the tail lights hit the curb! WOW what a deal I'll take 2 !
I am 42 year old and bought my 1st car when i was 16 my second car when 23 my 3rd car when 34( bad purchase) my 4th car when 35 5th car 37
I still have the 4th and 5th car ...i run um till they die!

---

Sounds like sqeaking a lot of life out of a car turn you on. More power to you. There is no reason to be defensive about it.

Most people don't want to have a car over 200k miles no matter how well it runs.

 

[bulwnkl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by y_p_w:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
Some warranties are written such that they could void your entire warranty based upon the unauthorized modification, while others are written such that they cannot. So, your question does not contain enough information to give a correct answer. You just have to read your warranty.

---

That wouldn't be legal in the US, due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act of 1975. It would be illegal to put in writing and certainly wouldn't be legally enforcable in court.

---

I'm sorry, that's simply incorrect. It is legal and done every day in the USA. Read the various warranties.

quote:

---

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm

quote:

---

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product.

---

---

You've totally misconstrued that summary section. That section is saying that warranties cannot require you to buy from only 1 specific aftermarket parts source but no others, and that the warranty DOES NOT have to cover any replacement parts or repairs or "maintenance that is inappropriate for your product."

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

That section is saying that warranties cannot require you to buy from only 1 specific aftermarket parts source but no others,

---

Well, how does that integrate into DC's ATF+4 and all of Honda's proprietory fliuds?? There is no other source for these items ...and the dealer doesn't give them away free of charge if you need them during the warranty period ..unless it involves an warranty repair.

I mean this situation isn't a case of a new import with limited distribution using a unique item (let's say an air filter panel for a BMW 320i in 1978) ..where there was "no market" for Purolator or Wix ..or Fram to bother making one. The production of the stuff is already domestically produced and readily available ..yet distribution is limited souly to the manufacturers outlets.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenw:
2 honda dealers consititute 2 separate sources as they are free to set their own prices.

---

That's still specifying by brand name.

 

[y_p_w]

Here are some recommendations by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA):

http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?ID=50096

And here's the Code of Federal Regulations section on MM Act interpretations:

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=8585738104+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

quote:

---

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR700.10]

[Page 569-570]

TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

PART 700_INTERPRETATIONS OF MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT--Table of Contents

Sec. 700.10 Section 102(c).

(a) Section 102(c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.
(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c) prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.
(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, ``This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized `ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine `ABC' parts,'' and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ``unauthorized'' articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such ``unauthorized'' articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

---

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by y_p_w:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
Some warranties are written such that they could void your entire warranty based upon the unauthorized modification, while others are written such that they cannot. So, your question does not contain enough information to give a correct answer. You just have to read your warranty.

---

That wouldn't be legal in the US, due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act of 1975. It would be illegal to put in writing and certainly wouldn't be legally enforcable in court.

---

I'm sorry, that's simply incorrect. It is legal and done every day in the USA. Read the various warranties.

---

It certainly was correct. Unless you feel the FTC/DOJ lawyers who contributed to 16CFR700.10 are in error.

I'm not saying that someone might not have illegally conditioned a warranty as you say........

 

[bulwnkl]

y_p_w, I think we're not quite arguing the same point. I'm saying that a warranty can be written to be nullified by unauthorized modification, not that yours or the original poster's is. The following interpretation you cited is quite instructive in this regard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by y_p_w:


http://www.carnutgarage.com/warranty/Warranty_4.html

quote:

---

This provision allows you, for example, to use a non-MINI brand oil filter or a different brand of spark plugs as long as they meet MINI’s specifications. It does not, however, allow you to make modifications which are outside of MINI’s specification.

---

---

The provision does not allow you to make modifications which are outside of MINI's specification (in this example). That's the key. If a bypass filtration setup is not part of the warrantor's specification, then this provision of Moss-Magnuson does not allow you to alter it and retain warranty coverage. The warranty itself may allow you to do so and still retain coverage on an unrelated part of the vehicle, but it is not required to do so. Your Subaru's warranty is written such that you would retain coverage for your trunk latch despite your alterations to your engine induction system. Other warranties are not written that way, and they do not have to be. It is the warrantor's option to write the warranty as they choose. If the vehicle (and the warranty) is viewed as 1 complete "system," then unauthorized alteration of any part of that system can void the warranty on the entire system. If the vehicle is viewed as a collection of "systems" (let's say, powertrain, body, running gear, and interior just for example's sake), then unauthorized modification of one of those systems would not necessarily void the warranty on the other systems.

It's all about how the warranty is written. That's why it is so important for each person making a decision of this type to READ THE WARRANTY FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
y_p_w, I think we're not quite arguing the same point. I'm saying that a warranty can be written to be nullified by unauthorized modification, not that yours or the original poster's is.

---

Wrong. This is what you originally wrote yesterday, and I'll put the emphasis on what I disagreed with:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
Some warranties are written such that they could void your entire warranty based upon the unauthorized modification, while others are written such that they cannot. So, your question does not contain enough information to give a correct answer. You just have to read your warranty.

---

My basic disagreement is that a warrantor can't "void your entire warranty" due to a modification and that terms to that effect aren't legally enforceable. They can however state that they won't fix parts that they feel are damaged in full/part due to the unauthorized modification. They can say that their obligation to fix the engine is voided if you reflash the ECU to boost performance. They can't say that their obligation to fix the radio is voided if you reflash the ECU to boost performance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
The warranty itself may allow you to do so and still retain coverage on an unrelated part of the vehicle, but it is not required to do so.

---

A warrantor is so required to retain warranty coverage on parts unrelated to an aftermarket modification. My source is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16, Section 700.10(c), as entered by the United State Federal Trade Commission. The FTC's codified interpretations of the MM Act expressly state that rest of the warranty is still in effect on an part unrelated to an "unauthorized part":

quote:

---

a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ``unauthorized'' articles or service.

---

Here's some more:

(Wiley Publishing - Car Hacks & Mods For Dummies)
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2669.html

 

[bulwnkl]

From this document (the actual text of 16CFR700; emphasis added is mine):

quote:

---

The Interpretations represent the Commission’s views on various aspects of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., and are intended to clarify
the Act’s requirements. They are similar to industry guides in that they are advisory in nature, although failure to comply with the Act and the Rules under the Act as elucidated by the Interpretations may result in corrective action by the Commission.

---

So, while the decision on the part of a warrantor to void an entire warranty due to unauthorized modification of any part of the warranted item may "result in corrective action by the Commission" (the FTC), it is not a violation of Magnuson-Moss for them to do so in any way beyond the opinion or industry guideline expressed by the FTC.

I will tell you straight that I am not aware of nor am I going to search for case law directly on point here. My argument is made and it is clear what the Act does not prohibit. It is also clear (absent case law that I've covered above) that there is tons of opportunity here for attorneys, but very little for anyone else.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I don't believe that anything in the MM act requires OEM manufacturers to supply information to aftermarket manufacturers. No does it say the OEMs have to give away parts if no one else chooses to make them.

---

Here's what I'm talking about:


Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act and general principles of the Federal Trade Commission, a manufacturer may not make its vehicle warranty conditional on the use of any specific brand of motor oil, oil filter or any other component, unless the manufacturer provides it to the customer free of charge. An equipment manufacturer can obtain a waiver if it proves to the FTC that its equipment will function properly only if specific brands of motor oil, oil filters or other components are used. The FTC must be satisfied that this is in the public interest, and this waiver must be published in the Federal Register. This is considered a "waiver" of the prohibitions on conditions of written warranty.


Now the fact that they seemed to have, as was mentioned, done an end runaround on this ..and indeed created fluids that must be used for their vehicles ..they are probably in a waiver situation. For those who would argue. Honda and Mopar are specific brands.

 

[y_p_w]

While the CFR isn't the law per se, it's a pretty good interpretation. As someone writing a warranty, I'd probably try to follow the FTC's guidelines. I don't think it's so clear that it [the MM Act] allows impediments when it clearly goes to lengths to say that a cause and effect relationship between "unreasonable use" and the failure of a part can be grounds for denying a claim.

On the face of it, it makes absolutely no common sense that a warranty can be written to void itself in full for an unrelated problem. If I placed a pine air freshner on my rear view mirror and the string degrades the plastic stalk, how should that effect an engine warranty?

[ June 15, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: y_p_w ]

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
My argument is made and it is clear what the Act does not prohibit. It is also clear (absent case law that I've covered above) that there is tons of opportunity here for attorneys, but very little for anyone else.

---

However - the legal opinion (albeit "advisory") of the FTC runs counter to your belief. I'm still curious about any written warranty out there that cancels itself in full due to an authorized modification, rather than just a result of damage from the modification in question.

My personal opinion is that anyone installing a bypass filter does run the risk of warranty coverage being denied for an oil related problem. Hire a good lawyer.

 

[bulwnkl]

Well, basically I think it can be loosely summarized thus: It's okay for the manufacturer to have a specification and require fluid to meet that specification. It's also okay for the manufacturer to not license the production of fluid made to that spec (or "not release the spec" as has been said in other threads here). What they cannot require is something like "Use only xxx-brand motor oil" without an actual specification, or say "Use only yyy-brand motor oil" when 35 other brands also meet the specification you have established. The manufacturer can make a statement along the lines of "use only Mopar Manual Transmission Fluid MS-9417" if they know that there is no other source for fluid that meets that specification due to the fact that they have not released the specification.

In my personal opinion, there is no difference between doing this and having a sales tie-in, but apparently the lawyers have been able to convince themselves (remember that judges are lawyers, too) that a distinction without difference is acceptable in this case.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

That section is saying that warranties cannot require you to buy from only 1 specific aftermarket parts source but no others,

---

Well, how does that integrate into DC's ATF+4 and all of Honda's proprietory fliuds?? There is no other source for these items ...and the dealer doesn't give them away free of charge if you need them during the warranty period ..unless it involves an warranty repair.

---

I don't believe that anything in the MM act requires OEM manufacturers to supply information to aftermarket manufacturers. No does it say the OEMs have to give away parts if no one else chooses to make them.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by y_p_w:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
Some warranties are written such that they could void your entire warranty based upon the unauthorized modification, while others are written such that they cannot. So, your question does not contain enough information to give a correct answer. You just have to read your warranty.

---

That wouldn't be legal in the US, due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act of 1975. It would be illegal to put in writing and certainly wouldn't be legally enforcable in court.

---

I'm sorry, that's simply incorrect. It is legal and done every day in the USA. Read the various warranties.

---

I would challenge you to show me one. This is the section in my Subaru warranty manual:

quote:

---

Damage or Malfunction Due to Improper Repair or Unauthorized Parts
These warranties do not cover any part which malfunctions, fails or is damaged due to any unauthorized alteration or modification made to the car such as the removal of parts or the installation of parts, equipment or accessories or improper repairs or adjustments not approved or recommended by SOA

Damage Caused By a Non-Covered, Unauthorized Part
These warranties do no cover damage to a covered component directly caused by the failure of a non-covered part, accessory or occurence of event

---

I added a higher pressure turbo, that doesn't mean they're no longer obligated to fix a broken trunk latch or radio.

Here's a pretty good interpretation:

http://www.carnutgarage.com/warranty/Warranty_4.html

quote:

---

This provision allows you, for example, to use a non-MINI brand oil filter or a different brand of spark plugs as long as they meet MINI’s specifications. It does not, however, allow you to make modifications which are outside of MINI’s specification. MINI’s warranty includes specific wording to make this clear. If you change a supercharger pulley to a different size or modify ECU programming, you are going outside the manufacturers specifications and MINI's warranty specifically says it will not cover these parts or any damage caused by them. These statements are entirely within the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Some people have interpreted this provision to mean that the dealer must prove that your part caused the failure. The Act makes no such statement. If there is reasonable cause and effect that a failure could have been the result on installing a non-MINI part, the dealer is entirely within his right to deny a warranty claim. However the dealer cannot deny a claim for a failure that is not related even if you have non-MINI parts installed on your car.

---

Essentially the warrantor must make a reasonable determination that an aftermarket part led to whatever failure. In my example, they can't look at an aftermarket turbo and say it led to the trunk latch sticking.

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

That section is saying that warranties cannot require you to buy from only 1 specific aftermarket parts source but no others,

---

Well, how does that integrate into DC's ATF+4 and all of Honda's proprietory fliuds?? There is no other source for these items ...and the dealer doesn't give them away free of charge if you need them during the warranty period ..unless it involves an warranty repair.

---

There is the clause that says brand name can be mandated if there's a demonstration that only one particular brand will operate properly.

 

[kenw]

2 honda dealers consititute 2 separate sources as they are free to set their own prices.