Filter Mfg Warranty Coverage during usage of "oversized filters"
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
Seen the one in post 21, and there was another instance on this board where a piece of glue in the filter came loose, went through the bypass valve, blocked an oil gallery and caused engine damage. Filter maker paid for the repairs.
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
ill always go with the larger filter. each filter gets the shake test and a visual inspection prior to installation. i also do my best to use filters that are showing good results IE Carquest Premium’s, OG Fram Titanium’s.
One manufacture that I would not put past using this is Hyundai/KIa, to use that as a "scapegoat" to a car owner, one of their MANY blown engines, to skip out of an engine warranty. Starting at, and not necessarily used JUST by the dealer.
It is not engine oil, but the first thing out of the Hyundai dealer to my 14,000 mile galled piston wife's Hyundai was " You may not get your engine warranted as you had a high performance Fram oil filter on the car" ( Fram Ultra with the correct filter #) I was all over them in 5 milliseconds about the Magneson-Moss Warranty Act. If I had the wrong # filter by using a larger one I can almost bet they would not of warrantied the engine. Then there would of been a battle as that 1.8 had design issue as Hyundai did not add piston squriters to that engine to save costs.
Last edited:
I remembered 'reading' the two previously mentioned. One for Purolator made "quick lube filter" where iirc some excess potting/glue came loose and got into the engine. But, I can't recall if filter maker or the quick lube paid. Or quick lube reimbursed by Puro. The other more memorable imo on a Mazda where a Fram Ultra adbv broke loose and got lodged in the engine. So does happen.
As for the vehicle manufacturer's filter "recommendation" just going to say, while they can make a recommendation, if they were to require it, (they won't), they would have to pay for the filter. Seen here, Mazda and Hyun/Kia seem to come close to the line though. The Mazda one seems especially close without outright saying it.
If the aftermarket filter was the actual cause of the damage, then the Magneson-Moss Warranty Act will not protect the consumer. It would however prevent the dealer from denying the warranty on the fuel pump because you had an non-OEM part (like an oil filter) on the car. But if a non-OEM part fails, or causes other damage, then that's technically not covered by the vehicle manufacturer's warranty, even with the Magneson-Moss Warranty Act.
Only time they could have denied engine damage warranty is if they could prove that the aftermarket filter caused the engine damage. If it was the wrong aftermarket filter that would have gave them much more ammo to blame it even if it caused zero issues. That obviously wasn't the cause of your engine damage, but sounds like they tried to blame the correct aftermarket oil filter.
Using the wrong aftermarket filter will result in warranty denial even from the aftermarket filter company even if the filter was proven to be the cause of damage. That's the same tact a dealer would take if the wrong OEM or aftermarket filter was used on their cars.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Interesting that FRAM specifies "engine" as the conforming application. My 6.4L specs the large HEMI filter, my 5.7L specs the small HEMI filter, but prior to the fitment of electric power steering, the 5.7L spec'd the same filter as the 6.4L.
With the 5.7L, it's the same engine, but a different (smaller) filter to clear the EPS (even though you can get the larger filter in there on the DT's, though it's a bit of a challenge).
So, the *engine* would technically be a conforming application, as the engine didn't change when the filter was downsized.
Would be an interesting argument to have, lol.
The way the warranty is written in one area, sounds like in order for the warranty to be valid the filter specified by the vehicle in the application catalog is what determines if the specified filter was used or not. Technically, it should be by the "engine", but it specified by the vehicle. But then item c) of what's not covered uses the word "engine". So does leave some wiggle room for how it would be covered if there was a problem and claim.
Can you find your year of the 5.7L in the "Applications" tab of the 6.4L specified filter look-up? Probably not if Fram has done the specification by vehicle year.
--- From Fram's Warranty Statement ---
"This warranty covers properly installed or utilized Products, installed in vehicles as cataloged by the then applicable FRAM® product catalog (“Covered Products”). This warranty does not cover any Product that: a) has been subject to misuse, neglect, negligence, accident or casualty; b) has been improperly installed; c) has been installed into an engine which is not referenced as a conforming application by the then applicable FRAM® catalog; or d) has remained in service beyond the original equipment recommended change interval."
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I'd have to go back to a pre-EPS DS 1500.The way the warranty is written in one area, sounds like in order for the warranty to be valid the filter specified by the vehicle in the application catalog is what determines if the specified filter was used or not. Technically, it should be by the "engine", but it specified by the vehicle. But then item c) of what's not covered uses the word "engine". So does leave some wiggle room for how it would be covered if there was a problem and claim.
Can you find your year of the 5.7L in the "Applications" tab of the 6.4L specified filter look-up? Probably not if Fram has done the specification by vehicle year.
--- From Fram's Warranty Statement ---
"This warranty covers properly installed or utilized Products, installed in vehicles as cataloged by the then applicable FRAM® product catalog (“Covered Products”). This warranty does not cover any Product that: a) has been subject to misuse, neglect, negligence, accident or casualty; b) has been improperly installed; c) has been installed into an engine which is not referenced as a conforming application by the then applicable FRAM® catalog; or d) has remained in service beyond the original equipment recommended change interval."
Not sure what actual year the recommendation from RAM changed, but for 2013 the FRAM site lists both filters, lol:
