Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Mainia
I don't think it matters much in the USA with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act protecting USA users, ... .
The M/M Act really isn't to protect the users. The intent is
inform the users, and
protect the OEMs by giving them the ability to "limit" their warranty.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business...w#Magnuson-Moss
When something goes wrong while under a limited warranty, the issue is one of the burden of proof.
Using products specified by the OEM (meets their criteria; or is licensed by them, etc) places the burden of proof of failure upon the OEM.
Not using products spec'd by the OEM allows them to have plausible deniabililty; they can outright deny or at least delay coverage, and the burden of proof of how/why a product failed is now upon the USER.
Consider a hypothetical:
Your new 2018 Brand XYX motor vehicle spec's a 5w-20 lube that meets their criteria, as stated in their engineering specification "ESMO-12345".
Example 1:
If you use a motor oil that is licensed to that spec, and you have a lube-related engine failure, the OEM must either cover the claim, or prove that their engine was not to blame. (They would have to blame the oil or filter maker for a lube related failure). All the expense of the denial is upon the OEM because you used an approved lube. Even if the lube was at fault, you'd be able to go against the lube maker and claim against their warranty. You chose a product that was licensed for the application; there is no fault on the "user" and the OEM and/or lube maker will cover the repair.
Example 2:
You decide that you know better than the OEM, and you use a lube that is NOT approved against the licensed spec. Now, when you have an engine that suffers a lube-related failure, the OEM can delay/deny your claim and make the USER prove that the lube chosen was appropriate for the application. Say you thought 5w-40 was "better" (you live in the thicker is always better camp) for the new engine, despite it's OEM spec for 5w-20. Now it is up to you to prove that your selection was NOT the cause of the failure. Additionally, most every lube maker out there in the market place will have their own statement that using the correct selection to OEM criteria is a condition of their limited warranty. So if lube maker brand PDQ has a lube that meets XYZ's motor oil spec of ESMO-12345, but you chose not to use that fluid, and instead used your own selection, not only can the OEM deny your warranty claim, but so can the lube maker. The burden of proof that the failure was not due to your choice is totally upon you. You against the big corporate lawyers and their teams of engineers and reams of data.
PS - same goes for filters, by the way
Caveat Emptor is all I'm saying.
.
And in a lot of the cases the oil speced viscosity is ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY there because of tree hugger "GREEN" CAFE standards,PERIOD. And oil form and car forum Dogma keeps repeating FUD over and over again. And really when have we truly seen oil related engine failure? Almost never. In the final outcome we see no oil in the sump, we see engine design problems and manufacturing problems, with Hyundai the crowned KING of both those issues, still in 2018. They have 4 different style engines in crisis.
In a lot of cases yes they know better then the manufacture, because they know a viscosity spec is only because of "GREEN" And if it was up to a engine mechanical engineer the engine would have 5-40 or 0-40 in it as a whole. Yes thicker is better in my camp, I have a GDI Turbo in Minnesota with short tripping. Thank God Hyundai at hear did not screw up AGAIN in their enginnering and specd 5-30 and 5-40 for fuel dilution and high heat. Unlike Honda 1.5 turbo thinking 5-20 is a good GREEN spec that has no place in a fuel dilution making engine, an obsurde choice. Thinking the choice is chosen because their engineers chose it, is also absurde.
Yes, the manufacture has an out, but most don't challenge viscosity or testing to find out what and who's oil is in your sump in the USA, other counties I have no idea, if so Amsoil would be getting challanges all the time by the manufactures seeing their Signature Series does NOT pass API because they have MORE additives in their add pack then spec. A problem I want to have. All they have is a couple rouge dealers who have a puffy chest. Our oil is so good these days you just are not tanking engines with even conventional oil.
As for burden of proof, lets see them deny Signature Series because it has a more robust add pack then what API is specing, it appears the manufactures are not doing it because they know better.
I also completely disagree with your take that MMWA is there to protect the manufactures, to limit warranty it is the antithesis of that. The MMWA gives ME the right to buy a brand new Rav4 drive it off the lot go to my garage and dump the crap WS out and put in some Redline D6 and 1 year later the tranny blows and they test which they wont unless it is a rouge dealership that you would own(wink) and they have to warranty it because D6 is far superior in every way then WS mind you, and Redline has approved the use of D6 for a proper replacement for crap WS.
Sorry, I don't agree with your forum FUD Dogma. I have talked with both Amsoil and Redline with how oil related controversies have worked with manufactures and dealers with them for the last 5 years. It's always rouge dealers that don't seem to win the cases they bring.
.
