Lowering car, void warranty?
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: Severn, Md, USA
Lowering car, void warranty?
I keep gettin bitched at, my girl wants her type S lowered, she has a warranty on it, its a pre-owned certified 02-S. I don't think there is coverage on suspension anyway right? I thought it was just the motor and drivetrain?
And if something went wrong with the motor or drivetrain they have to prove that the modification (lowering springs/shocks) was the blame? correct?
And if something went wrong with the motor or drivetrain they have to prove that the modification (lowering springs/shocks) was the blame? correct?
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: Severn, Md, USA
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (eMpAtHy)
I could probably switch the stock stuff back and take it into the dealership though and possibly get away with it? Doing the work is no big deal for me... used to it.
Are there some insurance company policies that modifying your car voids?
She just switched from Nationwide to Progressive....Progressive is saving her $1200 a year, it was $2600 with Nationwide, but they did specifically ask her if the car was modified and she said no...cause it isn't...yet.
Are there some insurance company policies that modifying your car voids?
She just switched from Nationwide to Progressive....Progressive is saving her $1200 a year, it was $2600 with Nationwide, but they did specifically ask her if the car was modified and she said no...cause it isn't...yet.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 0
From: so cal, USA
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (pushinlsteg)
pretend to not be a client of progressive and ask them about modifications.
you can swap it back to stock and still get it covered under warranty...
you can swap it back to stock and still get it covered under warranty...
)
Trending Topics
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
From: Frisco, TX, USA
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (pushinlsteg)
dude, thanks for bringing this up....i was wondering the same damn thing
very good points brought up here too, like changning out the suspension before going back to the dealer
very good points brought up here too, like changning out the suspension before going back to the dealer
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (chizzadd)
So how do dealerships protect themselves from these type of activities? American Honda should just warranty parts related to suspension components? Warranty fraud is a multi-million dollar fraud a year in the car industry. Why not be responsible adults and be responsible for your own actions?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
Here's a brain teaser:
A customer comes into the dealership service area for warranty work. The customer's vehicle is equipped with a full race suspension on his car with no engine work. However the transmission is grinding.
The customer's argument would be: I never drive my car hard and why would the suspension affect warranty on the transmission?
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? And for those rare few that do, will be thrown into the same group so the dealership can protect themselves from chargebacks for denied warranty claims.
A customer comes into the dealership service area for warranty work. The customer's vehicle is equipped with a full race suspension on his car with no engine work. However the transmission is grinding.
The customer's argument would be: I never drive my car hard and why would the suspension affect warranty on the transmission?
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? And for those rare few that do, will be thrown into the same group so the dealership can protect themselves from chargebacks for denied warranty claims.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 96,456
Likes: 38
From: Siege Perilous
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's a brain teaser:
A customer comes into the dealership service area for warranty work. The customer's vehicle is equipped with a full race suspension on his car with no engine work. However the transmission is grinding.
The customer's argument would be: I never drive my car hard and why would the suspension affect warranty on the transmission?
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? </TD></TR></TABLE>
This is going to depend on the state's traditions and on the individual judge.
Some judges would take your point, other judges would make you prove that the owner had driven his car in a fashion for which it was not intended.
And then the owner's going to bring up the "enthusiastic driving" literature and media advertising that hints that the car's supposed to be driven that way.
And then the smart lawyer's going to point out the changes that were made to the 2006 Civic and the 2005 RSX, which changes were made specifically at the behest of and on the recommendation of Honda/Acura track driving enthusiasts.
We can go round and round forever.
Basically I take your point and agree that the owner needs to take responsibility for his actions and realise that any publicly available car in the Civic's or RSX's price range is probably just not going to be optimised for track use, and he needs to takes responsibility for the research he does when he modifies the car. And he needs to take responsibility for any damages incurred by track driving a car that was sold for normal driving on normal roads.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, probably need to advertise more responsibly and understand that they are deliberately marketing a car to young enthusiastic drivers, which car might or might not stand up to the rigors of the kind of use for which they are deliberately hinting the car's made.
A customer comes into the dealership service area for warranty work. The customer's vehicle is equipped with a full race suspension on his car with no engine work. However the transmission is grinding.
The customer's argument would be: I never drive my car hard and why would the suspension affect warranty on the transmission?
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? </TD></TR></TABLE>
This is going to depend on the state's traditions and on the individual judge.
Some judges would take your point, other judges would make you prove that the owner had driven his car in a fashion for which it was not intended.
And then the owner's going to bring up the "enthusiastic driving" literature and media advertising that hints that the car's supposed to be driven that way.
And then the smart lawyer's going to point out the changes that were made to the 2006 Civic and the 2005 RSX, which changes were made specifically at the behest of and on the recommendation of Honda/Acura track driving enthusiasts.
We can go round and round forever.
Basically I take your point and agree that the owner needs to take responsibility for his actions and realise that any publicly available car in the Civic's or RSX's price range is probably just not going to be optimised for track use, and he needs to takes responsibility for the research he does when he modifies the car. And he needs to take responsibility for any damages incurred by track driving a car that was sold for normal driving on normal roads.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, probably need to advertise more responsibly and understand that they are deliberately marketing a car to young enthusiastic drivers, which car might or might not stand up to the rigors of the kind of use for which they are deliberately hinting the car's made.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
From: Maricopa County
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? And for those rare few that do, will be thrown into the same group so the dealership can protect themselves from chargebacks for denied warranty claims.</TD></TR></TABLE>
they can speculate, and argue all they want, but unless they can prove driver abuse, or that the parts installed contributed or caused to the warranty claim, it would be illegal to deny a warranty claim, put a warranty block, or void a cars warranty. Per the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975."
How would they know it was a "full race" suspension unless the customer stated so?
The dealership's argument would be simple and logical: Who puts a full race suspension on their cars to drive it like it had a stock suspension on? And for those rare few that do, will be thrown into the same group so the dealership can protect themselves from chargebacks for denied warranty claims.</TD></TR></TABLE>
they can speculate, and argue all they want, but unless they can prove driver abuse, or that the parts installed contributed or caused to the warranty claim, it would be illegal to deny a warranty claim, put a warranty block, or void a cars warranty. Per the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975."
How would they know it was a "full race" suspension unless the customer stated so?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (Lynx Bus Type R)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lynx Bus Type R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">they can speculate, and argue all they want, but unless they can prove driver abuse, or that the parts installed contributed or caused to the warranty claim, it would be illegal to deny a warranty claim, put a warranty block, or void a cars warranty. Per the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975."
How would they know it was a "full race" suspension unless the customer stated so?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You may want to do some research about the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" before you mis-inform the public about its intention.
From the Federal Trade Commission's website:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.
To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.
Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.</TD></TR></TABLE>
How would they know it was a "full race" suspension unless the customer stated so?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You may want to do some research about the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" before you mis-inform the public about its intention.
From the Federal Trade Commission's website:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.
To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.
Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
From: Maricopa County
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You may want to do some research about the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" before you mis-inform the public about its intention.
From the Federal Trade Commission's website:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
what exactly have i "mis-informed" the public about?
what research would you like me to do? None of my information is erroneous
I have 1st hand, In court, manufacturer buy back experience.
Fact: federal law states a dealer, nor manufacturer may void a new car warranty simply because after market parts are present.
Fact: a dealer or manufacturer may not deny a warranty claim unless they can prove that the after market part(s) caused or contributed to the reason why the warranty claim is being submitted.
Fact: it is illegal to void a new car warranty. a manufacturer may only deny warranty claims, or invoke a warranty block on certain items. there is one exception; if the dealer or manufacturer can prove the vehicle has been raced, they then can proceed to block all warranty claims for suspension and drive train.
dealers deny warranty claims everyday simply because after market parts are present, and it isn't legal. But the consumer just lays down and excepts it. the consumer has rights, and i for one stood my ground fought back and won!
the manufacturer even had to buy my car back because it fell under the states lemon law criteria.
You may want to do some research about the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" before you mis-inform the public about its intention.
From the Federal Trade Commission's website:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
what exactly have i "mis-informed" the public about?
what research would you like me to do? None of my information is erroneous
I have 1st hand, In court, manufacturer buy back experience.
Fact: federal law states a dealer, nor manufacturer may void a new car warranty simply because after market parts are present.
Fact: a dealer or manufacturer may not deny a warranty claim unless they can prove that the after market part(s) caused or contributed to the reason why the warranty claim is being submitted.
Fact: it is illegal to void a new car warranty. a manufacturer may only deny warranty claims, or invoke a warranty block on certain items. there is one exception; if the dealer or manufacturer can prove the vehicle has been raced, they then can proceed to block all warranty claims for suspension and drive train.
dealers deny warranty claims everyday simply because after market parts are present, and it isn't legal. But the consumer just lays down and excepts it. the consumer has rights, and i for one stood my ground fought back and won!
the manufacturer even had to buy my car back because it fell under the states lemon law criteria.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA, USA
For all you people who want to put preformance parts on your car but dont want to voild your Warrenty read this.
Can an Automotive Dealership Void Your Warranty?
Nearly everyone has heard about someone who has taken a vehicle that has been modified with aftermarket parts to a dealer for warranty service, only to have the dealer to refuse to cover the defective items. The dealers usually states that because of the aftermarket parts the warranty is void without even attempting to determine whether the aftermarket part caused the problem.
This is illegal.
Vehicle manufactures are not allowed to void vehicle warranty just because aftermarket parts are used on he vehicle. To better understand his problem it is best to know the differences between the two types of new car warranties and the two types of emission warranties.
When a vehicle is purchased new, the owner is protected against faults hat may occur by an expressed warranty. An offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacture is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn’t void the warranty.
There are also two emission warranties (defect and performance) required under the clean air act. The defect warranty requires the manufacturer to produce a vehicle, which at the time of the sale is free of defects that would cause it not to meet the required emission levels for its useful life as defined in the law. The performance warranty implies a vehicle must maintain certain levels of emission performance over its useful life. If the vehicle fails to meet the performance warranty requirements the manufacturer must make repairs at no cost to the owner, even if an aftermarket part is directly responsible for a warranty claim. The vehicle manufacturer cannot void the performance warranty. This protection is the result of a parts self-certification program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
In cases where such a failed aftermarket part is responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer must arrange a settlement with the manufacturer, but law does not void the new-vehicle warranty.
Overall, the laws governing warranties are very clear. The only time a new vehicle warranty can be voided is if the aftermarket part has been installed and it can be proven that it is responsible for and emissions warranty claim. However, a vehicle manufacturer r dealership cannot void a warranty simply because an aftermarket equipment has been installed on a vehicle.
If a dealership denies a warranty claim and you think the claim falls under the rules explained above concerning the Clean Air Act (such as emission part failure). Obtain a written explanation of the dealer’s refusal. Then follow the steps outlined in the owner’s manual. However, if this fails, then phone your complaint in to the EPA at (202) 233-9040 or (202) 328-9100.
If a dealership denies a warranty claim involving an implied or expressed new car warranty and you would like help, phone the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at (202) 326-3128.
Just thought this might intrest some of you. if this intrest you and you want to find out more Vist http://WWW.SEMA.ORG, to see what you can do about the laws in your area
Can an Automotive Dealership Void Your Warranty?
Nearly everyone has heard about someone who has taken a vehicle that has been modified with aftermarket parts to a dealer for warranty service, only to have the dealer to refuse to cover the defective items. The dealers usually states that because of the aftermarket parts the warranty is void without even attempting to determine whether the aftermarket part caused the problem.
This is illegal.
Vehicle manufactures are not allowed to void vehicle warranty just because aftermarket parts are used on he vehicle. To better understand his problem it is best to know the differences between the two types of new car warranties and the two types of emission warranties.
When a vehicle is purchased new, the owner is protected against faults hat may occur by an expressed warranty. An offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacture is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn’t void the warranty.
There are also two emission warranties (defect and performance) required under the clean air act. The defect warranty requires the manufacturer to produce a vehicle, which at the time of the sale is free of defects that would cause it not to meet the required emission levels for its useful life as defined in the law. The performance warranty implies a vehicle must maintain certain levels of emission performance over its useful life. If the vehicle fails to meet the performance warranty requirements the manufacturer must make repairs at no cost to the owner, even if an aftermarket part is directly responsible for a warranty claim. The vehicle manufacturer cannot void the performance warranty. This protection is the result of a parts self-certification program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
In cases where such a failed aftermarket part is responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer must arrange a settlement with the manufacturer, but law does not void the new-vehicle warranty.
Overall, the laws governing warranties are very clear. The only time a new vehicle warranty can be voided is if the aftermarket part has been installed and it can be proven that it is responsible for and emissions warranty claim. However, a vehicle manufacturer r dealership cannot void a warranty simply because an aftermarket equipment has been installed on a vehicle.
If a dealership denies a warranty claim and you think the claim falls under the rules explained above concerning the Clean Air Act (such as emission part failure). Obtain a written explanation of the dealer’s refusal. Then follow the steps outlined in the owner’s manual. However, if this fails, then phone your complaint in to the EPA at (202) 233-9040 or (202) 328-9100.
If a dealership denies a warranty claim involving an implied or expressed new car warranty and you would like help, phone the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at (202) 326-3128.
Just thought this might intrest some of you. if this intrest you and you want to find out more Vist http://WWW.SEMA.ORG, to see what you can do about the laws in your area
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (I can t believe this ****)
[QUOTE=pushinlsteg]I keep gettin bitched at, my girl wants her type S lowered.QUOTE]
If the bitch keeps giving you ****, tell her to go do her own damn research and lower it her-*******-self!
If the bitch keeps giving you ****, tell her to go do her own damn research and lower it her-*******-self!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (Lynx Bus Type R)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lynx Bus Type R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what exactly have i "mis-informed" the public about?
what research would you like me to do? None of my information is erroneous
I have 1st hand, In court, manufacturer buy back experience.
Fact: federal law states a dealer, nor manufacturer may void a new car warranty simply because after market parts are present.
Fact: a dealer or manufacturer may not deny a warranty claim unless they can prove that the after market part(s) caused or contributed to the reason why the warranty claim is being submitted.
Fact: it is illegal to void a new car warranty. a manufacturer may only deny warranty claims, or invoke a warranty block on certain items. there is one exception; if the dealer or manufacturer can prove the vehicle has been raced, they then can proceed to block all warranty claims for suspension and drive train.
dealers deny warranty claims everyday simply because after market parts are present, and it isn't legal. But the consumer just lays down and excepts it. the consumer has rights, and i for one stood my ground fought back and won!
the manufacturer even had to buy my car back because it fell under the states lemon law criteria.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Do you know exactly where it states that in federal law? I'm curious to know exactly where it states that word for word.
Apparently you still seem to misunderstand the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" intentions.
Like I stated above, it was NOT designed to protect the aftermarket. It was designed to force manufacturers to clearly state in writing what is covered or not covered under warranty. That is it, plain and simple. I'm not here to preach about not moddifying your car. However I strongly disagree when someone modifies their car and has future problems there car and expect warranty to cover it. I'm here because I want people to be responsible for their own actions. For those who honestly needs warranty coverage, I would be more than happy to help.
what research would you like me to do? None of my information is erroneous
I have 1st hand, In court, manufacturer buy back experience.
Fact: federal law states a dealer, nor manufacturer may void a new car warranty simply because after market parts are present.
Fact: a dealer or manufacturer may not deny a warranty claim unless they can prove that the after market part(s) caused or contributed to the reason why the warranty claim is being submitted.
Fact: it is illegal to void a new car warranty. a manufacturer may only deny warranty claims, or invoke a warranty block on certain items. there is one exception; if the dealer or manufacturer can prove the vehicle has been raced, they then can proceed to block all warranty claims for suspension and drive train.
dealers deny warranty claims everyday simply because after market parts are present, and it isn't legal. But the consumer just lays down and excepts it. the consumer has rights, and i for one stood my ground fought back and won!
the manufacturer even had to buy my car back because it fell under the states lemon law criteria.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Do you know exactly where it states that in federal law? I'm curious to know exactly where it states that word for word.
Apparently you still seem to misunderstand the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" intentions.
Like I stated above, it was NOT designed to protect the aftermarket. It was designed to force manufacturers to clearly state in writing what is covered or not covered under warranty. That is it, plain and simple. I'm not here to preach about not moddifying your car. However I strongly disagree when someone modifies their car and has future problems there car and expect warranty to cover it. I'm here because I want people to be responsible for their own actions. For those who honestly needs warranty coverage, I would be more than happy to help.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (George Knighton)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Basically I take your point and agree that the owner needs to take responsibility for his actions and realise that any publicly available car in the Civic's or RSX's price range is probably just not going to be optimised for track use, and he needs to takes responsibility for the research he does when he modifies the car. And he needs to take responsibility for any damages incurred by track driving a car that was sold for normal driving on normal roads.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, probably need to advertise more responsibly and understand that they are deliberately marketing a car to young enthusiastic drivers, which car might or might not stand up to the rigors of the kind of use for which they are deliberately hinting the car's made.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm not here to argue statutes Grandpa, there are some things I wish wouldn't void my warranty on my car, like my stock car goes outroading after I spin on turn 8 on the local racetrack and damages my suspension. But you can't expect the manufacturer to be completely responsible. What's wrong with the world today is that it seems as though through our "perfect legal" system the consumer doesn't have to be responsible for their own actions if it can be proven just a little bit that it was the manufacturers fault. Kind of like why there are caution labels on hot items. Common sense is being replaced by disclaimers and caution labels now.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, probably need to advertise more responsibly and understand that they are deliberately marketing a car to young enthusiastic drivers, which car might or might not stand up to the rigors of the kind of use for which they are deliberately hinting the car's made.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm not here to argue statutes Grandpa, there are some things I wish wouldn't void my warranty on my car, like my stock car goes outroading after I spin on turn 8 on the local racetrack and damages my suspension. But you can't expect the manufacturer to be completely responsible. What's wrong with the world today is that it seems as though through our "perfect legal" system the consumer doesn't have to be responsible for their own actions if it can be proven just a little bit that it was the manufacturers fault. Kind of like why there are caution labels on hot items. Common sense is being replaced by disclaimers and caution labels now.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
From: Maricopa County
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Do you know exactly where it states that in federal law? I'm curious to know exactly where it states that word for word.
Apparently you still seem to misunderstand the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" intentions.
Like I stated above, it was NOT designed to protect the aftermarket. </TD></TR></TABLE>
i never said it was there to help the aftermarket, and nothing i said leads anyone im concluding this. The magnusson Moss warranty act is a consumer protection bill.
http://www.enjoythedrive.com/c...ranty
But it does protect the aftermarket in a way below is an exert
http://www.enjoythedrive.com/c...=8034
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1.The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of this law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle makers brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part:
“No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name....” (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)). </TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SEMA »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Law
Federal law sets forth requirements for warranties and contains a number of provisions to prevent vehicle manufacturers, dealers and others from unjustly denying warranty coverage. With regard to aftermarket parts, the gist of the law is that warranty coverage cannot be denied simply because such parts are present on the vehicle, or have been used (See Attachment A for details).The warranty coverage can be denied only if the aftermarket part caused the malfunction or damage for which warranty coverage is sought. Disputes in this area usually boil down to arguments over facts andtechnical opinions, rather than arguments over interpretations of the law</TD></TR></TABLE>
Have you ever been own3d before?
Do you know exactly where it states that in federal law? I'm curious to know exactly where it states that word for word.
Apparently you still seem to misunderstand the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" intentions.
Like I stated above, it was NOT designed to protect the aftermarket. </TD></TR></TABLE>
i never said it was there to help the aftermarket, and nothing i said leads anyone im concluding this. The magnusson Moss warranty act is a consumer protection bill.
http://www.enjoythedrive.com/c...ranty
But it does protect the aftermarket in a way below is an exert
http://www.enjoythedrive.com/c...=8034
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1.The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of this law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle makers brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part:
“No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name....” (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)). </TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SEMA »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Law
Federal law sets forth requirements for warranties and contains a number of provisions to prevent vehicle manufacturers, dealers and others from unjustly denying warranty coverage. With regard to aftermarket parts, the gist of the law is that warranty coverage cannot be denied simply because such parts are present on the vehicle, or have been used (See Attachment A for details).The warranty coverage can be denied only if the aftermarket part caused the malfunction or damage for which warranty coverage is sought. Disputes in this area usually boil down to arguments over facts andtechnical opinions, rather than arguments over interpretations of the law</TD></TR></TABLE>
Have you ever been own3d before?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (Lynx Bus Type R)
Lynx Bus Type R, I'm not disagreeing with you.
If you have read the entire act, you would know that:
A. If a person violates the warranty agreement set forth by the manufacturer then
B. The manufacturer has the right to excercise possible termination of warranty.
For the third time the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" was designed to require manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. So using it as a reference, like you so did, is not necessarily incorrect, it's just irrelevant to my concern.
My original concern was "how do dealership protect themselves from these type of activities" in regards to fradulent warranty claims and these comments:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chizzadd »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...very good points brought up here too, like changning out the suspension before going back to the dealer...</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wuyuemei »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...Switch it back when you take it to the dealer. If it's done right, nobody will be able to tell the diff...</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by db8xc1x39 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yup...trick those insurance bastards..</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eMpAtHy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...pretend to not be a client of progressive and ask them about modifications. you can swap it back to stock and still get it covered under warranty...</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pushinlsteg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I could probably switch the stock stuff back and take it into the dealership though and possibly get away with it? Doing the work is no big deal for me... used to it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
As you stated via quote, and in bold face, just to make sure that I knew something which I already knew: Manufacturers do no have the right to deny warranty on a car because of installation of an aftermarket part alone. However you just so easily left out the sentence right after that which is what my concern is about which I'll put in bold face and in quote form for you also because I hope you knew it.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C) »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty.</TD></TR></TABLE>
And have I ever been owned before? Perhaps you should not worry about whether or not I have been owned and worry more about your reading comprehension skills.
If you have read the entire act, you would know that:
A. If a person violates the warranty agreement set forth by the manufacturer then
B. The manufacturer has the right to excercise possible termination of warranty.
For the third time the "magnusson moss warranty act of 1975" was designed to require manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. So using it as a reference, like you so did, is not necessarily incorrect, it's just irrelevant to my concern.
My original concern was "how do dealership protect themselves from these type of activities" in regards to fradulent warranty claims and these comments:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chizzadd »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...very good points brought up here too, like changning out the suspension before going back to the dealer...</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wuyuemei »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...Switch it back when you take it to the dealer. If it's done right, nobody will be able to tell the diff...</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by db8xc1x39 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yup...trick those insurance bastards..</TD></TR></TABLE>
and
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eMpAtHy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...pretend to not be a client of progressive and ask them about modifications. you can swap it back to stock and still get it covered under warranty...</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pushinlsteg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I could probably switch the stock stuff back and take it into the dealership though and possibly get away with it? Doing the work is no big deal for me... used to it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
As you stated via quote, and in bold face, just to make sure that I knew something which I already knew: Manufacturers do no have the right to deny warranty on a car because of installation of an aftermarket part alone. However you just so easily left out the sentence right after that which is what my concern is about which I'll put in bold face and in quote form for you also because I hope you knew it.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C) »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty.</TD></TR></TABLE>
And have I ever been owned before? Perhaps you should not worry about whether or not I have been owned and worry more about your reading comprehension skills.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
From: Maricopa County
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">worry more about your reading comprehension skills</TD></TR></TABLE>
How about I'll tell you what I comprehend.
How about a 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 I purchased. A mistake all by Itself.
I modified the car in the typical fashion as any entry level hobbyist
Struts and springs from quality name brand manufactuers.
Cat back Exhaust and Exhaust manifold
RC Engineering Machined throttle body
MSD DIS2 ignition
Cold Air Intake with genuine K&N Air filter
who doesnt get on thier car from time to time?
I follow Manufacturers reccomended service take it in, and i get a phone call from the dealer that the zone represnetative has placed a warranty block on my car for racing. w0w, racing i say? how did you come to this conclusion? "all those race parts you have" mind you this is at the vehicles 1st 3000 mile oil change too.
So i contact an attorney, and he introduces me to the magnusson moss warranty act, and agrees to take my case.
2000 miles later my car spins rod & crank bearing on journals 3 and 4.
i pay for the rebuild to the tune of $3800 bucks, and get no warranty on that due to racing and race parts. 400 miles later the same thing happens again, so i say fugg it and pay for a factory fresh short block, $5500. The attorney subpeonas GM corprate service bulletins to discover engine built between x date and x date(my engine) are prone to crank and rod bearing failure due to sub standard bearings.
at 15000 miles my second gear syncro craps out and i lose 2nd gear. again warranty claim denied as stated above. since i can get by without a second gear i chose not to do anything about it. parts were not yet available to rebuild the transmision (1st year for getrag) and buying new ($3400) was the only option. this was also a problem that wasn't isolated to me, faulty syncors were installed, and cracked easily.
we submit to arbitration, but GM is unwilling to budge on anything. as it turns out i had a 2 headed case. on one front i have the warranty claims, without the benefit of the dealer determining what the true cause of the problems under the magnusson moss warranty act. we had a strong case per thier own internal service bulletins.
the other head we had was the Florida Lemon law act. and i fell under it because of how many accumulative days my car spent in the service dept.
My attorney submitted a settlement offer under these 2 items for GM to buy back the car at full retail, reimburse me for my repairs, pay attorney fees, and give me $10,000.
In 22 days i got a check and a tow truck was knocking at my door.
How about I'll tell you what I comprehend.
How about a 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 I purchased. A mistake all by Itself.
I modified the car in the typical fashion as any entry level hobbyist
Struts and springs from quality name brand manufactuers.
Cat back Exhaust and Exhaust manifold
RC Engineering Machined throttle body
MSD DIS2 ignition
Cold Air Intake with genuine K&N Air filter
who doesnt get on thier car from time to time?
I follow Manufacturers reccomended service take it in, and i get a phone call from the dealer that the zone represnetative has placed a warranty block on my car for racing. w0w, racing i say? how did you come to this conclusion? "all those race parts you have" mind you this is at the vehicles 1st 3000 mile oil change too.
So i contact an attorney, and he introduces me to the magnusson moss warranty act, and agrees to take my case.
2000 miles later my car spins rod & crank bearing on journals 3 and 4.
i pay for the rebuild to the tune of $3800 bucks, and get no warranty on that due to racing and race parts. 400 miles later the same thing happens again, so i say fugg it and pay for a factory fresh short block, $5500. The attorney subpeonas GM corprate service bulletins to discover engine built between x date and x date(my engine) are prone to crank and rod bearing failure due to sub standard bearings.
at 15000 miles my second gear syncro craps out and i lose 2nd gear. again warranty claim denied as stated above. since i can get by without a second gear i chose not to do anything about it. parts were not yet available to rebuild the transmision (1st year for getrag) and buying new ($3400) was the only option. this was also a problem that wasn't isolated to me, faulty syncors were installed, and cracked easily.
we submit to arbitration, but GM is unwilling to budge on anything. as it turns out i had a 2 headed case. on one front i have the warranty claims, without the benefit of the dealer determining what the true cause of the problems under the magnusson moss warranty act. we had a strong case per thier own internal service bulletins.
the other head we had was the Florida Lemon law act. and i fell under it because of how many accumulative days my car spent in the service dept.
My attorney submitted a settlement offer under these 2 items for GM to buy back the car at full retail, reimburse me for my repairs, pay attorney fees, and give me $10,000.
In 22 days i got a check and a tow truck was knocking at my door.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 1
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (Lynx Bus Type R)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lynx Bus Type R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How about I'll tell you what I comprehend.
How about a 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 I purchased. A mistake all by Itself.
I modified the car in the typical fashion as any entry level hobbyist
Struts and springs from quality name brand manufactuers.
Cat back Exhaust and Exhaust manifold
RC Engineering Machined throttle body
MSD DIS2 ignition
Cold Air Intake with genuine K&N Air filter
who doesnt get on thier car from time to time?
I follow Manufacturers reccomended service take it in, and i get a phone call from the dealer that the zone represnetative has placed a warranty block on my car for racing. w0w, racing i say? how did you come to this conclusion? "all those race parts you have" mind you this is at the vehicles 1st 3000 mile oil change too.
So i contact an attorney, and he introduces me to the magnusson moss warranty act, and agrees to take my case.
2000 miles later my car spins rod & crank bearing on journals 3 and 4.
i pay for the rebuild to the tune of $3800 bucks, and get no warranty on that due to racing and race parts. 400 miles later the same thing happens again, so i say fugg it and pay for a factory fresh short block, $5500. The attorney subpeonas GM corprate service bulletins to discover engine built between x date and x date(my engine) are prone to crank and rod bearing failure due to sub standard bearings.
at 15000 miles my second gear syncro craps out and i lose 2nd gear. again warranty claim denied as stated above. since i can get by without a second gear i chose not to do anything about it. parts were not yet available to rebuild the transmision (1st year for getrag) and buying new ($3400) was the only option. this was also a problem that wasn't isolated to me, faulty syncors were installed, and cracked easily.
we submit to arbitration, but GM is unwilling to budge on anything. as it turns out i had a 2 headed case. on one front i have the warranty claims, without the benefit of the dealer determining what the true cause of the problems under the magnusson moss warranty act. we had a strong case per thier own internal service bulletins.
the other head we had was the Florida Lemon law act. and i fell under it because of how many accumulative days my car spent in the service dept.
My attorney submitted a settlement offer under these 2 items for GM to buy back the car at full retail, reimburse me for my repairs, pay attorney fees, and give me $10,000.
In 22 days i got a check and a tow truck was knocking at my door.</TD></TR></TABLE>
So after all that, how do dealerships protect themselves from "fradulent claims."
Your claim wasn't fradulent. You just established that. But that doesn't answer my question or concern.
How about a 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 I purchased. A mistake all by Itself.
I modified the car in the typical fashion as any entry level hobbyist
Struts and springs from quality name brand manufactuers.
Cat back Exhaust and Exhaust manifold
RC Engineering Machined throttle body
MSD DIS2 ignition
Cold Air Intake with genuine K&N Air filter
who doesnt get on thier car from time to time?
I follow Manufacturers reccomended service take it in, and i get a phone call from the dealer that the zone represnetative has placed a warranty block on my car for racing. w0w, racing i say? how did you come to this conclusion? "all those race parts you have" mind you this is at the vehicles 1st 3000 mile oil change too.
So i contact an attorney, and he introduces me to the magnusson moss warranty act, and agrees to take my case.
2000 miles later my car spins rod & crank bearing on journals 3 and 4.
i pay for the rebuild to the tune of $3800 bucks, and get no warranty on that due to racing and race parts. 400 miles later the same thing happens again, so i say fugg it and pay for a factory fresh short block, $5500. The attorney subpeonas GM corprate service bulletins to discover engine built between x date and x date(my engine) are prone to crank and rod bearing failure due to sub standard bearings.
at 15000 miles my second gear syncro craps out and i lose 2nd gear. again warranty claim denied as stated above. since i can get by without a second gear i chose not to do anything about it. parts were not yet available to rebuild the transmision (1st year for getrag) and buying new ($3400) was the only option. this was also a problem that wasn't isolated to me, faulty syncors were installed, and cracked easily.
we submit to arbitration, but GM is unwilling to budge on anything. as it turns out i had a 2 headed case. on one front i have the warranty claims, without the benefit of the dealer determining what the true cause of the problems under the magnusson moss warranty act. we had a strong case per thier own internal service bulletins.
the other head we had was the Florida Lemon law act. and i fell under it because of how many accumulative days my car spent in the service dept.
My attorney submitted a settlement offer under these 2 items for GM to buy back the car at full retail, reimburse me for my repairs, pay attorney fees, and give me $10,000.
In 22 days i got a check and a tow truck was knocking at my door.</TD></TR></TABLE>
So after all that, how do dealerships protect themselves from "fradulent claims."
Your claim wasn't fradulent. You just established that. But that doesn't answer my question or concern.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,404
Likes: 0
From: USAF
Re: Lowering car, void warranty? (len)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by len »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
So after all that, how do dealerships protect themselves from "fradulent claims."
Your claim wasn't fradulent. You just established that. But that doesn't answer my question or concern. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree there was deffintely no point to his post but to say his engine broke and they fixed it.....
len stated that the law is there to make the automanufacturer state the limitations of the warranty...yuo as the buyer sign a peice of paper agreeing to that warranty...thats what you sign when you buy the car if you didnt remember....in the warranty it says you void the warranty in certain situations and what can be changed and by whom......Theres no reason to get all pissy about some BS the guy said he was gonna try and beat the system and len said own up for your own **** yuo break it fix it dont try and get over on them because you broke it.....Karma is a bitch remember that
So after all that, how do dealerships protect themselves from "fradulent claims."
Your claim wasn't fradulent. You just established that. But that doesn't answer my question or concern. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree there was deffintely no point to his post but to say his engine broke and they fixed it.....
len stated that the law is there to make the automanufacturer state the limitations of the warranty...yuo as the buyer sign a peice of paper agreeing to that warranty...thats what you sign when you buy the car if you didnt remember....in the warranty it says you void the warranty in certain situations and what can be changed and by whom......Theres no reason to get all pissy about some BS the guy said he was gonna try and beat the system and len said own up for your own **** yuo break it fix it dont try and get over on them because you broke it.....Karma is a bitch remember that
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
