Voided All Warranties (merged threads) - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

This is a discussion on Voided All Warranties (merged threads) within the General Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Accidents. forums, part of the Tech & Modifying & General Repairs category; Two things that may be the downfall: 1. Short Shift kit 2. More boost Quick rationale 1. When you shift ...

  1. #46
    tan
    tan is offline
    Thinking Man's Engine tan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wharton, NJ
    Posts
    3,014
    Two things that may be the downfall:

    1. Short Shift kit
    2. More boost

    Quick rationale

    1. When you shift faster and let go of the clutch (to engage), and if you don't rev match properly (why wait when you have a short shift), the synchros do more work to match flywheel-cluch disc speed....accelerated wear

    2. More boost, more power. The transmission, gears, synchros, and clutch can handle a certain amount of power and torque reliably. Exceeding it....accelerated wear.

    Someone has to play devil's advocate every now and then

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7
    Carlo
    It was Salerno Duane in Newton NJ. It is up in norhtern jersey.
    2002 WR Blue Subaru WRX

  4. #48
    Moderator GV27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Green Mountain, Colorado
    Posts
    5,585
    I Support ClubWRX
    Originally posted by james70214
    Some of you guys have real bad luck with dealers. I just got my rex today and they introduced me to the head of the service dept. and he said that even if I add a bigger turbo it will not void my warranty same with any suspension mod. He showed me this guys transmission where he made his own short throw shifter and thrashed 3rd and 4th gear , but they replaced the entire tranny under WARRANTY.
    What they really mean is that they'll slide it by SOA for you. There's a couple of things in that paragraph that just fly in the face of Magnussen-Moss. DIY short throw trashed the tranny? Pretty easy to show that the DIY part contributed to the failure. Big turbo, more boost? Pretty easy to contribute driveline failures to that. MBC? Please, one of the big things people use them for is to overcome the Subie computer's programming to not give full boost in 1st and 2nd. Why is it programmed this way? 'Cause Subaru wanted the car to be slower? A programming error? No! To make life easier for the drivetrain. You overcome that built-in safety net and break your tranny or one of the diffs, it's pretty obvious why.

    I know everybody comes at this issue with a bunch of bravado saying "they have to prove that the part caused the failure". Let's be realistic. To fight them on an issue like this is gonna cost a bunch in legal fees - maybe more than it would have cost to just fix the problem. And then it'll be a civil case. Sure, if you go before a jury and argue that your suspension mods didn't contribute to tranny failure, you'll probably win. But if you modify the engine or drivetrain and the engine or drivetrain breaks, do you really think you'll win in front of a jury and/or judge? Subaru will just say "we designed this stuff this way for a reason - this guy but these questionable hot-rod parts on it and broke it". Pretty cut and dry argument. And remember, this is just civil court and in the end is just the opinion of the jury or judge. There's no burden on the manufacturer to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt". They just have to show that there's a correlation between the part and the failure.

    Put yourself in the manufacturers place. You design and test parts endlessly looking for reliability. They design the car to a certain statistical reliablility, then do an economic analysis of that statistic against the costs to fix certain failures during the warranty period. All that gets built into the price, a price where they have very small margins in a very competetive market. If there reliability probabilities are wrong, they can really lose there butt. Now you have people coming in and putting all sorts of parts on the cars that may not be tested to any sort of reliability and have certainly not been tested by Subaru. These throw off their reliability statistics and they're back to the situation of losing there butt. Sure, they could bump the price up a few grand to cover all the warranty losses do to unaproved modifications, but the people who do these mods are a small minority of buyers. Again, it's a competetive market.

    Sorry to "defend" Subaru, but I think a dose of reality is called for.
    Last edited by GV27; 08-29-2002 at 07:59 AM.
    "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me." -Jesus

    1990 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce
    1992 Toyota 4Runner SR5 3.Slow
    1993 Honda CBR600F2
    2002 WRX SportWagon *sold*

  5. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Yellow Springs, OH
    Posts
    211
    This car we all own is very fast and performs well stock. Everyone knows if you mod your car, you are sort of "in the face" of Subaru when you bring it to the dealer. Some dealers are cool, and some are not. The bad news is, you won't find out until you test the system by modding and then going in for service.

    Until I'm out of warrenty, I'm taking mods very slowly. I love the car the way it is anyway. It is great, and I do admit it can be greater, but at a possible (probable?) cost.

    I know there are many here who accept the loss of warrenty as a cost of modifying their car. This is rational. If the dealership is going to be pricks about it, even if you are right, you'll have to spend your time and money fighting them.

    And based on my experiance, and stories here, dealership vary extermely, and applying pressure up the chain of command can be very effective. In paticular, owners are much more concened about your repeat bussness than then ANY of the service team. Before you give up on your cause, re-iterate with your salesman, service writer, service manager, and owner that you love your car, and plan to spend money with someone who cares to help you solve your issues. If it has to be somewhere else, they need to let you know. Let them know you'll buy your next Subarus somewhere else.
    ----------------------------------------
    '02 Blue Sportwagon
    No mods - yet
    Starting with the rear sway bar and anti-lift kit...one day....I have faith

  6. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7
    GV27
    Chill out man. All I was saying is my dealer's service dept. is really nice and they will help me with any probs with the car so I don't have to learn the hard way all the time. Inm the case of the diy shifter and tranny prob he replaced the tranny for him under warranty, but he said if he decides to put a nother short shifter on it and the tranny goes again he will be up the creek w/o a paddle.
    2002 WR Blue Subaru WRX

  7. #51
    Moderator GV27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Green Mountain, Colorado
    Posts
    5,585
    I Support ClubWRX
    I am chilled. Wasn't criticising you. Just didn't want someone to think that it was THEIR dealer giving them warranty problems. The dealer is not the final judge - SOA is. Your dealer is just cool enough to slide this stuff by SOA. You put a different turbo on and break your motor and Subaru is justified in not covering it. Although I do think a blown motor has to be looked at by a rep before the dealer can go ahead and replace it.......I'd think the same thing with the tranny, but maybe they put the old shifter back on or something before the rep saw it or something. Since your dealer is this cool, I wouldn't go telling people which dealer it is in case there are SOA people lurking around here. I'm sure they wouldn't be thrilled.

    C
    "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me." -Jesus

    1990 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce
    1992 Toyota 4Runner SR5 3.Slow
    1993 Honda CBR600F2
    2002 WRX SportWagon *sold*

  8. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7
    GV27
    Sorry for jumping down your throat. I was a little mislead by your reply, my bad.
    2002 WR Blue Subaru WRX

  9. #53
    Registered User LostLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NorCAL
    Posts
    885
    Since we're on the tail end of this warranty issue...
    Here's a link in case you ever wanted a lawyer to handle your issues...

    http://www.wpkt.com/Practice_Areas/W.../warranty.html

    -LostLamb
    Uh guys? After I read this post I went out to take a look at my WRX. There seems to be some bird poop on the drivers side A-pillar and almost all of the windshield washer fluid is gone. Should I trade it in for a Ford ZX2 or just light in on fire?

    God I miss my rex. -Koyokid

    Rest in peace Koyokid.

  10. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,613
    Originally posted by GV27
    I know everybody comes at this issue with a bunch of bravado saying "they have to prove that the part caused the failure". Let's be realistic. To fight them on an issue like this is gonna cost a bunch in legal fees - maybe more than it would have cost to just fix the problem. And then it'll be a civil case. Sure, if you go before a jury and argue that your suspension mods didn't contribute to tranny failure, you'll probably win. But if you modify the engine or drivetrain and the engine or drivetrain breaks, do you really think you'll win in front of a jury and/or judge? Subaru will just say "we designed this stuff this way for a reason - this guy but these questionable hot-rod parts on it and broke it". Pretty cut and dry argument. And remember, this is just civil court and in the end is just the opinion of the jury or judge. There's no burden on the manufacturer to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt". They just have to show that there's a correlation between the part and the failure.
    ...I think a dose of reality is called for.
    DISCLAIMER: I do NOT practice civil law in any way shape or form. Only criminal. But I am a lawyer nonetheless. And I have done a fair share of trials.

    For the most part, I agree with GV27, as I've previously posted, about false confidence while armed with vague knowledge of the Magnuson-Moss Act. I'm sure most of us have never read the Act and those who have (lawyers included) cannot possibly understand the Act on the first dry read. So before we start delving any further into dilettante arguments of what the M-M Act is and does for us, and thereby creating the risk of even more misinformation, we should start educating ourselves on concrete answers on what the law is exactly and how we can receive what we are entitled by that law.

    When I'm able, I'll try doing some research on the legislation and caselaw.

    In the meantime, if I may, I'd like to point out a few things. In most civil courts, there is a burden to prove a case by "preponderance of the evidence". This is not as high a burden as in a criminal case - "beyond a reasonable doubt" - but effectively, all it really means is that you don't need a unanimous verdict to win. You can still have two stupid jurors and win. Nonetheless, provided that Subaru does have the burden to proof, would still have to convincingy PROVE their case.

    I've very quickly read through some portions of the Magnuson-Moss Act and there is NOTHING in that Act that mentions the manufacturer's burden to prove a modification caused the failure. I looked at some sites regarding this and the clearest answer I've found was that the "spirit of the law is that warranty coverage cannot be denied simply because [aftermarket] parts are present on the vehicle." In other words, this is only how some people believe the M-M Act affects their warranty with aftermarket parts on their car.

    Here's a pretty good site on the Magnuson-Moss Act in regards to aftermarket parts and the warranty. I suggest you all read it, especially the "Attachments".
    http://www.enjoythedrive.com/content/?ID=8124
    Last edited by bedabi; 08-30-2002 at 06:44 AM.

  11. #55
    Registered User pace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Brook Forest, Colorado
    Posts
    5,799
    Bedabi,

    I agree on some of your points and strongly disagree on others. I too see nothing regarding explicit burden of proof laying with the manufacturer of the product anywhere in the act. However, the act is very explicit in stating that the manufacturer of the product cannot deny coverage simply through usage, either current or past, of a non-OEM component. So what happens if they DO attempt to deny coverage thereof? I don't think it is a far stretch either logically nor legally to deduce that the act is implicit in laying the burden of proof on the manufacturer in this instance.

    -Pace

  12. #56
    Registered User pace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Brook Forest, Colorado
    Posts
    5,799
    Originally posted by GV27
    I am chilled. Wasn't criticising you. Just didn't want someone to think that it was THEIR dealer giving them warranty problems. The dealer is not the final judge - SOA is.
    ..
    SOA would be the final judge only in so much as whether a Subaru representative entity will attempt to deny coverage on your vehicle. Ultimately I believe that federal law dictates what should be the final outcome on whether they really are justified in denial of coverage.

    -Pace

  13. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,613
    Originally posted by pace
    I too see nothing regarding explicit burden of proof laying with the manufacturer of the product anywhere in the act. However, the act is very explicit in stating that the manufacturer of the product cannot deny coverage simply through usage, either current or past, of a non-OEM component.
    One could just as easily read the Act to mean that a manufacturer cannot deny a warranty claim for non-OEM parts used to repair or restore a product to it's original specifications. This is a more conservative interpretation than saying the Act ensures warranty coverage despite a TurboXS Stage 9 modification.

    Originally posted by pace
    So what happens if they DO attempt to deny coverage thereof? I don't think it is a far stretch either logically nor legally to deduce that the act is implicit in laying the burden of proof on the manufacturer in this instance.
    I'll have to do some research on this. I'm sure there's a court decision on who has the burden of proof and to what extent. This will be what the law actually is. As I've said before, there's really no point in guessing/deducing/reasoning what the law is. The law is comprised of legislation and what the courts have interpreted the legislation to mean. Our personal opinions do not matter.
    Last edited by bedabi; 08-30-2002 at 11:30 AM.

  14. #58
    str
    str is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    DE
    Posts
    543
    I just spoke to someone at SOA. They said that these types of warranty decisions are made by the district manager of SOA and NOT the delaership. However, she did say that there have been cases which they have won, that SOA has voided warranties on cars with modifications. The dealerships in my area tried to tell me that no matter whwat you add to your car that isn't a Subaru part would void your entire warranty. That is a bunch of BS.
    2004 Black Forester XT

  15. #59
    MisterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,971
    Gents,

    Just back from an unexpected sojurn into the wonderful world of medical stupidity.

    I'm going to kick a lot of rocks here. Stay tuned.

    misterx

  16. #60
    IPT
    IPT is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    13
    Subaru is making it sound like if you use and aftermarket oil filter your warrenty will be voided!!

    Heaven forbid if you were to hang an air freshener from the mirror. They might not cover a broken axle, because of the force that was exerted on the mirror thru the windsheild that compunded itself with the harmonic vibrations from the motor into the clutch assembly thru the tranny that again compunded with the raod noise from the wheel this all casued and imbalance in the axle that made it fail prematurly.


    It has happened to me twice now!!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •