PSA: Please stop using the word "void" when talking about warranty and modifications
 

It takes about 5 minutes to read and understand your rights. There is no need to use the word "void" because warranty coverage is never void nor cancelled, it is just a question of whether a warranty claim can be made.

No dealer should ever threaten you with the words "void/voided warranty", nor should you think that your warranty may be void.

Changing the use of this word will save you headache, especially when dealing with new vehicle warranty claims.

Scion:
https://www.scion.com/cm-pdf/warranty/2016/fr-s.pdf

Subaru:
http://www.subaru.com/owners/vehicle...ties-2016.html


Of note: if your car is a total loss, you are no longer eligible for warranty.

So the proper way to say it is:

"If you mod your car you MAY be 'ineligible for Warranty coverage'"

Sounds pretty much the same as:
"Duuude a Turbo?! - NIIICE! but you just voided the powertrain warranty bro".

Just depends on what dialect you speak....

Modifications to your vehicle(or any warrantied product sold to you) can not have it's warranty voided for simply modifying said vehicle/product. In almost any case. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was written to cover this type of situation and to protect consumers from abusive practices.

That said, if the issue that you are taking in to get resolved under the warranty is directly attributable to the modifications you performed, your warranty will likely not cover the repair. Though the burden of proof(in a legal sense) is on the repair center to provide their reason for refusal.

Scenario #1:
I strap a supercharger onto my FR-S and do an ECU tune and some arbitrary amount of time later I have a massive suspension failure; a control arm breaks, a shock punches through a shock mount, maybe a spring breaks. The manufacturer MUST honor the warranty and repair the failure unless they can prove(or reasonably state) the supercharger modifications directly resulted in the suspension failure. If somebody tried to tell me this, they would have to do A LOT of convincing and explaining to get me to believe the supercharger caused a suspension failure.

Scenario #2:
Same supercharger upgrade as scenario 1. The failure in this case will be a blown motor; bent a valve(s), cut lose a piston, maybe overheated the system. The manufacturer will almost assuredly NOT have to warranty the engine failure as it is fairly easy to attribute the failure to the modification. I think most of us would agree a supercharger is a fairly substantial modification to an engine and its control systems.

Now, the repair center will try to get out of the warranty coverage at any opportunity, even if questionably legal, so they may attempt to get out of the work when you are legally entitled to the repairs. I encountered this with an AVCS cam solenoid failure Scion tried to get out of repairing because I had UEL headers. I talked to several people on-site to try and get them to explain to me how having UEL headers will result in the Cam solenoid to respond slowly(P000B). After nobody could, I told them to get the repairs completed under the warranty. They eventually tucked their tales and completed the repairs.

It is up to YOU to know your rights and to ensure you receive the coverage the manufacturer provides and you are entitled to.

Caveat: There are some subtleties in the law and the types of warranties as well as a LOT of 'outs' baked into the warranty documentation. Doing things like racing, not satisfying manufacturer recommendations on maintenance, or some other obscurities are all tools the manufacturer has at its disposal for voiding a warranty. In other words, get receipts or have proof of regular maintenance.

All I want people to do is to change their usage of this word when talking warranty. By not using this word and understanding what a warranty is and isn't, you (as a car owner) can do more with your car.

No one is losing warranty coverage, yet people ask about modding their car and then worry about having their warranty voided...

It's important also to add that you don't have to convince the dealer or manufacturer that a repair should be covered. If they don't want to cover it, and you don't agree that your mod is the problem, you either sue them or take them to arbitration. Then it's their responsibility to convince a judge or arbitrator that they aren't responsible, and judges tend to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt if there's any question.

There was a post in a previous warranty discussion where someone said he had worked for a dealer when they tried to deny warranty work and had the owner dead to rights, then had a judge just ignore their entire argument and make them reimburse the repairs simply because the company had deeper pockets.

@pandamancer so you're telling me that by nearly doubling the power output on stock suspension components will have no adverse affect? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

RE convincing the dealer:
I agree in principle that you should not have to convince them, but they also should not try to skimp out on warranty work they are obligated to cover. Both things happen in the real world. Also, you probably have a good shot in small claims but if you take it to arbitration, your success rate drastically falls as the arbiter can and is chosen(typically unfavorable for the consumer). You also lose a significant set of judiciary rights/privileges when going the route of arbitration. All that aside, going to court should be one of the last arrows you pull from your quiver IMHO.

RE suspension effect:
I am not saying an increase in power has no effect on the suspension but I PROMISE the effect is not as significant as you may think. Consider this: manual gear ratios range from 3.6-ish down to .76-ish. Read another way, you have about 4 times the amount of power applied to the road(where suspension gets involved in the story) in first gear as you do in 6th. Another thing to consider, shock loads to the suspension on the road are quite a bit larger and occur more often than you launching from first gear(unless you have a drag strip only car).

Also, the term 'void' is still relevant to warranties. Not only can the warrantor deem a repair ineligible for warranty coverage, they can also fully void the warranty. To your point however Mav, these are two distinct modes and they mean very different things and have very different requirements to come in to play.

Dude needs to chill it's just a word:lol:

Words matter. Unless $25k doesn't matter to you.

'Void' is permanent and not curable and applies to the whole of the warranty.

'Ineligible for coverage' applies to the specific repair/claim and has no effect on future needs or other repairs required.

No matter what you say people are going to interchange words there's no need to make a post about it because it's going to cause more confusion to some people.

So better to not provide any information for fear that some may find it confusing?

I can't speak for OP, but I certainly appreciate clarity. Besides, what you do with your money or vehicle is of no real consequence to me, burn it down if you want. As for everybody else that wasn't sure about these details, maybe now they are better armed to modify their vehicle as they see fit without fear of reprisal from the dealer.

Avoid void.

That's my point.

Most people don't understand that a warranty is a legally binding contract that the manufacturer guarantees to you, in writing, about what they will provide to you once you take delivery of a new or certified car owner.

If something fails, you have certain rights. It's this choice of "words" that determine what you are entitled to.

But hey, use "void" and "deny" interchangeably... let's see how far that gets you when push comes to shove. My post is basically saying that a small change in usage of wording can make a big difference in both your viewpoint of warranty, and how to exercise your rights properly.

-alex

A comment:
If you mod the engine, you are almost certainly required to change the ECU ROM or "tune".
As soon as you do this you are rolling over on your back and exposing your belly to the Manufacturer.
This is because in a court, the manufacturer can say that modifying the tune could have affected ANYTHING in the car and now it is up to you (the challenger) to prove otherwise.
I dont care what the MM act states. Nothing in that act will come into play UNLESS you have gone to court.
How often does that happen?
Please anyone that has EVER gone to court using the MM act please raise your hand!

.... crickets......

So until you go to court, it is your word against the word of the manufacturer's"experts".
IF you go to court it is your word against the manufacturer's legal experts (who do you think will win that fight).

All I am saying is that the manufacturer has the upper hand in this fight because it involves software (the ghost in the machine).
It will be very easy for the manufacturer to argue that your change in software changed the original operation of the machine in a way that was not the original intent.

It would be kind of like arguing with Dell that your Dell computer stopped working after you installed a new BIOS and began overclocking it.

Another comment: Just a hunch, but I would bet that if you have any engine mods at all, and the dealer notices, that they will enter that observation in the manufacturer's database. If you come back later for a blown engine, they just might say well... you car appears to be stock, but what about the tune, headers, and turbo you had on it last year?

PSA: Avoid the Noid

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/data:...BJRU5ErkJggg==

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/data:...QUsQ2gggpGf//Z

I'm pretty sure that is not how Burden of Proof works. It is their "burden" to "prove" not their burden to provide their opinion and then you have to defend against that.

In some cases this analogy is accurate, others not so much(see scenario #2 in my previous post). It could also be like arguing with Dell that my monitor isn't working because of the BIOS upgrade and overclocking I performed to the mobo/CPU(scenario #1).

As I also mentioned previously, going to court ought to be one of the last resorts for the reasons you provided. Unless in small claims court where explicitly forbidden, you will be going up against a lot of money and experts so your chances for success are slim. Similar scenario in Arbitration, though actually much worse for the consumer.

I could go on and on about this in a legal sense as there are a ton of different factors that can come into play. Even things like the DMCA and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may be relevant as the battlefield is ever changing when we talk about who can legally access and modify what, even when you have purchased and own the object you desire to modify.

Who knows, maybe a case like this is just what is needed to force car manufactures to submit their ECU code for review. Then the fiasco that is VW diesel emissions could have been prevented(or caught sooner).

Well I used to say, "If you X your gonna fk it up with the dealer..."

So, I guess its back to "fk-ing things up" with the dealer.


...or did I void that? LMFAO

People will always be shit on for using poor grammar and incorrect language which causes confusion and waste.

Communication is a vastly underrated skill, too many people take it for granted. It doesn't matter if you can solve world hunger or create the next iphone if nobody can understand you.

This thread is humorous. Void is pretty clear and accurate, and Subaru might need to educate its techs and dealer management on word definition. If every time someone goes to dealer and first words are you modified your car and thus aren't covered. That is void. Have to threaten with rights or go to Subaru America to get remedied - i.e. "Unvoided".

I was at dealer when 70 yr old man brought in a forester, the techs first words were - you've modified and your not covered. How do you modify a forester?

damn, i looked for modded pics on google img and barely found some front bumper lips.... no modded hahah

The problem is that you may not have a choice. A lot of auto dealers include an arbitration clause in their sales contracts. You do lose your right to appeal. But on the other hand, there's usually no risk that you'll get stuck with any court fees, because it's usually agreed in the contract that the company pays for arbitration. Also, arbitrators are typically lawyers or retired judges who are acutely aware of the reputation arbitration has for benefiting corporations, and they usually try to be as fair as possible.

Arbitration isn't always bad. A friend of mine had an employment dispute settled through arbitration. What would have been a months long process was completely finished in a single night. And he won. (I was there as a witness on his behalf and was somewhat impressed with the process.)

Really, what would you have to lose by trying?

No, it's up to the manufacturer to prove their case. You can rebut their argument, but it's their burden of proof. You don't have to prove your position. You have to show they haven't proven theirs.

That's not true. Any decent lawyer will tell you that the threat of litigation can often be more effective than litigation itself. A lot of companies get away with bullying their customers because the customers simply take it. When faced with a customer who is willing to fight back, some will back down. This is often true even when the company is "right," when the cost of litigation will exceed the cost of just ponying up the cost of the repair. For the consumer it might become an emotional issue of beating the company, but for the company it comes down to a business decision of comparing costs, regardless of who is "right."

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...19#post1773949

Doh!

That post demonstrated a simple concept that consumers don't understand. Much of the common law regarding warranties (both implied and explicit) revolve around the idea that a company has deeper pockets than the typical consumer and is therefore better able to absorb a loss. As a result, the process is often tilted in the plaintiff's favor.

No, it's not necessarily all that easy, because judges and arbitrators are experts on law and not necessarily experts in automotive technology. They put their engineer on the stand to say that your tune caused the problem. You put your expert tuner on the stand to say that's bullshit. The judge is not just looking at who has the longer resume, but also who might have the bigger incentive to bend the truth. All you have to do is create enough doubt that the judge doesn't believe the manufacturer proved their case.

It's this uncertainty that makes the threat of litigation effective in many cases. Manufacturers have gotten spanked enough times in court when they were technically right that they don't like to expose themselves to the risk and would often rather settle.

Even if the manufacturer had the upper hand, why would that be an excuse to roll over and just accept what they say without pushing back? Even if you had a slim chance of winning, that would be a chance that you would come out ahead. If you just accept their decree that your warranty is "void," you guarantee that you lose.

[QUOTE=extrashaky;2497693]The problem is that you may not have a choice. A lot of auto dealers include an arbitration clause in their sales contracts. You do lose your right to appeal. But on the other hand, there's usually no risk that you'll get stuck with any court fees, because it's usually agreed in the contract that the company pays for arbitration. Also, arbitrators are typically lawyers or retired judges who are acutely aware of the reputation arbitration has for benefiting corporations, and they usually try to be as fair as possible.

Arbitration isn't always bad. A friend of mine had an employment dispute settled through arbitration. What would have been a months long process was completely finished in a single night. And he won. (I was there as a witness on his behalf and was somewhat impressed with the process.)

Really, what would you have to lose by trying?

QUOTE]
In Canada we are lucky in that we have an actual government sponsored arbitration resource that is specifically targeted at car warranties. The beauty of it is that it is made up of professionals which this is all they do and they have great backgrounds in the automotive industry so neither side can pull the wool over their eyes. I know two people that had great success with this program. Also know of (didn't directly know) of one guy that tried to scam the dealer and was shot down in flames by the arbitrator.


http://www.camvap.ca/

Dealerships know exactly what they're implying imo, no amount of training will discourage bad business practices.

As for the forester, on the older ones doing an STI powertrain swap is totally within the realm of reason...

It's not necessarily a bad business practice. If you can convince your customers that their warranty is void to the point that they just roll over and accept that, you reduce your costs. It would be in a company's best interest to perpetuate this myth.

My warranty was "voided" because i change the axleback, my layer is working on it but he have more focus on a discrimination rather than magnuson just because im young. Like i said, when you cross the door and say "have problem with the car" they will do everything for denny it. But you have strong points op, i will try them

@extrashaky
I wont try to refute any of what you said above because it all makes sense.


However my point was that since pretty much ANY mod to the engine requires a Tune change, the auto manufacturer has the upper hand because they can claim SOFTWARE.


Once you go down that rabbit hole they have the upper hand.
In fact ANY argument that the car owner may try to make before or during court would likely get challenged because the manufacturer can claim "Proprietary technology" or just confuse the court to the point that no-one can refute their claims.


I totally agree with the intent of the law, but in the case of changing the car software this will become a very slippery slope that the car manufacturers will have the advantage because THEY understand the software while WE do not (even the reverse engineers that provide the ROM definition files admit that they do not understand all of it).


In fact, I believe that right now the ROM on these cars could be considered "encrypted" and any reverse engineering would be considered a violation of the DMCA.
So if they tried to go that route, they could argue that any discussion of their "code" would violate the DMCA and many cases could get thrown out on those grounds alone because a law was broken in the act of flashing the new ROM.


I am just stating the fact: Trying to fight the manufacturer with a warranty claim if you have modified ANY code on the vehicle is a long shot at best.
In a perfect world, your points are valid.


Give me just one example of someone winning a MM court case when the software has been modified.
In my business we have a saying "Oh something went wrong - 99% its the software" and almost every single time we are right....


So if you go to court and the manufacturer pulls "the software card" they can confuse the jury, the judge, and even the "experts" almost every time.
In fact I would make a bet that if the manufacturer took the modified code and ran it in their FQT (Formal Qualification Test) on the ECU/auto simulator, the code would show "Test FAIL" every time and they would probably not have to explain any further (like WHY the test failed).
That is likely all they would have to show in court to win.

The issue with this, is that the warranty includes a statement that can be interpreted a variety of ways. It says that any changes made to the car that affect the original construction of the vehicle, will cause a specific warranty claim to be denied.

Most people get a custom tune to increase power, since the factory tune is usually made for maximum gas mileage which in turn decreases power output. If the custom tune decides to put power over gas mileage then the company can argue that the custom tune is not in line with the original construction of the vehicle and deny your engine warranty claim.

Can. Not will.

My car is at the dealer now for warranty work. My suspension and brake upgrades have zero impact on the engine warranty repair being done.

Now, if you wanted to put on an aftermarket supercharger or header, and there was an oil leak from the timing cover, the manufacturer could claim that the additional heat caused the cover to leak and will deny a claim. But just because you have mods doesn't mean anything for warranty claims unless the claim in question is directly related to the mods you've made.

I posted this thread to get people (especially newbies) to change their way of thinking. To say "void" out of the gate is akin to admitting you're going to fail... and I highly doubt people want to say "I'm probably going to fail at life today" when they wake up.

-alex

Deleted

So a performance clutch that causes excessive wear on my transmission and differential will cause warranty coverage for my stock air intake to be null and void?

The point I am trying to make here is that there is no loss of warranty coverage. It's just a question of whether your claim will be accepted or denied, by either the warranty work performing dealer, or by corporate.

Understanding this is key for enthusiasts in keeping their rights.... there is no loss of warranty coverage at all.

-alex

Deleted

Please tell me what part of this voids the entire warranty, aside from the part I already bolded below?



http://www.subaru.com/owners/vehicle...ties-2016.html

Deleted

Subaru can put anything they want in their warranty language. They can say that farting in the car will void the warranty if they want. Doesn't mean anything, because federal law trumps their contract language. Magnusson-Moss says warranty work cannot be legally denied as a result of a modification unless that modification caused the issue. So there is no voiding of warranties, only denial of claims, which can be contested and beaten.

Years ago I had an employer make everyone at my company sign restrictive covenant agreements (non-competes) that would prevent any of us from working in our business for six months if we quit or were fired. Everybody panicked, and some people actually quit instead of signing. But I talked to a lawyer, and he said, "Go ahead and sign it. It's unenforceable. State labor law trumps their silly contract, and they know it. They're just trying to bully the employees into thinking they're trapped."

It's a common bullying tactic. A contract is only enforceable as far as statute allows. If you have a statute that specifically contradicts what's in the contract, as Magnusson-Moss does with warranty work and as state labor law did with our restrictive covenants, the statute prevails and the contract language is meaningless.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I concede my earlier argument that it is possible to void your warranty or make your car ineligible for any warranty work.

But the main issue I have is that a custom tune will cause your engine to be denied any warranty claims. That's my original point I tried getting across, but failed to do so.

Mav, I apologize for incessantly arguing with you on the matter of voiding a warranty. I'll delete those posts if possible.

Probably. Almost certainly.

The whole point of this thread, though, was that even if the manufacturer denies the warranty claim, they're not the final authority and can be overturned by a judge or arbitrator, and knowing this, they tend to throw the word void around to intimidate people into thinking they ARE the final authority so the customer will just pay up and not challenge it in court. I suspect that tactic works more often than not.

Yeah... I saw juastatroll's comment earlier, and it got me off on this tangent. Sorry :( :( :(

so... you're telling me if I plasti-dip my rimz it won't void my warranty? I was afraid of that...

DUDE If you pastidip your rims this will happen.... wait I cant post memes in non off topic threads for another 25 days!!! DAMIT joke is ruined, everyone move along nothing to read here... why are you still reading... I hope you know I am not giving you these 15 seconds of your life back, yes thats right I am keeping them for myself. At this point if you are still reading this you are insane and must have nothing better to do with your life. How come you have not stopped reading this, its starting to get on my nerves... wait I wont know if you are reading this and I assume most people have stopped reading by this point.... unlike someone who is still reading, so anyways since most people stopped reading this I would just like to say I like potatoes, there are so many ways you can cook them. I think mashed with gravy is among the best ways to do them, but twice baked potatoes are also super tasty. Thanks for wasting 30 seconds of your life with me, your welcome.

TL;DR: Don't

no need to apologize, I just want people to stop thinking that they will lose coverage on their cars when they mod.

Many times, people come on here and ask "what mods will void my warranty" like they will lose out on something if they decide to add something to the car.

I'd rather be a total ass about this subject if it means more people understand what rights they have. This way, enthusiasts can make more informed choices when it comes to car mods and we all win.

-alex