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?