Solution for Silicone in the Oil Pickup by Killer B Motorsport - Beta Testers Needed

[54fighting]

Kiss your warranty goodbye upon installation..

[KillerBMotorsport]

Originally Posted by blsfrs

Maybe a moot point, but with your filter screen installed, would there be any benefit to deleting the OEM screen?

I wouldn't. Our Pre-Filter has much larger holes compared to the OEM pickup screen. It is made to catch larger pieces. Tiny pieces will go through and get caught in the pickup screen still, and anything smaller than that passes through both and gets caught in the oil filter.

Based on the pictures out there, debris that is getting caught in the pickup screen is mostly large strips and chunks, which is what our pre-filter will stop.

[FR-S2GT86]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

Kiss your warranty goodbye upon installation..

That depends on where you live. In the US, the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act specifically states that the aftermarket part must be the reason of the failure as grounds for the manufacturer to deny your warranty claim.

That would be like a dealer claiming that your new aftermarket head unit caused your brakes to fail and denying your claim for that reason. Without proving this as fact, the dealer would have no legal grounds for denying your claim.....and in this example, if they tried, social media would have a field day with it, and shame them into submission.

Also, the MMWA states that you may disassemble to make repairs to your own property, without voiding the warranty. Many manufacturers that put those little stickers on their product that state "Warranty Void If Removed" don't realize it, but that is not in line with the MMWA. Some manufacturers have even been fined for doing so.

[smoltz]

Originally Posted by FR-S2GT86

That depends on where you live. In the US, the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act specifically states that the aftermarket part must be the reason of the failure as grounds for the manufacturer to deny your warranty claim.

That would be like a dealer claiming that your new aftermarket head unit caused your brakes to fail and denying your claim for that reason. Without proving this as fact, the dealer would have no legal grounds for denying your claim.....and in this example, if they tried, social media would have a field day with it, and shame them into submission.

Also, the MMWA states that you may disassemble to make repairs to your own property, without voiding the warranty. Many manufacturers that put those little stickers on their product that state "Warranty Void If Removed" don't realize it, but that is not in line with the MMWA. Some manufacturers have even been fined for doing so.

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/...ss-act.609911/

If you don't want to follow link, here is the text....

I've seen a lot of chatter on the forums about the Magnussen Moss Act. Mainly about how to use it to intimidate a dealer (or the manufacturer) into performing warranty work on modified vehicles.

Now I've got a bit of a problem with this - primarily in that despite what you wiki about "The Act", employing it is a different beast altogether.

In 2003 I purchased a Mini Cooper S to use as a track car. I immediately set to modifying it. New coil over suspension, new cylinder head and camshaft, new custom exhaust, new BBK, new intercooler (I eventually even twin-charged it).

With about 8K miles on the clock, it began exhibiting some odd idling behavior and some electrical gremlins associated with the ECU. My first thought was that it was related to the cams and the new engine management system. However everything was checking out.

By coincidence I took it to the dealer for an issue with the lock on the rear hatch. One thing led to another and they explained to me that there was a TSB that deals with a manufacturing flaw with the portion of the wiring harness that connects to the throttle body. They asked if they could keep the car to perform the TSB.

The TSB essentially called for replacing the entire wiring harness. A $200 part but a 10 hour job. As they began the work, a local manufacturer's rep stopped by, saw the mods to my car and told the dealer to stop working on the TSB.

The dealer immediately notified me and I stopped by. The rep was still there. To the dealer's credit, the service manager explained that my mods had nothing to do with the known failed part in question. The PUMA rep, in front of me, told the dealer to stop working on my car - as the manufacturer would not reimburse them for any work.

Two years prior I had been made a partner in my firm, and we had a team of excellent lawyers on retainer. I contacted one of the partners in the law firm and he immediately got things rolling. This eventually led to my lawsuit against the manufacturer in which I alleged they violated the M-M Act.

My lawyer hired a mechanic who removed the wiring harness and proved that it suffered from the manufacturing defect affected by the TSB. My lawyer also hired forensic mechanics who, when deposed, proved that the modifications could not have caused the KNOWN ISSUE, and he even hired a legal expert on previous M-M Act lawsuits who would testify as to the illegality of refusing TSB work on an issue already recognized by the manufacturer as a defect on a vehicle under warranty. Things were looking up. The manufacturer was blundering along, my lawyer was bitch slapping them at every turn....

Now never mind that this process was costing a lot of money. At this point it was about principle - plus we were going to ask for judgment in which the legal fees were reimbursed.

That's when reality set in.

One rainy afternoon my lawyer called and said that we had our first M-M hearing date in federal court. I dry-cleaned my only suit and away we went.

I'll spare you all the gory details, I'll spare you the legalese.....the defendent countered all my facts and all our prep with one simple move - they motioned the judge to have my car entered into evidence as it WAS the evidence in the case. The judge agreed. In five minutes, the manufacturer had literally prevented me from driving my car until the case was settled.

The second move that the manufacturer did was to ask for a delay until the next hearing. The judge agreed.

The third move that the manufacturer did was to ask for court-mandated mediation. The judge agreed.

My lawyer protested on all counts. As a consumer, essentially robbing me of my car for months, possibly even years was contrary to the spirit of the Act. The manufacturer countered by saying that the car WAS the evidence and they needed to make sure that it was not further tampered with. They also needed time to perform their own evaluation of it. They even offered to split the costs of this impoundment with me!

My lawyer made the point to the judge that we were getting caught up in needless procedure and minutia....that the manufacturer was on record through deposition stating that they had denied warranty work solely due to the fact that the car was modified. That they had admitted at the same deposition that the warranty issue was so severe that they had not only issued a TSB for it, but a pending recall was in the works.

The judge was not swayed. Car was to be locked up as evidence, we were to go to mediation (which costs a shitload of money) and that the manufacturer was granted delays to gather more information.

At this point my lawyer and I stopped for lunch. He says, look, I've worked on this for free so far....and if I was charging you, you'd be about $12K in the hole. I'll represent you for free in mediation, but until there is a verdict, mediation is split 50/50 and one day will set you back $3500. This is for $1400 worth of fucking work.

I said let's try one day of mediation.

Mediation consists of a neutral lawyer trying to convince both parties that they are fucked and don't have a case - so that they agree to meet in the middle. The manufacturer played pocket pool for 8 hours and then promptly asked or a second session in 90 days time.

At this point, I had enough. The car was impounded, I had just spent $3500 to get satisfaction on a $1400 issue and by all rights probably owed my lawyer $15K. I told him that if the manufacturer supplied the new harness, I'd install it.

They eventually agreed and the dealer actually stepped forward and installed it for me (I had a long history with them).

Since that time (in 2015) the manufacturer actually settled with the FTC for long running violations of the MM Act.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre....ly-conditioned

The take away for all you armchair quarterbacks and lawyers is this:

The M-M act is a piece of paper. You are not going to scare any dealer or manufacturer with it. To actually get to the teeth of the Act, you need to litigate it. That costs time and money. Big corporations with legal staff on the payroll are not burdened with the same costs as you are. While you're spending $5K or $10K or more, all they are doing is continuing to pay the salary and benefits of people they already have on staff.

Second, judges are laymen...what seems common sense and cut and dried to you, is probably not so to them.

Third, the object of the lawsuit can be entered as evidence. Which means no mall crawling with your spacer lifted Bro-Taco for months.

My advice? You pay to play. If you mod, there is always the risk that some asshole dealership under threat from corporate may give you a ration of shit. If that happens, Googling "Magnussen-Moss" and waving it in their face is only going to make you look like the naive dip shit that you probably are.

Lastly, for the love of all that is Holy, as a rule we should all stop giving advice on things we have absolutely no fucking experience with and only limited and borderline retarded knowledge of. If we did, this forum, if not the world would be a measurably better place.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by smoltz

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/...ss-act.609911/

If you don't want to follow link, here is the text....

yep. if someone else didn't post it, i was gonna.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by alex87f

That's assuming it's done by a robot. Given the inconsistency of some sealing issues (cam plate comes to mind), I always assumed the sealant application was done by hand.

Both could be true though. Just because a robot does one bit doesn't mean the rest isn't done by humans.

Still, I don't understand how hard it would be to develop a pre-formed seal a la BMW. With all the issues these engines have (even though they're not as bad as we sometimes make 'em sound), one would think Subaru would have saved money in the long run.

this came up in another similar thread a while back. subaru uses a thin sheet metal oil pan that easily deforms. the block is also multiple separate parts that bolt together across the oil pan seal.

so to use a gasket would require a thicker oil pan. not difficult. but also, the block mating surfaces would need to be lapped after the block is assembled to ensure a perfectly flat surface for the gasket to seal against. which is really where a sealant works better than a gasket.

[alex87f]

I was thinking more along the lines of a pre-cut silicon gasket like this for example:

[KillerBMotorsport]

Originally Posted by soundman98

this came up in another similar thread a while back. subaru uses a thin sheet metal oil pan that easily deforms. the block is also multiple separate parts that bolt together across the oil pan seal.

so to use a gasket would require a thicker oil pan. not difficult. but also, the block mating surfaces would need to be lapped after the block is assembled to ensure a perfectly flat surface for the gasket to seal against. which is really where a sealant works better than a gasket.

Additionally, even if you spend a good bit of $, to install an oil pan with a thick precision machined flange to remove that RTV from that part of the equation, what do you do about the other 90% of the RTV that is used in the engine?

Only addressing the oil pan is mostly an exercise in futility.

Just went out to the shop and snapped these pics of the block-to-upper oil pan RTV. These are only the areas that can be seen, but there is a lot more that can't.











Anyone can also go pop the hood and look on the timing cover and other places to see RTV oozing out everywhere.

[KillerBMotorsport]

Originally Posted by alex87f

I was thinking more along the lines of a pre-cut silicon gasket like this for example:

It would need to be VERY thin. Anything that is soft and has some thickness to it, is going to cause the pan to bow between the bolts, even before you hit the torque spec, and it only gets worse the tighter you go.

The upper pan mating surface is only 4mm (.156") wide. So even if you had a billet pan with machined a flange, it's not wide enough to support using an o-ring groove, and marginally wide enough to support a traditional gasket. Having designed and made Suby oil pans for over a decade, we've tested many methods of pan sealing and none are anywhere near as effective as RTV. With our thick precision machined flange, the ONLY time we use a rubber gasket or pan with an o-ring groove is for in-house testing where we put the car on the dyno, make a dozen or so pulls and the pan comes back off. It's almost always wet somewhere, even after that short of a period of time.

[Compelica]

Since we're on the topic of gaskets...

Just sharing that a shop in Taiwan has created a gasket for the oil pan for FA20/FA24. Not sure if that's the original oil pan, or other details which I have missed.

https://www.facebook.com/10005757693...LNHb4TpuQXai7D

[KillerBMotorsport]

You can get a gasket from AutoZone if you want. They work... but not nearly as well.

That is an OEM pan.

[OkieSnuffBox]

I'm glad someone else posted the the legal thing regarding M-MA.

People don't seem to get you'll have to prove to the dealer X didn't cause Y, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by alex87f

Still, I don't understand how hard it would be to develop a pre-formed seal a la BMW. With all the issues these engines have (even though they're not as bad as we sometimes make 'em sound), one would think Subaru would have saved money in the long run.

Bringing up modern BMWs and seals, not a great example. My 135i had less than 30k miles on it when I had to have the valve cover gasket replaced and the OFHG (oil filter housing gasket).

Especially because if the OFHG fails and you don't notice, it leaks down and causes the belt tensioner to fail, causing the crank pulley to potentially suck the belt past the front crank seal and possibly into the bearings.

[Marrk]

Off-Topic: The engine is what keeps me from buying this car. I'm not a hater. I would like to be in love with the GR86. But really.

[WNDSRFR]

Enjoy your Fit then.