I saw a note in the first comment. Why did the radiator need to be replaced?

 

To summarize this a bit more, when the inspection team comes out for a catastrophic event like this, they thoroughly inspect and investigate the vehicle. The ECM, TCM, BCM, CCM, etc. are all removed for diagnostics.

As there is additional liability involved (rear driver that crashed), there is quite a bit on the line here for GM. The investigation team(s) are the last line of defense in attempting to prove that the failure was not a fault of General Motors. If they can not prove that the owner was at fault in any way, then they begin to start discussions for remediation, etc. with the involved parties.

In your hypothetical situation, they most likely wouldn't have even sent the team since the write counter will have already been tripped. Even assuming a stealth tool (which I won't get into at the moment), the car was towed to the dealership. The owner wouldn't have time to quickly flash back, especially after the car goes into crash mode. That essentially locks down most R/W areas you'd need to poke back at.

And then there's the hypothetical situation of claiming you never tuned it and fighting them on it, which results in 'fraud by deception' charges. To top it off, the other person's insurance company would have a field day with it knowing the car failed due to something the driver did. I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if there's a window for damages due to negligence in there...

Annnnyway....

 

This car is "bone" stock

 

Yes, we were just dipping into the hypothetical there.

This guy is fine (in that sense) - we all feel terrible about his car, though.

 

Engine blows, parts get at least into the oil system and the oil cooler is integrated with the radiator, so parts could be in the radiator and flushing it would not guaranty that little diebris parts were removed. Using the same radiator puts the new engine at risk of those debris getting loose in the new engine oil system.

 

The radiator was replaced before this incident occurred (April 28th)

 

amen brother. Let's wait and see what GM comes up with.

 

If I had to make a guess here.... and it's a stretch, but I've seen it before... if they can't find anything, they may pass it back to the service center that did the radiator repair.

Really depends on what the modules show, though.

 

wow the speculation *cough* horse$hit *cough* is amusing to say the least..

 

Indeed, but procedurally-speaking, it's all spot-on.

 

Sorry, I missed the note by the OP.

 

No worries - your answer was completely correct other than that detail.

 

This is 100% INCORRECT. It is a common mis-conception about what the Magnuson-Moss act really does.

What it does it protect you from the a manufacture "voiding your warranty" for un-related modifications.

For example you put on a set of headers, and your radio stops working, they cannot "void" your warranty and refuse to fix the radio.

or

If you don't use a GM oil filter, or have your oil changed at the GM dealer, they cannot "void" your warranty and refuse to fix a broken transmission.

If you install an intake, and you bust a rod and window the block, you have voided your warranty, and they are under no obligation to replace it. You modification is related to the failure; they do not need to "prove" anything beyond you modified the intake.

 

??? You just said the same thing I was saying. A car manufacturer must prove that an aftermarket part was the cause of the problem. Killascrimp said "imagine if GM voided your warranty because you used an aftermarket filter", in which I was replying to.

Also, for example, Installing a K&N cold air intake or cat back exhaust and you throw a rod they would have to prove that the intake or exhaust was the cause of the problem. So that DOES directly relate to the MMA. I'm not talking add-Ons like superchargers, re-tuning, etc.

 

Actually you are both saying "kind of" the same thing, but only one of you is correct. Gadfly is correct here. Let me explain before anyone gets bent out of shape about it so we can put this to bed..

The MMA was enacted to prevent auto manufacturers from REQUIRING the consumer to purchase parts made only by them. The MMA act basically states that if you buy a third party *OEM replacement* air filter that meets all the same guidelines as the OEM filter, and you have an engine issue, they cannot void your warranty for this.

The MMA was NOT enacted to allow consumers to replace OEM parts with aftermarket parts that will in any way shape or form improve the performance of the vehicle while keeping the warranty intact. Each part on each production vehicle was designed to perform up to a certain load.

When you introduce parts that increase performance, you put a more load and strain on these part and as a result, the weakest link breaks. Why should the manufacturer be responsible for you pushing any single part of the car harder than what it was designed to handle? The MMA does protect the consumer to the point where as stated if you put a new radio in the car, they cannot void your warranty on say your balljoint failing. Now, if you put a 1000 watt subwoofer system in the car and have an alternator failure, its very likely you caused too much stain on the alternator powering said audio system since that alternator was not spec'ed out to handle that type of load.

Same goes for engine performance. By replacing your intake with a cold air intake, you CAN void your entire engine warranty. Changing the intake can change things such as intake air temperature, rate of flow, turbulence characteristics, etc in which the computer then tries to "make up for". As a result the engine may run richer, or leaner, and give you that performance that you wanted. At the same time it could push that weakest link past its mechanical threshold and cause you to snap a rod, blow a head gasket, burn up your rings, etc. These types of things are category specific. if you lower your car, you suspension warranty as a whole would be void. If you modify any parts under the hood related in any way to engine operation to deviate their performance or functional characteristics, you void your entire engine warranty. That simple.

Is it likely that you will blow an engine by adding an intake, nope. But all the manufacturer needs is an excuse and they can walk away from the claim. People that say "oh I added an intake it wont blow the motor" may be right, but technically they are in the same boat as those who add an air filter, intake manifold, headers, exhaust, tune, different sized pulleys, higher volume fuel pumps, etc. These items are considered "bolt ons" and not engine internals, but they have DIRECT correlation to the internal parts and as a result will void the warranty on the entire engine should a claim be attempted. Sorry for the rant, just want to set the story straight.

 

Wow, people that get it. One of the best explanations I've seen.

As soon as you modify outside any of the GMs validates ranges, including adding power, anything drivetrain related should is an easy warranty denial. If it was a drop in filter replacement, no problem, MMA works to protect you. Adding a CAI system, nope.

Now if your radio, or adjustment on a seat breaks, then you still have warranty since they can't void the whole thing, but they can deny any power train warranty work for any added power.

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree with what you are saying. What I am getting at is that the MMA has an effect on manufacturers trying to blame all aftermarket parts without proving that they are the cause. For example, a K&N air filter (which claims to make more 15 more HP) but is a direct fit replacement air filter, that the manufacturer would have to prove that the K&N had a direct correlation on the mechanical problem. That is a part that claims to make more HP but is a direct fit replacement part.

http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2011/...ermarket-parts

With the MMA in place a manufacturer is going to have to PROVE that, for example, a cat back exhaust for example caused a connecting rod to snap. Without the MMA in place GM or whoever could, if they wanted to, just blame the exhaust because its "part of the engine". An auto manufacturer would never be able to prove that was the reason, unless it was improperly installed of course. So in essence I believe that it does have a direct correlation.

 

you are still only partly correct sir. The link you provided proves my point, they cannot void based on it not being OEM, but it makes no reference to parts that include clearly advertised HP gains. you CANNOT make HP gains and it be covered by MMA just because "it fits like OEM". It must have the same performance characteristics to be covered under MMA. Once you add a part that clearly advertises increased performance numbers, you have just "proved" it for them. they do not need to prove anything further at that point..

and, you cannot say that an exhaust has no correlation to a connecting rod. The exhaust has several o2 sensors that the vehicle ECU reads and adjusts settings based on, and if you change anything related to the flow, you run the risk of this data being tampered and causing the engine to perform in ways it was NOT designed to do. Things such as air flow, and fuel at different RPM's are adjusted and this directly affects the load on the engine parts through the RPM band.

 

Thanks Theta

 

My real question is can a manufacturer PROOVE that an K&N filter or a cat back exhaust caused a certain issue? Also, I read the entire MMA and it mentioned nothing about HP gains. We also all know a K&N filter is not going to produce any real gains.

And please don't cause me Sir... you make me feel like my father...