When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
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...
Sorry Motorhead, you are no sir then!! Lol
This is a valid question, and I would be willing to bet the answer is no, however I dont think that they need to though. Granted the MMA makes no mention of horsepower gains but that does not work to help the consumer exploit this either. Your new vehicle warranty explains that claims cannot be made on parts failed due to increasing the performance of the vehicle by use of aftermarket products as well as them not covering any parts that were not OEM. In my opinion, them voiding an engine warranty when theres an intake installed is silly, but from a legal standpoint the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is in the pudding. Said vehicle had engine failure, said vehicle had engine performance parts installed pushing vehicle beyond capability, said portion of warranty claim denied. Could the consumer fight this? Sure.. But remember GM has more money for litigation than you..
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act car manufacturers can't void your warranty for simple bolt-ons, things like filter, intake, exhaust, etc if they can't prove a direct correlation that the aftermarket part CAUSED the problem.
Keep in mind that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not stop the mfgr from denying warranty coverage. What the MMWA allows for - is for the cars owner to sue the MFGR that does this.
Before, you had no legal recourse; now you do.
It's still an uphill battle - even with the MMWA on your side. So, with a lawyer and a lot of time... you may prevail.
Keep in mind that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not stop the mfgr from denying warranty coverage. What the MMWA allows for - is for the cars owner to sue the MFGR that does this.
Before, you had no legal recourse; now you do.
It's still an uphill battle - even with the MMWA on your side. So, with a lawyer and a lot of time... you may prevail.
Exactly! A lot of people have the misconception that MMWA is some sort of magic shield for consumers but its impact is really narrowly defined. As I recall it came out about the same time the FTC was writing a trade regulation in the franchise arena which prevented franchisors from forcing franchisees to buy products only from them but the franchisor retained very strong power to maintain specific quality standards.
Lack of MMWA protection isn't limited to power addition and warranty protection has been refused in the past for air filters that "fit" except they allowed too much particulate flow.
Many aftermarket companies love to point out the existence of the MMWA but they don't care to get into the specifics of its actual domain and application and most importantly limitations.
And sadly legal fees typically cost more than what it would take to just pay for the repair so it is a lose/lose either way. If you are concerned with warranty don't give them any reason to question it. Stay bone *** stock and enjoy the warranty.
back on the 1970's (yeah, I'm that old )... I was involved with the aftermarket car radio industry.
It was this industry that pushed for the MMWA to be enacted. What was happening back then was dealers (not necessarily the car mfgr themselves) was telling their customers that the installation of an aftermarket car radio would void the entire cars warranty. So, you had to either buy the expensive factory radio - or only purchase (and also pay to have installed) the aftermarket radios the dealer was carrying. They had you by-the-ballz back then.
serious
the MMWA then allowed the car owner to challenge the dealers/mfgrs "voided-warranty" decision... in civil court.
back on the 1970's (yeah, I'm that old )... I was involved with the aftermarket car radio industry.
It was this industry that pushed for the MMWA to be enacted. What was happening back then was dealers (not necessarily the car mfgr themselves) was telling their customers that the installation of an aftermarket car radio would void the entire cars warranty. So, you had to either buy the expensive factory radio - or only purchase (and also pay to have installed) the aftermarket radios the dealer was carrying. They had you by-the-ballz back then.
serious
the MMWA then allowed the car owner to challenge the dealers/mfgrs "voided-warranty" decision... in civil court.
Be careful out there.
And that was also the point I was trying to make, is that in an indirect way the MMWA swayed the manufactures from away from challenging every aftermarket part put on a car.
wow I just hope the OP can get everything to work out right.. This shouldn't have happened hopefully GM can make him happy. Maybe some new parts or new car
still no update on my end. Working with the dealership and GM.
Four weeks(6/2-6/30) and nothing from GM as to what they are going to do. Have they furnished you with another car to drive until they decide what they are going to do to get your car(or a replacement car) back on the road?
In most states, thirty days out of service is the limit for a lemon law. I would be telling GM, in a few days, to lemon law your car.
This is making Me VERY NERVOUS ..... My car just out of nowhere at 2600 something miles returning from Bloomington Gold started this clunking/poping noise at around 2500-3000 rpms. OnStar did a diagnostics and found nothing! OnStar recommended taking it to the Dealer. My Dealer is now tearing the motor down to find out what the noise is ...
Who knows how long that will take and if it will ever be the same?
Since the owner resides in Connecticut, here is the law there (I also copied over the links, which do, in fact, work directly):
If you drive a "lemon" automobile that you purchased or leased in Connecticut, you may be eligible for the State’s new vehicle arbitration program.
The "Lemon Law" is a nickname for a program created by Connecticut General Statute Chapter 743b, "Automotive Warranties." Under the law, the arbitration program is an informal process for resolving disputes between consumers and automobile manufacturers.
The law applies to all new passenger, combination registered vehicles and motorcycles purchased or leased in Connecticut:
Which do not conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty
Which have substantial defects affecting the use, safety or value of the vehicle AND
The repairs must have been addressed during the eligibility period
Have manufacturer's defects that occurred during the first two (2) years from the original owner’s delivery date or the first 24,000 miles on the odometer (whichever period ends first).
This is making Me VERY NERVOUS ..... My car just out of nowhere at 2600 something miles returning from Bloomington Gold started this clunking/poping noise at around 2500-3000 rpms. OnStar did a diagnostics and found nothing! OnStar recommended taking it to the Dealer. My Dealer is now tearing the motor down to find out what the noise is ...
Who knows how long that will take and if it will ever be the same?
This is not good
This thread makes me feel less and less stupid for re-building the engine from the ground up @ 900 miles on the odometer.
Just read through the entire CT program ruleset, and it appears that unlike our other states, you do not need to worry about the furnishing of a rental/temporary vehicle, etc.
The only provision you need to start the process is:
When the vehicle has been out of service for repair at the dealership for a cumulative total of thirty days or more for any number of unrelated problems. These problems must occur within the eligibility period.
wow, sorry to see this. I just popped over here to poke around. I got a call today. a friend of a friend has a 2014 w/auto transmission supposedly dropped a valve. less than 200 miles. ill post back when I hear more.
wow, sorry to see this. I just popped over here to poke around. I got a call today. a friend of a friend has a 2014 w/auto transmission supposedly dropped a valve. less than 200 miles. ill post back when I hear more.
A friend with a 2014 Z51 had a broken valve spring at 126 miles. GM wanted to replace the engine, but he just had the dealer replace the spring and what turned out to be a very slightly bent valve. Its been OK since then.
Since the owner resides in Connecticut, here is the law there (I also copied over the links, which do, in fact, work directly):
If you drive a "lemon" automobile that you purchased or leased in Connecticut, you may be eligible for the State’s new vehicle arbitration program.
The "Lemon Law" is a nickname for a program created by Connecticut General Statute Chapter 743b, "Automotive Warranties." Under the law, the arbitration program is an informal process for resolving disputes between consumers and automobile manufacturers.
The law applies to all new passenger, combination registered vehicles and motorcycles purchased or leased in Connecticut:
Which do not conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty
Which have substantial defects affecting the use, safety or value of the vehicle AND
The repairs must have been addressed during the eligibility period
Have manufacturer's defects that occurred during the first two (2) years from the original owner’s delivery date or the first 24,000 miles on the odometer (whichever period ends first).
This is indeed taking too long. Methinks it's time to bring your attorney up to speed. You may be waiving rights by not exercising them. You wont necessarily need him to start writing letters yet, but you need to know what the law is, and how it applies to your situation.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.