C450/C43 AMG
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Warranty-friendly performance mods?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 01-17-2018, 05:54 PM
  #26  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
Originally Posted by 18bora
My son got his car tuned by a Dinan-owned company, they had a 30-day-trail "money back guarantee". Long story short, 2 weeks into the tune, we decided to go back to stock and get our money back. They had no problem flashing it back to stock and "we'll send you a refund check by mail"........ 5 months later, a dozen of emails and 20 long/hold phone calls, we got our money back minus "labor". While it wasn't a lot of money, I just can't imagine filing a blown turbo or engine claim with them or any of the other "tuners" for that matter. Good luck having any of them honor a claim, after you prove their tune caused a failure.

Thank, but I'll take my chances with a piggyback and MB
I love you, the check is in the mail and where does the “trail” lead?
Old 01-17-2018, 06:38 PM
  #27  
Member
 
DRLC43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
C43 Cab
Originally Posted by CFG

magnusson provides for attorneys fees to consumers, and there are plenty of trial lawyers willing to sue Mercedes.
for a big liability issue you can get a contingent fee lawyer, not for a crappy little warranty claim. You will be paying that out of your pocket win or lose. It will cost $10K before you ever sniff a court room.
Old 01-17-2018, 06:43 PM
  #28  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
Are you a lawyer? Most of these guys drum up a class rep who doesn’t pay a dime. Individual cases may involve huge potential punitive damages, and go forward on a contingency fee basis. In nearly 40 years, with plenary discovery, I don’t recall anyone, ever, at any time paying a fee out of pocket or a retainer.

in the early Magnusson years, manufacturers quickly understood a causal connection required expensive experts, and the costs were only rational in class actions to defend a product and trial lawyers quickly discovered even small claims meant HUGE attorneys fees under the lodestar formula.

Last edited by removedCFGaccount; 01-17-2018 at 06:48 PM.
Old 01-17-2018, 07:13 PM
  #29  
Member
 
DRLC43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
C43 Cab
Originally Posted by CFG

nearly every U.S. jurisdiction provides for a case schedule order and trial in one year. Nearly every U.S. jurisdiction provides for punitive damages. A consumer’s conconurrent remedy is to seek to avoid ANY underlying contract under Magnuson or SUSPEND performance pending the outcome. I advocate nothing, and as for being in the wrong, that’s why Magnuson exists: there MUST be a proven causal connection else the manufacturer is going to suffer punitive damages.

So, know what you are talking about before letting fly. I defended scores of manufacturers in similar cases and juries usually find against manufacturers, find punitive damages for consumers, and pro-manufacturer experts are hard to find, expensive and seldom believed.

Sum: consumers have MEANINGFUL remedies in the U.S., and manufacturers fear them.

Try not to let your **** overload your mouth.
I appreciate your input, but we are talking about a one off event not a defect in a car that would result in some sort of class action. The person in question modified the car which probably either caused or contributed to the failure. This is not some manufacturer trying to duck their responsibility. It is in fact the consumer trying to be reimbursed for the consequences of their own decision. Again if it is unrelated to the tune, that is different but the working assumption here is that you have a Powertrain failure. This is likely going to be a you against MB lawsuit, if it comes to that.

This act was set up to keep manufacturers from using BS excuses to avoid their warranty obligations, not to allow consumers to modify products potentially causing them to fail and still be under warranty. Again you can try, but I do not think it is good advice in general to rely on this Act in someone’s decision process on getting a tune or not.

Again, just my opinion.
Old 01-17-2018, 07:28 PM
  #30  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
Originally Posted by DRLC43

I appreciate your input, but we are talking about a one off event not a defect in a car that would result in some sort of class action. The person in question modified the car which probably either caused or contributed to the failure. This is not some manufacturer trying to duck their responsibility. It is in fact the consumer trying to be reimbursed for the consequences of their own decision. Again if it is unrelated to the tune, that is different but the working assumption here is that you have a Powertrain failure. This is likely going to be a you against MB lawsuit, if it comes to that.

This act was set up to keep manufacturers from using BS excuses to avoid their warranty obligations, not to allow consumers to modify products potentially causing them to fail and still be under warranty. Again you can try, but I do not think it is good advice in general to rely on this Act in someone’s decision process on getting a tune or not.

Again, just my opinion.














well, my opinion is based on a JD and, an Ll M, an A rating and forty years of practice. As for causation, it can and will be apportioned among the at fault parties by a trier of fact under well settled principles. Magnusson is supplementary of state law unless it preempt such, and NOT limited to one transaction or occurrence per its LEGISLATIVE history. More than anything it is a strong deterrent.

i neither stated nor implied what you wrongly impute to me, and simply sought to explain the remedy to those who might listen to poor future advice.

nor, as you imply, would anyone confuse a warranty claim, subject to the federal economic loss doctrine, with a products liability claim, assuming no damage to other property, personal injury or death.

what part of “I advocate nothing.” Did you not understand?

addendum: the false issue you raise goes to typicality, not commonality, which, were a class certified, would apply to the global deceptive or unfair trade practice of denying any warranty claim without regard to the existence of a causal connection....punitive damages would predominate and be of such a common quantum as likely to outweigh typicality objections.

Last edited by removedCFGaccount; 01-17-2018 at 07:48 PM.
Old 01-17-2018, 08:34 PM
  #31  
Member
 
DRLC43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
C43 Cab
Originally Posted by CFG

well, my opinion is based on a JD and, an Ll M, an A rating and forty years of practice. As for causation, it can and will be apportioned among the at fault parties by a trier of fact under well settled principles. Magnusson is supplementary of state law unless it preempt such, and NOT limited to one transaction or occurrence per its LEGISLATIVE history. More than anything it is a strong deterrent.

i neither stated nor implied what you wrongly impute to me, and simply sought to explain the remedy to those who might listen to poor future advice.

nor, as you imply, would anyone confuse a warranty claim, subject to the federal economic loss doctrine, with a products liability claim, assuming no damage to other property, personal injury or death.

what part of “I advocate nothing.” Did you not understand?

addendum: the false issue you raise goes to typicality, not commonality, which, were a class certified, would apply to the global deceptive or unfair trade practice of denying any warranty claim without regard to the existence of a causal connection....punitive damages would predominate and be of such a common quantum as likely to outweigh typicality objections.
ok, but the original question was can MB identify if you have a piggyback tune? Assuming they can determine that what happens when MB says it will not cover a warranty claim.

Since you are a lawyer it would be easy and not costly for you to litigate. What about the consumer who is facing a $5k for a blown turbo that MB says the warranty will not cover because you modified the car with a Tune (which they did do). What would be your recommendation and what do you think the cost of litigating this would be for the consumer against the chance of winning? From a practical perspective it would seem to me not a good place to be and assuming I could be successful in this, would not be part of my decision process to go forward or not with a tune.
Old 01-17-2018, 08:39 PM
  #32  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
My advice, stated and implied, was find a trial lawyer with experience in the field who realizes small claims can result in HUGE lodestar fees fixed by the COURT. Manufacturers seldom win. As for what to do in the interim, you are in no different position than an abuse/misuse claim. False premises lead to false conclusions. If you can’t survive a warranty claim, you should not buy an expensive car. The world is not free from risk.
Old 01-17-2018, 08:58 PM
  #33  
Super Member
 
PaulE550's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 842
Received 61 Likes on 54 Posts
2015 E550 Coupe
Originally Posted by CFG

well, my opinion is based on a JD and, an Ll M, an A rating and forty years of practice. As for causation, it can and will be apportioned among the at fault parties by a trier of fact under well settled principles. Magnusson is supplementary of state law unless it preempt such, and NOT limited to one transaction or occurrence per its LEGISLATIVE history. More than anything it is a strong deterrent.

i neither stated nor implied what you wrongly impute to me, and simply sought to explain the remedy to those who might listen to poor future advice.

nor, as you imply, would anyone confuse a warranty claim, subject to the federal economic loss doctrine, with a products liability claim, assuming no damage to other property, personal injury or death.

what part of “I advocate nothing.” Did you not understand?

addendum: the false issue you raise goes to typicality, not commonality, which, were a class certified, would apply to the global deceptive or unfair trade practice of denying any warranty claim without regard to the existence of a causal connection....punitive damages would predominate and be of such a common quantum as likely to outweigh typicality objections.
interesting legal discussion on the topic. I have a quick question. What if the MB lawyer asks your client under oath in court whether or not he had a piggy-back or any other sort of engine performance modifying device installed on his vehicle prior to the engine problem for which he is trying to get MB to repair his car under warrsnty? If he tells the truth snd says yes, then he has essentially admitted to doing an action that is specifically spelled out in the MB warranty as a reason for voiding the power train warrsnty. At the very least, he would severly weaken his case. If he lies and says no, then he has committed perjury and opened himself up to a lot bigger issue than a broken car.

Remember, this is NOT a manufacturing defect or design flaw. This is a customer who has purchased a MB vehicle and chosen to modify its operational characteristics in a way that has the potential to cause problems to the power train of the vehicle.
Old 01-17-2018, 09:08 PM
  #34  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
Christ, when did you stop beating your wife, a classic misleading question, containing an inference not intended by the witness. Are most of you people children? How did design defects get into this? A properly instructed jury must decide if the condition is causally connected with the device or not, and nothing more. Magnusson makes all inconsistent warranties, limitations or disclaimers void ab Initio. Jesus H. Freakin Christ.

before you ask, juries always decide the weight and credibility of the evidence.

Last edited by removedCFGaccount; 01-17-2018 at 09:16 PM.
Old 01-18-2018, 08:20 AM
  #35  
Member
 
aggies15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 116
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
'17 C43 Coupe
Everyone is clearly missing CFG's point in all of this: You are not going to trial on whether you used a piggy-back/tune or not, you are going to trial over whether that modification resulted in a failure from your car. Admission of guilt/perjury has nothing to do with this. This is the whole point of Magnuson-Moss.

Side note: If you are THAT worried about retaining your warranty, you have no business making ANY modifications to your car. According to Mercedes, even something as small as changing your exhaust can potentially "void" your warranty, nevertheless a tune.

Last edited by aggies15; 01-18-2018 at 08:25 AM.
Old 01-18-2018, 08:35 AM
  #36  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MASSC450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Mass
Posts: 1,525
Received 96 Likes on 87 Posts
2016 C450 AMG
Originally Posted by CFG
Christ, when did you stop beating your wife...


Rose McGowan is keeping an eye on you...

Old 01-18-2018, 08:50 AM
  #37  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
Even worse on you.
Old 01-18-2018, 09:31 AM
  #38  
Member
 
DRLC43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
C43 Cab
Originally Posted by aggies15
Everyone is clearly missing CFG's point in all of this: You are not going to trial on whether you used a piggy-back/tune or not, you are going to trial over whether that modification resulted in a failure from your car. Admission of guilt/perjury has nothing to do with this. This is the whole point of Magnuson-Moss.

Side note: If you are THAT worried about retaining your warranty, you have no business making ANY modifications to your car. According to Mercedes, even something as small as changing your exhaust can potentially "void" your warranty, nevertheless a tune.
I do not think I am missing the point. The point I was trying to make is the one in your side note. If you go forward with a tune and MB discovers this you are likely going to impact your warranty . I agree that if you change your exhaust and and you have a problem with your suspension, MB would likely go forward and do the work but if you blow a turbo or sufffer an engine problem, you would be facing a big problem. At this point I am not sure what point CFG was trying to make exactly, but I would not want to be relying on relief from a court under the scenario I just mentioned. If maintaining your warranty is a show stopper for you, then you should not get a tune piggyback or otherwise as you are assuming risk. That is all.

This thread started with some people saying that piggyback tunes are not detectable and from everything I have read they are more difficult to detect than a flash, but it still can be done. Certainly you have legal recourse if MB voids your warranty, but for most people that would be a huge pain in the *** and potentially expensive proposition which may or may not lead to success so I would not let that possibility enter into my decision to get tune or not. If you cannot afford or do not acceot that you may be putting yourself on the hook for a potential repair, no matter how unlikely, you should not listen to people that say they cannot be detected or even if they do you can bring MB to court and likely win. In my opinion, that is not good advice, but everyone can make a decision in their own.

Thi
The following 2 users liked this post by DRLC43:
munis (01-18-2018), PaulE550 (01-18-2018)
Old 01-18-2018, 09:39 AM
  #39  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
You missed the global issue: there are remedies, so folks can make informed decisions and balance the risks.
Old 01-18-2018, 12:16 PM
  #40  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Gungaslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 1,255
Received 152 Likes on 118 Posts
2017 C43 sedan
I’m gonna wire 2 piggy backs together on top of my already tuned ESC.. it’s gonna do donuts faster than my mother in laws dirty underwear in her stinky dryer !!!
Old 01-18-2018, 12:25 PM
  #41  
Former Member
 
removedCFGaccount's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 0
Received 94 Likes on 89 Posts
CLS
OMG, what an image.
Old 01-18-2018, 04:02 PM
  #42  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sean1.8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,208
Received 131 Likes on 115 Posts
c-fo-fiddy
All the "but this" and "but that" talk aside.... I will say this, I am not even slightly worried about having any catastrophic failures to either the power or drivetrains now that I am tuned. Main reason is that these are very very mild tunes compared to most. We are talking about an increase of psi from the turbos in the neighborhood of 20-25%. Or a max of what is it...13psi? That is not pushing it at all. These snails (with all appropriate mods/octane) could push 25psi all day long and barely break a sweat. And as far as the extra power stressing the drivetrain, not going to be an issue either. These cars like most, are over engineered to a great degree.

So yes, outlier issues do occur, and corporate will absolutely fight with everything they have to avoid paying for warranty work if they can prove otherwise. Hell, they will spend $20k on man-hours to deny your claim of $5k just to set the precedent... But I'm going to cross that bridge if I ever get to it. Until then, I'm not worried about it. So take that for what it is worth
Old 01-18-2018, 04:10 PM
  #43  
Super Member
 
threefirs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 526
Received 85 Likes on 73 Posts
2017 C43 AMG Cabriolet Black/Cranberry Red
Originally Posted by sean1.8t
All the "but this" and "but that" talk aside.... I will say this, I am not even slightly worried about having any catastrophic failures to either the power or drivetrains now that I am tuned. Main reason is that these are very very mild tunes compared to most. We are talking about an increase of psi from the turbos in the neighborhood of 20-25%. Or a max of what is it...13psi? That is not pushing it at all. These snails (with all appropriate mods/octane) could push 25psi all day long and barely break a sweat. And as far as the extra power stressing the drivetrain, not going to be an issue either. These cars like most, are over engineered to a great degree.

So yes, outlier issues do occur, and corporate will absolutely fight with everything they have to avoid paying for warranty work if they can prove otherwise. Hell, they will spend $20k on man-hours to deny your claim of $5k just to set the precedent... But I'm going to cross that bridge if I ever get to it. Until then, I'm not worried about it. So take that for what it is worth
Agreed with everything but the turbo's are running more than 13psi on full tunes.
Old 01-18-2018, 05:09 PM
  #44  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sean1.8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,208
Received 131 Likes on 115 Posts
c-fo-fiddy
Originally Posted by threefirs
Agreed with everything but the turbo's are running more than 13psi on full tunes.
Lol I'm sure yours are at least

But what is the standard "full tunes" running in that regard? I've never been able to get a strait answer. I just base my 13 guesstimate off of what that bora (forget his exact username) guy is running on his 'tweaked' piggy-back as he seems to be putting down very similar track numbers to the other tunes and I'm pretty sure that's the PSI he's around at the moment.
Old 01-18-2018, 05:13 PM
  #45  
Super Member
 
threefirs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 526
Received 85 Likes on 73 Posts
2017 C43 AMG Cabriolet Black/Cranberry Red
Originally Posted by sean1.8t
Lol I'm sure yours are at least

But what is the standard "full tunes" running in that regard? I've never been able to get a strait answer. I just base my 13 guesstimate off of what that bora (forget his exact username) guy is running on his 'tweaked' piggy-back as he seems to be putting down very similar track numbers to the other tunes and I'm pretty sure that's the PSI he's around at the moment.
OE and AMR I believe are running 15psi on Stage 1. AMR is running 20psi on stage 2, not sure about OE. EC V3 that I'm running now is 17psi.

3psi would be a Dinan Sport. Bora is adding 6-7psi of boost.
Old 01-18-2018, 05:36 PM
  #46  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sean1.8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,208
Received 131 Likes on 115 Posts
c-fo-fiddy
Originally Posted by threefirs
OE and AMR I believe are running 15psi on Stage 1. AMR is running 20psi on stage 2, not sure about OE. EC V3 that I'm running now is 17psi.

3psi would be a Dinan Sport. Bora is adding 6-7psi of boost.
Are you sure about the stg1 and stg2 numbers for AMR? As when I was shopping for my tune 1 year ago, AMR told me that the reason that their stg2 only adds about 10-15hp/tq over stg1 is because they don't change much between the two other than remove the CEL for emissions. He said that they pretty much pushed the stg1 to the absolute edge, cats or no cats. Maybe I'm wrong? Or maybe they changed this since then?

But basing on my experience of many different car-guy friends from the past with B5 S4s with various turbos (the one with the 2.7l TT motor), I was guessing that my car was probably pushing around 14-15psi on this OE tune. But that is just a huuuuuge guess from looking at the size of the turbos and taking into consideration the motor's displacement, how the car spools, how it pulls, and the dyno/track numbers from others and then comparing to all the different stages of S4's I've ridden in in the past lol
Old 01-18-2018, 05:39 PM
  #47  
Super Member
 
threefirs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 526
Received 85 Likes on 73 Posts
2017 C43 AMG Cabriolet Black/Cranberry Red
Originally Posted by sean1.8t
Are you sure about the stg1 and stg2 numbers for AMR? As when I was shopping for my tune 1 year ago, AMR told me that the reason that their stg2 only adds about 10-15hp/tq over stg1 is because they don't change much between the two other than remove the CEL for emissions. He said that they pretty much pushed the stg1 to the absolute edge, cats or no cats. Maybe I'm wrong? Or maybe they changed this since then?

But basing on my experience of many different car-guy friends from the past with B5 S4s with various turbos (the one with the 2.7l TT motor), I was guessing that my car was probably pushing around 14-15psi on this OE tune. But that is just a huuuuuge guess from looking at the size of the turbos and taking into consideration the motor's displacement, how the car spools, how it pulls, and the dyno/track numbers from others and then comparing to all the different stages of S4's I've ridden in in the past lol
Not sure what OE is pushing on stage 2, so you could be correct. I know for fact AMR is pushing 20psi on Stage 2.
Old 01-18-2018, 05:52 PM
  #48  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sean1.8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,208
Received 131 Likes on 115 Posts
c-fo-fiddy
What about the 15 on stage1? Are you of the same confidence?

I should really get a boost guage
Old 01-18-2018, 06:00 PM
  #49  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sean1.8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,208
Received 131 Likes on 115 Posts
c-fo-fiddy
Also, I know that AMR's 1 puts down much more power than OE's 1, but both of their stg2's seem to be pretty similar based on [limited] track numbers from customers. So it would suggest both are running similar PSI, no? Granted one could be running other areas more aggressive such as timing and other things but I'd doubt it. Are you getting the 20psi number from AMR or another member?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.

Quick Reply: Warranty-friendly performance mods?



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 AM.