engine blown at 23,000
02-22-2011, 02:36 PM
#28
Junior Member
I have actually read it a number of times, the basics of it is that they cannot void the warranty on something that uses after market parts (amongst other reasons) unless the damage resulted from those aftermarket parts. Modifications on the other hand are not covered, and I would gather that modifications (whether or not we all agree with the fact those modifications did not harm) to the exhaust system, which is a key component of the engine systems, could result in MB denying a claim on the engine.
You of course have every right to contest this, and attempt to get MB to warranty the engine, but that will be time consuming and costly.
You of course have every right to contest this, and attempt to get MB to warranty the engine, but that will be time consuming and costly.
and my favorite, is the "remedy" clauses, mercedes would have a hard time denying catastrophic engine loss to the removal of 2 secondary cats. there are clauses and guidelines in the law, for example "replacement factory parts", which allow you not to have your standard warranty voided because you didnt go to the dealer for an oil change. many of these same clauses protect the OP in his exhaust modification.
im 100% confident that the dealership/mercedes would have no legal standing to void his warrant because of the removal of 2 secondaries. they could still of course, but that would make them a ****ty dealer and out of bounds legally.
700.10 - Section 102(c).
(a) Section 102(c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.
(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c) prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.
(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
(a) Section 102(c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.
(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c) prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.
(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
Last edited by tipsyhemi; 02-22-2011 at 02:39 PM.
02-22-2011, 02:41 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
2017 Mini Cooper S Clubman ALL4 - British Racing Green
Here is an example I went looking for (from some random law firm), this example is expressly permitted by the act.
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.
Guess what.. removing anything from the original design, aka, the secondary cats, would be considered improper maintenance by MB.. and as such, they could void your warranty.
Note, in all of my comments, I said could, or may, not that they will..
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.
Guess what.. removing anything from the original design, aka, the secondary cats, would be considered improper maintenance by MB.. and as such, they could void your warranty.
Note, in all of my comments, I said could, or may, not that they will..
02-22-2011, 02:43 PM
#30
Junior Member
Here is an example I went looking for (from some random law firm), this example is expressly permitted by the act.
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.
Guess what.. removing anything from the original design, aka, the secondary cats, would be considered improper maintenance by MB.. and as such, they could void your warranty.
Note, in all of my comments, I said could, or may, not that they will..
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.
Guess what.. removing anything from the original design, aka, the secondary cats, would be considered improper maintenance by MB.. and as such, they could void your warranty.
Note, in all of my comments, I said could, or may, not that they will..
example, he doesnt have an exhaust warranty. he does have a fueling warranty.
Last edited by tipsyhemi; 02-22-2011 at 02:45 PM.
02-22-2011, 02:48 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
2017 Mini Cooper S Clubman ALL4 - British Racing Green
Tips,
There is a huge difference between replacement (OEM, or after market), and modification of existing. In my opinion (which I will admit, I am no lawyer, and no expert in these things, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....), removal of the secondary cats is a modification, not a replacement. And yes, there is a specific exception in place relating to aftermarket exhausts (thanks in part to SAN, SEMA Action Network, lobbying arm of SEMA).
And your right, it would be up to MB to prove the modification screwed things up.. and while they may lose in the end, they can make your life very difficult and prolong the situation for a very long time.
There is a huge difference between replacement (OEM, or after market), and modification of existing. In my opinion (which I will admit, I am no lawyer, and no expert in these things, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....), removal of the secondary cats is a modification, not a replacement. And yes, there is a specific exception in place relating to aftermarket exhausts (thanks in part to SAN, SEMA Action Network, lobbying arm of SEMA).
And your right, it would be up to MB to prove the modification screwed things up.. and while they may lose in the end, they can make your life very difficult and prolong the situation for a very long time.
02-22-2011, 02:49 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
2017 Mini Cooper S Clubman ALL4 - British Racing Green
He does have an exhaust warranty.. technically.. the Bumper to Bumper warranty cars have would include the exhaust.. unless he has already exceeded the terms.
02-22-2011, 02:59 PM
#33
maybe you are just misguided. mercedes would have to prove that the "exhaust" modifications caused the damage to the engine. theres actually a whole exhaust section to the text of the law.
and my favorite, is the "remedy" clauses, mercedes would have a hard time denying catastrophic engine loss to the removal of 2 secondary cats. there are clauses and guidelines in the law, for example "replacement factory parts", which allow you not to have your standard warranty voided because you didnt go to the dealer for an oil change. many of these same clauses protect the OP in his exhaust modification.
im 100% confident that the dealership/mercedes would have no legal standing to void his warrant because of the removal of 2 secondaries. they could still of course, but that would make them a ****ty dealer and out of bounds legally.
and my favorite, is the "remedy" clauses, mercedes would have a hard time denying catastrophic engine loss to the removal of 2 secondary cats. there are clauses and guidelines in the law, for example "replacement factory parts", which allow you not to have your standard warranty voided because you didnt go to the dealer for an oil change. many of these same clauses protect the OP in his exhaust modification.
im 100% confident that the dealership/mercedes would have no legal standing to void his warrant because of the removal of 2 secondaries. they could still of course, but that would make them a ****ty dealer and out of bounds legally.
Here, MB would argue that being in a position to potentially be compelled to repair a car under warranty is a very real scenario (i.e., it's concrete and definite). Because warranty repairs cost money and because MB would argue that changing the exhaust system from MB's intended design could cause potential problems with the car, they will be harmed (injury-in-kind) by being made to fit the warranty repair bill. If MB's argument prevailed, they would obtain a favorable judical outcome.
More than likely, the car owner would have to file suit against MB if MB denied the warranty claim. But, MB could also file a declaratory relief action, asking the court to determine the respective contractual rights of the parties (e.g., MB and car owner).
These kinds of cases would be factually driven so we cannot predict outcomes of potential Magnuson-Moss cases. But, "standing" would not be an obstacle for MB in this type of suit.
Btw, as a car enthusiast I don't think removing the secondary cats would cause an engine failure.
02-22-2011, 04:53 PM
#34
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: westchester,NY
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 white c63 amg
Well it turns out the timing chain stretched and skipped two teet wich is causing no compression on one side they said their replacing all the parts and then well see what happens hopefully that should be it!
02-22-2011, 05:15 PM
#35
Junior Member
The definition of "legal standing" is when you suffer a concrete, definite, injury-in-kind that is capabale of redressibility with a favorable judicial outcome.
Here, MB would argue that being in a position to potentially be compelled to repair a car under warranty is a very real scenario (i.e., it's concrete and definite). Because warranty repairs cost money and because MB would argue that changing the exhaust system from MB's intended design could cause potential problems with the car, they will be harmed (injury-in-kind) by being made to fit the warranty repair bill. If MB's argument prevailed, they would obtain a favorable judical outcome.
More than likely, the car owner would have to file suit against MB if MB denied the warranty claim. But, MB could also file a declaratory relief action, asking the court to determine the respective contractual rights of the parties (e.g., MB and car owner).
These kinds of cases would be factually driven so we cannot predict outcomes of potential Magnuson-Moss cases. But, "standing" would not be an obstacle for MB in this type of suit.
Btw, as a car enthusiast I don't think removing the secondary cats would cause an engine failure.
Here, MB would argue that being in a position to potentially be compelled to repair a car under warranty is a very real scenario (i.e., it's concrete and definite). Because warranty repairs cost money and because MB would argue that changing the exhaust system from MB's intended design could cause potential problems with the car, they will be harmed (injury-in-kind) by being made to fit the warranty repair bill. If MB's argument prevailed, they would obtain a favorable judical outcome.
More than likely, the car owner would have to file suit against MB if MB denied the warranty claim. But, MB could also file a declaratory relief action, asking the court to determine the respective contractual rights of the parties (e.g., MB and car owner).
These kinds of cases would be factually driven so we cannot predict outcomes of potential Magnuson-Moss cases. But, "standing" would not be an obstacle for MB in this type of suit.
Btw, as a car enthusiast I don't think removing the secondary cats would cause an engine failure.
point is this, all the components of your engine and individualized according to the ruling. you have an " exhaust " warranty, as well as other "warranties" in your collective bumper to bumper.
also, we both agree MB is in the wrong, they will know they are. its also the dealers judgment call, and for them, thankfully not being on the side of the customer means they would not get the work (revenue) of fixing the warranty issue.
Tips,
There is a huge difference between replacement (OEM, or after market), and modification of existing. In my opinion (which I will admit, I am no lawyer, and no expert in these things, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....), removal of the secondary cats is a modification, not a replacement. And yes, there is a specific exception in place relating to aftermarket exhausts (thanks in part to SAN, SEMA Action Network, lobbying arm of SEMA).
And your right, it would be up to MB to prove the modification screwed things up.. and while they may lose in the end, they can make your life very difficult and prolong the situation for a very long time.
There is a huge difference between replacement (OEM, or after market), and modification of existing. In my opinion (which I will admit, I am no lawyer, and no expert in these things, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....), removal of the secondary cats is a modification, not a replacement. And yes, there is a specific exception in place relating to aftermarket exhausts (thanks in part to SAN, SEMA Action Network, lobbying arm of SEMA).
And your right, it would be up to MB to prove the modification screwed things up.. and while they may lose in the end, they can make your life very difficult and prolong the situation for a very long time.
this isnt my first rodeo with the subject, and i was one of the cars effected.
bumper to bumper is a set of contracts. one does not void the other, unless its proven.
02-22-2011, 06:49 PM
#36
so i take it you are a lawyer haha?
point is this, all the components of your engine and individualized according to the ruling. you have an " exhaust " warranty, as well as other "warranties" in your collective bumper to bumper.
also, we both agree MB is in the wrong, they will know they are. its also the dealers judgment call, and for them, thankfully not being on the side of the customer means they would not get the work (revenue) of fixing the warranty issue.
point is this, all the components of your engine and individualized according to the ruling. you have an " exhaust " warranty, as well as other "warranties" in your collective bumper to bumper.
also, we both agree MB is in the wrong, they will know they are. its also the dealers judgment call, and for them, thankfully not being on the side of the customer means they would not get the work (revenue) of fixing the warranty issue.
sorry. haha It is the dealer's judgment call but they can't just approve all warranty claims because ultimately, it's MB who is on the hook for warranty claims. That's why the pricey fixes tend to need approval from some "area supervisor" that works directly for the manufacturer.
02-22-2011, 10:02 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Purge valve
has nothing to do with compression.
Cam sensor gone bad would not allow engine to start.
It's not an electronic issue.
Cam sensor would not cause loss of compression.
A Broken valve, blown gasket,timing chain skipped or failed.
If you have a warranty,the dealer will love to charge the parent co. for a new one if the engine is toast they will also be glad to charge back that as well.
Cam sensor gone bad would not allow engine to start.
It's not an electronic issue.
Cam sensor would not cause loss of compression.
A Broken valve, blown gasket,timing chain skipped or failed.
If you have a warranty,the dealer will love to charge the parent co. for a new one if the engine is toast they will also be glad to charge back that as well.
02-23-2011, 12:32 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
has nothing to do with compression.
Cam sensor gone bad would not allow engine to start.
It's not an electronic issue.
Cam sensor would not cause loss of compression.
A Broken valve, blown gasket,timing chain skipped or failed.
If you have a warranty,the dealer will love to charge the parent co. for a new one if the engine is toast they will also be glad to charge back that as well.
Cam sensor gone bad would not allow engine to start.
It's not an electronic issue.
Cam sensor would not cause loss of compression.
A Broken valve, blown gasket,timing chain skipped or failed.
If you have a warranty,the dealer will love to charge the parent co. for a new one if the engine is toast they will also be glad to charge back that as well.
- Whole in the piston
-Melted piston
- broken piston rings
- cracked block/cylinder wall
- broken valves/bent valves
-bad cylinder head gasket
- spark plugs lose
- injector lose
my .2c
02-23-2011, 09:44 AM
#42
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on how much cam phasing can occur, if you have a failure with the VVT system or whatever MB calls it you can lose compression and have misfire. What I would like to know is how the chain stretched so much in 23K. I think this is a double row chain. That's a lot of stretch.
02-23-2011, 11:06 AM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
2017 Mini Cooper S Clubman ALL4 - British Racing Green
As a cyclist.. who goes through alot of chains.. improper fitment and alignment, while not causing any noticeable problems, will cause a chain to degrade and stretch very quickly. Not saying this is the case here, just noting that chains can be very screwy if not fitted correctly.
Personally, I violate rule number 1. never shift under load, all the time.. This of course does not apply to vehicles... unless you have a 10 gear cassette in that rear diff somewhere.
Personally, I violate rule number 1. never shift under load, all the time.. This of course does not apply to vehicles... unless you have a 10 gear cassette in that rear diff somewhere.
02-23-2011, 11:48 AM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Magic City
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
02-23-2011, 12:20 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG
Just kidding. I hope all goes well.
