Vivo

No message

awiner

Pros:

* Per Mr. Vanos, 10-12 hp gain at rear wheels.
* Inexpensive
* Never have to buy filter's again

Cons:

* Some say it wont filter as well as stock elements.

karl k

PROS:

More speed w/filter.

CONS:

1. MB WARRANTY issues;

2. Fast enough as is (faster than the C5 Corvette);

3. Time-consuming/messy to oil the filter regularly;

4. Particle contamination & damage to AMG engine, if not properly maintained/installed;

5. Fuel/Air/computer setting problems;

6. Not in concert w/ MB specs - add'l. comlications; and

7. More unforeseen cons: Stalling, hesitation, rough idling, etc.

Summary:

Vivo try it, you might like it.

I won't use it.

Mach430

Some of those CONs aren't correct.

1. MB WARRANTY issues
7. More unforeseen cons: Stalling, hesitation, rough idling, etc
5. Fuel/Air/computer setting problems;
3. Time-consuming/messy to oil the filter regularly;
Every 30,000 miles

karl k

If 2. 4. and 6. are correct, then 1. must be correct as well. Also some of the remaining points may have varying degrees of relevance

1. MB WARRANTY issues;

2. Fast enough as is (faster than the C5 Corvette -

Corvette 0-60 mph = 5.2 seconds //

CLK55 AMG 0-60 mph = 4.9 sec.!!);

3. Time-consuming/messy to oil the filter regularly;

4. Particle contamination & damage to AMG engine, if not properly
maintained/installed;

5. Fuel/Air/computer setting problems;

6. Not in concert w/ MB specs - add'l. complications;

7. More unforeseen cons: i.e. stalling, hesitation, rough idling, etc.; and

8. If problems arise, you are entering a LEGAL MINEFIELD.

Mach430

I'm sorry, I just chose not to respond to those. I don't think in the history of K&N filters have they ever voided any warranty. In order for anything to void your warranty it has to be shown as the direct cause of the problems. While K&N filters tend to let more particles in, they would not be noticed in the 100,000 mile (max) warranty for MB. If K&N filters could void your warranty, then so could choosing Shell over Chevron. And in the rare instance that both hell freezes over and monkeys fly out of my butt, you could always just put your stock filters back in before you go to the shop.

awiner

Per the Magnusson Moss act, any vehicle manuf. would have to prove a problem was caused by the specific part in question to void warranty work. The burden of proff is on the Manuf. and most times, manuf. won't screw people around over this (unless it's a clear cut warranty void problem due to after market accessories) as it costs them more to fight it in court.

Maybe Moderator Drew, Esq. could provde more insight into this specific act.

karl k

Mch430:

Vivo is looking for a recommendation.

It's obvious, that I do NOT recommend the K&N air filters.

What is is your recommendation & why?

Mach430

I think from the nature of most of my posts that I recommend many modifications to the CLK, the most basic being filters/exhaust. While I like K&N filters, I've heard that ITG filters are even better. I currently have a stock intake with the stock filters. However, I'll soon be switching to either an Evosport Intake or Kleeman Supercharger. While the supercharger would likely be to blame for any engine problems, it would still need to be proven as the cause.

R. Range

awiner is generally correct on the law, but you must bear in mind there are legal burdens, and then there are practical burdens. While a manufacturer does have the legal burden to show a mod caused the problem in question, many mfgrs/dealers avoid ever dealing with this issue by placing the burden on the owners to investigate their rights and to sue them. In other words, many mfgrs (and the dealers who help administer the mfgr's warranty) may say a mod "voided" your warranty or is responsible for your problem, and while this may be complete BS from a factual or legal standpoint, it places the burden on the owner to get a lawyer and sue them (or at least threaten them, at which point many of them capitulate). Of course, many owners don't know about the law and simply take what the mfgr/dealer says at face value and pay up. And even as to those owners who know their rights or find them out, most people aren't going to pay a lawyer as much or more than the amount in issue (MM does have a provision providing for the recovery of attny fees by a successful plaintiff, but finding a lawyer to take such a case with that as the only possible source of his fee is not easy).

My CLK55 is my first Mercedes so I don't know how MBUSA approaches these issues, but I can't imagine a K&N would cause any serious problem, and MB would have to be the worst of the worst to take a hard-line position on that one with respect to an engine failure or something.

Ronnie

lee2375

In my 5 years of selling and installing K&N filters I have NEVER heard of any type of failures because of them. As far as computer air/fuel setting problems, rough idle, etc..., it is ridiculous to think that. The computer in any modern car should be able to compensate for additional air flow or lower ambient air temperatures. That's why it's called electronic fuel injection...the computer automatically adjusts for such things. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to handle changes in temperature, humidity, and altitude. That's why they invented MASs. Not all cars use them, but there is some sensor that regulates the air intake flow and temperature. The FI system will add additional spark, fuel, and advance or retard timing accordingly, within a certain range. the K&N filter is not out of that range.

karl k

...Awiner wrote:
Au contraire!

We are talking about PERFORMANCE parts, NOT stock replacements, MB, in a case of a dispute re performance mods, would win!

Here is what my favorite Law firm - Click & Clack - has to say on the subject re Magnusson Moss act:

quote:

Dear Tom and Ray:

I am writing in response to a recent letter from the owner of a Dodge Dakota who wanted to add some performance parts to his vehicle:

A K&N air filter, Flowmaster exhaust, performance chip, high-performance plugs, wires, cap and rotor.

Your response was that if he added any of those parts it would void his warranty.

Not only is that untrue, but it is illegal for a warranty to be voided just because an aftermarket part was added to the vehicle. I have enclosed sections of the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act for your edification. -- Cathy

Tom:
We have to stand by our advice, Cathy. The Magnusson-Moss Act says that a manufacturer may not deny warranty coverage solely because a customer has used an aftermarket part.

Ray:
But if the manufacturer determines that the aftermarket part is in some way responsible for the mechanical problem, it absolutely CAN void the warranty. And many of the performance parts this guy wanted to install certainly could be blamed for future mechanical problems.

Tom:
The Magnusson-Moss Act is meant to protect a guy who goes to the Poky Lube down the street and gets a Fram filter instead of a "genuine Dodge filter." In that case, the Dodge dealer can't refuse to fix the engine because the guy used another brand of filter that meets the exact same specifications.

Ray:
But if a guy puts on a free-flow exhaust that lowers the exhaust system's back pressure, and then asks the dealer to fix his burnt valves under warranty, the dealer could certainly point to the modified exhaust system and refuse to cover it.

Tom:
The same is true if a guy puts on a set of humongous wheels and then tries to make a warranty claim for worn-out wheel bearings.

Ray:
In cases like those, the manufacturer would have every justification for denying warranty coverage on those affected parts.

Tom:
Sure, you can always argue with the dealer, but you'll probably have to take it to court to get satisfaction. And believe me, neither Mr. Magnusson nor Mr. Moss is going to show up in small claims court to help you plead your case. And the dealer may very well win.

Ray:
So we think avoiding "high-performance" parts on a new car is generally good advice, Cathy. And we're sticking with it.

http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Arch...0/July/04.html

R. Range

Karl, the quote you provided doesn't support your blanket statement that "MB would win" in a case involving performance parts. Legally, MB still has to prove the performance part caused the problem. Your Click and Clack made a similar blanket statement about the guy's warranty being "voided" by installing the parts, and when called on it, started hedging and talking about how the parts "could" cause certain problems. Big difference. The practical problems of having to hire a lawyer that I mentioned earlier (and which C&C allude to as well) definitely exist, but it is flat out false to say that the installation of any particular performance part, in and of itself, voids a warranty.

C&C better stick to sticky solenoids or something and quit giving legal advice.

Ronnie

karl k

Vivo:

It sounds like that you are entering a legal minefield if you do any performance mods, which may do damage your CLK 55 AMG.

Also, if you go racing - even without mods - you void the warranty.

Now, if the car is out of warranty, repairs are on your nickel anyway; and a lot of people do just that: RACE.

That is CONS POINT # 8:

Avoid the legal minefied, do not add performance mods, & do not go racing!

Bottom Line:

A CLK 55 AMG - that you originally asked about - is faster than the current Corvette C5!

Mach430

Ummm, wouldn't the bottom line answer his question, rather than mentioning a c5 corvette? It's faster than a Daewoo too, and slower than a Porshe. What's your point? Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of a K&N filter voiding the stock warranty. You will get gains by installing the filter. The Kleeman supercharger which definetely does not use the stock airbox or filter reports an additional 3% wear on the engine. So with the supercharger, your car at 97,000 miles would look like others at 100,000 miles. If that's all the supercharger does, I wouldn't worry about a measly filter.

awiner

In cases like road racing your car, installing after market exhaust, supercharger, etc etc I would say it may get a bit sticky in terms of what Mercedes would cover if something were to happen.

However, installing K&N's should not pose much of a problem in my personal opinion.

As a matter of fact this is a statement on K&N's webpage:

.Will the use of a K&N filter void my factory warranty?

It is against the law for a manufacturer to require the use of a specific brand of air filter unless they are providing it free of charge under the terms of the warranty. This is stated in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the general principles of the Federal Trade Commission. The customer may use any brand of filter they like if the dealership is not providing filters free of charge as part of the warranty. This does not hold true for fleets or government agencies.



Again this is my personal opinion.

Also, just for info, there was a gentleman on the C32 forum a couple months back that took his C32 to a track and warped the front rotors pretty bad. Mercedes still replaced his front rotors under warranty, even though the owner of the dealer and his son were at this particular track event. I was quite surprised that the dealer did not put up at least a little battle, but he did not and stood behind the product he sells. Interesting to say the least. AMG was quite interested in finding out why their High Performance C32 rotord would warp. It still has never been resolved weather this heat caused them to warp or if they were warped a little upon delivery

Mach430

The dealer gets paid either way, so in my experience, they almost always try to blame the problem on a warranty issue rather than me. After all, who's going to by the next car from them, me or the warranty?

karl k

Awiner wrote:

It is common sense/practice, that before you start litigation, you should enter into dispute resolution, as recommended by the FTC - Federal Tade Commision, as it relates to the Magnusen-Moss Act.

Partial Quote:
The Act allows warranties to include a provision that requires customers to try to resolve warranty disputes by means of the informal dispute resolution mechanism before going to court.

(This provision applies only to cases based upon the Magnuson-Moss Act.) If you include such a requirement in your warranty, your dispute resolution mechanism must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule).

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...y/undermag.htm

PS:
In light of Moderator Drew's comments BELOW, pls. consider the implications before you do this:

http://www.mercedes-benz.de/mbd/t43/...C_5GD,00.html?

Drew: Thank you.

Drew

Adam just dragged me over to give my opinion:

I must say, Karl K., you are right on the money with this one.

While the Act doesn't fall into my specialty (which lately has been pissing-off other posters here) ... I gave myself a little refresher course ... and damn if Karl didn't nail this one.

Not only on the in's and out's of the Act, but in its realistic application: a lawsuit should be your last resort ... advice i give on a daily basis ... but as you can see by what i drive ... most clients don't listen. Guaranteed, the attorney's will win regardless (and the Act even allows for attorney's fees to be tacked onto any verdict ... that includes a judgment for the Manufacturer as well ... so if you lost, you could be required to pay the Manufacturer's attorneys fees as well as your own).

Mag-Moss was designed to give the consumer a way to get equal-footing with a manufacturer ... by requiring the controversy to go to arbitration first, then to the federal courts.

Ever try to negotiate to change parts of the warranty that came with your car? Me neither ... you gonna hold up the delivery of your car to negotiate with MBUSA ... I don't think so. The Legislature realized this: Big Companies have an advantage over the little consumer ... Mag-Moss was intended to level the playing field.

But the jist of mods and Mag-Moss is simply a practical one. I don't have to restate it all over again. If you want to, go back and read Karl's post(s) ... they're right in the 10-ring.

bmac002

Or, if you think that you have a problem related to you replacing the air filter put the factory one back in before you take it to the dealer. DUH!!! I did not take out the K&N and I had a rough idle that I had been complaining about. Never once did the dealer say anything about the K&N. When mbtech208 pointed out that there was an update for the control unit for my car I asked the dealer to replace the control unit and they did. The dealer did not say anything about my K&N causing the problems.

bmac002

I was not sure if I could move this or not but from the technical forum MB Bob wrote "One of the MB dealers in my area sells K&Ns in their parts dept... Displayed on the wall along with those chrome headlight rings. They said using K&N will not void your warranty... But second and third opinions are always welcome!"

Drew

Mag-Moss, like most other Federal Statutes ... has many applications and is quite confusing ... even to attorney's who practice Commercial Law.

The link given by Karl (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...y/undermag.htm ) gives a few great examples that are on-point (specific to) what we're discussing here, and should be helpful:

Excerpt:

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions:

Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

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.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service.

Hope the above helps more than it confuses!

Regards,

Drew

When in doubt ...

GET IT IN WRITING !!!

(signed by the head of the service department and/or the general manager of the dealership).