PPF void new vehicle limited warranty?

Subscribe
Jul 11, 2022 | 12:31 AM
  #1  
Have an EQS in line to get PPF at a reputable shop in NorCal in the next few weeks. When I was looking over the stipulations for the new vehicle warranty, there is some vague language about “alterations” to the vehicle being an exclusion criteria. While I assume this largely refers to people doing stupid things (eg, work done by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and messing up the EV, I understand why MB wouldn’t cover that) I could also see this being used against the buyer if something went wrong post PPF and saying the vehicle was altered. Anyone have any experience with dealers giving them a hard time on their EQS or prior MB ICE cars with PPF in place?
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 02:10 PM
  #2  
Quote: Have an EQS in line to get PPF at a reputable shop in NorCal in the next few weeks. When I was looking over the stipulations for the new vehicle warranty, there is some vague language about “alterations” to the vehicle being an exclusion criteria. While I assume this largely refers to people doing stupid things (eg, work done by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and messing up the EV, I understand why MB wouldn’t cover that) I could also see this being used against the buyer if something went wrong post PPF and saying the vehicle was altered. Anyone have any experience with dealers giving them a hard time on their EQS or prior MB ICE cars with PPF in place?
PPF will not void any warranty. Unless for some unknown reason it damaged the paint. I wold not use PPF on a matte paint. Though the chances of paint damage are remote, I personally do not know if it could damage the finish. I do use PPF on my headlights and would use it on normal paint without any qualms.
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 02:41 PM
  #3  
Thanks c4004matic, good to know regarding warranty. Interesting your thoughts on the PPF with matte paint. Searching through some of the forums, seems like others feel like wrapping the front is worth it - mostly because if you get rock chips or significant damage to the front of the car, dealing with it is a headache (or, expensive if you need to repaint the whole panel: https://mbworld.org/forums/g-class-w...paint-g63.html).

With that said, just ceramic coating would be faster and cheaper. Will think about this some more, thanks
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 02:48 PM
  #4  
Quote: Have an EQS in line to get PPF at a reputable shop in NorCal in the next few weeks. When I was looking over the stipulations for the new vehicle warranty, there is some vague language about “alterations” to the vehicle being an exclusion criteria. While I assume this largely refers to people doing stupid things (eg, work done by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and messing up the EV, I understand why MB wouldn’t cover that) I could also see this being used against the buyer if something went wrong post PPF and saying the vehicle was altered. Anyone have any experience with dealers giving them a hard time on their EQS or prior MB ICE cars with PPF in place?
LMAO!
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 05:33 PM
  #5  
Quote: Thanks c4004matic, good to know regarding warranty. Interesting your thoughts on the PPF with matte paint. Searching through some of the forums, seems like others feel like wrapping the front is worth it - mostly because if you get rock chips or significant damage to the front of the car, dealing with it is a headache (or, expensive if you need to repaint the whole panel: https://mbworld.org/forums/g-class-w...paint-g63.html).

With that said, just ceramic coating would be faster and cheaper. Will think about this some more, thanks
Dont take it as gospel, just overcautious. Its probably fine. But I certainly not going to test it😁
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 05:54 PM
  #6  
Quote: Have an EQS in line to get PPF at a reputable shop in NorCal in the next few weeks. When I was looking over the stipulations for the new vehicle warranty, there is some vague language about “alterations” to the vehicle being an exclusion criteria. While I assume this largely refers to people doing stupid things (eg, work done by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and messing up the EV, I understand why MB wouldn’t cover that) I could also see this being used against the buyer if something went wrong post PPF and saying the vehicle was altered. Anyone have any experience with dealers giving them a hard time on their EQS or prior MB ICE cars with PPF in place?
I think this concern is kind of irrelevant. Warranty claims on paint are extremely rare. It would be things like clearcoat failure, or paint rubbing off due to panel gaps being out of alignment. Those things are very rare on a Mercedes. So it's not clear what claim you would be eligible for that the PPF will prevent you from claiming.

One thing is certain though - your paint will get rock chips without PPF, and the rock chips won't be covered by the warranty.

Generally PPF enhances resale value. And it isn't a barrier to certification. I have bought CPO cars before where the previous owner did PPF.

BTW a lot dealers will do the PPF so you often don't need to go to an independent.
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 06:04 PM
  #7  
As said above, PPF won't void any warranty. The only issue I had with PPF in the past was with Audi refusing to install a software update that would fix a known issue with their blind spot assist in my previous car. Their TSB made the tech check if there are any stickers etc. on the rear bumper (including PPF) and if there was they were prevented from going forward with the update. I would have had to remove the PPF, get the update installed, and then get PPF again. I refused to do that and just lived with the bug. I never found blind spot assist very useful anyway with properly adjusted mirrors per SAE recommendation.

As far as matte paint goes, PPF for the whole car is pretty much a must. Matte paint is very hard to match and blend.
Reply 0
Jul 11, 2022 | 06:07 PM
  #8  
Quote: As said above, PPF won't void any warranty. The only issue I had with PPF in the past was with Audi refusing to install a software update that would fix a known issue with their blind spot assist in my previous car. Their TSB made the tech check if there are any stickers etc. on the rear bumper (including PPF) and if there was they were prevented from going forward with the update. I would have had to remove the PPF, get the update installed, and then get PPF again. I refused to do that and just lived with the bug. I never found blind spot assist very useful anyway with properly adjusted mirrors per SAE recommendation.

As far as matte paint goes, PPF for the whole car is pretty much a must. Matte paint is very hard to match and blend.
Again I don't know if you had a bad experience with matte paint, but my 2014 M5 was rear-ended and they had to replace the rear bumper and the trunk lid and repaint both. It was a perfect match. And bear in mind they can't do overspray to blend like on gloss paints. That can't be done on matte. It's not impossible, Just requires a good bodyshop. BTW PPF would not have avoided that.

I've never had any benefit from PPF on a matte car beyond on the front of the car for rock chip avoidance, and on the trunk loading sill to protect the sill.
Reply 0
Jul 12, 2022 | 03:38 PM
  #9  
Slightly tilted off topic:

A member on the AMG GT site purchased a GTR in Green Hell Magno. This is a frosted color. He was looking for something to change it up. He had it PPFed in a gloss film. The majority opinion was that it came out spectacularly sharp.

https://mbworld.org/forums/coupe-roa...sane-pics.html

Reply 0
Jul 18, 2022 | 11:06 AM
  #10  
Probably worth checking with Mercedes themselves.

I'm in the UK and was emailing the supplying dealer about my EQS 450+ and charging. I mentioned that I bought a longer cable from Mennekes as I wanted a longer one than was supplied with the car (also by Mennekes).

Their response was 'using a non-Mercedes supplied cable will void the warranty'.

I said that Mennekes made BOTH cables and the Mercedes supplied ones were exactly the same but 'branded' with the word 'Mercedes' and had a silver 3-pointed star 'glued-on'. The Mercedes supplied cable actually has Mennekes written on it and it comes with the Mennekes manual!! They were adamant that it would void the warranty.

I then asked them about using a tethered wallbox - something like an Andersen/PodPoint/etc unit - and they said... it was fine to use!

So I can't use a non-tethered, non-Mercedes, Mennekes cable - but I can use a non-Mercedes (and probably never tested by Mercedes) tethered cable.

Upshot is - if you do a PPF then get it clarified with Mercedes as they will, I'm sure, look for any way to not honour the warranty if it came to it.
Reply 0
Jul 18, 2022 | 12:16 PM
  #11  
jp05, why in the world would you tell them that and what makes you think their going to be looking at the length of your charging cable?
Reply 0
Jul 18, 2022 | 07:54 PM
  #12  
Agree with idea that if mb (and/or the dealer) can identify an excuse to not cover something, there’s a high likelihood the warranty claim will be rejected. I called my local dealer who stated that PPF (or ceramic coating) would not void the warranty. According to him, this was in large part because the majority of what’s covered in the initial limited warranty are things like power train and some of the internal electronics, which ideally shouldn’t be messed around with if the PPF installer is well-versed with high end cars/EVs.

One piece of advice I have seen multiple times on the mbworld forums is that it’s really the installer, more than the film, that makes the difference. This ultimately influenced my decision to pay a little more for a wrap from a group that routinely performs custom installs for high end EVs, rather than try to go with the absolute cheapest option and save a few bucks.
Reply 0
Jul 18, 2022 | 11:45 PM
  #13  
Our MB dealer actually would like to arrange ceramic window tint and full front ppf for me. Not that that’s a bad thing, our BMW was done by the dealer as well.
Reply 0
Jul 19, 2022 | 11:27 AM
  #14  
Not an issue at all...
Reply 0
Subscribe
Currently Active Users (1)