lbE55

There has been some discussion on how and if modifications void our warranties. I am scheduled to have Evo stages I & II installed soon and have done some reading. The information below is from the Magnuson-Moss Act. The specific citation (if anyone is interested) is 15 U.S.C. 2304.

If you read the last section "(c) Waiver of Standards," it appears that if the warrantor (MB) denies warranty coverage because of something that the owner did (e.g., abuse, modifications, etc.) or did not do (e.g., owner failed to properly maintain the vehicle) the warrantor (MB) has the burden to prove that the failure or defect was caused by the owner's abuse (or modification).

Anyway, hope it helps or answers some questions:

(a) Remedies under written warranty; duration of implied warranty; exclusion or limitation on consequential damages for breach of written or implied warranty; election of refund or replacement

In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty--

(1) such warrantor must as a minimum remedy such consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty;

(2) notwithstanding section 2308(b) of this title, such warrantor may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;

(3) such warrantor may not exclude or limit consequential damages for breach of any written or implied warranty on such product, unless such exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and

(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include installing the part in the product without charge.

(b) Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor

(1) In fulfilling the duties under subsection (a) of this section respecting a written warranty, the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy of any consumer product which malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty, unless the warrantor has demonstrated in a rulemaking proceeding, or can demonstrate in an administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding (including private enforcement), or in an informal dispute settlement proceeding, that such a duty is reasonable.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a warrantor may require, as a condition to replacement of, or refund for, any consumer product under subsection (a) of this section, that such consumer product shall be made available to the warrantor free and clear of liens and other encumbrances, except as otherwise provided by rule or order of the Commission in cases in which such a requirement would not be practicable.

(3) The Commission may, by rule define in detail the duties set forth in subsection (a) of this section and the applicability of such duties to warrantors of different categories of consumer products with "full (statement of duration)" warranties.

(4) The duties under subsection (a) of this section extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product.

(c) Waiver of standards

The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).

Jakpro1

Thanks for all that info and the last thing I want to do is start a flame war....I just hate that S(*&t... I am ONLY discussing MAJOR drive train failure here.

I totally submit that in a court of law, we all would win. We all would walk home with the gold and walk home with our heads held high.... so happy that we fought the Man and won. That's after a few months or possibly years of legal battling and thousands of dollars in court costs.....hopefully that we could recover.

I am allllll about reality...and the reality of life is that if you burn a piston running nitrous.....toast a rear due to your car running 600hp....or start to have tranny slippage due to high horsepower, it would be only a miracle that your local dealer would not tell you take a walk....

I can imagine one of us standing in the middle of the dealer area yelling...."you need to examine paragraph 9, section 8..subsection A which clearly states in the blah blah Act of 19xx"

This guy (service tech) who only wishes he could have a 90,000$ car and is probably pulling 60-70K a year, is gonna look at us and laugh. They could care less about us and member after member confirms this attitude toward us owners.

Honestly, most of us really will never even run into these situations....the only situation I think we all fear is throwing a rod or severe enough engine damage that we would need a new 30,000$ AMG powerplant. Tranny gonna run you bout 6K and rear is around 3K, so if we throw one, we'll *****, but most of us will live.

My dealer already told me if the failure has NOTHING to do with the mods.....they have no problems. Electrical system.....interior crap....AC/Heater blah blah blah...we're fine with no warranty issues.

Again, I just can't imagine one of us pulling into a dealer with tire rubber still smoking on the back bumper and mods all over the place....we throw the keys and copy of the Moss act at the tech and mutter to him as it hits him in the chest and we walk past...."needs a new tranny pal....I'll be in the can"

lbE55

Geeeeeeeezzzzzzz!!!

I simply thought that the information might be useful to some people. It seems that on a lot, if not all, of the threads discussing modifications, that someone asks the same question: "will this void my warranty?"

I also recall reading some posts where people claimed that their dealer made an absurd connection between a mod and an unrelated failure. In the event that happens to someone, and if they know what they are talking about, that may just be enough to make the dealer re-think taking a ridiculous position on voiding a warranty.

I agree with your sentiment: I purchased the car for what it can do, and I drive the car in the way that, I believe, it is meant to be driven -- warranty or not. If a drop the rear-end or the transmission, then I’ll get a new one and continue to enjoy the car.

But, I disagree with your decision to harangue.

Schiznick

I think the act is intended to be good.

I think the issue is any mod that you make to the car that may result in a part having to do more than it is intended to do will result in MB voiding the warranty on the part.

In a twisted way I agree with MB (this does not happen very often!) If I bump up the HP on my SL65 and throw a set of true slicks on the car and the differential blows up on the line of the drag strip I do not expect MB to pay for it. With that said if I take my stock SL65 to the drag strip on stock tires and the differential blows up then I expect them to fix it.

Any time you upset the balance of specs the burden falls in your pocket.

All that said I still can't help myself. I just don't think iti is rigth for people to get a false idea that the Moss act is going to protect them from everything.

Just my .02

R. Range

I don't think he was trying to harangue you, he's just pointing out that what some federal statute says doesn't mean squat unless you're prepared to litigate and front several thousand dollars in the hope you prevail. And he's exactly right, that most dealers and manufacturer reps will tell you to go pound sand if you have, say, a larger crank pulley and then develop an engine problem. Many of them are just looking for an excuse to deny coverage because they know most people won't take the risk of spending far more on attorney's fees than the repair would cost. So the proper question really isn't "is my warranty voided," it's "is my dealer likely to claim my warranty is voided." Your info is correct, and it's definitely a useful thing for people to know. However, as a practical matter, having a "friendly" service manager/advisor who will try to help you in this situation is worth far more than anything written in the federal code.

Schiznick

R. Range Just sent you a PM

R. Range

Got it, thanks!