Agree on all points. Well said.
If it's in California, you have many options LONG before you have to hire legal council. Ask me how I know
I'll bite. Ok. How do you know?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Agree on all points. Well said.
I'll bite. Ok. How do you know?
Nissan tried to deny me warranty coverage on a bad turbo on my Z because they said my aftermarket air K&N filter caused it. The first step was the BBB's Burau of Automotive Repair. In this case, the threat to arbitrate through California's State Certified Arbitration Program was enough.
Nissan decided to cover the repair under warranty.
In a nutshell, these are the resources and agencies in addition to the BBB at your disposal:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/pdf_files/englemn.pdf
Although not specifically related to a modification in 2001, I had a C5 Corvette repurchased as a lemon because GM refused to fix an oil burning problem. It was a relatively painless process that not only cost me nothing but netted me:
1) Re-purchase of vehicle at original purchase price + taxes.
2) Two years of registration and VLFs.
3) Attorney's fees paid for.
4) $5000 in punitive damages.
Ironically, they came up with a fix that they tested on my Corvette but only after the repurchase had been finalized but before the car was turned back in. After the repurchase settlement was signed, they had me keep the car for another 6 weeks while they arranged to take possession of it back. After they oil burning fix(replaced oil scraper rings on pistons) and me confirming that it fixed the problem, they asked me if I wouldn't mind undoing the buyback and keeping the C5. I of course declined as the settlement got me everything I ever paid for it plus more.
The 2001 C5 oil consumption issue was a well known issue that not only you, but several other owners were able to have rectified as it was a defect that GM admitted to.
But as to the Lemon laws, they vary by state.
In some states, if the car is within a year old 12,000 miles and has 4 repair attempts for the same problem and spends 30 calendar days out of service, you may have relief under the Lemon Law and may seek a buyback.
The mileage and number of repair attempts may vary from one state to another.
But having a car Lemon lawed is considerably different than tampering with it's software and then trying to have a warranty repair covered.
So I don't see your comparison here.
As far as your air filter in the Nissan was concerned, Mag Moss is in place in part to allow you to use replacement parts, such as air filters, oil filters, etc., that may not be genuine manufacturer's parts or manufacturer's endorsed or recommended parts as long as the part meets standard and accepted speciations.
For example, one doesn't have to use AC Delco parts in a GM vehicle and fear having their warranty negatively impacted by not doing so, as long as the replacement part meets accepted specifications.
If you put a Purolator or Fram or K&N oil filter on it next time you change your oil, that's not considered an aftermarket modification.
One does not have to use Mopar parts in a Dodge. Put Motorcraft or AC spark plugs into it, you can't have your warranty affected under Mag Miss because you didn't use original spark plugs.
Nor do you have to use Motorcraft parts in a Ford if you're replacing filters and such.
Your K&N Filter, as long as it filtered within accepted specs, and had CARB approval, and did not alter your air box and your wasn't altered or repositioned, and you were within CARB regulations, you never had anything to worry about in the first place.
Just as if you had brought it in with an AC air filter or Fram air filter on it.
And Nissan knew it. They seem to have been pushing to see if you would push back.
A manufacturer can't deny warranty coverage just because you didn't use the same brand air filter or oil filter, brake pads, or plugs, or any other disposable item the car was delivered with, as long as the part you're replacing with meets accepted specs.
So your examples are a bit of a stretch.
What we're talking about here, is quite different. Some would of consider it hacking.
And the minute that word came up, one would very possibly be in a warranty fight.
Last edited:
But not at the time I sued for a buyback. Their admission came nearly six months after.
Sure, but I never said anything about an oil filter
Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
As I guessed no contact today I will attempt to reach out to them tomorrow as they missed the promised callback time...
If the Lemon Law in your state afforded you relief under it's stipulations of time in days that the car was out of service or the number of attempts at repair that it underwent within the specified time and mileage rules, there's nothing to see here.
That has nothing to do with one running into a warranty issue as a result of hacking his car.
That Vette would not have been Lemon lawed had you tampered with its calibration or it were discovered that you had.
Sure, but I never said anything about an oil filter
Doesn't matter.
Magnusen-Moss is there in part to allow consumers to repair and maintain their cars with parts they choose as long as those parts meet accepted OEM specs and do not violate federal laws such as emission laws, safety laws.
Swapping the air filter on your car to a Fram, K&N, Purolator, Mobil, whatever, from whatever Nissan was putting in Nissans at that time, never legally put your warranty in peril because of Mag Moss.
So again, no, with your air filter, you aren't talking the same thing here, indeed nowhere close, when someone expresses concern over potential warranty issues should they do to their Tesla what was suggested earlier.
Last edited:
My point is that if you modify your car in a way the manufacturer doesn't like, they still have to prove you that your modification resulted in the damage that the manufacturer doesn't want to repair. The Better Business Burau of Automative Repair and California provides resources to assist consumers in getting repairs affected when the manufacturer refuses to.
My air filter was a modification. I removed the stock intake and airbox and replaced it with an aftermarket K&N air filter.
I've noticed since you joined the forum that you tend to like arguing for the sake of arguing
That much is already known. And has long been known.
However your example of this is a poor one, for reasons already stated.
Under Magnusen Moss, your warranty was never in any danger.
Try what has been suggested upthread here, and it very well might be.
As long as the filter you put on it filtered as well as the accepted standard, then under Mag Moss, you were never in any danger of a warranty issue.
However do what was suggested earlier upthread, and you very well may find yourself in much more serious danger of a warranty issue.
What's next? You change from AC Delco brake pads to Napa brake pads and they void your warranty?
Change the 12v battery in your car to a DieHard and they void your warranty?
No. One's warranty is no more at risk as a result of the above, than yours was when you changed that air filter.
The example you're using has nothing to do with what was being discussed and suggested for Tesla owners to consider.
I've noticed since you joined the forum that you tend to like arguing for the sake of arguing
No, I only favor arguing for the sake of correcting misinformation.
Your air filter vs what was being discussed, is an apples vs oranges comparison.
But I'm going to throw something out there to stop the arguing over this matter.
If you've got the balls to do what's been suggested upthread, and not be concerned about having to potentially make a 5 figure repair out of pocket in behind doing it as a result of your warranty being affected, well then have at it.
You want to risk the balance of an 8 year/unlimited mile warranty on potentially expensive parts, because you think they might not be able to "prove" this or that, then go ahead.
However it does no one a service to paint a picture that they need not be concerned about having to do the same thing, because of who this or that the burden might fall on.
Last edited:
What reasons? I modified my car by replacing the stock non replaceable air box which contains a replaceable stock filter with a completely different device. If that change had resulted in damage and the manufacturer could prove it, I would have been SOL. In some cases, that change does result in damage because people don't use a suitable aftermarket replacement or they install it incorrectly. For example, if I didn't clean and oil that reusable K&N filter, I could have done damage to my engine. I point out that example because it's a borderline acceptable change and Nissan decided it wasn't acceptable but I knew they had to prove so which is why I took the track that I did.
You're trying to backtrack, unsuccessfully, because you misread my post and thought I said "oil filter" when I instead said "air filter". This is not an aftermarket air filter that you stick in the original intake airbox like your do with a Fram air filter. It's a re-usable air filter that completely replaces the air box assembly.
You and I both rolled the dice when we spent $100K+ on a car from a company only making them in mass for less than 4 years.
I've not noticed that you've corrected misinformation in the past. This is news to me
What reasons? I modified my car by replacing the stock non replaceable air box which contains a replaceable stock filter with a completely different device. If that change had resulted in damage and the manufacturer could prove it, I would have been SOL. In some cases, that change does result in damage because people don't use a suitable aftermarket replacement or they install it incorrectly. For example, if I didn't clean and oil that reusable K&N filter, I could have done damage to my engine. I point out that example because it's a borderline acceptable change and Nissan decided it wasn't acceptable but I knew they had to prove so which is why I took the track that I did.
You're trying to backtrack, unsuccessfully, because you misread my post and thought I said "oil filter" when I instead said "air filter". This is not an aftermarket air filter that you stick in the original intake airbox like your do with a Fram air filter. It's a re-usable air filter that completely replaces the air box assembly.
You and I both rolled the dice when we spent $100K+ on a car from a company only making them in mass for less than 4 years.
I've not noticed that you've corrected misinformation in the past. This is news to me
What? Are you serious? It doesn't matter one wit whether you said oil filter or air filter.
Mag Moss would apply to either.
And yes, I read you right the first time.
The bottom line is your warranty was never at risk for what you did.
And certainly not to the extent that anyone's warranty would be at risk for doing what was suggested earlier in this thread. Nowhere close.
Why not quit trying to make like it was?
Indeed K&N points this out and they are accurate.
Click on the one saying "vehicle warranty".
K&N Air Filter Facts You Should Know
Letter from K&N CEO - Automotive Dealers Voiding a Warranty due to a K&N Replacement Filter
Your warranty was never at risk under Mag Moss. Air or oil filter.
But like I said earlier, forget the arguing, let us know when you do what was suggested earlier upthread.
Last edited:
Well of course it matters. One oil filter designed to replace another oil filter isn't going to void your warranty. In my case, I removed the air box housing AND stock air filter and replaced it with it with a bolt on K&N that bolts directly to the throttle body / MAF assembly. K&N claims that it will work just as well. Nissan denied the warranty and claimed that it wouldn't. I can see Nissan's point on this because it's a completely *different* kind of filter, not just a different brand. It's made out of cloth and a screen and requires cleaning and oiling. The stock air filter was made out of paper and fit into a square intake box all of which I completely removed.
Not only did you not read it right the first time, but you didn't read it right the third, fourth, or fifth time, as is usual in your case
Well of course it matters. One oil filter designed to replace another oil filter isn't going to void your warranty. In my case, I removed the air box housing AND stock air filter and replaced it with it with a bolt on K&N that bolts directly to the throttle body / MAF assembly. K&N claims that it will work just as well. Nissan denied the warranty and claimed that it wouldn't. I can see Nissan's point on this because it's a completely *different* kind of filter, not just a different brand. It's made out of cloth and a screen and requires cleaning and oiling. The stock air filter was made out of paper and fit into a square intake box all of which I completely removed.
Not only did you not read it right the first time, but you didn't read it right the third, fourth, or fifth time, as is usual in your case
Your warranty was never at risk.
Yes, you wan't to make like it was, but you were never at risk.
And you were certainly not at risk to the extent that any owner in here would be, were that owner to do to his Tesla what was suggested upthread.
You know it and I know it. And anyone reading those links from K&N that I posted will know it.
Not only would a replacement K&N air filter not have affected your warranty because of Mag Moss, but their "K&N Filter Charger" won't either for the same reason, and they state as much.
K&N Air Filter Facts You Should Know
"Vehicle Warranty
Contrary to what you may have heard or read, in the USA, a K&N Filtercharger will not void your vehicle warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, passed in 1975, prohibits a manufacturer from conditioning its warranty of a consumer product upon the consumer using any article or service(other than one provided without charge under the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name, unless expressly authorized by the Federal Trade Commission. If the manufacturer does not provide air filters free of charge, they cannot void the vehicle's warranty simply because you have installed an aftermarket air filter."
Your warranty was never in the danger that one's warranty would be in were they to do what was suggested earlier in this thread.
Last edited:
Well, I think my warranty was never at risk, but I Nissan disagreed which I can see why because of this:
Which you still apparently haven't read. Care to try not reading it for a 7th time
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Thank you.
K&N knew that it wasn't at risk.
Doesn't matter whether they disagree. The law applies. And you had the law on your side from the time you installed K&N's product.
K&N expressly states that on their site, and they are right.
Which you still apparently haven't read. Care to try not reading it for a 7th time
There's no point in reading it, because K&N knows that they and their customers have the law on their side.
One more time, under the law, your warranty was never in any danger. And certainly not in danger to the extent that anyone's warranty would be were they to do what was suggested earlier in this thread. Why not stop trying to pretend that it was?
I had a Black Wing, dealer installed on one of my C5 Vettes, and it did not affect my warranty.
Why don't you just leave your car in for service and tell it has lost 100 hp? It is their problem fo find a fix. Your car is under warranty and it is not performing according to specs so obviously it is Tesla's problem.
I'm not an expert regarding to Lemon law, but if I've understood it correctly, they need to buy it back if they can't fix it.
I had the same question. Did Tesla refuse to fix the issue? Can you post the Service Invoice where the issue was brought to their attention, their diagnosis, and their remedy (or refusal to remedy)?
Thanks
Thanks
I think one counter-argument to @sorka's example of airfilters is that Tesla is providing the firmware updates for free. Thus arguing third-party maintanence for firmwares becomes that bit more harder. Though I guess one could argue Tesla is not providing the required features to keep the performance of the car on-going.
In any case, be the law as it may, I think precedence has shown Tesla to be far more aggressive in fighting things like this (probably out of fiscal and marketing necessity in their view) than traditional automotive companies. I would expect them to try and prove, in court if need be, that they are in the right. That said, of course the process might end up in settlement of some sort in secret.
This leads me to my real point: firmware is quickly becoming a very key component of car ownership and maintenance. This will need to be legislated at some point. New laws will likely need to be put in place to make sure companies and consumers alike play, both, within is a reasonable field. The age of the air/oil filter is fading, software needs updated laws.
In any case, be the law as it may, I think precedence has shown Tesla to be far more aggressive in fighting things like this (probably out of fiscal and marketing necessity in their view) than traditional automotive companies. I would expect them to try and prove, in court if need be, that they are in the right. That said, of course the process might end up in settlement of some sort in secret.
This leads me to my real point: firmware is quickly becoming a very key component of car ownership and maintenance. This will need to be legislated at some point. New laws will likely need to be put in place to make sure companies and consumers alike play, both, within is a reasonable field. The age of the air/oil filter is fading, software needs updated laws.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Wow, page 84 was mostly a P85DEE extravaganza. Whodathunk that could happen?
Similar threads
