smatthew
Active Member
First recall letter...... wow - so numerous!Don't even get me started on the numerous recalls.... Got my first recall letter last month.....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla denied warranty for Upper control arms because of Aftermarket Suspension
- Thread starter WhiteM3P-
- Start date
White Shadow
Member
A little late to the party here, but I'd hardly call Tesla's business practices shady for denying warranty coverage on a modified car. That's pretty standard practice across the entire industry. If you modify the suspension, even by fitting lowering springs, then you pretty much give up your right to warranty coverage on the suspension.
Do you realize that it's easy to destroy control arm bushings on a lowered car? Someone who doesn't know that the control arm bushings have to be "reset" (for lack of a better term) when the car's height is altered will just about guarantee premature failure. I've seen many backyard mechanics do it wrong because they don't know any better. They fail to loosen the pivot side of the control arms and then reset the arm to the new ride height before properly tightening/torqueing the bolts. This puts the bushings in constant tension or compression at all times, even when the car is parked and always leads to earlier failure. And It's easy to skip that step if you don't know what you're doing, since the pivot bolts wouldn't otherwise even need to be touched. I'm not saying that's what happened with YOUR car, but I'm simply saying that's the reason why manufacturers tend to deny warranty coverage on suspension components when the suspension has been modified. There are just too many variables that can cause damage/failure and they shouldn't be held responsible. I modify all my cars with the understanding that I have no reasonable expectation of warranty coverage for anything related to my modifications.
Last edited:
White Shadow
Member
Not exactly. It's not just about cause. They can simply claim that the modified part "contributed" to the failure. And common sense tells us that lowering springs can absolutely contribute to issues with control arms. The MMWA would not help the OP here.
FYI, on a Model 3, there are only two bushings on the front axle the manual calls out as needing to be tightened this way:
1) The lower bolt on the shock where it bolts to the lower control arm.
2) The FUCA to FUCA tophat. Tesla uses a special tool to set this correctly when it's off car. For lowered cars with stock FUCA arms you have to figure out how to get in there with the suspension loaded by using something to lower the car onto with the tire off. Aftermarket FUCA arms don't use bushings here and don't need this.
Gauss Guzzler
Safety Score = 42
The FUCA is actually trivial to set, I can't understand why so many people do it wrong and why *every* Youtube video shows some jackass standing on the lower control arm while going full MMA on the upper.
Just pull the frunk and measure the position of the FUCA relative to the frame with a ruler before you begin. Then start your suspension swap, loosen the FUCA, tighten it up out of the way, swap shocks with ease, then set the FUCA to however much lower (higher) you want with the ruler. It's sooo easy and the whole job can be done with one hand and no feet.
Just pull the frunk and measure the position of the FUCA relative to the frame with a ruler before you begin. Then start your suspension swap, loosen the FUCA, tighten it up out of the way, swap shocks with ease, then set the FUCA to however much lower (higher) you want with the ruler. It's sooo easy and the whole job can be done with one hand and no feet.
And exactly how much higher is that at the FUCA when you want X mm of change of vehicle ride height? The FUCA is a ratio of the wheel or shock heights.
Seems way easier to just set the car down on a jack or block on the lower control arm and then tighten it that way with the suspension loaded.
Gauss Guzzler
Safety Score = 42
The FUCA ball joint moves exactly with ride height, not at a ratio.
You can't know if the car is at ride height when the front wheels are at different heights so you can't just support one corner on a random block and assume that's the right FUCA angle.
You can't know if the car is at ride height when the front wheels are at different heights so you can't just support one corner on a random block and assume that's the right FUCA angle.
White Shadow
Member
What I have done on many cars is this---- measure the distance between the hub center (or the middle of the center cap) straight up to the bottom of the fender while the car is on the ground. This gives me a base measurement to work off. Then if I'm installing lowering springs or even a coilover kit, I can work off that base measurement to set the proper ride height before tightening any suspension parts. So in other words, if I know that the car sits at 13" from fender to hub center on the stock suspension and I'm installing lowering springs that will drop the car 1", then I can simply put a floor jack under the lower control arm to raise the entire assembly 12" from hub center to fender in order to tighten down the suspension under load. This works great and is a good way to ensure that you don't destroy bushings prematurely.
100% this is always a good laugh on the F150 forum when folks install aftermarket lifts and stuff breaks and they are *shocked* that Ford won't cover S**t ... modifying the suspension is a great warranty delete
thesmokingman
Active Member
It seems we're passed the warranty denial but I'd like to just add that the OP shouldn't feel too bad. Other brands have been just as harsh for longer and worse yet, on purpose built track cars. For ex, take the Porsche GT cars which are purpose built track cars for the street, ie. you can track them cuz that's what they were intended to do. However, the fine print... it will void your warranty if you do track or mod the car. The irony...!
That said the OP could bring case to arbitration and probably win because the joints are a known defect. And the MMA forces Tesla to prove the chain of failure which they won't be able to nor imo would they even bother too given the resources required especially in light of the known defect.
That said the OP could bring case to arbitration and probably win because the joints are a known defect. And the MMA forces Tesla to prove the chain of failure which they won't be able to nor imo would they even bother too given the resources required especially in light of the known defect.
Jeep owners are even worse...except for me : ^) I have two Jeeps (2012 and 2017) and never did anything crazy and anything I did was done with not voiding the warranty.
the worst ones are diesel truck owners cutting out the exhaust system/ chip tuning and then later complaining when the powertrain warranty is voided and they sit on thousands of $ repair costs ... lol
White Shadow
Member
Disagree. I've been through this before and if you modify the car in relationship to a part that failed, then it's game over. You lose. It really doesn't matter if the part in question is known to have a defect or not. Like I mentioned earlier, the MMWA has a provision that the manufacturer has to claim that the modified or aftermarket component somehow contributed to the failure of the control arms. That's a slam dunk win for the manufacturer when you're talking about an issue with controls arms on a lowered car. That's about as black and white as it gets. I understand that the control arms are an issue even on unmodified cars and I'm quite sure that Tesla could honor the warranty replacement on good faith if they chose to do so, but if they denied warranty and it went to arbitration, Tesla would 100% win quite easily.
thesmokingman
Active Member
You're just assuming they'd win. They, Tesla has to PROVE the lowered stance caused the part to go bad. The fact that there's a TSB on the part proves that it was bad before. Go read the law. W/O MMA changing the tires could void your suspension, duh. Just because the springs are in close proximity it doesn't mean it's an auto void like you assume.
White Shadow
Member
But they don't have to prove it caused anything. Read the MMWA. It only says that they have to prove that it contributed to the failure. It doesn't necessarily have to cause anything.
thesmokingman
Active Member
How are they going to prove it contributed to the failure then mr. semantics?
White Shadow
Member
If you replace your factory tires with the original size tires, I'd agree that you'd really have nothing to worry about as far as warranty claim denail. But if you decided to go with larger/wider tires and ended up with suspension issues, then any manufacturer would be within their rights to deny warranty claims on suspension parts. It amazes me that people don't understand how this works.
Like I said though, manufacturers can still honor the warranty in good faith. And many do, if for no other reason than to keep their customers happy. But if they decided to take a stand and deny warranty coverage, they'd win for sure.
thesmokingman
Active Member
White Shadow
Member
In the case here, it's common sense. Lowering a car affects suspension geometry. Control arms are part of suspension geometry. If they fail, it's common sense that altering the suspension geometry can easily contribute to failure. That's why the MMWA was written that way.....it specifically states that the manufactuers don't have to prove causation.
White Shadow
Member
No answer to what? I already explained tires to you. Stick with original sizes and you're good. Go bigger at your own risk.So no answer then huh??
Similar threads
