Tesla denied warranty for Upper control arms because of Aftermarket Suspension

[Occhis]

WRONG. by modifying/lowering suspension sitting height and different spring rate/characteristics will alter the designed ride height/suspension behavior/response.
You can say it is within the suspension travel, but actual dynamic range of altered suspension travel can put stress on other parts, like upper/lower ball joints, CV axle/joints, etc.
That's why you blow/kill OEM shocks/dampers faster than designed lifetime by installing lowering springs with different height and spring rates.
This is cut and dry case of you modify suspension parts, you loose suspension warranty. period.
If I flash OEM turbocharged cars ECM and blow up the engine, does the dealer has to cover it under warranty? Hell NO because even piggyback ECM signal modification which operates within the OEM operating range (within the ECM control range) can blow up the engine and it is not covered under warranty.

All of that may be true, and would be valid reasons to deny warranty coverage if so many others with no suspension mods were not having UCA failures. It’s a known, widespread issue and Tesla should be covering all of them.

 

[nate704]

All of that may be true, and would be valid reasons to deny warranty coverage if so many others with no suspension mods were not having UCA failures. It’s a known, widespread issue and Tesla should be covering all of them.

All Tesla has to do is to point out the modified suspension components right next to the UCA in court, which are all connected and works as one unit to function.
What does OP have? known issue? So, all 100% Tesla cars have that failed UCA documented somewhere? Any recall regarding that issue documented somewhere?

 

[Occhis]

No, Tesla may not be legally bound to cover this, but doing so would have the advantage of doing the right thing for the customer and potential future repeat buyer. But maybe with the demand as it is, that’s looking too far ahead.
I love my car and would definitely buy it again, but Tesla needs to become more accessible and customer service oriented, IMO. Legacy car makers are not perfect in this regard, but they are so much better than Tesla.

 

[VT_EE]

Roughly $750

$750 is BS. I had my drivers-side upper control are replaced out of warranty for $90 about 4 months ago. They only charged me for the part, No later. Perhaps they took pity on my since that was the second time I had it done. First time was around 30k miles.

 

[dmurphy]

No, Tesla may not be legally bound to cover this, but doing so would have the advantage of doing the right thing for the customer and potential future repeat buyer. But maybe with the demand as it is, that’s looking too far ahead.
I love my car and would definitely buy it again, but Tesla needs to become more accessible and customer service oriented, IMO. Legacy car makers are not perfect in this regard, but they are so much better than Tesla.

Disagree. Once you start modifying the suspension, YOYO (you’re on your own), and rightfully so. It’s a conscious decision to make. I wouldn’t expect any mfr to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

[Occhis]

Disagree. Once you start modifying the suspension, YOYO (you’re on your own), and rightfully so. It’s a conscious decision to make. I wouldn’t expect any mfr to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I can respect that POV, but on this particular issue maintain my own viewpoint. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[White Shadow]

Just generally speaking, you gotta pay to play. What that means is this---if you decide to modify your car IN ANY WAY, then you might not get warranty coverage if you have an issue that is related to your modifications.

I mod all of my cars to some extent. And I do so with the expectation that I may be responsible for repairs that may otherwise have been covered under warranty. This is how reponsible grown-ups should behave instead of always trying to scam the system.

 

[Occhis]

So if this becomes a recall issue, should Tesla replace UCAs on all cars including modified ones?

 

[ColoradoMike]

Just generally speaking, you gotta pay to play. What that means is this---if you decide to modify your car IN ANY WAY, then you might not get warranty coverage if you have an issue that is related to your modifications.

I mod all of my cars to some extent. And I do so with the expectation that I may be responsible for repairs that may otherwise have been covered under warranty. This is how reponsible grown-ups should behave instead of always trying to scam the system.

Likewise. I do not expect Porsche to "honor" a warranty if something happens within a "system" that has been modified.

I will give you an example. On our Audi A5, We installed a "mirror tap" for a RADAR detector. Our passenger suspension had an issue (common problem). Could Audi deny us? Sure, perhaps, but those systems do not talk. Where it may come into an issue is that with Tesla (again not knowing a damn thing about how it talks)....would that deny a warranty claim? Not sure.

On the truck forums.....it is a back and forth about this issue.

 

[CKwik240]

So if this becomes a recall issue, should Tesla replace UCAs on all cars including modified ones?

Won't become a recall unless it affects safety.

 

[White Shadow]

Likewise. I do not expect Porsche to "honor" a warranty if something happens within a "system" that has been modified.

I will give you an example. On our Audi A5, We installed a "mirror tap" for a RADAR detector. Our passenger suspension had an issue (common problem). Could Audi deny us? Sure, perhaps, but those systems do not talk. Where it may come into an issue is that with Tesla (again not knowing a damn thing about how it talks)....would that deny a warranty claim? Not sure.

On the truck forums.....it is a back and forth about this issue.

That's why warranty rules are written in clear language. If you modify your suspension and then you have something that needs to be replaced ON THE SUSPENSION, then I think it should be obvious that the manufacturer may in fact deny your warranty coverage on that repair. If your power window switch breaks, I don't think anyone is going to point at your suspension mods as the reason for the power window failure.

 

[White Shadow]

So if this becomes a recall issue, should Tesla replace UCAs on all cars including modified ones?

My guess is that they probably would. Why? Because it's a recall, not a warranty claim.

 

[Occhis]

Small distinction if we’re talking about the genesis of the problem.

 

[White Shadow]

Small distinction if we’re talking about the genesis of the problem.

Point is that a recall applies to all cars in any give VIN range, modified or not. And it also applies even if the warranty is expired.

Warranty work doesn't necessarily apply to all cars.

 

[drpheta]

I can't believe there are people who still believe that they modified the suspension had no impact on the FUCA failing. Regardless of the possibility that it's a common issue, modifying the suspension exerted a non-OEM force load/spring rate/load frequency/angle of attack. The manufacturer has every right to deny warranty claim on the suspension having issues. If it was going to fail, you can't say that your modification didn't accelerate that failure. Could've been the install wasn't done properly, or the mods themselves did the damage.

That's the cost of modifying your car.

 

[Occhis]

My contention is that there is the same likelihood they will fail whether the suspension is modified or not. Just look at all the posts on this site where non-modified UCA failed. I realize it’s a small sample, but seems to be a pervasive issue.

 

[whisperingshad]

Always put car back to stock before taking to a dealership has always been the way.

 

[drpheta]

As I stated

"If it was going to fail, you can't say that your modification didn't accelerate that failure. Could've been the install wasn't done properly, or the mods themselves did the damage."

 

[CKwik240]

I can't believe there are people who still believe that they modified the suspension had no impact on the FUCA failing. Regardless of the possibility that it's a common issue, modifying the suspension exerted a non-OEM force load/spring rate/load frequency/angle of attack. The manufacturer has every right to deny warranty claim on the suspension having issues. If it was going to fail, you can't say that your modification didn't accelerate that failure. Could've been the install wasn't done properly, or the mods themselves did the damage.

That's the cost of modifying your car.

The only bending forces the arm will experience is from forward and aft loads (during acceleration and braking). The up and down loads placed on the wheel are not transferred into the upper arm at all. Therefore the change in spring/damping rate will have no effect on the upper ball joint from a suspension movement perspective.

As the loads aren't going to change during compression or rebound, I don't see how changing out springs and/or dampers are going to have any appreciable effect... Lower control arms would see load changes in this regard, but we aren't having an issue with those.

 

[drpheta]

The only bending forces the arm will experience is from forward and aft loads (during acceleration and braking). The up and down loads placed on the wheel are not transferred into the upper arm at all. Therefore the change in spring/damping rate will have no effect on the upper ball joint from a suspension movement perspective.

As the loads aren't going to change during compression or rebound, I don't see how changing out springs and/or dampers are going to have any appreciable effect... Lower control arms would see load changes in this regard, but we aren't having an issue with those.

The ball joint still rotates differently at different heights. I'm not saying they are actually causing increased wear. I'm saying that a modified suspension changes the kinematics and dynamics of the system. The mgfr has every right to believe that played a role in the failure.