Tesla denied warranty for Upper control arms because of Aftermarket Suspension

[thesmokingman]

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.

WRONG. Lowering the car within its the range of the suspension articulation is no different than it being used regularly. If the suspension is compressed going over a speed bump... lol that means upper balls will break, lol. No it does not because its within the range of motion. The problem here is you just like lame techs apply warranty law how you see fit.

 

[White Shadow]

WRONG. Lowering the car within its the range of the suspension articulation is no different than it being used regularly. If the suspension is compressed going over a speed bump... lol that means upper balls will break, lol. No it does not because its within the range of motion. The problem here is you just like lame techs apply warranty law how you see fit.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And for that reason, I'm not going to argue with you. But I will say that history has proven again and again that you're completely wrong. Any modification from OEM can easily cause denied warranty coverage on any related system. So to put it in child's terms for you, if you do something as simple as install a set of lowering springs on a car, the manufacturer is well within it's rights to deny warranty coverage on suspension components. Sorry if you don't agree, but this is a fact and there's really no arguing it. This thread itself is proof of the issue.

 

[CKwik240]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And for that reason, I'm not going to argue with you. But I will say that history has proven again and again that you're completely wrong. Any modification from OEM can easily cause denied warranty coverage on any related system. So to put it in child's terms for you, if you do something as simple as install a set of lowering springs on a car, the manufacturer is well within it's rights to deny warranty coverage on suspension components. Sorry if you don't agree, but this is a fact and there's really no arguing it. This thread itself is proof of the issue.

Technically and legally, I don't see any problem with his argument. The problem is that some manufacturers bank on the fact that most people won't take such a case to court to have it heard. Between the legal procedures and having to have some level of technical understanding and evidence, it's hard for the average Joe to present such a case. Paying an expert to analyze the part for failure mode is not cheap and ideally, it would have to be someone with some expertise and experience with this type of part. Frankly, I doubt one would find any difference between this part and other failures with OE suspension parts.

I'm an engineer for an OE on the commercials truck industry that occasionally is requested to investigate failures for warranty opinions. Every single one of our vehicles have aftermarket parts. We can't simply deny a warranty on that basis alone. Though, given many of our customers have deep pockets, were not compelled to try and legally bully our customers.

If I were the OP, if I had it repaired, I would ask for the parts and tear it down to inspect it.

 

[Mr X]

Of course they did. You modified the car.


All you had to do was take your aftermarket springs off, put the stock springs back on, have the control arms replaced and then put your aftermarket springs back on.


Filing a NHTSA complaint was completely unnecessary lol

 

[E.Potter]

Of course they did. You modified the car.


All you had to do was take your aftermarket springs off, put the stock springs back on, have the control arms replaced and then put your aftermarket springs back on.


Filing a NHTSA complaint was completely unnecessary lol

THANK YOU!!!! done it before

 

[heavyD]

I’ve been modding cars since the early 90’s, owned 2/3 of the automotive brands and any automaker that would warranty suspension that has aftermarket springs and sway bars would be the first I’ve heard of. I don’t even see an argument to be made here as it’s just common sense as the saying of “you gotta pay to play” will never get old when it comes to modding cars under warranty.

 

[E.Potter]

I’ve been modding cars since the early 90’s, owned 2/3 of the automotive brands and any automaker that would warranty suspension that has aftermarket springs and sway bars would be the first I’ve heard of. I don’t even see an argument to be made here as it’s just common sense as the saying of “you gotta pay to play” will never get old when it comes to modding cars under warranty.

agreed

 

[White Shadow]

Technically and legally, I don't see any problem with his argument. The problem is that some manufacturers bank on the fact that most people won't take such a case to court to have it heard. Between the legal procedures and having to have some level of technical understanding and evidence, it's hard for the average Joe to present such a case. Paying an expert to analyze the part for failure mode is not cheap and ideally, it would have to be someone with some expertise and experience with this type of part. Frankly, I doubt one would find any difference between this part and other failures with OE suspension parts.

I'm an engineer for an OE on the commercials truck industry that occasionally is requested to investigate failures for warranty opinions. Every single one of our vehicles have aftermarket parts. We can't simply deny a warranty on that basis alone. Though, given many of our customers have deep pockets, were not compelled to try and legally bully our customers.

If I were the OP, if I had it repaired, I would ask for the parts and tear it down to inspect it.

In my experience, you almost always have to go to arbitration rather than court. Either way though, it would be almost impossible to win in the case described, as we're talking about components that are directly related.

 

[CKwik240]

In my experience, you almost always have to go to arbitration rather than court. Either way though, it would be almost impossible to win in the case described, as we're talking about components that are directly related.

Not impossible. Definitely difficult. But It's probably go the route of asking them to show the differences of the failure between the ball joint on the modified car and the unmodified cases. I guarantee they have investigative documents regarding the normal failure. While they may not be compelled to provide it on arbitration, if arbitration cannot resolve it, the case can still end up in court. And in such a case, One could try and subpoena the information. Chances are all this would cost much more than simply paying for the repairs out of pocket. But if one were to have the resolve and be willing to spend the money...

 

[White Shadow]

Not impossible. Definitely difficult. But It's probably go the route of asking them to show the differences of the failure between the ball joint on the modified car and the unmodified cases. I guarantee they have investigative documents regarding the normal failure. While they may not be compelled to provide it on arbitration, if arbitration cannot resolve it, the case can still end up in court. And in such a case, One could try and subpoena the information. Chances are all this would cost much more than simply paying for the repairs out of pocket. But if one were to have the resolve and be willing to spend the money...

You'd have to look at the Sales Contract to be 100% sure, but most automotive warranty cases have a provision that both parties agree to arbitration as final, meaning it can't go to court. That's why they use arbitrotors in the first place---to keep things out of court. This may vary from state to state. I know here in NJ, the Supreme Court rules that automotive dealer disputes must be rectified in arbitration.

 

[CKwik240]

You'd have to look at the Sales Contract to be 100% sure, but most automotive warranty cases have a provision that both parties agree to arbitration as final, meaning it can't go to court. That's why they use arbitrotors in the first place---to keep things out of court. This may vary from state to state. I know here in NJ, the Supreme Court rules that automotive dealer disputes must be rectified in arbitration.

Actually, the warranty language is where you would find this information.

Here the link to Tesla's current warranty language:

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf

Here's some legal info about arbitration and warranties. It's not so clear cut:

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act And Arbitration Agreements

Read this blog about how Florida courts consider whether binding arbitration agreements in a written warranty may violate the Magnuson-Moss Act.

www.google.com

That said, escalating it could get the manufacturer to concede the case to avoid court costs and setting an unwanted precedence. Though, the plaintiff will likely incur quite a bit of cost in the process.

 

[White Shadow]

Actually, the warranty language is where you would find this information.

Here the link to Tesla's current warranty language:

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf

Here's some legal info about arbitration and warranties. It's not so clear cut:

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act And Arbitration Agreements

Read this blog about how Florida courts consider whether binding arbitration agreements in a written warranty may violate the Magnuson-Moss Act.

www.google.com

That said, escalating it could get the manufacturer to concede the case to avoid court costs and setting an unwanted precedence. Though, the plaintiff will likely incur quite a bit of cost in the process.

Sure, and the warranty is simply a guarantee that comes as part of the Sales Contract. Without that contract, there is no warranty. Either way, I do believe it varies from state to state, but in my experience in the NY/NJ area, arbitration is binding and I've been through it in the past without any way to get into court. In my opinion, arbitration is the better option for the consumer because court will most likely end up costly due to attorney fees. Unless of course someone thinks that they can represent themselves against an attorney working for the manufacturer.

That said, I was successful once in an arbitration case against Acura.

 

[RxMarauder]

I know this is months after OP posted, but I have Eibach springs on my car.

7/26/2022 Tesla replaced control arms under warranty, but made me responsible for suspension links (plus diagnostic fee, parts, labor ($200+ an hour), and cost of an alignment). Denial of repair might depend on the service center? Hope this helps anyone else looking for info.

 

[Skione65]

Do they typically include alignment with the FUCA replacements?

Ski

 

[Perscitus]

Depends. Almost down to specific SC/MC flavor of the day and certainly regional/local preference.

Some regions swear by a need to replace FUCAs as SCs only and a mandatory alignment (free if under warranty and often pathetically bad), others happily send MS and replace in record time with no alignment mentioned or needed.

Same applies to the general approach of replacing FUCAs (J/K are the latest) under warranty. Everything from 'take our parts' to 'cant reproduce customer complaint, warranty repair/replacement denied' to 'noises are within spec, rock on for new 50 miles and come back once the warranty expires in 51'.

 

[ODWms]

I told them to delete alignment from the order. They put it on automatically when I had it in for FUCA replacement. Didn’t need it.

 

[Lindenwood]

I know this is months after OP posted, but I have Eibach springs on my car.

7/26/2022 Tesla replaced control arms under warranty, but made me responsible for suspension links (plus diagnostic fee, parts, labor ($200+ an hour), and cost of an alignment). Denial of repair might depend on the service center? Hope this helps anyone else looking for info.

I truly can’t help but think you also probably demonstrated some respect and humility in your request for assistance………….

 

[Occhis]

I know this is months after OP posted, but I have Eibach springs on my car.

7/26/2022 Tesla replaced control arms under warranty, but made me responsible for suspension links (plus diagnostic fee, parts, labor ($200+ an hour), and cost of an alignment). Denial of repair might depend on the service center? Hope this helps anyone else looking for info.

So what was your total cost out the door?

 

[Skione65]

Depends. Almost down to specific SC/MC flavor of the day and certainly regional/local preference.

Some regions swear by a need to replace FUCAs as SCs only and a mandatory alignment (free if under warranty and often pathetically bad), others happily send MS and replace in record time with no alignment mentioned or needed.

Same applies to the general approach of replacing FUCAs (J/K are the latest) under warranty. Everything from 'take our parts' to 'cant reproduce customer complaint, warranty repair/replacement denied' to 'noises are within spec, rock on for new 50 miles and come back once the warranty expires in 51'.

This is everything I’ve been reading. Agreed. It’s why I couldn’t make sense of it but seems to be the case. Thanks.

Ski

 

[nate704]

WRONG. Lowering the car within its the range of the suspension articulation is no different than it being used regularly. If the suspension is compressed going over a speed bump... lol that means upper balls will break, lol. No it does not because its within the range of motion. The problem here is you just like lame techs apply warranty law how you see fit.

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.