Tesla denied warranty for Upper control arms because of Aftermarket Suspension

[Perscitus]

Per a few SC managers and certified body shop owners, Tesla has an internal recall with the vendor which supplied the FUCAs (at least through some as-of manufacture and car model month/year date) and is basically having this vendor eat the cost of replacing all the FUCAs (at least the parts cost).

This is part of the reason why Tesla will typically replace both, if even just one is deemed to have failed.

Given this, its surprising they nickle and dime people with replacement and why they even bother with the pathetic bandaid resealing. The only logical explanation is they'd rather have more FUCAs fail out of warranty so the vendor/provider doesnt have to eat the cost for replacing all FUCAs for MYs 2017-2022+ ... and likely multiple times.

Will be interesting to see if the new silver cast iron FUCAs make any difference or will this become one of the signature failure points for 1st gen Model 3/Ys.
Hopefully they figure out how to make a robust suspension for whatever cars come next (5-10 years).

 

[whisperingshad]

I agree....dealerships can absolutely be scammers. But you're no better if you remove your modifications in order to get warranty repairs done. That makes you a scammer too. I choose not to be that guy. If I'm paying for modifications to my car, then I'll pay to repair it if something goes wrong. I'm not going to try to scam the dealership just because I think they are scammers themselves. Why complain about dealerships if you're just as dishonest?

Its smart to do since most stuff put on doesn't affect something but the dealership ALWAYS tries to blame it on ANYTHING aftermarket. lol

 

[CKwik240]

I'd argue that it's not an excuse. Tesla designed and built a car and they provide a warranty for that car. You buy the car and modify it. When a related component fails, Tesla is not obligated to honor the warranty repair for that part. You can call that an excuse if you want, but I call that following the warranty as it's written.

Again, if it turns out that the component in question was defective and a recall is eventually issued, then Tesla will indeed replace the component in question, hopefully with an upgraded design.

It's not an excuse. I'm presenting information that the ball joints are not under a different load than would be seen with factory springs and shocks.

I've seen so many poor installations of lowering springs that cause issues with the suspension. A lot of people apparently don't know that suspension components like control arms shouldn't be torqued until they are sitting at proper resting ride height. But most guys just crank them down while hanging and this causes bushing failure in the control arms.

What does this have to do with the ball joints?

But hey, everyone is an expert mechanic these days because they watched a YouTube video of someone who probably doesn't even know what he's doing either. Sad fact, but so true.

It's there an argument being made here?

As for your bending forces theory----keep in mind that lowering springs ALWAYS change the angle of the upper control arms. For just that reason alone, the manufacturer can simply say that the modification made took the suspension out of normal parameters.

It's not a theory. Draw a free body diagram of the suspension and figure out the loads. You don't even need numbers. This can be figured qualitatively.

 

[CKwik240]

Yes. This is a design issue and a high percentage will eventually fail regardless of mods. If this is not the case, why do we have people on this board had Tesla replace the opposite side gratuitously as a preventative measure when only one side is failing? Not hard to figure out.

Without an analysis of a failed part, this isn't clear that it's a design issue. It could be a manufacturing issue or materials issue that wasn't detected during production of the part.

 

[CKwik240]

Per a few SC managers and certified body shop owners, Tesla has an internal recall with the vendor which supplied the FUCAs (at least through some as-of manufacture and car model month/year date) and is basically having this vendor eat the cost of replacing all the FUCAs (at least the parts cost).

This is part of the reason why Tesla will typically replace both, if even just one is deemed to have failed.

If that is happening something the supplier did was to blame. But it's not a recall. Recalls are issued when a part failure has a potential outcome that could result in injury or death. This is likely to be the supplier fixing the issue and reimbursing the customer. And Tesla is not going to replace both just because it's on someone else's some. The supplier can audit the warranty datac and is only required to reimburse for claims that clearly indicate there was a problem. Tesla and the supplier may also negotiate a one time settlement in which case Tesla would not be reimbursed any further. In both scenarios, Tesla isn't inclined to simply replace parts that haven't failed.

 

[Perscitus]

Thanks, legalise aside that is however exactly what they are doing. Why so? I am not exactly sure and frankly I do not care for it, either way.

As with all other human org constructs, each SC/MC appears to interpret the actions they should and can take - differently.

Resulting in some owners getting multiple dual FUCA replacements while under warranty (with or without Tesla staff replicating whatever warrants a replacement), whilst others have had the worst possible luck getting even one FUCA replaced.

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

Will be interesting to see if the new silver cast iron FUCAs make any difference or will this become one of the signature failure points for 1st gen Model 3/Ys.

What on earth is a "silver cast iron FUCA"?

 

[Perscitus]

See the upper right of below from the updated service manual:

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/1659189932973-png.834589/

And just in case some acronyms need deciphering:

FUCA = front upper control arm
RLCA = rear lower control arm

 

[White Shadow]

It's not an excuse. I'm presenting information that the ball joints are not under a different load than would be seen with factory springs and shocks.

Hmm...maybe you misunderstood. You said that TESLA was making an excuse. I said that I'd argue that it's not an excuse, it's written into the warranty as such. Nobody here is saying that YOU'RE making an excuse.

What does this have to do with the ball joints?

It has absolutely nothing to do with ball joints. I didn't even imply it had anything to do with ball joints. You're the only person talking about ball joints here. The rest of us are talking about upper control arms. Ball joints are not the only thing that can fail on control arms.

It's there an argument being made here?

An argument? No. It's just a general statement of fact that there are many, many people who wrench on their cars without really knowing what they are doing. I see it all the time when people post their work online. If I wanted to make that statement into an argument, I would have followed up with something like this: "I'd argue that half of all issues that arise from modifying cars is caused by improper installation rather than the aftermarket part itself." But the problem with that argument is that I don't have any real data to support it.

It's not a theory. Draw a free body diagram of the suspension and figure out the loads. You don't even need numbers. This can be figured qualitatively.

I find it ironic that you cherry pick the word "theory" in my statement and then gloss over the the remainder of the statement, which is relevant and 100% fact. You once again miss the point that your theory leaves out an important factor because you chose to base your argument strictly on ball joints instead of control arm failure. If you're going to participate in this discussion, at least try to be intellectually honest. The topic of this thread is denied warranty coverage because of control arm failure on a modified car. It's not a discussion on ball joints and suspension loads.

 

[White Shadow]

Its smart to do since most stuff put on doesn't affect something but the dealership ALWAYS tries to blame it on ANYTHING aftermarket. lol

As someone in the industry, I'll say this: Most people don't realize that dealerships are held accountable for their decisions on providing warranty work. Who holds them accountable? The manufacturer does. A dealership gets paid either way, repairing a vehicle under warranty or not. The difference is how they get paid....and when it's under warranty the manufacturer pays for the repairs. So for that reason, manufacturers hold dealerships responsible for their decisions on whether or not to warranty a repair. Again, this why there are written rules for warranties. Dealerships are obligated to follow those rules. If they don't, the manufacturer can refuse to pay them for the warranty work they provided to the customer.

Did you know that parts replaced under warranty sometimes have to be sent to the manufacturer? This is done for several reasons. Probably the main reason is to find the reason for failure and look for trends. It's also to ensure that the part replaced did in fact fail. Dealership technicians are often "parts swappers" when they don't have good diagnostic skills, so they'll just throw a bunch of parts at the car until the problem is fixed. This costs the manufacturer money. That's why there's so much pushback in the industry now. People like to blame dealerships for everything, but the fact of the matter is that they are just following the rules as written by the manufacturer. And of course nobody wants to take any responsibility themselves.....so they modify their cars and then put the car back to stock in order to get repair work done for free under warranty. I don't play that game....I simply hold myself to a higher standard.

Keep in mind that my words above are about the typical dealesrhip model. Tesla obviously doesn't have a typical dealership model and I'm not 100% sure how warranty repairs are structured with Tesla.

 

[CKwik240]

Hmm...maybe you misunderstood. You said that TESLA was making an excuse. I said that I'd argue that it's not an excuse, it's written into the warranty as such. Nobody here is saying that YOU'RE making an excuse.

Ok. I did misunderstand what you meant, but my point still stands. He's the except from Tesla's warranty below:

It's not so black and white. First section talks about inappropriate modifications (vague much?) And last section says resulting from. So what is my excuse exactly? I'm just saying the load is not any different on the UCA.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ball joints. I didn't even imply it had anything to do with ball joints. You're the only person talking about ball joints here. The rest of us are talking about upper control arms. Ball joints are not the only thing that can fail on control arms.

I'm pretty sure the thread starts out taking about ball joints. And perhaps a leak was mentioned somewhere. But what other failure are we talking about? And how does my statement that the UCA is not experiencing any different loads invalid as a result?

An argument? No. It's just a general statement of fact that there are many, many people who wrench on their cars without really knowing what they are doing. I see it all the time when people post their work online. If I wanted to make that statement into an argument, I would have followed up with something like this: "I'd argue that half of all issues that arise from modifying cars is caused by improper installation rather than the aftermarket part itself." But the problem with that argument is that I don't have any real data to support it.

But how is any of this material to the argument at hand?

I find it ironic that you cherry pick the word "theory" in my statement and then gloss over the the remainder of the statement, which is relevant and 100% fact. You once again miss the point that your theory leaves out an important factor because you chose to base your argument strictly on ball joints instead of control arm failure. If you're going to participate in this discussion, at least try to be intellectually honest. The topic of this thread is denied warranty coverage because of control arm failure on a modified car. It's not a discussion on ball joints and suspension loads.

Glossed over? I literally told you to draw a free body diagram and analyze the forces. In earlier posts I described the forces applied to the UCA and this comment was an expansion of that? You're being disingenuous.

 

[whisperingshad]

As someone in the industry, I'll say this: Most people don't realize that dealerships are held accountable for their decisions on providing warranty work. Who holds them accountable? The manufacturer does. A dealership gets paid either way, repairing a vehicle under warranty or not. The difference is how they get paid....and when it's under warranty the manufacturer pays for the repairs. So for that reason, manufacturers hold dealerships responsible for their decisions on whether or not to warranty a repair. Again, this why there are written rules for warranties. Dealerships are obligated to follow those rules. If they don't, the manufacturer can refuse to pay them for the warranty work they provided to the customer.

Did you know that parts replaced under warranty sometimes have to be sent to the manufacturer? This is done for several reasons. Probably the main reason is to find the reason for failure and look for trends. It's also to ensure that the part replaced did in fact fail. Dealership technicians are often "parts swappers" when they don't have good diagnostic skills, so they'll just throw a bunch of parts at the car until the problem is fixed. This costs the manufacturer money. That's why there's so much pushback in the industry now. People like to blame dealerships for everything, but the fact of the matter is that they are just following the rules as written by the manufacturer. And of course nobody wants to take any responsibility themselves.....so they modify their cars and then put the car back to stock in order to get repair work done for free under warranty. I don't play that game....I simply hold myself to a higher standard.

Keep in mind that my words above are about the typical dealesrhip model. Tesla obviously doesn't have a typical dealership model and I'm not 100% sure how warranty repairs are structured with Tesla.

Regardless of who pays the dealer, they will still try to blame aftermarket first plain and simple. You might get luckly with an honest person once in a while, but good luck with that

 

[Occhis]

When I spoke to the service agent face to face, I got the impression that they would cover my UCA, even though he said it is a gray area with modified suspension and would decide upon inspection. He didn’t say “too bad, modified suspension, you’re on your own”. For me, I didn’t want to pay $97.50 for diagnosis and run the risk of being denied, when I could buy the part for the same amount, spend less than 2 hours installing it and be done.

 

[White Shadow]

Ok. I did misunderstand what you meant, but my point still stands. He's the except from Tesla's warranty below:
View attachment 836107
It's not so black and white. First section talks about inappropriate modifications (vague much?) And last section says resulting from. So what is my excuse exactly? I'm just saying the load is not any different on the UCA.

I'm pretty sure the thread starts out taking about ball joints. And perhaps a leak was mentioned somewhere. But what other failure are we talking about? And how does my statement that the UCA is not experiencing any different loads invalid as a result?

But how is any of this material to the argument at hand?

Glossed over? I literally told you to draw a free body diagram and analyze the forces. In earlier posts I described the forces applied to the UCA and this comment was an expansion of that? You're being disingenuous.

I really don't have the desire to go point to point on this, so I'll just sum it up with my opinion----Tesla manufactures cars and they provide a warranty for those cars. The warranty is written and is pretty clear. Yes, I'm sure parts of it are open to interpretation since it's impossible to cover every possible scenario and circumstance comprehensively. If a car is modified, then Tesla reserves the right to deny warranty coverage if the failed part is related to the modification. For those who oppose this right or feel it's unfair or unjust, arbitration exists to sort it out. It's free and doesn't cost you anything but your time.

That's about it.....any other discussion involving the how/why/when of warranties vs modifications is just regurgitating the same old thing over and over again.

 

[White Shadow]

When I spoke to the service agent face to face, I got the impression that they would cover my UCA, even though he said it is a gray area with modified suspension and would decide upon inspection. He didn’t say “too bad, modified suspension, you’re on your own”. For me, I didn’t want to pay $97.50 for diagnosis and run the risk of being denied, when I could buy the part for the same amount, spend less than 2 hours installing it and be done.

From past experience, there are dealers that will often warranty a repair to stay in a customer's good graces. Or maybe the customer has a really good history with the dealership service department. Every once in a while, someone might throw you a bone.

One good way to make sure you don't ever get a bone thrown your way is to be abrasive and argumentative with your service people. Being polite and kind is always the better option.

 

[CKwik240]

I really don't have the desire to go point to point on this,

Says the person who brings up bushing failures and YouTube mechanics as an argument against a technical argument and contends that a technical argument is wrong without actually making a technical argument. But I digress. There is no need for you to go point by point. Just address my contention that the ball joint/UCA doesn't see a differing load simply for being lowered. I mentioned the physics/engineering to needed to do this twice already, but just so it's clear, all you need is a free body diagram to understand what I'm saying.

so I'll just sum it up with my opinion----Tesla manufactures cars and they provide a warranty for those cars. The warranty is written and is pretty clear. Yes, I'm sure parts of it are open to interpretation since it's impossible to cover every possible scenario and circumstance comprehensively. If a car is modified, then Tesla reserves the right to deny warranty coverage if the failed part is related to the modification. For those who oppose this right or feel it's unfair or unjust, arbitration exists to sort it out. It's free and doesn't cost you anything but your time.

The warranty is a contract. I attached the relevant parts. Ultimately if it plays out in court or arbitration, it's going to be a technical argument. If Tesla walked into either just saying they reserve the right to deny warranty, it would be simple enough to show the contract says differently. So the case would end up being dependent on either side proving their case based on the technical aspects.

That's about it.....any other discussion involving the how/why/when of warranties vs modifications is just regurgitating the same old thing over and over again.

So the argument is decided simply because you say it's so? You seem to think you're some sort of authority on this subject matter. Sheesh.

 

[enemji]

Tesla is refusing my repair for upper control arms because I am sitting on eibach springs and have aftermarket swap bars. The upper control arm issue is a very well known and common issue. They even came out to apply their black silicone crap to prevent the creaking just long enough to get out of the warranty coverage. Unfortunately for me, my car wasn't sealed in time and water damaged the ball joints prior to application. Now tesla is flat out refusing to touch the car that's still in warranty. I've filed a NHTSA complaint. I am sick and tired of Teslas shady business model. I understand that I am running aftermarket parts but that doesn't change the fact that even non modified cars have this same creaking issue. We(the Tesla community) need to force a recall on this part somehow. Tbh it's not even about the money at this point. I can just go with MPP and be done with it. It's the lack of responsibility for their *sugar* build quality that is upsetting. And that I will not let go. I'm gonna see it through that they replace this part or I'll lemon my car. This is the 4th time I've complained about this same issue in my 40k of driving.

bummer but can't blame them

 

[White Shadow]

Says the person who brings up bushing failures and YouTube mechanics as an argument against a technical argument and contends that a technical argument is wrong without actually making a technical argument. But I digress. There is no need for you to go point by point. Just address my contention that the ball joint/UCA doesn't see a differing load simply for being lowered. I mentioned the physics/engineering to needed to do this twice already, but just so it's clear, all you need is a free body diagram to understand what I'm saying.

The warranty is a contract. I attached the relevant parts. Ultimately if it plays out in court or arbitration, it's going to be a technical argument. If Tesla walked into either just saying they reserve the right to deny warranty, it would be simple enough to show the contract says differently. So the case would end up being dependent on either side proving their case based on the technical aspects.

So the argument is decided simply because you say it's so? You seem to think you're some sort of authority on this subject matter. Sheesh.

LOL, feel free to continue arguing...just not with me. And actually, I am an authority on this. I'm in the industry. I deal with this every day.

 

[CKwik240]

LOL, feel free to continue arguing...just not with me. And actually, I am an authority on this. I'm in the industry. I deal with this every day.

As if your the only one in the industry? And that's certainly all fine and well, but even if you are, you should still be able to back your contentions with fact and analysis. When subject matter experts still have to provide evidence of their claims.

 

[enemji]

Says the person who brings up bushing failures and YouTube mechanics as an argument against a technical argument and contends that a technical argument is wrong without actually making a technical argument. But I digress. There is no need for you to go point by point. Just address my contention that the ball joint/UCA doesn't see a differing load simply for being lowered. I mentioned the physics/engineering to needed to do this twice already, but just so it's clear, all you need is a free body diagram to understand what I'm saying.

The warranty is a contract. I attached the relevant parts. Ultimately if it plays out in court or arbitration, it's going to be a technical argument. If Tesla walked into either just saying they reserve the right to deny warranty, it would be simple enough to show the contract says differently. So the case would end up being dependent on either side proving their case based on the technical aspects.

So the argument is decided simply because you say it's so? You seem to think you're some sort of authority on this subject matter. Sheesh.

Your contention is not treated as evidence. Show evidence such as FEA proving your point. Otherwise stop arguing.

Example:

[Retracted] Finite Element Structure Analysis of Automobile Suspension Control Arm Based on Neural Network Control

The control arm is an important transmission and guidance device in the Macpherson suspension system, which has an important impact on the ride comfort, operation stability, and safety of the vehicle, so it is necessary to study the structural performance of the control arm. In this paper, based...

www.hindawi.com