The fact that they will try to deny warranty claims if you change your own oil and are not a certified mechanic yourself should give everyone an indication of how tenuous our grasp on a warranty is as mitsubishi owners.

Sadly, I also have an extended "warranty" lol....

 

That is pretty said especially considering I'm more qualified to work on my car than anyone who has touched my car so far at my Mitsu dealership. At least when I work on my car nothing gets f*cked up

 

is there a way to transfer dealerships if theres more than one in your area?

 

TBE by law can AT THE MOST only void the emissions warranty and nothing more.

Its time for people to get educated and stop getting rolled over by stealerships.

A flash can be removed.

I modded my daily, and its great, all depends on what you want though.

 

how sadly mistaken. if the dealer wants to really be @$$h*le$, any modification at all can imply and/or indicate owner abuse and void any warranty they want. its not likely to happen, but they unfortunately always have that trump card up their sleeve...so be nice to your mechanic and they'll usually be nice to you

 

If you do get new exhaust look into a new o2 housing also

 

Wrong, a TBE is a perfect justification for denying warranty work. If you install a freer flowing exhaust, you change the way the engine operates.

 

To sum things up. If u plan to mod your car performance wise, plan to lose ur warranty. Plain and simple. Unless ur doing suspension or brake work. They u jus void those parts which are wearable items anyway.

 

actually kind sir, i was spot on. A dealer can say whatever they like, but as is LAW in canadia(not sure about the states) a performance part only voids a warranty at discretion to the part and or warranty it a. replaces b. touches.

i.e. catback can effect you emissions warranty, but not the full factory warranty.

 

But most dealers when trying to get out of warrenty issues will say customer abuse. Modding the car means you are more than likely to drive it harder, not normal driving conditions. Which is enough for dealers to deny warrenty

 

Good questions. I would like to see a Ralliart Mod List for different price ranges starting at $500 and going up especially for Daily Driver category. If your absolutely concerned with long term reliability I would go for a vendor Mitsu credits. Don't know if you read the dealership EVO literature but it has quotes by AMS in it. Just my opinion, I share your absence of vast car knowledge, but I am a student at the University of Amby.

 

while i applaud your efforts to utilize the more recent legislation enacted by SEMA and some other such organizations, that is really only the "ideal" scenario when it plays out that way.

there are laws saying that the part must directly affect the failure in order to void the warranty, that is correct. what i believe you misunderstand is the definition of direct cause. in your opinion, that is something that replaces/touches a failing item, which i agree is the way it should be, however, this is not the case all the time. a direct cause can be an upgrade intended to increase the cars performance to promote driving habits not originally intended for the vehicle and therefore is considered a direct cause of the problem. it is an unfortunate stipulation in the big picture, when considering mitsubishi's desire to retain the customer base that would purchase these vehicles, but is used nontheless (spelling?).

either way, im not saying you are wrong, because in fact, you are correct about law being in place in order to prevent us from being mistreated for part failures that really arent caused by aftermarket add-ons. i only say what i am saying because that in no way entitles us as vehicle owners to modify our cars heavily and beat the **** out of them, and then gripe when something goes wrong.

as i've said before, most dealerships will work with you and be pretty fair when it comes to light modding, just ask them before you plan on doing anything, or at least say you havent done anything yet. either way, if they are totally against it and refuse to budge, it is your right as a consumer to seek better service options and try another mitsu dealer. any dealership can perform warranty work on any vehicle no matter where it was sold or serviced previously, so look around and im sure you can find someone willing to work with you when it comes to small things here and there, just to enhance a daily driver, as stated in the thread title.

to the OP, like i said, just talk to your dealer first, if they say no, try another one. if you can't find a dealer that will service a lightly modified car under warranty, depending on what it is of course, then you must be willing to accept the consequence if something does indeed happen.

 

also, to clarify, i do work as a tech for in case you hadnt read elsewhere, and we are usually pretty fair when it comes to modification at my dealer, as long as it really isnt the cause of the problem. im just trying to explain the full story in complete detail. and i also understand that you are in canada, and the laws are a bit different, but , and most other manufacturers are governed (spelling?) by corporate law based on an international marketplace and therefore most, if not all, of the legislation regarding these matters is fairly universal. if you can find documentation specifically stating otherwise, then i gladly concede to you and will admit that you are correct for your, and every other canadian's (or whichever other country has law stating otherwise), specific situation not related to the .

 

Well talking to my one Mitsu dealer, my catback system would void my warranty. I'm still waiting for an answer from my other Mitsu dealer. I guess it's a good thing I kept the stock exhaust so that I can slap it on should something happen. Hell the one Mitsu dealer said that even my after market wheels could void my warranty. I just don't get why Mitsu is so strick. If you go to Subaru's website and look at the WRX you can get catback exhaust from Subaru and not void your warranty. If Mitsu would offer their performance accessories here in the states we could avoid this problem but they don't.

 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The relevant legislation here, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975, protects consumers from being wrongfully denied warranty coverage by new car dealers.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states, in part, in Title 15, United States Code, Section 2302, subdivision (c):
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the [Federal Trade] Commission if —

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefore.

Under this federal statute, a manufacturer who issues a warranty on your motor vehicle is prohibited from requiring you to use a service or maintenance item, unless such item is provided, free of charge, under your warranty or unless the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) waives this prohibition against the manufacturer.

Further, under the act, aftermarket equipment that improves performance does not automatically void a vehicle manufacturer's original warranty, unless the warranty clearly states the addition of aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle's warranty, or if it can be proven that the aftermarket device is the direct cause of the failure.

Specifically, the rules and regulations adopted by the FTC to govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 - Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Contained within these rules and regulations is Section 700.10, which states:
No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Act, a dealer must prove, not just vocalize, that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. If the dealer cannot prove such a claim — or it proffers a questionable explanation — it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Magnuson-Moss Act and monitors compliance with warranty law.