Moding the Daily Driver
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
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.
under the magnusson-moss act, as i said, you are technically correct, however, abuse does come in to play. take into account the owner of the evo x mr who had a heavily modified vehicle and ended up blowing the sst transmission on a track day. the vehicle was actually returned to near stock condition before being towed to a dealership where they DID HONOR THE WARRANTY and replaced his $10k+ transmission. the owner then went onto a forum such as this (not sure if this one or another) and bragged about his evasion of warranty-denial in order to get his new transmission. someone from mitsubishi, not a tech, but actually higher up the ladder of the 
regime, read his posting and they permanently voided the remainder of his warranty coverage completely. they did not seek any action to recover the loss of revenue due to the warranty claim, but his/her vehicle is permanently flagged to never again receive warranty coverage on ANY PARTS OR LABOR, not including recall parts. all of this based on professed CUSTOMER ABUSE by the owner. as is stated in the legislature, the abuse or "direct cause" MUST BE PROVEN, that is correct, but there are a number of ways to do so. the mentioned owner may have actually gotten away with their claim had they not boasted about their deceit, but again, its a risk one takes when modifying their vehicle. and again, im not saying all dealers are going to be jerks and void a warranty just because of a cat-back, intake, etc., im just saying that through the process that goes along with modifying and maintaining a vehicle, it is a real possibility you must be ready to accept if in fact you do abuse your car. i personally have already modified slightly, and intend to continue to do so, but if you look at my tire tread-wear or brake pad wear, etc. you can see the car is not abused continually, but is modified for my increased pleasure during the time when i want to do some "spirited driving", so im not trying to be biased towards mitsu's right to deny claims, only trying to put some facts out there that you cant always hide behind the magnusson-moss act for everything and anything
regime, read his posting and they permanently voided the remainder of his warranty coverage completely. they did not seek any action to recover the loss of revenue due to the warranty claim, but his/her vehicle is permanently flagged to never again receive warranty coverage on ANY PARTS OR LABOR, not including recall parts. all of this based on professed CUSTOMER ABUSE by the owner. as is stated in the legislature, the abuse or "direct cause" MUST BE PROVEN, that is correct, but there are a number of ways to do so. the mentioned owner may have actually gotten away with their claim had they not boasted about their deceit, but again, its a risk one takes when modifying their vehicle. and again, im not saying all dealers are going to be jerks and void a warranty just because of a cat-back, intake, etc., im just saying that through the process that goes along with modifying and maintaining a vehicle, it is a real possibility you must be ready to accept if in fact you do abuse your car. i personally have already modified slightly, and intend to continue to do so, but if you look at my tire tread-wear or brake pad wear, etc. you can see the car is not abused continually, but is modified for my increased pleasure during the time when i want to do some "spirited driving", so im not trying to be biased towards mitsu's right to deny claims, only trying to put some facts out there that you cant always hide behind the magnusson-moss act for everything and anything
Account Disabled
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
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.
The thing you need to remember is, the dealer isnt the final say. If some douche at the dealer is trying to seem important by denying your cars problem over a catback, there are support lines that in more cases then not, will override the dealership into giving you the warranty work you deserve.
Its such a vicious cycle, i've never fully understood how a dealership in its right mind would refuse service, the business that makes them the most money.
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Northeast
under the magnusson-moss act, as i said, you are technically correct, however, abuse does come in to play. take into account the owner of the evo x mr who had a heavily modified vehicle and ended up blowing the sst transmission on a track day. the vehicle was actually returned to near stock condition before being towed to a dealership where they DID HONOR THE WARRANTY and replaced his $10k+ transmission. the owner then went onto a forum such as this (not sure if this one or another) and bragged about his evasion of warranty-denial in order to get his new transmission. someone from mitsubishi, not a tech, but actually higher up the ladder of the regime, read his posting and they permanently voided the remainder of his warranty coverage completely. they did not seek any action to recover the loss of revenue due to the warranty claim, but his/her vehicle is permanently flagged to never again receive warranty coverage on ANY PARTS OR LABOR, not including recall parts. all of this based on professed CUSTOMER ABUSE by the owner. as is stated in the legislature, the abuse or "direct cause" MUST BE PROVEN, that is correct, but there are a number of ways to do so. the mentioned owner may have actually gotten away with their claim had they not boasted about their deceit, but again, its a risk one takes when modifying their vehicle. and again, im not saying all dealers are going to be jerks and void a warranty just because of a cat-back, intake, etc., im just saying that through the process that goes along with modifying and maintaining a vehicle, it is a real possibility you must be ready to accept if in fact you do abuse your car. i personally have already modified slightly, and intend to continue to do so, but if you look at my tire tread-wear or brake pad wear, etc. you can see the car is not abused continually, but is modified for my increased pleasure during the time when i want to do some "spirited driving", so im not trying to be biased towards mitsu's right to deny claims, only trying to put some facts out there that you cant always hide behind the magnusson-moss act for everything and anything
regime, read his posting and they permanently voided the remainder of his warranty coverage completely. they did not seek any action to recover the loss of revenue due to the warranty claim, but his/her vehicle is permanently flagged to never again receive warranty coverage on ANY PARTS OR LABOR, not including recall parts. all of this based on professed CUSTOMER ABUSE by the owner. as is stated in the legislature, the abuse or "direct cause" MUST BE PROVEN, that is correct, but there are a number of ways to do so. the mentioned owner may have actually gotten away with their claim had they not boasted about their deceit, but again, its a risk one takes when modifying their vehicle. and again, im not saying all dealers are going to be jerks and void a warranty just because of a cat-back, intake, etc., im just saying that through the process that goes along with modifying and maintaining a vehicle, it is a real possibility you must be ready to accept if in fact you do abuse your car. i personally have already modified slightly, and intend to continue to do so, but if you look at my tire tread-wear or brake pad wear, etc. you can see the car is not abused continually, but is modified for my increased pleasure during the time when i want to do some "spirited driving", so im not trying to be biased towards mitsu's right to deny claims, only trying to put some facts out there that you cant always hide behind the magnusson-moss act for everything and anythingI totally agree with you and that EVO X owner is a total DB for abusing the system.
I was posting that for the OP, he wanted to do some small mods (All the ones listed don't seem extreme) and not go to track days etc..... I don't think a dealership is going to void a warranty if you have a catback exhaust system or intake etc.... but if you do all kinds of performance mods and your turbo "pops" then I would totally expect
to void warranty work on the motor etc.... but if my seats start to fall apart they still have to cover that. That is kinda why I posted the magnusson-moss act.
Last edited by Bo0yaka; Sep 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM.
people saying crap like this is fear mongering. Wheels can in no way effect your warranty, and just them saying so is a complete lack of training and know how.
The thing you need to remember is, the dealer isnt the final say. If some douche at the dealer is trying to seem important by denying your cars problem over a catback, there are support lines that in more cases then not, will override the dealership into giving you the warranty work you deserve.
Its such a vicious cycle, i've never fully understood how a dealership in its right mind would refuse service, the business that makes them the most money.
The thing you need to remember is, the dealer isnt the final say. If some douche at the dealer is trying to seem important by denying your cars problem over a catback, there are support lines that in more cases then not, will override the dealership into giving you the warranty work you deserve.
Its such a vicious cycle, i've never fully understood how a dealership in its right mind would refuse service, the business that makes them the most money.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
I totally agree with you and that EVO X owner is a total DB for abusing the system.
I was posting that for the OP, he wanted to do some small mods (All the ones listed don't seem extreme) and not go to track days etc..... I don't think a dealership is going to void a warranty if you have a catback exhaust system or intake etc.... but if you do all kinds of performance mods and your turbo "pops" then I would totally expect to void warranty work on the motor etc.... but if my seats start to fall apart they still have to cover that. That is kinda why I posted the magnusson-moss act.
I was posting that for the OP, he wanted to do some small mods (All the ones listed don't seem extreme) and not go to track days etc..... I don't think a dealership is going to void a warranty if you have a catback exhaust system or intake etc.... but if you do all kinds of performance mods and your turbo "pops" then I would totally expect
to void warranty work on the motor etc.... but if my seats start to fall apart they still have to cover that. That is kinda why I posted the magnusson-moss act.
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.
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.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
This stupid act gets quoted so much there are times I wish it didn't even exist. There is a vast difference between "proof" and proof. don't have to provide step by step evidence that the part in question caused the issue, they merely have to provide a reasonable chance that it did. If you slap a TBE on and tune the car, you have no right to claim warranty on a blown motor. Moreover, and this is something people don't seem to get, they only legally agreed to warranty the car in the condition it left the factory.
Well it doesn't exist for you ... so you don't have to worry about now do you? Since your in Canuckistan..... I was posting it for the OP so he would have an idea of what he was getting into.
It is common sense that if you "tune" your car and something goes wrong with the engine, you have to pay. BUT they cannot VOID your TOTAL warranty, meaning they still have to cover other things that may break with the car that had nothing to do with your "mods"
That's all...... pretty simple ..
It is common sense that if you "tune" your car and something goes wrong with the engine, you have to pay. BUT they cannot VOID your TOTAL warranty, meaning they still have to cover other things that may break with the car that had nothing to do with your "mods"
That's all...... pretty simple ..
