Perhaps you should re-read.

 

The part which states Mitsubishi cannot explicitly restict you from using non-Mitsubishi parts on your vehicle. Who says Invidia doesnt make a better constructed exhaust than Mitsubishi? Why should I be restricted to use only a Mitsubishi exhaust system that rusts and falls apart when there are much better units available? That is where you are covered under the Magnusson-Moss act.

 

I read that you modified your stock ecu mapping, that's as far as I needed to go and probably as far as they need to go as well.

Point the finger anywhere you'd like, at the end of the day you modified your car knowing the possible outcome and now you're upset that it's happened.

 

So does that specifically have a part that details aftermarket modification in order to extract more power out of a drivetrain? I know their owners manual warns against it.

 

Obviously because you are stopping there to make unaccurate assumptions about the type of engine failure, and the extent of the modification, just like Mitsubishi would.

I'm not pointing any fingers, and I've said all along, I'm just looking for a fair analysis on what the culprit is. If the case is professionally evauated and it appears the slight modifications were the cause, then so-be-it. You won't hear one bit of b*tching from me. I might sound like I think Mitsubishi is at fault, but that is because I have torn the entire engine down, had oil samples analyzed, had filters cut down, measured bearings and rod bolts down to ten-thousandths of an inch, and I have found NO sign that the modifications caused the problem. Why do you think it has taken me a YEAR to get this case together? I didn't even contact first since it initially looked like my fault. Upon much further analysis, and a years time, it is now obvious that the mods had nothing to do with the failure at all so I am giving arbitration a shot.

And yes, the ecu was slightly changed, but after a detailed inspection (myself and mechanics, not mitsubishi) that obviously played no part in the failure.

If you changed your intake and your wing fell off, you're going to tell me that you would not even think of bringing the car to the dealership? ha. Any yes, I know this is much more of a grey area.

The part where you can't prove the modifications were not just because they were better engineering and better quality parts.

 

This was my whole point. Mitsubishi came to a quick conclusion just like yourself.
No investigation, just a quick visual glance, and resarch on what mods he had!

 

NO but you can prove that the drivetrain was modified to produce more power. The ecu was mapped by someone other than an engineering team at mitsubishi and didn't go through their R&D. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even a cashier at walmart to figure out that could definitely cause a problem.

Everyone on this site is well aware of what a basic stageII can do to any drivetrain. Especially if you've got a MBC which hasn't been adjusted to current temperatures.

Not like Mitsubishi would, like they have. Call it unaccurate if you'd like, but it would be a lot more accurate had it been on a stock car. . . you probably wouldn't be in the situation you're in either.


It appears a fair analysis to you would be anything that absolves you from having to pony up and pay for the risks you took when modifying your car. You can paint it however you'd like, you played now when it's come time to pay you're not accepting the consequences of your actions. It's people like you that make it hard for people who actually have stock vehicles to actually get warranty work done.

Slightly, just like the power output on the car? I would be interested to see what their developmental process of ecu's would say about that. DEV, QA . . . . testing by qualified individuals.

Let's not kid ourselves here, it's nothing like the situation above. Mentioning it is humorous though. Though I will admit, I would be upset if I went into mitsubishi with a MBC, Full exhaust & remapped ecu and they didn't cover my wing.

All they have to prove is increased power output, which if you've given them your dyno sheets they already have.

 

i hope you win, but i dont think you will. good luck

 

You tend to 'skim' don't you. I already put up $10,000 to fix the car myself. This entire case is only because the post-warranty diagnostic on the vehicle shows modifications were clearly not the fault. So, that has been presented to the arbitration group for review, simple as that. I wouldn't have wasted 100+ hours of my time if it wasn't so obvious that a weak oem part was the cause. Maybe you don't approve of my mind set, tough cookies. I don't think I should be responsible for an engine that goes bad after 15,000 miles when nothing I have put on the car had any effect on the situation, just because it is in a grey area that Mitsubishi tries to cover in their little warranty book just for CYA. Bottom line, *if* they gave me a bad product (for $32,000) to begin with, they should be responsible to fix it. If the modificaitons caused the problem, I should be responsible to fix the car. That's what the arbitration group is deciding now.

And why would that be? It would be because you knew 100% that the modifications you did to the vehicle had nothing to do with the failure. Sound familiar? Yup, sounds like my case. There is no way you can disassociate this example with my situation like you have been, without proper technical knowledge and a few hours of first hand experience with my motor and the proper diagnostic tools.

No, they would need the dynamometer's calibration information.

 

Skim, process, and use common sense when modifying my vehicles.
I don't agree with your mindset, I hope you get some assistance but I wont be surprised in the end if you don't.

You could consider the blurb in the warranty book to be a CYA, I look at it as verbiage to to keep them from having to pay for the mistakes of those modifying their cars and not thinking beforehand.

Yep, because I knew 100% that the effected parts have NOTHING to do with one another. Something you can't say about a power increase and a failure of the bottom end.


People dyno their cars to keep them at the stock powerlevel!


Good luck.
BH

 

Allow me to add a but about the ECU maps.

I definitely agree that ECU tuning is a huge grey area. Improper ECU tuning can and has led to many many engine failures, this is common knowledge. Since my main goal here was for a fair evaluation, I used EcuFlash and my OBD-II cable to pull off every map from the ECU. I took these maps and included them directly in my documentation for arbitration, which amounts to 4-5 pages of just ECU maps. I also added the OEM maps for comparison. This way they will be able to fairly evaluate if the maps could have played any part in the failure. They now are in posession of every single map that was modified, and I have made my ECU available for inspection should they request so, so don't try to tell me I'm pulling a fast one on anyone.

Just because my ecu was modified shouldn't mean I don't deserve a fair evaluation. There are thousands of ways to modify the stock ECU while not harming the safety of the engine.

 

As soon as you can show me the modifications in question can cause a oil pump failure, I'll gladly submit.

People dyno their vehicles to read parameters and ensure proper engine operaiton.

 

Is that what you determined where the failure was? I remember your car was knocking heavily as you were driving it and putting a lot of load on the motor. You continued to drive it until it stalled then started it again and then it blew up?
Seems like a oil pump not working during that time could definitely cause a problem.

 

As far as we can tell that is the most likely source of the failure. Before I had a chance to pull off of the GW bridge in NY, it was stalling whenever the clutch was depressed. The became present over a few minutes time, and was extreme just as it let loose. Boost would peak at 15-16 psi with only 5% throttle input on flat ground in 5th gear under 2500 RPM (while attempting to get off the bridge in traffic). The #4 rod lost oil pressure first (furthest from the pump) and the scuffing on the cylinder walls gets worse as they move away from the pump.

 

Fairly obvious lubrication issue:

#4 rod