Whew, I'm tracking with you now. Thank you.

 

Decided to pass. After reading all the threads here and the great advice, it just works better for me to pass on the Vehicle Service Plan (not technically an Extended Limited Warranty since JLR isn't adding it to their warranty). Depending on your tolerance for risk and pricing, you may want to change. FWIW - When I went to pick up the truck, the Finance Manager was out and the Sales Manager was filling in. PERFECT. He went rapidly thru the process and we spent about 2 milliseconds on the "Extended Warranty". By then he knew I wasn't going to bite so it worked well for us both.

 

I said it. There will always be exceptions, but I specifically used the word "might" in my post to allow for exceptions and to make sure not to mislead anyone.

Saying that every shock/strut mod will automatically void the cv joint warranty is incorrect. My, layman's, understanding is that the shocks keep your vehicle’s wheels in contact with the road and that cv joints transfer the force from your car’s transmission to the drive wheels at a constant speed. Sure, they're both part of the suspension system, but a manufacturer who denied such a warranty claim would have the burden of proving that the shock mod caused the cv joint failure. Nothing in the post gives enough facts to definitively say that the shock/strut mod voids the cv joint warranty.

At least my post allowed for the unlikely scenario that the manufacturer could prove that the audio mod caused the radiator leak. I don't know, maybe the wiring for the radiator fan runs through the same harness as the front speakers, it got disconnected, the radiator overheated and started to leak.

The point is, my audio/radiator example was intentionally broad and used unrelated systems for clarity. The fact that the system are related doesn't change anything. I defend manufacturer's in breach of warranty cases, and I can tell you from first hand experience, that the manufacturer doesn't get to just say: shock mod, no coverage for the cv joints, they have to prove that the mod caused the failure.

 

Where did you read "Saying that every shock/strut mod will automatically void the cv joint warranty is incorrect."?

I certainly did not write that.

What I wrote:

"...could deny warranty on the cv joints if they could prove that the lower suspension cause a premature wear and/or damage to the cv joints."

COULD deny
IF they
COULD prove

Counsel?

 

Look, I'm the first guy to get pedantic and nit pick but really as I read these posts you guys are all basically saying the same thing.

1. That modifications cannot/do not void an entire warranty - see the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for more info.

2. That modifications CAN allow a manufacturer to deny a particular claim if they can demonstrate the modifications caused the problem.

This second one gets complicated because the dealer can say whatever they want and the consumer may have to pursue it first directly with the OEM and then later with legal action. Like a police officer's actions the dealer's actions are the bottom line UNTIL/UNLESS a judge tells them otherwise.

The suspension modification vs. CV-Joint example was a good one in my opinion (Suspension part change that potentially effects a Driveline part). The change in angles could cause binding/wear/damage. It's logical potential problem and I would think the OEM could easily prevail. Much more than cooling system vs. audio.

But I don't think anyone here meant to be talking in absolutes.

 

Typically the dealer will make the argument that it IS warrantable, and the Factory will want to deny the claim. If it's warrantable the dealer gets paid, and has a happy customer it's a win win. The factory loses and must pay the bill if they can't show how a modification could cause the condition. I know some dealers fight harder than others, and if a dealer can not get the manufacturer to cover the part then legal action could be necessary. I know this may seem trivial to some, but as a dealer I've spent my life advocating for customers and taking things all the way to National Headquarters at times in order to get a warranty claim approved after district and regional offices would deny it because of modifications (or any other excuse they could come up with)

 

I come at this from another side of the industry (service) and I'm not sure YOU are representative as the "typical" dealer. Though I wish you were mine for a couple of brands.

Absolutely the good ones who care about customer service will advocate. But others don't.

It very much varies with brand and individual dealer, plus dealer employees.

Some (many?) OEMs don't pay the same labor rates for warranty work, so there are dealer and techs who, unhappy with the reduced flat rate, don't like doing it.

Some OEMs (example motorcycle/scooter Piaggio - Vespa/Aprilia/Moto Guzzi) only pay warranty claims to the dealer in parts credits (enrages dealers and many won't advocate for their customers).

It doesn't hurt to have and maintain a relationship with the dealership. But it definitely varies.

 

It could also vary by location. In the state of Texas the factory must pay the same labor and parts as a customer. There is still variation in how much a dealer is willing to fight the factory, but it's definitely in the dealers best interest in our state to get the factory to warranty the vehicle.

Something that can happen if the manufacturer denies the claim, is that a customer will take the work to an independent shop and it's a choice between having work and not having work. In this case even if you live in a location without the same protections for small businesses, it's still in the dealers best interest to get the work covered by warranty.

In a competitive market place a dealer has little margin for error, and typically needs to do everything possible to keep his customers happy or they'll go elsewhere.

 

in post #18 you wrote:
modified (audio system) does not void non-modified (radiator)

modified (struts/shocks) voids non-modified (cv joints)

seems pretty definite to me.

 

Correct quote, but it seems that you are taking it out of context.

It seems to me he was summarizing what he wrote about that - which included MIGHT - meaning in his summary he's left out the word "might" or "could" because it was already included in the example.

In his summary then he was showing POSSIBLE outcomes, where a modified part COULD/MIGHT effect the warranty repair of a non-modified part.

To be clear, I'm just trying to be a bridge here as it just seems there is some misunderstanding and I don't think you guys actually think differently. It seems that you're both just quipping about the details of how it was said and perceptions of what was unstated. At least that's MY perception.