ZKindaGuy

Actually you are raising the issue of semantics in regards to the word "modification" so please allow me to explain how the MM Act applies to cover changes made by a car owner. I have an extensive understanding of how to apply the MM-Act as I have dealt with the Magnuson-Moss Act on several occcassions with several known Ford Mustang modification challenge issues. Read my entire answer as I do address the semantics issue and how the act can be applied to changes the car owner makes to a car.

Historically in general, the MM Act (and the courts are well aware of this) was made to protect the consumer, not the manufacturer. It was meant to cover any kind of merchandise and did not originate specifically out of issues dealing with cars. The MM-Act was made primarily to address two things:

1. Prevent a monopoly of service and OEM part replacement on the part of the manufacturer or in other words forcing the OWNER of any merchadise to always have to use OEM specified services or OEM specified parts. (I believe this speaks to your mention of "preventing tie-in sells")

2. Recognize the fact that the consumer and not the manufacturer is the OWNER of the merchadise consumed and that the manufacturer has no right to use their warranty as a "sword of damocles" over the head of the merchadise OWNER to mitigate their right as OWNER to choose and use 3rd-party parts that were made specific and to OEM-spec when replacing OEM parts original to the merchandise when they first bought it. (This is a reason you do not seem to be aware of.)

Historically how this act eventually made its way to be applied to cars was that prior to the MM-Act, car maufacturers in particular were abusing the consumers by forcing them to have to use OEM services (dealers) and OEM parts when doing any maintenance or fixing of the cars. When the consumer started to use 3rd-party-made replacement parts in an attempt to save money instead of the overpriced OEM parts the manufacturers countered by then starting to use the warranty as the way to force their OEM-usage intent.

As time went on the words "part replacement" and "modification" have become semantically intertwined over time which has caused some misunderstandings as to how the MM-Act applies or not..

Where the MM-Act specifically supports modifications being made to cars by the owner is when an owner of the car replaces OEM made parts using 3rd-party made parts that were specifically made, functionally spec'd and functionally intended to replace the manufacturers OEM parts. As long as the consumer/OWNER does not modify the 3rd-party part that will change its INTENDED FUNCTION and take the car out of OEM's intended spec TOLERANCES then the consumer / OWNER is free to use the 3rd-party made parts including CAI, any exhaust pieces, pullies and etc.

Notice I used the word TOLERANCES and not the word PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL. This is where the OEM manufacturer tries to take advantage of the consumer to deny the consumers claim. The OEM manufacturer tries to use "slight of hand" here to equate SPEC TOLERANCE with PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL and these are entirely two distinct beasts.

If a 3rd-party made part used by the consumer / owner as a "part replacement" keeps the car within the OEM part's mechanical specification on mechnical TOLERANCES then the OEM manufacturer has no basis to deny the warranty. If the car of the consumer / owner picks up extra HP or TQ or whatever other kind of PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL to be gained then the OEM manufacturer CANNOT use this gain as proof of going out of TOLERANCE nor can they deny the claim on the basis of a "modification" being made.

If however (1) using the 3rd-party part was manufactured and sold out of OEM spec TOLERANCE of the replaced OEM part and the intent of being out of spec was because this was the only way to achieve an increase in PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL or (2) the consumer / owner took a 3rd-party in-OEM spec part and makes an alteration to it that does cause it to go out of OEM spec TOLERANCE then then the OEM manufacturer can deny the warranty claim on the basis of a "modification".

So this should clear up and lay to rest the semantics going on here and the impacts onthe use of the MM-Act.

Let me say in conclusion that in general, the act itself has been interpreted by the courts to force the burden of proof onto the OEM manufacturer when denying a warranty claim by the owner who used 3rd-party parts. The OEM manufacturer of the merchandise consumed by the owner is required (by the court's interpretation of the MM-Act) to show that the parts used by the owner is 100% the root and total cause of the issue being denied by the manufacturer.

This is so precisely because of the semantic latitude as to what is or is not considered to be a "modification" and because of the OEM manufacturers attemtp to muddy the waters with their misleading use of the word TOLERANCE and PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL.

If the owner of the merchandise at issue takes the OEM manufacturer to court and the OEM manufacturer fails to bring TANGIBLE proof of 100% root cause failure based on the owner's use of the 3rd-party made part, the OEM manufacturer WILL lose the issue.

I hope this helps guys.