Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_Nash
An excellent post but I'm not sure that it does clear up the issue.
As there is no engine oil cooler installed on the vehicle in stock form, adding an engine oil cooler is clearly not a "replacement part". Further, as the vehicle, from most accounts, does function as intended when used legally on the street, I would think that the addition of an engine oil cooler could be reasonably construed as a modification intended to improve performance (i.e. make the car trackable).
Finally, regardless of the burden of proof (not to discount that important fact), a consumer still has to initiate legal proceedings which is generally not an easy, inexpensive or quick process...even if the consumer ultimately prevails and is reimbursed for any legal expenses, etc, it's still not an easy process.
If I'm missing something critical here please elaborate...again, excellent post IMAHO.  |
Unfortunately I really wasn't addressing the oil cooler question...I was addressing strictly the confusion about the MM-Act. But to extend my answer to address the question. I agree that from the OEM perspective the added 3rd-party oil cooler would NOT be viewed by the OEM as a "replacement" part because it isn't part of the stock configuration to begin with and under the strictest interpretation it would be considered a "modification".
Personally I think the OEM would be hard pressed finding any evidence of something being out of OEM spec TOLERANCE unless the OEM can show that there is a known and provable damage to an engine that a lowered temperature of 30 to 40 degrees can cause.
The only way I could see them making an argument would be based upon the season of the year, specifically the winter time. They might be able to claim that as a result of the added oil cooler the oil was prevented from reaching an effective viscosity so as to be able to lubricate the engine internals properly.
Even in this case the burdon would still be on the mnaufacturer to have to show how the addition of the oil cooler is 100% the cause of whatever the problem is.
So I believe there is some certain wiggle room here for a possible
TEST case to extend the MM-Act to include situations such as this. It must be understood by the car owner however that this action would be a gamble with no certain outcome because it is what it is...a TEST CASE.
Personally I would want to protect my investment so I would probably add the oil cooler and then take my chances in court because there is an argument that can be made for engine damaage as a result of excessive and sustained heat due to lack of any cooling device in the stock design of the car. Perhaps a good OEM negligence claim as well.