Originally Posted by theDreamer No offense, but I would say probably most people will never have an issue with the oil heating problem. This is a bit more of an
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-18-2009, 12:16 PM | #631 (permalink) | |
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jenks, OK
Posts: 2,281
Drives: 370z Touring/Sport
Rep Power: 267 |
Quote:
And by installing an oil cooler, they see that as a competition part, and may deny warranty coverage. That said, I managed to get my oil temp to 250 yesterday, with some pretty hard accell/decell/accell - it was around 100F yesterday too... I really had to get into it to get it that high, and it'd cool off pretty easily with some regular driving - in fact, I'd wager that the only time it'd get like that is if someone is REALLY pushing it on the street (much more so than what is legal), or is on a track. |
|
06-18-2009, 12:55 PM | #633 (permalink) | |
Track Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 699
Drives: 370Z-AT7 Tour+Sport
Rep Power: 375 |
Quote:
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. Last edited by ZKindaGuy; 06-18-2009 at 01:13 PM. |
|
06-18-2009, 01:32 PM | #634 (permalink) |
Track Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Middle TN/Savannah GA
Posts: 762
Drives: '14 Q60IPL/'14Armada
Rep Power: 17 |
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.
__________________
Robert -My Basset Hound Is Smarter Than Your Honor Student and Barack Obama - Last edited by Robert_Nash; 06-18-2009 at 01:40 PM. |
06-18-2009, 10:02 PM | #639 (permalink) |
Enthusiast Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 354
Drives: a car
Rep Power: 279 |
Im sorry Kanibul for the missunderstanding but that is not my point, and that is not what the law says, even that I do understand your point.
Yes the law it has to do with add-ons and any aftermarket part, what the law protect you from is from dealers that take the practice of looking at a mod, and they want to void the warranty of the car. For example, you can install an oil cooler, and if u have problems with transmission, they cannot look at the car and tell you that your car is out of warranty because you install something that dont belong to the car. Thats when the law protect you, they have to take the car as it is, perform the regular diagnostic AND if after performing the their job they get to a conclusion the problem with the transmission was the oil cooler then they have to put it in writing and charge you whatever. IF you change ur Wheels, and you have problems with suspensions, they have to take your car and perform their job, then decided if they are going to void warranty or not, and only for the part related not the whole car. If you install and aftermarket radio, and ur lights don't work, they have to chek the car. Using your example, if you install Nitrous on your car, yes they can void the warranty if something happen to the engine, but ONLY if something happen. But the law says that they cannot deny you warranty just by looking at the car and see the bottle. etc. I think u got my point now. |
06-18-2009, 10:04 PM | #640 (permalink) | |
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 15,181
Drives: '07 Z4 "M" Roadster
Rep Power: 57 |
Quote:
John |
|
06-18-2009, 10:11 PM | #641 (permalink) |
Enthusiast Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 354
Drives: a car
Rep Power: 279 |
Kannibul, I read some of your points and they are good. This is how it works:
You install and aftermarket part on your car, lets say the Intake. You got the intake from a professional company that work and have years of experience building those parts. Something breaks on your car, lets say a Sensor goes bad. You take it to the dealer, they cannot tell you, that your warranty is voided because you install the intakes and thats maybe the problem, without even taking your car in. Thats when the law protects you, they have to take your car, like normal, and perform the diagnostic. They come back to you and tell you "yes the intake cost the problem on the sensor" by LAW they have to tell you in writing what they did, their test and how they got into that conclusion. Then you take that documentation to Stillen, and tell them "your item cost me this damage, here is the dealer report, now you have to pay for it" Stille is going to defend themself in writing that their product has nothing to do with that. Thats when you hire and attorney and someone has to pay for that, but you will have the two big ones, Nissan and Stillen figthing for their rights. And remember, this is for something that is worth going trough all that trouble. Thats your desicion. But with my old car, I had a Eclipse 4G, I moded the car with springs, intake, exahust, lambo doors, paint, radio system, LSD, wheels, and they never gave me problems after I explained the law to the manager. But everything with respect, like adults, and no fights. So is really up to you. |
06-18-2009, 10:18 PM | #642 (permalink) | |
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: californee way
Posts: 5,380
Drives: 370, Leaf
Rep Power: 30 |
If you are very concern, change to Amsoil synthetic, you should see a slightly lower temp. They also tolerate heat much better than dino oil and are capable of 250-280F easily
Quote:
|
|
06-18-2009, 10:28 PM | #643 (permalink) | |
A True Z Fanatic
|
Quote:
|
|
06-18-2009, 10:31 PM | #644 (permalink) |
Enthusiast Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 354
Drives: a car
Rep Power: 279 |
Let me throw an very good example guys about the Oil and Warranty.
Are you guys planning to go to the dealer and request the Nissan Special Oil for the oil change? The manual says they have that special oil to protect your engine! Now here is the question, should Nissan void your warranty if something happen to the engine, because you are not using the oil that Nissan Says you have to use? |
06-18-2009, 10:32 PM | #645 (permalink) | |
Track Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 699
Drives: 370Z-AT7 Tour+Sport
Rep Power: 375 |
Quote:
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. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What engine temp are you normally around? | RCZ | Engine & Drivetrain | 92 | 06-25-2016 03:58 PM |
Warm Up / Oil Temp Gauge | TacoZ | Nissan 370Z General Discussions | 8 | 12-18-2008 03:33 PM |