Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act

[sapsec]

Spent some time researching the act this morning and finally found what I believe is the honest, total and holy grail of explanations. The sources of the text below are the Federal Trade Commission and the Texas Bar Association. The FTC is responsible for enforcing M&M... Hope this clears up this issue for everyone.

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

Nearly everyone has heard about someone who has taken a vehicle that has been modified with aftermarket parts to a dealer for warranty service, only to have the dealer refuse to cover the defective items. The dealer usually states that because of the aftermarket parts the warranty is void, without even attempting to determine whether the aftermarket part caused the problem.

This is illegal.

Vehicle manufacturers are not allowed to void the vehicle warranty just because aftermarket parts are on the vehicle. To better understand this problem it is best to know the differences between the two types of new car warranties and the two types of emission warranties.

When a vehicle is purchased new and the owner is protected against the faults that may occur by an expressed warranty - an offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacturer is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases, the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty.

There are also two emission warranties (defect and performance) required under the clean air act. The defect warranty requires the manufacturer to produce a vehicle which, at the time of sale, is free of defects that would cause it to not meet the required emission levels for it's useful life as defined in the law. The performance warranty implies a vehicle must maintain certain levels of emission performance over it's useful life. If the vehicle fails to meet the performance warranty requirements, the manufacturer must make repairs at no cost to the owner, even if an aftermarket part is directly responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer cannot void the performance warranty. This protection is the result of a parts self - certification program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).

In cases where such a failed aftermarket part is responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer must arrange a settlement with the consumer, but by law the new - vehicle warranty is not voided.

Overall, the laws governing warranties are very clear. The only time a new vehicle warranty can be voided is if an aftermarket part has been installed and it can be proven that it is responsible for an emission warranty claim. However, a vehicle manufacturer or dealership cannot void a warranty simply because an an aftermarket equipment has been installed on a vehicle.

If a dealership denies a warranty claim and you think the claim falls under the rules explained above concerning the clean air act (such as an emission part failure), obtain a written explanation of the dealers refusal. Then follow the steps outlined in the owners manual. However, if this fails, then phone your complaint in to the EPA at (202) 233-9040 or (202) 326-9100.

If a dealer denies a warranty claim involving an implied or expressed new car warranty and you would like help, you can contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint, you can call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the online complaint form. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.

[tsaktuo]

Well at least there's a helpline to call! I wonder if something similar is applicable to us here in Canadia.

[Brooklyn]

Here's the problem: You're out of pocket for the repair anc potentially years into a MMWA dispute being resolved by the time you prevail....assuming you do prevail.

[Stereodude]

The key detail is that "aftermarket parts" as used by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act means OEM equivalent parts (fit, form, and function). It's not a license to mod like many car enthusiasts seem to think it is.

[Brooklyn]

Exactly.

[riegeraudi]

If you put on an aftermarket performance part than you are putting on stress on various parts of the car that the manufacturer may not of intended, so they will tell you the warranty is void on parts that can potentially be affected. A tune most likely affects almost any part of the powertrain. If you think different unless you are an engineer you will have to hire engineers etc to make your case. Think about the costs and time. The laws are made to look like they favor the little guy but really they favor the manufacturers.

[FatalBert]

Here's the problem: You're out of pocket for the repair anc potentially years into a MMWA dispute being resolved by the time you prevail....assuming you do prevail.

You don't have to pay until its settled...

[AudiA4_20T]

So all you need to do is put your lawyers against Audis. Shouldn't be too bad

[Killaapp]

This

The key detail is that "aftermarket parts" as used by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act means OEM equivalent parts (fit, form, and function). It's not a license to mod like many car enthusiasts seem to think it is.

[S-Fore]

hey, if Audi has limited rights here, they may concede pretty quickly. You'd be surprised, and they will keep this ongoing for as long as they can get away with it. Most people, like most here think, "oh man, what am I gonna do, take *Audi* to court?.?.?.?.?" Yeah,,,and if they are not 101% in the right, they will settle and back off pretty quickly.

So all you need to do is put your lawyers against Audis. Shouldn't be too bad

[audisarecool]

The key detail is that "aftermarket parts" as used by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act means OEM equivalent parts (fit, form, and function). It's not a license to mod like many car enthusiasts seem to think it is.

/end thread

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[Brooklyn]

Yeah, and they don't have to perform the warranty work until you pay. Bottom line, you either pay up front and get your car fixed and hope to prevail on a claim, or you sit there with your broken car and hope to prevail on a claim so you can get it fixed. The fact that you don't hear a lot of reports of tuned cars prevailing under MMWA claims is what the cops call a clue. If you chip your car and your engine blows, you have about as much chance of convincing the FTC, a judge, or anyone else that your chip wasn't contributory as I have of convincing Beyonce that she ought to ditch Jay-Z and get with this hero.

You don't have to pay until its settled...

[JohnEnglish]

hey, if Audi has limited rights here, they may concede pretty quickly. You'd be surprised, and they will keep this ongoing for as long as they can get away with it. Most people, like most here think, "oh man, what am I gonna do, take *Audi* to court?.?.?.?.?" Yeah,,,and if they are not 101% in the right, they will settle and back off pretty quickly.

That's not how it works. Even if they're not 100% in the right they can, and will, drag it out until you're forced to drop the case becuase the last thing they want to do is set some sort of precedent. They have the resources to keep something like this tied up in the courts for years.

[sapsec]

Guys, the point of the post is to let our community know that we do have options and "friends" in our corner. SEMA, the FTC etc can help us when we have issues with dealer warranty work. Obviously, if you chip your car and have serious issues with either the engine or tranny.... you are most likely screwed. However, MM specifically says a warranty cannot be automatically and completely voided because of aftermarket parts. So if there is a TSB out there that applies to my car, I'm not going to freak because I have a short shifter. They cannot refuse warranty service or TSB service just because I have a SSK.

"...he mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty." This is the only point I wanted to express to the community. A lot of people seem nervous about going to the dealer now because they have mods. If the mods haven't broken something you have nothing to worry about. Battling a large corp isn't quite as hard as you think. A complaint to the BBB, a complaint with the State Attorney General, a complaint to the FTC and SEMA will go a long way. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the manufacturer. At the same time, if your mod did cause the failure, then suck it up and pay for it yourself. If people did this we wouldn't have the stupid T* code issues now.

[S-Fore]

Of course, I was referring to changing out hardware components..........not flashes etc. they will have to prove their case in a court of law if they were to void a warranty due to and exhaust or intake......My point was that they just don't get to decide and that's end all, and in a lot of cases the responsibility would fall on them to prove their justification on a matter. But,, as long as customers will allow it, it would continue like such.

That's not how it works. Even if they're not 100% in the right they can, and will, drag it out until you're forced to drop the case becuase the last thing they want to do is set some sort of precedent. They have the resources to keep something like this tied up in the courts for years.

[Stereodude]

Guys, the point of the post is to let our community know that we do have options and "friends" in our corner. SEMA, the FTC etc can help us when we have issues with dealer warranty work. Obviously, if you chip your car and have serious issues with either the engine or tranny.... you are most likely screwed. However, MM specifically says a warranty cannot be automatically and completely voided because of aftermarket parts. So if there is a TSB out there that applies to my car, I'm not going to freak because I have a short shifter. They cannot refuse warranty service or TSB service just because I have a SSK.

If the TSB applies to the transmission they sure can. A SSK is not the sort of "aftermarket part" the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act applies to.

"...he mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty." This is the only point I wanted to express to the community. A lot of people seem nervous about going to the dealer now because they have mods. If the mods haven't broken something you have nothing to worry about. Battling a large corp isn't quite as hard as you think. A complaint to the BBB, a complaint with the State Attorney General, a complaint to the FTC and SEMA will go a long way. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the manufacturer. At the same time, if your mod did cause the failure, then suck it up and pay for it yourself. If people did this we wouldn't have the stupid T* code issues now.

I think you need re-read post #4 repeatedly until it sinks in. Mods are not "aftermarket parts" covered by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

Of course, I was referring to changing out hardware components..........not flashes etc. they will have to prove their case in a court of law if they were to void a warranty due to and exhaust or intake......My point was that they just don't get to decide and that's end all, and in a lot of cases the responsibility would fall on them to prove their justification on a matter. But,, as long as customers will allow it, it would continue like such.

Ok, lets hypothetically pretend you get to court with a case against Audi for denying warranty coverage for an "aftermarket part". They bring in a few of their component engineers who testify that the aftermarket part you put on the car was not equivalent to the OEM original part in fit, form, or function and caused the failure. What are you going to do? Take the stand yourself and claim they're wrong and expect the court to side with you over Audi's experts? Are you going to find your own experts who will testify that the part you put on the car did not cause the failure? Assuming the court believes your experts and not Audi's component engineers (definitely not a sure thing)... Do those experts work for free? Who pays for your experts? Are your experts less expensive than paying to fix your car yourself?

[S-Fore]

It costs Audi money too, does it not? No one works for free. Do you think that they will parade into court with all of the engineers and specialsts over a $500-2000 claim?? And in the age of digital media and viral risk of bad press.....They would have a tough time selling that an exhaust that adds 4% hp to their drivetrain was a major cause of a component failure....and wouldn't they have to prove that it actually increased the hp to begin with, if they are denying a claim because of that? Most are correct, Audi can do whatever they want in these cases,,,,as long a people allow them too.

Ok, lets hypothetically pretend you get to court with a case against Audi for denying warranty coverage for an "aftermarket part". They bring in a few of their component engineers who testify that the aftermarket part you put on the car was not equivalent to the OEM original part in fit, form, or function and caused the failure. What are you going to do? Take the stand yourself and claim they're wrong and expect the court to side with you over Audi's experts? Are you going to find your own experts who will testify that the part you put on the car did not cause the failure? Assuming the court believes your experts and not Audi's component engineers (definitely not a sure thing)... Do those experts work for free? Who pays for your experts? Are your experts less expensive than paying to fix your car yourself?

[tomh009]

It costs Audi money too, does it not? No one works for free. Do you think that they will parade into court with all of the engineers and specialsts over a $500-2000 claim??

Ignore the individual claim. Think precedent. And now think again about whether it's worth a manufacturer's while to bring in expert witnesses.

[Taint Fair]

Just thought I could chime in here and offer my experience. I actually had a warranty claim denied by GMC on a modded 2500 diesel that I owned. I was having an electrical malfunction and the dealership refused to do a TSB that related to my problem because I had installed an aftermarket air intake and exhaust. I brought in the TSB to show them, and they still refused do to the fact that I modded the vehicle. I actually had to show them the MMWA to prove that they could only refuse my warranty claim if and only if the part that I had replaced could be tied to the malfunction. At this point I also got GM corporate involved and I received the warranty work because the intake and the exhaust could not have caused the problem with the electrical system.

I was told, however that if the problem would have been engine related that GM could and would have voided the warranty on this part. They also showed me results from the computer scan that showed my engine was performing outside of factory specifications due to higher airflow. I guess this was GM's version of a TD1. So, just thought I would add some personal experience I have had with this act.

Bottom line, as has been said before, as long as the part performs in the same was as the factory part you cannot be denied service due to the MMWA. This is to let people replace oil filters, air filters, brake pads, shocks, etc. with parts from Autozone and not require dealer parts, as long as they perform the same as OEM. It also protects the individual by requiring the manufacturer to prove that any after market modification that has changed the performance of the vehicle is the source of the reported problem. A side note, the manufacturer can also refuse service until they prove that this is the source of the problem which they can take a long time to determine. This is how it was explained to me when I was pursuing a MMWA claim against GM.

I hope this story helps.

[Rodmar]

I feel like dealerships are scumbags. just sayin

[tomh009]

I feel like dealerships are scumbags. just sayin

Of course all of us have the right to our opinions - but as far as warranty on modified cars goes, it's all down to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer will accept the warranty claims, the dealers will happily perform the work. If the manufacturer won't pay for the claims, the dealers won't, either. It's as simple as that, in this case the dealer is just the middleman and really cannot make decisions one way or another.

[FatalBert]

Yeah, and they don't have to perform the warranty work until you pay. Bottom line, you either pay up front and get your car fixed and hope to prevail on a claim, or you sit there with your broken car and hope to prevail on a claim so you can get it fixed. The fact that you don't hear a lot of reports of tuned cars prevailing under MMWA claims is what the cops call a clue. If you chip your car and your engine blows, you have about as much chance of convincing the FTC, a judge, or anyone else that your chip wasn't contributory as I have of convincing Beyonce that she ought to ditch Jay-Z and get with this hero.

Only an idiot would pay before the work is done.

[JohnEnglish]

It costs Audi money too, does it not? No one works for free. Do you think that they will parade into court with all of the engineers and specialsts over a $500-2000 claim??

Of course they will. Spending $30,000 on a case like this is nothing to a company the size of VAG. The last thing they want to do is set some sort of precedent. Audi has lawyers and engineers on staff that get paid regardless of whether or not they're in court so flying them out to testify is not a big deal to them.

Most of the time who wins a civil court case is not about who's right but rather who has the most money.

[tomh009]

Only an idiot would pay before the work is done.

The other option is not getting your car fixed, which isn't terribly attractive, either.

[ilspazzaneve]

I think you guys aren't using the power of the forum, and defeating your own rights pretty easily here.

We all know the the cases where failure is clearly not related to the part in question. If a TSB has already been issued for a problem, it may be pretty difficult for Audi to explain the the failure in "this" case be the result of another component in the system - they have already acknowledged that the parts in question are prone to failure. Or if enough similar parts have failed, and it is pretty easy to gather from this forum that this is true (water pump failures, clutch master cylinders, etc) - again you can and should use this information to your advantage.

I am not saying people should defraud Audi when there is clear misuse. But I would love to know when Audi has ever sent a team of lawyers and engineers/expert witnesses to go to bat for them against a customer with a short-shifter or an intake on a warranty claim...not bloody likely. The regional rep handles it, it goes up the chain to Audi HQ, and usually the customer accepts defeat at this point OR Audi settles partially or fully. If people are saying this 'sets precedent', well it's been settled many many times before.

[A4 Centaur]

Yea, like a rear differential oil leak blamed on an APR Chip.

Or like a waterpump failure blamed on a FMIC or APR coolant kit.

[ilspazzaneve]

Yes and yes. A seal designed for hours of autobahn driving would be taxed far beyond what is experienced here in North America, and without corresponding bearing damage or failure, a damaged seal due to extra power would be a tough one to prove. CPS actually relieves the water pump of temp variations caused by expansion/contraction of the supercharger coolant loop fluid.

Let's take this from another angle then.

Even on a flashed/tuned S4, Audi could say 'oh the power exceeds specification so the part failed'. Well they'd lose that argument right from the get go, because SAE power on any stock B8 S4 would exceed what they claim, and that seems to be common knowledge. They couldn't claim the extra power broke the part when the stock car also exceeds claimed power.

Would they rather admit their specification is wrong or they fudged the SAE test? They DO claim the numbers are SAE on the specs page, not PS, even if it amounts to only 10% DTL compared to anyones WHP.

[Stereodude]

Let's take this from another angle then.

Even on a flashed/tuned S4, Audi could say 'oh the power exceeds specification so the part failed'. Well they'd lose that argument right from the get go, because SAE power on any stock B8 S4 would exceed what they claim, and that seems to be common knowledge. They couldn't claim the extra power broke the part when the stock car also exceeds claimed power.

Would they rather admit their specification is wrong or they fudged the SAE test? They DO claim the numbers are SAE on the specs page, not PS, even if it amounts to only 10% DTL compared to anyones WHP.

You've got to be kidding. Your argument is going to be the car already has more power than it's designed to handle based on the fact that the advertised 333HP rating is likely inaccurate on the low side? You really think they designed the car to with 333HP in mind and not the engines actual output? Or, that they designed the car planning to put a 333HP engine in it and then decided what the heck, lets bump up the power but not change anything to survive the higher output engine?

[sapsec]

The M&M act does not specify what an aftermarket part is nor does it list approved aftermarket parts. The term "aftermarket" is used to describe any non-OEM part therefore the term aftermarket is open to some debate. "Modding' one's car includes the use of aftermarket parts - who mods their car with OEM parts????? Maybe a Ford Focus owner....

So we have established that A) The term "modding" means to use aftermarket parts. B) We have established that aftermarket means non-OEM parts. The text below clearly states that a warranty cannot be automatically voided because of aftermarket parts. No one is debating that if you flash your car and the engine blows, it ain't going to be covered. Nor should it be. Audi cannot, under Federal law, void your warranty just because you have window tint, RS4 pedals, SSK, intake, exhaust etc. However, if any of those parts DO cause a failure which can be directly tied to the failure, no coverage will be provided.

When a vehicle is purchased new and the owner is protected against the faults that may occur by an expressed warranty - an offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacturer is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases, the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty.

Anyone who thinks M&M is going to cover them for repairs related to an aftermarket part is wrong. Doesn't matter what the circumstances are it isn't going to happen.
M&M only says you are allowed to use aftermarket parts under Federal law, that your warranty cannot be automatically voided because of them and that you have steps for redress if your warranty is wrongfully voided. The talk about lawyers, court, lawsuits and experts is silly.

First, most auto manufacturers and dealers have a dispute resolution process in place to prevent expensive (for both sides) lawsuits and negative press for the dealer and OEM. I believe some of the paper work signed when purchasing a car states this process.
Secondly, one could file complaints with the BBB, FTC and State Attorney General if their warranty coverage is unfairly and ILLEGALLY denied. This carries a great deal of weight because no dealership or auto manufacturer wants the expense, hassle, negative publicity of complaints - Especially at the State and Federal level. These organizations can help resolve, outside of a courtroom the denied warranty issue.
Third, each OEM has regional reps who while mostly "yes men" for corporate, do have some leeway and negotiating power.
Fourth, has anyone heard of SEMA? Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association? They hold a little event in Las Vegas each year, attended by 10's of thousands of people each year. They also happen to have a very powerful lobbying arm with deep political connections - SEMA has fought for years now, for the right to manufacture, market and sell aftermarket parts for "modding". I suspect that SEMA has expert testimony, drawings, data, schematics, reports, dyno charts that could be used to prove a part is within spec, didn't/couldn't cause a failure etc.

The last thing I want to express is this-
Yes, under Federal law you are allowed to modify your car with aftermarket parts. If the aftermarket part causes a failure of an OEM part you are fucked and rightfully so. Your warranty cannot be automatically voided because of the use of or presence of aftermarket parts. "Aftermarket parts" is not defined under either Federal or State law therefore the term is all-inclusive to any part not made by the OEMs. Yes, if you use these parts and have warranty issues you just might have to fight for your rights. Yes, this is a pain in the ass but you chose to modify your car so take responsibility and understand clearly what those rights are. A lawsuit against the dealer or manufacturer would be the absolute last step and something neither party wants. Large corporations are absolutely inundated with lawsuits ranging from very serious, lengthy and expensive to the completely stupid and frivolous. They simply do not have the time to go to court for every little issue as their focus is on the cases where the corporation (shareholders) could be hurt. I have a close family member who is the lead attorney for one of the largest tire makers in the world. The amount of lawsuits against them is staggering - they only defend against the "important and serious" charges which could hurt the bottom line, share price, shareholder confidence and piss off the Board.

[audisarecool]

I think the most important point that a few folks seem to be missing is that while a Milltek exhaust is an "aftermarket" part, it is not the same "aftermarket" referenced by the MMWA. Like in all things, the devil is in the details.

To reiterate what some other members have already said (read this over until it sticks),

The MMWA is to protect you from AOA in case you wan't to install aftermarket parts that are EQUAL in FORM, FIT, and FUNCTION, to the OEM part they are replacing. I, and the courts for that matter, don't care how insignificant you think the hp gain is when installing the milltek, or how insignificant the extra stress on other powertrain components might be, the fact of the matter is that you're milltek/awe/whatever, is not EQUAL in FORM, FIT, and FUNCTION. That is the key.


There is a great deal of naivety in this thread...

[ahcow]

^I agree with what you say and it makes sense. But just to play devil's advocate...

What's the difference between a ceramic brake pad or a racing pad vs. stock pad and stock intake vs. any of the aftermarket intakes?

The aftermarket pads persumably (for argument sake) has better stopping power and that's "rougher" on the car. And the aftermarket intake has higher airflow that puts more strain on the car as well. Then will you consider both to be mods?

I was just trying to say that "fit, form and function" is really up for debate. An exhaust will have the same fit, form and function if you ignore the improvement in performance. Now, if you put a pulley or a new charger on or a tune, then I can see that it definitely won't fly. But stuff like brake pads, intake, exhaust, alu kreuz and sway bars are a grey area.

[helix139]

The intake one is something I really have trouble seeing as with the stock tune, any extra air taken in is going to be dumped out the bypass valve anyways.

[ilspazzaneve]

You've got to be kidding. Your argument is going to be the car already has more power than it's designed to handle based on the fact that the advertised 333HP rating is likely inaccurate on the low side? You really think they designed the car to with 333HP in mind and not the engines actual output? Or, that they designed the car planning to put a 333HP engine in it and then decided what the heck, lets bump up the power but not change anything to survive the higher output engine?

As usual, 'dude', you miss the point. The factory specification of 333 SAE hp is fudged. The argument that a car with more power is now outside specifications and caused part failure becomes weakened because ALL cars are above their SAE specification. Credibility is usually pretty big in this game, as you may or may not be aware, 'dude'.

[audisarecool]

^I agree with what you say and it makes sense. But just to play devil's advocate...

What's the difference between a ceramic brake pad or a racing pad vs. stock pad and stock intake vs. any of the aftermarket intakes?

The aftermarket pads persumably (for argument sake) has better stopping power and that's "rougher" on the car. And the aftermarket intake has higher airflow that puts more strain on the car as well. Then will you consider both to be mods?

I was just trying to say that "fit, form and function" is really up for debate. An exhaust will have the same fit, form and function if you ignore the improvement in performance. Now, if you put a pulley or a new charger on or a tune, then I can see that it definitely won't fly. But stuff like brake pads, intake, exhaust, alu kreuz and sway bars are a grey area.

I think that intake / exhaust are in a seperate category than the other stuff mentioned simply because they are mods that AOA can potentially discover on their own (through scanning for airflow / other parameters). I also think that unless AOA / your dealer decide to do you a favor, you will be SOL regarding serious powertrain issues if you have one of these installed. (A LOT less likely with just an intake, but worst case scenario I'd say it is possible)

I also think a lot of this can come down to your relationship with your dealer, and how they present the information to AOA.

Regarding brake pads, alu kreuz, and sway bars. I think it depends on the nature of the damage but wouldn't be surprised if the "undue stress" argument could potentially be applied here as well.. more likely to sway bars than to brake pads.

[AofC_RR]

The key detail is that "aftermarket parts" as used by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act means OEM equivalent parts (fit, form, and function). It's not a license to mod like many car enthusiasts seem to think it is.

This^^^. Also there's nothing in there about modifying the ECU so that's been 100% agreed on now, ECU tuning = TD1/no powertrain warranty. Trust me Audi has a horde of lawyers and I'm sure they knew they were ok when they launched the TD1 program.
Using a non-OEM air filter, oil filter, tire, brake pad are what the MMWA protects you against. Not, hey I want to turn up the boost, slap a bigger turbo or supercharger in there and lower the car 2 inches, then thinking they've got to warranty that because MMWA says that using non-OEM parts is ok.

[Brooklyn]

or that the manufacturer must now go out and somehow test your aftermarket parts to determine whether your part did indeed cause a failure. People have been tuning cars for a long ass time. If MMWA was the answer to dealers/manufacturers killing your warranty, it would be a routine practice by now. But don't take our word for it. Modify your ECU, lower your car or "bag" it (or whatever that nonsense is called) and if your warranty gets crushed, report back on how that MMWA claim works out.

[jdgamble]

Of course they will. Spending $30,000 on a case like this is nothing to a company the size of VAG. The last thing they want to do is set some sort of precedent. Audi has lawyers and engineers on staff that get paid regardless of whether or not they're in court so flying them out to testify is not a big deal to them.

Most of the time who wins a civil court case is not about who's right but rather who has the most money.

True that a lot of civil cases are determined by pocket depth, but Audi wouldn't go to court over a few thousand $s. Audi would settle anything less than the price of an S4, plaintiff would still take it in the a$$ for legal fees, and there would be no precedent whatsoever... unless you live in a place where a leaking sport differential is headline news!

[ilspazzaneve]

The intake one is something I really have trouble seeing as with the stock tune, any extra air taken in is going to be dumped out the bypass valve anyways.

That's exactly what happen to one guy, excessive oil consumption on his basically new B8 S4 with an intake and stock ECU - he was denied. Never saw a resolution on that thread.

Audi has taken this a little too far. And it baffles me the amount of people willing to bend over and take one up there, apparently. Usually there is a resolution with HQ, you simply have to be willing to keep going with it. The only thing that helps us is that people report on it here.

[Stereodude]

As usual, 'dude', you miss the point. The factory specification of 333 SAE hp is fudged. The argument that a car with more power is now outside specifications and caused part failure becomes weakened because ALL cars are above their SAE specification. Credibility is usually pretty big in this game, as you may or may not be aware, 'dude'.

It's not SAE certified to have 333HP. It's advertised as having 333HP in the US and Canada. All of which is completely irrelevant. Only an idiot would try to claim that the car as shipped from the factory is out of its intended operating limits and design tolerances.

[ilspazzaneve]

It's not SAE certified to have 333HP. It's advertised as having 333HP in the US and Canada. All of which is completely irrelevant. Only an idiot would try to claim that the car as shipped from the factory is out of its intended operating limits and design tolerances.

Still trying to bend your brain around this, 'dude'?

Respectfully without resorting to insults, 'dude', the car as shipped is outside it's SAE (heck, DIN too) claimed power, nobody said 'operating limits' or 'design tolerances'. Audi claims if you do any modification to make a ounce more power, that it will cause part failure. Well if they already lie about the power to the Standards agencies, that's a pretty big shot at their credibility on the subject matter.

Audi does indeed claim SAE power, look at the website, 'dude'. Very few manufacturers go for SAE certification (i.e. witnessed test).

Nissan was going to get SAE certification on the GTR, since again nobody believed the 480 hp when it originally shipped, and manufacturers get sensitive when told they are lying. I don't think they ever went through with it, though, because as we all know it was indeed a lie.