Anders_WR1

iTrader: (8)

MTR,

Interesting that the warranty section says 'improper maintenance or use of fuels, oils and/or lubricants other than those recommended.'

So does this mean that any of us using Mobil 1 15/50 or similar, could have engine warranty work refused because we haven't used the 5/30 oil recommended in the book?

Not being narcky - just asking the question!

Anders

vindaloo

For most people the biggie is going to be trying to prove that their mods didn't lead to failure. You may be in a better position than most to argue your case.

IMO it's the difference between the manufacturer accepting a warranty claim on spec. and having a reason (or excuse) to get awkward about it.

If you've got the friends and time and money to risk it blowing up and being prepared to fight your corner, then go for it.

J.

wrx_sti_my04

Guys, some great comments and debate. Rightly or wrongly it is a fact of life that any company, retailer or insurance company will look at the small print if it removes their liability (and helps to increase the profit margins).

In most cases they can afford to pay for a new engine but another example would be a non IM replica PFF wheel failure - take the scenario where the wheel fails, the car mounts the pavement and takes out a family on their way to church. The small print will remove IM from fault, the associated bad press and the eventual law-suit for compensation.

Yes I have a non IM exhaust on an MY04.

Yes I accept that is a risk to the warranty.

Yes it will come off before going in for the next service.

Thanks
PM

GREEN SCOOBY

Any modification to the car can make your warranty void, I work in the bike trade and the same applys here too.

Rob D

There was a chap on here quiet a few years ago that changed his backbox and centre section for an aftermarket exhaust. Some time after this modification his engine let go and he passed his car back to the dealers for a warranty repair. Subaru UK refused his claim for an engine rebuild on the basis he modified his car which led to the engine expiring.
Now here comes the tricky part, you the individual has to prove that the modification fitted did not lead to the failure which would be very difficult to prove and costly. The chap in question unfortunately, but understandably accepted Subaru’s claim and paid for the repair himself.
I personally couldn't see how this modification would effect the engine to a point of letting go, his engine could have been one of a few that would fail in their lifetime even without the modifications, but there lies the problem of trying to prove it.

Gary C

And of course, the exhaust could of affected the fuelling, which could have led to the engine failure, unlikely but how would you prove it.

Simple fact, if you want your warrenty, dont modify it, or, maybe , you could get modifications pre-approved by IM (though I bet this would be even harder to do than hearding cats).

reano

iTrader: (2)

At last this is better. This is what I'm after some quotes and stuff. I am not trying to affend anyone just want to explore this area. Note I will say again. I am not trying to find out for assurance or I wouldn't get my car modified. But as one of the people said here it could even go down to oil, etc the warranties are so much in favour of the big boys and this is even on computers (how many of you read your warranty before installing your software) but in court they can't just say well he signed the warranty so it's his fault.

A question is the ownus on me to prove the mod was not deterimental? Again I'm just asking? If say my car was involved in a crash and I said it's Subaru's fault would I have to prove it or they? This is a proper question any Lawyers here (I don't want to go ask a lawyer at my expense that's what forums are for ). In most cases I believe the likes of tsl, wrc, scoobyclinics don't have big issues or they wouldn't be in business.

The main point I wanted to pick up on (which is in response to a reply) was if you mod say a clutch but the gearbox goes (something closely related) does that mean your 'whole' warranty is invalidated? Legally is this rcorrect?

Hey mr speaker man, love your analogies I love 'simple'

MTR

I haven't got my owners manual to hand at the moment, but I thought it gave a range of oils which will be suitable depending on environment and usage etc and suggest one viscosity as a 'recommended' for general use.
If 15W/50 is within the usable range of oils then it should be OK, as long as the vehicle usage can be shown to match the operating criteria they specify for that oil. i.e. high ambient temperatures/hard usage and that sort of thing.

Cheers
MTR

Gary C

Hum, Say the clutch is a racing clutch with much greater clamping pressure and no diaphragm springs (ie the radial ones that take some of the torque shock loading), dropping the clutch could be shown to give a higher shock loading to the gearbox and may lead to early failure ?

While this is probably less significant than the driving style of the owner, it would still give IM a position to refuse warrenty work and it would be down to the owner to try and argue the point in court.

Legally I think if a modified component could not lead to the failure of a warrented component, then IM would be bound legally to honour the warrenty, BUT if IM refuse, then its down to you to take them to court and prove them wrong.

reano

iTrader: (2)

"Legally I think if a modified component could not lead to the failure of a warrented component, then IM would be bound legally to honour the warrenty, BUT if IM refuse, then its down to you to take them to court and prove them wrong."

'Could not' I have to agree, a bit like the speaker vs engine upgrade warranty 'analogy'. Is there a legal term that doesn't mean 'absolute' like "on the balance of probabilities....." that applies in a UK court? Anyone know?

BTW the reason why I asked this question in the first place was I was on another thread just talking about general aftermarket upgrades like TSL 333 or wrc350 and the invalidation of warranties and the thought came to me do they actually invalidate the warranty? E.g. just in part, related parts, etc.

Any of the subaru specialist want to comment? Ever had any issues? WRC? Litchfield? ScoobyClinic, Powerstation? and all the others I haven't listed

automodellistagt

its trying to avoid the guy who puts in deisel oil etc, so they will have a range of oils and fluids to use

Jolley

I am in the unfortunate position of having an unreliable Scooby (a 53 plate WRX). It has had One clutch and 2 Engine rebuilds under warranty. I do have a TSL backbox on my car, but this was not considered relevant by the dealer (the clutch was a known fault on this model, and the engine failures were a result of oil starvation, not melted pistons). They did say that if the engine modifications were any more substantial that they would have reconsidered doing the work under warranty.

reano

iTrader: (2)

Thanks this is a good example. So I'm getting closer and closer to how far can you go. The other thing you mention was the clutch was a 'known' fault. Was this because of a recall or something else?

Most garages would 'at first' not consider doing work if they thought the upgrade was 'substantial' but I assume if the product that failed was subject to a product recall it would be a strong case for them to fix under warranty?

Jolley

A lot of people were having problems with clutch "judder". It was not really a recall (or a failure really - just a juddering feeling when pulling away in first). There was a subaru technical bulletin or something that suggested a remedy if a customer had the "judder" complaint. They basically changed the flywheel, clutch, and release bearing.

To be honest, the dealer that did my rebuild told me that they had seen a few other similar failures on standard cars. If you are interested, it was due to a siezed bearing on the crank for number 3 piston (I think!). It has happened to other cars, and would have happened regardless of any modifications I did.

Having owned a car with problems I will only be PPP'ing my MY06 when it arrives later this month. I am however having the T25 suspension fitted by Powerstation, because I am only really worried about warranty work required on the engine, which I fully expect to be covered regardless of what I do to the suspension.

reano

iTrader: (2)

But will it be covered? Just kidding ..... I think that nothing is clear cut and the big word 'depends' comes into it .... I can't wait for my wrc350. I don't think the ppp even achieves 305bhp (as they claims) as much as 20bhp off which if it is means you get 20bhp for £2000. I have ppp it came with the car

scud8

iTrader: (1)

If anything came to court then it would be a civil case where there is no presumption of guilt or innocence. The judge has to decide the case on the balance of probabilities. So with the example of the Subaru terms given above, the judge would have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the failure was caused by or contributed to by the modifications. The other angle (as you noted earlier) would be to claim the contract terms were themselves as unfair.

On your second question, with the Subaru T's and C's you would not automatically invalidate your whole warranty, as it only allows modifications as an out if they have caused or contributed to the failure.

reano

iTrader: (2)

Excellent response

Gary C

Very good point. So we would have to argue that the mod did not cause the damage, and the court would decide on the balance of probabilities.

We would still have to provide some evidence to support our claim in the form of expert witnesses ?, can't see this being cheap.

Think IM hold all the cards when a modified part is integral to the component that failed (ie the clutch/gearbox situation).

reano

iTrader: (2)

I would say the expert witness would be the person that upgraded (e.g. car specialist) the part. E.g. if scoobydoobywizardofsubaru fitted your upgraded clutch or whatever they should be the ones that would say it wasn't us and here are the rasons why or else all their business in that area is in doubt.....
I do believe the cards are stacked up in general for big corporations in whatever walk of life but I don't think the expert witness has to be expensive if it is them that upgraded the car. Of course what I was saying was just because you modify your car doesn't mean you invalidate your warranty of course there would need to be some reasonable factor as to the 'amount' of modification. Hence I don't think that just because TSL or whoever do your car and not Prodrive that that means you have 'NO' warranty at all.

Gary C

Now that is a good idea, but if the fitters of a clutch are not the designers of the clutch, they would have little standing in court.

Now if you could get (for example only) a representitive of AP to support your claim, then I think you would be on a winner.

Silver Knight

It would have to be an independend expert as the person who fitted the ofending item would be slightly biased

reano

iTrader: (2)

But wouldn't Subaru be biased towards their own cars too? I think all the big boy insurance companies, warranty departments will try their best at first to deny a claim. Anyone watched the film the rainmaker where some small timers take on an insurance company (real life story) where most departments (in this firm) normally denied any claim (regardless of the validity) just to see if the claimaint would go away. It usually worked.