Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975

Post by **MoVolvos** » 13 Jun 2012, 18:25

-
A N/A Volvo can have an Aftermarket Turbo installed without Voiding the Factory Warranty even so different brands of Oils, Fluids etc...

Can an automotive dealership void your warranty?
Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.
http://www.impalaclub.com/naisso/magmoss.htm

EXCERPT:
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.

Blessings,
BKM
-

Post by **jimmy57** » 13 Jun 2012, 21:19

This law was passed due to dealers, and in some cases manufacturers, requiring all service work be done at a dealer or the warranty will be void. The aftermarket performance parts makers try to use it as a shield but usually when you have a failure and the dealer and manufacturer are denying coverage the parts supplier just refers you to the MM act and says you need to get a lawyer. Your car or truck sits at the dealer while all of this arguing happens over who pays.
The manufacturers put statements in the warranty in the owner's packet about racing and abuse and many now even list performance modifications.
There are surely dealers who abuse this and deny warranty for things pretty obviously unrelated like a K&N air filter equipped car being denied warranty for an oil leak.
I wouldn't think a warranty should be extended for an engine or transmission failure when an aftermarket turbo kit is installed.
The car as built was designed for 168 HP and 165 lb-ft of torque and you add a turbo and get the HP to 230 and torque to 240 lb-ft. That seems to me to be like expecting your home builder to be responsible for the cracked sidewalk up to your front door after you decide to start using it as a forklift path to stack pallets of cannonballs on your front porch.

Post by **MoVolvos** » 13 Jun 2012, 22:19

-

It is a good Stop Gap to limit abuse on both sides the Dealer and the Consumer yet allows the Consumer some choices in terms regular Maintenance and parts for repairs.

Does anyone know of differences if any in terms of the Engine's internals between lets say a 98 S70 N/A vs 98 S70 GLT as in Piston, Rings, Crank Shaft or even Head Gasket etc...

Blessings,
BKM
-

Post by **JDS60R** » 13 Jun 2012, 22:36

Jimmy is correct and there are chapters of case law to support it. I spent the last 20 years dealing with these issues. The MM act allows a manufacturer to deny on any type of failure including mechanical, electrical etc with sound reasoning.

If you have an engine failure after you equip a NA with a turbo, you are as close to a no win situation as you will ever get.

Overheated the engine - you were using the coolant to cool more than its original equipment and creating more heat by raising output and raising combustion temps

Bend a rod - you introduced more pressure and heat on them with the turbo.

Oil related failure - you were using the oil system for more than its designed output with the turbo

They can also void the warranty or deny the claim if the fluid you used did not meet the specification originally set forth for the car. If they were willing to provide a fluid, filter or other part for free, you will be voided.

This act is here to stop the dealers from some bad situations they put customers in. If you replaced an air filter with a non OE brand (and the manufacturer wasn't providing them for free) and they denied your warranty for no reason - Then the MM act steps in. Some of the original claims were very bad - failed transmissions denied for a aftermarket engine air filter etc.

Post by **JDS60R** » 13 Jun 2012, 22:40

BKM98 S70 T5 wrote:-

yet allows the Consumer some choices in terms regular Maintenance and parts for repairs.

-

+1

Post by **jimmy57** » 13 Jun 2012, 22:57

No difference in rods and crank on most but turbo motors 93 to 99 had oil cooler jets for pistons and the exhaust valves usually are a higher temp withstanding material. Oil coolers were fitted to all Volvo turbo engines prior to 2000 when they went with oil cooling and piston cooling jets on all.
The compression ratio is the biggest hurdle to safely turboing a N/A engine.
Auto transmissions are different and clutches on manual trans and some manual trans pieces are beefed up usually.

I support MM act to prevent abuses by dealers that present barriers to competition.

Post by **MoVolvos** » 13 Jun 2012, 23:10

-
Thanks for the helpful info jimmy57 and JDS60R! Looks like essentials of the Volvo is overbuilt in many ways.

Blessings,
BKM
-