Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Is nothing new. It more or less protects you on warranty issues on unrelated unmodified parts. Say you put a larger tire on and then the head gasket fails. This is not a case where they could void a warranty. Now if you break a hub with the wrong offset of the wheel then it could be grounds for a invalid warranty.

The bottom line is if you put an engine mount on you SS you are not going to void the warrantry if you burn a piston. But if the mount contributes directly to a cracked transaxle housing it could prove to be a problem.

The bottom line is if you chose to make a mod and it damages your car then be ready to accept responsibility. Nothing more or less.

Most mods are safe but just do not assume they all are. With eh complextity of the new drivetrains things can and will happen that never would have before.

So feel free to mod but really choose what you do carefully. Used well sorted parts from reputable companies. They are the least risk.

If you can not afford to cover any damages that these part could or may inflict then you may be better off not doing the modification.

GM and most dealers are fair and will work around most mods and do not give a hassle. But when they so run into owner abuse of a part that did do some damage no one here should expect them to pay for it. Of any indutry the Auto industry has been the most lenient of most. They have cover more products with changes than any other industry.

All GM was pointing out here is if the dealer sees a engine with many mods that the damage may be from a program or other system change that may have damaged it. If so it is the owner problem. For the most the LNF has had not more problems with burned pistons or broken rods than any other GM engine. It is very reliable if not take beyond what it is capable and the fuel and computer system is operating properly to keep it alive.

 

NOT!

abuse and all that .................. Heck hyper, you would think that they would put decent mounts in to start with but like everything else it gets to the bottom line. And for that matter I'll be doing the two lower mounts when I get sometime from my retailin' job ( and Aaron can maybe help me out). You really think they would crack the housing?

 

Relax it was only an example not a real happening...How many how many housing have you seen crack? None?

Note some of the transaxle housing have cracked and the TSB is posted on this site with pictures. It was not mount related as far as I know but they have failed under abuse.

The truth is as you strengthen some parts it will move the strain elsewhere. Often I have seen many cars get beefed up in the clutch area and other areas only to take the rear end out etc. I think you can understand my point.

For ever action the energy is transfered to another point in the drive line. As power is increased it adds to the load. If you modify you need to do so as a full package and not just here and there in some cars or things will fail.

I think many here that have gone big on power can relate to this. It is just a part of the pay to play and most accept that as it just part of going faster. If you are not breeaking anything often you are not making any power. I know as I make a good living on people breaking parts racing.

The mounts in the SS are as they are for two reasons. Cost is one as you pointed out but the other is noise and vibration harshness. The fact is they want to use one mount for all HHR's for cost and many people want less noise and vibration in the less performance models.

If they fixed everything in the HHR to where we all wished it was it would near $35K and then they could not give them away.

Building a car in the HHR class is a fine balance of building it good enough to make the public happy enough to buy it but stil price it to where they can afford it. In a $70K BMW an extra $5K is no big deal but in a HHR it is a sale killer for most.

 

So...if I roll in with yellow springs under the car the dealer cannot void the suspension part of the warrenty....unless a part was damaged by that part...and if no parts are deemed damaged he cannot void it either ,,right? And if he does void it on the cars record without a reason, what can be done?

 

It would seem to me that , If one was to keep all stock parts, Then upon detination have car towed to home un modify back to stock. Then have car towed by joe blow to dealership. ( past tunes would be found , If they want to find them) And start the process that way. It's basically stealing if you get away with it.
I'm just sayin.

 

Yellow springs = void , Total customizing of power plant.

 

Yellow springs will not void a warranty on a bruned piston.

Now a Yellow spring may effect a warrany on a cracked oil pan if the vehicle is lower than stock.

Modified part = damage no warranty

Modified part not = damaged part then warranty.

This is how it has been handled for years for the most. The TSB here just points out that if the engine is damaged buy extra tuning that was factory the burned piston is not covered. If you are stock you have nothing to worry about. The upgrade kit also is covered.

This TSB may be about a rash of engine damage they have seen on modifed engines or it could be about confusion on warranties on GM upgrade kits. It states in the TSB they are covered. We even have had post here where owners that do ot understand this let alone some dealers.

 

In every automotive forum I've been on since the beginning of time, someone eventually throws down the Magnusson-Moss card in a discussion of someone denying a warranty. Let's see now. M/M was passed 35 years ago, before 2/3 of the internet lawyers were born. Yet, dealers and automakers are still denying warranty coverage on stuff people do to their cars. Yes, stomping into the dealer's showroom and loudly shouting Magnusson-Moss will sure have them shaking in their boots all right.

 

I once, many years ago...in another life...had an attorney representing GM, tell me the M-M Act was designed to prevent the manufacturers from denying warranty do to after market filters, batteries, tires, and the like. It seems manufacturers were especially greedy and wanted to keep the parts inventories fluid. AND the courts GENERALLY still see it that way.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just repeating what I was told....right or wrong!

 

The concept of the law was to make it so that you could use a Fram filter vs AC Delco or a different brand tire vs the spec tire.

Sema latched on to it to make it so that after market performance items could be used like a KNN filter, Hurst Shifters and other parts that do not effect the durability of the vehicle.

Now when parts start to add power that can damage stock drve line items or computer programs etc that may not be sorted out right or damage engines or transmissions etc the law is not in place to cover these types of issues.

Any direct damage done by the aftermarket part on stock parts is not the responsibility of GM. At this point it is the aftermarket part MFG issue. Most of them will only cover the part they made and nothing more.

The bottom line is if as performance part is directly responsible for the damage on a vehicle the owner is most likely going to have to pay for it.

That is the way it has been for years and the way it will remain. Sure you can get a lawyer but it would be cheaper to fix the car than pay him win or lose.

It is kind of like speeding. If you want to go fast then accept the ticket if you get caught. If you don't want the ticket then don't speed. THere is no right or wrong and it is just what you choose to do.