Quote:
Originally Posted by TrackRat
Well are ya feeling lucky? If so then take your case to court and see if the car maker wins or if you do. I'd say the manufacturer's expert witnesses, (engineers), might have the technical edge on a so called expert with no scientific test data to support their POV on engineering changes resulting from alterations - if it ever got beyond alterations, which is unlikely as it's a conditional term of a voluntary product warranty. More than likely the alterations effecting Federal auto emissions would also stop Modders dead in their tracks on warranties also as they are likely to be fined $50K per offense. But that's why we have a judicial system to sort out all the POVs.  |
1) I'm feelin lucky.
2) I win. But I don't get involved with cases where a consumer/owner action has actually damaged a covered part or system. That would not be fair to the manufacturer. However I love helping to call bluff on manufacturers who try to intimidate and deny responsibility by blaming defects and failures on other parts, actions or persons without just cause and adequate evidence.
3) Do you believe that engineers with knowledge, credibility and experience only work for a manufacturer?
4) Do you believe that it is cost effective for a manufacturer to engage the process?
5) Do you believe that current sentiment in the courts is pro manufacturer or pro consumer?
6) The maximum civil penalty for a violation of the auto emissions section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500. Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle or engine, or the manufacture or sale of a non-original equipment aftermarket part or system could be considered a violation of section 203(a)(3) of the Act. This would include modifications to the fuel delivery system. However this is totally independent of the warranty and MM issue.
7) Have you participated in any legal process or action related to automotive (or other consumer product) warranty and liability issues whereby a manufacturer attempted or threatened to deny coverage dues to a modification?