ah, well iv got a box with all my oem parts iv replaced with after market, so if somin really did go wrong i guess i can just place them back on the car, so the dealer cant moan hehe

 

Haha, thats the way to do it!!

 

You can put them all back on IF you have a problem, but I've taken my car in to the dealership with all my mods besides the jb3 and have never had a problem. I've got full suspension (kw v2 coilovers), 20" wheels, exhaust and everything has been a-okay.

 

In the US at least the burden would seem to be on the dealer/manufacturer to prove (and not just suspect) that it was a specific modification that caused the issue in question (Magnuson-Moss). Here's an article that makes some interesting observations on the warranty position for modified cars:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/keep...html?print=true

 

Magnuson-Moss does not speak to aftermarket mods, even though countless articles write that it does. Magnuson-Moss addresses tie-in sales and, inexplicably, people have either confused tie-in sales with mods or they deliberately try to interpret MM in an incorrect manner.

 

so what is your take on this discussion???

 

OK. Perhaps you can point to something that confirms you're right and all of those countless articles are wrong. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to go with the consensus view.

 

member JSpira's post on e90posts regarding the M&M law..

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpost.php...mp;postcount=14

 

and in the same thread, member JSpira goes on to post this, which essentially paraphrases at least some of the consensus view.

"Correct, this would not void the warranty and performance mods would only void the warranty if a problem occurs and then in a limited scope (i.e. engine warranty might be voided but the rest of the car?s warranty would still be in force)."

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpost.php...mp;postcount=24

All of that said, we don't see many posts here or on other forums where a dealer has denied a claim or BMW has tried to void a warranty due to modifications. On that basis, it could be inferred that the consensus view is essentially prevailing.

 

Other than the fact that Magnuson-Moss has nothing to do with it?

I really wish people would read the Act before they talk about it. I really have to laugh when people make the leap (which doesn't exist) between tie-in sales and mods to cars. Two totally unrelated animals.

My father gave testimony at the F.C.C. and Congress during hearings about MM and supplied documents that helped the F.C.C. develop model warranties (his company's warranty was used as a "good" example among other things).

Regarding modifications, it's really very simple: if you modify anything in the car, and that modification results in the failure of a component, that component and related items (which could be impacted by the failure) will not be covered by a warranty - even a full warranty. The reason for this is because the owner's action caused the component to fail - as opposed to a defect in manufacturing. This is all covered in the warranty itself - you don't need to read anything else besides that document really.