JSpira

Have you read the Act?

swajames

Well, section 2304 ( c) of the Act may provide some basis for discussion. It does not seem to be the tie-in provision you keep mentioning (as that is elsewhere), but one that seems to relieve a warrantor of their obligations in certain circumstances including damage or misuse. Importantly, it does indeed appear to put the burden on the warrantor to be able to show that the defect or failure was caused by something the consumer did before he can be relieved of his obligations under the warranty. In essence, this seems to be a provision that allows a warrantor to void the warranty but he has to be able to show that the damage or failure was due to something other than normal use. Seems to me to be a reasonable assumption that a modification to say an engine would likely fall into this category. I don't mod my cars so it's kind of moot for me anyway, and I think we're all agreed that anyone who does mod should accept an increased risk of falling foul of these issues.

2304 ( c) Waiver of standards
The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).

JSpira

The intent of this is to relieve the warrantor of responsibility if a consumer does not maintain the product properly or if it's damaged. Clearly a mod that causes damage would fall into this category. What it doesn't say or do is back up all of the claims that people have posted saying that they have protection under Magnuson-Moss if they mod the car. In fact, the term "unreasonable use" seems to support the opposite.

swajames

True, but it does appear to put the burden of proof on the warrantor, as they have to "show" that whatever was done was the cause of the subsequent failure. I suspect that's where the connection is being made.

JSpira

Perhaps - but the "unreasonable use" language makes life fairly easy for the warrantor.

ynottony

A strongly worded ITS letter from an attorney is all
that it needed to scare MOST dealerships into playing
ball.

Good thing I got 3 of them in my family

swajames

And that's the critical point, as I'd argue that it's probably not quite as clear cut. If a consumer were to use a reasonable quality part from a reputable manufacturer that was designed specifically for a BMW it's hard to accept that this would automatically constitute "unreasonable use". Many aftermarket parts are arguably of better quality than their OEM equivalent. As always, common sense should typically prevail, but in any event it's the warrantor who has the burden of proof and not the consumer.

JSpira

I think that the real issue comes up with mods that change the car's performance and, for example, put more stress on the engine and related components.

This is why, for example, Dinan offers a "parallel" warranty for its mods because it knows that BMW is likely not to cover damage resulting from some Dinnan items.

JSpira

Not really. Dealerships won't perform warranty service that BMW NA won't reimburse for and all warranty work has to meet tests that BMW NA has devised (for example, BMW has become very restrictive on Progman updates).

And most if not all dealerships won't void the warranty on a component unless there is good reason to. At that point, they won't yield.