API Oil and Warranty

[crossbow]

quote:

---

One thing about new BMW is that the computer will show what RPM, how fast, oil temps, coolant temps and what warning lights were on when the check engine lights came on.

---

Here's the info Mazda can snag from a CEL.

 

[westex39]

I have talked to several dealers in my area. All of them stated that if the engine was clean when they opened it up, no questions would be asked. One told me they had denied a warranty claim because when they open it up it was full of sludge indicating the oil had not been changed. Probably had the original factory filter on it as well.

westex

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gene K:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
They still have to prove that the improper oil caused the defect the owner is claiming under warranty.

---

Actually they can just refuse to pay for the repair and then it is up to you or your attorney to take them to court and force them to prove the product in question is responsible.

In which case a reputable oil company such as Amsoil or Redline should provide you with expert witnesses and documentation to help refute their claims. Dont know that they actually would though.

Of course the question here is not what can they do but what have they done.

I personally do not know of any cases where engine repairs have been declined because of oil specification or certification.

However I would be pretty leary of going outside specification with a manufacture with known problems with their OCI + Oil Quality ie Toyota and Mercedes Benz. I suspect if they saw any signs of lubrication failure on the analysis and the oil did not meet their requirements to the letter you might have a problem.

I do know of one case in the early eighties where a engine warranty was declined on a 2.2L Mopar because of the oil filter used. The claim was its oversized capacity without a ABDV increased the time to get oil to the top-end and contributed to Camshaft Failure. However we all know that those early 2.2L Mopars had cam problems regardless and the oil system was eventually modified to increase cam oiling during start-up.

Gene

---

True, but. . . Sure, such a case will always start with a denial, and yes, it's up to the owner to take the case to court, but at that point, it becomes a departure from the normal way things work. Usually, a party making a claim (plaintiff) has the burden to come forward and prove up his claims. The defendant can then: 1)argue that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden, 2) prove up one or more defenses, or both.

In a MM warranty case, yes, the owner will have to take the case to court, but then, the defendant-car company will, by law, have to "assume" the burden of proving that the improper oil (or whatever other reason they're offering) caused the harm, versus the harm being a covered defect. If the defendant puts on some evidence to this effect, then the owner could respond with his own evidence to the contrary, if he has any (this is where the Amsoil-provided expert would come into play).

So yes, the car mfr starts the fight by denying the claim, and then it's up to the owner to take it to court. But the mfr does still have to prove its denial to get away with it.

Legal niceties aside, I'd be the first to advise a client to stay conservative and within the mfrs recommendations during wty, as avoiding such a fight in the first place is far better then fighting the fight, even if you ultimately win.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:
Well gee, don't feel like a fool. I'm a mechanical/civil engineer for a pump company with only one degree. Let me guess, Tom's other degree is in human relations?

I work for a pump manufacture and one of my many responsibilities is to determine the status of warranty claims. Without staunch physical proof of negelect by the owner, the manufacter is legally bound to honor the warranty. But if the owners manual states the maintenance interval and required fluid to be used, and the owner does not maintain the equipment as stated, then the warranty is void. For a car manufacture to do that it would require proof beyond resonable doubt that the oil is not the recommended oil and/or the interval extended beyond their normal service requirements. Both impossible to determine. So if a manufacture denies warranty without physical proof, then all they can do is delay the repair.

---

Crash:

You're absolutely right, with one important caveat. Here's a hypo to illustrate: suppose a Ford owner brings in a Taurus with a melted down 3.0L V-6, which calls for 5w-20 oil. The oil looks thick, and owner admits using 20w-60, and engineering analysis proves thickness caused lube starvation. Here the wty claim for a new engine would be properly denied, but the wty still isn't "void." Assume the car also has a broken radio. This must still be repaired under warranty since obviously, the too-thick oil didn't cause the radio to fail.

I'm not trying to be a compulsive nit-picker, but I do think it's important for car owners to understand as much as possible about these things.