Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
Have you heard of the Magnuson-Moss Act? They would have to prove that the oil filter caused whatever hypothetical issues i would have, and prove that because of the oil filter, is why i am needing repairs. A fram ultra is not going to cause a problem with warranty. I have used my warranty for a million different issues on many different cars, including ring replacement on a 2010 silverado i had because of coked rings from an oiling issue, FRAM ultra on the truck, always did my own changes, didnt keep receipts for anything, they still replaced my rings and didnt say anything about my oil filter. Fram ultra is a better filter than a honda oem, and i will be using it, and it will NOT NOT NOT be a warranty issue unless the filter itself causes a problem. And even then i highly doubt it would cause a problem with warranty due to it having a built in bypass like other filters.
I'll offer a different perspective.
It is you that might need to not only read the M/M act, but also have it explained to you.
This is about the burden of proof regarding warranty.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
When you use a product as recommended by the maker, and that maker has a written limited warranty (as both the vehicle OEMs and filter makers do), then the burden of proof regarding any warranty claims lays at the feet of the makers of those products.
However, when you use a product in an application that is NOT approved by the maker, then burden of proof shifts upon you. If you use a non-approved filter on the vehicle, the OEM can deny/delay warranty. And so can the filter maker. It would then be up to you to choose if you wanted to take the issue to court (or more likely arbitration) for a hearing.
In that process, the following will take place:
OEM/Aftermarket product effort ...
- investigate your "evidence" after your claim is recieved
- assess their position
- deny the claim initially, if they believe you have violated the conditions of that limited warranty
- make you file in court/hearing, now causing a long delay waiting for a date for processing
- mount up a few corporate lawyers
- mount up a few engineers
- prepare reams of data for the hearing
- finally show up many, many months later
- drop a deluge of information on a judge/arbiter that likely understands little about filters
- rightfully demand that YOU prove YOUR choice was adequate for the conditions/application involved
- sit and wait on the decision to come (often long after the hearing is over), causing yet more delays prior to payment, ONLY if you want and they lose.
Your efforts ...
- experience a failure that would first have to be suspected as filter related
- file a claim to the OEM/Aftermarket product maker
- wait for them to "inspect" the situation (your vehicle is down while they make arrangements and view the "evidence")
- wait for their reply
- receive their reply; realize they are denying warranty
- file a claim in court/arbitration
- wait for your date to come up
- hunt for a lawyer to help you; (he/she will probably tell you you're screwed ...)
- show up at the hearing many months later
- present no engineering data to back up your claim at the hearing
- present printed copies of BITOG wannabe engineer posts that have not real value in court
- introduce your misinterpretation of understanding of the M/M act
- get lambasted by the judge/arbiter
- walk out with your head hung low, after months of delays and now ultimate denial, having tons of time/money spent in an effort that ultimately paid you back zero
And for what? So you can have "better" filtration, that has never been proven in a real-world test that can accurately be measured to show a tangible benefit? Good luck, sir. I wish the best in your efforts.
Also, the M/M act allows the conditions of the "written limited warranty" to be set at the cost of the product; either replacement or paid value. There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the M/M act that forces a product maker to warranty for anything past that. This is because
the M/M act allows the product maker to set the warranty conditions in that "written limited warranty". Otherwise it would defer to an implied warranty.
Regarding your example of 2010 Silverado, I'd like to hear more details, because I doubt we've got all the information to understand why it played out the way it did. You're saying Fram paid for a re-ring of your engine? I find that hard to believe. Your sentence is a bit unclear as to whom "they" is. Fram? GM? Lube maker? If you got satisfactory action for the rings, good for you! But that may have been an effort of "good will" and not "warranty" payment. If the coking of rings was the root cause due to lube, it is right to thing that Fram would have had no interest or risk in that regard in the first place. I'm unclear as to what your point was here? GM paid for new rings even though you used the wrong filter? We'd all agree that a filter isn't going to make a ring coke up, so the analogy you make is a bit strained to say the least.
.
