[NateDog07V]

So I'm thinking about doing a few minor mods to my soon to be delivered 335i M Sport and I'm curious if I need to worry about BMW not honoring the warranty due to it. I'm thinking:
- Aftermarket exhaust
- H&R Sport Springs
- and possibly a tune

Obviously the tune would be the most obvious to raise concern, but has anyone ever had an issue with an exhaust or lowering springs?
I'm coming from an 07 CTS-V and the local Cadillac had no issue with any of these items in addition to intake, sway's, short shifter, etc...

[cavm335i]

get on your local forums and figure out who is a good SA at a nearby shop. Make friends...

[Road Cone1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

[m5 guy]

I'm leasing mine and my dealer does not care what I do to the car as long as I put it back to stock on lease turn in. He did say if I got any sort of tune besides bmw's one coming out in December that the car would not be able to be cpo'd though. In general bolt-on's should be good to go for a lease, at least according to my dealer.

If you are buying the car then it is against federal law to deny your warranty based on aftermarket parts. All they can do is deny the warranty on the part you changed, the burden of proof lies with them as well. Pop your engine with a tune on it and guarantee they are going to try and deny you.

[adelphi_sky]

Wouldn't be safer to go with BMW performance parts or at least a BMW "approved" aftermarket tuner like Dinan?

[NateDog07V]

Good to know about bolt on's, i'll certainly ask at my local dealerships to see what their take is... as far as the tune is concerned, let's say someone put a piggyback tune or any of the other tunes on the car for a few years, then removed it and turned it in... how would BMW know that another tune was used? Folks could even go the extra step to remove the tune everytime it went in for service which would be a bit ridiculous but i'm just saying logic would say there's a way 'around it'

[DrivenByE30]

Interesting question!
It has also crossed my mind this morning ...

Originally Posted by Road Cone1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

it's too long to read... couldn't you sum it up for us :P

Originally Posted by ronnyb29

get on your local forums and figure out who is a good SA at a nearby shop. Make friends...

What's SA ?



I really want to lower my car, but will that suspension mod change the warrantee?
Could anyone of you please let me know?
my car is purchased by the way.

[MaX PL]

sales assistant?

[m5 guy]

SA is service advisor

Lowering the car will only void the part changed but could compromise the warranty on a related component. For example, if you blow your shocks they could refuse to warranty them due to you having aftermarket springs since the shocks were not designed to work with those springs.

[Maz335i]

Originally Posted by m3 guy

SA is service advisor

Lowering the car will only void the part changed but could compromise the warranty on a related component. For example, if you blow your shocks they could refuse to warranty them due to you having aftermarket springs since the shocks were not designed to work with those springs.

Oh dear!

This is a worry for me...

[m630]

Originally Posted by NateDog07V

So I'm thinking about doing a few minor mods to my soon to be delivered 335i M Sport and I'm curious if I need to worry about BMW not honoring the warranty due to it. I'm thinking:
- Aftermarket exhaust
- H&R Sport Springs
- and possibly a tune

Obviously the tune would be the most obvious to raise concern, but has anyone ever had an issue with an exhaust or lowering springs?
I'm coming from an 07 CTS-V and the local Cadillac had no issue with any of these items in addition to intake, sway's, short shifter, etc...

If you have the M suspension, you'll need specific springs to be adjustable I would think or lose the features of the active system. You'll also void that part of your warranty if anything goes wrong. BMW offers an exhaust as well as springs that you may consider, and they'll have a tune out at end of year, so unless you go with someone like Dinan that offers a warranty, you may have issues if something goes wrong

[metrickid]

Originally Posted by m3 guy

SA is service advisor

Lowering the car will only void the part changed but could compromise the warranty on a related component. For example, if you blow your shocks they could refuse to warranty them due to you having aftermarket springs since the shocks were not designed to work with those springs.

Not America, but I had issues with rattles in the dash on my old BMW and they only said it was because I had aftermarket rims (same size lol) and coilovers. I don't know how fair BMW is for you guys though.

[ric124]

Originally Posted by m630

If you have the M suspension, you'll need specific springs to be adjustable I would think or lose the features of the active system.

I have regular old H&R Sport spring with Adaptive M and it works fine.

[m630]

Originally Posted by ric124

I have regular old H&R Sport spring with Adaptive M and it works fine.

Understood, but the point being that if u have a problem with your active suspension, you may not be covered under warranty due to the springs

[blindmule]

As far as engine tune. My Canadian dealer advised me it needs to be the BMW power kit to keep the warranty. I'm not 100% sure but I think Dinan takes on the warranty of the power train with their tune. With a $2000+ CAN cost for Dinan at least they back you up. I was told $1200 for the BMW tune to be available later this year (down from list price of $1500). Both those costs are high, but they give you peace of mind.

[vm]

Regarding tunes you have to realize that if your car has turbos and you blow your engine, break a differential or something similar with a tune you should not expect any car company to cover this under warranty because the additional boost stresses your engine way more than stock. Now if you have a tune and your A/C goes bad, I would expect it to be cover under warranty so YMMV.

[cavm335i]

As far as the tune goes - just return it to stock & clear codes before visiting the dealer for EVERY visit including maintenance. Don't put any parts on you can't take off in the street unless you are willing to pay the price.

[ƒ°]

Originally Posted by m3 guy

I'm leasing mine and my dealer does not care what I do to the car as long as I put it back to stock on lease turn in. He did say if I got any sort of tune besides bmw's one coming out in December that the car would not be able to be cpo'd though. In general bolt-on's should be good to go for a lease, at least according to my dealer.

If you are buying the car then it is against federal law to deny your warranty based on aftermarket parts. All they can do is deny the warranty on the part you changed, the burden of proof lies with them as well. Pop your engine with a tune on it and guarantee they are going to try and deny you.

I'm starting to think that this phrase has been used from forum to forum so often, that it's been accepted as fact (as I've read it on several occasions and may have even used it myself).

I read through that Magnuson-Moss wiki and there is no mention of burden of proof etc. This line in the wiki article is the only line that might pertain to this issue, "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[3] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

But if anything, that's just vague. It doesn't say anything about non-brand parts that changes spec... exactly what lowering springs and an engine tuning would do.

Perhaps the originator of the "burden of proof" phrase actually read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and pulled it from there, but the wiki is pretty vague on the issue. Anyone please enlighten us.

[m5 guy]

Here is the FTC's consumer alert on the subject

[rjc32000]

Originally Posted by Tremolo

I'm starting to think that this phrase has been used from forum to forum so often, that it's been accepted as fact (as I've read it on several occasions and may have even used it myself).

I read through that Magnuson-Moss wiki and there is no mention of burden of proof etc. This line in the wiki article is the only line that might pertain to this issue, "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[3] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

But if anything, that's just vague. It doesn't say anything about non-brand parts that changes spec... exactly what lowering springs and an engine tuning would do.

Perhaps the originator of the "burden of proof" phrase actually read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and pulled it from there, but the wiki is pretty vague on the issue. Anyone please enlighten us.

As a practical matter, and without having read the Mag/Moss Act or claiming to be an expert on the subject, the cost in both time and money an aftermarket tuning mod might entail in the need of warranty service seems to outweigh the benefit of the mod.

From the FTC website re: Magnuson/Moss warranties:
Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

If your car, which has had the HP increased by 20-25% over stock with an aftermarket tune, breaks down or suffers an engine failure, I can pretty much guarantee that BMW will attribute the breakdown to a defective modification of the engine, i.e., that the engine wasn't designed to operate within these parameters (the aftermarket part, although operating as designed, was nevertheless defective because it overstressed the engine) and will refuse to honor the warranty. I'm not saying that they are neccesarily correct, but that is what they are going to say. Then what? You hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit against BMW and engage is costly litigation, with no guarantee of success. Trust me on this: I'm a lawyer, and we are very, very expensive.

BMW is a huge corporation with a huge in-house litigation department. They will litigate the bejesus out of it, and can afford to do so. They will spend far more money litigating the issue than it would cost to simply repair your car, because if they lose, that means they have to honor the warranty for every other person whose car malfunctions because of an aftermarket tune. No, they'd rather lose money in your individual suit rather than incur the expenses associated with you winning.

Sure, the Mag/Moss act says that they have the burden of proof ("the dealer must prove..."), but this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it is simply preponderance of the evidence standard (that it is more likely than not). They'll parade a bunch of BMW engineers and mechanics as expert witnesses who will testify under oath that the car was not designed to operate under such loads, assuming you even survive summary judgment in federal court (big corporations almost always move state lawsuits to federal court because it is a much friendlier court to defendants in civil law suits). Who is your expert witness going to be? Not anyone associated with BMW, I'm willing to bet. And guess who pays for the expert? That's right, you do.

Most likely outcome: You lose on summary judgment, you are out-of-pocket a gazillion dollars to your attorney, and your car is broken.

Also, just a brief Westlaw search came up with an unreported case in which a lessee was deemed not to qualify as a "consumer" under the Mag-Moss Act, thus precluding them from the Act's protections:

The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted the three consumer tests as “requir[ing] courts to determine whether a ‘sale’ has occurred.” Id. at 470, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Since the Act itself does not contain a definition of “sale” or “buyer,” the New York Court of Appeals looked to the UCC for a definition and determined that under the UCC, the “passing of title” is required for a sale. Id. (citing UCC 2–106(1) and UCC 2–103(1)(a)). According to the Court of Appeals, “passing of title has never been an attribute of leases,” either under the UCC or common law. Id. at 470–71, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Thus, where a plaintiff merely leases a vehicle, such as the plaintiff herein, he never obtains title to the vehicle and therefor the lease is not considered a “sale” under the UCC. See id. at 471, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Accordingly, vehicle lessees are not considered “consumers” under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. See id.; see also Beyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 293 A.D.2d 432, 741 N.Y.S.2d 248, 249 (2d Dep't 2002) (dismissing plaintiff's causes of action pursuant to the Magunson–Moss Warranty Act because the Act “does not apply to vehicle leases”).
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act must fail and the Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, I recommend that this action be dismissed.

Caveat: I do not, nor have I ever practiced in this specialized field of law. The above is not, nor it is intended to be, legal advice. If you want a legal opinion, you'll need contact a lawyer who specializes in this field.

[ƒ°]

Originally Posted by rjc32000

As a practical matter, and without having read the Mag/Moss Act or claiming to be an expert on the subject, the cost in both time and money an aftermarket tuning mod might entail in the need of warranty service seems to outweigh the benefit of the mod.

From the FTC website re: Magnuson/Moss warranties:
Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

If your car, which has had the HP increased by 20-25% over stock with an aftermarket tune, breaks down or suffers an engine failure, I can pretty much guarantee that BMW will attribute the breakdown to a defective modification of the engine, i.e., that the engine wasn't designed to operate within these parameters (the aftermarket part, although operating as designed, was nevertheless defective because it overstressed the engine) and will refuse to honor the warranty. I'm not saying that they are neccesarily correct, but that is what they are going to say. Then what? You hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit against BMW and engage is costly litigation, with no guarantee of success. Trust me on this: I'm a lawyer, and we are very, very expensive.

BMW is a huge corporation with a huge in-house litigation department. They will litigate the bejesus out of it, and can afford to do so. They will spend far more money litigating the issue than it would cost to simply repair your car, because if they lose, that means they have to honor the warranty for every other person whose car malfunctions because of an aftermarket tune. No, they'd rather lose money in your individual suit rather than incur the expenses associated with you winning.

Sure, the Mag/Moss act says that they have the burden of proof ("the dealer must prove..."), but this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it is simply preponderance of the evidence standard (that it is more likely than not). They'll parade a bunch of BMW engineers and mechanics as expert witnesses who will testify under oath that the car was not designed to operate under such loads, assuming you even survive summary judgment in federal court (big corporations almost always move state lawsuits to federal court because it is a much friendlier court to defendants in civil law suits). Who is your expert witness going to be? Not anyone associated with BMW, I'm willing to bet. And guess who pays for the expert? That's right, you do.

Most likely outcome: You lose on summary judgment, you are out-of-pocket a gazillion dollars to your attorney, and your car is broken.

Also, just a brief Westlaw search came up with an unreported case in which a lessee was deemed not to qualify as a "consumer" under the Mag-Moss Act, thus precluding them from the Act's protections:

The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted the three consumer tests as “requir[ing] courts to determine whether a ‘sale’ has occurred.” Id. at 470, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Since the Act itself does not contain a definition of “sale” or “buyer,” the New York Court of Appeals looked to the UCC for a definition and determined that under the UCC, the “passing of title” is required for a sale. Id. (citing UCC 2–106(1) and UCC 2–103(1)(a)). According to the Court of Appeals, “passing of title has never been an attribute of leases,” either under the UCC or common law. Id. at 470–71, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Thus, where a plaintiff merely leases a vehicle, such as the plaintiff herein, he never obtains title to the vehicle and therefor the lease is not considered a “sale” under the UCC. See id. at 471, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121. Accordingly, vehicle lessees are not considered “consumers” under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. See id.; see also Beyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 293 A.D.2d 432, 741 N.Y.S.2d 248, 249 (2d Dep't 2002) (dismissing plaintiff's causes of action pursuant to the Magunson–Moss Warranty Act because the Act “does not apply to vehicle leases”).
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act must fail and the Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, I recommend that this action be dismissed.

Caveat: I do not, nor have I ever practiced in this specialized field of law. The above is not, nor it is intended to be, legal advice. If you want a legal opinion, you'll need contact a lawyer who specializes in this field.

Best response on this thread. And there you have it!

[SGScuba]

Good post, rjc32000. This gives us an idea of what would probably happen in a real case, and what BMW's considerations are in fighting such a case. Better than the hypothetical "If you are buying the car then it is against federal law to deny your warranty based on aftermarket parts. All they can do is deny the warranty on the part you changed, the burden of proof lies with them as well." which gives rise to false hopes/unrealistic expectations.