My concern is that Southern California has not yet hit its hot season. To me this will be the real test in real-world stop-n-go situations. I have not reached the level of comfort that this issue is over.

I have looked at the engine oil lubrication diagram in the Nissan 370Z Service Manual and it looks like (although I have not substantiated this) the oil temperature sending unit is taking its reading off the oil pulled for the oil pan. My concern is that the VVEL top-end is where the oil gets the hottest and pushed to its limits, and where a better oil temperature reading would be beneficial.

The sump is the most logical place to read temps though as it is from that point that oil is pressurized through the system. You are probably right in that temps are probably higher at the VVEL assembly and are reduced as they drain back to the sump. This is academic though based on the failsafe trigger points. 280 in the sump may actually be 300 at the valve train, but that is where Nissan has determined the cut needs to be for the protection it needs. 300 degrees (a guess) may therefore be the "Real" number beyond which they determine the viscosity drop to be unacceptable..It looks like Viscosity levels flatten out at the 280 and beyond point...

http://images50.fotki.com/v1512/phot...ture400-vi.gif

From what I know (as little as it is) an engine will perform better when the oil is hotter. I'm assuming there is a point where the oil breaks down and loses its properties but I'm assuming we are no where near that limit at 250F. With our tight tollerances and micro machining, etc isn't lower viscosity going to help the parts rather than hinder/wear? If the oil is to viscous will the drag and force pushing the parts apart cause wear on other parts?

Nissan has determined that, at 280 degrees on the recommended oil, the maximum RPM's should be reduced. Basically that's all anyone knows.

After seeing the viscosity over temperature chart, and reading all of today's posts, I'm still inclined to believe 260 degrees is a safe operating temperature. I don't believe the viscosity difference, from 220 to 260 degrees, will result in accelerated wear and premature engine failure.

So it sounds like if we are doing the oil cooler the thermal switch is going to be important to get the oil up to temp but keep it below the recomended max temp...

Personally, I would prefer to have a 180 thermo on mine, yes. I think with most of the reasonably-sized coolers available, the car will have no trouble maintaining a 180+ temp anyways once it gets warmed up, unless you're in a really freaking cold climate. For me it's mostly about not extending the warmup time on cold mornings. I already have to wait around forever (I
like to see the needle start bumping up off the 140 floor before I pull out of the driveway if I can afford to wait that long, and 180 before I hit the throttle too hard always).

Oooooo...waiting until it's off 140 to start moving??? I'd be late to work every day! At least it hits 140 after about 3min on the highway for me. I just wait until the engine idle drops below 1000 rpm before moving.

Well, I said 'if I can afford to wait that long', which isn't always the case. When I'm in a rush I also just wait for the idle to settle down somewhere under 1k. I really try to wait as long as I can though, because 30 seconds out of my driveway I'm hitting a highway feeder, and it's hard not to push the throttle pretty hard pulling out into traffic there.

could someone save me from reading through 40 pages of posts and give a brief update on where things stand regarding this issue, i.e. what is nissan's position at this point? will after market oil coolers void the warranty?

much appreciated! :tiphat:

I have been talking with consumer affairs for the past few weeks, issue is being researched, Nissan states they will honor your warranty for the nissan motorsport cooler. (he says that the part does not need to be installed by your dealer) I have requested this several times in writing due to the fact that the cooler does not come with a warranty. The nissan rep has told me that they will not put anything in writing in regards to this issue until their research is complete. So basically I have not received any answers.

I know this does not help anyone just the same BS from the dealer to corporate.

Any word on this Nissan oil cooler that was supposed to be here by now?

I'd be nice if they did a voluntary recall / posted warranty update on this, to where the owner can opt to have one installed (at their expense) and the warranty kept in-tact.

So far from what I've heard, an oil cooler installation voids the warranty.

I dont think an oil cooler will void the warranty as long it doesnt cause problems to the car. If Nissan is installing an Oil Cooler on the Nismo, which is the same car, we can do it too. Plus any aftermarket part is protected by the Magnuson-Moss Law Act. THe problem is that there's a lot of people don't know about this law, and a lot of dealers that either don't know or want to ignore it.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what I use against dealer when they try their BS warranty with me.

Magnuson-Moss is quoted a lot.

It has nothing to do with add-ons. (imagine if you installed Nitrous - you expect them to warrantee the pistons when they get a hole through them?)

It has everything to do with tie-in warranty sales - for example, if Nissan required you to buy Nissan oil filters and Nissan Oil, and only the dealer could do the oil changes. THAT is what the Magnuson-Moss Act refers to...because it basically sets up a dealer/manufacturer monopoly on wear-items.



Nissan has stated (there's a thread on here about it) where they will not cover a car that has an oil cooler installed, because it's considered a competition-use item, and the car is not for competition use. Even the NIZMO will not have an oil cooler installed.

The point to using this is that if I install a Stillen intake, they cannot void my warranty because another part broke, unless they show that the intake was the cause (We know they will not warranty the new intake). No one is going to argue that if you throw on a turbo and blow a piston that Nissan will have to warranty it, the turbo obviously caused it.

OK, I'll play devils advocate...

Lets say you install a Stillen Intake.

Nissan denies the claim because the increased power gained from the intake was not part of the original design specifications and caused damage to XYZ component, and that an intake is an indicator of competition use, of which the car is not designed for, or warranteed.

You're left holding the bag...and getting an attorney who will gladly take a lot of your money only to lose the case if it goes to court. Nissan might, if you're lucky, offer to settle it - basically paying your attorney fees...


Imagine if you put on a bigger set of brakes...the tie-rod breaks. Competition use. Exceeded design specifications...

Now, imagine if you put in 5w-30 dirt-cheap oil, but stuck to the manfucaturer's recommendations on oil changes and engine maintenance and something goes wrong....THEN you'd have a chance at a winning case. Even installing a K&N air filter could be risky, since it's not the same type of air filter originall installed in the car (pleated paper vs paper (or open-cell foam) + oil)...


That's not even taking into account of "where is the line drawn" between adding a turbo/blower/nitrous/etc and changing it to a cold-air intake.

Remember, law has no "common sense" - and, the burden of proof is on the one who brings it to court, not the defendant. You have to prove to a judge that installing XYZ component couldn't have possibly caused ABC item to break. The Act only provides provisions to prevent required tie-in sales to maintain a warranty.

I would talk to the dealership, Nissan, and ask them to show me how and what went wrong with my car that caused this issue. If they then show me data indicating the intake was the cause then I would be S.O.L, but unless they can prove it with some data they would be required to honor my warranty. Now this is all typing and text on a forum, but when it comes down to it a dealership will cave very easily if you know what you are talking about. I have seen it time and again with my father, they tried to screw him on something and he told them they were wrong and proved it and they quickly backed off.

If the car owner does not know what he is able to say or do, the dealership/Nissan will walk all over him, but if you know your rights with a car and stand up for them they have more work to do than we do.

Remember, law has no "common sense"...

Oh I am well aware of that, I have dealt with the tax world (mother is a CPA and I use to do work for her and currently study in business). Common sense is not something we have ground to stand upon, but providing facts and proof is plenty to get the results we (car owner's) need. If the dealership/Nissan can show the proof that we made a mistake with the car, then I will fully back off. Also, the oil cooler issue may have been told by Nissan consumer affairs that they will not warranty it, but I am sure many dealerships would have no clue what it is directly and might over look it at first.

OK, what makes you think they're *required* to give you any data, pre-trail? There isn't a lawyer that will represent a warantee court case on contingency....so you're out a LOT of money just to get it to trial.


I'll state it one more time.


The Magnuson-Moss Act is a legal provision to prevent tie-in sales to maintain a warranty.

It has nothing to do with modifications.

If the dealer overlooks a modification and makes repairs, regardless of what caused the issue, that is their problem...and the manufacturer could deny paying them for the repair, if said item is returned to the manufacturer for examination and it's determined the fault was not due to defect...

However, from a legal standpoint, if there are any modifications (noted by the warranty service provider), the manfacturer can (and often does) deny a warranty claim, and the person filing the claim then has to take it to court, and prove to a judge that the manufacturer is liable.

The oil cooler statement was more to the fact that they cannot void your warranty just because you installed the oil cooler. Meaning, they cannot void it because you installed it even if you are not in for repairs. Ex: You are getting your tires rotated and they see it, they cannot void the warranty, they just will not cover it. Now if a problem with oil occurs then they can attack that issue.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. Source: Link

I do not know 100% of this Act as I have only read through it a few times, but on we go.
They must provide the data.

So you're saying that you know the oil pump can handle the extra stress of pushing it through a cooler and the hoses?

Or that the thermo-plate meets the design specifications for an engine that the manufacturer of the plate had no hand w/ design?

Or that the flow rate through the plate and cooler is adequate for the design of the engine? Or that the flow rate matches *exactly* over all RPM and workloads, of pre-oil cooler and post-oil cooler?

Or that with continued use, the oil pump won't see an increased amount of wear from the extra stresses induced by the cooler/thermo-plate?


Or that *you* can prove that installing the oil cooler is nessicary for reliable operation of the engine?

Or that *you* can prove that it wasn't installed for competition-use?


Just sayin....

They must provide the data ***when there is a manufacturer specified tie-in sales associated with warranty***

Again, the Magnuson-Moss Act has NOTHING to do with aftermarket modification parts....

As I have not installed one, nor have taken the time to even begin my research I cannot say one way or the other. Though I will say that when I do things, I do not just do them because they look good or because they should perform. I buy into something I know will work and not cause problems, one reason I will not buy performance parts right away (car is still new). While I may not go into the depth of your post and conclude all those findings are good or bad, I will find that my car will not run into any issues from an install and use of such an item. Now what will others do, that is up to them.

And regarding tires rotated - it's in the manual to do it.

Feel free to do what you want - I'm just trying to show you that what you think protects your "rights", doesn't...

Myself, I plan on eventually replacing the cats with HFC's and possibly a cat-back system. Maybe...


Also, one other point I want to make - most aftermarket mod-parts will say "for offroad use only" - that protects the aftermaket-parts people from getting sued when a warranty claim is denied, and also gives leverage to warranty-claim denials...

I mean, other than going and quoting the Act specifically, every article I have ever read, know about, or seen pertaining to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as stated that "Under the Magnuson-Moss Act, a dealer must prove, not just vocalize, that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. If the dealer cannot prove such a claim — or it proffers a questionable explanation — it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty."

The italicized part is a quote from an article I have, and is the same conclusion from every other article.

Ok, by "legal right" - that means getting, at the very least, a lawyer to write them a letter...

Also take into account what the main point of the Magnuson-Moss Act pertains to....

(the prevention of) dealer/manufacturer Tie-in Sales to maintain warranty.

A specific example...

-----
You change the oil in your car at your regularly scheduled intervals.

You use a Fram oil filter.

Engine blows up with no other modifications and no signs of abuse.

Dealer says they won't cover the claim becasue you didn't use a Nissan Oil Filter.
-----

THERE you have a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act.

No offense, but I would say probably most people will never have an issue with the oil heating problem. This is a bit more of an enthusiast forum so we have a lot more people taking their car to a track and having this issue. By the claims of Nissan, this is a non-issue though since the car is not sold as a track car.

Yep

And by installing an oil cooler, they see that as a competition part, and may deny warranty coverage.

That said, I managed to get my oil temp to 250 yesterday, with some pretty hard accell/decell/accell - it was around 100F yesterday too...

I really had to get into it to get it that high, and it'd cool off pretty easily with some regular driving - in fact, I'd wager that the only time it'd get like that is if someone is REALLY pushing it on the street (much more so than what is legal), or is on a track.

Some people have a maturity level that exceeds a 5yr old, and don't take comments on the internet seriously...

Actually you are raising the issue of semantics in regards to the word "modification" so please allow me to explain how the MM Act applies to cover changes made by a car owner. I have an extensive understanding of how to apply the MM-Act as I have dealt with the Magnuson-Moss Act on several occcassions with several known Ford Mustang modification challenge issues. Read my entire answer as I do address the semantics issue and how the act can be applied to changes the car owner makes to a car.

Historically in general, the MM Act (and the courts are well aware of this) was made to protect the consumer, not the manufacturer. It was meant to cover any kind of merchandise and did not originate specifically out of issues dealing with cars. The MM-Act was made primarily to address two things:

1. Prevent a monopoly of service and OEM part replacement on the part of the manufacturer or in other words forcing the OWNER of any merchadise to always have to use OEM specified services or OEM specified parts. (I believe this speaks to your mention of "preventing tie-in sells")

2. Recognize the fact that the consumer and not the manufacturer is the OWNER of the merchadise consumed and that the manufacturer has no right to use their warranty as a "sword of damocles" over the head of the merchadise OWNER to mitigate their right as OWNER to choose and use 3rd-party parts that were made specific and to OEM-spec when replacing OEM parts original to the merchandise when they first bought it. (This is a reason you do not seem to be aware of.)

Historically how this act eventually made its way to be applied to cars was that prior to the MM-Act, car maufacturers in particular were abusing the consumers by forcing them to have to use OEM services (dealers) and OEM parts when doing any maintenance or fixing of the cars. When the consumer started to use 3rd-party-made replacement parts in an attempt to save money instead of the overpriced OEM parts the manufacturers countered by then starting to use the warranty as the way to force their OEM-usage intent.

As time went on the words "part replacement" and "modification" have become semantically intertwined over time which has caused some misunderstandings as to how the MM-Act applies or not..

Where the MM-Act specifically supports modifications being made to cars by the owner is when an owner of the car replaces OEM made parts using 3rd-party made parts that were specifically made, functionally spec'd and functionally intended to replace the manufacturers OEM parts. As long as the consumer/OWNER does not modify the 3rd-party part that will change its INTENDED FUNCTION and take the car out of OEM's intended spec TOLERANCES then the consumer / OWNER is free to use the 3rd-party made parts including CAI, any exhaust pieces, pullies and etc.

Notice I used the word TOLERANCES and not the word PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL. This is where the OEM manufacturer tries to take advantage of the consumer to deny the consumers claim. The OEM manufacturer tries to use "slight of hand" here to equate SPEC TOLERANCE with PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL and these are entirely two distinct beasts.

If a 3rd-party made part used by the consumer / owner as a "part replacement" keeps the car within the OEM part's mechanical specification on mechnical TOLERANCES then the OEM manufacturer has no basis to deny the warranty. If the car of the consumer / owner picks up extra HP or TQ or whatever other kind of PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL to be gained then the OEM manufacturer CANNOT use this gain as proof of going out of TOLERANCE nor can they deny the claim on the basis of a "modification" being made.

If however (1) using the 3rd-party part was manufactured and sold out of OEM spec TOLERANCE of the replaced OEM part and the intent of being out of spec was because this was the only way to achieve an increase in PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL or (2) the consumer / owner took a 3rd-party in-OEM spec part and makes an alteration to it that does cause it to go out of OEM spec TOLERANCE then then the OEM manufacturer can deny the warranty claim on the basis of a "modification".

So this should clear up and lay to rest the semantics going on here and the impacts onthe use of the MM-Act.

Let me say in conclusion that in general, the act itself has been interpreted by the courts to force the burden of proof onto the OEM manufacturer when denying a warranty claim by the owner who used 3rd-party parts. The OEM manufacturer of the merchandise consumed by the owner is required (by the court's interpretation of the MM-Act) to show that the parts used by the owner is 100% the root and total cause of the issue being denied by the manufacturer.

This is so precisely because of the semantic latitude as to what is or is not considered to be a "modification" and because of the OEM manufacturers attemtp to muddy the waters with their misleading use of the word TOLERANCE and PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL.

If the owner of the merchandise at issue takes the OEM manufacturer to court and the OEM manufacturer fails to bring TANGIBLE proof of 100% root cause failure based on the owner's use of the 3rd-party made part, the OEM manufacturer WILL lose the issue.

I hope this helps guys. :rock:

An excellent post but I'm not sure that it does clear up the issue.

As there is no engine oil cooler installed on the vehicle in stock form, adding an engine oil cooler is clearly not a "replacement part". Further, as the vehicle, from most accounts, does function as intended when used legally on the street, I would think that the addition of an engine oil cooler could be reasonably construed as a modification intended to improve performance (i.e. make the car trackable).

Finally, regardless of the burden of proof (not to discount that important fact), a consumer still has to initiate legal proceedings which is generally not an easy, inexpensive or quick process...even if the consumer ultimately prevails and is reimbursed for any legal expenses, etc, it's still not an easy process.

If I'm missing something critical here please elaborate...again, excellent post IMAHO. :)

Great pair of posts...

This isn't my350Z.com dude, takes a lot to incite a riot over here :tiphat:

John

Watch that for 2010, they will take away the oil temp gauge just to shut people up. (The reason why most water temp gauge are not linear)

What is the optimum Motul oil weight? I'm sure it was addressed already but I can't find it. Also when should the first oil change be?

Im sorry Kanibul for the missunderstanding but that is not my point, and that is not what the law says, even that I do understand your point.

Yes the law it has to do with add-ons and any aftermarket part, what the law protect you from is from dealers that take the practice of looking at a mod, and they want to void the warranty of the car.

For example, you can install an oil cooler, and if u have problems with transmission, they cannot look at the car and tell you that your car is out of warranty because you install something that dont belong to the car. Thats when the law protect you, they have to take the car as it is, perform the regular diagnostic AND if after performing the their job they get to a conclusion the problem with the transmission was the oil cooler then they have to put it in writing and charge you whatever.

IF you change ur Wheels, and you have problems with suspensions, they have to take your car and perform their job, then decided if they are going to void warranty or not, and only for the part related not the whole car.

If you install and aftermarket radio, and ur lights don't work, they have to chek the car.

Using your example, if you install Nitrous on your car, yes they can void the warranty if something happen to the engine, but ONLY if something happen. But the law says that they cannot deny you warranty just by looking at the car and see the bottle.

etc. I think u got my point now.

Now that mine is past break-in (about 2500 miles on the car now), and I changed the oil to the Nissan esther, I seem to average between 220 and 230 with normal driving. It's in the 90's here now, and I hit 250 today with a little spirited driving, never exceeding about 5500 to 6000 RPM. I would venture to say had I pushed it a little longer time wise, and/or approached redline, I would have hit or slightly exceeded 260. I guess the 64 thousand dollar question for me is "are the internals used in the engine up to these temps for prolonged amounts of time, and what would constitute prolonged time"? I remember reading in another thread about the bearings not being as hard nor resilliant as they used to be, as a result on changes in the metalurgy brought about by environmental standards. I would love an engine expert to chime in or be consulted as to just how high of temps this engine will tolerate and for what length of time. That would answer alot of questions for those of us that don't track the car, but still enjoy driving it the way it was meant to be driven, and live in hot climates.

John