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.