GM CATCH CAN Warranty Denial PETITION - Page 25 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

DRKS1D3 · 05-16-2016, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

You really think Ford, Chrysler, Audi, Nissan... ANY other car company, would be any different when it comes to warranty policies?

This 100%! If anyone thinks any other car manufacturer would have handled this any differently...you're very gullible.

motorhead · 05-16-2016, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

You really think Ford, Chrysler, Audi, Nissan... ANY other car company, would be any different when it comes to warranty policies?

Nope, they are all the same. That's why Ill just buy used from now on. It keeps my money out of their pockets. Let someone else pay for depreciation and useless warranties. These manufacturers are out of control with pricing anyhow.

Scott@Bjorn3D · 05-16-2016, 07:02 AM

What sucks is there is a TSB out on the issue of failing oil pumps for the LS3/L99. The LS3 pump has more of an issue than the L99.

When mine went out the tech did find the valve in the pump stuck and saw metal in it jamming it up. The report was the shavings could of been in there from the original engine startup and just eventually jammed the pump.

No shavings or anything found in my oil pan or filter when they cut it open. But I stopped my engine when it said turn it off and dealer had car dropped into the service bay at dealership and they pushed it into the bay.

Looks like OP dealer drove it around.

wvyankee2 · 05-16-2016, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRKS1D3

This 100%! If anyone thinks any other car manufacturer would have handled this any differently...you're very gullible.

Jeep has stood by heavily modded vehicles for years with their warranty.

snarky · 05-16-2016, 07:39 AM

there's an air of effective cease & desist possibly at work here. other than that GM has built over 100 million small blocks since late 1954 and i'm pretty sure 99,990,000 of them ran just fine without a catch can.

SlingShot · 05-16-2016, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponchonutty

/\ ditto above. The M vs. M act clearly states that in order to allow a dealer/vehicle manufacturer to deny warranty because of the installation of said part, they must prove with out a doubt that either the product or the way it was installed was a direct cause of failure to the affected vehicle. Failure to do so means they have to uphold the warranty and/or supply similar product free of charge PERIOD! Anyone with $.02 worth of mechanical knowledge knows a catch can will in no way cause the issues at hand. This dealer and GM are clearly going against Federal Law

That's not what it says, now stop with the nonsense ...

DRKS1D3 · 05-16-2016, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvyankee2

Jeep has stood by heavily modded vehicles for years with their warranty.

So has GM, so has Ford, so have many other manufacturers. You just have to be certain you are using a mod-friendly dealer. Read the comments on this very thread. Many members have been covered with their heavily modified vehicle. It is up to the dealer whether they want to work with you. Every GM dealer is independently owned.

qcman · 05-16-2016, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

You really think Ford, Chrysler, Audi, Nissan... ANY other car company, would be any different when it comes to warranty policies?

Honestly no I don't but I will still shop other options if or when the time comes. To me this isn't the average warranty issue it likely relates to a well known and documented failing part and they put the guys engine parts in his trunk and sent him walking. If they opened it up they should have fixed it or just left it alone.

So I see your point but the circumstance here is on another level of incompetence for me....

SS376 · 05-16-2016, 09:36 AM

OP said that part of the reason he installed the catch can was advice he got on Camaro 5. Free internet advice sure can be expensive.

vinman · 05-16-2016, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghosted

Magnuson-Moss *

Haha, oops! They probably don't honor that one either

FloridaBill · 05-16-2016, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS376

OP said that part of the reason he installed the catch can was advice he got on Camaro 5. Free internet advice sure can be expensive.

People here have definitely pushed installing a catch can, many here have even mentioned the tech emptying it for them during an oil change at the dealer. This incident has definitely blindsided the forum and will probably change some opinions on preventative maintenance add on's like a catch can which is unfortunate.

I certainly don't think anyone was giving bad advice by recommending a catch can for our engines, but ultimately GM has the final say on what will or will not void the warranty.

Somebody had to be the fall guy and find out the hard way. To some extent, I think we all received a wake up call from their decision.

TommyTheCat · 05-16-2016, 12:17 PM

I always thought that the dealer/manufacturer had to prove that your modification actually affected the problem

To be safe when I took my car in for some warranty problems, I called ahead and asked if my catch can or air intake would be a problem and they said no and I had it put in writing. Just do this, and you should be fine

Mr. Stacy · 05-16-2016, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyTheCat

I always thought that the dealer/manufacturer had to prove that your modification actually affected the problem

To be safe when I took my car in for some warranty problems, I called ahead and asked if my catch can or air intake would be a problem and they said no and I had it put in writing. Just do this, and you should be fine

The actual text from the warranty pamphlet states that the damage has to be a "result" of the modification or alteration. Also the same section refers to "components" that fail, so claiming an entire engine as a "part" would be inconsistent with the language of the rest of the section.

chef-beavis · 05-16-2016, 02:26 PM

I had held back on this mod and the cold air intake, due to family budget constraints. I figured a cam, heads, and headers could wait until after warranty. I guess it all does, now, no matter what my budget is. I understand GM's point, to some degree, but it should have gotten a lot more leeway, given the known trouble with these pumps. I'd also have been really ready to file a claim against the dealer for starting the car and driving it at all. I'd probably be even hotter at the dealer, to be honest. Fairly small potatoes before the increased the damage and screwed over the OP by flagging the catch can.

05-16-2016, 07:39 AM	#341
snarky ultracrepidarianism Drives: '14 1SS/RS/1LE/NPP '18 Accord Sport Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: where folks drive like shit Posts: 1,297	there's an air of effective cease & desist possibly at work here. other than that GM has built over 100 million small blocks since late 1954 and i'm pretty sure 99,990,000 of them ran just fine without a catch can. __________________

05-16-2016, 07:02 AM	#339
Scott@Bjorn3D Drives: Kami, 2013 2SS LS3 Luvin Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Eufaula, Alabama Posts: 6,427	What sucks is there is a TSB out on the issue of failing oil pumps for the LS3/L99. The LS3 pump has more of an issue than the L99. When mine went out the tech did find the valve in the pump stuck and saw metal in it jamming it up. The report was the shavings could of been in there from the original engine startup and just eventually jammed the pump. No shavings or anything found in my oil pan or filter when they cut it open. But I stopped my engine when it said turn it off and dealer had car dropped into the service bay at dealership and they pushed it into the bay. Looks like OP dealer drove it around.

05-16-2016, 09:36 AM	#345
SS376 Drives: 2013 1SS LS3 Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 814	OP said that part of the reason he installed the catch can was advice he got on Camaro 5. Free internet advice sure can be expensive.

05-16-2016, 12:17 PM	#348
TommyTheCat SHKE BKE Drives: 2013 Camaro Join Date: May 2014 Location: SoCal Posts: 3,105	I always thought that the dealer/manufacturer had to prove that your modification actually affected the problem To be safe when I took my car in for some warranty problems, I called ahead and asked if my catch can or air intake would be a problem and they said no and I had it put in writing. Just do this, and you should be fine

05-16-2016, 02:26 PM	#350
chef-beavis Drives: IOM 2013 2SS/RS, Greenie, 06 FXSTBi Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Turd Town, WI Posts: 1,602	I had held back on this mod and the cold air intake, due to family budget constraints. I figured a cam, heads, and headers could wait until after warranty. I guess it all does, now, no matter what my budget is. I understand GM's point, to some degree, but it should have gotten a lot more leeway, given the known trouble with these pumps. I'd also have been really ready to file a claim against the dealer for starting the car and driving it at all. I'd probably be even hotter at the dealer, to be honest. Fairly small potatoes before the increased the damage and screwed over the OP by flagging the catch can.