Coworker Completely voids warranty on his 2017 2SS due to a catch can! - Page 6 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

arussh · 05-28-2018, 07:12 PM

i waited until powertrain was almost finished b 4 i did any serious mods, but then oh yeah modcity. Sorry to hear your predicament. Have you considered dealing the car?

Ponchonutty · 06-14-2018, 01:13 AM

Hmm. No one knows about the Magnuson vs. Moss act? I had a dealer give me some crap about a CAI once. Brought in a copy of this law and then asked them if they want me to contact the attorney general’s office. Funny how everything was good and taken under warranty

Elite Engineering · 06-14-2018, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponchonutty

Hmm. No one knows about the Magnuson vs. Moss act? I had a dealer give me some crap about a CAI once. Brought in a copy of this law and then asked them if they want me to contact the attorney general’s office. Funny how everything was good and taken under warranty

hntrgthrs · 06-14-2018, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponchonutty

Hmm. No one knows about the Magnuson vs. Moss act? I had a dealer give me some crap about a CAI once. Brought in a copy of this law and then asked them if they want me to contact the attorney general’s office. Funny how everything was good and taken under warranty

You do know that you're going to have to litigate if you go that route, right? The M&M Act is a great thing on paper. But once you actually get into the nuts and bolts of it, you're going to need to bring suit against GM and their army of highly paid attorneys (of which will bury you or your attorney in paperwork and motions) if you really want to fight something like this and GM doesn't want to give in.

So we can always point to the Act, but the problem is that the Act also means you are putting out a lot of money to sue in the first place. It's not nearly as much protection as we'd like to think it offers.

Ponchonutty · 06-17-2018, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hntrgthrs

You do know that you're going to have to litigate if you go that route, right? The M&M Act is a great thing on paper. But once you actually get into the nuts and bolts of it, you're going to need to bring suit against GM and their army of highly paid attorneys (of which will bury you or your attorney in paperwork and motions) if you really want to fight something like this and GM doesn't want to give in.

So we can always point to the Act, but the problem is that the Act also means you are putting out a lot of money to sue in the first place. It's not nearly as much protection as we'd like to think it offers.

Actually you are wrong. Since it is federal law, a high dollar attorney is not needed. It is illegal for a car maker or stealership to make your warranty conditional based upon the addition of aftermarket parts especially a catch can. They have to either provide you a similar product free of charge or show with no doubt said alterations caused said issue I should know because I own an aftermarket business that caters to new car dealerships. I also personally ran into this with my new VW Jetta with a CEL. Dealer tried to blame my addition of a subwoofer and digital amp to the factory headinit of a consistent EVAP code. Turned them into Ohio Attorney General and filed a lemon law complaint that went nowhere. Retained an attorney with all my paperwork and they settled out of court. I ended up with $15k and kept the car (that another dealer found and fixed the issue). Used that to buy a new Silverado.

Rusty35 · 06-17-2018, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponchonutty

Actually you are wrong. Since it is federal law, a high dollar attorney is not needed. It is illegal for a car maker or stealership to make your warranty conditional based upon the addition of aftermarket parts especially a catch can. They have to either provide you a similar product free of charge or show with no doubt said alterations caused said issue I should know because I own an aftermarket business that caters to new car dealerships. I also personally ran into this with my new VW Jetta with a CEL. Dealer tried to blame my addition of a subwoofer and digital amp to the factory headinit of a consistent EVAP code. Turned them into Ohio Attorney General and filed a lemon law complaint that went nowhere. Retained an attorney with all my paperwork and they settled out of court. I ended up with $15k and kept the car (that another dealer found and fixed the issue). Used that to buy a new Silverado.

I thought altering the emissions system was against federal law?
Isn't adding a catch can is against federal law.
You say it is so easy to prove, why are there not any cases where gm has lost this battle in court?

Vroom · 06-18-2018, 02:34 AM

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty act has to do with the enforcement of written warranties. Nowhere does it say you can modify your car and then make the warrantor prove your modification was the problem. The FTC has stated that a manufacturer can not deny your warranty solely because you have an aftermarket part. The FTC has defined an aftermarket part as "a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer". Aftermarket does not mean "modification" of the warrantor's design, it means you can replace a part of the original design with a part made by someone else providing that part falls within the OEM specification. If you have a claim, the manufacturer has to prove that the OEM spec'd part caused the failure before denying the warranty. Its real easy for the OEM to deny your warranty if they find any part that isn't in their design. They can drop the warranty for any other part that is logically effected by the modification. I believe this is in their written warranty, by the way.

A catch can is a clear modification of GM's validated engine design. It ties directly into engine's oil system and its effects on the engine are not validated by GM or by the people making the catch cans. So you're risking your engine by putting one on based on anecdotal evidence and not any real fact.

The idea that GM has to do some sort of million mile validation of your modification before dropping your warranty is insane

. If you don't want to have your warranty denied, make sure your engine is stock before bringing it to the dealer.

Seriously, takes like 5 minutes to remove a catch-can.

Sorry to be a bummer.

05-28-2018, 07:12 PM	#71
arussh Drives: 2011 2ss/rs, 1990 iroc-z Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Ottawa Ontario Posts: 197	i waited until powertrain was almost finished b 4 i did any serious mods, but then oh yeah modcity. Sorry to hear your predicament. Have you considered dealing the car? __________________ 2011 2SS/RS 6.4 sleeved ls7, ported CTSV supercharger; zl1 hat,fuel pump with Kenny Bell boosta pump,102 throttle body,6l90e g-force driveshaft,zl1 rearend and axels, ID 850s, dual pass heat exchanger; Auto Tech electric water pump;160 degree themostat; ls7 pushrods,rockers; Metco polished pulley kit, 2.4ud; ls3 assessory bracket kit;2 Hayes trans coolers; CAI intake; Texas Speed 1 7/8 headers; 3" Magnaflow exhaust; Alkycontrol meth kit; p;Elite catch can; BMR 1" lowering springs, ZL1 10" front 11" rear rims, trans and engine tune by wally a.

06-14-2018, 01:13 AM	#72
Ponchonutty Drives: 2012 SS L99 Converible Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: New Washington, Ohio Posts: 606	Hmm. No one knows about the Magnuson vs. Moss act? I had a dealer give me some crap about a CAI once. Brought in a copy of this law and then asked them if they want me to contact the attorney general’s office. Funny how everything was good and taken under warranty __________________ 2012 L99 Convertible SS Tooley Racing Stage 2 DOD delete, 3,200 stall converter, Shorty headers and custom stainless exhaust, CAI, and tune as mods

06-18-2018, 02:34 AM	#77
Vroom Drives: 2013 Camaro ZL1 Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 325	The Magnuson-Moss Warranty act has to do with the enforcement of written warranties. Nowhere does it say you can modify your car and then make the warrantor prove your modification was the problem. The FTC has stated that a manufacturer can not deny your warranty solely because you have an aftermarket part. The FTC has defined an aftermarket part as "a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer". Aftermarket does not mean "modification" of the warrantor's design, it means you can replace a part of the original design with a part made by someone else providing that part falls within the OEM specification. If you have a claim, the manufacturer has to prove that the OEM spec'd part caused the failure before denying the warranty. Its real easy for the OEM to deny your warranty if they find any part that isn't in their design. They can drop the warranty for any other part that is logically effected by the modification. I believe this is in their written warranty, by the way. A catch can is a clear modification of GM's validated engine design. It ties directly into engine's oil system and its effects on the engine are not validated by GM or by the people making the catch cans. So you're risking your engine by putting one on based on anecdotal evidence and not any real fact. The idea that GM has to do some sort of million mile validation of your modification before dropping your warranty is insane . If you don't want to have your warranty denied, make sure your engine is stock before bringing it to the dealer. Seriously, takes like 5 minutes to remove a catch-can. Sorry to be a bummer. __________________ 2013 Victory Red ZL1 - 210K+ miles. Mods: Who needs mods...its a freaking ZL1 - Last car: 2006 GTO