290 hp gm ecm tune - confirmed

[Mandi]

My fiance works for the local Chevrolet dealership (so he can't work on a Saturn under warranty)......but the stories he has on aftermarket parts and warranty is crazy. Typically, if its a minor addition....like a different reprogram for the PCM or larger tires.....and its nothing crazy, they'll warranty stuff. Although when they get into trucks that have been lifted past 3" or a Corvette that is not making near stock power they typically don't warranty related repairs. Which in my view, is the way it should be.

One time there was a 600+ hp C5 Z06 in....driver's power window didn't work....needed a new window motor....covered under warranty....there is no way the extra power directly caused the power window motor to fail.

I doubt any tech is going to check PCM calibrations if/when you would have powertrain trouble....no one at his Chevy store does. Unless of course it would be a programming related concern....like a transmission shift quality issue.

[RedHeaded RedLine]

Originally Posted by Mandi

I doubt any tech is going to check PCM calibrations if/when you would have powertrain trouble....no one at his Chevy store does. Unless of course it would be a programming related concern....like a transmission shift quality issue.

First thing they check at Volvo is the last flash to see if all factory updates have been done.
If the last flash doesn't match the last time you were there, Lucy has some 'splaining to do. First hand knowledge. -J

[hafizmo]

So any news on the 290 HP ECM upgrade? Can the dealer find out if you change your ecu or ecm or pcm (don't know the difference), basically if you purchase say a Wester's tune on a different ecu, ecm, pcm, and swap back to stock for dealer visits.

[enkymion]

The tune got nixed.

[Bogie]

Originally Posted by Celt03

Per Federal law: A warranty repair can ONLY be refused IF the failure can be PROVEN to be a result of the aftermarket part.

IANAL, but the law uses the word "show" as opposed to "prove". I don't know exactly how that translates into the court room, but even if it translates directly to "prove", there are several levels of proof:

Preponderance of evidence?
Clear and convincing?
Beyond a reasonable doubt?

I believe most civil cases fall under preponderance of evidence. If so, then the manufacturer's "proof" must only exceed a 50% likelihood. I would think simply showing a tune can breach a spec on a failed part would be sufficient proof under the preponderance of evidence, unless the owner can show with even greater evidence that the tune never breached the spec. Considering you will be fighting a manufacture with boatloads of specs, and engineers to testify, you will need to get smart on the tune and line up your own experts in response in order to swing the preponderance in your favor.

IANAL.

Oh, and one more thing. The "hide the tune" approach might backfire. If a part fails, and you swap back in an old ECM or have stealth programming, what are you going to say if the dealer asks if it's been tuned it? You will lie? If not, why hide it in the first place. Then if the dealer refused to repair the part, what next? Take 'em to court? Now you must tell the truth, or risk perjury. How is that going to look to a jury? The owner hid the tune and lied about it to the dealer. Not a particularly good way to start your case, is it? In fact, you might even open yourself up to a fraud countersuit (again, IANAL).

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by Bogie

IANAL, but the law uses the word "show" as opposed to "prove". I don't know exactly how that translates into the court room, but even if it translates directly to "prove", there are several levels of proof:

Preponderance of evidence?
Clear and convincing?
Beyond a reasonable doubt?

I believe most civil cases fall under preponderance of evidence. If so, then the manufacturer's "proof" must only exceed a 50% likelihood. I would think simply showing a tune can breach a spec on a failed part would be sufficient proof under the preponderance of evidence, unless the owner can show with even greater evidence that the tune never breached the spec. Considering you will be fighting a manufacture with boatloads of specs, and engineers to testify, you will need to get smart on the tune and line up your own experts in response in order to swing the preponderance in your favor.

IANAL.

Oh, and one more thing. The "hide the tune" approach might backfire. If a part fails, and you swap back in an old ECM or have stealth programming, what are you going to say if the dealer asks if it's been tuned it? You will lie? If not, why hide it in the first place. Then if the dealer refused to repair the part, what next? Take 'em to court? Now you must tell the truth, or risk perjury. How is that going to look to a jury? The owner hid the tune and lied about it to the dealer. Not a particularly good way to start your case, is it? In fact, you might even open yourself up to a fraud countersuit (again, IANAL).

What is the exact wording of the law? Which party has the burden of proof? Do I need to prove that it did not cause damage, or do they need to prove it did? Do they need to prove that it did beyond reasonable doubt or is 51% good enough as you stated? Do they need to prove that you exceeded manufacturer specs, or that exceeding the specs can actually cause the failure (ex. do they need to prove you made 270hp as opposed to the 260hp that the motor was spec'd to, or that the 270hp you made was the direct cause of the damage to the vehicle)?

Those are all questions I have been meaning to ask since I finally have a warranty on my car, and I plan to ask my dealership and get them in writing from their service manager. That way I am covered. I also plan on (along with myself) doing most of my mods through the service department of the dealership for some sympathy if something is to go wrong, since it was their work. I am going to see if I can pay extra to get a warranty on the work they perform.

While many people are reasonable about modding at the dealerships, others are not, and I have heard many people get turned down for work for something as simple as an exhaust.

[Kappa Fan]

Originally Posted by enkymion

The tune got nixed.

THAT is merely a rumor and there has been NO .. repeat NO official word released from GM. There are still 4 months left in THIS year for the release to occur ... expenditure for this is minimal - most will be to cover warranty I would think.

I have not heard anything officially other than what was stated at MECCA II - everything else is just conjecture!

[MidniteBlues]

In my profession, unauthorized modification(s) of the equipment voids your warranty, especially if you use parts not made for the equipment period. Go ahead sue us, now when you lose, or we get the case tossed, you can also pay for my lawyers.. If it NOT under warranty then who cares? you pay any ways..

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by MidniteBlues

In my profession, unauthorized modification(s) of the equipment voids your warranty, especially if you use parts not made for the equipment period. Go ahead sue us, now when you lose, or we get the case tossed, you can also pay for my lawyers.. If it NOT under warranty then who cares? you pay any ways..

That is not true. The Magnuson-Moss act says no consumer product can require non warrantied labor or parts to be OEM.

Upon reading the law last night, it clearly states the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.

[Bogie]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3

What is the exact wording of the law? Which party has the burden of proof? Do I need to prove that it did not cause damage, or do they need to prove it did? Do they need to prove that it did beyond reasonable doubt or is 51% good enough as you stated? Do they need to prove that you exceeded manufacturer specs, or that exceeding the specs can actually cause the failure (ex. do they need to prove you made 270hp as opposed to the 260hp that the motor was spec'd to, or that the 270hp you made was the direct cause of the damage to the vehicle)?

Those are all questions I have been meaning to ask since I finally have a warranty on my car, and I plan to ask my dealership and get them in writing from their service manager. That way I am covered. I also plan on (along with myself) doing most of my mods through the service department of the dealership for some sympathy if something is to go wrong, since it was their work. I am going to see if I can pay extra to get a warranty on the work they perform.

While many people are reasonable about modding at the dealerships, others are not, and I have heard many people get turned down for work for something as simple as an exhaust.

IANAL

The burden of proof is on the manufacturer to "show" cause. That is the LAW.

As for the level of the burden, it is my understanding (IANAL) that in most civil cases the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence". That is the LAW.

All your other questions deal with the execution of that law, which is not cut and dry. That's why it is decided in a court where a judge or jury has to decide whether the burden of proof is satisfied. If a warranty claim fits the "preponderance of evidence", the manufacturer's burden of proof would only need to breach 51%. That is, the manufacture must only show that the owner's action is more likely to have caused the failure than to not have caused it.

What does it take to sway a judge or jury? Well, the only way to find out is to either look at case law in such situations or find out for yourself if your warranty claim is denied. Personally, I would say that if a manufacture can show a connection between the tune and the failure, and can show the tune can exceed the spec on the part, the 51% burden would be met unless the owner can show the tune did not breach the spec. Is my statement true? Can't say, because I'm not the judge or jury and I can't predict how they will respond. Anybody else can post in this thread and say they think the manufacturer would need to show stronger evidence, and I can't say they're wrong. This is why we have trials where the evidence is weighed.

With that said:

Do they need to prove that it did beyond reasonable doubt or is 51% good enough as you stated?

I believe 51% is good enough. That's how most civil cases are tried. If you need the real scoop, a lawyer would be a good place to get it. IANAL.

Do they need to prove that you exceeded manufacturer specs, or that exceeding the specs can actually cause the failure

This is what must be decided in court. You won't know going in. As I noted above, I believe (and I'm not a judge or jury) all they would need to show is the tune is "capable" of exceeding the spec and breaking the part. That seems sufficient to meet the "preponderance of evidence" absent any counter the owner might have otherwise. This is why simply standing on the law gives you little leverage if the manufacturer denies a claim. Although the manufacture must bear the burden of proof, the owner must be the one to file suit. You gotta take 'em to court.

I plan to ask my dealership and get them in writing from their service manager.

I don't know of any Service Manager anywhere who will give you warranty top cover for a non OEM tune. If it's an OEM tune, it should come with a warranty or disclaimer, so you will have it in writing.

There is a reason contracts have those clauses about no verbal or other written stuff. That's because manufactures want clean and clear dividing lines about coverage. A salesman of service manager can say anything they want. But when it comes to the legal foundation of the claim, it's what you have in the warranty contract that counts. Or if you do think you can carry the verbal contract into court you will need a good lawyer who can sidestep any of the written contract that states otherwise.

Keep in mind the main purpose of the Magnuson-Moss act. It was designed to prevent manufactures from voiding warranties willy nilly.

"Don't get oil change or service at the manufacture facility": Deny Warranty.
"Add an radio and the transmission fails": Deny Warranty.

Basically, it stopped the manufactures from finding stupid reasons for denying warranties, or from locking owners into expensive maintenance plans or products or risk voiding warranty. As long as you take proper care of your vehicle, you don't need to use the manufacturer's parts or get the manufacturers service to keep your warranty intact. This is why you can do your own oil changes, and still stay covered.

As we start to tune our vehicles for enhanced performance we begin to tread in a neutral zone of the Magnuson-Moss act. No longer used as cover for DIY oil changes, but it is now being used as cover for tunes. Will it work? I don't know. But finding out will likely be costly, as the court route may be the only solution if the manufacture denies the claim following a tune.

Bottom Line: The burden of proof may be on the manufacture, but in order to get that burden satisfied the owner is the one that has to file the suit.

IANAL

[cerberus]

Cruise about the forum and you see the whole warranty thing pop up all over various threads. A lot of you guys have excellent grasp of the matter, esp wrt the Magnuson-Moss act. Seems as a forum we could use a reference thread on aftermarket parts, the Magnuson-Moss Act and your warranty.

Hey Bogie!! Wanna help me paint a fence.

SEMA has a pretty good start point as to how to approach. http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?ID=50096 There's a few other good references as well. Collectively with all the great input various members add, we should be able to construct something to help folks.

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by Bogie

I don't know of any Service Manager anywhere who will give you warranty top cover for a non OEM tune. If it's an OEM tune, it should come with a warranty or disclaimer, so you will have it in writing.

Not necessarily asking for a warranty, but asking what his stance on the bearing of proof involving said modifications are.

Some tuning companies (such as Dinan) cost more than their competitors but actually replace the manufacturers warranty with their own.

[saf0775]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3

Not necessarily asking for a warranty, but asking what his stance on the bearing of proof involving said modifications are.

Some tuning companies (such as Dinan) cost more than their competitors but actually replace the manufacturers warranty with their own.

As a rule of thumb, I tell people to NEVER modify there car while it's still covered under warranty. Unless that upgrade is performed at a Saturn dealership by a Saturn technician using authorized GM parts, you do so at your own risk and when you do...be prepared to pay for it.

Remember that warranty coverage is a global thing....not just a Sky thing. GM has to look at it from a product perspective. You might not have your 2 year old daughter in your Sky, but you would if it were an Aura or a Vue or a Yukon or a Malibu and there was a back seat.

What if something you put on the car, anything for that matter, that was not authorized by GM and something happened? What if an accident ensued? What if someone died? Would you expect GM to be held accountable for that? What if it had something to do with an aftermarket part you put on that caused premature failure of a vital component that was not DIRECTLY related to the upgrade?

This may be an over exaggeration of events, but it still falls under the same argument. To use Bogie's comment:

Your crossing into a Neutral Zone.

You are the aggressor...not GM, and you might be in an uphill battle with lawyers and a corporation with VERY deep pockets. Walk softly when you upgrade your Sky.

And yes, I could by an aftermarket part (say, a more aggressive turbo charger) that bolts right on and has it's own warranty that surpases GM's. The question is, will that warranty cover an intake leak caused by overpressure or whatever? You will have voided you GM warranty for the intake by adding an AM supercharger, so be prepared to pay for the cost out of pocket. Aftermarket warranty's will cover defects in material and build quality, but your still fighting the same uphill battle with a company with deep pockets. When you pay for a part, you better be darn sure your not going to pay for it twice.

Either way, the situation of adding aftermarket equipment and having it break something else (and not be able to be covered by anything other then your wallet) is not good.

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by saf0775

As a rule of thumb, I tell people to NEVER modify there car while it's still covered under warranty. Unless that upgrade is performed at a Saturn dealership by a Saturn technician using authorized GM parts, you do so at your own risk and when you do...be prepared to pay for it.

Remember that warranty coverage is a global thing....not just a Sky thing. GM has to look at it from a product perspective. You might not have your 2 year old daughter in your Sky, but you would if it were an Aura or a Vue or a Yukon or a Malibu and there was a back seat.

What if something you put on the car, anything for that matter, that was not authorized by GM and something happened? What if an accident ensued? What if someone died? Would you expect GM to be held accountable for that? What if it had something to do with an aftermarket part you put on that caused premature failure of a vital component that was not DIRECTLY related to the upgrade?

This may be an over exaggeration of events, but it still falls under the same argument. To use Bogie's comment:

Your crossing into a Neutral Zone.

You are the aggressor...not GM, and you might be in an uphill battle with lawyers and a corporation with VERY deep pockets. Walk softly and carefully when you upgrade your Sky.

And yes, I could by an aftermarket part (say, a more aggressive turbo charger) that bolts right on and has it's own warranty that surpases GM's. The question is, will that warranty cover an intake leak caused by overpressure or whatever? You will have voided you GM warranty for the intake by adding an AM supercharger, so be prepared to pay for the cost out of pocket. Aftermarket warranty's will cover defects in material and build quality, but your still fighting the same uphill battle with a company with deep pockets. When you pay for a part, you better be darn sure your not going to pay for it twice.

Either way, the situation of adding aftermarket equipment and having it break something else (and not be able to be covered by anything other then your wallet) is not good.

Dinan covers the drive train of the vehicle you chip, as long as it's installed by a dinan certified dealer (many BMW dealerships)

I understand what you guys are saying, I'm just saying that there are alot of dealerships that tell you the reason your dash is short circuiting is because of your after market exhaust. Stupid things that don't make sense. That's what I'm defending against.

If I put on BTF's big Garret GT30 turbo, and blow the motor, I'm obviously not going to ask GM to fix it. If I have an issue with something that other sky's are having problems with. I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure it's not blamed on my turbo.

[cerberus]

Dayum Saf! I know you're toein the party line, but that's layin it own pretty thick!! I think I just threw up in my mouth. Ya got "What about the children" in, what about the baby seals! You gonna tell me theres nothing about the Sky you don't want to improve by shelling out some bucks? No, ya don't have to answer in public. The law is on the side of the consumer!

[SKY888]

too bad, this project didnt push through

[Booster_RL]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3