aftermarket can on G5 turbo cause any warranty issues

[jcjc1]

if i'm denied warranty because of aftermarket parts in my sled, i'm gonna see if my dealer will go to bat for me and if it that doesn't work, i'm not gonna whine about it because it was my choice to utilize something the factory didn't authorize so i'll embrace the suck and pay the bill. they have to draw the line somewhere.
when i put that first clutch kit in that first sled the thought of how this would affect warranty crossed my mind but the risk was worth it.
you're arguing against reasonable company policy. if it was your company would you want to be paying out for damages caused by aftermarket parts and spending time and money trying to determine if and how said part caused the issue or would you just take the approach of standing by the warranty as long as the sled was stock?

 

[Highmarker]

So you would ask your dealer to go to bat and argue against reasonable company policy?
I agree that they have to draw the line somewhere. So in your opinion where is that line?

 

[jcjc1]

if the line were absolutely no aftermarket products that affect handling, engine performance, or basically anything other than cosmetic, i would understand that position. otherwise every billy bob with a welder is gonna fab up some nonsense, put it in the sled, throw some codes or worse, put the stock parts back in and take it to the dealer and say "this sled is a piece of sh#t, fix it now under warranty."
don't waste your money on a can anyway.

 

[caper11]

A muffler has no merit on the basis of warranty. How far do you believe manufactures should be able to take this? Non-factory tires on your truck? Sorry, warranty denied.
This is nothing more than BRP trying to save some cash. They know the majority of people use a lightweight can therefore they can reduce the number of people they offer warranty to.
Again, I'm not talking about a mod sled here, tuning, fueling, engine work, etc. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MUFFLER! Do you believe a muffler has been the sole cause of any modern 2 stroke engine failure? Honest question.

I get a little touchy on this subject as years ago I had a dealer deny warranty on a 3 month old sled because I was using Amsoil. Now, BRP hadn't designed or tested this oil with their system, just like the muffler. So do you agree that they should be able to deny warranty based on that?

Well Amsoil didn't agree and started a lawsuit with BRP.
Here are the court notes on how that turned out:


OBJECTIVE:
1. Communicate a significant language change in BRP's warranty
policy.
2. Communicate that the use of AMSOIL lubricants in BRP
snowmobile and ATV engines will not place warranties at risk.
3. Assure customers that AMSOIL synthetic lubricants meet or
exceed the performance requirements of BRP snowmobile and
ATV engines.
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION:
AMSOIL customers who recently purchased a Ski-Doo snowmobile
or Can-Am ATV were advised that it was necessary to
use BRP-branded lubricants or risk the loss of warranty coverage.
Customers were referring to language found in multiple
Ski-Doo and Can-Am operator's guides that instructed use
of only a specified BRP synthetic lubricant. Further, the
guides state "Use of other engine oils may cause severe engine
damage and may void the limited warranty" (3)(4). Additional
BRP operator's guides state there is "no known equivalent"
(1)(4) to the branded BRP lubricant on the market.
AMSOIL confronted BRP about the warranty language in its
operator's guides. Specifically, AMSOIL asserted that the
warranty language violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
a federal law which prohibits manufacturers from requiring
the use of a branded service/replacement part unless the branded
service/replacement part is provided free of charge.
AMSOIL emphasized that its synthetic lubricants meet or
exceed the engine performance requirements for both two- and
four-cycle engines used in power sports equipment.
BRP, while denying that its warranty language violated the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act or any other regulation, advised
AMSOIL that it has never denied a warranty claim based on
the use of "improper oil" (2). Furthermore, BRP advised that
it will modify the language of its operator's guides as follows:
1. It will no longer say that use of oil other than the BRPbranded
product may void the warranty.
2. When it recommends a particular branded product, it will
ensure that the language is clearly identified as a recommendation
rather than a requirement.
3. It will no longer comment on the availability of equivalents

Canada does not recognize the moss act and it is not enforced here. BRP is a Canadian company where do you think all of these cover your ass wording and Bulletins came from? What you just pointed out above is what started it all. Amsoil took BRP to court, caught them on wording, BRP got smarter.
You of all people should know this then. I was going to bring up the oil, but avoided it. It clearly states on a sticker on your oil tank, plus when you buy a sled new there is a document mentioning the oil thats required when the sled is purchased, what is an equivalent oil In BRPs eyes?

FYI yes, IF a muffler is not manufactured correctly it can lean out the engine, and cause damage. Majority of the aftermarket mufflers are either overpriced, and loose performance, so why spend the money when the stick muffler works the best anyway?

You are also going down a rabbit hole, at my car dealer there is a sign that says specifically that running tires, spec oversized tires, the manufacturer may void the warranty, and any other aftermarket part not approved by the manufacturer.

This is this times we live in, any manufacturer will do anything to avoid paying a warranty claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[High Voltage]

Does a clutch kit change the air fuel ratio in the engine?

 

[Highmarker]

This is this times we live in, any manufacturer will do anything to avoid paying a warranty claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that was my whole point. The manufacture will do anything to avoid paying a warranty claim.

 

[jcjc1]

yes, manufacturers will do whatever they can to avoid paying is the current state of things, so there's that. now arguing that a company should warranty an issue related to an aftermarket part is extremely naive.

 

[caper11]

So you have Hi-Torque rollers in your clutch correct? If your PTO bearing comes apart and destroys the crank, are you ok with Ski Doo denying your warranty?
Should a clutch kit void warranty? They don't provide the same shifting and engine load characteristics as factory, That's why some sleds run like crap with clutch work. Same argument as a muffler no?

You are overthinking this way too much.
Ok, you put high torque in the secondary and the engine blows, the part in the secondary has nothing to do with the engine.
You put a clutch kit in and the engine blows, BRP finds out the aftermarket flyweights are out of specs causing an imbalance in the clutch, warranty may be denied.

I know of a dealer that will not even look at a sled anymore if its not stock when its brought to the shop for repair, that includes clutching as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jcjc1]

And that was my whole point. The manufacture will do anything to avoid paying a warranty claim.

yeah but if you change a part they specifically say not to, then you don't have a point/case.

 

[Highmarker]

Does a clutch kit change the air fuel ratio in the engine?

No it does not. Does it change the resonance or balance of the crankshaft?

 

[Highmarker]

if it was your company would you want to be paying out for damages caused by aftermarket parts and spending time and money trying to determine if and how said part caused the issue or would you just take the approach of standing by the warranty as long as the sled was stock?

You put a clutch kit in and the engine blows, BRP finds out the aftermarket flyweights are out of specs causing an imbalance in the clutch, warranty may be denied.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds like you are all ok with BRP not spending the "time or money" to investigate the root cause of a failure. In that case, flyweights being in spec or not doesn't matter. The fact that there are non-factory flyweights installed is good enough reason to deny warranty.

 

[jcjc1]

my being ok with it or not is irrelevant. i'm simply trying to convey how things are and my opinion as to why.
brp is prolly tired of spending the time and money (which we all ultimately pay for in the price of the sled) of sorting out issues relating to nonstandard parts.

 

[Highmarker]

I know how things are. And I expressed my displeasure of how things are. That is all I was getting at. I realize I am not going to change how a manufactures warranty works.
I also realize that Billy Bob's lightweight can may absolutely cause an engine failure. Just like Billy Bob's clutch kit may cause an engine failure.
My displeasure comes from the fact that a manufacture can deny warranty without doing any investigation. Your fuel injector stuck and melted a piston down? Not warrantied due to a Diamond S can being installed.

Bringing back the Magnuson-Moss Act (apparently only for those of us in the U.S.) A manufacture is required to show that an aftermarket part caused the failure if warranty is denied due to said aftermarket part.

 

[jcjc1]

so does the mag-moss act only apply to aftermarket parts that are an equivalent? regarding mufflers, let's say you wrecked and destroyed the stock can. what if there was a another cheaper alternative to a factory can but it is the exact size and same specs as the factory can so you install that. i can see that being warrantied in a subsequent failure of some component because the can is identical to factory. an aftermarket muffler like what you're referring to is a performance part. that's a significant distinction.

 

[firstkitty]

I’ve had very little success getting warranty from skidoo . I normally just fix it myself and save the frustration

 

[Highmarker]

No, It applies to ANY aftermarket part.
This becomes a never ending argument. This is exactly why the Magnuson Act was drawn up.
It is saying that, Yes a manufacture may deny warranty due to ANY aftermarket part installed. But only if they show that the aftermarket part caused the failure.
Common sense has to prevail at some point. I'm not expecting BRP to warranty my engine when Billy Bob's can caused a lean condition. I totally understand that they wont.
But it is compete bullshit for them to deny engine warranty because Billy Bob's can happened to be installed on an engine with a stuck fuel injector, or a faulty oil pump, or a host of other factory defective parts. At that point, the can is irrelevant. BRP is just hiding behind that to save some cash and stick it to the consumer.

 

[jcjc1]

does the mag moss act relate only to parts that were in need of replacement in terms of the aftermarket aspect?

 

[caper11]

I know how things are. And I expressed my displeasure of how things are. That is all I was getting at. I realize I am not going to change how a manufactures warranty works.
I also realize that Billy Bob's lightweight can may absolutely cause an engine failure. Just like Billy Bob's clutch kit may cause an engine failure.
My displeasure comes from the fact that a manufacture can deny warranty without doing any investigation. Your fuel injector stuck and melted a piston down? Not warrantied due to a Diamond S can being installed.

Bringing back the Magnuson-Moss Act (apparently only for those of us in the U.S.) A manufacture is required to show that an aftermarket part caused the failure if warranty is denied due to said aftermarket part.

Again you are going down a rabbit hole on scenarios, that are unrelated.

As far as the act is concerned, Do they?
“Does not meet manufacturer specifications”, especially when a muffler does not meet the epa requirements, a aftermarket company should be the one stepping up and helping the consumer with the manufacturer warranty claim, if not that act is worthless, and the additional bulletins and warnings prove it. Did amsoil step-up and help you with your warranty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Highmarker]

Again you are going down a rabbit hole on scenarios, that are unrelated.

As far as the act is concerned, Do they?
“Does not meet manufacturer specifications”, especially when a muffler does not meet the epa requirements, a aftermarket company should be the one stepping up and helping the consumer with the manufacturer warranty claim, if not that act is worthless, and the additional bulletins and warnings prove it. Did amsoil step-up and help you with your warranty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is what popped up in a 30 second google search. Yes it can still be worthless because manufactures aren't held accountable to this law.
And Amsoil did not help with my warranty. I did not ask them to. They did not sell me the warranty. BRP did. And after a fight, and a little bit of legal research, BRP finally approved the warranty.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: A Guide for Consumers

Guide to the key protections the Magnuson-Moss Act offers consumers in warranty disputes. Read more to understand your rights.

connlawpc.com

Aftermarket Parts and Services: What You Need to Know​

Warranty Voidance Facts​

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act clearly stipulates that warranties cannot be voided merely due to the use of aftermarket parts or services. Manufacturers are required to prove that the non-original part or service was the direct cause of the defect to deny warranty claims.

Your Right to Choose Service Providers​

Consumers retain the right to choose their service providers and parts without forfeiting their warranty coverage. This provision ensures that consumers are not confined to using dealer service shops or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts to maintain their warranty validity.

 

[caper11]

Here is what popped up in a 30 second google search. Yes it can still be worthless because manufactures aren't held accountable to this law.
And Amsoil did not help with my warranty. I did not ask them to. They did not sell me the warranty. BRP did. And after a fight, and a little bit of legal research, BRP finally approved the warranty.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: A Guide for Consumers

Guide to the key protections the Magnuson-Moss Act offers consumers in warranty disputes. Read more to understand your rights.

connlawpc.com

Aftermarket Parts and Services: What You Need to Know​

Warranty Voidance Facts​

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act clearly stipulates that warranties cannot be voided merely due to the use of aftermarket parts or services. Manufacturers are required to prove that the non-original part or service was the direct cause of the defect to deny warranty claims.

Your Right to Choose Service Providers​

Consumers retain the right to choose their service providers and parts without forfeiting their warranty coverage. This provision ensures that consumers are not confined to using dealer service shops or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts to maintain their warranty validity.

You are beating a dead horse.
I know what the act says, I also know of the BRP, amsoil fight in court, and what has changed since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk