Toyota Warranty

They really aren’t that bad lol. You just need to rev them out. Some of my previous cars were very fast and I don’t really have any complaints about my truck.

 

I wanted a smallish truck still and gave the Tacoma a shot. Supercharged it, still want impressed, did the math on what it would cost to get it to that point and decided to just go full retard and buy a TRX. Five times the truck the Tacoma is at only twice the price of my 3rd gen.

 

Hey thank you for saying this I will definitely let you know how it goes I have more research to do but always light somewhere appreciate it!

 

I think there’s advice in this thread to stay calm and go through one level at a time, service manager GM owner etc and then corporate. Make them state in writing why they’re denying. Try another dealer. The legal route isn’t the best one.

 

What about OV tune? Other who'sit'swhat'sit's?

 

I doubt it was the supercharger that caused the problem, especially because you say you didn't rev it high. All car manufacturers are throwing turbos on engines with the same transmissions as their NA engines without blinking an eye

 

Transmissions are rated by torque output, that's a big decider on how to engineer it. Even a real 10-20% gain can put a lot of strain on clutches, converters and hardened pieces.

I'm really lenient with warranty claims, but this one I'd lean towards no. Besides Toyota Corp makes the call now with trans, its not the dealer.

 

Others I'm sure have said this, but the reality is you take your truck in, the dealer says your truck has a modification and we're not covering it. What are you going to do at that point once you've exhausted the dealership management chain and a case with Toyota? Sure, you can litigate, but the first retainer check you write your attorney will probably exceed the cost of a new transmission, and that's before you even get to paying the expert witnesses you will need to go to court or pay for arbitration. Yes, the letter of Mag Moss says they have to prove it, but the reality is making them do so could cost you more than a brand new truck.

If you haven't already, give this a read: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/ffs-lets-all-stop-referencing-the-magnussen-moss-act.609911/

 

Wait, you've modified the truck, Magnuson, gears, lifted, etc... Me thinks you have no chance and now it has been seen by a dealer and documented as modified.

 

LOL, the point you're missing is this is an issue which will be really easy to prove the additional power led to the failure. Simply open the transmission up and look at the clutch mechanisms; odds on bet they will exhibit significant evidence of heat damage.

 

I’m certainly not missing that point. I don’t have the expertise to have an opinion on it, but I believe those of you who do. But that is a distinctly separate point from what requirements the Magnuson-Moss act levies on the warranty provider. If the supercharger is in fact responsible for the defect, then yes, the M-M Act permits warranty denial. But, the mere presence of an aftermarket modification does NOT permit warranty denial on its own.

 

I actually think the real point is that while you may be correct regarding the letter of the law, enforcing it and forcing them to prove the modification is responsible for the malfunction is really not practical from a cost standpoint. It will end up costing you more than just paying for the repair, and I'm sure dealers and the manufacturer are well aware of this.

 

You're arguing from both sides of your mouth at the same time; your words seem to take for granted the transmission was defective because it failed. The fact is, the failure of an overburdened transmission, such as the one in this very instance, has nothing to do with a "defect", and everything to do with a modification which pushed more low RPM torque through the transmission than it was designed to work with.

 

I 100% agree, and I’ve said exactly that previously in this thread.

I do think it’s important though to know what the law actually says. It may not be helpful from the standpoint of litigation, but a guy I work with (not a Toyota owner) was denied warranty for an aftermarket component, gently pointed out that it was not responsible for the issue, cited the M-M act, said nothing about lawyers, and eventually had his warranty claim covered. He didn’t even have to go to corporate. The repair was less than a grand so that helps, but the way he handled it helped too.

 

Absolutely agree that sometimes dealerships can be reasonable if, as you say, you address it the right way and don't go off on them. If you find a dealer like that keep them, because they are few and far between. Sounds like in this particular case they had the normal dealer reaction of "Supercharger?! We're not touching it!" The OP is going to have a tough road on this one.

 

I don’t know how to state it any more clearly.

1) The member I originally responded to had his facts incorrect about what the Magnuson-Moss Act requires of a company providing a warranty.

2) Everyone including me acknowledges that if a modification is responsible for a failure, than warranty coverage for the failure can be denied. That’s explicitly stated in the Act.

#1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. I’m not stating that the M-M Act gets the OP off the hook here. I will repeat myself, I’m simply stating what the correct facts are regarding what the Act does and does not permit (on paper).

I don’t assume the transmission was defective. I have no fucking idea. Maybe I should have used the word “failure” instead. It’s not functioning correctly. Whether it’s failing due to a defect or due to the supercharger, it doesn’t change what the M-M Act states, which a member completely misstated earlier. What it does change is whether or not the warranty provider is legally responsible for providing warranty coverage. That’s it. End of story.

I think it’s important for people to understand that just because you have an aftermarket part somewhere on your truck, that doesn’t mean that you should automatically be denied warranty coverage. And some people do believe that. Does that mean you should litigate? Almost certainly not. But knowing the law is certainly of some advantage in talking to a service department. Your service manager may not be aware of it.

 

@Hook78, fair enough. To be sure, modifications as benign as new wheels and tires will in no way impact the warranty (assuming they're not something absurd like 90" in diameter), however, it is exceedingly easy for Toyota and their dealership chain to draw a causal link between a Supercharger installed on an engine and an automatic transmission failure. In an instance like this, even if there was a defect in the transmission, the odds of a warranty repair being approved sit somewhere between slim and none. Why? Unless the owner hires both a lawyer and an independent expert to disassemble the transmission and make a very strong case for a manufacturing defect, then it pretty much ain't gonna happen.

 

I completely take your word for it on the connection between the mod and the failure…and as for the rest I totally agree. Success through the courts would be incredibly expensive. And surely exceed the cost of repair.

 

At this point I feel like I could have gone out and earned $6200 in the time I wasted reading this thread...

 

Yep, my understanding anytime you perform engine mods that increase power that the manufacture didn't put there, you void the warranty.