Toyota Warranty

then you should stop responding to it as if it were a "gotchya" and that the poster doesn't understand what they're saying. the act does indeed apply to issues regarding OEM specifications. obviously.

they're not arguing that ANY modification nullifies ANY aspect of warranty coverage. but -obviously- certain modifications that take a drivetrain outside it's specified parameters will allow for a manufacturer to deny coverage as a matter of course. no reasonable person, or court, would interpret MM to mean that every schmuck that installs a NOS system on their engine need merely exclaim, "Prove it!" to place a manufacturer on the hook for a drivetrain failure. MM is merely intended to prevent a manufacturer from denying a claim for an arguably extraneous modification. that wouldn't apply here.

so it doesn't matter if the supercharger is or is not the cause. don't install a supercharger and cry when your trans fails.

 

I’ll repeat myself, again. The post said that the Act applies to items that maintain OEM specifications. I.e., the act does not provide warranty coverage if you deviate from OEM specifications. As a general statement. And only then does the post turns to drivetrain specifically. Not a post, as you just said, simply regarding OEM specifications. There’s no gotcha here, it’s an incorrect statement. If you don’t agree with how I’ve read the post, that’s great, we can agree to disagree.

I can’t even count the number of times people have posted on TW that they took their vehicle in to the dealership for an issue, and were denied warranty coverage because, you have a lift so your suspension-related failure isn’t covered. Or you installed lights so your electrical-related failure isn’t covered. And people swoop in and quote the M-M Act and say, you went aftermarket so you’re screwed. And fundamentally do not understand that the Act requires the lift to be causal to the suspension component failure, when it may or may not be, or the addition of lights to be causal to the electrical failure, when it may or may not be. It’s a widespread misunderstanding, and I feel, even if you don’t, that the original post I responded to is yet another example of incorrect information on TW regarding the M-M Act that contributes to people not understanding what rights they have. Even if those rights may be incredibly expensive to enforce. And even if, in the case of this thread, the aftermarket modification was likely causal to the failure.

End of story.

 

i mean, you keep insisting on the maxim that "words have meaning." and they do, just not the ones you're admittedly only inferring. and further, if that maxim were true in the sense that you're invoking, you could put 10s of 1000s of lawyers out of work.

since the statements are true on their face, you're apparently inferring specifically for the purpose of arguing that they say something else instead. because there can be no argument here that it was something other than the manufacturers specifications for the drivetrain that would -rightfully- lead to a warranty claim being denied in this instance.

but there's never a Venn diagram around when you need one.

 

One could only hope

And I say this as a person with a brother and niece who are lawyers lol

 

Some of what you say is pretty rich, given that you had to literally change a key word when quoting the post I responded to, in order for it to fit your interpretation.

The statement that a vehicle must maintain OEM specifications in order for the warranty to be enforceable under the M-M act is not correct as a stand alone statement. Period. I don’t know how you can argue that that statement is true. There is, as has been discussed at length, a second factual test. If the failure can’t be traced to the modification, the warranty is enforceable, legally speaking. If the failure can be traced to the modification, as you and others have proposed in the case of the OP’s issue, then the warranty is not enforceable for that failure. It’s pretty simple. But at the end of the day, if you agree with the previous three sentences, then no one really gives a shit what your interpretation or my interpretation is of a comment someone made. The end state is that anyone reading this thread understands how the M-M Act works, and ultimately that’s all that matters.

 

I would think i'd be up to the shop/dealer, or at least toyota to make the final decision if the issue comes under warranty, or not. The dealer could just say its not. It's going to be you against them when get toyota themselves involved, and that usually ends up involving a lawyer if the dealer doesn't go to bat for you. Otherwise your sol.

 

totalled

 

It's not Friday yet.

 

Thank you I will certainly do that. And honestly I have decided to 3rd party anyways because its almost 3K cheaper to do and they will even put in better aftermarket performance parts for me so its actually a win for me now lol

 

I work 7 days a week my truck could sit at home like it has been. I just don’t have the time. I have a company truck I can use for personal stuff so really its not hurting me that bad at all. Im just trying to get back in order so It can sit in my drive way fixed lol

 

I am having a 3rd party tear down and make a true diagnosis of it. If it does determine that it wasn’t the supercharger I will go on from there.

When they open it up I will either reman or I will be trying to rebuild with upgrades that I can find available for the AC60F.

Either way i see it as a win now. Yes ill be out about 4K but thankfully I have a job that I can make that back up in a week and half lol

Next time its on the road it’ll be a much better truck.

If it is determined that the sc didn’t cause the failure of the transmission then Ill see what I want to do then.

 

You clear 4K in a week and a half and drive a Tacoma ?! Impressive restraint. I’d probably roll in a trx at that point

 

As someone that’s gone through something similar let me show the proof Toyota corp used on me.

The tech said your mod was the fault. We always side with the tech. Have a nice day.

 

Which is why I have gone with a 3rd party to actually open it up and examine. Because I asked that they please tell me the cause of it. No answer besides ooga supercharger. I asked them too what if I had taken it off and came in with stock they wouldn’t have even know. This is why I think its goofy. But time will tell and ill have the results soon. Cheers

 

Oh after I make it into a super taco I might linger back to Dodge. I was just partial to Toyota being it was my first 1988 long wheel base. Gas tank rusted out so I had a old school air tank in the bed with fuel lines ran to it lol. Also exhaust was gone almost to the headers so it was a flying fart machine but it was an awesome truck good times lol

 

You are misconstruing my intended meaning. There's no problem with swapping to non-OEM parts. In theory the point of failure must be proven to be the aftermarket part before the warranty claim can be denied. The issue is you are viewing the problem in a vacuum. If it were a perfect world, it might be possible. However, a real dealership is trying to deny everything they possibly can (or at least the FTS will) especially for larger items like motors and transmissions. They will argue that the aftermarket modification is the precipitating factor and deny the claim. Therefore the issue is not that the part necessarily exceeds specifications, but one of causality leading to failure. To reverse this decision would require the consumer to prove through legal and empirical means that the etiology of the presented issue (ex. trans failure) is 100% not the aftermarket part (ex. supercharger). This is impossible due to the multifactorial nature of the real-world issues and also because the aftermarket part often does cause issues. So unless you want to spend 100k suing Toyota for a case that is destined to fail, then yes, modifications that require high-cost repairs do for the most part void warranties.

 

I agree with most of what you say here except for two things. First, the consumer does not need to prove that the failure wasn’t caused by the modification. The onus is always on the entity providing the warranty to prove causality.

But to get to the relief the Act provides, and hold the warranty provider accountable, is just as you described: insanely expensive and time consuming.

Second, your post wasn’t misconstrued, it just didn’t describe what you were intending it to state. What you wrote above though is crystal clear.

 

They lost a lot more from me than it would have cost to do the repair under warranty. So I don’t care too much. Other than them straight blaming me for something I didn’t do like I was some dumbass.

 

As others have said, once you install a supercharger and the dealer documents it, you’re SOL.

I knew a guy (not a buddy) who had a a majorly modified Chevy Duramax (stacked tuners, extra fuel pump, intake, full exhaust, etc) He grenaded his engine but had GM Roadside tow it to his home instead of the dealer. He spent a week putting it all back to stock before having it re-towed to the dealer for warranty.

Maybe play nice and try and find out if the dealer entered the supercharger info on your VIN? If they did you’re screwed and paying out of pocket. If they didn’t, well......you could try another dealer but you gotta weigh the time and energy to re/re the SC vs the time and cost of a used transmission.....

 

I feared something like this might happen, so i had my supercharger installed at a toyota dealership that is a magnuson certified installer, I have an unlimited mileage 12 month warranty


EDIT- Toyota of Oxnard is on their list of installers, and Ive got the documentation from the dealer for my warranty.

Id like to add that Ive had mine for 10k mi so far and its been an amazing upgrade that I have no regrets about installing.