I do not disagree however a response from the company that “the mods” did it without specifics is definitely not going to be that line in the sand. not even close.
In this case agree 100%, so steep an uphill climb that even a GOAT Bronco couldn't manage to make it to the top.
Some of us might just think it's stupid to waste the court's time with something that's ridiculous. Armchair lawyers who want to tune are convinced that the magnuson-moss act gives them coverage for anything they feel like doing to their vehicle, but it just doesn't. It's easy to cherry pick bits and pieces that support the idea, and ignore other bits and pieces and precedents. Sure, the act says that the manufacturer can't void a warranty for third party parts. More specifically, it can't require branded parts, but it can require parts to meet certain requirements. (Must operate at certain voltage, maintain certain pressure, etc. It's hard to argue successfully that something specifically intended to run the engine at levels outside the manufacturer spec complies with the manufacturer spec.) It also says that the manufacturer can add exclusions and limitations (like, "don't modify the engine") and also specifically excludes "unreasonable use". If Ford sells an engine that's designed to operate within certain parameters and you decide you want to operate it under different parameters even though Ford said they wouldn't cover that and it breaks, that's reasonable? People are also overestimating the burden of proof the manufacturer needs to show here--you'd better have a counterargument about why an engine pushed beyond its intended operational limits blew up that's more credible than "I don't want to believe that my modifications had an effect".
Yeah, I sure love that new Tacoloradatier 150!Hi, my name is Debbie Downer....
isnt this where the tuners say it was caused by a failed oil pump, and its not their warranty problem
Ford holds strong on "not an oil pump failure, failed because of the tune"
and the OP pulls out his hair in frustration, burns the truck to the ground. and buys that sweet new Nissan? lookit those body lines....she's sweet
Well, yea? Thanks for the input...? lmao
I'm with this line of thinking. Maybe it's just my curiosity, but I would like a pin-point on the parameters that caused the hole in the block. "Failure due to _____ being subjected to _____ from the increased (or decreased) ____" or similar. You get the jist. Maybe Ford did and OP just isn't revealing that (not that that's an accusation). It's just part of the brainstorm.
Old outdated info perhaps.
" A few years back, Ford issued a TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) regarding blown head gaskets on 6.0 Powerstroke turbo diesel engines in F-Series pickups (2005 and up). A lot of pickups were coming into shops across the country with blown head gaskets. The common thread? Power chips were installed to boost engine output. According to the Ford TSB, on trucks with blown head gaskets techs were to check for the installation of a power chip, which increases engine power by modifying the drivability and engine management parameters. Part of the programming modification on these vehicles included increasing turbo boost (which increased combustion chamber pressures), thus blowing head gaskets. In such cases where the vehicle was under warranty, claims were denied and engine warranties were voided; the carmaker simply confirmed that head gasket failure was indeed due to installation of the power chips. The carmaker was (again) well within its right to deny claims and void engine warranties. "
