[CAM-FIFTY]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

There was a long thread over on Camaro5.com about a person that lost oil pressure, shut it down immediately, dealer tore it apart, sent photos to GM for warranty approval and GM denied the warranty due to the fact he had a catch can installed, even though there was a known (by GM) issue with oil pump failures.

It was a very long thread, and I'm not sure if it ever got resolved to the customer satisfaction. IIRC, after GM denied the claim, the dealer ended up returning the engine still in pieces after the tear-down.

Can you post or PM the link to that thread? I would like to read the details...

If GM denied it because of the Catch Can then they must have had strong 'technical' reasons to back themselves in a court of law.

[pinoyscorpion951]

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451361

[BowtieRocket]

Originally Posted by CAM-FIFTY

Can you post or PM the link to that thread? I would like to read the details...

If GM denied it because of the Catch Can then they must have had strong 'technical' reasons to back themselves in a court of law.

I agree, that could be very useful information. I can't seem to find it.

Another point of fact is the damages speculated are not proven at this point in my case. No oil analysis or any other means have been done to legitimize the diagnosis. They have requested feedback from GM to know who will be billed or responsible for the costs associated with repairs. If GM says yes they will warranty the repairs, the dealership said they will tear down the engine to find the cause. Also, it won't start. Not sure rod knock would be the sole culprit here...

[CAM-FIFTY]

Originally Posted by pinoyscorpion951

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451361

Thanks!

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

10k, but I bought it used with 6k

They probably dogged the hell out of it.

[sub_ETCS_ret]

Originally Posted by Marty McFlew

They probably dogged the hell out of it.

That would be my fear right there. Why did they trade it in after 6k.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

Now I am worried that they won't warranty the work because of those modifications...

You just have a CAI mode ...right? They can't deny a warranty repair just because of that. They are probably playing you to see if you will fight back. And also even if it was beat to death by the previous owner as long as it has oil it should hold up unless it was a bad build to begin with. Keep on them and make them justify why warranty won't cover their product with just $10k miles.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Actually...I do believe that the only case they'll need to prove anything is if the customer takes the issue to court. Even then, I think it's the customer's burden to prove their modifications did not cause the damage.

It's their warranty, and they reserve the right to deny coverage as stated in their disclaimers and exclusions.

But hopefully it won't come to that...

That should be easy to prove with just a CAI.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Marty McFlew

That should be easy to prove with just a CAI.

I've seen/heard the informal cases against it. I wouldn't be so sure.

GM engineers' case of "what ifs" and "it coulds" is technically intimidating. But it could go either way depending on the effort and/or interpretations. Without data-logging on the customers' side to prove any given condition did not occur...it would be hard to prove anything...

Which is why I opted (when the time came) to install GM's Z/28 CAI. At the very least...they designed and marketed it.

EDIT: For the record, I'm not taking any one side or another...just being realistic...

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

There was a long thread over on Camaro5.com about a person that lost oil pressure, shut it down immediately, dealer tore it apart, sent photos to GM for warranty approval and GM denied the warranty due to the fact he had a catch can installed, even though there was a known (by GM) issue with oil pump failures.

It was a very long thread, and I'm not sure if it ever got resolved to the customer satisfaction. IIRC, after GM denied the claim, the dealer ended up returning the engine still in pieces after the tear-down.

And I bet that's the last Chevy or GM car he will ever buy. Its ashame Chevy/GM can't be forward thinking in knowing in fixing such issue that probably would 1)Have a customer for life. 2)Recommend a GM product to other people. Sad.

[wavsine]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

I think it's the customer's burden to prove their modifications did not cause the damage.

Actually, it is GM's burden to prove your modifications voided the warranty. I have experience with this coming from Ford. A lot of the Focus guys mod their cars with CAI and catch cans and have not had a problem.

The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act protects consumers in this area:

"The dealer/vehicle manufacturer has the right to deny a warranty repair but they must demonstrate that the aftermarket part caused the problem. The warranty remains in effect for all other covered parts"

https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2011...ermarket-parts

Where a problem arises is a tune. Modifications to the ECU have been known to void warranties. There is also anecdotal evidence that it can be detected if a tune has been previously installed and removed prior to requesting warranty coverage.

As long as the OP's Camaro does not have a tune, it is my opinion that this warranty claim should be honored.

[CAM-FIFTY]

Just finished reading that camaro5 thread, summary - GM doesn't give a flying f** about MMWA or FTC or BBB or anything like that....you mod it, you risk it all.

[BowtieRocket]

Yeah, I read through as much of the thread as I had time for. Sounds to me like there may be a cause for a class action suit...

[Richard0nee]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

Interesting point of view.

Any word from the dealer/GM?