[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

The law states aftermarket parts, this includes additional filtration systems - whether they are inline oil filter systems or in this discussion, catch cans. The burden of proof lies with the warranty provider - period, as quoted and referenced.

That is not a simple filtration system for engine or transmission oil, it's modifying the emission control system on the evap side which is NOT allowed. Argue all you want, there is no way you're going to bat against a manufacturer.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

There are options before you get to court, other service departments, dealing with Manufacturer national rep, etc. Social media is powerful tool...and none of these take away from the fact that in court, the burden of proof lies with the warranty provider.

It does, but GM has deeper pockets than you. You know all the old cliches about going to court against Goliath.

It can not only get expensive real quickly but take longer than the time you have left on your warranty. Stuff in court usually doesn't really start going until about 2 years after the initial filing. GM will file motion after motion and extensions and delays until you're blue in the face and get fed up with it.

[cellsafemode]

We don't need a catch can debate in yet another thread.

We just need some anecdotal evidence via pictures of people who have high mileage engines of the valves of those engines prior to cleaning with pictures and a mention of if they used a catch can or not. Simple.

No need to make a claim about something being needed or better. Just a thread of pictures with some associated information to put it in context and move on.


edit: pictures and info on high mileage 6th gen camaro engines ...or the _exact_ same engine in another vehicle. Figured that needed some clarification.
edit2: typo.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

We don't need a catch can debate in yet another thread.

We just need some anecdotal evidence via pictures of people who have high mileage engines of the valves of those engines prior to pictures and a mention of if they used a catch can or not. Simple.

No need to make a claim about something being needed or better. Just a thread of pictures with some associated information to put it in context and move on.


edit: pictures and info on high mileage 6th gen camaro engines ...or the _exact_ same engine in another vehicle. Figured that needed some clarification.

EXACTLY!

VENDORS, THIS THREAD IS FOR GEN 6 OWNERS TO POST IN, NOT YOU

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by qcman

While I don't disagree with what you're saying in principal I just don't believe it fits with what actually happens. To me a CC changes the way things work enough to give them a decent out. And it has certainly happened before.

I would like to see these EE guys pushing these cans put their money where their mouth is and offer some sort of guarantee with the product that they would step up if a warranty were denied due to it being used. Maybe they have I don't know?

They still are required by law to prove how it caused a failure, simply claiming it does is will not stand up in court.

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

That is not a simple filtration system for engine or transmission oil, it's modifying the emission control system on the evap side which is NOT allowed. Argue all you want, there is no way you're going to bat against a manufacturer.

It is a simpler separator system than multi-filter inline oil systems. No matter what you're argument, which of course is your go-to, the law clearly states the burden of proof for warranty is the manufacturer's, not yours...you cannot deny that FACT.

Originally Posted by fastball

It does, but GM has deeper pockets than you. You know all the old cliches about going to court against Goliath.

It can not only get expensive real quickly but take longer than the time you have left on your warranty. Stuff in court usually doesn't really start going until about 2 years after the initial filing. GM will file motion after motion and extensions and delays until you're blue in the face and get fed up with it.

While going against the big manufacturer might be difficult, it doesn't take away from the law that it is their burden of proof, not yours.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

You realize he was saying it was the catch can manufactures to prove the need to buy their product not us. So far all the pictures Elite has posted have been from the N54 or from the very early DI engine days. Not of our motors.



It had nothing to do with warranty voiding, etc.

[torqueaddict]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

I wasn't talking in terms of warranty. But since you brought it up, I'd give you my take.

I think people misunderstand the true purpose of the MMWA. My understanding is that it was enacted to cover consumers who use third party REPLACEMENT parts, and that manufacturers could not force people to buy parts from a particular vendor, or to have service done at a particular shop etc. In regards the parts, they are parts that replace an item that ALREADY exists as part of the factory vehicle configuration NOT modifications as in added parts that the vehicle never came with. So using a third party oil filter or wiper blade, or brake pad etc. is totally within the right of the consumer. Adding NOS or a super charger or even something as mundane as a catch can isn't covered, although can be litigated in the owner's favor.

See this excellent article:

http://lehtoslaw.com/will-modificati...-car-warranty/

Now, if we use the catch-can example, you'll have a leg to stand on if the A/C went out and the dealer tried to blame the can. However, if an engine issue occurs, they can blame the can and make life very difficult. And the MMWA may not save you. Again, through litigation you may prevail, but who wants to chance that, or go through that hassle?

Anyway, catch-cans can be removed fairly easily so it's one of those modifications that can easily fly under the radar.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

I wasn't talking in terms of warranty. But since you brought it up, I'd give you my take.

I think people misunderstand the true purpose of the MMWA. My understanding is that it was enacted to cover consumers who use third party REPLACEMENT parts, and that manufacturers could not force people to buy parts from a particular vendor, or to have service done at a particular shop etc. In regards the parts, they are parts that replace an item that ALREADY exists as part of the factory vehicle configuration NOT modifications as in added parts that the vehicle never came with. So using a third party oil filter or wiper blade, or brake pad etc. is totally within the right of the consumer. Adding NOS or a super charger or even something as mundane as a catch can isn't covered, although can be litigated in the owner's favor.

See this excellent article:

http://lehtoslaw.com/will-modificati...-car-warranty/

Now, if we use the catch-can example, you'll have a leg to stand on if the A/C went out and the dealer tried to blame the can. However, if an engine issue occurs, they can blame the can and make life very difficult. And the MMWA may not save you. Again, through litigation you may prevail, but who wants to chance that, or go through that hassle?

Anyway, catch-cans can be removed fairly easily so it's one of those modifications that can easily fly under the radar.

Agreed - A catch can is an easy removal to avoid the discussion in the first place. For those who have them, it may give them peace of mind. I'm not advocating for mods or aftermarket parts here at all, just referencing laws without spouting opinions. Thanks for you're link

Edit: For the record, I would never expect GM or any other manufacture to warranty an issue that is caused by a modification or faulty aftermarket part...I know that sounds absurd in this day and age, but I've been through both sides of warranty claims before.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

Specifically, the MM Act addresses part replacements that aren't OEM. Adding something that wasn't installed from the factory actually isn't covered the the MM Act.

Regardless, it takes money to fight an MM lawsuit. It's not impossible to win, but many people won't want to take the risk of paying for both their own legal fees as well as the manufacturers legal fees if they lose.. unless they are extremely sure of their case.

[Glen e]

I am amazed that so many people quote the Magnuson Moss legislation. Yes, you may be absolutely in the right 100%, but to prove it to a dealer, and then to GM is going to cost you tens of times of the mod you did in legal fees...… So I don't see it doing much good on the street…

Truthfully, if a dealer says no , there's not a damn thing you can do about it for reasonable money, except to find another dealer that may honor it.

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by fastball

Forget all the banter and evidence and just bring it back down to simple common sense..... if a product was, by all accepted engineering standards, going to reduce warranty claims and improve the life of the engine, it would be included at the factory. For a $20 part believe me the engineers would use it. EVERY car company on the planet would use it on their direct inject engines.

It’s the same principle with cold air intakes. If it really made more power they’d use it at the factory from the manufacturer.

Catch can and CAI attributes are right there with the Lochness Monster and Roswell, New Mexico.

Not true. Emissions laws require it to be recirculated and as an added benefit dealers get to profit from interval cleanings....

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

Not true. Emissions laws require it to be recirculated and as an added benefit dealers get to profit from interval cleanings....

If interval cleanings were required by the engineers it would be scheduled maintenance like an oil change, spelled out in the owners manual.

Valve adjustments are required maintenance on certain engines and spelled out in the owners manual.

This is just more pixie dust from the rainbow unicorn.

[torqueaddict]

^^LOL, regular cleanings? Sounds like my dentist.

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by fastball

If interval cleanings were required by the engineers it would be scheduled maintenance like an oil change, spelled out in the owners manual.

Valve adjustments are required maintenance on certain engines and spelled out in the owners manual.

This is just more pixie dust from the rainbow unicorn.

Dealers make a whole lotta pixie dust then. My dealer does it. There are also many other DI cars who have issues and the manufactures didnt plan/think it was an issue either.

Some of you act like the argument is your car wont run or have detrimental issues. Its just another PREVENTATIVE maintenance item for most. Some engines wont have a big issue with it and others will have a lot of issues. Its all good! If you are wrong and dont buy a catch can its only about 600-800 service. If you buy a CC and are qrong you blew 130 bucks and kept your intake and valves clean and didnt dilute your fuel