Ford F250 With Banks IQ Voided Warrenty

ford
f250
warranties
iq

#1

Hi Tom and Ray,



I wanted to get your opinion on a problem we are having with a Ford warranty.? We have installed a banks IQ, banks air filter chamber, banks cat back exhaust, airdog water and air fuel filter, larger capacity transmission oil pan and external filter, and replaced all factory fluids with Amsoil synthetic lubricants.? ??we installed the ‘IQ’ in order to monitor egt, transmission temps, and engine temps - we have never tried using any of the stage 2 - 5 power levels.??? the vehicle [2008] in question had less than 4,000 [four thousand] miles on it.



?? While on a trip from San Diego, CA to New Hampshire, with a camper on the truck and towing a trailer with our household goods behind, and just outside of Flagstaff, AZ, we began hearing a ‘ticking’ sound.??? We stopped in at the Ford dealer [Babbitt] in Flagstaff and inquired about the noise.



?? It was decided that the noise was a rod bearing going out and Babbit notified Ford Corporation, who sent out a field representative to investigate.???



?? We don’t have the full written report yet but it was relayed to us that the cylinder walls were scoured and the rod bearing[s?] was bad - and they want to replace an injector[s?] [under suspicion for spraying a ‘too rich’ mixture] which necessitated a replacement short block, etc., to the tune of just over $12,000.?? The factory rep has denied liability by Ford.



?? We authorized Babbit Ford to go ahead with repairs so we could continue on our journey [we spent almost 3 weeks in Flagstaff waiting for the repair]; we would ‘fight’ with Ford when we got home to New Hampshire.



?? We contacted Gale Banks Engineering and were sent some information on the Magnuson-Moss Act.? Banks also reminded us that our warranty states that Ford Corporation will void any warranty in which an aftermarket device CAUSED the problem.? Since an owner can’t prove a negative - that the ‘amd’ did NOT cause the problem - it is incumbent on Ford Corporation to show that the ‘amd’ did, in fact, cause the malfuntion. ? ? ??



?? Ford is blaming the damage on the Banks product - their ‘engineer’ stated that he ‘BELIEVED’ the Banks IQ caused the problem [and, interestingly, stated that there are ‘too many modifications’], which we feel could not have caused this particular problem.??? We honestly feel that this was a defectively built unit from the ford factory - which does happen to all vehicle manufacturers.



?? We took receipt of some of the defective parts that we had asked Babbit Ford to save.?? [We weren’t able to carry the old used short block with us…!] ? Do you have any experience with this problem? ? We contacted the BBB for autos and have an arbitration meeting set up in August.


#2

What the actual cause of the failure is irrelevant. You have an aftermarket device installed that, if misused, can cause the exact problem you’ve encountered. Even if you didn’t actually use the power feature and even if your mods had absolutely nothing to do with the damage, occam’s razor is stacked pretty heavily against you and I think you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone.

For the amount of money involved, it’s possibly worth at least consulting with a lawyer (definitely do not expect anything to come of the arbitration meeting), but I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Contact your state bar association to find a lawyer who might have some experiance with this sort of thing.


#3

GJ’s right. This isn’t like you put on a bedliner and Ford is denying your claim. You put on a device that, if adjusted incorrectly, could have caused the problem. Just because you didn’t misadjust it does not matter. How can Ford know this? Somebody could put it up to 5, then turn it back down when a problem occurs. Banks is wrong.


#4

You will not get T and R on this forum; only an assortment of people who try to help with automotive issues.

That being said, I think you’re dead in the water on this issue. The system changes things from what the factory intended and once this is done a warranty can, and should be, justifiably denied.

I note on the Banks site they deny any and all coverage for any consequential damages and for “excess-heat damage due to overly rich fueling conditions”.
Overly rich can scour cylinder walls and dilute engine oil, with the latter washing out crankshaft rod and main bearings.

Are you going to print off that part from the Banks site about “excess-heat damage” and bring that to arbitration?


#5

You might consider skimming this cut and paste from a Ford site. I think you will find more than one will fit this situation.

EXCLUSIONS
This warranty shall not apply to:

The replacement of routine service items and items subject to normal wear and tear. These items include, but are not restricted to oil filters, oils and fluids, fuel filters, air filters, spark plugs, wiper blades, clutch linings, brake discs, shock absorbers, brake pads and linings, drive
belts, tie rod ends, ball joints, hoses, weather strips and emission valves.
Normal maintenance service required including without limitation, oil and fluid changes, headlights, alignments, fastener retightening, wheel balancing, wheel alignment, ignition timing and valve clearance.
Any vehicle that has been neglected, misused, modified or used for any form of motor sport.
Any repairs or replacement required as a result of accident or collision damage.
Any vehicle which has been altered including, without limitation, the installation of performance accessories.
Any defects caused by negligence, abnormal use or insufficient care or the use of spurious parts.
Any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Ford have been used.
Any vehicle which has not been operated in accordance with the operating instructions in the Ford Owners manual.
Any vehicle which has not received during the warranty term, the services prescribed in the Ford Warranty and Service guide.
Any vehicle which has been, serviced, assembled, disassembled, adjusted or repaired other than by a Ford dealer.
Any vehicle which has been used for purposes other than what it was designed for.
Insignificant defects which do not affect the functions of the vehicle including without limitation sound, vibration and fluid seepage.
Any natural wear and tear including without limitation ageing etc.
Body, paint, glass, interior / exterior trim, exhaust systems/normal wear and tear / service items and other components subject to routine maintenance or periodic repair or replacement.
Any vehicle purchased as a taxi under the special excise concessions or/and registered as a Tourist Taxi with the Transport authorities


#6

I am not an attorney, but I did stay at a … No, no! That’s not right! … But I do have some experience with warranties.

The Magnuson-Moss Act applies here, but not in the way you’ve stated it. All Ford has to do is identify the reason for denying warranty coverage - which they have - and then the burden of proof falls back to you to prove it did not - which you will not be able to do. The item in question can and will do what Ford has said.

I would put up a good fight at the arbitration hearing and hopefully you’ll get a compromise. If you do - run with it!


#7

I know nothing of modifications to a Ford truck or why bother doing them.

However with a Subaru WRX (turbo car) if you modify it heavily a simple chip is not enough especially if exhaust is changed out. You need to actually take to a person who can properly tune the vehicle based on the conditions, modification in the vehicle. The engine damage is quite plausible from the aftermarket engine control. It very difficult to tell.

In the end have you ever heard the term “you pay to play”. Essentially you can throw power train warranty out with any modifications to your engine.

good luck


#8

They trying to exercise right of weight.

You’re in for a fight no matter what.

There was a lady with a V10 in a motor home. She blew it on the oil changes when her family was going to motor cycle races. It lost some main bearings. The oil looked good according to the Ford tech that tore it down. Ford denied the claim citing the lack of oil changes.

She fought and ended up getting the $10k job for $2k without going to court.

The bottom line is that they cannot “declare” anything without proving it. Well, they can declare it, but it doesn’t make it so.


#9

in this case, they have proof. The equipment the OP installed can cause damage consistent with the damage that the truck has, and the company that makes the equipment specifically warns about the potential for that damage by denying responsibility if that damage should occur. A reasonable person would conclude that the equipment caused the damage.


#10

As most of the other forum members have already stated, the OP is almost surely going to lose this battle.

My opinion on the matter is that owners should feel free to modify their vehicle to their heart’s content–once the original factory warranty is over, and that it is very short-sighted to do modifications like this during the period of the factory warranty. A simple reading of both the Banks disclaimer and the details of the Ford warranty (which is essentially the same as other car manufacturers) should have told the OP everything that she needs to know about the possible consequences if it is necessary to file a warranty claim with Ford.

There is really nothing ambiguous in the details of either the Banks disclaimer or the restrictions on Ford’s warranty coverage. If I was in charge of Ford’s warranty administration, I would deny coverage, and I predict that the outcome of the hearing will be likewise.

While I wish the OP all possible good luck in her arbitration hearing, I am not optimistic for her.


#11

It’s only now and then that I get disgusted with a post and this is one of them. This case is not winnable in court and apparently (and not mentioned by the OP) is that there’s been some harsh words involved, threats, etc which has led to the BBB.
If FOMOCO decides to step in and Good Will warranty any or all of this repair the OP should be standing on top of the highest mount praising Ford to the entire world for this.

It’s unlikely the OP will be back but something that has been omitted could be brought up.
Does this new engine still have the Banks setup on it; connnected and working?
If it’s not still on the truck and working, then why not?
If this unit is still connected, or has been reconnected by the OP or someone else, then what happens when the new engine starts singing the same song, second verse?


#12

I commend you for posting a clear, complete, and honest post. But you’ve made aftermarket changes to more than one area that each individually can and will affect the metering of fuel to the engine. My wild guess based on the post is that the end result of the modifications has been dilution of the oil and scoring of the critical rod bearings and/or main bearings.

You do not have a case against Ford. No manufacturer can or will warranty their vehicle with those sorts of modifications when the failure is or could be directly caused by the modifications.

The only suggestion I can offer is that once fixed you return the configuration to “stoxk” and trade the truck in for something that better meets what you want it to do right off the showroom floor. If you repair this and keep it configured the same you’re almost certain to have more problems.


#13

You can fight it all you want, but I don’t think you’re going to win this one.

You replaced the air filter with an aftermarket part, which is what they will say that lead to the cylinder wall scoring, due to excessive dirt ingestion.

You replaced the exhaust system, which lower the back pressure, and they will claim that lead to higher engine temps, and also contributed to the cylinder wall scoring.

Just the fact that you had a device on the truck capable of altering the fuel levels is enough that they will say that at some point in time the ratios were altered, and the fuel was diluted enough to kill the lubricating properties of the engine oil, which then killed a rod bearing.

This is more than enough for them to stand up in court, and win the case, which means that you are possibly on the hook for paying for their lawyer fees.

What you should have done was to have taken a sample of the engine oil, and sent it off for an analysis, to see if it was overly rich.

Actually, what you should have really done was not messed with your brand new truck.
If the fault wasn’t caused by your aftermarket toys that you installed, it would have still broken down, and you wouldn’t have needed to shell out $12k more for your truck.

You should have waited until the motor was well seasoned before putting that stuff on it.

BC.


#14

Banks reminding the OP of the Magnuson-Moss Act which forbids denial of warranty repairs is pretty disengenuous in my opinion.
Banks knows full well that warranty can be legitimately denied if the unit being claimed under warranty has been modified and they’re brushing the problem off on Ford with BS or they’re clueless about how warranty works. My feeling is that it’s the former.

Once modified in a situation like this both Magnuson and Moss are dead and buried.

I find that blurb on their site about “excessive-heat damage due to overly rich fueling conditions” a bit suspect since it’s marked with an asterisk, located at the end of the exclusions, and in print that’s half the size of the other.

A cut and paste pretty much tells it all…

?anytime more power was needed
we used the touchscreen to dial it in and then held on while the iQ worked its magic.

? Dan Ward, Editor
Truckin’ Magazine

(Add that comment to a truck with a camper, trailer with household goods, and pulling those long uphill grades near Flagstaff might lead one to use that touch screen a bit aggressively…)


#15

I want to thank everyone for their input. I will post what is the outcome.


#16

Banks isn’t responsible either, unless it can be shown that their unit is defective. Any time you install something that lets you control vehicle parameters, the onus is on you to control them properly.

I remember a story from many years back where some idiot was suing NOS because his nitrous bottle exploded while the car was sitting in the garage, totaling his car. Trouble is, the bottle exploded because he hooked up the bottle heater to constant rather than ignition-switched power, and then left the heater on when he parked it for the night. He wanted NOS to cover the damages caused by his setup.

I see this as being the same thing. Even if the OP did everything right, Ford and Banks have no way of knowing that. And both companies are correct in saying that improper use of the Banks system can harm the engine.

Once you get into performance modifications, you have to realize that whatever happens will be your responsibility to fix.


#17

Hopefully it all works for the best.

Again please post back.


#18

I agree. There’s an old saying about jumping the fence into the pasture and playing with the bull. The odds of getting gored go way up.

That’s pretty wild about the NOS bottle. Those things are under a ton of pressure even when cold. He should consider himself very lucky it didn’t blow up while he was leaning over it.


#19

Yes he should. The pictures were pretty amazing.

In fact, I just found one of them:

http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/attachments/nitrous/76803-what-exploded-bottle-looks-like-rearend.jpg

After seeing that years ago, I decided if I ever install nitrous, the heater will be on switched power, and will have an inline physical disconnect that would only get connected when the bottle was actually being used.


#20

Ford (like all large companies) have lawyers on retainer and it is very cheap for them to fight until you just give up. Maybe some bad PR for Ford would help in this case, but I don’t know how you would accomplish that. Or perhaps you’d be better off trying to sue Banks for the repair. If Ford ‘proves’ that the Banks device was at fault, it might be possible to use that information to sue Banks. Just a thought.

Good luck, and I wish you the best.