Thank you for posting that picture. That is absolutely amazing to see and that guy was extremely lucky he was not around that bottle at the time.
Now about my extended warrranty plan… 
I’d be willing to bet that Ford is not going to attempt to prove anything. Their position will simply be that the owners heavily modified the vehicle in spite of factory disclaimers posted on the wall at the dealership and in their owners manual that doing so will void any warranty on the part or unit in question.
This applies to any manufactured item with a warranty from pop-up toasters to refrigerators. I’ve got 3 guitars and the warranty on every single one of them states the warranty is null and void if the instrument has been modified or altered in any way.
Same thing.
As previously posted, you voided your warranty.The BBB only really affects its members. If a business is not a member or affiliated with the BBB,not much will be gained through this arbitration.
You’re not having a problem with Ford warranty.
— Ford warranty is having a problem with YOU ! —
This wording has been in every warranty statement for decades.
Every brand …don’t blame Ford.
Every product from phones to refrigerators.
The warranty IS a written contract that you agreed to when you signed on the dotted line.
– A MODIFICATION – any modification, by virtue of the contractual language voids the warranty.
In these tough economic times we are finding EVERY company being technically precise with the wording in their warranties instead of their ‘last decade’ practices of letting a few things slide.
My clamshell style cel phone is well within the warranty period. When closed, its sides are so smooth you can’t easily get a finger or two in between to flip it open with just one hand…a physical neccessity for me…if it slipped, it would slap back closed and hang up.
When I first got it I filed an angled area on the facing edges to make space for for a one-handed finger flip. Great modification, ergonomically perfect adaptation.
Then it starts acting up by shutting down and not turning back on without removing and reinserting the battery.
So i sent it in for warranty.
---- guess what ? …
And this example is nothing new. The service departments see this every day of the week and this includes every make and model known ot mankind.
Last year the SM at the Ford dealer near here was telling me about a run-in they just had with someone who was steaming because Ford would not replace the 25k miles engine under warranty on his top of the line F150.
The gentleman bought it new, had the oil changed at 3k miles, and when the engine scattered at 25k miles he revealed that after that original oil change the oil had not only never been changed again but that he had never even raised the hood to check it for 22k miles.
Did it phase him? Not for a NY minute. He still insisted it was somebody else’s fault, filed with the BBB, and “will never buy another Ford again”.
Wonder how this guy would respond to a Consumer Reports survey?
Unfortunately the BBB has no teeth. They might take away a member’s shiny plaque if they get enough complaints, but that’s about it.
Their helpline will give you information about how many complaints a business has gotten and whether it is more or less than ‘normal’ for that type of business, but you don’t get any specifics.
Have Amsoil products ever been tested by an independent lab and certified to meet SAE and API quality and service designations???
When push comes to shove, you are going to wind up on the short end of this stick…$12,000 short…
and since businesses pay dues to be part of the BBB, the BBB is loathe to kick them out, because that means lost income. The whole thing is just barely this side of a sham.
But that’s immaterial here, as the BBB would be completely justified in dismissing the complaint.
Well, like all of you said the decision came back that the warranty was voided. The $12,300 for the repairs are not to be returned, but if I helped someone else not to do this then something good came of this posting. Also, I want it known to the public not to use the Banks IQ system because of the potential damage it may cause. Thank you again for the info from all.
Thank you for posting the conclusion to your problem. Most of us here like to know the conclusion to the problems and struggle to be as reliable as possible in our opinions and recommendations. I am sorry the conclusion was not to your advantage. Possibly Banks will see the benefit of reimbursing you for some of the cost. I hope so. Good luck.
It depends. You can assert that the representation of the product installed made you believe it was a safe and tested product. Banks really could own this one. If they sell a product across state lines in the US they are subject to commercial claims law. If you say at any point or your sales rep at any point says that “this modification is perfectly safe” Banks is toast. Ford can deny any responsibility but Banks has a merchandising claim that will make them pay up. You cannot lie or through absense of statement make someone believe that your product is suitable and subsequently deny adverse claims if the product was not suitable.
My hat is off to you for understanding how this works and for taking it well actually. Some would have been cursing from every mountaintop and forum on the planet.
I’m in agreement that you could approach Banks about some reimbursement but if they offered anything I would be surprised. With a lawyer and some engineering reports on your side it may be possible to push them if they balk.
It’s worth a shot though and good luck.
On the contrary. The cause of failure IS NOT irrelevant as this is the primary basis for warranty denial. Voiding is an entirely different subject. According to the Warranty Booklet that came with the vehicle when it was purchased new, Ford has the right to deny warranty coverage whenever an alteration or modification CAUSES a failure. It does not state anywhere in that booklet that Ford has the right to deny warranty if a vehicle has been altered or modified. Specifically pages 12 & 13 under “What Is Not Covered” http://www.motorcraftservice.com/pubs/content/~WO8F23/~MUS~LEN/41/08frdwa3e.pdf It’s important to point out that booklet is a legally binding contract under federal law (Magnuson-Moss). The ONLY difference between denying warranty because an aftermarket product is installed on the vehicle and the aftermarket product actually CAUSED the failure is hard evidence, not opinion, speculation or conjecture. If Ford or an authorized dealer claims that an aftermarket product caused a failure, the burden of proof is on them till they can shift the burden of proof to the customer or aftermarket product. The only way they can do this is by providing hard evidence in the form of test results and technical data. They cannot merely say it, they must PROVE it. To deny warranty coverage without it would be denying warranty based on the mere presence of such a product and this is a direct contradiction as to what is written in that Warranty Booklet and therefore a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act. Now, what does the Magnuson-Moss Act say? : ?In order to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, any warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty shall? fully and conspicuously disclose in readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty. Such rules ? require inclusion in the written warranty of any ? exceptions and exclusions from the terms of the warranty.? ? Magnuson-Moss Warranty ? Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, section 2302(a). Simply put - It basically states that any exceptions or exclusions to the warranty must be written in the context of said warranty in clearly understandable language. It is this statement that makes the Warranty Booklet legally binding under this law. With this in mind two basic questions must be posed and answered: What page and paragraph in the Warranty Booklet does it state that Ford (or any vehicle manufacturer) that they have a right to deny warranty because an aftermarket product (alteration or modification) has been merely installed on a vehicle? Answer: None. It simply is not in there. And… What is the difference in criteria between denying warranty coverage because an aftermarket product is present or the aftermarket product actually CAUSED the failure. Answer: Evidence/proof. In the form of test results and (published) technical data. Nothing else.
These are not my words. These are the words of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Protection Warranty Act of 1975 and the word of Ford Motor Company in the Warranty Booklet that they authored. Everything is in black and white, plain and simple.
Yes, Magnuson-Moss does apply in a big way. However, neither the Ford dealer nor Ford Motor Company has shifted the burden of proof just yet. The burden of proof is on Ford for two reasons: 1) They wrote the warranty statement and 2) they are claiming that the aftermarket product caused the failure. Simply stating that the aftermarket product caused the vehicle to operate outside intended parameters may be identifying a reason but is not suffucient enough to shift the burden of proof. They first must establish what those parameters are, that one or more of those parameters have been indeed exceeded beyond the capacity of the failed component(manufacture’s documentation required) and that it was the aftermarket product that caused those parameters to be exceeded. The condition of the parts involved must also support their theory. Simply put, parts don’t lie. They are non-biased witnesses to the event(s) that occurred.
Another question that needs to be addressed is: How did Ford rule out a defective rod end bearing? I’ll even stipulate to the fact sight unseen that it failed, but do we know conclusively that it was not defective in the first place? Is there any evidence to support this?
Your argument is moot. You do realize this posting is 3 months old, and the decision was reached 2 months ago, right?
Yes, I see the date posted and it may be moot in this case, but knowledge is power. I figure people are still going to read this post so they might as well be properly educated so if they know their rights they won’t be taken advantage of by a dealer or manufacturer should they encounter a similar issue.
Unfortunately, not everyone on this board shares your opinion. Some think this situation would not be covered by the warranty and the Magnuson-Moss act does not apply in this situation (at least not in the normal way.)
I believe it is important to point out that I am not voicing my opinion here. I’m expressing what both documents (MMWA & Ford’s warranty) are clearly stating. Why wouldn’t MMWA appliy here? Unless the vehicle was outside of the original warranty period when the failure occurred. It especially applies if Ford is using their warranty verbage - which they apparently are - to deny warranty coverage. MMWA applies to ALL original factory warranties, period. That’s why it was written.