Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Vararam
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Technical Camaro Topics > Camaro Issues / Problems | Warranty Discussions | TSB and Recalls


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2016, 07:16 PM   #295
ghosted
BCS Auto
 
ghosted's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 Camaro 1LS
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
That's true, but there is also all a sentence saying they can deny for lack of proper maintenance.

There is their out if you don't take it to a GM dealer. It all comes down to the fact that that warranty isn't worth the paper it's printed on because ,in the end, they can do what they want. They know that most people don't have the time or money to fight them. They only thing you can do is deny them your money.
The Magnuson-Moss warranty act prevents a car manufacturer from denying your claims simply because you didn't use THEM for the service/repairs. For GM to require you to use GM to complete service and repairs would be a violation of MM. This was a federal ruling, and GM isn't above that.

Warranty Denials are different, and though the burden of proof is on GM, they can deny it until they're blue in the face, until you actually file a claim/pursue legal action.
__________________

BCS Auto on Facebook - - - Follow me on Instagram @datv6tho & @officialbcsauto
ghosted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:23 PM   #296
ZYBORG
Lets roll...
 
ZYBORG's Avatar
 
Drives: 14'
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: TX/S.FL
Posts: 1,496
OP's post about GM's "final resolution" seems fishy to me... One minute, seeking compensation / warranty work and now, totally accepting of the big corporate middle finger... Hmmm..
__________________
ZYBORG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:24 PM   #297
The Patriot
 
Drives: 2014 2SS/RS VERT
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Idaho
Posts: 455
Something doesn't add up. I think GM has offered to help with the rebuild "under the table." Only way it makes sense to drop the issue and "accept" GM's resolution.
__________________
2014 2SS/RS Vert.

"Today I didn't even have to use my AK, I got ta' say it was a good day"
The Patriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:25 PM   #298
BruHop
 
BruHop's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 2SS 1LE,RS,NPP,Recaros in SW
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 401
I like my Camaro and will not be selling it. But I do hold companies responsible for their actions. This will make it hard for me to consider future GM purchases.
BruHop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:27 PM   #299
MrChrisLS3


 
Drives: 2018 1SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcloak View Post
That's the thing. They're not proving the "resulting from" part of this.
At this stage, they don't. This is that stage in the game when the customer files a lawsuit to contend GM's decision. Once it goes to court, it is at that point GM has to show where they determined the part caused the failure.

Now, the tricky aspect of this case, is that they blocked the warranty, and stopped the work before they discovered what the actual issue was. So, not knowing what actually failed, or what actually caused the failure, they may simply have to supply sufficient evidence that a catch can, or change to the PCV system could create loss of oil pressure. From what I read in the original post, we never really found out even if the oil pump did actually fail, much less what caused it. GM stopped the tear down.

I am not an expert on Magnuson Moss, but it seems to me that the consumer protection part of it is more about keeping manufacturers from gouging consumers on replacement parts. If not for this protection, for example, we might be required to replace the air filter with AC Delco, which they could charge an artificially inflated price for, and we would have to pay that or risk losing the warranty.

Adding some thing that modifies the structure or operation of a factory system, on the other hand, creates a situation where a manufacturer can deny warranty. This situation means that it is up to the consumer to prove that the failure was indeed a manufacture defect, and not caused by the modification to the factory engineered system.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but this appears to be where GM is drawing their line in the sand. Whether this is right or wrong, I guess depends on what side of that line you're standing on. Both sides have valid points.

I guess the lesson learned here is that if you are going to modify anything on your car, and still expect warranty coverage, talk with your service manager before making the jump. If they give you the A-Okay, then I might suggest taking the car to that dealer for any issues. Remember, this all started when a tech, at a non Chevrolet dealership had to put in a call to the T.A.C. because he wasn't sure either what the catch can was, or how to go about the repair. A mod friendly Chevrolet dealer wouldn't have needed to do this, and there wouldn't have been an issue. They would've just replaced the pump, charged it to warranty, and be done with it.

And of course, anyone who decides they will never buy GM again because of this case, is free to do so. However, there is no guarantee that any other manufacturer would handle this any differently.
MrChrisLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:31 PM   #300
Dizzy82


 
Dizzy82's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 1LT/RS A6 RJT SuperCharged
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 87114
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCMADONNA View Post
Okay, how about this:

Roll Call! Who has a catch-can installed and has had warranty work done after the install?
Better question: Who has had any aftermarket part installed and had warranty work done after the install?
__________________
Power is worthless without control. The 2nd protects the 1st.
BMR sub frame brace, BMR tunnel brace, LSR sways, LSR CM ca & tl, Sphon ExD el, GM tower brace, Megan EZ Streets, Goodridge Stainless Steel Braided brake lines, PowerStop D/S rotors & pads, Doug Thorty Ceramic Shorties, Magnaflow x-pipe, MRT V2.0, KICKER PowerStage sub & amp, Infinity speakers & tweeters, Viteese Throttle Controller, Viteese Paddle Shifters, ACS T2 Splitter, ACS T2 Ports/Quad LED lights, VDI kit, Havoc diffuser, IPF ECU/TRANS tuned, IPF/KPE Supercharged. 364RWHP/297RWTQ
Dizzy82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:37 PM   #301
motorhead


 
Drives: Love the one you're with
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghosted View Post
The Magnuson-Moss warranty act prevents a car manufacturer from denying your claims simply because you didn't use THEM for the service/repairs. For GM to require you to use GM to complete service and repairs would be a violation of MM. This was a federal ruling, and GM isn't above that.

Warranty Denials are different, and though the burden of proof is on GM, they can deny it until they're blue in the face, until you actually file a claim/pursue legal action.
Yeah and everyone keeps stating the MMWA. It isn't worth the paper it's written on either when it's up to the the customer to lay out his time and money, all while being without transportation, to get the law to make the manufacturer abide. Manufacturers know this. That's why they have no problem telling the customer to stick MMWA up their butt.

My dad had this happen to him in the late 60's with a Ford. It wasn't until he got up early on a Saturday morning, when the dealer was usally busy selling cars, that he parked the pile of crap as to block the show room doors and painted a huge lemon it.

He moved it only when the owner of the dealership personally came down and alllowed him a replacement. We ended up with a black Fairlane fastback that was a great car.
He was a master sergeant in the army and didn't take crap from no one. He's and old man now and still doesn't. Lol
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:39 PM   #302
qcman

 
qcman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS RDP Tuned L99
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada eh?
Posts: 1,890
As ChrisLS3 says we don't know for sure that the oil pump failed but it is a likely culprit knowing the history of oil pump failures. I find it strange the dealer began the tear down without authorization to proceed from GM unless I missed something in all of the posts?

I would still be hammering on the dealer for running an oil starved car to diagnose it thats just brain dead! It should have not been run further until a root cause was determined. If we have to let the car run until it goes boom to determine lack of oil pressure then we may as well start buying lottery tickets next....
qcman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:41 PM   #303
ZYBORG
Lets roll...
 
ZYBORG's Avatar
 
Drives: 14'
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: TX/S.FL
Posts: 1,496
Like others have said, something real fishy going on here.... One moment, the guy is looking to get his camaro fixed under warranty for a "known issue", the next minute he goes on to state how it is ok and totally understands being given the middle finger.
__________________
ZYBORG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:44 PM   #304
scandata

 
scandata's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 2SS/RS vert, Spring Green Edtn
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
Something doesn't add up. I think GM has offered to help with the rebuild "under the table." Only way it makes sense to drop the issue and "accept" GM's resolution.
That would be plausible. When there is an out of court settlement the records are sealed and neither party is allowed to talk about it afterward. Still, I'd like to believe that the petition had a part in this.
__________________
2015 2SS/RS vert, Spring Edition Green Flash (2015 - present)
2014 1LT vert, Blue Ray Metallic (2014 - 2015)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/scandata/sigpic_zpsxmxmbipg.jpg
scandata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:47 PM   #305
qcman

 
qcman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS RDP Tuned L99
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada eh?
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by scandata View Post
That would be plausible. When there is an out of court settlement the records are sealed and neither party is allowed to talk about it afterward. Still, I'd like to believe that the petition had a part in this.
But the OP clearly stated he was up Schits Creek on his own. I would think he would have said sorry I can't comment further. I think he got screwed and tatooed
qcman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:49 PM   #306
NHCamaroSS
 
NHCamaroSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NH
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy82 View Post
Better question: Who has had any aftermarket part installed and had warranty work done after the install?
I had exhaust and CAI installed and still got my oil pan and oil cooler lines installed under warranty no questions asked.....
__________________
2010 Camaro SS Inferno Orange 6-Speed . Edelbrock E Force Supercharger, Volant Cold Air Intake, Magnaflow Exhaust, River City Creations Emblems, Oracle ghosted LED markers, SLP faded gills, ...531 rwhp, 490 rwtq
NHCamaroSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:50 PM   #307
motorhead


 
Drives: Love the one you're with
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3 View Post
At this stage, they don't. This is that stage in the game when the customer files a lawsuit to contend GM's decision. Once it goes to court, it is at that point GM has to show where they determined the part caused the failure.

Now, the tricky aspect of this case, is that they blocked the warranty, and stopped the work before they discovered what the actual issue was. So, not knowing what actually failed, or what actually caused the failure, they may simply have to supply sufficient evidence that a catch can, or change to the PCV system could create loss of oil pressure. From what I read in the original post, we never really found out even if the oil pump did actually fail, much less what caused it. GM stopped the tear down.

I am not an expert on Magnuson Moss, but it seems to me that the consumer protection part of it is more about keeping manufacturers from gouging consumers on replacement parts. If not for this protection, for example, we might be required to replace the air filter with AC Delco, which they could charge an artificially inflated price for, and we would have to pay that or risk losing the warranty.

Adding some thing that modifies the structure or operation of a factory system, on the other hand, creates a situation where a manufacturer can deny warranty. This situation means that it is up to the consumer to prove that the failure was indeed a manufacture defect, and not caused by the modification to the factory engineered system.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but this appears to be where GM is drawing their line in the sand. Whether this is right or wrong, I guess depends on what side of that line you're standing on. Both sides have valid points.

I guess the lesson learned here is that if you are going to modify anything on your car, and still expect warranty coverage, talk with your service manager before making the jump. If they give you the A-Okay, then I might suggest taking the car to that dealer for any issues. Remember, this all started when a tech, at a non Chevrolet dealership had to put in a call to the T.A.C. because he wasn't sure either what the catch can was, or how to go about the repair. A mod friendly Chevrolet dealer wouldn't have needed to do this, and there wouldn't have been an issue. They would've just replaced the pump, charged it to warranty, and be done with it.

And of course, anyone who decides they will never buy GM again because of this case, is free to do so. However, there is no guarantee that any other manufacturer would handle this any differently.
I does seem that there is more to this story and Im aware that all manufacturers these day try to escape responsibility. That's why I'm nclinded to just keep what I have and not buy new anymore. That way the manufacturer is not profiting from my money, but my dealer ,who I like, still does.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 07:51 PM   #308
Mr. Stacy
El Duderino
 
Mr. Stacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2LTRS Convertible
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welker2 View Post
Doesn't the last paragraph cover it:

"AN IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ALTERATIONS AND WARRANTIES. The Chevrolet New Vehicle Limited Warranty does not cover any damage or failure resulting from modifications, installations, or alterations to the original equipment as manufactured or assembled by General Motors. The special body company, assembler, equipment installer or upfitter is solely responsible for warranties on the body or equipment and any alterations (or any effect of the alterations) to any of the parts, components, systems or assemblies installed by GM. General Motors is not responsible for the safety or quality of design features, materials or workmanship of any alterations by such suppliers"

Not saying the catch can or other mods made by the OP caused or contributed to the engine failure, but if that is what GM is claiming, then this is the clause they are probably using.
The key phrase there is "resulting from modifications".

Also, that's what is currently displayed on their web site. The actual text of the 2015 warranty reads a little differently.
__________________
I bowl. Drive around. The occasional acid flashback.
Mr. Stacy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.