Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

21 - 22 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
2004 Sube slushy
Joined
·
566 Posts
So Sube would argue that the XT is at or near 100% of it's reserve capacity for power as stock. I.E.: it cannot make any more power than stock without the prospect of breaking somehow.

They therfore cold also argue that a stock car driven 80-100% of it's capacity most of the time wille endure longer then a mild-moderately modded one drive say, at 50-70% of it's capacity.

What rubbish and evasion.
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
The U.S. Congress passed the "Moss-Magnuson Act" to protect consumers (of motor vehicles and all other items) from unlawful failure to honor warranties. Another purpose of the act is to prevent manufacturers from duping purchasers of their products into thinking that only the parts and services of the manufacturer or its dealers can be used. (Dealers make a LOT of money in the provision of post-purchase parts and services). The law provides that a manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumer's using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as a motor vehicle maker's brand). The law means that the use of an aftermarket part or service alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts or services in situations where such parts or services actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. "Parts" includes, for purposes of motor vehicles, oil and other lubricants. And in addition to replacement parts, the law also includes parts that are added to the vehicle and that were not there before, and additions that constitute modifications, such as modifying the air intake system or the exhaust system.

A couple of examples. You install an aftermarket air intake system and exhaust system and your brakes fail. Subaru can't deny brake warranty work because you modified the air intake and exhaust. Subaru would have to prove that the intake and exhaust modifications caused the brake failure.

You use a Purolator oil filter and something fails inside the engine, something that's covered by the warranty. Subaru can't say that since you did not use the Subaru oil filter it doesn't have to do the warranty work. Subaru would have to prove that the oil filter you used caused the damage.

If something covered by a warranty fails and Subaru claims that an aftermarket part or service caused the failure, it is not up to you to prove that the aftermarket part or service did NOTcause the failure. It is up to Subaru to prove that the aftermarket part or service DID cause the failure. That's one of the main purposes of Moss-Magnuson. It behooves you to know your rights under Moss-Magnuson and to know exactly what caused a vehicle problem that's covered by the warranty, even if, because you aren't mechanically knowledgable, you have to pay a reputable independent mechanic to give you a written work sheet stating exactly what the problem is, what's needed to fix it, and the cost, so that you can show the work sheet to Subaru if they try to BS their way out of warranty work.
 
21 - 22 of 22 Posts
Top