Yamaha FZ-09 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hmmmmm, I was talking to the dealer yesterday and apparently, any aftermarket exhaust, other than the Akrapovic will void the warranty. Obviously were not talking about it voiding the warranty for a wheel bearing here, but if something were to go wrong engine wise, they could claim it's not covered. Apparently the Akrapovic is now a Yamaha part, so its covered by the warranty. Sounds a good way to make people buy an expensive exhaust to me !!

The thing to do, would just be to put the standard exhaust back on when taking it for a service. Its pretty tempting to get the Arrow down pipes at £330 and add any 2" end can you want. Got to say though, i rode the bike with the Akra yesterday and it sounds amazing. Video to follow !

Any Exhaust, Other Than Akrapovic Voids Warranty

Is this the same here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
If it ever came right down to it that would never hold up in a court of law in the USA...same thing with requiring that all service be performed by only authorized dealers as they get away with in some countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That is correct. It cannot void the warranty in the US. Yamaha would have to show that changing the exhaust caused the issue.
That' not necessarily true. If you look at the Yamaha Warranty Section D Part 3:

3. This warranty does not extend to:
a) MOTORCYCLES modified in any way from the standard
specifications as described in the Owner's Manual, including any MOTORCYCLE whose odometer has been altered;

Yamaha could refuse warranty claims based upon a non-standard exhaust. You could then, of course, sue for damages. It would be up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury that modifications to the exhaust would not cause unusual damage and is not a nonstandard modification on the warranty contract you signed.

That would be an expensive prosecution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
It is necessarily true. No statement in a manufacturers owners manual can supersede US law! You have it completely backwards and you're demonstrating substantial ignorance on the subject.

Time to read up! Don't believe everything you read on a European forum. Magnuson?Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You would still have the burden of proof that you didn't damage the engine by your modifications.

From your Wiki link.

Although the Act covers warranties on repair or replacement parts in consumer products, warranties on services for repairs are not covered.

The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

From case law:

A few years back, Ford issued a TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) regarding blown head gaskets on 6.0 Powerstroke turbo diesel engines in F series pickups (2005 and up). A rash of pickups were coming into shops across the country with blown head gaskets. The common thread? Power chips were installed to boost engine output. According to the TSB, on trucks with blown head gaskets, techs were to check for the installation of a power chip, which increases engine power by modifying the drivability and engine management parameters. Part of the programming modification on these vehicles included increasing turbo boost (which increased combustion chamber pressures), thus blowing head gaskets. In such cases where the vehicle was under warranty, claims were denied and engine warranties were voided. In this case, the carmaker confirmed that head gasket failure was indeed due to installation of the power chips. The carmaker was well within their right to deny claims and void engine warranties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The manufacturer has to demonstrate that the modification caused the failure not the other way around, hence, the reason for my statement that you had it completely backwards.

The example you provide suggests that Ford was able to demonstrate that the modification caused the failure.
In a lawsuit there is the plaintiff and the defendant. If Yamaha denied your claim based upon application of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act you would have to sue for a remedy. In this suit you would be the plaintiff and would have to present a case against Yamaha. Your case would be that your modifications did not contribute to the damages being fixed.

Sorry, but that's how courts in the US work.

I'm just going to leave it at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
That's the reason why I bough a Yamaha and not a Ducati. I don't have to worry of riding within 50 miles of my toolbox!

Here's the reason why I installed an exhaust and got it tune right away. From the first second I had the O2 sensor read out plugged in the bike and never guess if the engine will grenade or not.

I would never had attempted to go blind and install a pipe with nothung to validate if it was right. And believe me... there will be plenty of people dumping a lot of $$$ on exhaust that were sold to be run with a DBK. They will pull the DBK out because it sound better and will convince themselves that there is no need for a fuel controller since they never throw a connecting rid through the block.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
In a lawsuit there is the plaintiff and the defendant. If Yamaha denied your claim based upon application of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act you would have to sue for a remedy. In this suit you would be the plaintiff and would have to present a case against Yamaha. Your case would be that your modifications did not contribute to the damages being fixed.

Sorry, but that's how courts in the US work.



I'm just going to leave it at that.
Sorry I have to disagree also you have it backwards the dealership would have to justify how the part made the bike fail I wanted to jump in on this earlier but I could not remember the case name. If you look at it with your logic their would be no aftermarket parts for anything and all oil changes would have to be done at the dealership at least until your vehicle was out of warranty then it would not matter? I have seen this subject come up on at least 2 other forums I am part of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Your inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts is staggering.

No manufacturer would site the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to deny a claim. It is designed to protect the consumer not as a means for a manufacturer to deny a claim. Consumer protection laws in the US are relatively strong compared to other countries and their are government agencies (both state and federal) that look out for the consumer. Several recourses are available to an unsatisfied consumer other than going to court.

Sorry, but that is how it works in the US. Since you have continuously demonstrated a complete inability to learn and comprehend opposing viewpoints it is pointless for me to try and help you understand anything further on the subject.

Did you even read the parts of your response that I highlighted for you so you could see that your statement that the consumer bears the burden was completely opposite of what the law states?
I've been to Law School (Marquette University 1994-96 Patent Law). I'm trying to explain to you how it works.

You have some Klingon device cloaking hanging off your bike and damaged cyclinders. The dealer refuses to pay for the work under warranty because you modified the bike. You have to sue to get the repairs done under warranty.

You call a Lawyer and he will tell you exactly the same thing I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Your inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts is staggering.

No manufacturer would site the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to deny a claim. It is designed to protect the consumer not as a means for a manufacturer to deny a claim. Consumer protection laws in the US are relatively strong compared to other countries and their are government agencies (both state and federal) that look out for the consumer. Several recourses are available to an unsatisfied consumer other than going to court.

Sorry, but that is how it works in the US. Since you have continuously demonstrated a complete inability to learn and comprehend opposing viewpoints it is pointless for me to try and help you understand anything further on the subject.

Did you even read the parts of your response that I highlighted for you so you could see that your statement that the consumer bears the burden was completely opposite of what the law states?
On last thing. Keep this in mind.

Both you and Yamaha can cite having the law on your sides. It's up to a court to decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
FJ I AGREE with your last statement 100% but the dealer is going to have to prove to the court how the cloaking device was at fault and caused the damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
FJ I AGREE with your last statement 100% but the dealer is going to have to prove to the court how the cloaking device was at fault and caused the damage.
What if the dealer decides not to pay? Then what are you going to do? Do you think the Federal District Attorney's office will take time out of their day prosecuting racketeers, drug traffickers, and interstate cargo theft to take on Yamaha USA Corporation over a lousy $1000?

Welcome to the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Dude you're talking about felony cases compared to small claims,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Dude you're talking about felony cases compared to small claims,
No, the subect is invoking the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act to settle a claim. The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637) is a United States federal law, (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) and as such any case would be under the Jurisdiction of your District Federal Court.

Sucks, doesn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
If you can't debate without being insulting then will just leave it at we agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
If you can't debate without being insulting then will just leave it at we agree to disagree.
I'm not insulting anyone. "Sucks" refers to the situation of Federal statues being only enforced in Federal Court. That's all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
The bright side is that it would probably never go to court even if lawyers did get involved.
The odds are against any single defendant suing a large corporation.
They have good lawyers on retainer all the time but in some cases if you really do have a solid claim and just an ******* dealer a lawyer can scare them into a settlement. However, (ain't there always one of those) your bike is going to be sitting maybe for months while the lawyers hash it out and if you lose you are out your repairs and lawyer fees both.
I don't mean to sound to negative though, it has been my experience that for valid claims (Yamaha in particular) that they do try to have good will and happy repeat customers.
Example that happened to me:
Many years ago I had a Yamaha 1100 Virago. I guess I had it for around a year when I changed the oil and there was a ball bearing in the oil. It was about 1/4 in diameter. I had never had any noise or trouble with the bike at all. I called my dealer and took the ball bearing into the shop. They checked all over on the parts fiche trying to find where it could have come from but came up empty so they called corporate. After about 2 days my dealer called and said they had 2 solutions for me. 1) They would tear the engine down completely and check everything no charge or 2) they would offer me a life time warranty in writing that if I ever had any problem that could be even remotely related to that bearing then they would pay for everything. I took number 2 and never did have a single problem with it in another 20+ thousand I put on the bike before selling it. Although I have bought many brands of bikes over the years I have always kinda been a Yamaha guy because of that and am happy to be back in the fold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
Oh forgot something, I had a Honda Pacific Coast once up on a time too. After only 1 week I washed in a self service car wash and the spray blew a chip of paint of the trunk about the size of a quarter. I went to the dealer and between them and corporate Honda at first I got the, "you should never wash a bike using one of those high pressure washers" so we aren't going to fix it. I asked well where does it say that in the owners manual or anyplace else? The car wash places have no such warnings either and you see people washing there bikes there every day. Finally after about a week they did replace the damaged part but their attitude still pisses me off. So given equal bikes, which company do you think i would rather deal with next time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,424 Posts
I was in the automotive warranty business with GE for 13 years, and here is what it boils down too, if you threaten to file a civil lawsuit under the Magnuson/Moss ruling, the manufacturer will cave. The legal time and expense is far more than the claim. Also, they are aware that in a court of popular opinion, the little guy that has a hard time paying a claim stands a better chance of winning than the corporation in civil court. We lost many a case in which we were clearly within our rights to deny the claim.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top