I don't thinnk anyone here about taking responsibility for when their mod directly caused a problem on their car.

Please provide hyperlinks to NAM posting(s) where someone has gone back to MINIUSA or the dealership and demanded MINI pay for a problem that was definitively caused by a modification to the car. Hyperlinks please.

 

So are you aware that this will be PROVEN in a courtroom and not a dealership lobby? Ahemm....that means lawsuit regarless of the burden of proof

 

Planeguy: "But would you have been outraged if the dealer denied your claim?"

I would not have been shocked if they denied my claim, initially. I immediately left them a voicemail, and sent an email with a photo of the oil, also making it quite evident that I had plenty of witnesses (Randy & Pulley Party participants) who could vouch on my behalf. If they would have still denied my claim, given this information, yes I would have been outraged.

I personally have no issues with paying for matters that surface from my actions. And if that oil would have appeared 1,000 miles after the pulley install, I actually would have tried to address it myself, and felt that a dealer visit would be futile, and from my perspective, not ethical as it was probably my fault. Now that I look back, in reality, that oil situation would have probably happened anyway, as it did before the aftermkt pulley. That is the benefit of M-M, where the onus of proof is on them with regard to cause and effect.

At the same time, I've had rattles from day one, like many of us. I have since added stiffer coil-overs, control arms, rear sway bar, and bushes. I certainly will not even think about going to them for a rattle or two now; and it could be for something for which would be there anyway. I could be an *** and make them prove it, but I don't. I really believe a lot of folks who mod their cars are like me in that regard, responsible and understanding...

Matt: That's a great spring analogy. I seem to remember Hooke's law from physics... In tyring to show-off, I digress a little

I've read in a few places that going with a smaller supercharger pulley has negative ramifications on the life of the SC. Whether 14.3 or 15% smaller (about the same), the SC is going to be compressing or displacing air sooner, as opposed to a stock size pulley. By being engaged quicker, or at lower engine RPMs, the SC will be under boost conditions more often. This is great for us performance guys! However, since a SC can only compress/displace so much air it is finite life, it's longevity as measured on the calendar is bound to be less. Throw-in the added heat due to the accelerated spinning (still not going over max SC RPM), and its effects over time, and these are ingredients for earlier failure. For other cars, this has been the case, and I'm sure JCW guys and the rest with smaller pullies will experience the same, in time.

I'm personally fine with that trade-off, and find it very worthwhile! But beyond 15 or so %, the cost/benefit for performance is still very much in question, while longevity issues becomes even more clear...

 

Yes, agreed, I think most are. As are most dealers.

You are very correct. Any mechanical engineer who as had a fatigue and fracture/mechanics of materials class knows that any increase of load or cycling will produce failure sooner, rather predictably so under structured testing conditions. Even a one time incident may like a pot hole, may not produce an imediate failure but has sped up the failure process by propagating a micro-crack.

Engineers also know that everything is a trade off, to gain one quality you must sacrifice another. (also true in non-engineering applications) When we change anything we can cause many affects, most seen and predicted but some seemingly unrelated affects as well. Those seemingly unrelated affects are the problem here. We are talking about many components having complex interactions with each other. engineers are aware of this and probably come down on the side of the dealer is within rights to deny most claims based on this.
Most dealers don't deny these unrelated claims because it is very bad for buisness. and most customers are certainly not mechanical engineers.