I guess what I should have stated in conclusion of my last post is that MINI is just doing what their warranty says. No more, no less.

There does not appear to me, based on what I know, to be any violation of Magnuson-Moss.

 

Do I need to?

I don't understand what you are questioning.

 

Interesting concepts. I personally tend to agree with personal responsibility. If the only recourse that a finance company has in the interest of the finance contract is the vehicle, then sure, there should be an absolute and total prohibition on tracking the car. But that really isn't the situation. The borrower has also given a personal guarantee to get the finance contract approved. If a responsible car owner wants to take their car to the track to experience the cars performance capability and rolls the car, they should suck it up and face the fact that they have to come up with the funds to get a new car and pay off whatever might be owing on the car that just got rolled. On the other hand, voiding the warranty because the car was taken to the track to experience its performance capability also strikes me as a bit over the top.

 

If I understood your previous post, you were saying that M-M is there to protect the consumer from a manufacturer's unilateral decision to void a factory warranty in the presence of aftermarket modifications (e.g. the manufacturer would have to prove that the aftermarket modification caused the failure and therefore, the manufacturer was within its rights to deny warranty coverage). The whole issue that Skiploder was posting about was that M-M is worthless as a source of recourse in the face of arbitrary decisions by BMW/MINI because of the costs (and aggravation) involved in getting to a verdict. Therefore, my question about the extent of your commitment to get to a verdict (and ultimately to a concluded apeal) on a M-M action.

 

So what defines track use vs driver's ed/instruction? Didn't MINI sponser the Phil Wicks event? And what about BMWCCA driver's events? Then there are the ads, etc as people have mentioned.

The whole thing about it is that there is a difference between reasonable mod related warranty denial vs denial on issues BMW/MINI is aware of, has TSBs about, and design problems that result on the untouched untracked cars as well. That is the crux of the bad faith BMW shows and why its obviously pretty unscrupulous behavior and puts many off of the brand and also gets them bad word of mouth. Its not just about mods causing problems, tracking causing undo wear and tear, it is about the extended effort they go to to avoid warranty work many times (mods or not) Although the brand seems to advertise and want to appear to support the enthusiasts their actions indicate that really what BMW wants to be is Mercedes - have people buy the cars for brand status and use them to commute in and get good valet spaces. As I've said before, it is really very sad.

PS: Its also why I don't make anything but mostly cosmetic changes to my cars anymore so I'm not saying this because I have a modded car anymore. I also have never tracked my cars since I've been concerned (and its expensive to boot), its too bad, you'd think they'd want me to improve my driving skills

 

Ever tried to collect on a judgment? That's all a personal guarantee can give a creditor if the vehicle is gone. The IRS is about the only ones who can just come in and execute on a judgment, everyone else has to go thru a long process with little to show for it. So everyone may think they should "pony up" and pay for the car, but most folks won't really dig deep and come up with that cash. If they could have they should have just paid off the car BEFORE trackday. The creditor takes it on the chin. Oh they can screw up someone's credit, but what money does that put in their pockets, nada...

 

No. To clarify. Magnuson-Moss does not forbid a manufacturer from voiding a warranty based on mods. They forbid a manufacturer from voiding a warranty due to use of parts made by other manufacturers. There is a difference. You can use aftermarket parts presuming those parts do not materially alter the performance/engineering/specs of the car.

All I was really doing in that part of that previous post was to repeat what the warranty actually says and to point out that the way the warranty reads. The warranty exclusions are harder on people who track than on people who mod. The warranty says that is you make a mod you risk voiding the warranty for any parts related to that mod. Whereas with someone who tracks - you risk a total and complete voiding of the warranty for all parts and everything related to the car.

 

Once you have a judgement, it is fairly easy to collect. Wage garnishment is one remedy that comes to mind. There is some cost involved, but it is not prohibitive. If there is $20,000 owing on a personal guarantee, the finance company will definitely incur the cost of a wage garnishment action to get its pound of flesh back.

Hmmm. Well, the collateral damage from having your credit screwed up in the present economy that is largely based on credit (when is the last time that you paid cash for your house) can be pretty significant.

 

Fair enough. But if the circumstance presents itself where the manufacturer unilaterally voids its warranty because an aftermarket part was put on the car, the only recourse under M-M for the consumer is to file a lawsuit (and bear the costs of the litigation) to get to a verdict (and prevail on an apeal). That cost is prohibitive (and the aggravation is probably greater still). Because of the requirement for the consumer to bring an action (and pay the cost of the action), it is my contention that EFFECTIVELY, M-M is worthless.

 

So would I be right to think that MM is designed to, for example, allow an "equivalent" part in my car with no warranty effect - an oil filter from Bosch instead of MINI for example.
I might be able to fit an "equivalent" air filter in my car, but if I fitted an "upgraded" one that changed the performance of the car, then MM is now irrelevant because the warranty says I can't do that.

-> The warranty can't say "don't fit anyone elses parts", but it can say "don't alter the performance"

Is that how it works?

 

Interesting term "pound of flesh" for someone advocating personal financial responsibility. So, after notice and opportunity to be heard by judgment debtor (Due Process and all) then depositions to identify non-exempt property to satisfy the judgment, or available wages in excess of those required to support the family of the judgment debtor. Sheriff to levy on the non-exempt property and auction or resale costs of same. Wage garnishment is an exteme remedy, requires a court order after notice and hearing, not a lot of judges will allow it if the family suffers from it. Not like child support, Gov't has an interest in having that money paid rather than have public support of children. So they get a garnishment action, how long to collect on the debt, 3 or 4 years, 7 to 10? Debtor moves, collection actions have to start all over again. Sure their credit is screwed, but that still doesn't PAY for the car. Cars are expensive, so why not race a go-kart? It is pretty exciting racing, the Daytona road race course record is held by a very extreme racing go-kart, HOT STUFF.

 

The term was used loosely. The principle was that finance companies have a number of resources available to them to recoup what they have extended. With the recent revision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the advantage has shifted even further to the finance companies.

In California, wage garnishment is pretty straightforward. There is a formula that determines disposable wages that are available for garnishment and the creditor files for that amount. The employer is served with a notice and they (the employer) is obligated to deduct the garnished wages and pay them to the garnishor). I have had a couple of employees who had their wages garnished - it really is that simple.

 

You sure the garnishment wasn't for back child support? I'll bet the finance company had to have a few court hearings before they got an order for that, or the debtor defaulted and never contested the debt or the garnishment. It's hard to believe it would be that easy , a money judgment and a garnishment, WOW! I thought you guys were called the LEFT Coast??

 

The garnishor was a finance company in both cases. In general, California law bends over backward before there is a judgement. Once a judgement is reached, the judgement debtor is pretty much dead meat. You can be walking down the street wearing your Rolex that you did not disclose in the debtors exam and the creditor can stop you and seize the Rolex right off your person.

 

It's funny you bring that up......

Last evening when driving out to the Lotus dealer I took the Mini. Mind you it only has 8K miles on it and it's an 03.

We are in the midst of a cold spell (relative) here in the SF Bay and I took back roads all the way there and back, windows down, both the heater and stereo blasting away. As always, the car itself (Minis in general) can work magic. We're all owners so I'll spare you the rhapsodizing.....you all know what I'm talking about.

While I was driving the Elise, the Dealer took my car out for a spin in case I decided to trade it in. Not only did they not notice the high idle, but the appraiser commented on what a little rocket it was.

I'm not 100% sold on the Elise. When you get into that neighborhood, you start thinking about the new Boxster, then the Cayman, and so on.

I have spent the last 6 months making the idle issue into something larger than maybe it should have been, mainly because I love the freaking car so much and obsess about its little faults. Maybe what I ought to do is fix the harness now and then cut my ties with BMW. I have a good mechanic here and I can always get Mr. Webb and his warranty on the remaining major components. Heck, I'm almost a year away from being out of factory warranty anyway...

So maybe after divorcing myself from MiniUSA and the Dealer, I can begin to enjoy my car again for what it is.

On Monday, my wife and kids will be at a play date for most of the morning. I plan on trying to see if the car can help me forget the headaches with a three hour run on some of my favorite backroads...........

 

To be fair, I was not at a Driver's School - but that is an excellent point.

This is the crux of the matter. They are being muleheaded in refusing to perform a diagnostic procedure to determine whether the issue outlined in the TSB is the root cause.

The offer made on my behalf to Mini was this: Perform the outlined diagnosis as per the TSB - if the issue is unrelated, I will pay for the diagnosis, if the issue is related, you pick up the tab. I was told they would not even diagnose the car until it been returned to 100% stock.

This is silly because the outlined test is basically to:

1. Check the throttle body production date - replace if produced prior to January 2002.

2. Conduct a throttle body wiring harness connector check using the DISPlus measuring system.

3. Run a potentiometer test.

4. While moving the throttle plate, monitor and observe the square wave amplitude transition changes for uniformity.

5. Perform a wiggle test on the harness connector pins and check for clean waveform.

6. If the TB was produced prior to 01/05/02 and the wiring test is OK, replace TB.

7. If the TB was produced after 01/05/02 and the wiring test is OK, replace the wiring harness.

8. If the wiring test is not OK, replace both the TB and the harness.

Seems pretty cut and dried - no blown head gasket, no smoked supercharger - just a known wiring problem that is widespread enough to issue a TSB. It has nothing to do with racing and removing my mods would not alter the diagnosing procedure one iota.

 

Where did this come from?

C4 said This thread should be renamed: "Warning: M-M lawsuit failed. Mod at your own risk".

I said TOTALLY DISAGREE ... until the following is cleared up .. Was it BOTH issues ... Mods & Track actually cited by BMW? Or just the Track?

Skiploader now says both. I wasnt asking anything about the "worthlessness" of MM ... just the cause of the warranty denial.

 

Be careful if you're considering an Elise. If you think BMW/MINI is touchy about warranty stuff, Lotus can be much worse. Althought they're a small company, Lotus product support is really dependent on the situation; **** 'em off and they'll simply ignore you. Modifications are particularly frowned upon by Lotus USA.

Just a word of advice from one who has owned a couple of Lotus cars over the years.

 

In the end, it seems many MINI owners can ignore all sorts of quirks / features / creaks / etc because of the pleasure of motoring

 

Personally, I would take the three hour run. There are a lot of service options that are separate from MINIUSA and the dealer. Warranty-wise, Mr. Webb seems to offer every bit the level of coverage that MINI provides and he has better bits than MINI does. If your MCS was a shop queen (spending more time in the shop than being enjoyed), it would be a different decision. It is just my two cents worth, but with the MCS being sorted out, I would try the wiring fix (you may also have to replace the throttle body; but between the wiring harness and new throttle body, you would only be out ~$1,500). If that does it, I would enjoy the car for what it is - a street-legal go kart (in the most fun sort of way) and tell MINI to go get stuffed.

 

Aren't these sold in Germany, where there are roads with no speed limit? So driving too fast can't really be an issue. While it may not be wise to turn sharply, there's certainly no specific law against it, so it can't be large lateral forces that are at fault. It's all a load of horsesh*t that BMW/Mini is spewing, and we all know it. They found their excuse, can afford to push the issue to the point where all but a large corporation could push it to proper conclusion, stuck it to an owner, and will walk away from the issue.

Sad that they'd choose not to keep loyal customers, and loose a previous repeat buyer (skiploader) in the process, all for what has a consumer cost of $1,200!

Matt

 

I'd like to understand what it means that a warranty is voided, and implications. The impression I've gotten from this thread is that as soon as the dealer sees my 19mm swaybar, they can be in a position of claiming that they are no longer under any obligation and could deny free maintenance service (oil changes, etc.) or repair of manufacturing defects. Is that correct?

One story I will mention. I purchased my aftermarket wheels/tires before my car arrived, and I asked my MA about having them installed before I took delivery of the car. The word from the service department was that they would install them only along with a $400 alignment; otherwise the warranty would be voided. I simply swapped out the wheels myself, but it could be a clue that my dealer (MINI of San Francisco) plays hardball on the warranty/modification issue.

By the way, I'm sure that MINIUSA is following this thread with interest.

 

to the BANK!!!!!

Matt

 

MINI even had magazine ads a couple years ago giving Auto-X tips!!! So they are saying "Sure, go ahead and track the car" while they rub their hand together and mumbling to themselves "there's another car with a voided warranty"

 

I think you might be OK with the sway bar, as long as the warranty issue did not have to do with the suspension.

Keep in mind that my issues did not arise because the dealer had issues with my mods, in fact they cheerfully began working on the car in an attempt to resolve the issue. They spent almost a full two days trying to sort things out. They swapped out the throttle body under warranty and checked for vacuum leaks, the bypass valve, etc.

The problem came when they called the Mini/BMW techline for additional information on the problem. It was only after Mini/BMW got involved that the dealer was told to stop working on the car as they would not be reimbursed.

So with just an aftermarket sway bar, I would not think that most reasonable dealers would have an issue with your pwertrain and I would certainly hope that neither would BMW.

No mention has been made of cancellation of free maintenance. Hmmmm...............