Being denied warranty work because of an H-pipe.

[kz]

Anyone want to post a photo of the harness/wire location that is the issue, So everyone can check it, or add clamps to keep the wires in place.

There's several threads / youtube videos (search Exhaust mode selection not available) but if no one posts, I'll have car on quickjack early next week and will post it.

Harness P/N below (for both sides you need two), price off my order from Levittown.

JR3Z-14A411-H​

Mustang Active Exhaust Jumper - Left & Right​

$33.82​

Sponsored

 

[ICU812]

There's several threads / youtube videos (search Exhaust mode selection not available) but if no one posts, I'll have car on quickjack early next week and will post it.

Harness P/N below (for both sides you need two), price off my order from Levittown.

JR3Z-14A411-H​

Mustang Active Exhaust Jumper - Left & Right​

$33.82​

Is this an issue with all active exhaust cars or just the v8's

 

[Mazman]

the active exhaust has wiring at the muffler tip area to open and close the valve. The "normal GT" or "normal ecoboost" doesn't need the wiring since there is no valve to open and close to change the sound.

I did have AE on my car ;)

 

[cactus_kid]

Did ?

 

[Mazman]

Did ?

 

[Ron]

"I understand that, yes, I did modify the car, but a mid-pipe being the cause for warranty work denial is ridiculous (IMHO)."

I have not taken the time to see if someone else correctly responded to your original text, but hopefully this will help:

Dealers cannot deny a warranty claim only on the basis of modified &/or non-OE (aftermarket) parts on the vehicle. Technically, they can, but the burden of proof is on the dealer. The mere denial of a warranty claim is NOT proof. My GT does not have active exhaust so I don't have a visual here, but if there is contact (either via friction &/or actual heat) between the mid-pipe & the actuator, it's very likely the dealer can make a credible case. Absent that, take it up the chain of command at the dealership.

I just had a dealership attempt to deny a warranty claim on a clutch m/cylinder after pointing out that I had replaced my OE brake lines w/stainless lines. Even if it was the brake m/cylinder in question, there still could be no claim denial based on the brake lines.

 

[Atlas1]

I have not taken the time to see if someone else correctly responded to your original text, but hopefully this will help:

Dealers cannot deny a warranty claim only on the basis of modified &/or non-OE (aftermarket) parts on the vehicle. Technically, they can, but the burden of proof is on the dealer. The mere denial of a warranty claim is NOT proof. My GT does not have active exhaust so I don't have a visual here, but if there is contact (either via friction &/or actual heat) between the mid-pipe & the actuator, it's very likely the dealer can make a credible case. Absent that, take it up the chain of command at the dealership.

I just had a dealership attempt to deny a warranty claim on a clutch m/cylinder after pointing out that I had replaced my OE brake lines w/stainless lines. Even if it was the brake m/cylinder in question, there still could be no claim denial based on the brake lines.

They don’t need contact between the midpipe and the actuator to claim the modification was the cause.
the midpipe requires the connecting wires to be disconnected from the actuators to complete the install. If you claim you didn’t disconnect them, they can argue you put strain on the wires. Claim to have disconnected them? Now you can be blamed for messing them up when reconnecting. I’m on OP’s side here but this idea everyone talks about where the dealer has some burden of proof they have to meet just isn’t how it works. You may have beaten a dealer at this game but only because they weighed the cost of winning against losing you as a customer. Very very few people on here have the resources to beat ford in a legal matter regarding aftermarket parts.
Again, I’m on OP’s side and I think it was slimy of the dealer to not just fix it and forget it but it’s important that we stop spreading this message especially to people that are new to modding that they can count on the magnuson moss act to guard them should they have problems. It’s also never going to work out in their favor.

 

[luc]

I have not taken the time to see if someone else correctly responded to your original text, but hopefully this will help:

Dealers cannot deny a warranty claim only on the basis of modified &/or non-OE (aftermarket) parts on the vehicle. Technically, they can, but the burden of proof is on the dealer. The mere denial of a warranty claim is NOT proof. My GT does not have active exhaust so I don't have a visual here, but if there is contact (either via friction &/or actual heat) between the mid-pipe & the actuator, it's very likely the dealer can make a credible case. Absent that, take it up the chain of command at the dealership.

I just had a dealership attempt to deny a warranty claim on a clutch m/cylinder after pointing out that I had replaced my OE brake lines w/stainless lines. Even if it was the brake m/cylinder in question, there still could be no claim denial based on the brake lines.

Car is not warranted by the independent dealer but rather by the manufacturer
So let’s assume that Ford denied coverage…. What do you do then?
Take them to court?
Only in clear and obvious case do you have a chance, such having an aftermarket radio and blowing your tranny
For all other arguable case, such as in the present situation, you will be the one having to prove that your modification is not responsible for the failure of a system component

 

[kz]

For all other arguable case, such as in the present situation, you will be the one having to prove that your modification is not responsible for the failure of a system component

Absolutely this. And in most questionable cases it would be absolutely trivial for Ford engineering to come up with a possible failure scenario due to modification.

Beside all this - anyone that saw the guide for dealers on warranty claim on modified cars (it is or used to be available in Oasis) knows that it is actually quite reasonable. They're not (or weren't) looking to deny a claim under a bullshit excuse.

 

[JimC]

I have not taken the time to see if someone else correctly responded to your original text, but hopefully this will help:

Dealers cannot deny a warranty claim only on the basis of modified &/or non-OE (aftermarket) parts on the vehicle. Technically, they can, but the burden of proof is on the dealer. The mere denial of a warranty claim is NOT proof. My GT does not have active exhaust so I don't have a visual here, but if there is contact (either via friction &/or actual heat) between the mid-pipe & the actuator, it's very likely the dealer can make a credible case. Absent that, take it up the chain of command at the dealership.

I just had a dealership attempt to deny a warranty claim on a clutch m/cylinder after pointing out that I had replaced my OE brake lines w/stainless lines. Even if it was the brake m/cylinder in question, there still could be no claim denial based on the brake lines.

The dealer didn't attempt to deny. Warranty coverage isn't up to the dealer - it is up to Ford, the manufacturer (i.e. manufacturer warranty). What happened was Ford said no first, and the dealer appealed for you and Ford decided to cover it. OR the dealer decided to eat the expense and cover it under customer good will, as was done for the original poster.

Car is not warranted by the independent dealer but rather by the manufacturer
So let’s assume that Ford denied coverage…. What do you do then?
Take them to court?
Only in clear and obvious case do you have a chance, such having an aftermarket radio and blowing your tranny
For all other arguable case, such as in the present situation, you will be the one having to prove that your modification is not responsible for the failure of a system component

Exactly. FORD warranties the car, and warranties the car that Ford built. The dealer is simply a store that sells the product and doesn't warranty it or deny warranty coverage independently from Ford. Modify the car -- and it is no longer the car that Ford built.

And proof? All the proof that Ford needs to provide at first is to say to the dealer, "we aren't authorizing this as a warranty repair because we determined that modifications caused this." There is the proof and all that is required. Ford doesn't have to go to court to prove it, they "proved" when they said what their finding and determination was. YOU have to go to court, submit your proofs that the failure was a manufacturing defect and THEN Ford will first file a motion to dismiss and if you survive that motion, then Ford will submit its proofs and testimony. And Ford has a lot deeper pockets, engineers on staff already, testing already done and reports ready than you as a consumer will ever be able to afford.

 

[cactus_kid]

I thought maybe it fell off ...............

 

[Mazman]

I thought maybe it fell off ...............

Hahah my X-pipe did actually fall out on the rear end once on the highway

 

[K4fxd]

Claim to have disconnected them? Now you can be blamed for messing them up when reconnecting.

So unplugging a connector equals cut wires from a body seam? You crack me up.

I actually worked as a dealer mechanic, OK now are called technicians. LOL

 

[K4fxd]

So just to clear up my point.

If the harness is cut as the TSB indicates, Ford is on the hook. If the plug is mangled like some have claimed then the installing shop is on the hook.

 

[Rapid Red]

So unplugging a connector equals cut wires from a body seam? You crack me up.

I actually worked as a dealer mechanic, OK now are called technicians. LOL

Takes all kinds doesn't. it ? Some of these folks think they have purchased a car & their next mother.


Outrageous what they THINK they are owed.

Sponsored