George,

Re-read my post…

Yes a Predator programmer with a stock tune (came with the programmer) blew up at least 3 Lightning motors (different Lightning’s). It had nothing to do with the motor’s being bad but rather all in the tune. The program was not done correctly so the motors ran on the edge of being lean and caused detonation which destroys motors, particularly connecting rods…

Please, don’t take my word simply start a thread in the Lightning thread and ask for yourself and I am sure those with blown motors will fill you in on the information.

Programming is not something just anybody can do. You need someone professional like Mike and the other professional tuners who are supporting vendors here to do it correctly and safely…

 

'01, I'm not trying to argue or tell you your wrong. In fact you are right, the MMW act doesn't say anything specific about aftermarket performance enhancement parts. It's not specific but replacing an air filter or a cat back exhaust is a aftermarket replacement that may (hopefully) enhance performance. It's kind of a gray area and I think that's why dealer action veries so much.

The warranty information that is in the owners manual does mention the use of aftermarket performance enhancing parts. It doesn't say that it will void the warranty, but that it may. It says the same thing in the SVT supplement booklet.

My '98 had a mojor performance enhancing part. I talked to the service dept. before I installed it. They said that it wouldn't automaticly void the warranty, but that claims would be handled on a case by case basis. There were a few thinkg that were fixed under warranty, and the supercharger was never an issue. I feel fortunate that in three years and thirty thousand miles the supercharged 4.6 ran like a champ. It's about reliability. Mike set me up with a reliable system. That's why I keep calling back.

Oh by the way '01, are you using a tuner yet?

 

01 XLT Sport,

I think we've beat this up enough, I don't see a manufacturer using the exact verbage you're looking for as realistic and you do not see the point I was trying to make. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that so that we may get this thread back on track.

Now, on the thread posters' original topic, it is very unlikely an Xcal will void your warranty.

 

The following is the relevant sections of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to the discussion. While many may believe this act forces manufactures to warranty their products the truth is it does not.

As a matter of fact there is no law that forces any manufacture to have any warranties at all. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a process documenting what must be adhered to IF a manufacture decides to actually offer a written warranty.

The following is word for word guidelines from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. These are only some excerpts from the entire Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Statements appearing in italic are my own comments:

Section 2302. Rules governing contents of warranties

(a) Full and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions; additional requirements for contents In order to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty shall, to the extent required by rules of the Commission, fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty. Such rules may require inclusion in the written warranty of any of the following items among others:

(6) Exceptions and exclusions from the terms of the warranty.

Under the above explanation Ford has in their Warranty Guide (2003 model year, Jan 03 printing, page 7) What is not covered: Damage Caused by:
Altering or modifying the vehicle – including the body, chassis, or components – after the vehicle leaves Ford’s control.

c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if –

The above bold statement is the passage that many aftermarket companies use when they make references that the Act protects them from using aftermarket parts. Note the above makes no mention that a consumer can modify the original design with aftermarket parts.

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.

Section 2304. Federal minimum standards for warranties

(c) Waiver of standards
The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).

This is another passage that aftermarket companies use when stating to consumers that the manufacture must prove that an aftermarket part actually caused the damage. Note that the aftermarket companies only use the portion of the above statement that is useful to them for selling their product and neglects to inform the consumer about the “unreasonable use” clause.

When you tie in what the Ford warranty states about what is not covered and the “unreasonable use” clause above you can see, at least in my opinion, that Ford has the law weighed heavily towards their side.

 

```

 

I think some of you are taking me completely wrong and that is your prerogative. I am simply trying to accomplish two objectives:

One, inform people what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act really means, at least in my opinion.

Two, inform people that IF they decide to modify their vehicles, such as with chips and performance tunes, that they should seriously considered what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states.

Personally I think this is what makes people like Mike shine, again in my opinion. Here is someone that just doesn’t simply sell a chip or tune with some “off the shelf” program designed for many applications. Mikes are custom tunes, while there may not be a lot of differences in programs between two identical trucks, they are custom because they are designed for that “specific” vehicle, its operating conditions.

Mike asks for data, sometimes lots of data. How does your specific vehicle operate? While there is not a lot of difference from one F150 to the next there is some. No two motors are alike, they are mass produced and thus have tolerances and variables.

My point is YES it is very possible for an aftermarket chip or flash programmer, like the XCal2 to void a part of someone’s warranty BUT that is highly dependant on WHO actual programmed the chip or flash tuning device.

If you want to be safe and feel confident then you spend your money with Mike. If you feel like throwing the dice on the craps table then by all means buy any aftermarket tuning device you feel like. There are plenty to choose from and maybe a bit cheaper since they have “off the shelf” programs designed for more then one vehicle or in the case of the Predators, with the stock tune for Lightning’s, a good chance of blowing a motor in cold weather.

Even though my post may not sound like it if you really read them one could just about ascertain that it’s a sells pitch for Troyer Performance.

I have personally stated a few times that when I get ready to modify my Lightning it will be with Mike. It will be for one reason and one reason only – “experience”. While his customer service is second to none, it is the “experience” that is important to me because to me, like many of you, my truck is not cheap and I don’t have a ton of cash laying around to pay for repairs due to some inexperienced tuner or because I wanted to save a few bucks on another tuning option…

Now some of you may still think I am reading the law incorrectly and that is fine. I read it and understand it how I do and therefore I am not taking any chances by rolling the dice. When the time comes I will have an XCal2 programmed by Mike.

 

I will have an XCal2 programmed by Mike.
[/I]

Cool. You and I agree on that.

 

Not yet. I am probably in the same boat as you. Of course mine is a 03 and I bought it new Feb of 04. It now has a grand total of 4,300 miles on it.

I bought it with the intention of owning it well past the payoff date. I love this truck like no other performance vehicle I have ever owned.

However when I spoke to the two Ford dealers I deal with, Portsmouth Ford and Granite Ford, they basically told me I was limited to what modifications I could do. Cat back exhaust was ok and CAI was ok as well.

They both told me up front if I ever brought it in for serious motor and/or transmission work the first thing they would do is look for evidence of a chip. Kind of pissed me off but then I can’t blame them either. Many kids modifying their vehicles and blowing up motors and transmissions expecting the dealers to repair their mistakes.

It’s a shame that some of this software and hardware is out there that anybody can connect a laptop up and play “tuner”. Makes it tough for people like us who are looking for some performance but having the brains to go to those experienced in it, such as Mike.

Personally I want to feel the truck out, and break it in more, to insure there are no “real” factory defects lurking around only to come to the surface if I decided to modify now.

I completely buy into the philosophy of ”You have to pay to play” therefore when it gets time to play I will pay a professional to insure I can play with my toys and they won’t break…

 

Whew, I'm glad that's over! Each of you have made some excellent points and I'm sure there are lots of us that have been watching this debate and trying to understand the issues. This is what I love about this forum, seeing people argue (politely and intelligently!) about the various permutations of the laws of physics (the trucks), and the laws of man (warranties and acts of Congress).

Either fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, I didn't have to go through this debate in my head when I ordered my XCal, I just wanted one! I let my emotions rule and the future be damned! I've trusted the hundreds of posts here about the quality of Mike's tunes and understand fully the consequences of my actions. If I have a warranty issue down the road, I'll deal with it. In the meantime, let the fun begin!

 

"One, inform people what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act really means, at least in my opinion."


I understand in part what your saying.....but your not a Lawyer so there is NO way your opinion should be the end-all explanation of ones rights under the MM act.

Well if you were all for Troyer and his "custom" tuning why not state that in the first place???

We agree though on the Troyer tunes...they are hard if not impossible to beat

 

So, again, can the dealer actually definitively tell if a tuner was EVER used? There seems to be a conflicting opinion... Any Techs here that can elaborate?

 

I am an attorney. I, like 01 XLT Sport, do not read the protections contained in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to apply to after-market modifications. While the Act certainly applies to after-market replacement parts, I do not believe the Act applies to performance enhancing modifications. Of course, what consitutes a replacement part and what constitutes a modification is not always black and white (e.g., is a cold air intake a replacement part or modification?)

I may be wrong on this. I am not aware of any reported court decision dealing with this issue. I also have not read the legislative history behind the Act. It may be that the Act was intended to protect performance enhancing modifications. However, I was unable to reach that conclusion by simply reading the Act itself.

FYI - I have on order an X-Cal II from Troyer.

 

Good for you; you will enjoy

 

NO, the only possible sign would be a p1000 code but you would get that if you disconnected your battery. They cannot prove you used a tuner.
A chip on the other hand is easy to prove because you have to remove the conformal coating on the connector to install it.

 

But of course, no one has stepped up to the plate here with anything to substantiate that statement (including the gentleman who sells the chips). I'm not saying there's anything technically wrong with these products, but warranty coverage isn't determined on that basis. Anything that creates additional stress on drivetrain components provides a valid reason to deny coverage.