Oil Change

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FieroGT @ Jun 22 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]275299[/snapback]</div>

You can do it but I would keep a log book and receipts for the oil and filter just to be safe......

 

Nope, DIY is sufficient to maintain the warranty. Just document it w/ receipts, etc.

 

No, it doesn't void the warranty. But be sure to show proof that you did the oil change.

 

Lots of owners either change their own oil or go to an oil change place. I would keep records to show it was done.

P.S. I typed too slow. As you can see, though, the answer remains the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aaf709 @ Jun 22 2006, 01:08 PM) [snapback]275307[/snapback]</div>

Hey! I'm ... glad ... that .... some ..... of .. yous .. guys ..... type ..... sloowww. ......................Some .....

of ..... these .... people ...... type ........

........ so ........................ fast ................................ that ........ I ............................

can't .................................... read ....................................... it. ....

.......I'm ........................................................ a ........................................................

slooowwwww ............................................................... reader ............

............................................. so ........................................................

It .......... 's ...................................................... nice .............. to ......................................................

read ............................................................... a ......................

slooowwwwwwwwwwwww ............................................... typers ...............................................

thread.............................

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 22 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]275387[/snapback]</div>

Very droll, it is to laugh.

Seriously, when this topic came up, there was only the question. By the time I hit the Add Reply button, 3 people had already responded. Ah well.

 

Don't use the wrong oil, te ICE might not want to start or shut right off.

 

If the oil change isnt done correctly and something happens to where the engine fails, then the warranty is voided.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blackfang @ Jul 31 2006, 01:28 PM) [snapback]295219[/snapback]</div>

Respectfully, that's not correct. Under applicable US law (the Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act), a new car warranty is rarely, if ever, truly "voided". If an owner has a covered failure during the wty term, he presents the car to a dealer and makes a claim for a covered repair. If the manufacturer wants to deny that claim, they must be able to prove that something that the owner (or some other 3rd party) did (or failed to do) was the actual cause of the claimed failure. Of course, they can TRY to deny a claim without such proof, but if the owner takes the mfr to court, the mfr will have the initial burden of proof, not the owner. Now, if a 3rd party oil changer, or an owner, does something wrong, which causes an engine failure, the mfr would clearly be within its right to deny the claim. But even if they did, the warranty is in no way "void".

Consider this example: let's say you get stupid and decide to install SAE 60 wt racing oil in your Prius, and then you try to run it for 20,000 miles. Quite predictably, the engine melts down (or blows up) as a direct result. Toyota will deny a wty repair claim, as they should, and you'll lose in court if you try to challenge them. But let's assume you also have a leaking radiator and your nav system goes dark at the same time. Those items will STILL BE COVERED, since Toyota certainly can't prove that your foolish use of 60 wt oil actually caused either the radiator to leak or the nav to fail. In other words, your engine claim gets properly denied, but the wty is NOT void.

Caveat: be careful of dealer-sold or aftermarket extended warranties, as they are generally NOT covered by the MMWA. If one of these ext wtys says you have to change your oil under a full moon while wearing a pink dress, you'd better do so, or risk losing coverage. As always, state laws vary, so check with a local lawyer if you even suspect you might have a problem with one of these.

 

Anyone willing to subject their car to a jiffy lube shouldn't be worried that their warranty will be voided by doing the work themselves at home.

Even the guy/gal at the toyota dealer who changes oil was not formerly working on the rocket program at Lockheed.

Get the directions from John's site, do your own oil changes and take your wife for dinner on the money you save.

 

I think you are confused or maybe I didnt word it correctly. I am speaking in terms of a claim verse the entire warranty.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ekpolk @ Aug 1 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]295714[/snapback]</div>

If someone did the oil change wrong and caused a failure, how is our fault and why should we cover it under warranty? In fact, Toyota most likely would deny that claim and we would eat it. Someone caused a failure that was outside of normal wear.

Example, If you change your oil and you forget to tighten the drain plug and it falls off and locks the motor. You caused that failure by not tightening the plug, the loss of oil from coming out and the internal lubrication of the engine stopped resulting in the engine and bearing seizing. How is that the Manufacturers fault?

I have voided a warranty claim where a customers 2 year old car with 31,000 miles comes in with a loud knocking sound. After they approved a teardown and inspecting the engine internals, and seeing the dipstick was brown and burnt we saw lack of maintenance. The customer showed every receipt from Jiffy Lube, yet the car had 1/2 a quart of black oil. Yet the oil change was done 1500 miles ago. Warranty was denied by Toyota. Yes, the customer went after Jiffy Lube for a motor.

I am sure the owner could have taken us to court, but keep in mind that we have lawyers that work for us, verses the customer. Now, how much can the customer afford verse a Multi billion dollar company?

Yes you are right, but that example is irrelevant and proving my point that the engine warranty was denied. The radiator and nav system are completely different components and it would be impossible to prove that the oil did that. Sorry but that is a vary bad example to use on your part.

You can take your car anywhere to change the oil, however if they do something wrong(like forget to add oil) and cause an engine failure, we arent paying for it. The customer is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blackfang @ Aug 2 2006, 10:31 AM) [snapback]296297[/snapback]</div>

Blackfang:

I'm not confused at all. I'm an attorney myself (though at the moment, I'm a Colonel in the Marines, having been recalled to active duty...), and very well understand the operation and subtle, often-misunderstood, features of the Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act (MMWA).

First, my real point is one that we actually appear to agree on -- the terminology. You should NOT be using the term "void", that's inaccurate, though I'm sure that your intent isn't to be deceptive. I get excited about this issue, because I know very well that the manufacturers, and those lawyers working for your employer, would dearly love as many folks as possible to believe that their wtys are now "void" and they can't seek any further repairs. That's just not true, and in fact, is a complete deviation from what the law provides.

Second, my point is not that either the dealer or Toyota should pay for owner-caused damage. They should not. But on the other hand, the mfr and dealer should be sure that they can prove they should be off the hook before they deny a claim. That's the right and legal thing to do (hmmm, sometimes right and legal do coincide...).

Third, you said, "I am sure the owner could have taken us to court, but keep in mind that we have lawyers that work for us, verses the customer. Now, how much can the customer afford verse a Multi billion dollar company? " A lot, actually. Under the MMWA, when the customer wins a warranty case that went to court, the manufacturer is required to pay the owner's attorney's fees and costs. You can argue whether or not you see that as fair, but the intent of the provision is to "level the playing field" to counter exactly the effect you suggest (David vs. Goliath), and to provide something of a "penalty" provision to discourage manufacturers from denying wty claims they should pay in the first place. If the mfr's lawyers know they should, and probably will be ordered to, pay the claim, why not just pay it, rather risk paying it, and several times extra in attorney's fees and costs?

Finally, you said, "Yes you are right, but that example is irrelevant and proving my point that the engine warranty was denied. The radiator and nav system are completely different components and it would be impossible to prove that the oil did that. Sorry but that is a vary bad example to use on your part." I respectfully disagree. My example was carefully designed to highlight the inappropriate use of the term "voiding" of warranties. In legal usage, to "void" something means that the whole thing is dead, kaput, of no effect whatsoever. The radiator and nav examples show that even if an owner stupidly trashes his engine, he is still entitled to complete wty coverage, during the wty term of course, for items that die for reasons other than his stupidity (i.e. manufacturer defects, etc.). So yes, of course, you justly and properly denied this guy's claim (as you should have, and as he deserved), but you "voided" nothing. And had either his nav or radiator died at the same time, you'd have been in trouble if you had denied those claims too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ekpolk @ Aug 2 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]296312[/snapback]</div>

Semper Fi Sir.

It is commonly called "voiding" or more refered to "denying" a claim. Now a claim isn't covering the entire vehicle for a duration of a warranty period, but merely for that repair.

That is why the customer authorizes the technician to teardown the motor to find the cause of the failure. When the tech finds the cause of failure, and what it will take to fix it, he comes to myself and the Service Manager and shows us exactly what failed and why. Then it is taken from there, either directly to the customer or if he(the customer) doesnt like the outcome and requests the regional Rep to get involved then it does. We take it to the regional rep and when he gets involved and he will come out and inspect it. Usually he sides with the dealership and denies it. Now, that Vin is locked into the system and EVERY dealership will see that that car has a voided or denied warranty claim.

What I am saying is the fact that a multi billion dollar company probably has employeed the best lawyers working for them. Not to mention the best engineeers(after all they built it) testify on our behalf of why and how it failed. Trust me I has seen this and 95% of the time the dealership wins and the customer loses alot. My customer could have taken us to court, but would have lost thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands because it was clearly proven that Jiffy Lube screwed up the motor. I am not saying I agree or disagree, but that is what happens.

Case in point, Some Ford dealers will deny any warranty on their Mustangs if any aftermarket part is on the car. Is it right? No. Have they been taken to court? Probably so, but the customer ends up losing the most because of all the time and money invested

I thought I clarified that right here in the beginning of my last post

See above in the terms of "voiding", "void" and "denying"

 

Blackfang:

Obviously, your focus on this whole thing comes from a different perspective than mine, and of course, that's OK. You deal face to face with customers, some of whom have legitimate gripes, some of whom are "con-people" who will say or do anything to get a claim covered when they (or a 3rd party like JL) were the cause of the failure. I'm guessing you've seen a case or two of the guy with a crankcase full of liquid asphalt and questionable receipts showing that he just got his oil changed last week. . . So I'm perfectly clear, such people should lose if they press the issue. Anyway, I think we're largely down to arguing the difference between "twelve" and a "dozen."

The only thing I'd add is that I think the customer loss rates you cite are probably accurate, but somewhat misleading (to be very precise, the "misleading" part is not directed at you). The vast bulk of these folks either don't get the right lawyer, or give up and never seek legal help at all, many with cases they should win. From a legal perspective, these cases are easier for the customer to win than you'd expect. First, and often missed, is the fact that the mfr has the burden of proof, not the customer. Representing a customer, if negotiations failed, I'd file suit quickly (assuming arbitration, if triggered, didn't work out), do some initial discovery (mandatory info exchange) and then file a Motion for Summary Judgment. An MSJ would require that the mfr come forward and show the judge that they had some level of admissible proof that they were not responsible for the failure. If they can't, they lose on the spot -- no trial necessary. At this point, if not earlier, the mfr would have to decide if they wanted to spend the money to take the case to its end. AND, they'd have to factor in whether they're ready to PAY ME my fees, AND the costs I incur (engineers, exhibit makers, subpoena servers, etc) should they lose. In a hypothetical, $3000 repair situation that might go either way, the smart move is probably for the mfr to fold the tents, go home, and pay the claim since if they lose, they're going to be on the hook for far more. For my part, in the right case, I'm totally comfortable, and actually enjoy, representing the "Davids" against any corporate "Goliath". A few years back, I tried a case against Allstate in a small town in a very conservative part of Northwest FL (wait -- that would be ALL of NW FL...). During a break on the second day of the three-day trial, the court security guy wandered over and mentioned to me how several of the jurors were talking about how much they hated insurance companies (yes, the opposing lawyer and I had the judge tell them to cool it). Need I say how that one came out .

Semper Fi!

 

Oh hey, one more thing. Although I sincerely hope that you and I never meet while standing over the smoking engine compartment of my freshly dead car, if we do and you tear down my engine, you'll find that you'd be happy to feed your kids their their dinner from the inside of my valve cover!

I'm double-extra OCD, so I just had to say that. . .

 

I am sorry, I don't watch the peoples court. Nor do I like to play the what if game.

Like I stated if someone other than Toyota performs maintenance on a car and they do it wrong and cause a failure, then the customers warranty claim will be voided, or shall I say denied.

 

Thank you ekpolk that certainly helps clarify the warranty issue.

Thank you also for your service to our country.

 

TW:

You're very welcome, as to both. Happy to help.

Blackfang:

If you haven't been there before, I highly recommend checking out Bobistheoilguy.com, one of the best car-related sites I've ever found. When I joined BITOG 2.5 years ago, I thought I knew about oil. I was wrong. Three thousand posts later, I'm still learning. Anyway, do a search on about any form of the term "Jiffy Lube" you can think of, and you'll find one story after another of fiasco and disaster originating from a variety of Iffy Boob locations across the country. This organization should, and probably does, get successfully sued on a regular basis. I was especially taken with the story of the diesel F250 they overfilled, which resulted in the engine's CCV system ingesting excess, frothed oil. Being a compression ignition engine, you know how that story ended -- an uncontrollable, high-rpm runaway engine. Ouch, big ouch.

Call 'em like you see them -- your customer probably wasn't happy, but it was JL who should have paid (hope they did...).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ekpolk @ Aug 2 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]296543[/snapback]</div>

Yes i have looked at that site about 2 years ago. Good information. I have a few oil study links on my own site. In addition to info on the MMWA too. Being I race and mod my own cars, I try and help good honest customers whose parts didn't cause a failure, yet being jerked around by their dealer.

I used to be a Manager for Jiffy Lube and if half the public knew that what went on in there, they would go elsewhere. They really do screw over the customer in more ways than 1. As for them being sued alot, suprisingly their lawyers are good because alot of people havent gotten crap from them. There is a site that is dedicated to complaints and the resolutions, but I cant remember it. Try a yahoo search if I recall.

As for if Jiffy Lube paid or not, I don't know I was Mobilized for a year with the reserves a week later for a year.

Oh here is an example of Ford fvcking over a customer on a warranty claim.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=652336
JUST this weekend I put on some FRPP C springs and bilstein shocks. I also have some MM full length subs.

So I ask him "OK, how do these parts cause the axle seal leak?" He said that the modified suspention puts "too much" stress on the axels and caused the seal to leak. I told him that the seal has been leaking for over a year and I just did the suspention modifications less than a week ago. I then offered to show them the receipts for the parts that I just had installed.

I find it funny how a Ford spring that was OEM equipment on 80's mustangs can cause excess stress. In addition that springs act as a cushion on the axle.