Snorkel Wars

[IH8RDS]

I'm going to end this war right now with this link. :safari-rig: The debate is over. Abandon ship, and god speed to you all.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/144212.shtml?tswind120#contents

This will be one for the record books. (mommy, where's my woobie?):REExeSwimmingHL:

I got my snorkle ready

 

[Gurkha]

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8260/95755551gl5.jpg

Snorkel on Gurkha in action.

 

[mauricio_28]

any thoughts or insights on the fact that a snorkel will void a part of the vehicles warranty?

 

[overlander]

any thoughts or insights on the fact that a snorkel will void a part of the vehicles warranty?

In most countries of the world, it's a dealer or factory option on Land Rovers. I know Toyota actually makes their own too (per last OJ issue).

 

[Martinjmpr]

I can't see how a snorkel would void the warranty but driving into a big pool of water might

 

[mauricio_28]

Not here, apparently. I have yet to read the fine print, but the guy who sold me my Navara at the Nissan dealeship told me a snorkel would void the engine warranty. Likewise, a suspension lift would void the drive-train warranty. He actually has an interest in NOT telling me this, since I get my after-market stuff through him.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Not here, apparently. I have yet to read the fine print, but the guy who sold me my Navara at the Nissan dealeship told me a snorkel would void the engine warranty. Likewise, a suspension lift would void the drive-train warranty. He actually has an interest in NOT telling me this, since I get my after-market stuff through him.

There are laws here in the US that prevent blanket warranty voiding like that. Now the dealer must be able to prove that said part directly caused the warranty failure in question. So in the case of the snorkel/motor, if you throw a rod they have case against you.

 

[Martinjmpr]

There are laws here in the US that prevent blanket warranty voiding like that. Now the dealer must be able to prove that said part directly caused the warranty failure in question. So in the case of the snorkel/motor, if you throw a rod they have case against you.

Yeah but if your engine ingests water and throws a rod, that's not a warranty repair anyway. That's like slamming into a tree and damaging the radiator - it's not like you can file a warranty claim for that (although there's no reason you couldn't file an insurance claim.)

Wouldn't Comprehensive insurance cover the thrown rod, though?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Yeah but if your engine ingests water and throws a rod, that's not a warranty repair anyway. That's like slamming into a tree and damaging the radiator - it's not like you can file a warranty claim for that (although there's no reason you couldn't file an insurance claim.)

I guess I'm not following you?? All I said is the simple addition of an aftermarket part or component doesn't blanket void the entire warranty. Thats not to say it makes every potential engine failure a shoe-in warranty claim. If you fill your motor full of water, run it without oil or run it into a tree, they are likely to deny your warrant. But if your motor loses a bearing and subsequently throws a rod, they can't deny the claim based on the presence of a snorkel alone.

Wouldn't Comprehensive insurance cover the thrown rod, though?

If it happened as part of an accident, sure. If a bearing fails, no.

 

[goodtimes]

There are laws here in the US that prevent blanket warranty voiding like that. Now the dealer must be able to prove that said part directly caused the warranty failure in question. So in the case of the snorkel/motor, if you throw a rod they have case against you.

While that may be true by the letter of the law....reality is very different. The law states that they must prove the modification was the cause of the component failure. But the court system says they are innocent until proven guilty.

You modify your vehicle, then take it in for a [legit] warranty repair. They deny the warranty claim. You refuse to pay for it. You argue back and forth, but in the end, they still refuse the claim....and they have your vehicle (at worst), or you have a broken vehicle. What else do you have? Grounds for a lawsuit? Sure.

Hire a lawyer, jump through the hoops, pay for a rental car for the next 18 months while the law suit works its way through the system. They just keep filing motions, which drives up the $$$ you owe to your lawyer (because you have to respond). This keeps on going until either you or the dealership are broke. Wanna guess who goes broke first? Once you are broke and don't have a lawyer, you miss a hearing or two and the case gets tossed...now you are broke and still don't have your vehicle fixed.




Welcome to reality...

 

[madizell]

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept, not a concept that plays in civil liability. If you had to litigate a warranty issue it would be a matter of tort, where the claimant has a prima facia burden of making a plausible case, and the defendant has the burden of proving otherwise.

Plus, I seriously doubt that the dealer would hold the car during litigation. You could do that if the bill is high enough and you refuse up front to pay anything, but in this instance, your case would be the same, and you would get your vehicle back, if you paid the bill, then sued for repayment. Not to mention that once you file suit, each party's basis for recovery is in the suit, not in the vehicle. The dealer would hold the car only to maintain the mechanic's lien, which is extinguished the moment they let go of the vehicle. For that matter, you could write a check, take the car, and stop payment on the check if that's the way you wanted to go. The dealer can't get the car back just because you stop payment.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

While that may be true by the letter of the law....reality is very different. The law states that they must prove the modification was the cause of the component failure. But the court system says they are innocent until proven guilty.

You modify your vehicle, then take it in for a [legit] warranty repair. They deny the warranty claim. You refuse to pay for it. You argue back and forth, but in the end, they still refuse the claim....and they have your vehicle (at worst), or you have a broken vehicle. What else do you have? Grounds for a lawsuit? Sure.

Hire a lawyer, jump through the hoops, pay for a rental car for the next 18 months while the law suit works its way through the system. They just keep filing motions, which drives up the $$$ you owe to your lawyer (because you have to respond). This keeps on going until either you or the dealership are broke. Wanna guess who goes broke first? Once you are broke and don't have a lawyer, you miss a hearing or two and the case gets tossed...now you are broke and still don't have your vehicle fixed.




Welcome to reality...

Great scenario, but one I've never heard come to light. I know plenty of Jeep owners, Tacoma owners (including my own) and diesel owners that have had warranties questioned due to lifts, gears, snorkels, intakes, throttle body spacers, etc. In then end the dealer's always took care of the warranty, if anything with a simple letter or phone call from a lawyer.

 

[goodtimes]

Great scenario, but one I've never heard come to light. I know plenty of Jeep owners, Tacoma owners (including my own) and diesel owners that have had warranties questioned due to lifts, gears, snorkels, intakes, throttle body spacers, etc. In then end the dealer's always took care of the warranty, if anything with a simple letter or phone call from a lawyer.

I have been in a similar situation (not regarding warranty work), but it came down to who goes broke first....me or a company with annual sales that exceed 10 billion USD. I gave up before I even started, upon the advice of a seasoned lawyer. It would have cost me more than I would have ever recovered.

Is that hypothetical situation in my earlier post an extreme? Yes, absolutely. Can it happen if someone wants to play hard ball? Yes, absolutely.

Madizell--you are correct, it would not be criminal offence, but the process works pretty much the same. You can sue them to try to force the repair, but it is on you to convince an uninterested 3rd party that they did you wrong. Unfortunately, "they" have money on their side. As I tried to imply by adding the "(worst case)" is that yea, it could happen...but it would be a "worst case" scenario (for the consumer)...even then, there may be legal ramifications of keeping the vehicle.

The whole point, even though not typed in perfect legaleze, or perfect in theory...is that if you are going to play hardball, you are going to play hardball with someone that has *really* deep pockets...which usually means the consumer loses because they can't afford to win.

Certainly most warranty claims (that are legit) go through with few, if any, problems. But just because a law exists, does not mean that businesses will follow that law to any individuals interpretation other than their own. They may even blatently ignore the law....and if faced with such a situation, it can be a long, steep, uphill battle.

 

[Antichrist]

Me: "Yea, but even with a snorkle, if you don't extend your exhaust higher than water line, you will have water run into the engine via the exhaust system as soon as your engine shuts off....and it will shut off, because no one properly seals the electronics package before playing submarine. Not to mention destroying your radiator with the fan because as soon as that water rushes into the engine compartment your fan becomes a propeller and proceeds to deflect and eat the radiator."

What you say is exactly true as far as it goes, but you're making several assumptions.
1. That you turn the engine off if you get stuck.
2. That you don't disable the fan before wading.
3. That it's a petrol engine vehicle and has electronics.

 

[Desertdude]

Someday I'm gonna miss that snorkel...