# U.S. Law that protects Mods from Voiding Warranties (Magnuson Moss Warranty Act)



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

I don't know how to make a sticky threads or who makes them, but I strongly suggest that we add this one. 

First I want to give credit where credit is due. I learned about this law from e90posts.com (a BMW forum). A member there posted the entire law and I simply copied and pasted. 

Here are my thoughts: 

1. Warranty makers (warrantors), may not void a warranty because of the mere fact that you added or subtracted something from your car. Don't let them make you feel guilty. It is your property, not theirs. 

2. You have rights and the warrantor MUST prove that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between your mod and the particular failure of your vehicle. A new exhaust is highly unlikely to cause your engine to blow. An ECU is not designed to fail after it is flashed. However, an engine might blow up if you remove a wastegate from a turbo. So it all depends on the situation. 

3. My personal experience with several dealership service departments is for them to either claim that they cannot find a problem or that they have omniscience and know that YOU caused the problem and THEY will not cover the repair. I have been told this by service techs before they even looked at my car. I walked into a BMW service department stating that I was having a problem with my turbos on a 335i and that I had a ECU flash. They said my entire warranty was void. After speaking to the service manager and discussing this law, my car was serviced. 

4. Knowledge is power. If you get a hint of attitude about a repair that you feel should be covered, ask to speak to the service manager and have a copy of this law in hand. 

US Code - Title 15, Chapter 50, Sections 2301-2312 

Section 2301. Definitions 

(1) The term "consumer product" means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). 

(2) The term "Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission. 

(3) The term "consumer" means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract). 

(4) The term "supplier" means any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers. 

(5) The term "warrantor" means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty. 

(6) The term "written warranty" means - 



(A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or 

(B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking, which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product. 

(7) The term "implied warranty" means an implied warranty arising under State law (as modified by sections 2308 and 2304(a) of this title) in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product. 

(8) The term "service contract" means a contract in writing to perform, over a fixed period of time or for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance or repair (or both) of a consumer product. 

(9) The term "reasonable and necessary maintenance" consists of those operations 

(A) which the consumer reasonably can be expected to perform or have performed and 

(B) which are necessary to keep any consumer product performing its intended function and operating at a reasonable level of performance. 

(10) The term "remedy" means whichever of the following actions the warrantor elects: 

(A) repair, 

(B) replacement, or 

(C) refund; 

except that the warrantor may not elect refund unless (i) the warrantor is unable to provide replacement and repair is not commercially practicable or cannot be timely made, or (ii) the consumer is willing to accept such refund. 

(11) The term ''replacement'' means furnishing a new consumer product which is identical or reasonably equivalent to the warranted consumer product. 

(12) The term "refund" means refunding the actual purchase price (less reasonable depreciation based on actual use where permitted by rules of the Commission). 

(13) The term "distributed in commerce" means sold in commerce, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce, or held for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce. 

(14) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation - 

(A) between a place in a State and any place outside thereof, 
or 
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described in subparagraph (A). 

(15) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Canal Zone, or American Samoa. The term "State law" includes a law of the United States applicable only to the District of Columbia or only to a territory or possession of the United States; and the term "Federal law'" excludes any State law. 

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: 

(1) The clear identification of the names and addresses of the warrantors. 

(2) The identity of the party or parties to whom the warranty is extended. 

(3) The products or parts covered. 

(4) A statement of what the warrantor will do in the event of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty - at whose expense - and for what period of time. 

(5) A statement of what the consumer must do and expenses he must bear. 

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

(7) The step-by-step procedure which the consumer should take in order to obtain performance of any obligation under the warranty, including the identification of any person or class of persons authorized to perform the obligations set forth in the warranty. 

(8) Information respecting the availability of any informal dispute settlement procedure offered by the warrantor and a recital, where the warranty so provides, that the purchaser may be required to resort to such procedure before pursuing any legal remedies in the courts. 

(9) A brief, general description of the legal remedies available to the consumer. 

(10) The time at which the warrantor will perform any obligations under the warranty. 

(11) The period of time within which, after notice of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the warranty, the warrantor will perform any obligations under the warranty. 

(12) The characteristics or properties of the products, or parts thereof, that are not covered by the warranty. 

(13) The elements of the warranty in words or phrases which would not mislead a reasonable, average consumer as to the nature or scope of the warranty. 

(b) Availability of terms to consumer; manner and form for presentation and display of information; duration; extension of period for written warranty or service contract 

(1) 

(A) The Commission shall prescribe rules requiring that the terms of any written warranty on a consumer product be made available to the consumer (or prospective consumer) prior to the sale of the product to him. 

(B) The Commission may prescribe rules for determining the manner and form in which information with respect to any written warranty of a consumer product shall be clearly and conspicuously presented or displayed so as not to mislead the reasonable, average consumer, when such information is contained in advertising, labeling, point-of-sale material, or other representations in writing. 

(2) Nothing in this chapter (other than paragraph (3) of this subsection) shall be deemed to authorize the Commission to prescribe the duration of written warranties given or to require that a consumer product or any of its components be warranted. 

(3) The Commission may prescribe rules for extending the period of time a written warranty or service contract is in effect to correspond with any period of time in excess of a reasonable period (not less than 10 days) during which the consumer is deprived of the use of such consumer product by reason of failure of the product to conform with the written warranty or by reason of the failure of the warrantor (or service contractor) to carry out such warranty (or service contract) within the period specified in the warranty (or service contract). 

(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 - 

(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. 

(d) Incorporation by reference of detailed substantive warranty provisions 
The Commission may by rule devise detailed substantive warranty provisions which warrantors may incorporate by reference in their warranties. 

(e) Applicability to consumer products costing more than $5 
The provisions of this section apply only to warranties which pertain to consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $5. 

Section 2303. Designation of written warranties 

(a) Full (statement of duration) or limited warranty 
Any warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty shall clearly and conspicuously designate such warranty in the following manner, unless exempted from doing so by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c) of this section: 

(1) If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a ''full (statement of duration) warranty''. 

(2) If the written warranty does not meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a "limited warranty". 

(b) Applicability of requirements, standards, etc., to representations or statements of customer satisfaction 
This section and sections 2302 and 2304 of this title shall not apply to statements or representations which are similar to expressions of general policy concerning customer satisfaction and which are not subject to any specific limitations. 

(c) Exemptions by Commission 
In addition to exercising the authority pertaining to disclosure granted in section 2302 of this title, the Commission may by rule determine when a written warranty does not have to be designated either ''full (statement of duration)'' or ''limited'' in accordance with this section. 

(d) Applicability to consumer products costing more than $10 and not designated as full warranties 
The provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of this section apply only to warranties which pertain to consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $10 and which are not designated "full (statement of duration) warranties". 

Section 2304. Federal minimum standards for warranties 

(a) Remedies under written warranty; duration of implied warranty; exclusion or limitation on consequential damages for breach of written or implied warranty; election of refund or replacement. In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty - 

(1) such warrantor must as a minimum remedy such consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty; 

(2) notwithstanding section 2308(b) of this title, such warrantor may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product; 

(3) such warrantor may not exclude or limit consequential damages for breach of any written or implied warranty on such product, unless such exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and 

(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include installing the part in the product without charge. 

(b) Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor 

(1) In fulfilling the duties under subsection (a) of this section respecting a written warranty, the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy of any consumer product which malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty, unless the warrantor has demonstrated in a rulemaking proceeding, or can demonstrate in an administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding (including private enforcement), or in an informal dispute settlement proceeding, that such a duty is reasonable. 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a warrantor may require, as a condition to replacement of, or refund for, any consumer product under subsection (a) of this section, that such consumer product shall be made available to the warrantor free and clear of liens and other encumbrances, except as otherwise provided by rule or order of the Commission in cases in which such a requirement would not be practicable. 

(3) The Commission may, by rule define in detail the duties set forth in subsection (a) of this section and the applicability of such duties to warrantors of different categories of consumer products with ''full (statement of duration)'' warranties. 

(4) The duties under subsection (a) of this section extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product. 

(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). 

(d) Remedy without charge 
For purposes of this section and of section 2302(c) of this title, the term ''without charge'' means that the warrantor may not assess the consumer for any costs the warrantor or his representatives incur in connection with the required remedy of a warranted consumer product. An obligation under subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section to remedy without charge does not necessarily require the warrantor to compensate the consumer for incidental expenses; however, if any incidental expenses are incurred because the remedy is not made within a reasonable time or because the warrantor imposed an unreasonable duty upon the consumer as a condition of securing remedy, then the consumer shall be entitled to recover reasonable incidental expenses which are so incurred in any action against the warrantor. 

(e) Incorporation of standards to products designated with full warranty for purposes of judicial actions 
If a supplier designates a warranty applicable to a consumer product as a ''full (statement of duration)'' warranty, then the warranty on such product shall, for purposes of any action under section 2310(d) of this title or under any State law, be deemed to incorporate at least the minimum requirements of this section and rules prescribed under this section. 

Section 2305. Full and limited warranting of a consumer product 

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the selling of a consumer product which has both full and limited warranties if such warranties are clearly and conspicuously differentiated. 

Section 2306. Service contracts; rules for full, clear and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions; addition to or in lieu of written warranty 

(a) The Commission may prescribe by rule the manner and form in which the terms and conditions of service contracts shall be fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclosed. 

(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a supplier or warrantor from entering into a service contract with the consumer in addition to or in lieu of a written warranty if such contract fully, clearly, and conspicuously discloses its terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language. 

Section 2307. Designation of representatives by warrantor to perform duties under written or implied warranty 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any warrantor from designating representatives to perform duties under the written or implied warranty: Provided, That such warrantor shall make reasonable arrangements for compensation of such designated representatives, but no such designation shall relieve the warrantor of his direct responsibilities to the consumer or make the representative a co-warrantor. 

Section 2308. Implied warranties 

(a) Restrictions on disclaimers or modifications 
No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b) of this section) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if 

(1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect to such consumer Product, or 

(2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer product. 

(b) Limitation on duration 
For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304(a)(2) of this title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently displayed on the face of the warranty. 

(c) Effectiveness of disclaimers, modifications, or limitations 
A disclaimer, modification, or limitation made in violation of this section shall be ineffective for purposes of this chapter and State law. 

Section 2309. Procedures applicable to promulgation of rules by Commission 

(a) Oral presentation 
Any rule prescribed under this chapter shall be prescribed in accordance with section 553 of title 5; except that the Commission shall give interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, and arguments, in addition to written submissions. A transcript shall be kept of any oral presentation. Any such rule shall be subject to judicial review under section 57a(e) of this title in the same manner as rules prescribed under section 57a(a)(1)(B) of this title, except that section 57a(e)(3)(B) of this title shall not apply. 

(b) Warranties and warranty practices involved in sale of used motor vehicles 
The Commission shall initiate within one year after January 4, 1975, a rulemaking proceeding dealing with warranties and warranty practices in connection with the sale of used motor vehicles; and, to the extent necessary to supplement the protections offered the consumer by this chapter, shall prescribe rules dealing with such warranties and practices. In prescribing rules under this subsection, the Commission may exercise any authority it may have under this chapter, or other law, and in addition it may require disclosure that a used motor vehicle is sold without any warranty and specify the form and content of such disclosure. 

Section 2310. Remedies in consumer disputes 

(a) Informal dispute settlement procedures; establishment; rules setting forth minimum requirements; effect of compliance by warrantor; review of informal procedures or implementation by Commission; application to existing informal procedures 

(1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. 

(2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Such rules shall provide for participation in such procedure by independent or governmental entities. 

(3) One or more warrantors may establish an informal dispute settlement procedure which meets the requirements of the Commission's rules under paragraph (2). If - 

(A) a warrantor establishes such a procedure, 

(B) such procedure, and its implementation, meets the requirements of such rules, and 

(C) he incorporates in a written warranty a requirement that the consumer resort to such procedure before pursuing any legal remedy under this section respecting such warranty, then 

(i) the consumer may not commence a civil action (other than a class action) under subsection (d) of this section unless he initially resorts to such procedure; and 

(ii) a class of consumers may not proceed in a class action under subsection (d) of this section except to the extent the court determines necessary to establish the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs, unless the named plaintiffs (upon notifying the defendant that they are named plaintiffs in a class action with respect to a warranty obligation) initially resort to such procedure. In the case of such a class action which is brought in a district court of the United States, the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs shall be established in the application of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In any civil action arising out of a warranty obligation and relating to a matter considered in such a procedure, any decision in such procedure shall be admissible in evidence. 

(4) The Commission on its own initiative may, or upon written complaint filed by any interested person shall, review the bona fide operation of any dispute settlement procedure resort to which is stated in a written warranty to be a prerequisite to pursuing a legal remedy under this section. 

If the Commission finds that such procedure or its implementation fails to comply with the requirements of the rules under paragraph (2), the Commission may take appropriate remedial action under any authority it may have under this chapter or any other provision of law. 

(5) Until rules under paragraph (2) take effect, this subsection shall not affect the validity of any informal dispute settlement procedure respecting consumer warranties, but in any action under subsection (d) of this section, the court may invalidate any such procedure if it finds that such procedure is unfair. 

(b) Prohibited acts It shall be a violation of section 45(a)(1) of this title for any person to fail to comply with any requirement imposed on such person by this chapter (or a rule thereunder) or to violate any prohibition contained in this chapter (or a rule thereunder). 

(c) Injunction proceedings by Attorney General or Commission for deceptive warranty, noncompliance with requirements, or violating prohibitions; procedures; definitions 

(1) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the Attorney General (in his capacity as such), or by the Commission by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, to restrain 

(A) any warrantor from making a deceptive warranty with respect to a consumer product, or 

(B) any person from failing to comply with any requirement imposed on such person by or pursuant to this chapter or from violating any prohibition contained in this chapter. Upon proper showing that, weighing the equities and considering the Commission's or Attorney General's likelihood of ultimate success, such action would be in the public interest and after notice to the defendant, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may be granted without bond. In the case of an action brought by the Commission, if a complaint under section 45 of this title is not filed within such period (not exceeding 10 days) as may be specified by the court after the issuance of the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the order or injunction shall be dissolved by the court and be of no further force and effect. Any suit shall be brought in the district in which such person resides or transacts business. Whenever it appears to the court that the ends of justice require that other persons should be parties in the action, the court may cause them to be summoned whether or not they reside in the district in which the court is held, and to that end process may be served in any district. 

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ''deceptive warranty'' means 

(A) a written warranty which (i) contains an affirmation, promise, description, or representation which is either false or fraudulent, or which, in light of all of the circumstances, would mislead a reasonable individual exercising due care; or (ii) fails to contain information which is necessary in light of all of the circumstances, to make the warranty not misleading to a reasonable individual exercising due care; or 

(B) a written warranty created by the use of such terms as ''guaranty'' or ''warranty'', if the terms and conditions of such warranty so limit its scope and application as to deceive a reasonable individual. 

(d) Civil action by consumer for damages, etc.; jurisdiction; recovery of costs and expenses; cognizable claims 

(1) Subject to subsections (a)(3) and (e) of this section, a consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under this chapter, or under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief - 

(A) in any court of competent jurisdiction in any State or the District of Columbia; or 

(B) in an appropriate district court of the United States, subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection. 

(2) If a consumer finally prevails in any action brought under paragraph (1) of this subsection, he may be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys' fees based on actual time expended) determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the plaintiff for or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action, unless the court in its discretion shall determine that such an award of attorneys' fees would be inappropriate. 

(3) No claim shall be cognizable in a suit brought under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection - 

(A) if the amount in controversy of any individual claim is less than the sum or value of $25; 

(B) if the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit; or 

(C) if the action is brought as a class action, and the number of named plaintiffs is less than one hundred. 

(e) Class actions; conditions; procedures applicable 
No action (other than a class action or an action respecting a warranty to which subsection (a)(3) of this section applies) may be brought under subsection (d) of this section for failure to comply with any obligation under any written or implied warranty or service contract, and a class of consumers may not proceed in a class action under such subsection with respect to such a failure except to the extent the court determines necessary to establish the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs, unless the person obligated under the warranty or service contract is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure such failure to comply. In the case of such a class action (other than a class action respecting a warranty to which subsection (a)(3) of this section applies) brought under subsection (d) of this section for breach of any written or implied warranty or service contract, such reasonable opportunity will be afforded by the named plaintiffs and they shall at that time notify the defendant that they are acting on behalf of the class. In the case of such a class action which is brought in a district court of the United States, the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs shall be established in the application of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(f) Warrantors subject to enforcement of remedies 
For purposes of this section, only the warrantor actually making a written affirmation of fact, promise, or undertaking shall be deemed to have created a written warranty, and any rights arising thereunder may be enforced under this section only against such warrantor and no other person. 

Section 2311. Applicability to other laws 

(a) Federal Trade Commission Act and Federal Seed Act 

(1) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, invalidate, or supersede the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any statute defined therein as an Antitrust Act. 

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, invalidate, or supersede the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.) and nothing in this chapter shall apply to seed for planting. 

(b) Rights, remedies, and liabilities 

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall invalidate or restrict any right or remedy of any consumer under State law or any other Federal law. 

(2) Nothing in this chapter (other than sections 2308 and 2304(a)(2) and (4) of this title) shall (A) affect the liability of, or impose liability on, any person for personal injury, or (B) supersede any provision of State law regarding consequential damages for injury to the person or other injury. 

(c) State warranty laws 

(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a State requirement - 

(A) which relates to labeling or disclosure with respect to written warranties or performance thereunder; 

(B) which is within the scope of an applicable requirement of sections 2302, 2303, and 2304 of this title (and rules implementing such sections), and 

(C) which is not identical to a requirement of section 2302, 2303, or 2304 of this title (or a rule thereunder), shall not be applicable to written warranties complying with such sections (or rules thereunder). 

(2) If, upon application of an appropriate State agency, the Commission determines (pursuant to rules issued in accordance with section 2309 of this title) that any requirement of such State covering any transaction to which this chapter applies 

(A) affords protection to consumers greater than the requirements of this chapter and 

(B) does not unduly burden interstate commerce, then such State requirement shall be applicable (notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection) to the extent specified in such determination for so long as the State administers and enforces effectively any such greater requirement. 

(d) Other Federal warranty laws This chapter (other than section 2302(c) of this title) shall be inapplicable to any written warranty the making or content of which is otherwise governed by Federal law. If only a portion of a written warranty is so governed by Federal law, the remaining portion shall be subject to this chapter. 

Section 2312. Effective dates 

(a) Effective date of chapter 
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this chapter shall take effect 6 months after January 4, 1975, but shall not apply to consumer products manufactured prior to such date. 

(b) Effective date of section 2302(a) 
Section 2302(a) of this title shall take effect 6 months after the final publication of rules respecting such section; except that the Commission, for good cause shown, may postpone the applicability of such sections until one year after such final publication in order to permit any designated classes of suppliers to bring their written warranties into compliance with rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter. 

(c) Promulgation of rules 
The Commission shall promulgate rules for initial implementation of this chapter as soon as possible after January 4, 1975, but in no event later than one year after such date.


----------



## Tucci (Feb 2, 2005)

This is pretty old and well known but good info for those that do not. :thumbup:


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Yep 1975, but still the law of the land, kind of like the constitution for enthusiasts. I posted it because of a recent thread that dealt with an ECU / Instrument Cluster failure that a member had and the dealer did not want to address the issue because of an ECU flash. 

It struck me that the OP and perhaps several other members did not know about this law or perhaps they all assumed that everyone else knew about it. When I mentioned it, the OP was unaware of it. I think he would have had a lot less grief from the dealer if he knew about this law early on.


----------



## Tucci (Feb 2, 2005)

Williamttrs said:


> Yep 1975, but still the law of the land, kind of like the constitution for enthusiasts. I posted it because of a recent thread that dealt with an ECU / Instrument Cluster failure that a member had and the dealer did not want to address the issue because of an ECU flash.
> 
> It struck me that the OP and perhaps several other members did not know about this law or perhaps they all assumed that everyone else knew about it. When I mentioned it, the OP was unaware of it. I think he would have had a lot less grief from the dealer if he knew about this law early on.


 Well in a situation like that it is a little touchy, very easy for Audi to prove the flash is the issue even if it is not. To flash the ECU software has to be run over what Audi shipped the car with. Audi did not design the cars to be flashed for more power nor do they suggest it anywhere in the owners manual. Even if Audi was to issue a Flash update for an ECU, it is Audi approved. APR, Giac, Revo ect, are not... Audi can claim the falsh loading of other software hurt the ECU in some way and that caused the failure and they have a pretty good case in that. 

I have sold these cars for a long time now and I always tell all of my clients that getting a Tune is walking a fine line as far as the warranty is concerned. Now that OEM's are really looking to save costs in a light market they are coming down hard on the tuning market. VW is tracking Tuned ECU's now and I know Audi is flat out Blacklisting (Voided Warranty) cars as well. 

This law is more geared towards the guy that does suspension and needs AC work. Audi could not deny the AC repair due to the suspension mod alone beacuse there is no way for the suspension to mess with an AC system. :thumbup: 

This is also not just an Audi problem. Every OEM is getting serious with this.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Tucci said:


> Well in a situation like that it is a little touchy, very easy for Audi to prove the flash is the issue even if it is not. To flash the ECU software has to be run over what Audi shipped the car with. Audi did not design the cars to be flashed for more power nor do they suggest it anywhere in the owners manual. Even if Audi was to issue a Flash update for an ECU, it is Audi approved. APR, Giac, Revo ect, are not... Audi can claim the falsh loading of other software hurt the ECU in some way and that caused the failure and they have a pretty good case in that.
> 
> I have sold these cars for a long time now and I always tell all of my clients that getting a Tune is walking a fine line as far as the warranty is concerned. Now that OEM's are really looking to save costs in a light market they are coming down hard on the tuning market. VW is tracking Tuned ECU's now and I know Audi is flat out Blacklisting (Voided Warranty) cars as well.
> 
> ...


 I respectfully disagree with some of your points. It is not the right or privilege of Audi or any other manufacture to void a contract, which is what a warranty is. An ECU is a piece of hardware that is designed to run on software. Software by definition is something that is added to hardware. The simple act of changing the software should not cause the hardware to have a catastrophic failure. By way of analogy, changing an operating systems on your computer from Windows to Linux will not cause a hard drive, graphics card or motherboard to fail. 

This law and others that I did not list were created to "check" the exact behavior you described above. You are right that car dealers / makers "blacklist" and void warranties, but most of this is a lot of bark and very little bite. They use the ignorance of the consumer as a weapon and attempt to make the consumer believe that warranties are somehow governed by the dealer / makers good graces. Not true! 

You are also right that the dealer / maker can claim all sorts of things. However, the burden of proof is on them and if they are wrong then there are some very serious consequences that this law spells out. 

I will also respectfully disagree that this law is focused on unrelated parts changes. In fact, it is not just for cars, it is a law that spells out general principles that govern all types of warranties. The purpose of this law is to protect the individual consumer from large corporate entities with infinite resources at their disposal. It is most relevant when dealing with the gray areas. Because the big corporate entity is in a position of superior knowledge and superior resources, its burden is higher and its penalties are greater if it abuses its position.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Williamttrs said:


> I respectfully disagree with some of your points. It is not the right or privilege of Audi or any other manufacture to void a contract, which is what a warranty is. An ECU is a piece of hardware that is designed to run on software. Software by definition is something that is added to hardware. The simple act of changing the software should not cause the hardware to have a catastrophic failure. By way of analogy, changing an operating systems on your computer from Windows to Linux will not cause a hard drive, graphics card or motherboard to fail.


 Wrong, IMO, and bad analogy. The "software" in the case of your ECU is controlling all of the low-level engine behavior, including the amount of air fed into the intake (through "boost" control), fuel injection levels, spark ignition timing, etc. You could easily toast an engine by pushing these parameters into dangerous operating zones. 

And even if you didn't cause a problem due to poor programming, you're certainly stressing many of the drivetrain components beyond their designed operating conditions when you significantly increase the car's power output. If most anything powertrain related breaks when you have a chip, would expect Audi to deny warranty coverage (and they probably should in 99% of the cases). 

And if there is an electrical problem with your ECU after reflash, it's always certainly related to the reflash. Have you seen a reflash process? They have to dremel to get the ECU out, break the environmental seal on the ECU to pry the housing from the board, and then vampire down onto the main board to force new programming into the flash. Many things can go wrong in that process if the person doing it isn't careful.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Marty said:


> Wrong, IMO, and bad analogy. The "software" in the case of your ECU is controlling all of the low-level engine behavior, including the amount of air fed into the intake (through "boost" control), fuel injection levels, spark ignition timing, etc. You could easily toast an engine by pushing these parameters into dangerous operating zones..


 Let me clarify, I did not say that an ECU flash could not result in the things you mentioned. I was making specific reference to a dealer refusing to examine a failed ECU, not fuel injectors, spark plugs or anything else that the ECU controls. When you consider the analogy in terms of ECU software causing the ECU to fail, it is accurate. Also, there is a second issue here and it is the bigger issue. That issue is that the dealer "REFUSED" to even examine the problem and immediately blamed the re-flash. This is clearly against the law. 



Marty said:


> even if you didn't cause a problem due to poor programming, you're certainly stressing many of the drivetrain components beyond their designed operating conditions when you significantly increase the car's power output. If most anything powertrain related breaks when you have a chip, would expect Audi to deny warranty coverage (and they probably should in 99% of the cases)..


 This may or may not be true. It is common for parts to be built for higher performance applications than stock. If a fuel injector is rated for enough pressure to produce 500hp, then increasing the pressure to produce 400hp, will not throw it out of spec. My expectation is for both Audi and the consumer to behave like reasonable entities. Audi is required to determine if the failure is due to something the consumer did or if it is a defect in the vehicle. I am NOT suggesting that Audi should be on the hook for something that an owner did, but in the same respect Audi cannot just throw their hands up and say "hey you changed something, therefore EVERYTHING that goes wrong MUST be because of the consumer." This is what some of dealers do and it is not right or legal. 




Marty said:


> if there is an electrical problem with your ECU after reflash, it's always certainly related to the reflash. Have you seen a reflash process? They have to dremel to get the ECU out, break the environmental seal on the ECU to pry the housing from the board, and then vampire down onto the main board to force new programming into the flash. Many things can go wrong in that process if the person doing it isn't careful.


 I watched my TTRS re-flash and I have seen it done in other car models as well. Yes, the box in the TTRS must be opened (this is not the case with all cars). No I did not think this process was intrusive or potentially dangerous, certainly no more dangerous than knocking a circuit board around while driving. Things can go wrong, but they usually do not because this problem is rare. I will ask you this question. Do you think the engine warranty should be void if someone takes off the heads and then puts them back on? I would say absolutely not, but it appears you would disagree. 

I want to reiterate that I am not part of the crowd that thinks it is okay to modify a car and then when things go wrong to just return it to stock and take it to the dealer and plead ignorance. I know a lot of people go through great lengths to try to accomplish this goal, but I believe this is highly unethical. This behavior is just as unethical as the dealer who refuses to even look at problem before passing judgment on the mod.


----------



## FastEddie7 (Aug 23, 2012)

Tucci said:


> Well in a situation like that it is a little touchy, very easy for Audi to prove the flash is the issue even if it is not. To flash the ECU software has to be run over what Audi shipped the car with. Audi did not design the cars to be flashed for more power nor do they suggest it anywhere in the owners manual. Even if Audi was to issue a Flash update for an ECU, it is Audi approved. APR, Giac, Revo ect, are not... Audi can claim the falsh loading of other software hurt the ECU in some way and that caused the failure and they have a pretty good case in that.
> 
> I have sold these cars for a long time now and I always tell all of my clients that getting a Tune is walking a fine line as far as the warranty is concerned. Now that OEM's are really looking to save costs in a light market they are coming down hard on the tuning market. VW is tracking Tuned ECU's now and I know Audi is flat out Blacklisting (Voided Warranty) cars as well.
> 
> ...


 I agree with what your saying. However, can they deny or give you problems for exhaust/headers or intake manifold? Only if it directly relates to the issue correct?


----------



## TraderGuy (Feb 3, 2013)

FastEddie7 said:


> I agree with what your saying. However, can they deny or give you problems for exhaust/headers or intake manifold? _*Only if it they feel it may relate *_to the issue correct?


 FIFY


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Williamttrs said:


> Let me clarify, I did not say that an ECU flash could not result in the things you mentioned. I was making specific reference to a dealer refusing to examine a failed ECU, not fuel injectors, spark plugs or anything else that the ECU controls. When you consider the analogy in terms of ECU software causing the ECU to fail, it is accurate. Also, there is a second issue here and it is the bigger issue. That issue is that the dealer "REFUSED" to even examine the problem and immediately blamed the re-flash. This is clearly against the law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I agree that dealerships shouldn't automatically void warranties because of modifications, but your examples are a bit extreme.... Take your comment about someone removing the heads off of an engine. If the engine was put back together with all factory parts to factory specs (ex: leaking head gasket repair), then the warranty should not be void on the engine. On the other hand, start changing cams, port/polish the head, and tune the ECU... no way should the manufacturer be on the hook. 

The ECU which has been opened up is much closer to the later. There is no factory approved procedure for unsealing the ECU case and monkeying around with the flash/tune. No way can I see the manufacturer picking up the tab for ECU issues after that. These aren't PC's and the analogy of loading a different OS is not consistent with how ECU flashes are done. On the other hand, the manufacturer should not void the warranty on the entire car or even on parts of the drivetrain not reasonably impacted by the ECU tune (ex: water pump, alternator, etc). 

I started the process of modding my 2012 TT-RS this weekend.... 034 downpipe, 2nd cat delete pipes, Borla exhaust, H&R springs, 034 RSB and end links, HPA torque arm 'insert', 42DD shifter bushings, and UM tune. As a result, I would love for Audi to not be such a PITA with warranty claims after these mods, but I am prepared to deal with it. 

Good luck with your warranty claims!


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

hightechrdn said:


> I agree that dealerships shouldn't automatically void warranties because of modifications, but your examples are a bit extreme.... Take your comment about someone removing the heads off of an engine. If the engine was put back together with all factory parts to factory specs (ex: leaking head gasket repair), then the warranty should not be void on the engine. On the other hand, start changing cams, port/polish the head, and tune the ECU... no way should the manufacturer be on the hook.
> 
> The ECU which has been opened up is much closer to the later. There is no factory approved procedure for unsealing the ECU case and monkeying around with the flash/tune. No way can I see the manufacturer picking up the tab for ECU issues after that. These aren't PC's and the analogy of loading a different OS is not consistent with how ECU flashes are done. On the other hand, the manufacturer should not void the warranty on the entire car or even on parts of the drivetrain not reasonably impacted by the ECU tune (ex: water pump, alternator, etc).
> 
> ...


 Well put.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

hightechrdn said:


> I agree that dealerships shouldn't automatically void warranties because of modifications, but your examples are a bit extreme.... Take your comment about someone removing the heads off of an engine. If the engine was put back together with all factory parts to factory specs (ex: leaking head gasket repair), then the warranty should not be void on the engine. On the other hand, start changing cams, port/polish the head, and tune the ECU... no way should the manufacturer be on the hook.
> 
> The ECU which has been opened up is much closer to the later. There is no factory approved procedure for unsealing the ECU case and monkeying around with the flash/tune. No way can I see the manufacturer picking up the tab for ECU issues after that. These aren't PC's and the analogy of loading a different OS is not consistent with how ECU flashes are done. On the other hand, the manufacturer should not void the warranty on the entire car or even on parts of the drivetrain not reasonably impacted by the ECU tune (ex: water pump, alternator, etc).
> 
> Good luck with your warranty claims!


 I see your point about there being "no factory approved procedure for unsealing the ECU." From the standpoint of removing heads vs opening the ECU box, IMO there is a greater chance of a mistake being made or a problem arising from removing the heads. Also, in a separate thread someone stated that they had their car flashed through the OBDII port. Assuming this is correct, we can take the "cracking the case" part out of the equation. Now we are just talking about software, which is what I was trying to say (obviously not very well). 

I agree that if the consumer did something to cause a failure, then it is the consumers problem and expense. If a circuit board developed a fault due to static discharge, then this would be the consumers problem, but the dealer would need to be able to prove that this kind of fault existed, not just throw there hands up and tell the consumer to spend $2500 on a new ECU. 

Okay, so installing a new OS is not a perfect analogy to flashing the ECU, at least for the "crack open the box method." Perhaps replacing a hard drive is a better analogy. A computer manufacture cannot void a Motherboard warranty or the graphics card warranty just because the hard drive was replaced. Without investigating the problem first, no one will be able to state the source of the problem. This is what I am driving at. Auto dealers seem to have a propensity to look for any reason to deny even the most basic diagnostic work when a car has been modified. This is what is unacceptable. I recognize that we agree on this issue, but I think I may have muddied the water when I intended to make things more clear.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

A couple of points regarding this matter.
The dealer cannot do a blanket void of the entire car for mods, but an ECU Flash is something that can be twisted to cover a variety of systems in the car. Since ECU flashing involves repregramming the central computer which controls almost every aspect of the car it gets very dicey when push comes to shove and the courts get involved. The flash can be blamed for almost anything and if you dont have good representation and the manufacturer brings out the big tech guns, you can lose. It is like the old song, the shin bone conntected to the leg bone, the leg bone connected to the.... They will trace a route from the malfunction back to the ecu and since they do not know who developed the programming that went in it becomes questionable and in some cases that is enough. The do not have to prove it down to the specific cause(especially if they cant figure out the cause) they only have to trace it back to the possibioity of someone elses software doing it. 
Another thing that can do it is working on the car yourself, or a non manufacturer service shop, even if you use oem parts. They can question the abilities and skills of whoever did the work and claim tht the labor was done incorrectly or not up to manufacturers standards or specs. Simply over torqueing a bolt past the specified numbers can cause damage depending what bolt it is.
Just some things to keep in mind.

Opening the ECU can be a problem as I am on my second ECU. The concerns are not only damage at the time but after the flash. The ECU must be sealed up again to prevent aything from getting into it over the life of the car and asa was already mentioned, static is a problem.
I havent heard of any tunes that caan do the initial install through the obd port but I dont know all 
of them. Most have to do the initial through the ecu woith updates through the port


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Quisp said:


> A couple of points regarding this matter.
> The dealer cannot do a blanket void of the entire car for mods, but an ECU Flash is something that can be twisted to cover a variety of systems in the car. Since ECU flashing involves repregramming the central computer which controls almost every aspect of the car it gets very dicey when push comes to shove and the courts get involved. The flash can be blamed for almost anything and if you dont have good representation and the manufacturer brings out the big tech guns, you can lose. It is like the old song, the shin bone conntected to the leg bone, the leg bone connected to the.... They will trace a route from the malfunction back to the ecu and since they do not know who developed the programming that went in it becomes questionable and in some cases that is enough. The do not have to prove it down to the specific cause(especially if they cant figure out the cause) they only have to trace it back to the possibioity of someone elses software doing it.
> Another thing that can do it is working on the car yourself, or a non manufacturer service shop, even if you use oem parts. They can question the abilities and skills of whoever did the work and claim tht the labor was done incorrectly or not up to manufacturers standards or specs. Simply over torqueing a bolt past the specified numbers can cause damage depending what bolt it is.
> Just some things to keep in mind.
> ...


 Though we may disagree on some of the specifics of what is likely to be voided and what is likely to be covered, I think we all agree on the fact that the dealer / automaker MUST put forth a reasonable effort to connect a part failure to a modification. 

I agree with everyone that if you are going to modify your vehicle, you will void some parts of your warranty. Depending on the modifications this can be black and white or a million shades of gray. In the cases that it is a million shades of gray, we must all decide how much brain damage we are willing to endure before we simply pull out the wallet and make the problem disappear. 

There are dealers who are easier to work with and dealers who are unreasonable. For those dealers that are unreasonable, they should be held to the minimum standard of performing a real diagnosis of a problem and making a legitimate case for why a mod voids a warranty. Requiring someone to purchase a new ECU PRIOR to any investigation of the ECU problem is on the far end of the reasonable / unreasonable scale.


----------



## MoreGooderTT (Aug 20, 2011)

There's anothe way to avoid this entire issue, and it's blatantly obvious: Buy a car that's powereful enough for your needs. Even if you don't have a 6 figure income, power comes cheap in the auto industry. I used to fantasize about getting my base model TT tuned, but every time I drive my car I get an unplanned sanity check. When I'm first at the traffic light, I am many car lengths ahead of the pack after the green, and that's without anything close to full throttle. Damned fine car, no matter what varient you own. Sure I'd love to experiment and tinker. I'm an engineer by profession. However, there are things to tinker with on these cars with clearly no risk of voiding a warranty. 

So what's more important? Tuning your car to the performance of the car you really wanted but failed to purchase? (Which begs the question 'when is enough enough') Or accepting the powertrain you have and enjoying the snot out of it?


----------



## RoadTTripper (Aug 12, 2012)

MoreGooderTT said:


> So what's more important? Tuning your car to the performance of the car you really wanted but failed to purchase? (Which begs the question 'when is enough enough') Or accepting the powertrain you have and enjoying the snot out of it?


 
Amen!


----------



## mtbscoTT (Jan 14, 2003)

OP, your recitation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is nothing new for car forums. 
While it may sound like it gives the consumer a free hand to do as they please with mods, in practice it just isn't so. The assumption that a car manufacturer "has to prove" that your mods caused damage doesn't really amount to much. 
So you tune your ECU and your rear brake caliper starts leaking. Almost no chance that any dealer will do anything other than fix your brakes. 
So you tune your ECU and your engine blows up. This time they simply say you have "changed the engine parameters beyond safe operating limits" and your damage will not be covered under warranty. Those same parameters also brought that car into compliance with federal (and state if any) regulations regarding noise and emissions. The ball would now be in your court. 
Let's just say you decided to lawyer up (which is ludicrous to think your pockets are bigger than the manufacturer's, and that the cost of fixing the damage will be more than the legal costs), there's no way in Hell you're going to get a jury of your peers to side with you once the company says "the owner changed the engine parameters beyond safe operating limits." 
You change your suspension, put bigger brakes/wheels/tires, etc. you will likely never have any issues. You tune your car electronically and something fails, good luck with that. The interwebz are littered with stories of people who have attempted to fight a claim like this and lost.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

mtbscoTT said:


> OP, your recitation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is nothing new for car forums.
> While it may sound like it gives the consumer a free hand to do as they please with mods, in practice it just isn't so. The assumption that a car manufacturer "has to prove" that your mods caused damage doesn't really amount to much.
> So you tune your ECU and your rear brake caliper starts leaking. Almost no chance that any dealer will do anything other than fix your brakes.
> So you tune your ECU and your engine blows up. This time they simply say you have "changed the engine parameters beyond safe operating limits" and your damage will not be covered under warranty. Those same parameters also brought that car into compliance with federal (and state if any) regulations regarding noise and emissions. The ball would now be in your court.
> ...


 I posted the law due to the fact that an earlier thread dealt with a dealer who would not diagnose a problem because of an ECU tune. As it turned out the tune had nothing to do with the problem and after a lot of trouble and work on the consumers part, Audi covered the repair. 

I think some here are trying to put me in the camp of those who want to screw over the manufacture. That is not the case. I am looking for balance.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

MoreGooderTT said:


> There's anothe way to avoid this entire issue, and it's blatantly obvious: Buy a car that's powereful enough for your needs. Even if you don't have a 6 figure income, power comes cheap in the auto industry. I used to fantasize about getting my base model TT tuned, but every time I drive my car I get an unplanned sanity check. When I'm first at the traffic light, I am many car lengths ahead of the pack after the green, and that's without anything close to full throttle. Damned fine car, no matter what varient you own. Sure I'd love to experiment and tinker. I'm an engineer by profession. However, there are things to tinker with on these cars with clearly no risk of voiding a warranty.
> 
> So what's more important? Tuning your car to the performance of the car you really wanted but failed to purchase? (Which begs the question 'when is enough enough') Or accepting the powertrain you have and enjoying the snot out of it?


 I recognize that the reasons for buying any car or doing anything to a car can vary greatly. I have no issue with my good friend who drives a 5 year old Yaris or Jay Leno who owns more cars than all of our collective bank accounts are worth. 

For me it all boils down to a hobby that gives me pleasure. Not pleasure because of some puedu-sense of superiority... just a pleasurable experience. Many of us have expensive hobbies. I have relatives that spend lots of money on hunting and fishing and golf. I don't do these things. They don't give me pleasure. Playing around with cars does give me pleasure. When I had a Camaro as a teen I played around. When I had a G35 I played around. When I had a BMW I played around. Now I am playing with my Audi. Perhaps one day I will have a more expensive toy or my life circumstances will change and I will have to downgrade. In either event, if I have the resources I will fund my hobby and play around. 

I think that your post implies that anyone who does performance mods should get their head checked. Though I would agree that there are some folks who are trying to prove something to the world, it is not fair to throw all of us in this category. 

From my perspective we can all have our various preferences and like or dislike various cars for various reasons. We should all be respectful of other people and recognize that we are all car enthusiasts who are trying to have a good time. Having a good time does often include some good spirited banter back and forth, but this is no different than cheering for your favorite sports team. eace


----------



## MoreGooderTT (Aug 20, 2011)

Williamttrs said:


> I recognize that the reasons for buying any car or doing anything to a car can vary greatly. I have no issue with my good friend who drives a 5 year old Yaris or Jay Leno who owns more cars than all of our collective bank accounts are worth.
> 
> For me it allow boils down to a hobby that gives me pleasure. Not pleasure because of some puedu-sense of superiority... just a pleasurable experience. Many of us have expensive hobbies. I have relatives that spend lots of money on hunting and fishing and golf. I don't do these things. They don't give me pleasure. Playing around with cars does give me pleasure. When I had a Camaro as a teen I played around. When I had a G35 I played around. When I had a BMW I played around. Now I am playing with my Audi. Perhaps one day I will have a more expensive toy or my life circumstances will change and I will have to downgrade. In either event, if I have the resources I will fund my hobby and play around.
> 
> ...


 Agreed. It is a fun hobby for many. But you must be willing to pay to play, which can be very expensive when/if your warranty is voided. 

I think this topic has been thoroughly discussed. Mission accomplished, really, because this thread does point out the many pros and cons that will enable an owner to make a balanced and informed decision. :thumbup:


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

MoreGooderTT said:


> Agreed. It is a fun hobby for many. But you must be willing to pay to play, which can be very expensive when/if your warranty is voided.
> 
> I think this topic has been thoroughly discussed. Mission accomplished, really, because this thread does point out the many pros and cons that will enable an owner to make a balanced and informed decision. :thumbup:


 100% Agree. Thanks for the discussion!


----------

