Voided warranty

[Bob_Vaughn]

We were looking at a new 5th wheel. It did not have disk brakes so we asked about installing disk brakes on this unit before we took delivery. The mgr. said it would VOID the warranty. How crazy is that? Why would better brakes void the factory warranty??

[fj12ryder]

I did read it and considered it more of a rhetorical question than a question that expected a factual answer. I mean, who can say except the company why they would consider it something to void the warranty over, and the statement came from the seller and not the builder anyway. So you don't really know that the company would consider it something to void the warranty, only that the seller says it would.

If it was the builder who said that, then it does become a rhetorical question whose answer would be "Because we said so". 🙂

[ford_truck_guy]

fj12ryder wrote:

Bob Vaughn wrote:
What a bucket of worms this thread has become.....

Well, the thread never really had a point after all. 🙂 You complained about what the dealer said, and everyone chimed in after that. When there's no real question asked, and no real answer to be gotten, you get a lot of speculation and silly stuff floating around.

BUT...... There was a question asked..".why would better brakes void warranty?" Re-read the original post.... I just did.

[Cummins12V98]

fj12ryder wrote:

Bob Vaughn wrote:
What a bucket of worms this thread has become.....

Well, the thread never really had a point after all. 🙂 You complained about what the dealer said, and everyone chimed in after that. When there's no real question asked, and no real answer to be gotten, you get a lot of speculation and silly stuff floating around.

ZACTLY!

[fj12ryder]

Bob Vaughn wrote:
What a bucket of worms this thread has become.....

Well, the thread never really had a point after all. 🙂 You complained about what the dealer said, and everyone chimed in after that. When there's no real question asked, and no real answer to be gotten, you get a lot of speculation and silly stuff floating around.

[Bob_Vaughn]

What a bucket of worms this thread has become.....

[goducks10]

Only issue I see is that the 1st time you hit those disk brakes hard you're going to peel off the tread on those cheap ST tires that they say you have to use. But that's probably a topic for another 10 page thread.

[ol_Bombero-JC]

way2nutz wrote:
They're feeding you a line. If you replace the brake system with an aftermarket system, they won't cover that system. Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act they can not deny warranty claims based on modifications/aftermarket parts. They must prove that your modifications lead to the failure you are claiming.

The Magnuson-Moss act also protects all of us diesel owners that may have modified our intake/exhaust/tuner. If you're ever denied a claim based on mods, mention your familiarity with the act and you'll be amazed at how quickly they'll change their tune. Unless of course your mod DID cause the failure.

Throwing out the mumbo jumbo, this is the statement within the Act that applies:

"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions......."

I sat on the Warranty Board for the US's only large passenger Aircraft mfg for many years.

Baloney! (or balogna if you prefer)

Having sat on the "Warranty Board" you should know better!..:R
(or you *do* know better)

Correct on what the MM Act is "supposed" to do........
(and that's the "line" above)

however - when your diesel vehicle dealer & mfgr (or trlr mfgr) voids your warranty, you now have an uphill battle to challenge the decision.

Your shallow pockets -vs- a mfgr that has deep-pocket unlimited resources - mfgrs that have entire floors of high-rise bldgs with attorneys on payroll - just waiting (salivating) for something to do and earn their keep.

Try to get the aftermarket mfg to step up and defend the use of their
product in court = rotsa ruck!

But *you* are right! The MM Act is on your side!
Soooo - You can go broke paying attorney's fees long before your case comes anywhere close to being heard due to (very legal) delays.

And then - in the remote possibility you actually win -
all it takes is one paragraph and about $300 for an appeal.
Back to square one - - in about 3 years.

MM Act is on a par with the Do Not Call list...:W

~

[klassic]

blofgren wrote:

Allworth wrote:
What BS!

The axles and brakes are warranted by their own manufacturer so the trailer assembly company doesn't enter the picture.

If you have an axle fail; see how quick you get turned over to Dexter or Lippert for warranty service.

Once you try disks, you will never consider drums again.

I agree entirely. I could not believe the difference in braking with discs. Our current 16k 36' fiver tops WAY better than our previous 12k 30' fiver with 12" drums. And the discs engage much faster.

And if the rest of the coach can't handle the better stopping power then move on to something else!

I don't think it's a case of whether the coach can handle it. It is a case of it wasn't ENGINEERED to be USED with it.
Then you're asking them to warranty their product with a accessory they didn't engineer for.

Here's a, poor, example.
S1 wire staples (to hold residential romex wiring) are ENGINEERED and APPROVED by the manufacturer to accept one wire...not two.
Therefore the electric code says ONE wire under a staple. When obviously you could easily and carefully put two under.
A house burned down in Ontario and the cause was determined to be electrical. They found S1 staples with two wires under and said this was the cause.
ESA (electric safety authority) had to pay for the house because they (ESA) inspected it and passed the double wire under the S1 staple which it is not engineered for.

Sure anyone can say look how easy 2 wires can go under this staple and how much neater everything is... BUT it's not engineered for it.
They can sell twice as many staples by only approving one wire per staple.

I know you nay sayers are gonna blast this to pieces but it what I was told by a electrical inspector when I tried to get him to approve some double wires. He said no chance will he approve it and this is why.

[blofgren]

Allworth wrote:
What BS!

The axles and brakes are warranted by their own manufacturer so the trailer assembly company doesn't enter the picture.

If you have an axle fail; see how quick you get turned over to Dexter or Lippert for warranty service.

Once you try disks, you will never consider drums again.

I agree entirely. I could not believe the difference in braking with discs. Our current 16k 36' fiver tops WAY better than our previous 12k 30' fiver with 12" drums. And the discs engage much faster.

And if the rest of the coach can't handle the better stopping power then move on to something else!

[tinner12002]

Just thinking to myself the diff in braking between disc and drum I can possibly understand the warranty issue.
Drums usually aren't set so tight they can lock up or your trucks controller won't put out enough current to fully apply the drums to the lock up point whereas disc brakes could possibly be able to put more braking stress on the chassis or frame/spring mounts because of being able to lock up if not set properly. After all that's why people like disc brakes because of the better stopping power. Just a thought.

[klassic]

Fulltimer50 wrote:
I am more interested in what brand of 5th wheel is being talked about.

I set off this rampage (from the hyper folk) with what I was told by Jayco's engineering department.
I wasn't specifically told what wouldn't be covered, I just generalized.
They said the unit is not engineered for use with disk brakes thus it would affect the warranty.
I'm still going to do it...because I'm a rebel

[Fulltimer50]

I am more interested in what brand of 5th wheel is being talked about.

[Dayle1]

I think the dealer is making excuses because he is afraid he might lose money doing something his team isn't familiar with. On my last fiver I did something similar when it was two months old. Called the factory and Lippert, got ok to have Mor/ryde torch the leaf spring system and install their IS suspension. But then Lippert understood the Mor/ryde knew what they were doing.

[Cdash]

way2nutz wrote:
They're feeding you a line. If you replace the brake system with an aftermarket system, they won't cover that system. Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act they can not deny warranty claims based on modifications/aftermarket parts. They must prove that your modifications lead to the failure you are claiming.

The Magnuson-Moss act also protects all of us diesel owners that may have modified our intake/exhaust/tuner. If you're ever denied a claim based on mods, mention your familiarity with the act and you'll be amazed at how quickly they'll change their tune. Unless of course your mod DID cause the failure.

Throwing out the mumbo jumbo, this is the statement within the Act that applies:

"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions......."

I sat on the Warranty Board for the US's only large passenger Aircraft mfg for many years.

Isn't that act limited to just vehicles?

I know lemon laws in some states only apply to vehicles and not rv's, hence the wonderful service we get.

My experience with mentioning that act has been much different. They don't quiver, they smirk. You might be right in the end, but it takes a long time and a lot of effort to get there, and their pockets are a lot deeper than mine. You have to be prepared for it if you are going to head down that road.