Frozen motor
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,439
Likes: 884
From: 'Noke, VA
Wrong!
They are required , by law to prove that the extra HP caused the problem. They cannot just say that it was the problem. The law requires them to prove that the part would not have failed without the extra HP. Unless they can do that the warranty remains intact.
Of course it is it up to us to hold them to the law...
The MoCo knows most of the sheep will just walk away and pay it out of their pocket when the MoCo says "you added an aftermarket part, no soup for you!"
They are required , by law to prove that the extra HP caused the problem. They cannot just say that it was the problem. The law requires them to prove that the part would not have failed without the extra HP. Unless they can do that the warranty remains intact.
Of course it is it up to us to hold them to the law...
The MoCo knows most of the sheep will just walk away and pay it out of their pocket when the MoCo says "you added an aftermarket part, no soup for you!"
Their proof is in the fact that they've engineered the part to certain specs and tolerances. You don't get to play amateur backyard engineer with their product, then have them fix it when you screw it up. That's not at all what Magnuson-Moss says (though it's an incredibly common misconception). Here's the text of the Magnuson-Moss Act in the US Code. You'll find nothing in there about a manufacturer having to prove your aftermarket parts caused something to fail.
Last edited by '05Train; Apr 19, 2011 at 01:17 PM.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30,881
Likes: 32,991
From: King George, VA
If that were the case against non-stock items on the bike, I would think he could go back to the vendor or manufacturer of the cam with a claim that they didn't tell him the cam could or would cause problems with the bike.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,475
Likes: 3,001
From: Charleston, SC
Not to be argumentative but it has nothing really to do about horsepower. First the engine is designed to take much more horsepower than stock which is why there is an whole SE catalog. Second they would have to prove that the cams locked up the compensator or pistons or what have you since those are really unrelated.
A physical issue can lock up an engine such as a comp, chain, gear box. This would be covered. Anything having to do with the valve train and you're hosed. Like a dropped valve.
An engine that is starving from oil can do the same and could be the case if the oil pump was not installed correctly when the cams were installed. Could be a sticky point...
Either way, you're probably hosed. If it's in the primary you should be good though and I would fight that.
lp
A physical issue can lock up an engine such as a comp, chain, gear box. This would be covered. Anything having to do with the valve train and you're hosed. Like a dropped valve.
An engine that is starving from oil can do the same and could be the case if the oil pump was not installed correctly when the cams were installed. Could be a sticky point...
Either way, you're probably hosed. If it's in the primary you should be good though and I would fight that.
lp
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 421
From: Northern, Ohio (Yuck!)
Ok, after rereading the act I only disagree somewhat with you or maybe I partially agree... (kinda like being a little bit preggy)
Here is the actual section in question...
"(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."
Now let me say up front I am not a Lawyer (any lawyers out there should feel free to chime in...), but if there is a part with a history of failing regularly on non-modified bikes (like the compensator) then the MoCo cannot just say the extra HP caused the failure. They do however have the right to prove it if they so wish.
I will agree that if the issue is close the average guy will find it an up hill battle against the manufacturer...
This case may / does appear to have some gray areas. I am just tired of people saying "You didn't put HD air in your tires, the MoCo will void your entire warranty!"
Here is the actual section in question...
"(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."
Now let me say up front I am not a Lawyer (any lawyers out there should feel free to chime in...), but if there is a part with a history of failing regularly on non-modified bikes (like the compensator) then the MoCo cannot just say the extra HP caused the failure. They do however have the right to prove it if they so wish.
I will agree that if the issue is close the average guy will find it an up hill battle against the manufacturer...
This case may / does appear to have some gray areas. I am just tired of people saying "You didn't put HD air in your tires, the MoCo will void your entire warranty!"
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,439
Likes: 884
From: 'Noke, VA
Not to be argumentative but it has nothing really to do about horsepower. First the engine is designed to take much more horsepower than stock which is why there is an whole SE catalog. Second they would have to prove that the cams locked up the compensator or pistons or what have you since those are really unrelated.
A physical issue can lock up an engine such as a comp, chain, gear box. This would be covered. Anything having to do with the valve train and you're hosed. Like a dropped valve.
An engine that is starving from oil can do the same and could be the case if the oil pump was not installed correctly when the cams were installed. Could be a sticky point...
Either way, you're probably hosed. If it's in the primary you should be good though and I would fight that.
lp
A physical issue can lock up an engine such as a comp, chain, gear box. This would be covered. Anything having to do with the valve train and you're hosed. Like a dropped valve.
An engine that is starving from oil can do the same and could be the case if the oil pump was not installed correctly when the cams were installed. Could be a sticky point...
Either way, you're probably hosed. If it's in the primary you should be good though and I would fight that.
lp
The point being is that the dealer can tell you that the reason your compensator failed is due to the additional power with the cams you're running. Is it thin? Absolutely, but you'd then have to prove that wasn't the case. All they've got to do is point to the SE catalog at a cam with a similar profile and the disclaimer they have and say, "see, we warned you not to do that". You're screwed.
And truthfully I have no problem with that. It's not Harley's job to warranty aftermarket parts. The warranty the bikes carry is for manufacturer's defects only. If you add a cam or a big-bore kit, you've tampered with the product and they're not under any sort of legal obligation to fix it if it's damaged due to what you've done.
M-M was enacted to prevent manufacturers from requiring that owners use "genuine" parts or maintenance items like oil and filters. Likewise, it prevents them from voiding an entire warranty over a single aftermarket part. But the "proof" that PFWiz is talking about is as simple as, "the vehicle was not designed with that part in mind."
In the O.P.'s case, the timeframe doesn't matter. The problem was presented to a dealer before the warranty expired. But with aftermarket cams, he's going to have issues with the increased power, and (if it's something like oil starvation) competency of the install.
Could he fight it? Sure, but the fact remains that he's asking Harley to warranty the engine (if, in fact, that's what it is) after he's tampered with it, and taken it beyond what it was engineered to do.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,475
Likes: 3,001
From: Charleston, SC
No he can't unless the cam manufacturer warrantees the cam and guarantees that it won't harm your engine.
There's an SE catalog with some incredibly lawyerly language about what can and can't be installed on street vehicles.
The point being is that the dealer can tell you that the reason your compensator failed is due to the additional power with the cams you're running. Is it thin? Absolutely, but you'd then have to prove that wasn't the case. All they've got to do is point to the SE catalog at a cam with a similar profile and the disclaimer they have and say, "see, we warned you not to do that". You're screwed.
And truthfully I have no problem with that. It's not Harley's job to warranty aftermarket parts. The warranty the bikes carry is for manufacturer's defects only. If you add a cam or a big-bore kit, you've tampered with the product and they're not under any sort of legal obligation to fix it if it's damaged due to what you've done.
M-M was enacted to prevent manufacturers from requiring that owners use "genuine" parts or maintenance items like oil and filters. Likewise, it prevents them from voiding an entire warranty over a single aftermarket part. But the "proof" that PFWiz is talking about is as simple as, "the vehicle was not designed with that part in mind."
In the O.P.'s case, the timeframe doesn't matter. The problem was presented to a dealer before the warranty expired. But with aftermarket cams, he's going to have issues with the increased power, and (if it's something like oil starvation) competency of the install.
Could he fight it? Sure, but the fact remains that he's asking Harley to warranty the engine (if, in fact, that's what it is) after he's tampered with it, and taken it beyond what it was engineered to do.
There's an SE catalog with some incredibly lawyerly language about what can and can't be installed on street vehicles.
The point being is that the dealer can tell you that the reason your compensator failed is due to the additional power with the cams you're running. Is it thin? Absolutely, but you'd then have to prove that wasn't the case. All they've got to do is point to the SE catalog at a cam with a similar profile and the disclaimer they have and say, "see, we warned you not to do that". You're screwed.
And truthfully I have no problem with that. It's not Harley's job to warranty aftermarket parts. The warranty the bikes carry is for manufacturer's defects only. If you add a cam or a big-bore kit, you've tampered with the product and they're not under any sort of legal obligation to fix it if it's damaged due to what you've done.
M-M was enacted to prevent manufacturers from requiring that owners use "genuine" parts or maintenance items like oil and filters. Likewise, it prevents them from voiding an entire warranty over a single aftermarket part. But the "proof" that PFWiz is talking about is as simple as, "the vehicle was not designed with that part in mind."
In the O.P.'s case, the timeframe doesn't matter. The problem was presented to a dealer before the warranty expired. But with aftermarket cams, he's going to have issues with the increased power, and (if it's something like oil starvation) competency of the install.
Could he fight it? Sure, but the fact remains that he's asking Harley to warranty the engine (if, in fact, that's what it is) after he's tampered with it, and taken it beyond what it was engineered to do.
It would be hard to prove that horsepower is to blame. Oil starvation or dropped valve Yes. 10 extra horses No. Sounds like you should be in the Warranty department.
lp
Last edited by lp; Apr 19, 2011 at 03:43 PM.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,439
Likes: 884
From: 'Noke, VA
I understand your point but remember there is a 103 and 110 engine with much more horsepower that use the same driveline as the 96. That was my point.
It would be hard to prove that horsepower is to blame. Oil starvation or dropped valve Yes. 10 extra horses No. Sounds like you should be in the Warranty department.
lp
It would be hard to prove that horsepower is to blame. Oil starvation or dropped valve Yes. 10 extra horses No. Sounds like you should be in the Warranty department.
lp
I get your point LP, and I agree with you for the most part. But all they've gotta do is produce a piece of paper on an official letterhead stating that your 96" bike was designed to make "X" horsepower and "Y" torque, and that anything more is a liability. That's the out for the manufacturers in M-M.
I've been very lucky that the vast majority of the service departments I've dealt with have been eager to help with warranty issues. I sweat bullets before I took my bike in for the flaking chrome on the wheels. I was expecting to get all sorts of hassle over that. Instead I got, "well that's f*cked up, of course it's covered". Same thing when my compensator went. They covered the cost of the S/E unit.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,475
Likes: 3,001
From: Charleston, SC
Well, if they're hiring......
I get your point LP, and I agree with you for the most part. But all they've gotta do is produce a piece of paper on an official letterhead stating that your 96" bike was designed to make "X" horsepower and "Y" torque, and that anything more is a liability. That's the out for the manufacturers in M-M.
I've been very lucky that the vast majority of the service departments I've dealt with have been eager to help with warranty issues. I sweat bullets before I took my bike in for the flaking chrome on the wheels. I was expecting to get all sorts of hassle over that. Instead I got, "well that's f*cked up, of course it's covered". Same thing when my compensator went. They covered the cost of the S/E unit.
I get your point LP, and I agree with you for the most part. But all they've gotta do is produce a piece of paper on an official letterhead stating that your 96" bike was designed to make "X" horsepower and "Y" torque, and that anything more is a liability. That's the out for the manufacturers in M-M.
I've been very lucky that the vast majority of the service departments I've dealt with have been eager to help with warranty issues. I sweat bullets before I took my bike in for the flaking chrome on the wheels. I was expecting to get all sorts of hassle over that. Instead I got, "well that's f*cked up, of course it's covered". Same thing when my compensator went. They covered the cost of the S/E unit.
lp