Warranty denial- HEADS UP

[87-Z28]

Unless you did a diff drop, your CVs are not what they were before your lift. There are no free lunches in this game, regardless of what a manufacturer might tell you.

Not true. There are tolerances.

What is Ford's tolerance for CV angle?

You may have a bad CV half shaft that should indeed be under warranty. But ..

A front end lift can quickly stress CV joints, tolerances are very tight. It is not sufficient to just say a couple of inches is within tolerance. Also type of lift matters. For spacers or increasing effective shock length by just 1.25” over SAS, CV binding has been observed, ie, about 2” lift at wheel. This is under full extension.

Max SAS CV angle is over 20 degrees, with binding likely to occur near 35 degrees. CV angles increase rapidly. There is definitely a design tolerance based on factor of safety for CV joint, but tolerances are tight. Also, clearly binding is bad, but high stress and damage can occur before binding. All this becomes increasingly important if you operate at or near full extension.

a shock extension lift changes suspension design geometry and can become out of “tolerance” quickly. A better way to say this is that suspension design safety factors can decrease rapidly, which puts comments long term reliability at higher risk. This can clearly affect warranty decisions.

Sponsored

 

[SuperFord]

Can you supply some literature on that? Everything I've pulled up says the contrary. The burden of proof is on the manufacture that the part caused the problem. If it is a known problem, then it looks like it should be covered. Simply having the larger tires & spacers doesn't disqualify it.
I googled "magnuson warranty act performance upgrades" & got:
https://www.autoanything.com/resources/magnuson-moss-warranty-act-explained/#:~:text=According to the Magnuson-Moss,2302 (C)).
"According to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot void the warranty of your vehicle due to an aftermarket part unless they can prove that the aftermarket part was the cause of or contributed to the failure of the vehicle (15 U.S.C. 2302 (C))"
https://injen.com/ft-2436-magnuson-moss-warranty-act.html#!year=2022||make=FORD||model=BRONCO
"a vehicle manufacturer cannot void the warranty of your vehicle due to an aftermarket part unless they can prove that the aftermarket part was the cause of or contributed to the failure of the vehicle (15 U.S.C. 2302 (C)). This means that a vehicle's warranty cannot be "voided;" the dealer can only deny a claim if the stock part failed due to damage or unreasonable use."
https://www.capitalone.com/cars/lea...s-the-magnusonmoss-warranty-act-for-cars/1578
"What a dealership and an automaker cannot do, according to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, is void a warranty simply because a modification is present."

1) I'm no attorney, but the dealer cannot "void" a warranty. period. Ford Motor Company has to do that (not the same).

2) the warranty was not voided, that one particular claim was denied. (also not the same. BTW, I did read the OP post and understand that in this case the claim wasn't even actually denied, so we are all here arguing for no reason. LoL)

2) the moss magnusson act is all well and good and always makes me shake my head when people bring it up as "protection" (BTW, I think it pertains more to using a Moog ball joint or a Fram filter than it does to actually modifying the way a vehicle was designed to work) but the reality is that the dealer is the one who decides if the claim is eligible and 99.9% of people (that is an official percentage based on lots of internet analysis ) aren't going to fight Ford or the dealer in court to test out that "protection". So in the legal world, the burden may be on the manufacturer, but back in reality the burden is on the customer.

 

[mike8675309]

while i agree and think the dealer is awful like most are they get the final say. if you want to pay a lawyer and try to get them to cover it you will likely spend more on lawyers.

If you have a dealer that isn't willing to go to bat for you with the manufacturer, then what is the point of having a dealer? If they want to give up a customer by pulling something like that, it'll end up costing them quite a bit.

If it were me and the dealer didn't cover it on warranty, I would take it to a different shop, have the angles measured, and validate they are within the operating range of the CV axels. Then I would plaster social media with the failure of the service department.

 

[mike8675309]

a shock extension lift changes suspension design geometry and can become out of “tolerance” quickly. A better way to say this is that suspension design safety factors can decrease rapidly, which puts comments long term reliability at higher risk. This can clearly affect warranty decisions.

The CV Boot was leaking grease. The dealer service team had anecdotally said they had seen a number of these due to an issue during manufacturing.

 

[87-Z28]

Completely understood. Not implying anything about OPs warranty issues or his altered suspension. He may clearly have a very valid claim.

Just an opportunity to show how quickly suspension geometry can change with aftermarket lifting and how quickly design safety factors can decrease. Hence the reason for possible reliability issues.

 

[stonerdoom]

Because I'm lazy, where is this located on the Bronco....

 

[spuddy59]

If you have a dealer that isn't willing to go to bat for you with the manufacturer, then what is the point of having a dealer? If they want to give up a customer by pulling something like that, it'll end up costing them quite a bit.

If it were me and the dealer didn't cover it on warranty, I would take it to a different shop, have the angles measured, and validate they are within the operating range of the CV axels. Then I would plaster social media with the failure of the service department.

Bingo and exactly what I do nowadays. The number of individuals here and elsewhere, knowledgeable and not, that have had issues with dealerships, warranty/TSB denials, and arguments with service managers over even stock components is wild. So I crumpled up any idea of a warranty actually doing anything, squirrel a bit of repair money, and then any issues that I have that I can't wrench on I take to a local shop who I trust with my vehicles. Hell, even using a dealership these days means leaving the vehicle there for at least three days before they manage to take a look at it, then three days to order parts, and then three days to put it back together.

 

[M Redwood]

this is why i would keep my factory tires and swap out for dealer visits..most sets are selling almost new for about 500$ except sasq sets

 

[Ducati1098]

Can you supply some literature on that? Everything I've pulled up says the contrary. The burden of proof is on the manufacture that the part caused the problem. If it is a known problem, then it looks like it should be covered. Simply having the larger tires & spacers doesn't disqualify it.

Nothing you posted disagrees with anything I said. I never once said you can’t use aftermarket parts. I said you can’t use aftermarket parts that aren’t the same specifications as factory parts.

The whole act is about warranty protection for aftermarket replacement parts. Replacement parts are designed to be the same specifications as factory parts.
For example, I break an axle and the buy one from Napa which is the exact same specifications. Ford cannot void my warranty because I purchased an aftermarket axle. This is so Ford cannot force you to only buy their parts.

If you install a part (that the vehicle was never even built with, for example a spacer lift) that very obviously changes cv angles and can potentially put more stress on the joint or boot causing damage, it would take Ford about 3 seconds in court to prove this lol so while the “burden of proof” may be on Ford, good luck.

While maybe more dramatic, this argument is basically the equivalent of me adding a 300 shot a nitrous to my ecoboost, shooting all 6 rods out of the hood and then expecting Ford to cover my new engine.

So like I said, it has no bearing on aftermarket or performance parts that change factory specifications. You can’t think it does all you want, but Ford will wipe the courtroom floor with your argument

 

[Ducati1098]

I appreciate the inquiry, but we’re not really having a relevant discussion.

You claim the angles are within spec, say there’s a tolerance, I ask said tolerance and my discussion is irrelevant….?

I was just trying to let you prove your point, but alrighty then.

 

[NJNMDoc]

You claim the angles are within spec, say there’s a tolerance, I ask said tolerance and my discussion is irrelevant….?

I was just trying to let you prove your point, but alrighty then.

I’m not a tech. I don’t have a tech manual to reference. My point was that there is a range not one exact degree of angle. Are you a tech? Perhaps you can answer.

Either way your comment had nothing to do with my point- hence it’s irrelevant.

The situation is that the CV was clearly defective from the factory which I was told, but I was then later informed (after the fact) that it would have been denied coverage but basically I got lucky. So which part of that did ya want to internet argue about?

It doesn’t actually matter much- not here to argue.

The ONLY reason I made this post was to let people know to inspect their CVS carefully if there’s a failure with no clear damage to the boot and to understand that they may get a warranty denial if they have larger wheels.

 

[BearPatrol]

1) I'm no attorney, but the dealer cannot "void" a warranty. period. Ford Motor Company has to do that (not the same).

2) the warranty was not voided, that one particular claim was denied. (also not the same. BTW, I did read the OP post and understand that in this case the claim wasn't even actually denied, so we are all here arguing for no reason. LoL)

1. True. Neither of us are lawyers.

2. Not arguing here, just need something a bit more concrete to go off of then antidotal comments.

So in the legal world, the burden may be on the manufacturer, but back in reality the burden is on the customer.

What a silly comment. Usually the laws I decide to ignore have to do with speeding, not those that protect me as a consumer.

 

[Ducati1098]

I’m not a tech. I don’t have a tech manual to reference. My point was that there is a range not one exact degree of angle. Are you a tech? Perhaps you can answer.

I am. And there isn’t one listed (at least not that I’ve found) which is why I was curious why you kept saying your angles were within factory spec when you don’t know what that spec is. That’s all.
I’m not trying to make an irrelevant argument. It seemed pretty relevant considering it was brought up by you in the original post so I was just curious if you found some actual listed spec that I haven’t seen.

 

[NJNMDoc]

I am. And there isn’t one listed (at least not that I’ve found) which is why I was curious why you kept saying your angles were within factory spec when you don’t know what that spec is. That’s all.
I’m not trying to make an irrelevant argument. It seemed pretty relevant considering it was brought up by you in the original post so I was just curious if you found some actual listed spec that I haven’t seen.

Ah- ok so that is helpful to know. I appreciate your candor and I wasn’t trying to be entirely sarcastic in asking (you seem to know your shit on this forum, so I’m not surprised).

My comment was based on my own observation pre and post lift. I saw very little deviation as a dude in my garage. In my mind there are by necessity operating tolerances associated with a complex moving joint like a CV. Hence my comment. My CVs are slammed out in some heinous 45 degree angle. They look about the same. Alignment guys said the same and I went with it. But perhaps I’m wrong. I think it’d be good for all of us to find out. So we’ll stick with it and I’ll be happy to take some measurements somehow when I get it back.

The poster above that added the chart on angles had an interesting point, but I would think that those numbers would have a fair amount to do with type of lift installed.

Perhaps there’s more impact on the half shaft than I realize even though it seems unchanged.

That of course has nothing to do with this particular CV which is a factory fail, but I do think you both present good points regarding the importance of CV geometry and I’m not debating that at all.

However, what’s more interesting to me is that YOU don’t have factory specs for the CV?

So basically the service manager gets to just assume that there’s a causal relationship? If you techs don’t have angle tolerances then they are going to what just eyeball the CVs and say ‘yep’ or ‘nope’?

That doesn’t seem like a great way to determine a warranty denial and as a customer getting denied I’d expect a bit more clarity than that.

Otherwise Ford should just have a clear statement- we don’t have specs so if something fails you’ll be denied. You lift, you lose.

But that is not the corporate position.

 

[Donkeygyrl]

Because I'm lazy, where is this located on the Bronco....

Inside front fenderwell

Sponsored