GEN 2 Cobb Stage 2 Tune While Under Warranty?

[FordTechOne]

Now that’s some note worthy information regarding IC’s and catch cans. The reality is if they are installed correctly, they can be a benefit to the engine.

Now if someone had a turbo burn up and had an aftermarket IC, would a dealer or ford look to fault this modification? Or not necessarily?

Turbos don't just burn up.

There are only two possible root causes. A defect in manufacturing, or a lack of lubrication or cooling.

An aftermarket IC will not cause either failure mode.

 

[K223]

Turbos don't just burn up.

There are only two possible root causes. A defect in manufacturing, or a lack of lubrication or cooling.

An aftermarket IC will not cause either failure mode.

Exactly and very true. My burn up reference was just a generic to a particular failure as you have explained. Now if a tech approaches it this way and the dealership as a whole, then pointing to an aftermarket IC to causing this failure, holds no water. Obviously as long as the IC is installed correctly and functioning fine.

 

[Gaptor]

That is a common misconception and is simply not true. When you modify the vehicle’s calibration, you are assuming all responsibility for any and all issues or failures that may be attributed to that modification.

Manufacturers spend millions of dollars every year developing calibrations that ensure engine long term durability, performance, driveability, and emissions compliance. It is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to reverse-engineer your modified calibration to prove that your changes caused the failure.

WRONG! It’s called the Magnuson Moss act.

I was a FCA Rep on the fixed ops sides for years and a service writer prior to that.

 

[Gaptor]

Turbos don't just burn up.

There are only two possible root causes. A defect in manufacturing, or a lack of lubrication or cooling.

An aftermarket IC will not cause either failure mode.

MAGNUSON-MOSS ACT

Turbos don't just burn up.

There are only two possible root causes. A defect in manufacturing, or a lack of lubrication or cooling.

An aftermarket IC will not cause either failure mode.

Which falls under the Magnuson-moss act

 

[FordTechOne]

WRONG! It’s called the Magnuson Moss act.

I was a FCA Rep on the fixed ops sides for years and a service writer prior to that.

You don’t think you understand Magnuson Moss.

Magnuson Moss relates to 2 things - It ensures manufacturers comply with their warranty terms (implied and stated) and it prevents manufacturers from voiding a warranty due solely to the use of non-OEM parts.

That means the manufacturer cannot void your warranty simply because you used a Purolator oil filter instead of an OEM. However, if that Purolator filter collapsed and caused engine damage, that would not be warrantable.

Magnuson Moss has nothing to do with aftermarket modifications. No manufacturer warranties failures that can be attributed to aftermarket parts or calibrations.

 

[Gaptor]

You don’t think you understand Magnuson Moss.

Magnuson Moss relates to 2 things - It ensures manufacturers comply with their warranty terms (implied and stated) and it prevents manufacturers from voiding a warranty due solely to the use of non-OEM parts.

That means the manufacturer cannot void your warranty simply because you used a Purolator oil filter instead of an OEM. However, if that Purolator filter collapsed and caused engine damage, that would not be warrantable.

Magnuson Moss has nothing to do with aftermarket modifications. No manufacturer warranties failures that can be attributed to aftermarket parts or calibrations.

I don’t think YOU understand it. In the event that a claim is denied, you must be willing and able
To prove as the manufacturer/provider of the warranty that the cause of failure was directly caused by a non OEM part. Exhaust, intercooler etc could fall into that. That statute of the law is actually quite broad on what it does and doesn’t do. It’s simply there to protect the owner. Where are you getting your information from? If you haven’t had to deal with any of this first hand as a OE rep, writer, fixed ops manager or director, or are a lawyer that specializes in such cases I’ll just stop the argument with you now.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You don’t think you understand Magnuson Moss.

Magnuson Moss relates to 2 things - It ensures manufacturers comply with their warranty terms (implied and stated) and it prevents manufacturers from voiding a warranty due solely to the use of non-OEM parts.

That means the manufacturer cannot void your warranty simply because you used a Purolator oil filter instead of an OEM. However, if that Purolator filter collapsed and caused engine damage, that would not be warrantable.

Magnuson Moss has nothing to do with aftermarket modifications. No manufacturer warranties failures that can be attributed to aftermarket parts or calibrations.

Well said.

No company will warranty something that has failed due to aftermarket parts causing the failure. Now if the part has failed and its failure is not attributed to the aftermarket part, then yes, Ford will warranty it. That's why Raptor owners have been able to get cam phasers replaced—even with a tune on their truck—because Ford knows aftermarket tunes haven't caused the cam phaser issue. But if you have your transmission, rear differential, or some other powertrain related component fail, you won't get it warrantied with a COBB Stage 2 kit unless Ford is culpable: like in the cam phaser situation.

And in reference to those that try to scheme their way into not getting their warranty denied for aftermarket stuff by removing the tune prior to taking it into the dealer and so on, why don't you be an adult and accept the consequences of your action. It is highly unethical to try and erase your electronic footprint and insinuate that Ford is somehow liable for the failure of the part when you changed the OEM specs of the vehicle. People will forgo their integrity and character just to save a few dollars—how vain.

 

[FordTechOne]

I don’t think YOU understand it. In the event that a claim is denied, you must be willing and able
To prove as the manufacturer/provider of the warranty that the cause of failure was directly caused by a non OEM part. Exhaust, intercooler etc could fall into that. That statute of the law is actually quite broad on what it does and doesn’t do. It’s simply there to protect the owner. Where are you getting your information from? If you haven’t had to deal with any of this first hand as a OE rep, writer, fixed ops manager or director, or are a lawyer that specializes in such cases I’ll just stop the argument with you now.

I have extensive field experience as both a technical expert and PMK. I’ve been deposed and I’ve been to court, including small claims. I’m very familiar with MM.

I don’t think we’re that far apart on this issue. What you’re stating is that in order for a manufacturer to void the warranty on a specific system or component due to a modification, there needs to be evidence that the modification contributed to the failure. That is true. Nobody is saying that an engine warranty should be cancelled because of a catback exhaust.

However, powertrain calibration changes are a different story. You are effectively replacing all of the safeguards, FMEM, fuel/air maps, boost limits, and spark knock strategies with an aftermarket calibration that has never been tested by the manufacturer.

Once you overwrite the factory calibration, any failures that can be attributed to the aftermarket tune are non-warrantable. This is true for all manufacturers. That includes things like cracked ring lands, broken connecting rods or crankshaft, blown head gaskets, turbocharger failure (overspeed), catalyst failure (cracked or efficiency DTCs), etc. It also includes damage to the transmission, transfer case, driveshaft, or axles that can be attributed to the increase in engine power/torque output.

None of this means you’re going to experience a failure due to an reputable aftermarket tune. We are not seeing a lot of tune induced failures on these engines; they are pretty stout. But it is something that everyone who is considering getting a tune should keep in mind. If a tune related failure does occur, regardless of how rare, it is important to understand the potential consequences.

 

[COBB Tuning]

On a side note, Ford updated the PCM calibration for 2017-2018 vehicles that experienced the cam phaser noise issue. If you install an aftermarket tune, ensure that the tuner has implemented those same calibration updates into their file.

good info, I would assume Cobb would be on this. Anyone know?

We recently had a customer who had their cam phasers replaced with the new design at a dealership, and afterwards the Accessport detected a new and unsupported ROM on the ECU which prevented it from installing. Ford regularly releases updates even when no part changes occur, so adding support is a very common process for us. We were able to gather the resources to do a complete comparison between the new and old ROMs. Of 4194604 bytes, 4194036 were the same and only 268 were changed. We examined each of these 268 byte changes and found nothing related to cam phaser operation - most of the changes were very small modifications to decel. fuel shut off.

Keep in mind that this analysis was done only on the parts of the vehicle's control systems that we modify when you install an Accessport, so in theory it is possible that there were updates to additional modules. But any changes made externally would persist even with the install of an Accessport.

We will continue to use an extremely granular approach when supporting new ROMs on vehicles with the new cam phaser design. But at this moment, it appears that there are no calibration changes on the ECU specific to the new design. The factory recommended update is likely just a piggy-back change made while the vehicle is at the dealership.

 

[Dustan]

Th

We recently had a customer who had their cam phasers replaced with the new design at a dealership, and afterwards the Accessport detected a new and unsupported ROM on the ECU which prevented it from installing. Ford regularly releases updates even when no part changes occur, so adding support is a very common process for us. We were able to gather the resources to do a complete comparison between the new and old ROMs. Of 4194604 bytes, 4194036 were the same and only 268 were changed. We examined each of these 268 byte changes and found nothing related to cam phaser operation - most of the changes were very small modifications to decel. fuel shut off.

Keep in mind that this analysis was done only on the parts of the vehicle's control systems that we modify when you install an Accessport, so in theory it is possible that there were updates to additional modules. But any changes made externally would persist even with the install of an Accessport.

We will continue to use an extremely granular approach when supporting new ROMs on vehicles with the new cam phaser design. But at this moment, it appears that there are no calibration changes on the ECU specific to the new design. The factory recommended update is likely just a piggy-back change made while the vehicle is at the dealership.

Thanks for the response