Think I blew up my front diff

[Turbogoat324]

So because of Magnuson-Moss they have to prove that an aftermarket part caused the damage. Just because my aftermarket shocks lifted the truck (also these shocks come stock at this height on Shelby and Roush f-150’s) how can they prove that that caused this? Also how can they prove it was outside influence? I’m just curious as I’m sure my lawyer will be handling all that but I’m curious how they prove that?

 

[smurfslayer]

there’s what the law says and means to anyone who understands plain english, and there’s how lawyers and the courts read and apply that language. The two are not the same. if you were ever in the Army, you’re familiar withe adage:

There’s the right way to do it, the wrong way to do it, and the Army way.

It’s kind of like that.

You can claim all you want that the law requires proof, but, to enforce the law, you have to be denied and go to court, so essentially, you have to prove to the court that the modification is incidental or not related, rather than what the law actually says.

As @FordTechOne opined, a lot of this equation is done at the dealer service advisor level, sometimes without the input of the mechanics, sometimes with. He’s right above though - and I agreed above if you altered the ride height, I think Ford wins that case. They’ll certainly claim added stress on the diff, put up 1 or 2 expert witnesses they keep available for their staff lawyers and it will be difficult for you to disprove. Not impossible for sure, but if you lose, you lose lawyer fees, expert witness fees and you still need to repair the truck.

whomever “hears” the presentation of the facts, typically a jury, will not be experts in all likelihood, and the topic matter will be well over their heads which puts this into the realm of who is more likable, popular and believable, in that order.

I don’t personally believe what you’ve described caused the failure but I’m also not a powertrain engineer tasked with evaluating drive train issues.

 

[Turbogoat324]

there’s what the law says and means to anyone who understands plain english, and there’s how lawyers and the courts read and apply that language. The two are not the same. if you were ever in the Army, you’re familiar withe adage:

There’s the right way to do it, the wrong way to do it, and the Army way.

It’s kind of like that.

You can claim all you want that the law requires proof, but, to enforce the law, you have to be denied and go to court, so essentially, you have to prove to the court that the modification is incidental or not related, rather than what the law actually says.

As @FordTechOne opined, a lot of this equation is done at the dealer service advisor level, sometimes without the input of the mechanics, sometimes with. He’s right above though - and I agreed above if you altered the ride height, I think Ford wins that case. They’ll certainly claim added stress on the diff, put up 1 or 2 expert witnesses they keep available for their staff lawyers and it will be difficult for you to disprove. Not impossible for sure, but if you lose, you lose lawyer fees, expert witness fees and you still need to repair the truck.

whomever “hears” the presentation of the facts, typically a jury, will not be experts in all likelihood, and the topic matter will be well over their heads which puts this into the realm of who is more likable, popular and believable, in that order.

I don’t personally believe what you’ve described caused the failure but I’m also not a powertrain engineer tasked with evaluating drive train issues.

SO it may just be worth it to pay and have it repaired and part ways with Ford. Pretty sad that it took them over 5 weeks to come to that conclusion. They wasted my time and I haven't driven my truck for over a month. Well like I said if I'm paying for it the dealership sure as hell isn't getting my money. I'll take it to a SVC if they are willing to perform that kind of work.

 

[nikhsub1]

Or take it to another dealer - I hear Ken Grody is very good and mod friendly.

 

[Turbogoat324]

Or take it to another dealer - I hear Ken Grody is very good and mod friendly.

Only problem is now that Ford has looked into it doesn't that kind of limit my chances?

 

[nikhsub1]

Only problem is now that Ford has looked into it doesn't that kind of limit my chances?

Maybe, maybe not? If the truck is driveable I think it is worth a shot.

 

[Turbogoat324]

Maybe, maybe not? If the truck is driveable I think it is worth a shot.

Maybe, maybe not? If the truck is driveable I think it is worth a shot.

Yeah I suppose I could give that a shot. I have nothing to loose.

 

[GCATX]

I would probably call some other dealers and plead your case before driving all over creation and having to wait around, or drop the truck off for days.

And/or, put a C note in the service guys hand when he introduces him/herself and let them know they will get a 5 star review, along with a nice framed letter to hang in their cubicle, preferably on a business letterhead (you could make one up), along with another C note, if they can handle it.

 

[FordTechOne]

That’s one. out of the statistical sample of how many?
are you trying to say that the quality of 70’s American vehicles is anywhere near what it is now? They weren’t all pieces of trash, but their quality was not close to today.

I’ll stick with my ’theory’.

Yes, my "statistical sample" is simply one example, although I have many more in my years as a technician. Regardless, you said the following, in which you implied that ALL American vehicles built in the 70's "needed a rebuild". My response may have been an example, but your theory was simply false:

"We -were- producing cars that wouldn’t do 36,000 miles without a rebuild at one point in the 70’s"

see, that’s just it. Manufacturers sometimes don’t behave like good citizens. Sometimes, even when they know they’re beat, they’ll continue to drag out cases beyond the norm. Why? to outlast the plaintiff, particularly if the plaintiff is poor and can’t afford rescheduled expert witnesses, etc. Lemon law suits don’t get resolved in 2 weeks, they take from 3-18 months, with most taking the better part of a year.
To even get a lawyer to take a lemon case, you have to satisfy the statute, which is pretty favorable to the manufacturers. 30 days downtime in the warranty period is not what most people consider acceptable. You see, the lawyers representing the manufacturers are similar scum of the earth.

What "most people consider acceptable" doesn't matter in court. The law does. Lemon law lawyers are experts as manipulating the "interpretation" of the law to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, including the vehicle owner. Manufacturers have no interest in "dragging out" cases; their goal is to close or settle the case as quickly as possible to minimize the expense of internal/outside counsel. You don't seem to have any real data in this field, simply speculation.

in context, you said: "There is no "insuffieicnt QA", you are making assertions that aren't backed up with any empirical evidence, only your own opinion.”

which really is ... well, I think there’s plenty of users here who believe otherwise. It’s obviously not rampant, but Ford can and has done better in at least some ways. While still only a relative few, there are some pretty spectacular fails detailed here on FRF.

I stand by my statement. You said "insufficient QA". You can believe anything you'd like, but that doesn't substantiate your claim nor provide empirical evidence. There have clearly been supplier quality issues as we've seen on this forum, but drawing conclusions without data only leads to further speculation without resolution.

Untrue. I’ve discouraged suing for exactly the reasons above, and on multiple occasions advised users to work with their stealership. Sometimes though, service departments just push the customer to no other choice. It’s pretty rare that some corporate or c/s rep undoes a service department warranty denial out of the kindness of their hearts or ‘customer good will’. Remember when they used to claim abuse for mud on the under carriage? I do, and it hasn’t been that long.

I don't, but I am not here to continue an argument for differences in experience. As I mentioned, dealers are hit and miss; they are obligated to abide by the franchise agreement but all too often it seems that they make their own rules. Which, in the long term, only harms the customer and the manufacturer's reputation.

anyway, it seems ‘goat has his final answer, disappointing though it may be. Nevertheless, it’s fixable, just pricey.

Agreed.

 

[FordTechOne]

So because of Magnuson-Moss they have to prove that an aftermarket part caused the damage. Just because my aftermarket shocks lifted the truck (also these shocks come stock at this height on Shelby and Roush f-150’s) how can they prove that that caused this? Also how can they prove it was outside influence? I’m just curious as I’m sure my lawyer will be handling all that but I’m curious how they prove that?

Magnuson-Moss exists to prevent warranty cancellation when a customer uses an "equal" but not OEM supplied part. As with my previous examples, this can include oil filters, air filters, fuel filters, cabin air filters, even shocks if they meet the same OEM specifications. If you use an OEM "equivalent" part, the manufacturer must provide evidence that the OEM "equivalent" part caused the failure. Case in point would be FRAM filter media disintegrating and resulting in engine damage due to the paper filter media flowing through the oil galleries and ending up in the cam journals. The inferior construction of aftermarket filters is very apparent on the 5.4 3V engine as any scoring of the cam journals results in a lack of oil pressure to the cam phasers, causing noise and DTCs. In that scenario, it's case closed. Another example would be a manufacturer voiding your warranty on your climate control system because you installed a Purolator cabin air filter instead of an OEM cabin filter. That is what Magnuson-Moss protects consumers from.

When you replace an OEM part or calibration with a non-equivalent aftermarket modification, no study is required. This is because the aftermarket modification does not follow the OEM standards or design principles. At that point it would be up to the aftermarket company or owner to prove to the court that the changes they made did not affect the OEM design. That is damn near impossible considering that every component in a modern vehicle is proprietary. In other words, it's the consumer and aftermarket company against the the OEM engineers. If the engineers provide data that they only tested the suspension travel within the range of the factory ride height, the responsibility of the repair lies on the owner and/or company that provided the modification.