Would not fancy taking a manufacturer to court where you have replaced a component with a component of a differing specification (eg lower springs).The J said:Whenever I've heard the issue of aftermarket parts affecting warranties come up, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is always referenced to state that the law requires your warranty to be upheld unless it can be proven that your aftermarket part was at fault.
Here's the relevant point in the Wikipedia article linked above:
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, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.
Actually, I never knew about your last sentence; that the Act would apply if the aftermarket part were of the same specs (but couldn't the manufacturer simply claim that it was a shoddy part that didn't meet their testing standards?). I meant that I've always read that the manufacturers couldn't, say, refuse to fix your stereo under warranty because you bought new springs. I'm no law expert, of course, but this is only what I've read when similar questions have come up in other message boards I visit.latan said:Would not fancy taking a manufacturer to court where you have replaced a component with a component of a differing specification (eg lower springs).
The manufacturer would bring in the high charging lawyers and their engineering experts who designed the vehicle claiming the the difference in component sprecification contributed to the failure.
The Act would apply where you use an aftermarket componet of the same specification of the OEM component.