FCA Canada voids transmission warranty for using AMSOIL.

[Maximus Gladius]

I am sure their legal team has advised them to shut up making any more statements since everything is being publicized.

Hmmm, now legal gets involved

Sponsored

 

[Hootbro]

Hmmm, now legal gets involved

Let's face it, you are going to have to sue somebody to force their hand. Either FCA or AMSOIL but either one is going to point towards the other.

I still think FCA is at the top level of this and they need to show the fluid actually caused the issue and not just Carte Blanche say it was AMSOIL for not being certified.

IMHO, AMSOIL is a lesser fight for a clerical point since in all likelyhood their fluid did not cause the failure or even contributed to it.

Both FCA and AMSOIl have some culpability with FCA the primary. Not taking sides, but I can understand why they are going to shut you out until you actually bring them to court. They are counting on you to have the least means to do it.

 

[donaldus]

How did thet know it was Amsoil? I’ve looked at O’Reilly, Castrol, Valvoline and Mopar synthetic AT4…looks feels and smells the same…

 

[Mr._Bill]

How did thet know it was Amsoil? I’ve looked at O’Reilly, Castrol, Valvoline and Mopar synthetic AT4…looks feels and smells the same…

By the color. The ATF that ships in these is green. The AMSOIL is more of a red or orange. They didn't know it was Amsoil until he told them, they just knew it was the wrong fluid.

 

[Mac]

By the color. The ATF that ships in these is green. The AMSOIL is more of a red or orange. They didn't know it was Amsoil until he told them, they just knew it was the wrong fluid.

I remember reading that, wonder if it was the same color if they would have just replaced the transmission.

 

[NachoRuby]

I remember reading that, wonder if it was the same color if they would have just replaced the transmission.

Unfortunately, if it was never changed at all, and just allowed to die on its own, they would have replaced it.

Volkswagen does the same thing with colors, even on engine oil. Authorized oil is a special shade of green on the newer models.

 

[Maximus Gladius]

How did thet know it was Amsoil? I’ve looked at O’Reilly, Castrol, Valvoline and Mopar synthetic AT4…looks feels and smells the same…

Short answer, I told them. Short question that follows, why would I do that??
Long answer, They knew because Initially when I brought the first service manager the oil analysis report showing glycol and the owners manual concerning contaminated transmission oil states to ‘change oil and filter if oil becomes contaminated…’ (NOTE: you can’t know if you don’t look and check it out. UOA works well here. )

I looked to the Service manager for help and he said “break it” or pay $3400 for two pan drops. I said no and opted to do one complete flush and upgrade to full synthetic AMSOIL. ATF. My understanding of page 489 owners manual to “use only MOPAR ATF or equivalent” meant, to me, as long as another oil could produce the specification codes for the transmission and confirm that the AMSOIL ATF was equivalent, then I would use it. I trusted that protocol I always did was how it worked. I wasn’t told or cautioned that ZF didn’t approve or find AMSOIL equivalent so the reference in the owners manual that an equivalent oil was permitted meant it had to be equivalent to ZF approval, not other oil manufacturers testing and saying their oil passed.

 

[Gvsukids]

Short answer, I told them. Short question that follows, why would I do that??
Long answer, They knew because Initially when I brought the first service manager the oil analysis report showing glycol and the owners manual concerning contaminated transmission oil states to ‘change oil and filter if oil becomes contaminated…’ (NOTE: you can’t know if you don’t look and check it out. UOA works well here. )

I looked to the Service manager for help and he said “break it” or pay $3400 for two pan drops. I said no and opted to do one complete flush and upgrade to full synthetic AMSOIL. ATF. My understanding of page 489 owners manual to “use only MOPAR ATF or equivalent” meant, to me, as long as another oil could produce the specification codes for the transmission and confirm that the AMSOIL ATF was equivalent, then I would use it. I trusted that protocol I always did was how it worked. I wasn’t told or cautioned that ZF didn’t approve or find AMSOIL equivalent so the reference in the owners manual that an equivalent oil was permitted meant it had to be equivalent to ZF approval, not other oil manufacturers testing and saying their oil passed.

If you broke it, then FCA would be able to take it apart and find the fault.

 

[Hootbro]

I remember reading that, wonder if it was the same color if they would have just replaced the transmission.

More than likely they would have replaced it. I am sure District Service Manager that review and approve warranty repairs are financially incentivized to minimize warrant approvals and use anything to put the customer on their back heel.

 

[Elff]

This is one of the reasons, why I just pony up and let the dealership do all fluids.
It's not that expensive, and free for 3 years for the engine oil.
I will let shit break under warranty vs trying a work around to ensure the manufacturer fixes it

 

[Maximus Gladius]

This is one of the reasons, why I just pony up and let the dealership do all fluids.
It's not that expensive, and free for 3 years for the engine oil.
I will let shit break under warranty vs trying a work around to ensure the manufacturer fixes it

Ya, this is one of those times where “hind sight is 20/20”. I struggled with the service manager’s advice was to “break it”. I didn’t know how and it was bad advice. I’ve always taken care of my stuff and was trying to avoid replacement costs to Chrysler (in warranty) and costs to me (outside of warranty) if it failed then. Obviously I cared and intervened too much.

I also couldn’t reconcile his advice when everything I read in my manuals and contract was clear that ‘care and attention’ to the workings of the vehicle were mine and if I abuse it or intentionally break the vehicle, I would be made to fix it.

 

[Elff]

I didn't say abuse or break it on purpose.

I just won't attempt to fix something on a vehicle that is under warranty.
Once a vehicle is out of warranty, I do everything that I am capable of doing.

 

[DrPlastic]

I am an Amsoil dealer and use all of their products....... No way I'd put it in the trans at this point! MM act says the manufacturer has to supply the parts if they specify what must be used, but that doesn't help a guy in a case like this one.

Actually according to Magnusson-Moss....The service and parts must be provided for FREE for the duration of the warranty, if they say use of ANY other product or service voids the warranty. Since the book states Mopar oil or equivalent, that equivilant must meed FCA standards. If said parts and service does not meet that standad then they can deny warranty coverage. Since ZF states that they will not allow AMSOIL products to be used, it is because AMSOIL has proven to cause damage and DOES NOT MEET their standard. So legally they can and as in this case deny coverage. Since the damage was evident before the use of AMSOIL, AMSOIL was correct in denying their warranty coverage. Under Magnusson-Moss, it is up to the manufacturer to prove what caused the damage and not the vehicle owner.

 

[CrazyCooter]

Actually according to Magnusson-Moss....The service and parts must be provided for for the duration of the warranty if they say use of ANY other product or service voids the warranty. Since the book states Mopar oil or equivalent, that equivilant must meed FCA standards. If said parts and service does not meet that standad then they can deny warranty coverage. Since ZF states that they will not allow AMSOIL products to be used, it is because AMSOIL has proven to cause damage and DOES NOT MEET their standard. SSo legally they can and as in this case deny coverage. Since the damage was evident before the use of AMSOIL, AMSOIL was correct in denying their warranty coverage. Under Magnusson-Moss, it is up to the manufacturer to prove what caused the damage and not the vehicle owner.

Well said....

I also remember the OP not authorizing teardown originally because they wanted him to agree to pay for the teardown should it not be covered under warranty? I understand not wanting to pay if its not covered, but in the dealer's defense, they also can't not get paid for time to tear down?

 

[Maximus Gladius]

Well said....

I also remember the OP not authorizing teardown originally because they wanted him to agree to pay for the teardown should it not be covered under warranty? I understand not wanting to pay if its not covered, but in the dealer's defense, they also can't not get paid for time to tear down?

Between a rock and a hard place

Sponsored