Why isn t anyone suing FCA

[ACR]

If they are great I'd like to know, the community would as well. Why should they get away with this blown motor nonsense.

[ACRucrazy]

Why another thread?

[Bruce H.]

Not getting away with anything and there's no basis for a law suit. They've been replacing every stock blown motor under warranty and extended warranty on many more. Time to move on.

[Lemur]

Not getting away with anything and there's no basis for a law suit. They've been replacing every stock blown motor under warranty and extended warranty on many more. Time to move on.

No it's not time to move on. This is a serious issue and it should be at the top of the forum until it's resolved. Additionally, there is a substantial basis for lawsuit if you read the law.

[Bruce H.]

No it's not time to move on. This is a serious issue and it should be at the top of the forum until it's resolved. Additionally, there is a substantial basis for lawsuit if you read the law.

Could you briefly explain what that basis is so that forum members can understand what their position should be and what FCA should do?

I know there have been many stock engine failures, mostly among 2013 and early 2014 cars they issued the R28 recall on and that they have extended warranty on for an additional 5 years, with very few outside of that identified group. Failures almost always occur at low mileage. So every US stock Gen V engine made is warranted for 5 years, and the higher risk group is warranted for 10 years.

It seems to me that those warranties are long enough to reasonably satisfy current owners for at least 5 and 10 years. By then most will have put on enough miles where the engine will have proven itself to be safe. Those who don't plan to drive their cars enough over the next 5-10 years to satisfy themselves that their engine is among the unaffected have various choices and a long time to make them.

So I can see that FCA had a engine issue, with the vast majority in 2013 and early 2014, they've made significant improvements as failure rates since have been very low, and they've extended the warranty on the at-risk group.

The possibility of an engine failure over the long term is not unique to Vipers, and manufacturers warranties only provide coverage for a short term. FCA has done that, and beyond for many now. We'd all like to be covered for a lot longer, and in Canada we only get a 3 year warranty instead of the 5 year US one.

I think it would be impossible to build a legal case that FCA had not responded to the engine issue fairly. They are honoring warranty and have even extended it, fully protecting their owners for that period. Will every owner be satisfied with that...absolutely not, and anything short of a lifetime warranty won't satisfy some. But we need to get real, and each of us make and take responsibility for our own choices. In my case I know I bought an expensive car with expensive to repair parts and a warranty many years shorter than I typically keep a car. I took that risk with the Viper, but wouldn't take that risk when considering some other brands that would have been even more expensive. And like every car I've ever owned, I will decide when to sell it based on a variety of factors, projected costs and risks being among them.

This will never be "resolved" to the satisfaction of some, and I just can't see a compelling legal arguement. So please explain what you or anyone else feels is a winnable arguement.

[swexlin]

I am happy that FCA extended my warranty. Very cool of them. However, now, if your engine goes, they just don't replace it. Look at Reshetov's thread - now, the whole damn thing has to sit at the dealer, and everything torn down, before they will approve. It makes an already PITA process worse.

[Policy Limits]

And then even if given the green light on a new motor, the crappy part is replaced with the same part from same supplier. Haha. They say 90% of the things we worry about in life never even come to fruition. So chill. And unless your engine fails you don't have standing to sue anyway as you have no damages. As viperjon and others would say, you bought a "dodge"

[ViperPete]

Dear God let it go.

Don't modify your car if you don't want warranty issues.

Don't run Arrow PCM if you don't want warranty issues.

Some of us got a 10year 100k power train warranty. I would presume as a response to the engine failures occurring during the majority of 2013 and 2014 run of Vipers.

[swexlin]

Lemur, what is your issue? Did you motor pop? Or are they denying coverage for something? Please elaborate, if you are able.

[Lemur]

Dear God let it go.

Don't modify your car if you don't want warranty issues.

Don't run Arrow PCM if you don't want warranty issues.

Some of us got a 10year 100k power train warranty. I would presume as a response to the engine failures occurring during the majority of 2013 and 2014 run of Vipers.

No, I don't buy that. What FCA is doing isn't fair. It's a dealer sold and installed modification and they are denying due to reasons outside of the aftermarket part. That's not fair, and it's not legal to deny warranty coverage. If the tune did the damage, and it wasn't something I bought FROM a dodge dealer, I would own up to my responsibility, but it's NOT.

The people that got their 10 year warranty are happy, so they don't give a shit anymore - while the people that didn't got dicked over.

[swexlin]

No, I don't buy that. What FCA is doing isn't fair. It's a dealer sold and installed modification and they are denying due to reasons outside of the aftermarket part. That's not fair, and it's not legal to deny warranty coverage. If the tune did the damage, and it wasn't something I bought FROM a dodge dealer, I would own up to my responsibility, but it's NOT.

The people that got their 10 year warranty are happy, so they don't give a shit anymore - while the people that didn't got dicked over.

I have the warranty extension, and I DO give a shit. Even WITH the warranty, with the way FCA is treating people with popped engines (making them wait), we all have a dog in this fight.

[Terminator02]

Could you briefly explain what that basis is so that forum members can understand what their position should be and what FCA should do?

I know there have been many stock engine failures, mostly among 2013 and early 2014 cars they issued the R28 recall on and that they have extended warranty on for an additional 5 years, with very few outside of that identified group. Failures almost always occur at low mileage. So every US stock Gen V engine made is warranted for 5 years, and the higher risk group is warranted for 10 years.

It seems to me that those warranties are long enough to reasonably satisfy current owners for at least 5 and 10 years. By then most will have put on enough miles where the engine will have proven itself to be safe. Those who don't plan to drive their cars enough over the next 5-10 years to satisfy themselves that their engine is among the unaffected have various choices and a long time to make them.

So I can see that FCA had a engine issue, with the vast majority in 2013 and early 2014, they've made significant improvements as failure rates since have been very low, and they've extended the warranty on the at-risk group.

The possibility of an engine failure over the long term is not unique to Vipers, and manufacturers warranties only provide coverage for a short term. FCA has done that, and beyond for many now. We'd all like to be covered for a lot longer, and in Canada we only get a 3 year warranty instead of the 5 year US one.

I think it would be impossible to build a legal case that FCA had not responded to the engine issue fairly. They are honoring warranty and have even extended it, fully protecting their owners for that period. Will every owner be satisfied with that...absolutely not, and anything short of a lifetime warranty won't satisfy some. But we need to get real, and each of us make and take responsibility for our own choices. In my case I know I bought an expensive car with expensive to repair parts and a warranty many years shorter than I typically keep a car. I took that risk with the Viper, but wouldn't take that risk when considering some other brands that would have been even more expensive. And like every car I've ever owned, I will decide when to sell it based on a variety of factors, projected costs and risks being among them.

This will never be "resolved" to the satisfaction of some, and I just can't see a compelling legal arguement. So please explain what you or anyone else feels is a winnable arguement.

I know of at least 10 16s failed on here. Andy just said another stock 16 showed in his shop today and who knows how many pop up at dealers we don't hear about. Ironically, the only year I haven't heard many failures were 15s. But the failures keep coming as owners are driving: stock or not.

I agree that people need to modulate their emotion on the topic and do their own opportunity cost regarding stock vs modified when assessing risk. The risk is much higher with the gen V motor failing as opposed to any other Viper generation motor. I hear your point that engine issues occur with other manufacturers but you can't honestly say this generation and it's potential failure rate is anywhere NEAR normal for a Viper. That's what's frustrating owners I think as it makes modifying a car much scarier. Maybe you are really happy with everything on your car, plan to keep it stock and therefore the other side of the coin doesn't cross your mind?

Can someone reasonably sue for a denial of a preexisting engine problem with fca putting the onus of blame on the aftermarket controller? YES! Will one win if they sue? I don't know but encourage anyone to go find out. Why not explore It? I don't think it has to be belabored on the forums all the time in speculation.

It's been pointed out by members that they have has to sue in the past and the suits were settled. Bottom line is that there is a clear preexisting problem, maybe multiple problems with the gen V engine evidenced partially by the recalls. Previous gets did not have these problems and were truly bullet proof. Most people will be free of any spun bearings during the life of their ownership.

[mjorgensen]

I am happy that FCA extended my warranty. Very cool of them. However, now, if your engine goes, they just don't replace it. Look at Reshetov's thread - now, the whole damn thing has to sit at the dealer, and everything torn down, before they will approve. It makes an already PITA process worse.

The way warranty works with this teardown is the dealer tells the customer that they need to tear it all down and this will cost $$$ the customer is on the hook for all of that diag time and reassembly if the warranty is denied. This will do one of two things, either the customer will admit that there was a reason to not cover it and save themselves the extra money on a rebuild or the dealership will look for even more reasons that the warranty should be denied first so they are not stuck in the middle.

[swexlin]

The way warranty works with this teardown is the dealer tells the customer that they need to tear it all down and this will cost $$$ the customer is on the hook for all of that diag time and reassembly if the warranty is denied. This will do one of two things, either the customer will admit that there was a reason to not cover it and save themselves the extra money on a rebuild or the dealership will look for even more reasons that the warranty should be denied first so they are not stuck in the middle.

Mark, this is just sad. FCA was upfront and quick the first couple years of the Gen 5, and now it has come to this.

[Terminator02]

I would not want any run of the mill tech tearing down my motor. Talk about the potential to create more problems down the road. Thankfully I have arrow down the road. Many owners drive far distances to have their favorite Viper mechanic do their magic but I feel badly for those with very few options. This is a mess for dealers.

[mnc2886]

With all the threads popping up around this issue, what should be done is someone should put together a table summarizing engine failures, whats mods were done, etc. The mods should sticky it too. We can then have all of our discussion in that thread instead of so many negative threads. This forum is a great source for data mining on our cars and I believe a table of this sort would be of huge value for many members. It could look like this;



Last 8 of Vin
Year
Model
Miles @ Failure
Arrow PCM (Y or N)
HPT PCM (Y or N)
Other Mods
R28 (Y or N)
R29 (Y or N)
Status of Warranty Claim

[Lemur]

With all the threads popping up around this issue, what should be done is someone should put together a table summarizing engine failures, whats mods were done, etc. The mods should sticky it too. We can then have all of our discussion in that thread instead of so many negative threads. This forum is a great source for data mining on our cars and I believe a table of this sort would be of huge value for many members. It could look like this;



Last 8 of Vin
Year
Model
Miles @ Failure
Arrow PCM (Y or N)
HPT PCM (Y or N)
Other Mods
R28 (Y or N)
R29 (Y or N)
Status of Warranty Claim















Yes, Please! This is a great idea!

[ViperPete]

Has anyone considered the implications of the 10year 100k warranty given to "certain" 2013 and 2014 Vipers?

Dealers by law have to be able to provide OEM parts at least 10 years after a vehicle has been discontinued or changed/warranty expired

That means at the very least that FCA will have engines available until 2027.... They have to have what, a thousand of them on hand? I don't know what the process is but I bet there is a ratio of vehicles sold verses parts on hand.

They have obviously corrected the engine issue for them to make that move.

Go ahead and sue them. I cannot imagine anyone winning. Some people got the shaft and that sucks- i'm glad i'm not one of them. By the same token they took a great step in winning back loyalty.

I wouldn't doubt it if the warranty will be issued for all Gen V Vipers in the future.

[swexlin]

How much are you using? I use about a quart every 1000 miles, as do some others here. Unfortunately, as much as we disagree, FCA considers that normal, and will do nothing. KB uses a quart every 750, and they still considered normal.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

[ViperPete]

How much are you using? I use about a quart every 1000 miles, as do some others here. Unfortunately, as much as we disagree, FCA considers that normal, and will do nothing. KB uses a quart every 750, and they still considered normal.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

Mine doesn't burn a drop. I only use the Pennzoil. I tried multiple brands in the SRT10. That engine consumes Mobil one and Royal purple like hell.

[swexlin]

Has anyone considered the implications of the 10year 100k warranty given to "certain" 2013 and 2014 Vipers?

Dealers by law have to be able to provide OEM parts at least 10 years after a vehicle has been discontinued or changed/warranty expired

That means at the very least that FCA will have engines available until 2027.... They have to have what, a thousand of them on hand? I don't know what the process is but I bet there is a ratio of vehicles sold verses parts on hand.

They have obviously corrected the engine issue for them to make that move.

Go ahead and sue them. I cannot imagine anyone winning. Some people got the shaft and that sucks- i'm glad i'm not one of them. By the same token they took a great step in winning back loyalty.

I wouldn't doubt it if the warranty will be issued for all Gen V Vipers in the future.

Pete, with the trials and tribulations that folks are going through now, when the car is still in production, can you imagine what it will be like a few years from now. Hope none of us have to find out.

[ViperPete]

Pete, with the trials and tribulations that folks are going through now, when the car is still in production, can you imagine what it will be like a few years from now. Hope none of us have to find out.

All I am saying is that the 10/100 is a step in the right direction. I hope it goes for all.

[swexlin]

Mine doesn't burn a drop. I only use the Pennzoil. I tried multiple brands in the SRT10. That engine consumes Mobil one and Royal purple like hell.

Me too, Pennzoil factory fill. And I'm a pretty conservative drive. Car hasn't seen redline since I've owned it - just nowhere on my roads to do that safely and legally!

[swexlin]

All I am saying is that the 10/100 is a step in the right direction. I hope it goes for all.

Very much agreed.

[ViperGeorge]

Could you briefly explain what that basis is so that forum members can understand what their position should be and what FCA should do?

I know there have been many stock engine failures, mostly among 2013 and early 2014 cars they issued the R28 recall on and that they have extended warranty on for an additional 5 years, with very few outside of that identified group. Failures almost always occur at low mileage. So every US stock Gen V engine made is warranted for 5 years, and the higher risk group is warranted for 10 years.

It seems to me that those warranties are long enough to reasonably satisfy current owners for at least 5 and 10 years. By then most will have put on enough miles where the engine will have proven itself to be safe. Those who don't plan to drive their cars enough over the next 5-10 years to satisfy themselves that their engine is among the unaffected have various choices and a long time to make them.

So I can see that FCA had a engine issue, with the vast majority in 2013 and early 2014, they've made significant improvements as failure rates since have been very low, and they've extended the warranty on the at-risk group.

The possibility of an engine failure over the long term is not unique to Vipers, and manufacturers warranties only provide coverage for a short term. FCA has done that, and beyond for many now. We'd all like to be covered for a lot longer, and in Canada we only get a 3 year warranty instead of the 5 year US one.

I think it would be impossible to build a legal case that FCA had not responded to the engine issue fairly. They are honoring warranty and have even extended it, fully protecting their owners for that period. Will every owner be satisfied with that...absolutely not, and anything short of a lifetime warranty won't satisfy some. But we need to get real, and each of us make and take responsibility for our own choices. In my case I know I bought an expensive car with expensive to repair parts and a warranty many years shorter than I typically keep a car. I took that risk with the Viper, but wouldn't take that risk when considering some other brands that would have been even more expensive. And like every car I've ever owned, I will decide when to sell it based on a variety of factors, projected costs and risks being among them.

This will never be "resolved" to the satisfaction of some, and I just can't see a compelling legal arguement. So please explain what you or anyone else feels is a winnable arguement.

I posted this in another thread but the FTC confirmed that the Magnuson-Moss Act requires the manufacturer PROVE that the modified part caused the failure. This was directly from the SEMA site and the FTC site. So, yes, there is absolutely reason for anyone that has been denied a warranty claim due to the Arrow Controller to sue FCA. If my engine let loose and I had the Arrow Controller you bet I would get a lawyer and I would do it before the dealer even tore into the engine. I would want to make sure no evidence is accidently missed by the tech.

Second, your assertion that FCA is replacing all stock engines that have spun bearings is also not true. Read some of the other threads. My friend spun a bearing in his bone stock 14 three weeks or more ago and still no authorization from FCA for a new engine. Dealer had to tear it down and send photos but still no engine. In fact now the engines are on back order.

[Bruce H.]

The law states that they require proof that the aftermarket part caused the failure in order to deny warranty coverage, and also that the remaining warrantable items shall still be covered.

All of my comments were about how the issue has been addressed with warranty coverages for those with stock engines. It sounds like the actual warranty procedure needs improvement, but that will unlikely be a basis for a law suit. Perhaps the Lemon Law will apply in some cases.

You risked voiding your warranty coverage, likely knowingly, by installing an aftermarket controller. And your problem isn't that you have a failed engine, it's that you burn oil. Is it within the manufacturers oil consumption spec? Can we assume you are searching for a basis for a rebuild or replacement under warranty?


I have an issue and am not getting return calls from either my dealer or FCA on how to resolve it. So yes, I am in a position to take action if I continue to be ignored.

Only if you are using more than what FCA considers within the normal range. Ask one of the forum vendors and I'm sure they'll give you the answer right away. If it's within spec you have no issue.


No, I don't buy that. What FCA is doing isn't fair. It's a dealer sold and installed modification and they are denying due to reasons outside of the aftermarket part. That's not fair, and it's not legal to deny warranty coverage. If the tune did the damage, and it wasn't something I bought FROM a dodge dealer, I would own up to my responsibility, but it's NOT.

Wait...FCA didn't make, endorse or sell you the Arrow controller. I spoke with Ralph and Dick and they wouldn't blanket endorse it. In fact, they were reluctant to recommend it for track use and where minimum 93 octane isn't broadly available. They couldn't recommend it for 91 octane, and pointed out that bad or lower octane gas and a combination of operating conditions could cause a problem. Or did you purchased yours with some kind of a verbal or written warranty?

If you're prepared to take responsibility then start with your decision to put it on your car. I know countless track rats that mod the heck out of their cars, frequently including the engine tune, and they all accept that they are potentially voiding their warranties if an engine problem arises...whether caused by their mods or not.

I can certainly sympathize with you, and almost bought an Arrow myself, but I can not agree with your position that FCA is responsible to maintain your warranty. They protected themselves in their warranty coverage and you gave up your protection with your Arrow install. Changing the tune on an engine is different that using a different oil in the engine, and I don't think MM places the responsibility on FCA to prove anything. Some engines fail die to a manufacturing problem, but you let them off the hook for covering yours. I'm guessing it would take an incredible gesture of goodwill on FCA's part to cover your engine now.

[Bruce H.]

I posted this in another thread but the FTC confirmed that the Magnuson-Moss Act requires the manufacturer PROVE that the modified part caused the failure. This was directly from the SEMA site and the FTC site. So, yes, there is absolutely reason for anyone that has been denied a warranty claim due to the Arrow Controller to sue FCA. If my engine let loose and I had the Arrow Controller you bet I would get a lawyer and I would do it before the dealer even tore into the engine. I would want to make sure no evidence is accidently missed by the tech.

And in that thread Snorman posted this which makes a lot of sense...

"The bottom line here is pretty simple...an Arrow PCM changes the configuration of the car as it was delivered by FCA. It doesn't matter if they covered cars with Arrows in the past. It doesn't matter if Dink Winkles designed it. It doesn't matter if FCA knows that there is a casting flaw in the Gen V blocks that may or may not place debris in the lubrication system and cause a failure. What matters is that the car was modified. You have a "contract" with FCA...follow the rules of that contract and they'll abide by its terms.

Insinuating that brake pads and tires and oil changes will void the warranty is a bit extreme. MMA was not written to allow consumers to modify the items in general. It was written to protect consumers' rights to the factory warranty if they use aftermarket replacement parts and service. They can't void your warranty with a part that is a replacement part with the same function as OEM, but they can void your warranty if that part is a "racing" part or changes the configuration of the car (i.e. fuel, spark, timing, AF, rev limiter, etc.)."

And Martin posted the emissions implication of using the Arrow which would also void the warranty.

I don't know what the final outcome would be in court, but it would be anything but a slam dunk.



Second, your assertion that FCA is replacing all stock engines that have spun bearings is also not true. Read some of the other threads. My friend spun a bearing in his bone stock 14 three weeks or more ago and still no authorization from FCA for a new engine. Dealer had to tear it down and send photos but still no engine. In fact now the engines are on back order.

So he hasn't been denied warranty, but rather it's a painful process to get there at this point.

Hopefully the process will improve.

[Terminator02]

All of my comments were about how the issue has been addressed with warranty coverages for those with stock engines. It sounds like the actual warranty procedure needs improvement, but that will unlikely be a basis for a law suit. Perhaps the Lemon Law will apply in some cases.

You risked voiding your warranty coverage, likely knowingly, by installing an aftermarket controller. And your problem isn't that you have a failed engine, it's that you burn oil. Is it within the manufacturers oil consumption spec? Can we assume you are searching for a basis for a rebuild or replacement under warranty?



Only if you are using more than what FCA considers within the normal range. Ask one of the forum vendors and I'm sure they'll give you the answer right away. If it's within spec you have no issue.



Wait...FCA didn't make, endorse or sell you the Arrow controller. I spoke with Ralph and Dick and they wouldn't blanket endorse it. In fact, they were reluctant to recommend it for track use and where minimum 93 octane isn't broadly available. They couldn't recommend it for 91 octane, and pointed out that bad or lower octane gas and a combination of operating conditions could cause a problem. Or did you purchased yours with some kind of a verbal or written warranty?

If you're prepared to take responsibility then start with your decision to put it on your car. I know countless track rats that mod the heck out of their cars, frequently including the engine tune, and they all accept that they are potentially voiding their warranties if an engine problem arises...whether caused by their mods or not.

I can certainly sympathize with you, and almost bought an Arrow myself, but I can not agree with your position that FCA is responsible to maintain your warranty. They protected themselves in their warranty coverage and you gave up your protection with your Arrow install. Changing the tune on an engine is different that using a different oil in the engine, and I don't think MM places the responsibility on FCA to prove anything. Some engines fail die to a manufacturing problem, but you let them off the hook for covering yours. I'm guessing it would take an incredible gesture of goodwill on FCA's part to cover your engine now.

I'm not a lawyer but how do you respond to this. The viper engines have always been rock solid and modding the car, while a risk to warranty, was a small risk given how solid the engine is. Given the data we have and the recalls, it appears that there is a pre existing problem with some engines that cause bearings to spin. It's affecting stock and modified cars. The decision to mod would not have happened with some had they known there is a pre existing systemic problem with these gen V engines that hasn't fully come to light. The pre existing problem usurps the actual modification to the engine. Hundreds of these controllers were sold and installed and therefore there will be more failures due to this benign mod and the complaints will continue to pour through these forums. I don't see any reason people wouldn't go through with a law suit on warranty denial given how bad these engines are compared to gen 1-4.

More people should be championing FCA to be more accountable because this could ultimately affect every single generation of viper. If gen V values tank then so will gen 1-4, that's just the way it goes at least for the short run. If gen V viper perception of quality is strong coupled with good resale then all other generations thrive. That's my biggest problem with those just telling people to give up or acccept they violated a warranty. That's true but it's not addressing the problem with the engines and many people are affected with already having installed the controller. If anything I'd go to prove at best the controller may have just exacerbated a systemic problem inevitably going to happen.

[Topplayer]

I am 100% happy with the 10/100k. Really couldn't be happier. I understand why people with problems wont let this go (even then talking on a public forum is a waste of time for a company as large as FCA, and when the viper 'brand' is going to be dead this time next year) What I don't understand is how people with ZERO issues wont let this go, I mean every thread about it I see heads and cams guys complaining like it matters to them LOL.

[Vibert]

Truly sickening how people jump to the defense of evil globalist corporations who will stop at nothing to better their profits. Wake up. These corporations care about selling you a product and then running away from you. FCA loves those of you who act as their Uncle Tom, defending their unethical positions. The law may be on their side but that doesn't make it right. They buy the laws they need.

Peace.

[texasram]

Me too, Pennzoil factory fill. And I'm a pretty conservative drive. Car hasn't seen redline since I've owned it - just nowhere on my roads to do that safely and legally!

So you have yet to have a visit from Stryker in the rev counter

[Lemur]

Me too, Pennzoil factory fill. And I'm a pretty conservative drive. Car hasn't seen redline since I've owned it - just nowhere on my roads to do that safely and legally!

Lol I hope you're just trolling us and aren't serious.

[swexlin]

So you have yet to have a visit from Stryker in the rev counter

Correct. By the time I'm at 4000 rpm, I'm pretty illegal! Too much traffic, and too much law enforcement where I live.

- - - Updated - - -


Lol I hope you're just trolling us and aren't serious.

Very serious, I'm afraid. I like driving my car, and I've been, ahem, pretty fast in it, but I've never seen Stryker.

[Chorps]

Remember there is no "voiding" of the warranty, only of the particular components proven to have been impacted by modification. The cars with Arrow tunes still have a warranty, it's not just suddenly completely gone.

I think the problem with all of this is that the PCM has the mileage embedded within it. Replacing the PCM without fixing/updating the mileage in an approved fashion automatically voids ALL warranties since it can be perceived as odometer tampering.

So the PCM didn't *need* to be the cause of the damage, the moment the mileage has been altered FCA has an out, and they've taken it. It is completely a dickish move but I would guess it is totally valid (legal).

[Terminator02]

I am 100% happy with the 10/100k. Really couldn't be happier. I understand why people with problems wont let this go (even then talking on a public forum is a waste of time for a company as large as FCA, and when the viper 'brand' is going to be dead this time next year) What I don't understand is how people with ZERO issues wont let this go, I mean every thread about it I see heads and cams guys complaining like it matters to them LOL.

There's a difference between advocating and complaining and not letting it go. I've felt badly for the guys who got denials over just having the controller. However it's up to people this happens to to lawyer up and take action. I've also stated numerous times that people need to learn to modulate their anxiety over possible failure. I stay active on this because all the real complaining does impact me. I don't know if you realized this but values have gone down a bit and cars for good prices are sitting longer. As stated earlier, a strong gen V equals strong resale for ALL viper generations. I can't stand seeing the viper values being low due to mere perception. I do think FCA has to be more accountable. If I had a controller and failed engine I'd make a post but I would be lawyers up as I am very confident it would settle. Some beg to disagree but I just urge people to act so that in time this issue gets put to rest for everyone's benefit. You are correct I have very little dog in the fit outside of viper values as I would never benefit from a 10 year warranty as long as I remain stock. That has zero appeal to me for obvious reasons.

[tiki240]

Having actually spoken to a legal team it boiled down to this: If a person with the aftermarket PCM is denied warranty, they absolutely should sue and make FCA prove beyond reasonable doubt the modification caused the failure. The caveat there is that it could be months/years before the suit is settled and the owner sees resolution up to/including having a running car again. This is unattractive to most because of the cost involved to litigate. It is not a quick open/shut case.

As for stock owners burning above average (1qt/1k miles) FCA first requires a consumption test, then leakdown test, THEN authorizes a corrective measure if deemed necessary. I have not heard of anyone with a still-operational motor that has been through the process on a stock car and had their claim denied/ unfixed. If they were, the steps would be to pay out of pocket to have their engine pulled and gone through to diagnose the cause of excessive burning and THEN litigate if FCA was still unwilling to resolve the issue. While I havent heard of anyone yet going through all of that on a still operational motor, it also is worth noting that it is faster and more cost effective to simply have an engine burning excessive oil rebuilt better/faster/stronger for <10k than it is to have it pulled, gone through, have warranty work denied, lawyer up, go through litigation, and then finally see resolution. Until someone with deep pockets, lots of time/patience, a phenominal legal team, and spare cars to drive in the meantime gets denied by FCA, there won't be a lawsuit.

I truly feel for the guys who had engines let go through no fault of their own and get denied.

[ViperGeorge]

I don't think MM places the responsibility on FCA to prove anything.

According to the FTC you are incorrect. As previously posted the Federal Trade Commission has stated that under Magnuson-Moss the manufacturer must prove the failure was a result of the aftermarket part.

[ViperGeorge]

I think the problem with all of this is that the PCM has the mileage embedded within it. Replacing the PCM without fixing/updating the mileage in an approved fashion automatically voids ALL warranties since it can be perceived as odometer tampering.

So the PCM didn't *need* to be the cause of the damage, the moment the mileage has been altered FCA has an out, and they've taken it. It is completely a dickish move but I would guess it is totally valid (legal).

The certifications on mileage have to do with the odometer (read one) which is not controlled by the PCM. The mileage in the PCM is essentially irrelevant. In fact older Gen stock Vipers often had discrepancies between the two for no apparent reason. Don't believe me, ask Chuck Tator.

[Chorps]

I change an exhaust on a Ferrari Lamborghini Porsche warranty is void - dealers won't touch mods they have learned their lessons the hard way.

Does it not state on the mod part that it voids warranty and or does the dealer install a modified part on a warranty car - if so again they will learn the hard way. FCA is not Dodge you touch their car under warranty outside a factory tech and they wash their hands.

These are 200 mph hand made race cars - factories don't like anyone messing with their engineers work.

It's covered in 3B. An exhaust should not void the warranty, but certainly the dealers run warranty approvals in front of the manufacturer before proceeding.

http://www.dodge.com/crossbrand/warranty/pdf/2015-Dodge-Generic_Warranty-1st.pdf

[mnc2886]

Yes, Please! This is a great idea!

I'll be happy to start the thread if more people would like to see it and if the moderators say it's okay. It's up to them to 'sticky' it anyways.

[Bruce H.]

According to the FTC you are incorrect. As previously posted the Federal Trade Commission has stated that under Magnuson-Moss the manufacturer must prove the failure was a result of the aftermarket part.

And do you know for a fact that an "after market" part includes the engine control unit being replaced with a race type ECU? This would be important to know, and has surely been tested in court with ECU replacement and remapping, adding forced induction, etc being very common for many years. Is anyone aware of a precendent being set? If that's been tested and failed in court then you haven't got a prayer, and if not, and someone plans to be the first, you could end up in a battle funded by the entire auto industry...and they won't be collecting $100 donations from their members.

[AZTVR]

With all the threads popping up around this issue, what should be done is someone should put together a table summarizing engine failures, whats mods were done, etc


Yes, Please! This is a great idea!


I'll be happy to start the thread if more people would like to see it and if the moderators say it's okay. It's up to them to 'sticky' it anyways.

FYI: http://driveviper.com/forums/threads/15194-Lets-talk-ROOT-CAUSE?p=242736&viewfull=1#post242736

[Bruce H.]

Truly sickening how people jump to the defense of evil globalist corporations who will stop at nothing to better their profits. Wake up. These corporations care about selling you a product and then running away from you. FCA loves those of you who act as their Uncle Tom, defending their unethical positions. The law may be on their side but that doesn't make it right. They buy the laws they need.

Peace.

That's a pretty dim view of global corporations, but perhaps a helpful one to have when considering this engine failure and warranty situation. Wouldn't that make FCA look like the benevolent one by extending warranties to 10 years. That's TEN YEARS!!! Without a law suit!

And this is hopefully just another step towards resolving the issue for as many as they can. FCA started with the recalls, and half of this community fretted at the idea of a dealer touching their car to replace the engine, the other half thought it the best they could expect and were satisfied. Guys that drive their cars and put miles on them aren't too worried because they've already driven them enough to see that they haven't failed during the initial low miles, the first 6000 miles generally accepted as being an effective test period.

Then they extend the warranty and most think it's fantastic! Hardly helpful for owners who will never never put on 6000 miles within the first 5 years, or the 10 years, and it doesn't help the Arrow guys. I can understand them being concerned. How many of those with the Arrow will fail? We're talking very few cars, and they may not have a leg to stand on legally.

I would encourage someone with a denied failure to test their legal avenues if their lawyer thinks they've got a chance of success, and I'd encourage everyone else to get out and drive yours. Putting on 6000 miles is fun, and likely the only way to ever know the health of your engine within the warranty period!

[mnc2886]

FYI: http://driveviper.com/forums/threads/15194-Lets-talk-ROOT-CAUSE?p=242736&viewfull=1#post242736

Forgot about that thread. They should put it as a sticky. No activity on it for almost 2 months.

[ViperGeorge]

Right - so the short answer is no one would win.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law#Magnuson-Moss

You guys are seriously missing the point. The burden of proof is on the manufacturer, that's the law. They can't just say the warranty is void because the client installed this or that part. They must prove it caused the problem. Spun bearings tell their own story. Google it. Bearings have telltales as to what caused them to fail, debris, detonation, oil starvation, etc. Each failure leaves specific markings on the bearings. If FCA were to show that the bearings spun due to detonation or something that could be pinned on the PCM then fine they win. However, my understanding is that all of the engineers who have looked at the bearings in question have said they failed due to debris. The PCM does not generate debris in the engine, that's a fact.

[ViperGeorge]

One other thing. I suppose that anyone that has purchased an oil filter from a cars part store for their Viper also voided their warranty as it likely does not meet the more stringent specs of the SRT filter (particularly bypass pressure).

[Bruce H.]

More people should be championing FCA to be more accountable because this could ultimately affect every single generation of viper. If gen V values tank then so will gen 1-4, that's just the way it goes at least for the short run. If gen V viper perception of quality is strong coupled with good resale then all other generations thrive. That's my biggest problem with those just telling people to give up or acccept they violated a warranty. That's true but it's not addressing the problem with the engines and many people are affected with already having installed the controller. If anything I'd go to prove at best the controller may have just exacerbated a systemic problem inevitably going to happen.

There's no issue that Viper owners seem more anxious about than their car's perceived market value. OMG, it's insane! Never seen anything like it.

So many complain tirelessly on the forum about their car's quality, new car price, FCA, their servicing dealers, what they perceive to be the market value of Gen V's, etc. Owners have been driving down their values since well before the first engine failure. FCA drove down prices with a poor launch, and then Tim hammered it with the $15k price slash. Nothing like both owners and the manufacturer telling the world that the car is overpriced. Then you have members posting in For Sale threads that owners are asking too much. Give me a break.

Now members are worried that prospective buyers reading our forum might feel the fully warranted engine failure issue will lower values. Excellent point! The best way to prove yours isn't affected, with or withour mod, is to put some miles on it...seriously! Those with over 6000 miles will maybe become the most valuable.

Dragging this out endlessly on the forum is an epic fail. It's been discussed to death at this point. It's time for those who feel they have a case to seek advice from their lawyers if they feel that might be the route they want to go.

[callchuck]

Guys my 2014 GTS keeps throwing code P0300 and going into limp mode while driving on the interstate at 70 miles an hour. It has almost gotten me killed 5 times. The car has been to the shop 8 times over the past 90 days. The code keeps erasing when you shut the engine off. They have done a TEC 3 times and the problem keeps coming back. I have been told my engine falls into the early model 2014 that has the defective heads that were not cleaned correctly. It is unsafe to drive my car because you never know when it is going to go into limp mode. All FCA wants to do is keep trying to repair it. My car has around 13,000 miles on it and I bought this one used with around 7000 miles on it, so I cannot pursue lemon law. I had a lawyer tell me today that we should file a class action lawsuit against FCA. My car is in the shop right now waiting for a engineer from FCA to test drive it. The problem is he probably will not be able to dupicate the problem. I had a flight recorder hooked up 2 weeks ago when it limp mode.

[Patentlaw]

Let's see.......

Lots of people supposedly have the issue...

I would assume someone or several have actually taken the time to read about the issue and gone to a lawyer

and nothing filed.....

Wonder why?

While I can only speak for myself, the misinformation here has really underserved many on this site. I would additionally say that while one, maybe two or three threads would be enough, we are now continually exposed to thread after thread here. At the very minimum, can't we just combine the threads?

[MK2_Viper]

Mods really need to start combining threads that are saying the same thing over and over and over.

[callchuck]

Let's see.......

Lots of people supposedly have the issue...

I would assume someone or several have actually taken the time to read about the issue and gone to a lawyer

and nothing filed.....

Wonder why?

While I can only speak for myself, the misinformation here has really underserved many on this site. I would additionally say that while one, maybe two or three threads would be enough, we are now continually exposed to thread after thread here. At the very minimum, can't we just combine the threads? To be honest a lawyer is not going to make much money off of this unless a class action lawsuit is filed. By the time you spend hourly fees suing a manufacture....it will cost you more in the long run. There is not a 1/3 of a settlement for an attorney to collect if they sue just for a client and that is why no one has come forward yet.

[ViperGeorge]

To be honest a lawyer is not going to make much money off of this unless a class action lawsuit is filed. By the time you spend hourly fees suing a manufacture....it will cost you more in the long run. There is not a 1/3 of a settlement for an attorney to collect if they sue just for a client and that is why no one has come forward yet.

None the less lawyers do take cases like this. I used one to sue Saleen and Ford over defects in my 07 Saleen. I won, they paid legal fees. The lawyer didn't spend much time quite honestly. The lawyer wrote a couple of letter and attended a disposition. Ford and Saleen were allowed to examine the car but could no longer attempt repairs. After they looked, they settled.

[Lemur]

Mods really need to start combining threads that are saying the same thing over and over and over.

Normally I would agree, but I think it's important that when FCA views these forums, which they do, that they see how pervasive this issue has become.

[LA STIG]

I just have to provide some observations, even though my 2014 GTS with 18,000 miles and 35 plus track days uses no oil and I just received my R28/R29 10-year warranty extension.

Any perceived or spontaneous outrage over engine failures is misplaced. My previous car was a C6 Z06 that went through four motors (LS7). GM bought it back and I ended up in my Viper. I wanted to order a C7 Z06 but even early on there were a lot of (accurate) reports of overheating due to heat soaking.

In 2014 Porsche issued a "stop sell/stop drive" for all GT3's, ostensibly for "engine fires". It turns out that the rods going through the block were causing fires. So they got that going for them.

About the same time Ferrari had to recall EVERY car made over a several month period because of bad crankshafts. Just imagine what a pleasure it is to deal with those dealers when you have THAT kind of issue.

So I believe FCA has addressed the issue appropriately especially considering the few Vipers that are made. Believe me I know how frustrating such failures can be and I can report my Z06 problems generated a frustration level that was off the charts. But its not like they're doing nothing.

I plan on keeping my GTS for a long time and it has been an amazing car to drive and own. Sorry to hear that some folks are struggling and I hope they can resolve their issues to their satisfaction.