Tire size and Toyota warranty.

[Tylerwest]

Has anyone here ever had an issue with Toyota voiding drivetrain/suspension warranty after moving up in tire size? I have a 2019 LC and would like to add the oem front spacer and move up to 275/70 r18. Thanks.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Has anyone here ever had an issue with Toyota voiding drivetrain/suspension warranty after moving up in tire size? I have a 2019 LC and would like to add the oem front spacer and move up to 275/70 r18. Thanks.

That would be illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

If you replace/add a component, say those tires and spacers. Then those components are no longer warrantied. Yet, any other components that surround, as long as they were present in the vehicle at time of initial sale (CV axle boots, tie rods, etc) are still, and must be covered under warranty.

So no worries brother. If you get any flack at the dealership, remind them if this. If they say, “we’ll, those spacers effect that.” Nope, not how that works. So mod away.

 

[Tylerwest]

That would be illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

If you replace/add a component, say those tires and spacers. Then those components are no longer warrantied. Yet, any other components that surround, as long as they were present in the vehicle at time of initial sale (CV axle boots, tie rods, etc) are still, and must be covered under warranty.

So no worries brother. If you get any flack at the dealership, remind them if this. If they say, “we’ll, those spacers effect that.” Nope, not how that works. So mod away.

Thanks buddy

 

[Durad]

Has anyone here ever had an issue with Toyota voiding drivetrain/suspension warranty after moving up in tire size? I have a 2019 LC and would like to add the oem front spacer and move up to 275/70 r18. Thanks.

Tylerwest, are you lifting just the front? I've got a '20 Heritage LC and am looking to eliminate the steep rake of the truck but I don't want to lift the vehicle overall height..sort of a leveling approach. And along with that, I want to get a slightly more aggressive tire on it. Thoughts?

 

[40Man]

That would be illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

If you replace/add a component, say those tires and spacers. Then those components are no longer warrantied. Yet, any other components that surround, as long as they were present in the vehicle at time of initial sale (CV axle boots, tie rods, etc) are still, and must be covered under warranty.

So no worries brother. If you get any flack at the dealership, remind them if this. If they say, “we’ll, those spacers effect that.” Nope, not how that works. So mod away.

Not true. If a modification causes an OEM part to fail, warranty will not apply.

If you put a 4" lift and the CV axle fails due to additional stress, the warranty for the axle may not apply if Toyota determines the lift causes the failure.

If you get spacers and your wheel bearings wear prematurely, the warranty may not apply for the bearings due to the additional stress the bearings cause.

Under the Act, the burden is on the dealer/manufacturer to prove the modification caused the defect to the OEM parts, but they have in-house mechanics and regional people that will arbitrarily make determinations, leaving little recourse outside of suing, which will require your own expert.

If you mod, be prepared to fight if there is a failure. The dealer has the burden of proof under the act, but you'll be the one that has to fight...

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Not true. If a modification causes an OEM part to fail, warranty will not apply.

If you put a 4" lift and the CV axle fails due to additional stress, the warranty for the axle may not apply if Toyota determines the lift causes the failure.

If you get spacers and your wheel bearings wear prematurely, the warranty may not apply for the bearings due to the additional stress the bearings cause.

Under the Act, the burden is on the dealer/manufacturer to prove the modification caused the defect to the OEM parts, but they have in-house mechanics and regional people that will arbitrarily make determinations, leaving little recourse outside of suing, which will require your own expert.

If you mod, be prepared to fight if there is a failure. The dealer has the burden of proof under the act, but you'll be the one that has to fight...

I was a Toyota service manager at one time in life, it’s very true.

Like any industry, some people, ie leadership at a dealership, can make things hard for you, but at the end of the day, you’ll win. And like your health or your finances, you are the one who must be your own advocate. If someone doesn’t know much about how cars work, they can loose an argument and not have warranty work provide. That doesn’t make the Act “not true.”

The exact reason why that Act was crested was one of the Senators had a factory muscle car. But he put sticky race tires on it, and the dealership said that due to the higher traction road tires, it blew his transmission. So they wrote the law to isolate warranty to all parts still in service.

Will you get push back? Yep. I did a few years later from my time at a dealership. Had a rear pinion seal leak. I was told that “due to the lift, it changed my pinion angle, and that the seal had too much stress on it.” My response was one of educating them how a rear axle actually works, then pointing out another FJ Cruiser on the show room floor that had the same OME rear springs, and asking if that is out of warrant also. About 10 minutes of that, and warranty taken care of.

Service managers can take “abuse” into account. If I saw bumper damage, and a blown CV, with mud shoved up in there. I can submit that the vehicle used was damaged and needed an insurance claim to be submitted instead. If you wreck your car, you don’t take it for warranty work.

So, in your example, that you could be left with only one option, and that is legal action. Yep, the same as if a medical procedure goes south from malpractice, or your roof leaks from improper work. The difference is in the auto industry, you win due to the act.

 

[40Man]

I was a Toyota service manager at one time in life, it’s very true.

Like any industry, some people, ie leadership at a dealership, can make things hard for you, but at the end of the day, you’ll win. And like your health or your finances, you are the one who must be your own advocate. If someone doesn’t know much about how cars work, they can loose an argument and not have warranty work provide. That doesn’t make the Act “not true.”

The exact reason why that Act was crested was one of the Senators had a factory muscle car. But he put sticky race tires on it, and the dealership said that due to the higher traction road tires, it blew his transmission. So they wrote the law to isolate warranty to all parts still in service.

Will you get push back? Yep. I did a few years later from my time at a dealership. Had a rear pinion seal leak. I was told that “due to the lift, it changed my pinion angle, and that the seal had too much stress on it.” My response was one of educating them how a rear axle actually works, then pointing out another FJ Cruiser on the show room floor that had the same OME rear springs, and asking if that is out of warrant also. About 10 minutes of that, and warranty taken care of.

Service managers can take “abuse” into account. If I saw bumper damage, and a blown CV, with mud shoved up in there. I can submit that the vehicle used was damaged and needed an insurance claim to be submitted instead. If you wreck your car, you don’t take it for warranty work.

So, in your example, that you could be left with only one option, and that is legal action. Yep, the same as if a medical procedure goes south from malpractice, or your roof leaks from improper work. The difference is in the auto industry, you win due to the act.

I can tell you that for large expense items (engines, trannys), some if not all manufacturers will fight. Much of this info can be found with a well targeted Google search.

Toyota may pay out in some instances, but I guarantee that the way the MM Act is drafted, it is no way intended or written in a way to give vehicle owners carte blanche to make changes and have the warranty apply if changes cause damage to other components. A summary reading of the act can confirm this for anyone interested.

Again, the act puts the burden on the manufacturer, but a finder of fact (often an arbitrator, and such arbitration clauses have also been subject to legal battles. I have been involved in such a dispute over the validity of an arbitration clause, and who is subject to it for over a year now, and the legal costs for just that portion are crazy) will rely on experts to make their determination as to whether a part causes damage. And the manufacturer will have good experts if they fight you.



If you put on aftermarket parts that cause stress to a related part, a manufacturer is within their right to deny claims. Be prepared for a headache, and be prepared for large legal expenses and the possibility to lose as the MM Act won't protect you for mod related failures, and prepare for a battle even if the failure didn't actually cause the failure (but appears that it could be related).

Attached is Ford's purported protocol for inspecting potential engine mods. And based on other internet user stories they can and will deny claims for such mods. There have even been lawsuits for Ford tracking people who race their cars and denying warranty.

So if OP puts on a lift with larger tires, he should be prepared for affected items (CV is the main culprit) not to be covered. Does that stop me from doing so? No. Do I understand the risks? Yes. And I would push back, but if a manufacturer denys my warranty for a CV joint, will I sue? No, it is not worth my time.

And since many service managers think they know the Act, but actually have no ****ing clue, be prepared to fight over mods that don't have any bearing on an unrelated failure (your pinion seal example). Happens all the time.

Feel free to mod, and know the MM Act is there to protect consumers for UNRELATED failures. But don't think you won't have to fight.

And if you think a dealer modified vehicle protects you, read the attached case. A consumer purchased a brand new Saleen Mustang from a Ford dealer. The Saleen mods caused engine damage, and the district and appellate court ruled against the consumer due to limitations and carve-outs in the Ford manufacturer warranty (Toyota has similar carve-outs). The salesman even told him it had a full warranty, but it wasn't in writing, so the courts didn't care.

This post:

(1) is not provided in the course of and does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, (2) is not intended as a solicitation, (3) is not intended to convey or constitute legal advice, and (4) is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. You should not act upon any such information without first seeking qualified professional counsel on your specific matter.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

@40Man, you’re a cool guy, and I enjoy your posts and have much respect. But, unless you have data collected from licensed dealers that show the relationship of warranted work compared to denied work, then you are simply speculating.

I can tell you that for large expense items (engines, trannys), some if not all manufacturers will fight. Much of this info can be found with a well targeted Google search.

Toyota may pay out in some instances, but I guarantee that the way the MM Act is drafted

If you can “guarantee,” then let’s see some statistical proof from the source... well, we both know your won’t be able to obtain that. So this goes down the opinion route as usual.

I’m sure there are plenty of “internet stories” of people that complain about the automakers not backing their product. Like how you said about service managers are uneducated, so is the general public. As one of my friends says, “everyone is an expert.”

You and I are almost agreeing on everything. If YOU do something absolutely dumb, yes, you’ll be denied. I’ve denied plenty of “Tacoma guys” with rough country lifts that then had a spacer lift on that. Why? Becuase I could prove that the owner didn’t even follow the aftermarkets installation requirements. But for every OME lift, that was properly sized for that application, they got the warranty. Why? Because it fell within the MM Act.

Maybe you’re just a nay sayer. But I’m a nay slayer, and have yet to be denied or have any of the hundreds of Soldiers under me be denied warranty work when I went with them to the service department. That’s why I feel the way I do. I’m sure there are a lot of good people that get denied rightful warranty claims, the world is not a fair place. Hence, why I later would go with my guys to see the service managers. Not denying that you’ll get push back. Dealership don’t make much money from sales. Service is what keeps a dealership alive, and there is always pressure on the service manager to provide a profit.

But here’s the real world helpful answer for everyone else. If you put an OME lift on, some wheels and tires, a bumper, the odds of you blowing up a CV or wheel bearing below 36,000 miles is very rare. If you have the extend warranty out to 120k, still rare.

How many factory CVs do you hear blowing on here? One is all I’ve seen. How many wheel bearings have you seen blow? One by Kurt.
That’s why you don’t hear about many happy warranty stories when it comes to suspensions. Because Toyota makes generally reliable vehicles.

For everyone else, if you run into an issue, PM me. I’ll provide you with what you need.

 

[40Man]

@40Man, you’re a cool guy, and I enjoy your posts and have much respect. But, unless you have data collected from licensed dealers that show the relationship of warranted work compared to denied work, then you are simply speculating.


If you can “guarantee,” then let’s see some statistical proof from the source... well, we both know your won’t be able to obtain that. So this goes down the opinion route as usual.

I’m sure there are plenty of “internet stories” of people that complain about the automakers not backing their product. Like how you said about service managers are uneducated, so is the general public. As one of my friends says, “everyone is an expert.”

You and I are almost agreeing on everything. If YOU do something absolutely dumb, yes, you’ll be denied. I’ve denied plenty of “Tacoma guys” with rough country lifts that then had a spacer lift on that. Why? Becuase I could prove that the owner didn’t even follow the aftermarkets installation requirements. But for every OME lift, that was properly sized for that application, they got the warranty. Why? Because it fell within the MM Act.

Maybe you’re just a nay sayer. But I’m a nay slayer, and have yet to be denied or have any of the hundreds of Soldiers under me be denied warranty work when I went with them to the service department. That’s why I feel the way I do. I’m sure there are a lot of good people that get denied rightful warranty claims, the world is not a fair place. Hence, why I later would go with my guys to see the service managers. Not denying that you’ll get push back. Dealership don’t make much money from sales. Service is what keeps a dealership alive, and there is always pressure on the service manager to provide a profit.

But here’s the real world helpful answer for everyone else. If you put an OME lift on, some wheels and tires, a bumper, the odds of you blowing up a CV or wheel bearing below 36,000 miles is very rare. If you have the extend warranty out to 120k, still rare.

How many factory CVs do you hear blowing on here? One is all I’ve seen. How many wheel bearings have you seen blow? One by Kurt.
That’s why you don’t hear about many happy warranty stories when it comes to suspensions. Because Toyota makes generally reliable vehicles.

For everyone else, if you run into an issue, PM me. I’ll provide you with what you need.

Statistical data for dealers? No. And most cases are taken care of through arbitration, which is private so no real data out there on litigation either. I can say there is a ton of litigation against Ford on this, largely due to the amount of tuning that goes on with their unlocked chips. Ford sucks.

What I do have is a particular set of skills. Skills that make me a nightmare....oh wait, that is Liam Neeson. Man, he is a bad ass.

What I have is real world legal experience, and an ability to interpret and analyze federal law. 99.9% of my practice is representing clients navigating federal law issues. In other words, I have a really boring job representing corporations. And I know what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act says, and doesn't say.

I don't need statistical data. I am not saying what car manufacturers will do, I can tell you what they can do from a legal standpoint. And even without legal standing, they can still screw you unless you have a good attorney. I previously worked for one of the largest law firms in the world with 50+ offices that represented corporate clients on these issues. And no, I will not discuss any of my firms clients, current or former. Which is why I provide info on publicly available issues. And when I am saying there is info out there, I'm talking about legal cases, not message board rumors.

The Saleen case shows how courts don't care about consumers. The court agreed that dealer mods were not covered under warranty and didn't care the dealer told the guy verbally it had a full warranty. It is crazy that Ford would do this, as most corporations will take care of customers to have a good reputation (not that they care about consumers, they care about keeping their investors happy).

I will reiterate that any mod that causes an OEM part may not be covered under warranty. The MM Act is not the protection many purport it to be. I'm not saying your CV will go bad with a lift. I'm saying if it does, don't rely on a warranty to fix it, and know you may have to fight to fix it. And I agree, a LC CV is robust. That isn't the point. The point is any mod that damages an OEM component, risks the loss of warranty, and that makes sense.

After the Takata recall on my 2012 4Runner, I have no trust in corporate Toyota. After receiving a recall (not just the notice of a pending recall) we went to the dealer to get a rental (which the recall provided for). Ours had been in one of the qualifying humid states, and the recall said no passengers in the front seat. The dealer approved the rental, but would only give us a small car. I requested something with more seating (our 4Runner had a 3rd row which we used regularly). Our dealer said they'd need Toyota approval, bit it should be no problem.

Toyota corporate called me and told me my car was safe to drive and I did not qualify for a rental. I asked them to provide that in writing, as their verbal statement conflicted with the plain language in the federal recall I was sent. She said they would not do that, and their was nothing to be done. Pretty ****ed up.

Did I have recourse? Sure, I could sue, and I'd win if I had done so. Was it worth suing over? No, and we did all the family outings in my LC until the new airbag came in a year later.

I still own only Toyota trucks, because it is likely other manufacturers will do the same or worse. At least Toyota vehicles are reliable.

The point of of my posts on this issue is to educate others that a mod may void warranty on other parts if the mod causes damage to a connected part. Not that Toyota won't cover it, but to understand the risk. Nothing wrong with pushing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to try to get coverage, but know that if a connected part fails, and you are denied coverage, the dealer/Toyota has the burden to show the added part caused the failure, but you may have to fight if they dig in their heels. And if they can show that a mod caused damage, they are within their rights to deny a claim.

 

[afgman786]

@40Man, the spacers that the person is talking about adding would be factory Toyota part... So voiding a warranty using a Toyota developed part helps the user in this case fight warranty still covering issues.