edge insight and my dealership

[BILLUA]

Condescending? I think not - - - I just think there are a bunch of TDR members that don't understand how the real world works - - doesn't matter if it's Dodge, Chevy, or Toyota - - - the manufacturer hold all the cards - - That is unless you are ready and willing to spend alot of money - - and you damn sure won't get any help for an after market supplier.

So as it stands, you must prove your claim in court if necessary - - read again, what I posted very carefully

From a neutral observer.

Posted by C. D Day:
Sit down little boy and listen real close...

If that is not defined as condescending in your book, I agree with Cosmos evaluation of you...

 

[DennyDay]

Think what you like - - - Bottom line is - - without a lawyer, willing and able to take Dodge to court, and prove your claim - - you are behind the 8 Ball - - and yes Dodge holds ALL the cards - - - you must prove the Edge does nothing to change the engine - - Edge will not help you as it will probably put them out of business - - -can you afford to hire a lawyer, first to understand the problem, and second to provided all the testing required that will hold up in court that?

 

[craiggo]

It maybe a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act (Federal Violation) BUT



Sit down little boy and listen real close - - If The Manufacturer (Dodge/Chrysler) is denying warrantee coverage because you added a monitoring system, or any other system for that matter, they can and will do it, to eliminate warrantee costs.



The ball is really in YOUR court, along with Edge to challange Chrysler's denying warrantee coverage and claiming you have added something to your truck that will interfere with the correct operation of the truck they built. If all else fails, they will claim the addidion of equipment will cause emission violations, guess where that will go.



It is up to you and Edge to prove its is not.



Ya gotta' pay if you want to play - - "THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT" not Dodge's- - Edge and your attorney is going to have to Prove your system is doing nothing to hurt your truck.



You can cry and whine all day, but the fact is, Dodge is in the drivers seat.



Having had an Edge Product several Years ago, I really don't think Edge will want any part of this or be of any help to you. :-{}

I'm sitting down and I'm listening real close but, to be honest, it's hard to understand your rectal dialect. You are ******* up the wrong tree here with me.



Clearly you did not read or understand my previous posts. I have been there and done that. I sued Ford in court re: the Mangnuson-Moss act and won. Can you say that? Do you have any legal experience with the MM act?



Cal me a BS'er, go ahead, I dare you. All the records are publicly available in the San Mateo County Superior court records... .



So tell us what experience you have?



Yes, you have to initiate legal action but THEY have to prove the Insight was the cause.

 

[HBarlow]

I'm sitting down and I'm listening real close but, to be honest, it's hard to understand your rectal dialect. You are ******* up the wrong tree here with me.

Clearly you did not read or understand my previous posts. I have been there and done that. I sued Ford in court re: the Mangnuson-Moss act and won. Can you say that? Do you have any legal experience with the MM act?

Cal me a BS'er, go ahead, I dare you. All the records are publicly available in the San Mateo County Superior court records... .

So tell us what experience you have?

Yes, you have to initiate legal action but THEY have to prove the Insight was the cause.

Craigo,

I don't think anyone doubts your story about sueing Furd, I certainly don't.

But Denny Day's and my point is that if Dodge voids the manufacturer's warranty due to use of aftermarket equipment that dealer or Dodge employees believe caused the problems being reported by the owner, internet discussions, aftermarket product literature, explanations to dealer service departments, or idle threats aren't going to resolve the issue. Your own experience is ample evidence.

You hired an attorney and sued Furd and won. It was probably relatively easy to win a lawsuit against Furd when the Sick. Ohh/Navistar V8 diesel engine was at issue. Furd probably lost hundreds of lawsuits and repurchased thousands of Sick. Ohh Furd trucks built between 2002 and 2007.

My guess is it would not be as easy to win a lawsuit against Dodge for voiding a warranty by use of Edge products. Dodge or Cummins would only have to purchase a similar Edge product, install it on a truck in inventory, and watch what happens while the truck is connected to a computer. The original poster has reported here that each time he reinstalled the Edge device his truck set codes. Duhhh. How can anyone claim the Edge is only a digital gauge set? I've had analog guage sets on all three of my Dodges and never set a code.

 

[DennyDay]

Craigo - - No, I've never had to sue anybody or been sued by anybody, BUT -- well I almost sued Edge, when I sent a unit back and they claimed they never got it and I had the paperwork from FEDEX with a signature on it - - -but thats another story - - you made my point - - Dodge can say anything, and the ball is now in your court to prove them wrong. Great on your winning in the Ford deal - - looks like you are very experienced in filing law suits - - but I do understand "It's the California Way"

 

[chopper698]

It was actually everytime dodge reinstalled or plugged in the insight they Dodge said they were getting codes. I plugged it back in and have been driving it since with no problems. So who's BS'n who? Don't tell me a little soot or should I say a lot of soot on an 02 sensor is from the insight. Cause ultimately that was the cause of the code not codes coming up. And the more I read on this forum and others like it, my location the way I drive and choose the way I use my vehicle, deletes are just around the corner. Or face many more soot induced trips to the story telling dealer.

 

[champspa]

you have bought a engine that has had a lot of problems, ram is looking to get rid of your warranty , just give them a reason . you have had the first warning. they are taking it the next time . It will cost as much as the truck to prove them wrong , if you can . you may as well put a programmer in as you stand accused , you can't win.
We have all done this my number 8 plate went in before warranty was up , the cat died , and 4 inch exhaust all should or could have canceled the warranty . By the way it's hard to sell a truck if they take the warranty .

 

[HBarlow]

Opinions like champspa's above are sometimes expressed by those who do not own and have never considered owning a new Gen III or Gen IV with ISB6. 7 engine.

The engine itself has been essentially troublefree. It is only the federally mandated and unnecessary overly restrictive emissions control junk that has caused sooting in early models, mostly 2007. 5s when the trucks were used in light service duty cycles. The problems experienced and reported by early owners have been resolved by several ECM software reflashes. Editor Robert Patton discussed this issue at length in the recent TDR magazine.

We have read of very few reported problems on 2008 through 2011 trucks. My own cab and chassis has been completely trouble free at a little over 100,000 miles.

The Cummins engine is intended for heavy highway service. Earlier 12 valve and 24 valve ISB5. 9 engines could easily tolerate short trips and light duty cycles. Unfortunately the new 6. 7s are apparently less tolerant of light duty cycles because of emissions equipment Cummins and Dodge were required to add.

I have never seen any indication in over 10 years of ownership and membership in TDR that Dodge has a goal of cancelling warranties for no reason. The only time I have ever read complaints about warranty issues was when aftermarket equipment was involved.

No owner of any product should expect to modify the product or use it outside of the manufacturer's intended usage and keep his warranty intact.

As long as I have been a member of TDR the old phrase "you are your own warranty station" has been repeated when modification are made.

I AM NOT saying that installation of an EDGE product digital gauge product modifies the engine. I don't know what the product does. The subject of this thread is the original poster's dealer apparently thinks the OP's EDGE product did modify the engine and did cause it to set codes. I have no opinion of whether the dealer service department was correct or incorrect. The point is if the dealer voids the warranty, it is void until a judge or jury determines it should be reinstated. Legal challenges to a voided warranty can be very expensive and success is not guaranteed or even likely when aftermarket equipment has been installed.

 

[LarryM]

Wow!! What a polarizing issue. In the over 11 years as a member, I mostly sat on the fence and watched as a few other issues have raised the hackles on some of the guys. One of the worst is over the Revocation of the warranty by the dealer over some after market gadget or modification. I just installed the Edge Insight on my new truck. It seems to me, that it is no more or less intrusive to the trucks systems than any of the electronic scanners on the market, as it only READS data, it does not CHANGE any programing or operating parameter. It seems to me, that this dealer is taking the side of a "technician" who cannot find the cause of the MIL and reported that it had to be the insight. This tech is most likely the shop gopher who in reality is not trained. I'm certain that the district rep, when given the details would settle this quickly, at least one would hope so as this isn't even close to being a "felony" that would garner a revocation. Just my thoughts.....

 

[craiggo]

Craigo - - No, I've never had to sue anybody or been sued by anybody, BUT -- well I almost sued Edge, when I sent a unit back and they claimed they never got it and I had the paperwork from FEDEX with a signature on it - - -but thats another story - - you made my point - - Dodge can say anything, and the ball is now in your court to prove them wrong. Great on your winning in the Ford deal - - looks like you are very experienced in filing law suits - - but I do understand "It's the California Way"

I don't know what you read that makes you think I am experienced in filing lawsuits as that is categorically false. But this is the type of case that would never make it to a jury. If Dodge were to deny my warranty, I would file suit based on the MM Act. I'd subpoena Edge and their developers and prove the Insight is "read only. " I'd also have a forensic analysis done (this IS something I have experience with) proving this point.

Dodge/Ford/Chevy would never want that info going public because it would open the floodgates on their us with no possibility of the denying warranty claims. They would settle out of court (which would include all costs and fees).

There is no reason why we should not be able to use the ODBII port for this. Plugging our trailers into the back of our truck is way more intrusive than using a read-only scan device on the ODBII ports.

 

[dlmetzger]

Craiggo, I'm trying to understand how the Magnuson-Moss Act works. Once you file suit against Dodge (assuming they illegally denied your warranty), is the burden of proof on Dodge to prove the device caused the problem or is is yours? I thought earlier you stated the burden was Dodges. HBarlow and C. D. Day were implying that the burden of proof was yours.

 

[Cosmo]

In theory, the burden of proof is on them. I've never had an issue with it though.

 

[HBarlow]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in any legal matter taken into a court of law. In the situation under discussion the plaintiff is the truck owner with the voided warranty, the defendent would be Chrysler, Dodge, the dealer, whoever was sued.

 

[craiggo]

Craiggo, I'm trying to understand how the Magnuson-Moss Act works. Once you file suit against Dodge (assuming they illegally denied your warranty), is the burden of proof on Dodge to prove the device caused the problem or is is yours? I thought earlier you stated the burden was Dodges. HBarlow and C. D. Day were implying that the burden of proof was yours. [/QUOTE



The burden of proof is on the warranty provider (in this case Dodge).



Stay with me on this:



1. You take your truck in due to a mass air flow code error (or whatever, this is just and example).



2. During the process, the dealer see's your Insight (read only) and denies repairs and voids your warranty. (Again, this technically applies to tuners also but I wouldn't go down that path).



3. You have several options:



A. See what you can do to work it out with the dealer.

B. Take the dealer to small claims court and sue for reimbursement of the money you paid for the extended warranty (and maybe depreciation (loss of value) due to no more warranty

C. Sue for Magnuson-Moss (what does this get you?): This gets you several things. First off the Magnuson-Moss act makes breach of warranty a violation of federal law and allows plaintiffs to recover court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. In general, most warranty-related lawsuits are brought in state courts, but class action suits can be brought in federal court. This is not to say that Magnuson-Moss has litigation as its goal. Rather, the goal is to make companies think carefully before they breach a warranty. But in this process, the warrantor (Dodge, Ford, GM) have to prove that what you installed caused the damage which resulted in them voiding the warranty. To be more clear, they have the device caused the damage as apposed to you having to prove it wasn't?



Does this make sense?

 

[craiggo]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in any legal matter taken into a court of law.

This is not exactly true in this case, think of this as more of a tort or a cause of action than a true legal case. It's a little gray. You (the plaintiff) do not have to prove the device didn't cause the damage. The plaintiff seeks relief based on the MM Act which, in turn forces the dealer to prove the device was the cause.

Did I explain it correctly? It's an odd proceeding... .

It's more like taking your ex-wife to court and have the judge order her to give you your dog back.

 

[HBarlow]

I've never been personally involved in a civil lawsuit but I don't agree with you. The manufacturer, Chrysler, has voided a warranty and refuses to provide service under the warranty. That stands until a judge orders the warranty reinstated and/or damages paid.

You, the truck owner/plaintiff must challenge the manufacturer's decision by demonstrating that your aftermarket device was not sufficient reason for doing so. The defendent, Chrysler, would have to defend their decision/position by showing it was sufficient reason.

The law and court procedures are not always simple or clear to someone not trained in the law like myself so I cannot be certain.

 

[Bob4x4]

This thread seems to be going the wrong direction. The daeler does not restrict the warranty,that must come from corporate.

It seems to me the easiest solution would be takng the truck into another dealer where they understand the 6. 7.

Moving on... ... ..... a stock truck does not need gauges :-{}

 

[Cosmo]

Harvey, the way the law is written, it's the dealer's burden to demonstrate that the problem in question is caused by the third party article.

Moving on... ... ..... a stock truck does not need gauges :-{}

So a stock 24-valve wouldn't benefit from a fuel pressure gauge? Seems to me that with known lift pump failures causing ~$1000 injection pumps to go bad, it would be a smart idea to monitor the fuel pressure.



Any turbo vehicle runs the risk of catastrophic engine failure should EGTs get out of control. I have a friend whose HPCR 5. 9 is sitting in his driveway with a few melted pistons due to fueling issues. His was not stock, but electronic glitches can happen even on stock vehicles.

 

[Bob4x4]

Harvey, the way the law is written, it's the dealer's burden to demonstrate that the problem in question is caused by the third party article.









So a stock 24-valve wouldn't benefit from a fuel pressure gauge? Seems to me that with known lift pump failures causing ~$1000 injection pumps to go bad, it would be a smart idea to monitor the fuel pressure.



Any turbo vehicle runs the risk of catastrophic engine failure should EGTs get out of control. I have a friend whose HPCR 5. 9 is sitting in his driveway with a few melted pistons due to fueling issues. His was not stock, but electronic glitches can happen even on stock vehicles.

I never said they are not handy... ... ... . this whole mess of a thread is about warranty complications.



A CTD -Stock in warranty does not NEED gauges.



:-laf Any engine that has high egts will fail,it doesn't need a turbo for that.

 

[HBarlow]

Harvey, the way the law is written, it's the dealer's burden to demonstrate that the problem in question is caused by the third party article. QUOTE]

Can you post that portion of the Magnuson-Moss Act?