Warranty
Dodge / Chrysler are not supposed to beable to arbitarily void a warranty just because an aftermarket part is installed. They would have to be able to substantiate that the aftermarket part was the cuase of the failure (in other words, the failure occurred due to the use of the aftermarket part).
In the real world, the fear of the OEM is huge in most cases by the general public. Hence, the reason for the Fair Trade Act.
In my opinion, Dodge / Chrysler are in violation of the Fair Trade Act with the label that they installed on my NV 4500 transmission. It states something to the effect that if any other fluid other than the Mopar or Castrol Syntrans is used, the warranty will be void. By this wording, the fluid should be free for the length of the warranty, in this case 100,000 miles. But Dodge gets away with it and look at how many end users bite the bullet and pay DC 26 / Quart for the Mopar labelled product.
Being in the lubricant industry, a manufacturer can get an exemption for a lubricant like Castrol IF they can prove that the unit will not work with any other fluid. The US government has YET to grant such an exemption for any lubricants.
In Brandon's case, I would believe that if he could prove that the Gale Banks modification were the sole reason that the part failed, then it would be Banks that should / might provide assistance in repairing / replacing that part. However, Brandon, if I'm recalling his post, has many other mods in addition to just the Banks mods and it would be unjust to only single out one after market part supplier / mfg and not the others.
Additionally, most car manufacturer's have a statement in their warranty books supplied with each vehicle that 'racing' or 'competition events' will void a warranty. I think we would all agree that a 'pull' is a 'competition event' and would void even a stock truck's factory warranty.
Life's sometimes a bi#$$ when you want to have fun. Hopefully, most can accept the consequences of their own actions (modifications).
Again, I would like to believe that if a truck had only Bank's modifications to it, and a problem arose that was related to the increased power mod itself, (not tire wear, or u-joint failures, or some other driveline wear component such as the clutch or torque convertor) that the Bank's company would assist the end user with fighting the OEM. This does not mean representing them in a legal case in court, this is up to the individual to fight. I mean supplying information that would be relevant to keeping the warranty in place so that if the client wanted to fight the OEM he would have the pertinent information and accurate information so that the OEM can not bulls@#$ the end user about warranty rights.
Regarding Bill K's concerns about clients with the warranty on transmissions. Modification or no mods, auto transmissions fail under normal operating conditions after x time. Get an end user that abuses, neglects, or modifies the power output and your chance at transmission damage is going to increase. Is this increased behind a Banks system? I would tend to think not. The percentage is probably close to the same percentage of stock transmission problems.
Thanks for letting me post - hope this helps someone.
I am not pro nor con this debate. Just giving impartial input.
