Unfortunately the search function is preventing me from linking to my previous post on this topic so briefly, my request to get a defective flywheel replaced under the contract with AWB was denied due to mods. Through the BBB I was able to get a copy of the claim report, as well as the request that went to the vehicle inspector. On that request there is a section labeled special request, it says "Leave verbal rept on voice mail. Please remember to report any Mods, Comm Use or Towing"

There is a full page of breakdown analysis, covering most of the fluid levels, hose condition, belt condition, as well as type of oil filter.

The bottom line was that the primary reason for denial was modification to the ECU. This was established by "Aftermarket wiring to the data port for laptop hookup" -That is a direct quote from the inspectors report. What is interesting is that as most know, a chipped ECU doesn't have any wiring going to it. What this inspector saw was wiring for my IC mister and Aquamist pump that I route through the box housing the ecu, and then down into the cabin of the car. That tells you something about the quality of the inspector, and how easy it is to have a claim denied based on an incorrect analysis.

For the people that are going to write and say, it should be denied because I modified the ecu, even if he couldn't tell, I just as easily could have been running a stock chip, and the claim would still have been denied for this wiring that had nothing to do with the ecu.

Once the whole mess is over I'll do a write up and post a copy of the documents they've filed.

 

Good Luck!

 

at the bottom it says "Inspector's opinion for cause of damage/failure:" and the inspector writes "I cannot confirm the parts shown me were the parts from this vehicle, if they were than I would call it a material failure of the slave cylinder and flywheel."

So the inspector weighs in that the cause was material failure, nothing to do with mods, but the claim is denied due to mods. Not that surprising, but in this case it is clear that even though the mods had nothing to do with the parts in question, they are what prevented the claim from being accepted.

 

rediculous but we all hear it (as I have this week) that this is the way these crooks do business. People that mod try to take advantages of warantees all the time. This is why the rest of us are punished for it. It happens all the time in ANY form of modding.

 

the BBB has much clout in the matter.

I know what the contract says, and understand where you're coming from. But look at it this way. There's no evidence that any non-OEM part caused the failure. Nowhere in the contract is a modification defined. How do you void a service claim for a modification, when the contract doesn't define what a modification is?

I don't accept that my Supersprint exhaust is a modification, it's not an oem part for sure, but that sounds to me like a replacement part. The statement on the inspectors report says "performance exhaust". Audi sells a "performance exhaust". Shoot, it's a 'performance car', I hope it has a performance exhaust on it. Of course the exhaust they sell meets their specs. But for arguments sake let's say the Supersprint is a modification to the exhaust. Is it approved by the manufacturer? Who knows? I just about guarantee AWB doesn't even know what kind of exhaust is on my car, now whether or not Audi approves of it. They're guessing. What do I want to do. Make 'em prove it. Prove to me that the exhaust on my car is not approved by Audi. Based on the information given by the inspector I don't see how they can do that. They don't know who makes the exhaust, what model it is? How can they say Audi doesn't approve of it? Actually, Audi probably doesn't approve or disapprove of any aftermarket parts. Think how much risk they would take in doing so. Which then opens the door to AWB voiding your contract for any non-OEM part, NAPA, Autozone, you name it, because Audi doesn't approve of it. Hell, I'd only expect Audi to approve of their own parts. How's that for a deal, use Audi OEM parts or we void the warranty. That's not a stretch to think it could happen.

I'm just approaching this argument from the aspect of the term modification not being defined, and demanding that if they are going to claim that the manufacturer does not approve of my exhaust, show me the proof. Otherwise pay up, because they aren't satisfying the terms of the contract.

BTW, thanks for arguing against me, should I decide to take this to small claims court it will be good to have had my arguments put under some scrutiny.

 

what you have quoted is not what is on my contract. My contract reads under items not covered "(19) Vehicles with modification or alterations to the powertrain, suspension (including tire or wheel sizes or offsets) or the exhaust system not approved by the Vehicle manufacturer."

So you're saying a non-OEM part is a modification? The contract allows for replacement parts that are non-OEM, though that part only may not be covered by the contract. If I walk into Meineke with a bent up Audi muffler and they replace my stock muffler, are you saying if it differs one bit from the stock one, that it is a modification to the exhaust system, flush my service contract?

Let me backtrack though. If we're going to do this right, you have only the information that AWB does when you argue with me. That is, you have a poor quality picture of the underside of my car, and one from about six feet away at the rear of the car, and the following words "performance exhaust system front to back."

So, how do you know my exhaust is larger than stock? How large is it? What size is stock?

I see them saying that their 'independent expert' made the determination that it is a performance system and not a stock unit. Again I'd ask, show me the proof, I don't want some guys opinion. This independent expert also stated that some wires running through the ecu housing were tied into the ecu to modify it. Can we agree that is utter nonsense? The independent expert stated I have a coil over adjustable spring suspension. Adjustable springs? I think not.

You also have no definition of modification to fall back on Mr. AWB representative. They didn't define modification in the contract. But they did put this statement in there.

"You should read this vehicle service contract carefully. It contains the entire agreement between you and us. It takes precedence over any other written or oral statements made to you with respect to this contract."

So you're trying to tell me now that this undefined term should be defined as you say? The contract states what you say is irrelevant. The contract takes precedence, and the contract leaves the definition wide open.

By the way, thanks for mentioning the part about my car being ineligible from the beginning. I did ask about having non-Audi parts on the car, similar but not the Audi part, and the person I spoke to said it should be ok. That'll be a good angle to work. My goal is to get 100% of my money back.

 

That in itself should be evidence that it's an Audi approved part for not being disapproved

I had an audi-rep approve two K03 swaps with a BiPipe, cat-back exhaust, Boost gauge, Tie bar, Short shifter, etc.. and in the last one, I had the Ginormous ASP downpipes installed! The ECU was stock though :x

 

one time when I didn't have the contract in front of me and I noticed some changes since I purchased my contract.

Para 6 and 7 in your post are not in my contract, I have posted para 19 from my contract, which is the one they (AWB) refer to when I question them about this matter.

 

FWIW I belive if an item is TUV certified then it is deemed to meet or exceed orignal equipment specifications. Certain chips, co and exhausts are all TUV certified.

 

with the aftermarket parts installed.