so i'm going through the forums and find a few opinions that Audi has the burden of proof when it comes to warranty repairs and whether a chip caused the malfunction. It doesn't seem to be the case with what I've read in the way of how Audi handles its customers.

It seems that any malfunction under the hood can be attributable to chipping, but also that it could not. I would love to run a sting and see if we can bring a car in with a blown tbb or turbo, tell them it was chipped(it is not) and see if they immediately blame the chip.

i wonder what they would do?

i think it was LMGotts that said that I was evil.
Why, yes I am...

 

I'm curious about the basis of your complaint:
1. Would you assume the risk for repairing a complex mechanical system after someone else has monkeyed with the imbedded electronic controls?
2. Who should pay for determining the cause of a failure if the the systems been altered by the buyer?
3. Considering that with no buyer-installed chip there would be no dispute, are you willing to pay for what ever diagnostic effort is needed to determine responsibilty for a problem?
4. Can you name a car maker that has a different policy than Audi?

 

It does appear by how the law reads that Audi would have the burden of proof, but the owner would have the burden of bringing a suit to force Audi to fix the car if they reneg. I'm sure many car companies know few people are willing to go through the hassle and expense of bringing a suit while, in the meantime, their car doesn't work. It's more of a pain in the *** to force the issue sometimes than the benefit ($) is worth.

 

that someone screwed up by putting aftermarket parts in. The problem is however, that usually when there is a problem with a car the slugs "fixing" the car don't really do any "diagnosis" or real investigation into the cause, they simply take the symptom, look it up in the book and do whatever the book says even though many things can cause similar symptoms. To make things worse, often they don't even check to see if their fix actually was successful. This is not Audi or any company specific--seems to be almost everyone.
A chipped car, like any other should have its problem analyzed and investigated and if it is found that the aftermarket product contributed to the problem it should not be covered by warranty and the owner should pay for diagnosis time. Most places already charge for diagnosis time and sometimes subtract it from the total bill if the work is completed.

 

If you own Audi, would you rather spend money on developing better products to suit you potential customers or on diagnosting products that have been modified?
If you tell Microsoft that you modified their code and now your system keeps crashing, do you think Microsoft's willing to pay someone to reload the OS for you?

 

Hmm, that really is Evil. Maybe the chip companies should be doing the "chip warranty" repairs?

 

misinterpretation of Audi's policy by the dealer service departments. I don't think that anyone really expects Audi to make repairs under warranty for problems caused by aftermarket parts. Audi has a specific issue with chip tuning and rightfully so due to the additional stress placed on the turbos and other engine components that higher boost levels impose in the system. Many posts have discussed the limitations of the K03 turbos. Personally, I wouldn't want to chip an A6 w/o upgrading the turbos as well. I believe the enginer itself is strong enough but the major limitation from all I've read here is the turbos themselves.

Again the biggest issue people have here on the board is the literal interpretation that the dealers are taking with Audis aftermarket part policy. I've read that this is being extended to aftermarket tires, wheels, springs, filter elements, you name it. The dealers service departments do not have anyone qualified to make a determination that use any aftermarket part contributed to a failure or problem that should be covered by warranty. I don't believe that they are even qualified to say that using a chip will contribute to a turbo failure or any other failure. Audi, however, should have people available to make that determination.

Dealers, as has been stated many times, can not void a warranty. Only Audi can do that. There is legislation in place that places the burden of proof on the manufacturer to prove that the failure was caused by an aftermarket part and then it limits that determination to the system(s) affected by the aftermarket part, not the whole vehicle as some of them would have you believe.

 

here here! could not have said it better myself.

 

If a windows user somehow has installed some aftermarket software and has issues with windows not being stable they would certainly have a case for going to Microsoft and expecting Microsoft to find to cause of the problem. As is often the case, if Microsoft finds that the problem lies with the "aftermarket software", they will tell you to go to the software company for help. If on the other hand, Microsoft finds that there is a common problem that many users are having, then they will write a fix themselves and make it available to their users.

Of course this isn't a perfect analogy to the situation with a car company but it would still seem reasonable for AOA to make some attempt to find out where the fault lies, either the aftermarket part or a designe or manufacturing fault in the car. The reason that laws were passed prohibiting manufacturers from voiding a warranty for using aftermarket parts and/or service is that it put them in the position of a monopoly in regards to parts and service for the life of your warranty. This issue is somewhat blurred when the manufacturer provides free service during the warranty period but what about the owner who wants to change his oil more frequently than AOA recommends. If he uses an aftermarket filter and the turbos fail should AOA be able to say that they won't fix them because the aftermarket filter may have been the cause or should they have to proove that the filter caused the problem. The law states the latter, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

Software has no "parts cost". And how many time do companies come up with "fixes" that actually break your setup and cause you to reinstall? Ever consider how much labor your personally put in installing "free" software updates?