A muffler has no merit on the basis of warranty. How far do you believe manufactures should be able to take this? Non-factory tires on your truck? Sorry, warranty denied.
This is nothing more than BRP trying to save some cash. They know the majority of people use a lightweight can therefore they can reduce the number of people they offer warranty to.
Again, I'm not talking about a mod sled here, tuning, fueling, engine work, etc. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MUFFLER! Do you believe a muffler has been the sole cause of any modern 2 stroke engine failure? Honest question.
I get a little touchy on this subject as years ago I had a dealer deny warranty on a 3 month old sled because I was using Amsoil. Now, BRP hadn't designed or tested this oil with their system, just like the muffler. So do you agree that they should be able to deny warranty based on that?
Well Amsoil didn't agree and started a lawsuit with BRP.
Here are the court notes on how that turned out:
OBJECTIVE:
1. Communicate a significant language change in BRP's warranty
policy.
2. Communicate that the use of AMSOIL lubricants in BRP
snowmobile and ATV engines will not place warranties at risk.
3. Assure customers that AMSOIL synthetic lubricants meet or
exceed the performance requirements of BRP snowmobile and
ATV engines.
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION:
AMSOIL customers who recently purchased a Ski-Doo snowmobile
or Can-Am ATV were advised that it was necessary to
use BRP-branded lubricants or risk the loss of warranty coverage.
Customers were referring to language found in multiple
Ski-Doo and Can-Am operator's guides that instructed use
of only a specified BRP synthetic lubricant. Further, the
guides state "Use of other engine oils may cause severe engine
damage and may void the limited warranty" (3)(4). Additional
BRP operator's guides state there is "no known equivalent"
(1)(4) to the branded BRP lubricant on the market.
AMSOIL confronted BRP about the warranty language in its
operator's guides. Specifically, AMSOIL asserted that the
warranty language violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
a federal law which prohibits manufacturers from requiring
the use of a branded service/replacement part unless the branded
service/replacement part is provided free of charge.
AMSOIL emphasized that its synthetic lubricants meet or
exceed the engine performance requirements for both two- and
four-cycle engines used in power sports equipment.
BRP, while denying that its warranty language violated the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act or any other regulation, advised
AMSOIL that it has never denied a warranty claim based on
the use of "improper oil" (2). Furthermore, BRP advised that
it will modify the language of its operator's guides as follows:
1. It will no longer say that use of oil other than the BRPbranded
product may void the warranty.
2. When it recommends a particular branded product, it will
ensure that the language is clearly identified as a recommendation
rather than a requirement.
3. It will no longer comment on the availability of equivalents
