Changing oil yourself vs a store

Just a quick question, i know a lot of dealers are being jerks about demanding you show them the up to date service records for oil changes and this and that before they will do any warranty work, etc.

Question is: If you do your own oil changes (a simple procedure), how can you prove it was done, besides writing it in the manual in the Notes section (is that not what its for??) They might just say you wrote that in to fake it...any ideas?

Just keep the receipts. The law says that's proof enough. If your car fails due to an oil-related issue, the manufacturer can choose to research it and see if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that you didn't change the oil. If they determine you didn't change it and you actually did, then you need to contact the oil manufacturer and sue their butts :)

Honestly, don't worry about it. If the dealer is going to void your warranty, there first has to be a failure, and then proof that some out-of-house work was done that caused it. For instance, if you put an aftermarket exhaust on your car and the radio stops working, they can't say that your warranty is void because of the exhaust. On the other hand, if you install an aftermarket exhaust and the valves burn, they could validly argue that the exhuast was the problem and your warranty is then voided.

If a dealer is pressuring you to do the service there, its just because they want to guilt you into spending your money there. If they refuse warranty repairs because you didn't go there for maintenance, its illegal and a violation of federal law. A well placed call from and irate customer to the manufacturer should get the squeak greased, or just choose another dealer. If you go to another dealer with a sob story about the last one screwing you over, they'll kiss your butt and welcome you to their superior service. Make sure to mention the "violation of federal law" part so they know that you know what they can and can't do.

There are some rare exceptions to this rule. If you bought the car used from an independent dealer and purchased an aftermarket "warranty", then read your contract. Since it is not an actual warranty but an insurance policy, it is not subject to warranty law. It is subject to the contract you signed with the underwriting company. If that contract says you must perform your maintenance there, then get your butt over there and on time. :)

thanks!

If the dealer is going to void your warranty, there first has to be a failure, and then proof that some out-of-house work was done that caused it. .

I agree with curtis except for this part.

I think the original posting refers to the car owner actually DOING the oil change in their own driveway.

The dealer can refuse to honour the warranty at their discretion.
If you have an oil related failure and a warrantly claim, your receipts from your own oil changes are not sufficient proof that they have been done or done properly. They can refuse to honour the warranty. They do NOT have to prove that your own at-home oil change was the cause. You will have no recourse in the courts because you have violated the terms of the warranty because, unless you are a licenced mechanic, you are not qualified to service your car, under the terms of the warranty.

However, taking the car to an independent garage for oil changes is just fine, if you keep the recepts. For a warranty claim, they are just as valid as if the dealer did them.

MagicRat, that used to be the case until about 1983. I emailed this thread to my college roomate who is now a warranty lawyer for a Japanese/American car company in Ohio. He replied of a court case concerning this....

Ford's case was that the owner doing his/her own oil changes caused a failure and therefore didn't honor their warranty claim. A Kansas court ruled that assuming it was the owner was inconclusive and discriminatory. The basic point was that someone like me (not certified at anything but I build cars and engines in my sleep) is not qualified, but the minimum wage 16-year-old at Jumpy Lube is qualified because he watched the half-hour training video. The judge agreed with both sides, however since oil changes are such an "elementary" thing it could not provide sufficient evidence to the outcome of the owner being at fault. It also removed "licensed" mechanic from the term books. In some states, "licensed" means that they work for a company with liability insurance. Some states require SAE certification to be licensed. Saying that a licensed mechanic does the work means nothing globally and this Kansas court spoke to that.

This case set a precedent since about the only thing you can do to screw up an oil change is documentable by obvious stuff; wrong viscosity, filter not on tight, plug not tight, wrong filter or service rating of the oil... Not enough oil caused by a leak, or engine failure from the wrong oil were the only things this court case recognized. If you change your oil with the same viscosity, filter, tools, and technique as a Cracker Lube, and it fails, there has to be sufficient evidence that the failure was caused by negligence on the part of the owner. The precedent set was saying that the failure was not likely caused by oil and the failure would have happened regardless of where the oil was changed. Now manufacturers are required to provide proof that the owner was negligent. For once a court used the innocent until proven guilty part of the law :)

This court case however did not set a precedent for manufacturers failing to cover warranty items. Its just like medical insurance. The companies have a contract with you and you with them. If you keep your part of the bargain (pay the bills) they are supposed to cover your stuff. Many times they deny claims knowing that the customer will just pay and think, "I thought that was covered but I guess not." The Insurance company can claim that it was a mistake, but its not illegal until the customer presses charges.

Warranties are a touchy federal thing. In the late 70s, Washington DC and the Big Three really didn't get along and there was no love. The late 70s saw much legal activity on warranties and legislation went the way of the consumer.

If a dealer refuses a warranty claim that the consumer thinks should be covered and they press charges, the dealer is accused of a felony. If it reaches state supreme court, the manufacturer is accused of a Federal felony. That's punishable by big stuff. Some staff flunkie gets 5-7 at Danbury MSP. :)

He's right, they can choose to honor the warranty at their discretion, but they'd better have the backing of the manufacturer and sufficient evidence. Many times they don't and it gets them in trouble. Fortunately for them, not many consumers know their butt from a hole in the ground and the culpability goes out the window.

I had a situation with an EGR valve that failed on a car. Not only was it covered under warranty, it had three TSBs and one recall campaign. They refused to fix it saying it wasn't covered. They assumed I was dumb and could be told that "it wasn't a problem". I gently reminded them of their duty by quoting this court case along with a copy of GM's warranty policy. They seemed a little more willing to comply when a felony was involved. Its big business and they take HUGE leads off of second base, but the pitcher never even tries to throw him out, so the leads get bigger.