Jump to content

Valvomax oil drain void warranty

IH784
 Share

Recommended Posts

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2022 at 8:55 PM, IH784 said:

If I install an oil drain valve like the Valvomax oil drain, will it void my warranty? 

 

 

Real simple.

 

An oil drain valve won't void your warranty, unless, the oil drain valve can be found to be the cause of engine failure. 

 

So for example, if you had that on there and it was leaking or somehow failed and drained the crankcase and the engine blew, your repair would not be a warranty related repair.  Now lets say you had a lifter fail, but burned no oil, no leaks.  The drain valve would not have been the cause of lifter failure, and therefore your lifter repair would be covered under warranty.  

  • Like 2
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gangly said:

Answer is no, it will not void your warranty.  I have a Fumoto valve installed on my truck and I love it. 

 

The only issue you might have is a technician not smart enough to figure out what it is and decide to remove it like a typical oil drain plug.

 

That true :crackup:

 

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

Well my father would say I spent enough money here you better fix it. My son big in sports likes driving sports cars. Doesn’t own a wrench. 

 

True story. My entire family was raised in the Temple of FORD. My first new car was a FORD and had issues the dealer made worse and worse until the factory regional rep got envolved. They declined to make right and I threated a suit. At which point I was contacted by FORD LEGAL and told to go ahead if I thought I had more money than FORD. At which point I just had it fixed privately. 

 

SO....what I told FORD was no person in my family would ever buy a new FORD again. Naturally they laughed. I took this to the elders of the family and that decision is still in force today family wide and currently four generations deep. That would be near 100 new cars not bought over the course of 40 plus years. FORD really showed me, eh? 

 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
  • Like 2
J2Jones Enthusiast

J2Jones

Posted
Posted
On 10/3/2022 at 2:06 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

SO....what I told FORD was no person in my family would ever buy a new FORD again. Naturally they laughed. I took this to the elders of the family and that decision is still in force today family wide and currently four generations deep. That would be near 100 new cars not bought over the course of 40 plus years. FORD really showed me, eh? 

 

 

I had intermittent electrical issues with a 2006 Mustang GT that I had into the dealer at least 5 times under warranty and they couldn't find it, the 6th time, less that 1,000 miles outside of warranty they located the issue and wanted to fix it but Dearborn wouldn't let them.  That coupled with my son's experience with repeated failures on a transmission and Ford won't be in my house either.

 

That said, had a GMC Envoy XL with multiple fuel tank leaks (all fixed under warranty) and then with another fuel tank leak, coupled with a random electrical issue, all within 18 months ownership.  Said I'd never have another GM either.  And now I have a 2019 AT4.  Just liked the redesign enough to risk it I guess. 

 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...