RE: 1994 540i Auto Transmission Service and Fluid

[Vincent Poy <vince@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 michael_kohlbrenner@domain.elided wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henri Baccouche [mailto:henrib@domain.elided]
>
> > There is a popular misconception that you could use
> > lubricants to service your car which are not recommended
> > by the OEM Manufacturer.........without risk.
> >
> > This is very fawlty logic today.......if you have a
> > warranty this will void it. If you insist on using non-
> > approved lubricants......you are at risk of damaging the
> > engine /trans / dif.....etc.
>
> This is an interesting issue.  In the U.S., there is
> something called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  Part of
> this act covers so-called "Tie-In Sales" Provisions.  From
> the Federal Trade Commission site:
>
>  http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm
>
>    "Tie-In Sales" Provisions
>    Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed.
>    Such a provision would require a purchaser of the
>    warranted product to buy an item or service from a
>    particular company to use with the warranted product
>    in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under
>    the warranty.
>
> My understanding of this with respect to this topic (which
> may be wrong, of course...) is that if a manufacturer
> insists on a specific brand of replacement fluid in order
> to maintain warranty coverage, they must provide it free
> of charge.
>
> Perhaps BMW could have been running afoul of the Magnuson-
> Moss Act if they REQUIRED that only this fancy ATF be used
> in order to maintain the warranty on the transmission.
>
> Could it be possible that BMW simply chose to take the
> easy way out -- i.e. simply call it a "lifetime" fluid
> and actually make no recommendations for flushing it?
> They know that the transmission will make it through the
> warranty period, even with no fluid changes.
>
> Conspiracy theorists unite!
>
> Regards,
> Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> p.s.
> This is also one of the reasons that Amsoil had to go to
> such great lengths on this issue way back when they didn't
> actually the API service designations on their oil (e.g.
> "SJ").  The manufacturer doesn't list a specific brand,
> but they do define the required oil by this widely used
> standard.  Amsoil didn't have this rating (they still
> may not -- I don't keep up with that pyramid marketing
> crap business...).

	Hmmm, don't know if this act actually works because
Tektronix/Xerox when you buy their Phaser series of Solid Ink printers
requires you to use OEM parts or else the warranty is void.  I guess the
OEM can hold patents on the ink as well as it printer itself.


Cheers,
Vince - vince@domain.elided - Vice President             ________   __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / |  / |[__  ]
WurldLink Corporation                                  / / / /  | /  | __] ]
San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong                  / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Almighty1@IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin

------------------------------