This isn't the first time Mustangs have been modded. Why issue a TSB now? Mustang owners have been modding for years. What's different about this motor than the previous ones that would warrant a separate TSB?

 

The more I read thsi TSB, the more I believe that Ford is preparing to cancel warranties for basic bolt ons. The verbage is very specific in identifying your most basic and common mods.

 

What's different about this motor? You're serious, right? Try 412 hp for starters. Once you wrap your head around that one get back to me. And as far as I know, its always been the rule that engine modifications void the warranty.

Pdonket, Ford does take responsibility, the thousands of times they have ever done warranty work on a car. Modifying your car isn't a right, there's no Ford statement saying that you as a human being have the God given right to change ECU parameters and bolt on performance enhancing parts with no regard to the consequences of such actions.

Lets try an analogy. You buy a brand new model 9mm handgun that's rated to shoot regular 9mm Luger. So for a while you shoot regular 9mm ammo and the gun functions perfectly. But you hear that people shoot 9mm +P/NATO all the time, right? Even in the previous model of this particular handgun. So you start shooting +P ammo and the slide cracks. Now is that the fault of the pistol manufacturer, or you for shooting ammo that the pistol isn't rated for?

And considering that I have yet to hear of a #8 cylinder failure with a tune done by a reputable shop, that would be similar to your pistol shooting 9mm +P handloads you bought from Jim-Bob Baggins down the street who has glaucoma and a bad case of the shakes.

Also, somebody please post an example of when any dealership has denied warranty work solely because of a catback. That would actually **** me off and make me change my tune (lol, tune, get it?) regarding that particular part of the TSB.

 

I dont' know what to say about the fire, I haven't read through that entire thread and sounds unfortunate to me. I hope Ford will make that one right.

But I have to disagree with your other points. Its your choice to install modifications on your car, its your responsibility to explain if something goes wrong that your modifications didn't cause it. And who else besides a Ford employee is going to make that call? You? Because you're not impartial in any way either....This TSB redefined a line in the sand that Ford has allowed to be crossed many times before. Maybe they shouldn't have since they've created an expectation that their warranty contract means nothing as long as you think you can get away with it.

 

I'd agree, but based on the Magnuson Moss Warranty act it's absolutely the manufacturer's responsibility to prove that my modification created a failure, not mine. So that one isn't really a debate, it's legally the provider of a warranty who must take the defensive, not me.

As for who should investigate cases, I'd say that it should be on Ford to have an independent company evaluate whether or not a modification caused a failure. In the case that it was the modification, the purchaser pays the cost of inspection, in the case it wasn't, Ford picks up the inspection tab and then must further resolve the issue. This way, someone who is trying to get away with murder won't press Ford because it'll just cost them in the end, and those who honestly have a case, won't be shafted by this craptastic patch job of a TSB.

Corporations today already have massive holes allowing them to take home more profit than they would otherwise, I'm not of the opinion that we should continue to let them take advantage of customers because of their size and mask of authority.

Also I should make it clear I have no personal goat to get with you at all, so don't take what I'm saying personally, just my thoughts on the TSB really. I do agree with you that I haven't heard of cat back warranty voiding, but it's the prospect that bothers me so thoroughly. IMO it's another excuse for Ford dealerships to refuse service even if the part with a problem can't be related to your mod.

I completely agree though, that taking responsibility for your own mods is important, I just don't like that dealerships love to apply one size fits all band-aids so often. I've gone to the trouble of contacting brenspeed to ensure they truly believe their tunes won't endanger my car and depending on the confidence of their response, I'll believe or disbelieve what they say. However if Ford gives me crap for my axlebacks I would take the dealership to court. I'm not trying to get away with murder here, I'm just trying to defend the people who want warranty work done for the right reasons.

 

That's it it in a nutshell right there, the 5.0 is 412 crank if my 4.6 can handle that 412 at the wheels the 5.0 should be able to handle much more if it cant then the motor is deficient and ford failed. Guess I'll just wait and see how this all turns out

 

All part of the evolution of high performance motors. This isn't a revelation. Aluminum block, heads, 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC isn't ground breaking technology. This technology has made it into other automobiles the past 15 years. I know what the "unwritten rule" is, but you still haven't addressed the question..."why now?" Why didn't they do it when they released the 3V when the technology was made mainstream to the Mustang? Or the Terminators? Or the GT500's? Wrap your head around that. Start thinking three dimensionally.

 

+1. Totally agree. Ford built this motor to go racing, not limit it to 412.

 

Pdonket, in the case of the Magnuson Moss Warranty act, I don't see what Ford is doing wrong then, when they try to show or uncover a mod that caused a failure to occur. And the procedure for a warranty disagreement with Ford is to get an arbitrator to hear both sides instead of going to court with a judge or jury. That's already in the warranty contract. And I'm not taking what you say personally. I enjoy a good debate.

Mikes BLK GT, the 5.0 is making that 412 hp naturally aspirated, running near or at the peak air/fuel ratio and timing. Trying to squeeze out more naturally aspirated will be more likely to result in damaging predetonation/pinging with brittle cast aluminum pistons than supercharging with a more modest tune and a meatier air/fuel ratio and more relaxed timing. Detonation at 430 hp will kill an engine faster than a good tune at 600 hp. That's why supercharger companies are selling kits that run over 600 hp reliably. I'd like to see the 4.6 do that.

 

Established technologies, yes, but still a new engine with different characteristics than the 4.6, and it is the first Mustang engine with Ti-VCT. And "why now?" Now because Ford is getting a rash of piston failures with the 5.0 due to crappy tunes so they put out a TSB...seems obvious. True, they didn't have as many issues with previous engines with similar technology, but none of those were pushing over 412 hp NA, and even more with the tune.