[gearheadred]

So I've been seeing a lot of "warranty advice" threads lately in regards to which warranty to get for their N63, but not many that have posted they are taking their chances that any future repair costs will not exceed the price of an extended warranty. I have a 2013 550xi (yes, N63) that has been virtually trouble-free (only issue, a DMTL pump replaced under warranty) since the CCP was done roughly 30k miles ago, and am on the fence. Anyone else out there that has had good luck with their N63/N63tu vehicle and decided against an aftermarket warranty? Tell me I'm not crazy here (or tell me I am ). Thanks for your input.

[SLVSRFR]

101k miles on my '11 N63 and haven't had to change anything but an oil gasket, the turbo charger coolant pump (it was a recall item), and the injectors on bank 2 that were covered since it wasn't changed under CCP. I drive my car daily and pretty hard. I change my oil every 6-7k miles and I can honestly see this car going another 30-40k with no major issues. Turbos and transmission probably might go following that but those are expected at such high mileage.

No warranty here, mainly because they don't offer one above 100k. But based on my experience, depending on the cost and length of the warranty, I'd rather put that money into a savings and use it for necessary repairs. That way if nothing goes wrong, I didn't waste $3800-$4500

[STR8-6IX]

Originally Posted by gearheadred

So I've been seeing a lot of "warranty advice" threads lately in regards to which warranty to get for their N63, but not many that have posted they are taking their chances that any future repair costs will not exceed the price of an extended warranty. I have a 2013 550xi (yes, N63) that has been virtually trouble-free (only issue, a DMTL pump replaced under warranty) since the CCP was done roughly 30k miles ago, and am on the fence. Anyone else out there that has had good luck with their N63/N63tu vehicle and decided against an aftermarket warranty? Tell me I'm not crazy here (or tell me I am ). Thanks for your input.

I think it will be a bit of a gamble.

[SLVSRFR]

Also if you mod; be weary of these aftermarket service contracts (people call them "warranty" but that's not what they are). The only true warranty you could get is from BMW themselves (the same one they offer to CPO). If it has an underlying company it's not a warranty. For example, some BMW dealers offer a service contract from Assurant Solutions, they are a known company for these Contracts aka "Warranties."

Assurant Solutions can deny covering the cost of a repair, due to rust, corrosion, or aftermarket parts. So if you have aftermarket wheels, springs, or coils, they can deny your claim. And the case that the Supreme Court decided on (The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) does not apply because it is not a "new car warranty" but a service contract. Read the fine print of these contracts and you see that most of them are a gamble. Google the BBB of these companies and you'll see that majority of them try to avoid paying for repairs at all costs, especially if you're a modder. The fate of your warranty will be based on the adjuster that comes to look at your car at the time of repair, hopefully he's a car enthusiast.

[EL Jeffe 5]

I have 2013 550i I had two times drive train malfunction other than that they couldn't find nothing wrong with car other than that No Problems. I bought warranty just in case you newer know, knowing parts are so expensive and labor.
I could take gamble and not buy it or get it and sleep better.

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

Assurant Solutions can deny covering the cost of a repair, due to rust, corrosion, or aftermarket parts. So if you have aftermarket wheels, springs, or coils, they can deny your claim. And the case that the Supreme Court decided on (The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) does not apply because it is not a "new car warranty" but a service contract. Read the fine print of these contracts and you see that most of them are a gamble. Google the BBB of these companies and you'll see that majority of them try to avoid paying for repairs at all costs, especially if you're a modder. The fate of your warranty will be based on the adjuster that comes to look at your car at the time of repair, hopefully he's a car enthusiast.

That's not limited to aftermarket warranty companies. BMW can deny a claim for the same reason. If you have mods that could potentially affect the failed part, then of course they will most likely deny it. If you have wheels or a suspension and your engine has problems, then they can not deny it if it should be covered under warranty.

I reviewed all the aftermarket companies that I was considering before making a decision - including customer reviews. A lot of the BBB complaints are unwarranted if you read the details. People would buy the cheapest coverage and would get mad that their part was not covered when it was specifically listed as "excluded" on the contract. People think as long as they buy any warranty, everything would be covered. Especially when it comes to our cars, you have to pay to play. If I have liability insurance and my car gets stolen, I have no reason to complain to the insurance company.

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

That's not limited to aftermarket warranty companies. BMW can deny a claim for the same reason. If you have mods that could potentially affect the failed part, then of course they will most likely deny it. If you have wheels or a suspension and your engine has problems, then they can not deny it if it should be covered under warranty.

I reviewed all the aftermarket companies that I was considering before making a decision - including customer reviews. A lot of the BBB complaints are unwarranted if you read the details. People would buy the cheapest coverage and would get mad that their part was not covered when it was specifically listed as "excluded" on the contract. People think as long as they buy any warranty, everything would be covered. Especially when it comes to our cars, you have to pay to play. If I have liability insurance and my car gets stolen, I have no reason to complain to the insurance company.

I had my lawyer look over my service contract with Assurant through USAA's Extended Vehicle Protection. He advised against it due to the verbal velvet daggers throughout the contract. If they choose not to cover a repair, they have many failsafes to back out of the claim. It's an insurance company, and we all know how insurance companies make money.

To reiterate, a Sevice contract is not a warranty. If the contract that you sign says they will not cover a car with aftermarket parts, they can LEGALLY deny the claim. Again, I'm not referring to the factory BMW warranty, I'm talking about these aftermarket contracts. They are not warranties, and therefore not covered under the warranty act. If you sign the contract saying that they won't cover your car if you modify its stock condition, then you are obligated IF they choose to deny the claim.

To the OP: Bottom line, google "is an aftermarket warranty worth it" and you'll see many articles that argue against it due to the nature of these contracts. If you do decide to get one, have a lawyer look over the contract to make sure everything is good on your end.

Here is an example of these velvet daggers that I'm referring to (I.e. Not limited to):

[AmooManiak]

There are aftermarket warranties that are as legit as a BMW warranty. BMW can deny any claim due to aftermarket parts directly relating to the breakdown just like an aftermarket warranty company can.

What you highlighted above could be applicable to the BMW warranty as well. If you have oversized tires, they can deny your claim for suspension components because the suspension was not meant to handle that specific tire size. They can not deny a claim for the engine components due to "oversized tires" unless they can prove that the suspension caused the engine to fail. I think this is fairly common with all manufacturers warranties.

It is illegal to deny a claim where the the aftermarket part did not directly contribute to the breakdown. If you have a JB4 and your radio stops working, they would have to prove that the JB4 caused the radio to malfunction.

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

There are aftermarket warranties that are as legit as a BMW warranty. BMW can deny any claim due to aftermarket parts directly relating to the breakdown just like an aftermarket warranty company can.

What you highlighted above could be applicable to the BMW warranty as well. If you have oversized tires, they can deny your claim for suspension components because the suspension was not meant to handle that specific tire size. They can not deny a claim for the engine components due to "oversized tires" unless they can prove that the suspension caused the engine to fail. I think this is fairly common with all manufacturers warranties.

It is illegal to deny a claim where the the aftermarket part did not directly contribute to the breakdown. If you have a JB4 and your radio stops working, they would have to prove that the JB4 caused the radio to malfunction.

Not true at all. That above picture is not an excerpt from a warranty it's from a service contract. You're using them as a relative term, when legally, they are not. If you can't grasp that then my point is falling on deaf ears. The term warranty in the Warranty Act only applies to original vehicle manufacturer WARRANTY, which can be extended by the original manufacturer (CPO vehicles). An after market service contract (you keep calling them WARRANTY) does not fall under the same protection as the Warranty Act.

BMW can't deny claim of a blown engine based on 3 piece 21" wheels with your FACTORY WARRANTY because there is no definite correlation on how wheels can cause an engine to blow. Which was decided by the Supreme Court with the Warranty Act. But an aftermarket service contract that states under your obligation of the contract, you agree to not alter the vehicle from its stock condition or the contract is void, is completely legal. Only if it's in the contract that you sign because a service contract is just an insurance policy and not covered under the Warranty Act. I don't see what's not to get here. It's pretty much in black and white under the law.

Law Facts straight from the FTC (Federal Trade Commission): Look under Warranty Pieces. "Aftermarket warranties" by law, are defined as service contracts, not warranties:

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0252-warranties

Here it's explained on why these contracts have a reputation to be shady:

https://www.edmunds.com/auto-warrant...arranties.html

[Bbb34]

Originally Posted by gearheadred

Tell me I'm not crazy here (or tell me I am ).

N63 or any other engine, it's a gamble, but so are most things in life.

Cars of all brands and ages brake down all the time, it's highly likely that at some point down the road expensive repair or two will come up. As we all know, nothing on these cars is cheap to replace or maintain.

I think it's "pay now" or "pay later" type of decision. If you decide to keep it, just make sure you budget certain amount for repairs in the future, trading it in or buying additional warranty falls under "pay now" option.

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

Not true at all. That above picture is not an excerpt from a warranty it's from a service contract. You're using them as a relative term, when legally, they are not. If you can't grasp that then my point is falling on deaf ears. The term warranty in the Warranty Act only applies to original vehicle manufacturer WARRANTY, which can be extended by the original manufacturer (CPO vehicles). An after market service contract (you keep calling them WARRANTY) does not fall under the same protection as the Warranty Act.

BMW can't deny claim of a blown engine based on 3 piece 21" wheels with your FACTORY WARRANTY because there is no definite correlation on how wheels can cause an engine to blow. Which was decided by the Supreme Court with the Warranty Act. But an aftermarket service contract that states under your obligation of the contract, you agree to not alter the vehicle from its stock condition or the contract is void, is completely legal. Only if it's in the contract that you sign because a service contract is just an insurance policy and not covered under the Warranty Act. I don't see what's not to get here. It's pretty much in black and white under the law.

Law Facts straight from the FTC (Federal Trade Commission): Look under Warranty Pieces. "Aftermarket warranties" by law, are defined as service contracts, not warranties:

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0252-warranties

Here it's explained on why these contracts have a reputation to be shady:

https://www.edmunds.com/auto-warrant...arranties.html

Warranty, Service Contract, you know what I meant. At the end of the day you're saying that the 3rd party warranty (service contract to make you happy) can deny any claim because of an oversized tire. You're arguing over the term when you should be discussing the contents. I did not mean to hurt your feelings by calling the Service Contract a Warranty.

Back to the meaningful part of the conversion - what you're saying is not true. It may be the case with the ONE you looked at, but you're basing your findings on the ONE you looked at and are spreading false information. You should have done more research on other companies.

From my aftermarket warranty (service contract to make you happy)

V. EXCLUSIONS; PARTS AND SERVICES NOT COVERED. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCLUDED BY OR NOT
COVERED UNDER THIS EXTENDED SERVICE PROGRAM:

B. ANY REPAIR IF A NON-AUTHORIZED PERFORMANCE PART OR EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE BREAKDOWN.

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

BMW can't deny claim of a blown engine based on 3 piece 21" wheels with your FACTORY WARRANTY because there is no definite correlation on how wheels can cause an engine to blow.

Neither do most 3rd party warranties (service contracts to make you happy.) You are referring to the ONE that you looked at, but most of the ones I looked at when making a decision did not state that they would not cover an engine part due to a wheel.

There has to be DIRECT CORRELATION between the two. At the end of the day it's a legally binding agreement between the consumer and the warranty (service contract) company. Unless they state "We reserve the right to deny any claim for no reason at any time", they are responsible for covering the repair unless they can prove that it's related to an aftermarket performance part. It doesn't even have to reference the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in this case.

Again, you are scaring people away from getting an aftermarket warranty (service contract to make you happy.) Most of us on here have aftermarket wheels and I have never had an issue with an aftermarket warranty (service contract to make you happy) claim in my life.

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

Warranty, Service Contract, you know what I meant. At the end of the day you're saying that the 3rd party warranty (service contract to make you happy) can deny any claim because of an oversized tire. You're arguing over the term when you should be discussing the contents. I did not mean to hurt your feelings by calling the Service Contract a Warranty.

Back to the meaningful part of the conversion - what you're saying is not true. It may be the case with the ONE you looked at, but you're basing your findings on the ONE you looked at and are spreading false information. You should have done more research on other companies.

From my aftermarket warranty (service contract to make you happy)

V. EXCLUSIONS; PARTS AND SERVICES NOT COVERED. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCLUDED BY OR NOT
COVERED UNDER THIS EXTENDED SERVICE PROGRAM:

B. ANY REPAIR IF A NON-AUTHORIZED PERFORMANCE PART OR EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE BREAKDOWN.

What case are you talking about? I never mentioned a case. I put a link of the FTC referencing the LAW, the law defines ALL EXTENDED WARRANTIES as service contracts. Service Contracts, are not covered under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Meaning, any company that offer these "Extended Warranties" can legally deny your claim for any reason defined in their contract.

A company that offers service contracts can deny a claim running oversized tires (21" wheels on a car that originally came with and was designed with 18's) and it has been done many times. In your case for example, if you put 21's on your car without getting it authorized by them, they can deny your claim. You bolded the wrong Keyword in your warranty excerpt that you posted:

B. ANY REPAIR IF A NON-AUTHORIZED PERFORMANCE PART OR EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE BREAKDOWN.

They have complete control of what they cover.

/thread

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

What case are you talking about? I never mentioned a case. I put a link of the FTC referencing the LAW, the law defines ALL EXTENDED WARRANTIES as service contracts. Service Contracts, are not covered under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Meaning, any company that offer these "Extended Warranties" can legally deny your claim for any reason defined in their contract.

Not sure why you're even referencing the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act as a service agreement is a binding agreement between consumer and company. It doesn't even need to be car related, it could be related to any AGREEMENT. They are responsible for delivering the product that they sell unless they say "We reserve the right to deny any claim for any reason."

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

A company that offers service contracts can deny a claim running oversized tires (21" wheels on a car that originally came with and was designed with 18's) and it has been done many times. In your case for example, if you put 21's on your car without getting it authorized by them, they can deny your claim. You bolded the wrong Keyword in your warranty excerpt that you posted:

B. ANY REPAIR IF A NON-AUTHORIZED PERFORMANCE PART OR EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE BREAKDOWN.

They have complete control of what they cover.

/thread

Hahaha are you kidding? They are saying it has to be directly related!!! You're just conveniently disregarding the key word. Both conditions have to be met for it not to be covered! I can't believe I have to spell it out for you.

They have complete control of what they cover if it's DIRECTLY related to the breakdown. This is the same case with BMW. They can not deny the engine because of a wheel.

Can you please give me ONE example where an engine part was not covered because of oversized tires. Just ONE? You say it's happened many times, so finding one should not be hard for you. I'm waiting...

/Thread

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

There has to be DIRECT CORRELATION between the two. At the end of the day it's a legally binding agreement between the consumer and the warranty (service contract) company. Unless they state "We reserve the right to deny any claim for no reason at any time", they are responsible for covering the repair unless they can prove that it's related to an aftermarket performance part. It doesn't even have to reference the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in this case.

LOL! You're missing the whole point and your statement is completely contradictory. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is what WARRANTS that there must be DIRECT CORRELATION between the two, and service contracts, by law, are not governed by this Act. Which is why they have shady reputation. Which is why its a gamble with "Aftermarket Warranties" and that is why it is important to fully decide if thats something you want to gamble with. I personally would not and would put that money in savings for future repairs. Don't get me wrong, some companies will honor their contract, but its a case by case, repair by repair basis. Usually if they're losing money, they will and can find a way to deny a claim. If you cant accept that, then don't buy a "Aftermarket Warranty" because ACCORDING TO THE LAW, you have little to no ground for a fight.

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

LOL! You're missing the whole point and your statement is completely contradictory. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is what WARRANTS that there must be DIRECT CORRELATION between the two, and service contracts, by law, are not governed by this Act. Which is why they have shady reputation. Which is why its a gamble with "Aftermarket Warranties" and that is why it is important to fully decide if thats something you want to gamble with. I personally would not and would put that money in savings for future repairs. Don't get me wrong, some companies will honor their contract, but its a case by case, repair by repair basis. Usually if they're losing money, they will and can find a way to deny a claim. If you cant accept that, then don't buy a "Aftermarket Warranty" because ACCORDING TO THE LAW, you have little to no ground for a fight.

Again, it's a legally binding agreement. You buy a product - it needs to be delivered or you will have a field day in court unelss it says they can deny a claim at any time for no reason. No reason to even look at the the MMWA since it's an aftermarket warranty. Not sure why you are confusing those two? Forget the MMWA with aftermarket warranties! We're talking about a binding agreement that does not just apply to car warranties, but anything in life.

Still waiting for that warranty claim denial where an engine part was not covered due to wheels...

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

Again, it's a legally binding agreement. You buy a product - it needs to be delivered or you will have a field day in court unelss it says they can deny a claim at any time for no reason. No reason to even look at the the MMWA since it's an aftermarket warranty. Not sure why you are confusing those two? Forget the MMWA with aftermarket warranties! We're talking about a binding agreement that does not just apply to car warranties, but anything in life.

Still waiting for that warranty claim denial where an engine part was not covered due to wheels...

You just proved my point...LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING. With the contract, its within their legal right to deny a claim if its a stated obligation to not alter the vehicle or make NON-AUTHORIZED modications, just like your contract says.

Here's 1 they are all over the internet, especially BMW forums:
Engine replacement from Rod Bearing failure denied due to 3-piece wheels
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...se-advice.html

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

You just proved my point...LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING. With the contract, its within their legal right to deny a claim if its a stated obligation to not alter the vehicle or make NON-AUTHORIZED modications, just like your contract says.

IF IT'S DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FAILING PART!

Condition 1 - It's a non-authorized part.
Condition 2 - It's DIRECTLY related to the failure

If either of those conditions are not met, then it's a valid claim!

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

Here's 1 they are all over the internet, especially BMW forums:
Engine replacement from Rod Bearing failure denied due to 3-piece wheels
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...se-advice.html

I'd like to see the print from that warranty company. For all we know the contract says that no modifications are allowed or warranty is void.

EDIT:

Ok, just read the second page of that thread and it was not the wheels/tires that lead to the claim denial. This is what the OP says:

"Here is the latest...

Spoke to a supervisor at the warranty company, he explained the following reasons led to decision on denying the claim. I'll let you guys come to your own conclusion

1. The exhaust delete contributed to the rod bearing faillure b/c it relieves engine backpressure, giving more hp. I asked to please explain what evidence they used to arrive at that conclusion, but was only provided a general theoretical explanation of how exhausts work.

2. They have photos/video of my car (e.g.dyno, muffler delete vid) which leads them to believe the vehicle is 'driven hard' or 'abused'.

3. Future warranty claims would undergo the same scrutiny whether related or not related to my current mods.

4. I still have coverage as of now, have the option of cancelling and getting a pro rated refund.

Fun stuff. I'll be getting a second opinion on the bearing issue from my indy mechanic as a next step to confirm the issue has been accurately diagnosed."

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

I'd like to see the print from that warranty company. For all we know the contract says that no modifications are allowed or warranty is void.

EDIT:

Ok, just read the second page of that thread and it was not the wheels/tires that lead to the claim denial. This is what the OP says:

"Here is the latest...

Spoke to a supervisor at the warranty company, he explained the following reasons led to decision on denying the claim. I'll let you guys come to your own conclusion

1. The exhaust delete contributed to the rod bearing faillure b/c it relieves engine backpressure, giving more hp. I asked to please explain what evidence they used to arrive at that conclusion, but was only provided a general theoretical explanation of how exhausts work.

2. They have photos/video of my car (e.g.dyno, muffler delete vid) which leads them to believe the vehicle is 'driven hard' or 'abused'.

3. Future warranty claims would undergo the same scrutiny whether related or not related to my current mods.

4. I still have coverage as of now, have the option of cancelling and getting a pro rated refund.

Fun stuff. I'll be getting a second opinion on the bearing issue from my indy mechanic as a next step to confirm the issue has been accurately diagnosed."

They still denied his claim, initially to 3 piece wheels, and found more grounds for their argument. And an exhaust wouldn't be a direct correlation to engine failure (rod bearings in this case), however due to not being protected by the MMWA he was still denied. I rest my case.

[AmooManiak]

Originally Posted by SLVSRFR

They still denied his claim, initially to 3 piece wheels, and found more grounds for their argument. And an exhaust would be a direct correlation to engine failure, however due to not being protected by the MMWA he was still denied. I rest my case.

WHAT??? It was initially denied but after review not because of the wheels. So as it turns out, the claim was not denied because of the wheels like you claimed but because of aftermarket performance parts after the OP posted an update. You didn't pick a very good example as you're just proving my point. Obviously they had no ground to deny the claim due to wheels as it wasn't even mentioned by the supervisor after explanation was requested. If that was the reason for denial then this would be a simple case in court (unless the contract says they can deny claim for any reason they want.)

A performance exhaust can increase air flow, performance and COULD partially be responsible for rod bearing issues. That's not really hard to grasp. It's performing outside of factory parameters. Even if it's a 0.01% performance increase, they could argue that it's performing outside of the acceptable threshold.

[SLVSRFR]

Originally Posted by AmooManiak

WHAT??? It was initially denied but after review not because of the wheels. So as it turns out, the claim was not denied because of the wheels like you claimed but because of aftermarket performance parts after the OP posted an update. You didn't pick a very good example as you're just proving my point. Obviously they had no ground to deny the claim due to wheels as it wasn't even mentioned by the supervisor after explanation was requested. If that was the reason for denial then this would be a simple case in court (unless the contract says they can deny claim for any reason they want.)

An exhaust can increase air flow, performance and COULD partially be responsible for rod bearing issues. That's not really hard to grasp. It's performing outside of factory parameters. Even if it's a 0.01% performance increase, they could argue that it's performing outside of the acceptable threshold.

Wrong. A section 3 exhaust has no effect on engine wear due to it being post catalytic converter.

https://www.magnaflow.com/support/fa...tory-warranty/

BMW cannot void your warranty due to an aftermarket section 3 exhaust. Thanks to the MMWA

[AmooManiak]

Real world tests tend to disagree with that statement.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34114

Also, I don't exactly expect Magnaflow to be against muffler modifications! They are saying that "Under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975, 15 USC, 2302 and Clean Air Act 42 of USA code 7541, you have rights." What does that even mean? They're not specifically pointing to any rights pertaining to exhaust modifications that add power. If a car makes more power than it did when it's stock, it's working outside of the intended parameters.