Failed 2nd Gear Synchro - Warranty Claim Approved (was denied)

[Balance]

Yep, another one these stories.

I took delivery of my Elise in 12/2004. Downshifting from 3rd to 2nd at high rpms was always a little rough, but early on I just attributed the light grinding to my timing being a bit off with an unfamiliar car that still needed to be broken in anyway. Double clutching 3rd to 2nd gear made the shifter glide right in so I just did that.

As time passed and I built experience and confidence with the Elise, I began to suspect that there was a problem with my 2nd gear synchro. The gears were grinding when downshifting from 3rd to 2nd gear at higher RPMs with the clutch fully disengaged. However, with the car being so new, I thought it could still be a number of things. What's more, it was around the heyday of broken stock shifters and shifter performance complaints (but BEFORE the recall). Figuring the stock shifter was a performance and safety issue, I opted for the B&M shifter for peace of mind and hope that it would cure the 3rd to 2nd gear grinding.

Due to procrastination, I waited quite awhile before installing the B&M shifter. When I finally got around to it and removed the center console, I noticed the black plastic conduit that the shift cable slides through was cracked at the end (red circle in Gearchange Cable Schematic). I knew at the time it had just recently cracked, as I had the center console off being painted just a couple weeks before and the cables were fine.

I probably should have left the stock shifter in and brought the car to the dealer to have the cable replaced at that point. However, with momentum going on a job I had procrastinated so long to do, I went ahead and installed the B&M anyway. I then reinforced the end of the shift cable conduit with four metal splints for some short term testing of the newly installed shift lever. The new shifter felt great but 2nd gear was still grinding. Shortly thereafter, an extremely busy time in my life came up with lots of traveling and planning (I had just gotten engaged, started a new business, etc.) so, for a period of roughly 6 months I put very few miles on my car. I barely even visited EliseTalk relative to my usual daily blitzkrieg!

Post wedding, when my life started to return to normal, I came across posts on Elisetalk of people who were having 2nd gear synchro issues as well. Here are some I found with a quick search:

Red05Elise - http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26522
TTP - http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26414
Avi - http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19561
jplotus - http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10483
Surferjer - http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22434
I'm sure there are more.

Suspecting I had the same issue I finally got around to bringing my car in to Newport European for a laundry list of warranty work last month. The list included the 2nd gear synchro problem. I was told that they couldn't properly diagnose the problem until the Lotus recall replacement shifter was installed and the cable was replaced and adjusted. It was suggested to me that flushing the transmission fluid may help as well. Heeding the advice of many respected Lotus enthusiasts, I gave Newport European Redline MT-90 for the transmission fluid flush and I gave them the go ahead to replace the B&M with the Lotus replacement shifter.

I soon got a call informing me that Lotus USA would not replace the shifter cable under warranty. ARRRRG! Ok, how am I supposed to prove that it was cracked before the B&M shifter went in? Lotus USA would not budge, and I just wanted them to diagnose the 2nd gear grinding issue. I gave in and paid for the cable to be replaced:

$309.57 Cable
$424.00 Labor
------------
$733.57 Total to replace the cable which was broken with the OEM shifter.

Later I'm told the car is done and to pick it up. It was suggested that I drive the car around for a little while and see if the grinding issues subside. After putting about 50 miles on the car the grinding was still there.

I read on EliseTalk that many with the 2nd gear synchro issue had had successful transmission replacements at Lotus of South Bay. Figuring they had a lot of experience with the problem I decided to break from tradition and give Lotus of South Bay a try. (This had nothing to do with the quality of service I have received from Newport European, they have been top notch. This also had nothing to do with trying to hide the fact that I previously had a B&M shifter installed in the car. I was well aware that my previous issues were now in Lotus' database.)

The Service Manager at Lotus of South Bay, Qais, was extremely helpful. He said he had already done a few transmission replacements because of bad 2nd gear synchros and he was familiar with the issue. He first tried adjusting my cables again which greatly improved shift action, but unfortunately failed to cure the 2nd gear grinding. He did some tests and concluded it was a bad 2nd gear synchro. He then did the data dump. Oddly enough, he said that the data had been "zapped" somehow, and he was getting an incomplete and inconsistent data read out.

Great, I was thinking now I have a most suspicious Elise! For the record, I have never done anything to my ECU! Qais said he would explain the situation to Lotus USA and get back to me.

When Qais finally got back to me, he said Lotus USA had some concerns (these caught me off guard and may be of great interest to you guys):

• He said Lotus USA wanted to know how long the Redline MT-90 had been in because Redline MT-90 was not a Lotus approved transmission oil and can cause excessive wear on the synchros.

• He said Lotus USA wanted to know if Newport European had installed the B&M shifter because if they did then they were responsible for the transmission issue and I should take it up with them.

I told Qais to tell Lotus USA that I just had the Redline put in and I installed the B&M shifter myself. I later spoke with Qais and he said Lotus USA was denying my warranty claim on the basis that I had the B&M shifter installed.

I was under the impression that, by law, the burden is on the auto manufacturer to prove that the modification caused the failure. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true with my experience being the de facto reality? Considering this appears to be a known issue, do I have a reasonable case if I take legal action?

[Bruce]

I don't know why MT-90 would not be an approved lubricant. All the service manual and owner's manual says is 75w/90 API GL4. And that's what MT-90 is. It doesn't say anything about having to use a Lotus approved oil. If that's the case, Lotus better publish the brands that they have approved.

Stan's probably had MT-90 in his car for more miles than anyone else. He has never said anything about transmission problems. Maybe he can comment on the number of miles he has on it, when he put it in, and how many times he's changed it.

[andykeck]

Originally Posted by Balance

I was under the impression that, by law, the burden is on the auto manufacturer to prove that the modification caused the failure. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true...

It's true.

Legally, a vehicle manufacturer cannot void the warranty on a vehicle due to an aftermarket part unless they can prove that the aftermarket part caused or contributed to the failure in the vehicle (per the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) .

...with my experience being the de facto reality?

Yes. They have to prove that your shifter install broke the synchro. How? In court in front of a judge. Lawyer up. Of course, they count on this costing too much for you to bother with. Good luck.

[andykeck]

Originally Posted by Bruce

I don't know why MT-90 would not be an approved lubricant. All the service manual and owner's manual says is 75w/90 API GL4. And that's what MT-90 is. It doesn't say anything about having to use a Lotus approved oil.

It doesn't say that you have to use a Lotus approved oil and it can't either unless they provide it for free. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act link above. It's a B.S. claim they hope will not be contested.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Bruce

I don't know why MT-90 would not be an approved lubricant. All the service manual and owner's manual says is 75w/90 API GL4. And that's what MT-90 is. It doesn't say anything about having to use a Lotus approved oil. If that's the case, Lotus better publish the brands that they have approved.

Stan's probably had MT-90 in his car for more miles than anyone else. He has never said anything about transmission problems. Maybe he can comment on the number of miles he has on it, when he put it in, and how many times he's changed it.

I personally think using Redline MT-90 is probably fine for the transmission. However, if Lotus USA may use the use of Redline MT-90 as additional wiggle room to deny a warranty claim, I think everyone here should be aware.

[Bruce]

Also didn't you have the problem before MT-90 was put in, and that's documented, and didn't an authorized Lotus dealer put the MT-90 in? Did they tell you, ok we'll put this in but it's not Lotus approved and it will void your warranty?

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Also didn't you have the problem before MT-90 was put in, and that's documented, and didn't an authorized Lotus dealer put the MT-90 in? Did they tell you, ok we'll put this in but it's not Lotus approved and it will void your warranty?

Lotus USA denied my warranty claim on the basis that I had the B&M shifter installed.

[MattG]

Originally Posted by Balance

Dave Simpkin denied my warranty claim on the basis that I had the B&M shifter installed.

Take it up one level to Lotus Cars USA corporate. Just keep escalating the issue and don't read too much into the first answer you get, sometimes people make mistakes and once they learn more about what that shifter is my hunch is they'll change their mind and help you out.

[khamai]

Sorry to hear about the synchro problem.

I'm not taking sides here, but just word of advice that goes for any car under warranty...

In general if you suspect any type of warranty issue immediately report it to the dealer and get it documented. Then if the dealer says "drive, don't worry..." and there's a related failure you're more likely to be covered.

Kiyoshi

[Stormy320]

In my opinion anytime you alter a major function of the car - transmission - engine - suspension - I think you can kiss the warranty good by.

I'm surprised they didn't just laugh at you.

Get over it, get it fixed, and go have fun with your car.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Stormy320

Get over it, get it fixed, and go have fun with your car.

Definitely still having fun with my car. It's not a big deal to me to double clutch the 3rd to 2nd downshift. With my faith in the transmission shaken, even if I did get a new transmission or synchro, I think I would double clutch that downshift from now on anyway. I don't know if the fix is worth the cost.

[polar]

this is BS. lotus should replace this B&M or not. it's a know issue and occurs on more than one car.

i track the crap out of my porsches, i have roll bar, harness and you name it... in my car. my dealer knows what i do with the car. they warranties wheel bearings, clutch, suspension parts...

it is a bad business decision on lotus' part.

[CarNut]

A lot of erroneous information has been published on the web regarding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and how it does or does not protect you, especially with regard to using non-manufacturer performance parts.

The Act does not require the manufacturer to prove that any part did or didn't cause the problem. The part of the Act which applies here is with regard to "tie-in sales". Tie-in sales provisions, such as requiring a purchaser to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to maintain the warranty, are not allowed.

This provision allows you, for example, to use a non-factory brand oil filter or a different brand of spark plugs as long as they meet the manufacturer’s specifications. It does not, however, allow you to make modifications which are outside of factory specification.

Some people have interpreted this provision to mean that the dealer must prove that your part caused the failure. The Act makes no such statement. If there is reasonable cause and effect that a failure could have been the result on installing a non-factory part that is different in some specification to the OEM part, the dealer is entirely within his right to deny a warranty claim.

In the case of a non-factory shifter, the dealer would be within their rights to deny a warranty claim because the non-OEM shifter is not to the original factory specification.

[andykeck]

You may well be correct. The lawyers hired by SEMA disagree however.

The Law
Federal law sets forth requirements for warranties and contains a number of provisions to prevent vehicle manufacturers, dealers and others from unjustly denying warranty coverage. With regard to aftermarket parts, the spirit of the law is that warranty coverage cannot be denied simply because such parts are present on the vehicle, or have been used (see Attachment A). The warranty coverage can be denied only if the aftermarket part caused the malfunction or damage for which warranty coverage is sought. Disputes in this area usually boil down to arguments over facts and technical opinions, rather than arguments over interpretations of the law.

[maz]

was it the cable, or the synchro that got denied?
if dave deep-sixed a claim i am sure there is more to the story than i am reading.

[CarNut]

Originally Posted by andykeck

You may well be correct. The lawyers hired by SEMA disagree however.

We're not necessarily disagreeing. It boils down to who decides if the part caused (or could have caused) the damage. I'm just saying "proved" is too strong a word for what the Act says. In the gray area, it could get down to lawyers deciding if the particular damage is caused by the part or not. Dealers and manufacturers know most people won't go that far because of the time and expense when you still might not win.

[andykeck]

Originally Posted by CarNut

We're not necessarily disagreeing. It boils down to who decides if the part caused (or could have caused) the damage. I'm just saying "proved" is too strong a word for what the Act says. In the gray area, it could get down to lawyers deciding if the particular damage is caused by the part or not. Dealers and manufacturers know most people won't go that far because of the time and expense when you still might not win.

Gotcha.

[codymac]

I think it'd be interesting to see what B&M has to say about it.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by codymac

I think it'd be interesting to see what B&M has to say about it.

Nothing ....it's not their problem.

[Surferjer]

Linking the B & m shifter to the synchro issue is BS. But it wouldn't surprise me. I feel your pain.