WOW
Great story teller G-Man
I love a good story, excellent morning reading

Dude you got like a split personality writing habbit
OR SOMETHING
I Love it, and I'm glad I kept the stock pan (I think ?)

 

he just emailed the bulletin to me:

 

If I'm reading it correctly it doesn't specifically say they will void the warranty if a K&N filter or oil type filter is used. It says if it's an excessively oiled filter. I can understand that. If to much oil is used it can get on the MAF sensor and cause a malfunction.

 

That all depends on what the definition of “is” is…

 

I AM a lawyer.

I agree with most things posted on this page. But Gregg's story doesn't sit right with me.

The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. But, having proved that Ford broke a term of the contract, the burden as a practical matter would shift back to Ford -- not to prove that a pan MIGHT have caused the failure, but to prove that the pan LIKELY DID cause the failure. Statistical evidence of some small number of failures would not seem to meet that burden.

If I come in with a sticking valve, and Ford denies my claim because I have an aftermarket air filter -- even absolutely dripping with Crisco -- they are going to lose at trial.

Does Ford have some hotshot lawyers? I'm sure that it does. But lawyers are not magicians. I would not hesitate to sue Ford. For every expert they throw up, I'll throw up another. In the six-year case that I just settled, one of my expert witnesses was a head Ford engineer.

Facts are still facts and no amount of expert BS will cure a case with bad facts. If an expert tries to throw BS at me, I can guarantee him the most unpleasant day of deposition he has ever had. And then there is the trial.

Example:

Me: Dr. Smith, you produced a study showing that the splash patterns of the deep pan was shown to cause failures in 2.3% of the units tested, correct?

Dr. Smith: Yes. I personally witnessed these results.

Me: But you don't have any evidence that the deep pan caused the failure in my client's transmission, do you?

Dr. Smith: No.

Me: So, all you can really say is that there is a 2.3% chance that my client's installation of this pan caused the engine failure, correct?

Dr. Smith: Yes.

Closing argument:

"Ladies and gentlemen, as the Court will instruct you, the burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, more likely than not. You may consider this to be 51%.

The undisputed evidence in this case shows that Ford provided evidence that there was only a 2.3% chance that the deep pan caused the failure. I'm no mathematician, but it should be clear that Ford has, as a matter of law, miserably failed to meet its burden of proving that the pan caused the failure. You must find for my client."

This is a no-brainer. In this scenario, I would beat any team of lawyers with any team of experts.

Disclaimer: The warranty (which is just another contract) may have some specific language in there that prevents the installation of specific parts. But I seriously doubt that it says anything specific about transmission pans.

But, as I always advise people here, a lawsuit is absolutely, positively, the last result. In most lawsuits, the only people who win are the lawyers. A calm, rational, and polite escalation of the issue through Ford's dispute resolution system will probably produce the best result.

 

Well, Tim, I can see that, but I was assuming that the above case was fluid starvation related, and no other cause is evident. I'm absolutely certain you could prosecute the case, but in general you'd have to have some basis to show that the percentage of failure is XXX and our reports aren't written that way, they are written in full anticipation of liability limitation (it's a big deal whenever you write anything, they've learned that lesson well). In order to get data yoiu could quantivily use, you'd have to more or less dulplicate the tests, (and a test like that would run about $200K give or take, adn outside metro Detroit, there aren't a lot of places that could do it competently) which makes it impractical to do, and you have no way of telling up front if it would be to your advantage to run it (say you do and it's more like 80%, what do you do then). I read of one case where a driver "said" the engine quit, he lost power steering, hit a pole and was asking $millions in damages, so Ford crash tested X number of cars, engine on, engine off etc,.. and determined that the engine WAS running on impact (the "Proof" was the way the fan bent the radiator, it makes a difference if it's running or not), the lights were not turned on(they can tell that), the car was going X miles per hour and through several other things in discovery, that it is likely the driver fell asleep at the wheel. It cost prolly a million dollars to do, but in the end they won, because as a general rule, unless you have a lawyer who specializes in suing auto compaines (and there are some who do, and have huge databases from doing it) you can't beat them very often, because they know more about the vehicles, more about the testing and more about what can happen if X happens. They're pretty good attorneys, but the big 3 win most of these cases based on their engineering expertise, not the legal talent employed.

It is a good hypothetical discussion though.

G

 

Your absolutely best alternative is to build a relationship
with the service manager of your dealer. Nobody takes
better care of you than that. If it can be fixed under warranty
it will be, and if it IS the result of your mods, they will tell
you, and then it's time to be a man and stand up and
"Pay to Play" ...

It is my personal opinion (backed up by experience) that
this route gets more things fixed than screaming at the
service counter.

Just like being nice to police officers, the odds are you get
more with sugar than with vinegar.

Good read, gentlemen ...

 

This might be a little off subject but I was wondering if it really is a bad idea to use the 4X4 pan. I just bought an FTVB with 4X4 pan and was planning on installing it this week. It would be nice if Gregg would chim in and tell us what he thinks or recommends so that I make the right decision on whether to change the pan or not.

 

i think since Gregg sells them together, it'll be okay to use..

 

Story time...

The MAF got contaminated, the engine ran lean (and hot) and the valve stuck. We've seen 17 cases of valves sticking on motor X and in every case it was from running too hot. Case dismissed!

 

My SVT Ford dealer not only sold me the K&N filter for the 2nd Lightning I bought from them, but they sent it to my house via UPS.

 

The story is totally hypothetical. I do know that a study was done on the splash patterns on the different pans (and was done again on the pan for the 5R110W) but I have never read it, don't know what's in it and couldn't say if I did. It's just a way to show that the auto companies have an incredible amount of information and technical knowledge about things that hardly anyone would think about, and if you come after them, chance are they have a memo, letter, study or something that will make them look right in front of a jury, and the cost of duplicating the information they have is prohibitive to fighting them on it. I use that situation because I have some intuition of how it could be used and a little insight into how some decisions are made. For all I know the 4X4 pan is better in all aspects, but they just want to cheap out on them, which could be why they use the shallow ones on some models. Just trying to illustrate a point is all.

G

 

**Note to self**

Send Christmas Cards to Service Manager and Tim Skelton.

Need those guys in my corner

 

I second that!

 

Thanks guys. Ill put the 4X4 pan on then.