manual transmission shifts hard

[twodown]

I live in Rochester NY. When cold my G35 shifts hard upshift or down shift into 2nd gear. Anyone out there with a similar problem?

[rydwhite]

Welcome to NICO twodown.

I really haven't experienced any problems with my car, but I have the auto and not the 6mt. Sorry.

[PalmerWMD]

twodown:

How cold?

Fred...

[twodown]

15 to 20 F. After I drive it for 10 or 15 min. it shifts better

[rydwhite]

I had a similar problem in my '93 Ford Ranger. I had really hard shifts from 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd. Once the truck had been warmed up about 10 minutes, it ran fine. It also ran fine in warm weather. I ended up replacing all my heating and cooling hoses and flushed and replaced all the fluids and it then ran like a dream.

Since the car is fairly new, I would take it to the dealer and have them take a look at it. Warranty should cover whatever is wrong.

Kepp us posted as to your status. It would be good information for us to have in case someone else is having a similar experience.

[dholly]

Well, as a matter of fact, twodown, yes I do. And it happens alot because I only have a three minute commute! I see you have an '03 but don't know if it is a coupe or sedan. Here's my thoughts...

- First, the obvious is to make certain your transmission fluids are up to level. Depending on what you own, checking may or may not be a PITA. See HERE.

- Second, there was a change in '04 6MT sedans to help improve shifting. The shifter control socket material was changed from metal to delrin (or maybe vice vera, can't recall exactly). I believe the '04 design change for 6MT sedan shift lever control socket was simply an effort to improve shifter feel and smoothness thru the gates, i.e., reduce "notchiness". More in the "general improvement", rather than "fix a flaw", department. In fact, I had an '03.5 6mt sedan and noticed the difference between that and my '04. The '04 is smoother IMO, across the board and not just when hot or cold. Although my '04 shifts smoother than the '03.5 did when warm, I still have cold shifting issues with the '04. Grrr...

There have been 6MT sedan "this transmission sucks" posts that mention "hard", or even grinding, 1st-2nd shifts when the engine/transmission is cold. In many instances, owners report replacement of the 1>2 syncro was a satisfactory fix. This does not appear to be a widespread problem for 6MT sedans, nor for any particular year. And, if it were, there would likely be a TSB or production change for it. However, if you have trouble shifting when warmed up, you might want to have Dorschel check it out.

Hard shifting due to cold temps rather than mechanical issues is, unfortunately, pretty normal for manual transmission. Some worse than others. Cold temps affect fluid viscosity, and we've certainly had our share of that this year. Some Canadian G owners have reported swapping out transmission and differential fluid with synthetic helped minimize this. More info HERE. Personally, I hesitate to do this because of the warranty issue. Take heart, spring is just around the corner!

[twodown]

Thanks for the info dholly. I've already been to Dorschel's. The first time they looked at it the mech. said it was normal! I took it back and service manager, Steve R. drove it and agreed there was a problem. [when it was cold it would take 3 or 4 times the effort to up shift or down shift into 2nd gear. After it warmed up it would still catch going into 2nd.] They put in a new transmission! This one is only marginally better. It doesn't require the extra effort but it still catches going into 2nd. I can always feel it and when I have the window down I can hear it, not a good sound.

If you see any other postings I would appreciate a heads up

thanks

[G35DP]

Every g35 6mt driver has hard shifts in the cold weather we had until the transmission fluid warmed up. Its normal

[vq35de]

yes, a Redline brand fluid will improve this (mix 1/2 MTL to 1/2 MT90), BUT BUT BUT there is a concern that the redline will eat the brass (? I think) synchros.

You are warned.

But yes certain synthetics will reduce this and make it less notchy when warm or cold.

cruise at about 3000 rpms for the first mile or two until the engine and transmission warm up then you should be ok. I normally let water temp come up to normal then drive it at 3000 until everything smooves out.

Sean

[dholly]

The biggest issue, IMO, is that Infiniti routinely tests transmission fluid when investigating warranty related failures. I have heard from more than one source (including techs), that if tests show any fluid other than that manufacturer recommended (i.e., Redline or other synthetics), your warranty claim is S.O.L. Caveat emptor.

[rydwhite]

That's good info to know dholly. I hadn't heard about that before.

[C-Kwik]

The dealer better be able to prove that the different fluid is the cause of the problem. If it meets the same requirements of the factory fluid, then I see no reason why the fluid will be an issue.

[dholly]

I'm not so sure it's a dealer call, sounds more like manufacturer discretion. Particularly since there have been more than a handful of 6mt transmission faliures. And I can see a much stronger argument that non-approved transmission fluid may have been a direct cause of transmission failure than, say, a 350z upper intake tube causing fatal engine failure. I look at this issue the same as I do brakes. Since Infiniti is going to replace my pads and rotors for free, I'll probably wait until that warranty is out before I swap to aftermarket pads and rotors (unless I get really serious about autoX!). Either way, I also heard that the 6mt transmission fluid is actually some kind of mix with approx. 50% synthetic???

[C-Kwik]

Well, the dealer is essentially the liason. But in any case, if the dealer specifies a fluid with a certain rating then any other fluid with the same rating or better can be used. I can see it becoming an issue if a lesser fluid is used though.

[dholly]

The point is - "rating" and "recommended" are not the same. Two lubricants with cmpletely differerent formulations may share a rating particular but, if one is non-recommended by Infiniti, it may also give them the out to deny replacement. If anyone is/was denied warranty replacement for these reasons, I suspect the news would hit the forums pretty quick. But, really, why chance it? You price a new transmission lately?

[szh]

The dealer better be able to prove that the different fluid is the cause of the problem. If it meets the same requirements of the factory fluid, then I see no reason why the fluid will be an issue.

On the G35 and M45 and Q45 with the new design 5-speed automatic, it is my understanding that Nissan Infiniti has specifically stated that only their stated ATF is allowed - without any caveats - and, if this is not followed, the transmission warranty is void.

These transmission are very well sealed (indeed, there was some early thoughts that they could not be opened to change/replace the ATF - which proved to be erroneous!), and you are likely to cause problems by introducing anything other than what Nissan intended to have in them!

So, be careful messing with the ATF, folks! (Of course, I am referring to the auto transmission, not the manual that the original poster talked about.)

Z

[szh]

Some additional info. This is from the 2003 M45 Service Manual in the section on Automatic transmission. The text is written in BOLD letters in the Service Manual - so, the Infiniti dealer can deny warranty claims if the fluid is not the Nissan one:

• CAUTION:
• Use only Nissan Genuine ATF Matic Fluid J. Do not mix with other fluid.
• Using automatic transmission fluid other than Nissan Genuine ATF Matic Fluid J will cause deterioration in driveability and automatic transmission durability, and may damage the automatic transmission, which is not covered by the warranty.

The transmission is a RE5R05A, which, I believe, is the same as the ones on the 2003 and 2004 G35 and Q45 models.

Z

[C-Kwik]

But they still have to reasonably show the fluid was the cause of the problem. To add to this, the Magnussen-Moss Act actually states this.

"c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by CommissionNo warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor."

subsections #1 and #2 allow for manufacturers to have this prohibition waived, but they have to show the product that is required to be used with the warranted product will not function properly otherwise and that it is in the public's interest. These waivers also muct be listed in the Federal Register. I could not find anything in a search I did. Frankly, I have a hard time believeing that Nissan would be able to show that another product can not work in their transmission anyways. It's likely that the fluid is actually manufactured by someone else and there is no doubt that someone else can match the fluid.

On a hunch, I found the link below that list equivalents. And the link is part of Courtesy Nissan's site.

http://www.courtesyparts.com/350z/capacities.html

[dholly]

At first blush it may look good on paper, but the Magnussen-Moss Act is not the panacea some would believe. A dealer still has a right to pass on servicing anyone's vehicle. Invariably, in those extreme cases where a dealer washes his hands of a service customer for whatever reason, the ball is tossed back into your court as disgruntled owner. Now it becomes a matter of your time and $$$ to pursue. What's your time worth? How much $$$ are you willing to invest?

[C-Kwik]

Actually, I believe it is the manufacturer's call. The dealer isn't the one paying for the warranty service. Disagreements occur. That's why the courts are there. This law will likley be used to a large extent for the court to decide who is right. That along with the evidence that is particular to the case. I'd guess most warranty issues would be heard in small claims. The cost to file is small and the time invested in court will be as well. In this type of case, a manufacturer's attorney would probably get involved to review the case, and if the company can not reasonably show what caused the problem or that they truly have something reasonable to stand on, the attorney would probablt recommend they pay it. If they have a legitimate defense though, then perhaps they may be right. I'm in no way implying that this law gives the customer a win. Only that ultimately, if this were to be tried, the manufacturer would have to show some empirical data or perhaps reasoning that would show the cause is from the fluid that was in the transmission and what the problem with the transmission in question is. Or to simplify, what broke, and why did it break? If they can't explain that and show reasonable evidence to support their conclusions, then they do not have much of a leg to stand on.

[dholly]

Actually, I believe it is the manufacturer's call. The dealer isn't the one paying for the warranty service.

If you mean that it is the Manufacturer's (rather than Dealer's) call to provide free replacement under warranty, that's what I said in a earlier post. However, whether a dealer wants you, accepts you or retains you as their customer is another matter and entirely up to them.

If you feel that a person or business damaged something you own, you may sue that person or business for the monetary amount of your damages. You also may sue a person or business for money damages arising out of false advertising or other deceptive practices. You cannot, however, sue in Small Claims Court to compel that person or business to fix the damaged item or to require the performance of the act promised in any advertisement; your small claims lawsuit can only be for money. In my state, it cost $15 to file in Small Claims Courts and the max claim amount is $3,000. If your case was tried by a judge, you may appeal the decision if you believe justice was not done. You cannot appeal if your case was tried by an arbitrator.

In reality, most disagreements are settled by compromise long before they hit the legal system, regardless of venue. If you are naive enough to believe that 1.) if you have a valid claim; and 2.) there is a legal mechanism you can access, you therefore stand a 99% probability of getting a new transmission installed for the equivalent of $15 and an hours worth of your time, you will likely be dissapointed. Any corporate lawyer worth his/her salt will make your foray into small claims court either a futile exercise or a colossal waste of your time and $$$. In part, because this type of case would most likely be heard by an arbitrator (not a judge), and most arbitration decisions typically end up being just that - a non-appealable compromise.

Although you wouldn't be the first to try.

[C-Kwik]

If you mean that it is the Manufacturer's (rather than Dealer's) call to provide free replacement under warranty, that's what I said in a earlier post. However, whether a dealer wants you, accepts you or retains you as their customer is another matter and entirely up to them.

If you feel that a person or business damaged something you own, you may sue that person or business for the monetary amount of your damages. You also may sue a person or business for money damages arising out of false advertising or other deceptive practices. You cannot, however, sue in Small Claims Court to compel that person or business to fix the damaged item or to require the performance of the act promised in any advertisement; your small claims lawsuit can only be for money. In my state, it cost $15 to file in Small Claims Courts and the max claim amount is $3,000. If your case was tried by a judge, you may appeal the decision if you believe justice was not done. You cannot appeal if your case was tried by an arbitrator.

In reality, most disagreements are settled by compromise long before they hit the legal system, regardless of venue. If you are naive enough to believe that 1.) if you have a valid claim; and 2.) there is a legal mechanism you can access, you therefore stand a 99% probability of getting a new transmission installed for the equivalent of $15 and an hours worth of your time, you will likely be dissapointed. Any corporate lawyer worth his/her salt will make your foray into small claims court either a futile exercise or a colossal waste of your time and $$$. In part, because this type of case would most likely be heard by an arbitrator (not a judge), and most arbitration decisions typically end up being just that - a non-appealable compromise.

Although you wouldn't be the first to try.

But if warranty service is denied, then Nissan may have issues with the dealer. Nissan relies on it's dealers to be able to carry out the warranty service. I'd be willing to bet there is a contract between the dealers and Nissan. I do know that dealerships are required to have a service department. A dealership owner told me this and said he could actually make more money using the space to sell more cars, but has the service department there because he had to. I'm sure there are a lot more they have to agree to in order to sell the cars.

The warranty is a contract. The contract is an agreement and a product sold with the car. What you sue for is a breach of contract, which is usually inclusive of the actual cost of repair, and perhaps other damages. It's similar to an insurance policy. If an insurance company fails to cover what is promised by the contract, then there is a breach of contract. In contracts though, there are grey areas. It's generally a given in the insurance industry that if there is is any ambiguous language in a policy or interpretation of a policy then the interpretation in favor of an insured is given to the insured. Most judges will probably see it that way for a warranty as well. Considering also that judges tend to frown upon large companies that try to take advantage of an individual.

Yes it is true that most cases of any kind are settled out of court. While each party wants a decision 100% in their favor, in most cases, neither side wants a judgement 100% against them or in some cases even a judgement that is more than they expected against them. A compromises can be made if both sides are willing to accept a littel loss to avoid a total loss. And as long as their acceptable loss range crosses at some point.

Whether or not someone has a valid claim depends on the case. To arbitrarily assume that someone does not would be naive. A corporate lawyer is no different than any other lawyer. And frankly, lawyers are human. They are no different than you or I. In my profession as an insurance adjuster, I've dealt with plenty of attorneys. If they have good arguments, its because they have a good case. Not because they are an attorney. Is that to say an attorney can not defend a bad case and win? Not at all. But it's much less likely. Especially if the plaintiff can present a good case.

And actually, an arbitration can not be forced onto anyone. We have the right to a court trial and consequently, we have the right to a trial by jury. Small claims actions typically need to go through an appeal process before a jury will hear it though. Arbitrations can be set-up many ways. Both binding and non-binding. You can also set minimums and maximums that are not revealed to the arbitrator. Non-binding arbitrations mean you do not have to agree to what the arbitrator decides. Non-binding arbs are more like mediations in my mind where you just end up with an opinion of how a case might pan out. And arbitrations are usually heard by retired judges.

It's gonna be a case by case basis. I'm not sayting to fight every case. But that automatically conceding to teh manufacturer's decision is not necessary either. If they were to provide a decision unfavorable to me and provide reasonable evidence that it's not covered, then I see no reason to fight it. So long as I agree with the aspect of why the breakdown occurred. But if something doesn't make sense or that I feel their reasoning is wrong then I would question it, perhaps conduct my own investigation and then decide how to proceed. But the option is there.

[dholly]

Quote »But if warranty service is denied, then Nissan may have issues with the dealer. Nissan relies on it's dealers to be able to carry out the warranty service. I'd be willing to bet there is a contract between the dealers and Nissan.[/quote]What? The Dealer doesn't deny warranty repairs, the manufacturer does. If Infiniti denies a warranty claim the dealer has no further liability to do anything. I'm not talking about a dealer refusing to perform Infiniti approved warranty repairs - short of some lunatic stomping around the waiting room uttering threats to other patrons, why would they? Even if a Dealer's service dept, for whatever reason, refused to complete a manufacturer approved warranty repair, what do you think is going to happen? Infiniti going to strip the dealer of it's agreement? No way, it's easier to let one little incident pass than remove and replace the dealer. Quote »Whether or not someone has a valid claim depends on the case.[/quote]Of course, but I think you missed my point. With our legal system, someone can be 100% in the right - and still never really "win" their case. One of the most common legal strategies is to simply "deep pocket" your opponent into submission. Many, many ways to do this, and it's very effective. Unfortunately, the sad reality is, that the merits of a case often won't be the biggest determinant of it's outcome. And spare me the "attorneys are human, no different than you or me". In every walk of life you will find wonderful, caring people. But, when it comes time to locate the most despicable, arrogant, crooked, self-absorbed leaches on the face of the earth - well, lets just say it would be no surprise if a large percentage of people looked inside the Bar first.Quote »And actually, an arbitration can not be forced onto anyone. [/quote]Correct. A case can be tried by an arbitrator only if both sides agree. An arbitrator is an experienced lawyer who serves without pay. In most areas both judges and arbitrators are available to try cases, however, where arbitrators are used, there usually are many arbitrators available and only one or two judges. If both parties agree to have the case heard by an arbitrator, the case probably will be heard sooner because there are more arbitrators than judges. When an arbitrator determines a case, the decision is final and there is not further appeal by either the claimant or defendant. Quote »We have the right to a court trial and consequently, we have the right to a trial by jury. [/quote]No. The claimant in a Small Claims action cannot demand a jury trial. A defendant, however, may demand a trial by jury. If a defendant demands a jury trial, the defendant must pay a jury fee and file a $50.00 "undertaking" (security) with the court to guarantee the payment of costs that may be awarded against the defendant. The defendant also is required to make an affidavit specifying the issues of fact which the defendant desires to have tried by a jury, and stating that such trial is desired and demanded in good faith. Jury trials in NY are held before panels of six jurors.Quote »Small claims actions typically need to go through an appeal process before a jury will hear it though.[/quote]No. You cannot appeal if your case was tried by an arbitrator. If your case was tried by a judge, you may appeal the decision if you believe justice was not done. Technical mistakes made during the trial are not grounds for reversal. The appellate court will consider only whether substantial justice was done. Very few Small Claims cases are appealed. The expense of appealing is rarely justified in a Small Claims action. Taking an appeal may require retaining an attorney. In addition, the party who is appealing must purchase a typed transmission of the trial proceedings from the court reporter, or from the court when audio recording of the trial is authorized. If no stenographic minutes were taken, the party appealing will be required to prepare a statement of what took place during the proceeding. If a statement is used, the party who is not appealing will have the opportunity to offer changes to the statement. If you decide to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal and pay the required fee within 30 days after the judgment is entered. The party appealing the judgment can temporarily prevent its enforcement pending the decision on the appeal. To do this, a bond or undertaking must be filed with the court to guarantee payment of the judgment should the party lose the appeal. Quote »A compromises can be made if both sides are willing to accept a littel loss to avoid a total loss. And as long as their acceptable loss range crosses at some point.[/quote]Bingo. My point exactly. You WILL agree to a compromise, because you won't want to spend more $$$ than the amount of the claim to hire an attorney, or take multiple days off work to represent yourself, or spend hours attempting to decipher legal precedent, researching warranty and contract law, responding to counter claims etc... Argue the principle all you want but, when push comes to shove, the Magnussen-Moss Act probably isn't going to do you much good in a situation like this. Been there, done that.

[C-Kwik]

What? The Dealer doesn't deny warranty repairs, the manufacturer does. If Infiniti denies a warranty claim the dealer has no further liability to do anything. I'm not talking about a dealer refusing to perform Infiniti approved warranty repairs - short of some lunatic stomping around the waiting room uttering threats to other patrons, why would they? Even if a Dealer's service dept, for whatever reason, refused to complete a manufacturer approved warranty repair, what do you think is going to happen? Infiniti going to strip the dealer of it's agreement? No way, it's easier to let one little incident pass than remove and replace the dealer.

At that point, yes, but if Infiniti Nissan at some point agrees to handle pay the repairs, or is ordered to, then the dealer would do the work. My original point was that it's just not the dealer's call as to whether or not the warranty claim will be honored or not.

Quote »Of course, but I think you missed my point. With our legal system, someone can be 100% in the right - and still never really "win" their case. One of the most common legal strategies is to simply "deep pocket" your opponent into submission. Many, many ways to do this, and it's very effective. Unfortunately, the sad reality is, that the merits of a case often won't be the biggest determinant of it's outcome. And spare me the "attorneys are human, no different than you or me". In every walk of life you will find wonderful, caring people. But, when it comes time to locate the most despicable, arrogant, crooked, self-absorbed leaches on the face of the earth - well, lets just say it would be no surprise if a large percentage of people looked inside the Bar first.[/quote]

And you missed my point. I am not talking about decency. I am talking about an attorney's ability to present a case. Everyone is capable of presenting a good case. An attorney may have more experience, in knowing the best way to present a case, but that's not to say that just becasue an attorney is handling a case and someone else is not using an attorney that it will automatically mean the attorney will win. And the merits of the case are what determines the outcome of a case. There are times where a judge may be biased or even a jury may make a decision noone can have predicted. These are rarities, but they certainly do happen.

Quote »Correct. A case can be tried by an arbitrator only if both sides agree. An arbitrator is an experienced lawyer who serves without pay. In most areas both judges and arbitrators are available to try cases, however, where arbitrators are used, there usually are many arbitrators available and only one or two judges. If both parties agree to have the case heard by an arbitrator, the case probably will be heard sooner because there are more arbitrators than judges. When an arbitrator determines a case, the decision is final and there is not further appeal by either the claimant or defendant. [/quote]

Again, it depends on if the arbitration is binding or non-binding. Terms of an arbitration can be agreed upon prior to arbitration. the arbitrator is never told the terms.

Quote »No. The claimant in a Small Claims action cannot demand a jury trial. A defendant, however, may demand a trial by jury. If a defendant demands a jury trial, the defendant must pay a jury fee and file a $50.00 "undertaking" (security) with the court to guarantee the payment of costs that may be awarded against the defendant. The defendant also is required to make an affidavit specifying the issues of fact which the defendant desires to have tried by a jury, and stating that such trial is desired and demanded in good faith. Jury trials in NY are held before panels of six jurors.[/quote]

Admittedly, I do not know the specifics of initiating a trial by jury. Though, I do know a small claims decision can be appealed where it would then be reheard(perhaps after some other legal steps and hurdles) in a jury trial.

Quote »No. You cannot appeal if your case was tried by an arbitrator. If your case was tried by a judge, you may appeal the decision if you believe justice was not done. Technical mistakes made during the trial are not grounds for reversal. The appellate court will consider only whether substantial justice was done. Very few Small Claims cases are appealed. The expense of appealing is rarely justified in a Small Claims action. Taking an appeal may require retaining an attorney. In addition, the party who is appealing must purchase a typed transmission of the trial proceedings from the court reporter, or from the court when audio recording of the trial is authorized. If no stenographic minutes were taken, the party appealing will be required to prepare a statement of what took place during the proceeding. If a statement is used, the party who is not appealing will have the opportunity to offer changes to the statement. If you decide to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal and pay the required fee within 30 days after the judgment is entered. The party appealing the judgment can temporarily prevent its enforcement pending the decision on the appeal. To do this, a bond or undertaking must be filed with the court to guarantee payment of the judgment should the party lose the appeal. [/quote]

I wan't referring to appealing an arbitration decision. I was referring to a small claims decision. Arbitration is not considered a trial. Two parties who enter arbitration do so under contract and under preset terms that are agreed upon by each party.

Quote »Bingo. My point exactly. You WILL agree to a compromise, because you won't want to spend more $$$ than the amount of the claim to hire an attorney, or take multiple days off work to represent yourself, or spend hours attempting to decipher legal precedent, researching warranty and contract law, responding to counter claims etc... Argue the principle all you want but, when push comes to shove, the Magnussen-Moss Act probably isn't going to do you much good in a situation like this. Been there, done that. [/quote]

Who says I WILL agree? You assume so much. If you have a strong case but someone doesn't want to pay, do you compromise? If your case is questionable, then it might be a better decision to compromise. Of Course, cost is certainly a consideration, but depending on the amount of the claim and the typical cost to go to small claims, there is not nearly the same risk as a full blown jury trial. Keep in mind the same expense considerations apply to a corporation. Would it be cheaper for them to pay for warranty work instead of paying more in expenses to defend a trial? And if they decide to defend it, what are their chances of winning? The argument is not one-sided.

The law doesn't dictate the specific coverages of a warranty. What it dictates is the guidelines for how a warranty can be offered, what constitutes a warranty and sets forth legal limitations as well. The court must consider any laws that apply to a case. When liability is determined in a car accident, the rules of the road are heavily considered. But the facts and merits of the case are compared to these laws and the court then decide how the laws apply to the case. The same is true for any case. It's one thing to accept a court's decision. It's another to assume you lost before the bell is even rung.

[rydwhite]

I must chime in here to bring order to the situation.

I first want to say something regarding a comment this statement by dholly, "when it comes time to locate the most despicable, arrogant, crooked, self-absorbed leaches on the face of the earth - well, lets just say it would be no surprise if a large percentage of people looked inside the Bar first." Perhaps I am misconstruing your comments here, but it is my impression that you stated here is your own personal opinion on attorneys and not just that of a so-called larger percentage of the people. I take huge offense to this statement. I have worked 4 years in corporate and IP law before moving into an executive position at a bio-medical company and I would completely disagree with you on attorneys being "the most despicable, arrogant, crooked, self-absorbed leaches on the face of the earth" . Many of my best friends are attorneys and I intend to join them in the ranks of Corporate and IP law. These are good people who have a job to do and do it within ethical, legal and moral limits set by society. Just like in every profession, there are going to be a few bad apples, but to group all attorneys as bad apples is wholly inappropriate and wrong.

Now that I have spoken my mind about that, there are a few things which have been lost in the shuffle here. The original issue in this argument dealt with changing manufacturer recommended transmission fluids and coverage under the Magnussen-Moss Act if I am not mistaken. So, the question is, whether or not, if you change the transmission fluid to one that was not recommended by the manufacturer, would the warranty still be recognized? According to a post by szhosain the service manual in the M45, (I have not checked the service manual in the G35) claims, Using automatic transmission fluid other than Nissan Genuine ATF Matic Fluid J will cause deterioration in driveability and automatic transmission durability, and may damage the automatic transmission, which is not covered by the warranty. This would seem to end the argument. Nissan/Infiniti makes claim that changing to a different fluid will result in the transmission not being covered under warranty.

The whole debate about court and arbitration is completely inconsequential to the issue at hand.

We will spell it out in a rather crude version of the legal IRAC method.

Issue: If you change the transmission fluid to one that was not recommended by the manufacturer, would the warranty still be recognized?

Rule: (this according to Nissan/Infiniti), Using automatic transmission fluid other than Nissan Genuine ATF Matic Fluid J will cause deterioration in driveability and automatic transmission durability, and may damage the automatic transmission, which is not covered by the warranty.

Analysis: The signing of the binding contract (all that paperwork you signed when you first bought the car and any other documentation from Nissan/Infiniti regarding warrantable work) results the purchaser of the vehicle to abide by the contract

Conclusion: The contract states that changing fluids will result in transmission not being covered by warranty

An attorney would look at the contract and the actions taken and easily be able to make a decision on this matter before even filing. It is clear that the contract claims that changing fluids will not be covered by warranty. The Magnussen-Moss Act has no relevance in this matter.

One final thing, Dholly and C-Kwik you both made valient arguments and both supported your claims even though you both did have some mis-information regarding your legal arguments, which I will not get into. Thanks for the lively debate on the issue, but it did get a little off track in my opinion. Keep up the good work guys.

[dholly]

Yes, thank you, we were off track. It is good to hear a knowledgable voice explain factually WHY the Magnussen-Moss Act has no relevance in this matter (in part, as it confirmed my suspicions ). Now, with regard to your comment...Quote »Perhaps I am misconstruing your comments here, but it is my impression that you stated here is your own personal opinion on attorneys and not just that of a so-called larger percentage of the people. I take huge offense to this statement.[/quote] Hold on there counselor! I have not stated my opinion, rather, repeated the fact that almost two-thirds of Americans think lawyers are overpaid, about half think attorneys do more harm than good, and four in ten think lawyers are dishonest. This, according to a nationwide survey commissioned by Columbia Law School. HERE If you can see past the ruffled feathers, you will note that I also said "In every walk of life you will find wonderful, caring people." In my personal experience, I have seen and dealt with both contrasts in the legal profession. It really is no different than any other profession. I will, however, opine that I believe there to be more than a few valid points in support of Tort Reform. Anyways, all is not lost. Public opinion surveys show several professions fare even worse - including my own.

'nuff said, back O/T.

[rydwhite]

Yes, thank you, we were off track. It is good to hear a knowledgable voice explain factually WHY the Magnussen-Moss Act has no relevance in this matter (in part, as it confirmed my suspicions ). Now, with regard to your comment... Hold on there counselor! I have not stated my opinion, rather, repeated the fact that almost two-thirds of Americans think lawyers are overpaid, about half think attorneys do more harm than good, and four in ten think lawyers are dishonest. This, according to a nationwide survey commissioned by Columbia Law School. HERE If you can see past the ruffled feathers, you will note that I also said "In every walk of life you will find wonderful, caring people." In my personal experience, I have seen and dealt with both contrasts in the legal profession. It really is no different than any other profession. I will, however, opine that I believe there to be more than a few valid points in support of Tort Reform. Anyways, all is not lost. Public opinion surveys show several professions fare even worse - including my own.

'nuff said, back O/T.

I agree that there needs to be tort reform and that perhaps attorneys do more harm than good in some instances. There is far too much litigation in today's society. I too like so many other people believed that attorneys were overpaid, until I started working for them and see just how much time and effort they put into their work and how much they care for their clients well being. It is amazingly time consuming. I would venture a guess that 75% of the attorneys in the two firms I have worked in were putting in 70 and 80 hour weeks constantly and only charging clients for 60% of their time. As a paralegal I was putting in 50 and 60 hour weeks with an occasional 80 hour week here and there. Minds soon change when working in such environments.

I do realize that you are giving numbers from recognized sources and that these are not necessarily your opinions. I just feel a need to try and mitigate the numbers by providing some inside info into the background of the private legal system. I apologize for my earlier comments as well.

[C-Kwik]

Issue: If you change the transmission fluid to one that was not recommended by the manufacturer, would the warranty still be recognized?

Rule: (this according to Nissan/Infiniti), Using automatic transmission fluid other than Nissan Genuine ATF Matic Fluid J will cause deterioration in driveability and automatic transmission durability, and may damage the automatic transmission, which is not covered by the warranty.

Analysis: The signing of the binding contract (all that paperwork you signed when you first bought the car and any other documentation from Nissan/Infiniti regarding warrantable work) results the purchaser of the vehicle to abide by the contract

Conclusion: The contract states that changing fluids will result in transmission not being covered by warranty

I can disagree with this to an extent. I see and understand your interpretation. However, the "rule" is somewhat ambiguous. The way I read it is that the damage caused by the use of another fluid is not covered by the warranty. There is no direct denial of warranty based simply on the use of a different fluid, but from damage associated with it's use. I so see it both ways. In this scenario, a judge might rule for the little guy. Many do. But again, it depends on the merits. If Nissan/Infiniti can show the use of a fluid not approved for the transmission is used, causes the damage, they have grounds for a denial and a judge would likely rule in their favor. But if there is no evidence of such, it might go either way. If there is evidence that the failure was not related to the fluid, then I would hope a judge would rule in favor of the vehicle owner. I would speculate they would if the evidence was credible, but it's impossible to predict the outcome of every case.

[vq35de]

We are talking about a manual transmission here. There is NO, NONE, ZERO, JACK synthetic fluid out there that even meets the rating of the ESM, let alone is recommended. Synthetic will give you better feel on the shifter but there has been NO long term testing done on this transmission. My two trannies that failed were with Nissan's fluid in there.

So, if you do swap it out with a synthetic, you are not following the rating.

[rydwhite]

Thanks for the heads up info vq.