In recent news, a Toyota owner is upset that his damaged engine won’t be covered under warranty after he drove his car on the track. This issue is not unique, as Ford Bronco owners have also complained that a factory feature has damaged their vehicles after off-road use, and Ford is denying warranty claims. The Toyota driver points out that Toyota holds track events for GR86 owners, while the Ford complainants made it known that Ford implies that using the Trail Turn Assist feature in a manner consistent with the directions in the user’s manual would not void the warranty.

Putting aside legalese and any explicit wording in an owner’s manual, the Toyota GR86 is marketed as a track-ready car, and the Bronco is marketed as an off-roader. Philosophically speaking, should OEMs deny warranty claims when a vehicle is used for a purpose it’s designed for?

There is probably a “know it when you see it” standard here. A lot of crossover owners could take their vehicles to a difficult off-road trail, experience damage, and then cry foul, claiming their soft-roader SUVs are marketed using commercials that show folks playing in the outdoors. Similarly, anyone who owns a slightly sporty vehicle could argue that ads showing cars drifting on track means their ride can handle a few hot laps of Road America or Laguna Seca when it clearly cannot.

But, of course, some vehicles are more equipped than others for heavy-duty off-road or track use, and it’s generally clear to any reasonable observer that there’s a difference between sports cars that can easily handle a curvy road and sports cars that are track-ready. And a difference between crossover SUVs that can take you over some two-track to a trailhead and SUVs that can actually handle the Rubicon.

If it’s not clear, well, automakers use plenty of legal copy to cover their butts.

So if the owner of say, a Kia Seltos tried to fight a warranty claim after damaging their car while trying to rock climb in Moab, we’d all side with the automaker. But when it’s the Ford Bronco, which is actually built to be able to handle difficult off-road trails and even offers features that are meant to make off-roading easier, shouldn’t the OEM be willing to take accountability when those features seemingly cause damage during off-roading?

Similarly, if the car is meant to be able to lap a track without any serious modifications, shouldn’t the OEM pony up if the equipment fails, and it’s not obviously the driver’s fault? If the GR86 driver had blown his engine by failure to shift, OK, fine, that’s on him. But if his driving was basically competent and he did nothing to damage the engine, he might have a valid claim.

It’s important to note that even cars designed to go on track or off-road from the factory do have limits. However, it doesn’t seem like basic off-roading or a standard “run what you brung” track day would be beyond the ability of these cars.

In conclusion, it’s a tricky situation when it comes to warranty claims for vehicles used for their intended purpose. While some vehicles are clearly marketed as being able to handle certain activities, there are limits to what they can do. It’s up to the automakers to clearly define these limits and ensure that their customers are aware of them. Ultimately, it’s important for both parties to take responsibility for their actions and work towards a fair resolution.