[behringer]

You would definitely want that. Here's a common every day example. Imagine for example you use the wrong oil that destroys your engine and when GM inspects the oil they say it was non certified so you need to pay 5k in repairs... I have no doubt you would not have minded if the engine refused to start if it detected the wrong thing.

[young_blood]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I would much rather have some sort of warning than to have the decision made for me. If an indicator in the dash turned on saying "the oil is not the correct viscosity," then I would be able to decide to not run the vehicle.

Imagine you were stranded somewhere and the only option was to use the wrong oil. Sure, it may destroy the vehicle, but at least you would be able to run the vehicle and (hopefully) get to safety before your engine block melts. My issue is when the decision has been made that "you _might_ break it, so we've taken the choice away."

Another example might be, should users not be allowed to install programs on their computer because those programs might interfere with the computer's performance?

[Dylan16807]

If it only detected actually wrong oil, that's a reasonable design. But that would basically never be the design goal.

And you should never have a warranty voided for doing an unauthorized but valid adjustment/repair.

[JohnFen]

> I have no doubt you would not have minded if the engine refused to start if it detected the wrong thing

In your example, I still would absolutely have minded such enforced nonsense.

[notyourday]

Penzoil, Mobil 1, Castrol, Total, ProCare, Valvoline and even Pep Boys brand disagrees.

[behringer]

How about Dollar General brand? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js94bcbt5nU