Car Woes continued.....
4 engines and counting.......
Perhaps a bit of an attention grabber, but true.
Back in June I posted about problems with my
recently acquired 56 plate Passat 2.0 TDI SEL (170) DSG PDF estate.
http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/chit-chat/car-woes-general-area-0
It was left with a big question mark about the
failure of the engine.
Well its been simmering for 15 weeks and at last I
now have it back, touch wood, all working.
We chose the 56 plate Passat SEL (170) Estate DPF
DSG as it embodied a range of features and ease of driving that meets
our current needs. So we were very disappointed when it let us down.
It was with an independent car sales dealer near Rugeley,
Staffordshire , who does not have his own workshop, but regularly
uses a sub contractor next door.
A brief summary .
Agreed to purchase car in March. Due to mileage
(74K) the dealer insisted on having the cam belt changed prior to
delivery.
2361 miles after collection, the car stops dead.
AA patrol diagnoses loose cam belt mis-timing the engine.
Dealer agrees to have cam belt changed FOC. After
second new cambelt fitted, car appears to start and run normally, so
its returned to me. Failure was a sheared cam belt tensioner bolt
supplied with the cam belt kit.
24 hours later noted large pool of oil under
engine. Dealer agrees to have the car checked by garage. Diagnosis
cracked cylinder block casting on turbo lubrication oil return -
Mystery as the casting is unstressed at this point and not exposed
enough for damage to be caused by external events. Solution - replace
short engine. I agreed to a reconditioned BMR engine commensurate
with the age mileage of the vehicle.
1st Replacement engine was found to be damaged on
delivery (engine mount broken) - exchanged with supplier.
Second replacement engine fitted, ran then seized
whilst being tested. Garages opinion is the engine had not been fully
reconditioned by supplier.
Meanwhile garage strips down original engine, and
finds a cam follower roller in the crank case. This is now seen as
the cause for the engine casting damage.
Probable chain of events, Cam belt tensioner
fails, timing slips, piston collides with open valve, force
transferred up valve stem, causes cam follower to impact the cam
shattering the rollers support. Cam follower breaks away and drops
through the oil return galleries to bottom of crank case, part is
picked up by rotating crank throw, and collides with wall of casting,
punching out the turbo oil return boss producing oil leak.
All this stems from the failure of the cam belt
kit. The problem was establishing if the cam belt kit was faulty or
if it had been fitted incorrectly. The fitting garage was adamant
they had followed the correct procedure as defined by VW.
Now here is the power of the WWW. |It doesn't take
much effort to find many threads concerning cam belt tensioner bolt
failures on VW engines. Even allowing for the natural bias that
complaints have over positives on the web, it soon became clear that
such failures are not uncommon, and seem to be related to one of the
biggest supplier of replacement parts. The supplier claims the parts
are to OEM specification, so it must be down to the fitters using the
incorrect method to torque and tighten. thus successful claims for
consequential damages against the supplier have been patchy, but
importantly some have succeeded.
The garage doing the repairs to my vehicle called
the supplier in to review the circumstances. Initially the supplier
claimed the garage had not tightened the bolt correctly, but the
garage had documentary evidence to show the competence of the fitter,
and the calibration of the equipment used. It also helps the garage
helps to prepare a number of different motor sport cars, where record
keeping is important. so the supplier grudgingly accepted it was
unlikely to be fitting error. They then tried to claim it was older
and had been used more than was claimed, but again MOT and service
records showed a mileage of only 2361 since installation.
But the final bolt (sic) in the coffin was
comparing the bolt in the supplied kits to an VW supplied bolt, where
there are visible differences in the design, which demonstrated that
either the suppliers claim to be making to OEM design was false, or
that VW had changed the design, and the same changes had not been
implemented by the parts supplier (thus rendering the claim to be OEM
compliant to be false). Either way the suppliers claim to be
manufacturing to OEM standard was false, rendering the bolt not fit
for purpose.
The Cam belt kit supplier has now accepted their
part was not fit for purpose, and have made an inadequate offer of
compensation. This is being challenged by the garage. The garage is
pursuing the supplier for the cost of the initial engine replacement,
parts and labour.
The garage also called in the company that
reconditions engines. It transpires that the second engine that was
fitted (and then siezed) had not been reconditioned it had only been
cleaned and painted. The supplier who provided the engine was acting
as an agent for the Recon company, and has now been removed from
their agents list. The recon company has as a gesture of good will
provided a totally refurbished engine, and covered the fitting costs.
Its been a complex matter with products from
several suppliers not being as described or fit for purpose. Its just
amazing that they all seem to have congregated around my vehicle.
Before anyone starts thinking it must be the
garage purchasing from improper sources, I can confirm that they use
many of the main parts suppliers used by the trade as a whole. its
just fate.
In terms of liability, Initially, because the
cause of the failure was unclear and it was so unusual and did not
follow the classic symptoms of valve system failure I offered to pay
half of the costs. But as soon as the nature of the failure became
apparent, I made it very clear that liability for the whole débâcle
actually lay with my seller (the dealer) as the original cam belt
change was done at the dealers insistence and before I took delivery
(Close of contract). The car was supplied with a major defect. I must
add the dealer has also never tried to shirk his responsibility.
I could have simply rejected the car (the dealer
acknowledged this) but we like the vehicle, and once the repair has
been completed there is nothing to predispose it to being any more
unreliable than any other vehicle of the same age.
I am looking forward to having a reliable
comfortable car, which is fully guaranteed by the garage.
Whilst the whole affair could leave a sour taste,
I have to say that both the supplying dealer and the sub-contracting
garage have acted in good faith, and I would have no hesitation in
purchasing from them again.
I did originally contemplate naming them in a good
light, but I feel it may not be in their best interests so I will
retain their anonymity.
4 engines and counting.......
Perhaps a bit of an attention grabber, but true.
Back in June I posted about problems with my
recently acquired 56 plate Passat 2.0 TDI SEL (170) DSG PDF estate.
http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/chit-chat/car-woes-general-area-0
It was left with a big question mark about the
failure of the engine.
Well its been simmering for 15 weeks and at last I
now have it back, touch wood, all working.
We chose the 56 plate Passat SEL (170) Estate DPF
DSG as it embodied a range of features and ease of driving that meets
our current needs. So we were very disappointed when it let us down.
It was with an independent car sales dealer near Rugeley,
Staffordshire , who does not have his own workshop, but regularly
uses a sub contractor next door.
A brief summary .
Agreed to purchase car in March. Due to mileage
(74K) the dealer insisted on having the cam belt changed prior to
delivery.
2361 miles after collection, the car stops dead.
AA patrol diagnoses loose cam belt mis-timing the engine.
Dealer agrees to have cam belt changed FOC. After
second new cambelt fitted, car appears to start and run normally, so
its returned to me. Failure was a sheared cam belt tensioner bolt
supplied with the cam belt kit.
24 hours later noted large pool of oil under
engine. Dealer agrees to have the car checked by garage. Diagnosis
cracked cylinder block casting on turbo lubrication oil return -
Mystery as the casting is unstressed at this point and not exposed
enough for damage to be caused by external events. Solution - replace
short engine. I agreed to a reconditioned BMR engine commensurate
with the age mileage of the vehicle.
1st Replacement engine was found to be damaged on
delivery (engine mount broken) - exchanged with supplier.
Second replacement engine fitted, ran then seized
whilst being tested. Garages opinion is the engine had not been fully
reconditioned by supplier.
Meanwhile garage strips down original engine, and
finds a cam follower roller in the crank case. This is now seen as
the cause for the engine casting damage.
Probable chain of events, Cam belt tensioner
fails, timing slips, piston collides with open valve, force
transferred up valve stem, causes cam follower to impact the cam
shattering the rollers support. Cam follower breaks away and drops
through the oil return galleries to bottom of crank case, part is
picked up by rotating crank throw, and collides with wall of casting,
punching out the turbo oil return boss producing oil leak.
All this stems from the failure of the cam belt
kit. The problem was establishing if the cam belt kit was faulty or
if it had been fitted incorrectly. The fitting garage was adamant
they had followed the correct procedure as defined by VW.
Now here is the power of the WWW. |It doesn't take
much effort to find many threads concerning cam belt tensioner bolt
failures on VW engines. Even allowing for the natural bias that
complaints have over positives on the web, it soon became clear that
such failures are not uncommon, and seem to be related to one of the
biggest supplier of replacement parts. The supplier claims the parts
are to OEM specification, so it must be down to the fitters using the
incorrect method to torque and tighten. thus successful claims for
consequential damages against the supplier have been patchy, but
importantly some have succeeded.
The garage doing the repairs to my vehicle called
the supplier in to review the circumstances. Initially the supplier
claimed the garage had not tightened the bolt correctly, but the
garage had documentary evidence to show the competence of the fitter,
and the calibration of the equipment used. It also helps the garage
helps to prepare a number of different motor sport cars, where record
keeping is important. so the supplier grudgingly accepted it was
unlikely to be fitting error. They then tried to claim it was older
and had been used more than was claimed, but again MOT and service
records showed a mileage of only 2361 since installation.
But the final bolt (sic) in the coffin was
comparing the bolt in the supplied kits to an VW supplied bolt, where
there are visible differences in the design, which demonstrated that
either the suppliers claim to be making to OEM design was false, or
that VW had changed the design, and the same changes had not been
implemented by the parts supplier (thus rendering the claim to be OEM
compliant to be false). Either way the suppliers claim to be
manufacturing to OEM standard was false, rendering the bolt not fit
for purpose.
The Cam belt kit supplier has now accepted their
part was not fit for purpose, and have made an inadequate offer of
compensation. This is being challenged by the garage. The garage is
pursuing the supplier for the cost of the initial engine replacement,
parts and labour.
The garage also called in the company that
reconditions engines. It transpires that the second engine that was
fitted (and then siezed) had not been reconditioned it had only been
cleaned and painted. The supplier who provided the engine was acting
as an agent for the Recon company, and has now been removed from
their agents list. The recon company has as a gesture of good will
provided a totally refurbished engine, and covered the fitting costs.
Its been a complex matter with products from
several suppliers not being as described or fit for purpose. Its just
amazing that they all seem to have congregated around my vehicle.
Before anyone starts thinking it must be the
garage purchasing from improper sources, I can confirm that they use
many of the main parts suppliers used by the trade as a whole. its
just fate.
In terms of liability, Initially, because the
cause of the failure was unclear and it was so unusual and did not
follow the classic symptoms of valve system failure I offered to pay
half of the costs. But as soon as the nature of the failure became
apparent, I made it very clear that liability for the whole débâcle
actually lay with my seller (the dealer) as the original cam belt
change was done at the dealers insistence and before I took delivery
(Close of contract). The car was supplied with a major defect. I must
add the dealer has also never tried to shirk his responsibility.
I could have simply rejected the car (the dealer
acknowledged this) but we like the vehicle, and once the repair has
been completed there is nothing to predispose it to being any more
unreliable than any other vehicle of the same age.
I am looking forward to having a reliable
comfortable car, which is fully guaranteed by the garage.
Whilst the whole affair could leave a sour taste,
I have to say that both the supplying dealer and the sub-contracting
garage have acted in good faith, and I would have no hesitation in
purchasing from them again.
I did originally contemplate naming them in a good
light, but I feel it may not be in their best interests so I will
retain their anonymity.
Facebook
Twitter