S60DNI,

I enjoyed your contribution, it was very useful, I'm sure we all thought so too.

But 'not an expert in this area' was your own words, in your own post, referring to yourself.

I think the Doc is doing a very good job, I've learned an awful lot from him. I felt a little smidgen reprimanded myself, earlier today, after referring to an 'ECU' without being sure of my terminology. But credit to the Doc, if he helps us focus on the facts here, the devil could well be in the detail if - as seems increasingly likely, any of us end up taking Volvo to court.

I may also be representative of one of the 'idiots' the Doc had in mind, as I earlier suggested using a syringe from an ex-inkjet recycling kit to collect oil. The syringe had never been used and so would probably have been OK, but maybe I hadn't made myself clear, and other folks could easily have failed to appreciate the importance of cleanliness.

Please, S60DNI, continue your contributions, all are welcome...

Dear S60D5NI, it is late, after a good social evening, so I will be brief but I feel I want to comment on S60D5NI's response to my email before I bed down for the night.
I have many degrees and qualifications but none of them are in diplomacy. When I attack an argument that someone presents, it is in an attempt to obtain the truth and so to obtain the most effective result but I do not intend to attack the integrity of the person who is presenting the argument.
S60D5NI if you feel I have done that on this occasion then I unreservedly apologise to you.
However, if anyone offers a view here that is not based on independent scientifically credible corroborative evidence then we need to highlight it as such, because if we don't a Judge will.
I have made pejorative reference to people with interests in this subject such as Volvo and Castrol, but no one has more interest than we Volvo owners. Any unsubstanitated opinons will carry no weight in the Courts.
If anyone (including me) says something that is NOT supported by scientifically credible argument (which I hope that the simple arithmetic reference I made to the measurements of distances on the dipstick and volume is seen as such) or by independent, supporting evidence such as a citation (e.g a statement in the Volvo owner's handbook) or by the opinion of a recognised expert in the field (STS) or VOSA or Castrol, then we must question it.
I was also defending the reputation of STS when their motive for giving out free sampling kits was impuned by implication. They do this to avoid the jam jar problem. They give these free kits to the operators of nuclear power plants and destroyers as well.
I hope that we are back on track with this one.

Apologies accepted and toys back in pram. For my part I also apologise for any perceived impugn of STS’s reputation, that was not my intent.

I would also have to say Doc that I don’t think we should go down the route on the Forum of challenging everything that is not a scientifically credible argument as this may put off some from offering their opinion. It has been my experience that sometimes the seemingly ‘stupid’ question stimulates a different train of thought which ultimately leads to a solution. I absolutely accept that if ‘we’ were preparing a court case, any evidence submitted should be so supported, but I for one would not want to put-off anyone from voicing their opinion on this or any other discussion. If I have got the wrong end of the stick and the consensus of opinion is that this discussion is now about gathering evidence for either an individual court case or a class action then I unreservedly withdraw this comment.


I think it would be useful to recap on where we are. I will have a go to get this started, but please eveyone else chip in as I will have inevitably overlooked something and/or got my Facts and Opinions crossed!

For a significant number of diesel powered Volvo cars fitted with a DPF (but not all such equiped Volvo cars): -
1) Fact – there is an issue with the oil level rising in the sump which has lead to a recall on safety grounds due to the possibility of high oil levels causing unintended acceleration / the engine not shutting down and running to destruction due to the engine self fuelling on sump oil.
2) Fact – there is good evidence to suggest this issue is industry wide and not just restricted to Volvo cars or cars from the Volvo / Ford family.
3) Fact - the reason Volvo have given for the oil level rising is due to a bio diesel component in the fuel not evaporating off.
4) Opinion (Fact??) - standard diesel now contains a higher proportion (7%?) of bio components than would have been the case when DPF’s were fist fitted to Volvo vehicles. This may account for why this issue is appearing now and not 3 to 4 years ago when Volvo cars with DPS's first appeared.
5) Fact - Volvo has not stated (or admitted) that that the higher than normal contamination / dilution of the engine oil is an issue.
6) Fact - most owners believe that the dilution of the oil is a significant issue. An expert analysis of one vehicles engine oil indicates degradation in specification which, in the opinion of the Expert, is a significant reduction in that oils lubricating ability. Volvo undertook to change this owners oil free of charge which, at the very least, indicates their concern at the analysis results.
7) Fact - the corrective action undertaken in the recall is to lower the sump oil level and to install a software update to prevent reoccurrence. However, there is also a service instruction not to fill to the max. – apparently (opinion) to leave ‘room’ for the oil level to rise.
8) Opinion - most contributors to the Forum on this subject do not trust Volvo’s ‘fix’.
9) Opinion - the fact that Volvo has issued a service instruction not to fill to the max. perhaps indicates that Volvo still expects oil levels to rise / contamination to continue after deployment of their fix.
10) Fact (?) – Volvo has not issued a definitive answer on exactly what the software mod does. There has been a suggestion that the unmodified DPF regen cycle injects too much fuel so leading to un-burnt fuel reaching the sump. The mod eliminates the excess but does not reduce the effectiveness of the DPF regen. However, this would suggest the problem would have always existed and does not sit-well with Volvo’s statement as paraphrased in 3) above and does not support the opinion / fact that this is a relatively new issue due to a change in the constituents in diesel fuel as in 4) above.
11) Opinion – most owners are concerned that whilst the software fix MAY reduce the oil level rising issue, it will / may reduce the effectiveness of the DPF regeneration and lead to increased instances of the DPF becoming blocked.
12) Opinion (fact?) – there appears to be no evidence AS YET from owners of significantly increased engine wear or engine failure, although there is a strong and scientifically backed opinion that the level of dilution of the engine oil brought about by this issue will inevitably lead to increased wear / significant engine damage.
13) Opinion (fact?) – there appears to be no evidence AS YET that the Volvo fix either eliminates (or substantially reduces) the rising oil level issue.
14) Opinion (fact?) – there appears to be no evidence AS YET that the Volvo fix will lead to an increase in the frequency of the DPF blocking.

the figure of 7% bio fuel content was obtained from shell customer services who also said the legal requirement had recently increased from 5%.Please verify so that item 4 can be also be added to your list of facts.
Excellent summary well done

Hi S60D5NI, I'm genuinely glad that is sorted. But don't relax just yet. Read on.

The summary is superb. Can it go without further comment. Get real! Just kidding.
MY COMMENTS/QUESTIONS WILL BE IN CAPITALS.
PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT "SHOUTING". IT SAVE MY TYPING EFFORTS. WILL LEAVE THE BITS OF YOURS I NEED AND THEN REMOVE THE OTHER TO SAVE SPACE.

WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? S60D5NI YOU MENTIONED A NUMBER OF OPTIONS. MY PERSONAL VIEW IS 'TO COURT'. WHETHER THAT IS A CLASS ACTION OR NOT I CANNOT COMMENT BUT I KNOW HOW TEED OFF I AM WITH THIS SITUATION.

1) AGREED - SEE THE ATTACHED RECALL LETTER I RECEIVED
QUESTION: IS THIS LETTER SIMILAR TO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS HAD?
2) Fact INTERESTING AND UNDENIABLE BUT LET US NOT DO THE WORK OF VOLVO'S LEGAL TEAM FOR THEM. THEY WILL SURELY IMPLICATE OTHERS TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE
3) Fact - the reason Volvo have given for the oil level rising is due to a bio diesel component in the fuel not evaporating off.
QUESTION: WHERE HAS VOLVO MADE THIS STATEMENT? IT IS NOT IN MY RECALL LETTER. IS IT IN ANYONE ELSE'S?
4) NO COMMENT!
5) Fact - Volvo has not stated (or admitted) that that the higher than normal contamination / dilution of the engine oil is an issue.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND FUNDAMENTAL TO MY ANXIETIES. BUT GETTING VOLVO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS AN ISSUE IS CERTAINLY THE MINIMUM WE SHOULD ACHIEVE BECAUSE OF NUMBER OF LEGAL ISSUES FLOW FROM THAT FOR ME.
6) Fact - most owners believe that the dilution of the oil is a significant issue. I WOULD NOT SAY 'MOST', AS THERE ARE ALLEGEDLY 20,208 VEHICLES WITH THIS PROBLEM ACCORDING TO VOSA AFTER ALL AND WE HAVE DONE ANY SORT OF SAMPLE. I WOULD SAY 'A NUMBER'. A GOOD UNDEFINED LEGAL VAGUENESS.
"An expert analysis of one vehicles engine oil indicates degradation in specification which, in the opinion of the Expert, is a significant reduction in that oils lubricating ability."
AGREED .... BUT THEY ALSO IDENTIFIED WEAR IRON PARTICLES WHICH RAISED CONCERN DUE TO THEIR BEING ABNORMAL.

Volvo undertook to change this owners oil free of charge which, at the very least, indicates their concern at the analysis results.
NOT AGREED - DUE TO VAGUENESS IN DEFINING YOUR TERM VOLVO.
PLEASE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "THE VOLVO CAR CORPORATION" THE MANUFACTURER AND THE NAME OF YOUR DEALERSHIP. IN STRICT TERMS THE DEALERSHIP IS NOT VOLVO. THEY JUST SELL VOLVO CARS, EVEN THOUGH MOST STYLE THEMSELVES BY INCLUDING 'VOLVO' IN THE NAME OF THE BUSINESSES.
IT WAS THE DEALERSHIP WHO CHOSE TO CHANGE MY OIL DUE TO THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM THAT THEY GAVE LOOMING UNDER THE SALE OF GOODS ACT (AS AMENDED). I HAVE ALREADY RECITED THIS ISSUE IN AN EARLIER CONTRIBUTION, BUT IT HINGED ON THE FACT THAT THE RESULTS OF MY OIL ANALYSIS WERE NOT ABLE TO BE IGNORED BY THE DEALER WITHOUT THEIR PUTTING THEMSELVES IN LEGAL JEOPARDY SHOULD MY ENGINE BE DAMAGED. THEY HAVE NOW DONE "WHAT IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES". AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT ON WHICH THEY COULD BASE A DEFENCE AGAINST MY ATTACK.
THEY CONTACTED VOLVO (CAR CORPORATION) AND THEY REFUSED TO PAY FOR THE OIL CHANGE ... UNDERSTANDABLE PERHAPS
20,208 X £120 = £2,4242,960 ... FOR ONE OIL CHANGE PER CAR.
MULTIPLY THIS BY 'N' FOR N CHANGES.
SOUNDS LIKE A BP £20 BILLION JOB IN THE MAKING.
7) Fact - AGREED - I HAD A SECOND LETTER HANDED TO ME WHEN I ATTENDED MY RECALL DESCRIBING JUST WHAT YOU SAY.
DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ONE OF THESE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR?
MINE IS ATTACHED. I HAVE SHOWN YOU MINE NOW YOU SHOW ME YOURS?
8) Opinion - AGREED
9) Opinion - AGREED
10) Fact (?) – WHERE IS VOLVO'S STATEMENT? I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS ANYWHERE.
11) Opinion – NOT HAPPY WITH 'MOST' AGAIN. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ME FOR EXAMPLE BECAUSE I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DPF REGEN. UNTIL I HAD THE RECALL LETTER I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT I HAD A DPF ON THE CAR.
HAPPY TO DEFER TO YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS ISSUE.
12) Opinion (fact?) – there appears to be no evidence AS YET from owners of significantly increased engine wear or engine failure, although there is a strong and scientifically backed opinion that the level of dilution of the engine oil brought about by this issue will inevitably lead to increased wear / significant engine damage.
NOT AGREED - SEE EXTRA INFORMATION IN (6) ABOVE
13) Opinion (fact?) – AGREED
14) Opinion (fact?) – NO COMMENT BECAUSE I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW I WOULD KNOW IF THE DPF IS BLOCKED.

S60D5NI this is a good piece of work. I take your point about relaxing the standards. We could do it for some but not for all. Let us not let the standard slip such that we do not exceed the threshold of credibility with the Court. Without wishing to be adversarial, if that happens I would be happier paddling my own canoe. As I have said previously, I am a fee earner and if I were to convert the time I have spent on researching this into £'s at my normal fee rates I am already approaching £10,000 in lost fees. So this is not a hobby for me and that is why I am taking it so seriously.
As for relaxing the standards you have demonstrated from the above, that you have the 'smarts' not expect any favours from me which is the best compliment I can pay you.

The first attachment of my recall letter seems to have failed to be uploaded. It is here.

If at first you don't succeed......
I'll try again with a pdf this time.

Doc

In your experience, what would be a ball-park figure for taking Volvo to court on this issue (assuming we're talking Joe Public paying for legal advice / representation and also that claim is outside Small Claims cut-off)?

Do we actually know how may cars within the forums are affected by this ? ... are they 1/2/3 years old or older? are they automatic/manual .... Volvo have issued a recall letter in the UK but to whom was it targeted ?

My personal experiance (already posted) was based on reading the posts posted in various parts of the forums initally had me concerned ... I've since paid a lot more attention to my "oil level" and found it to vary dramatically depending on if the car is hot/cold or stone cold when the level was dipped or the biggest variation observed was when the car was infact parked on a level surface or not (not something you get when parking at the kerb.)

My car only does 5k per year and has never had any regeneration problems that I am aware of, seldom does motorway runs and spends most of its time in the City of Glasgow so I assume its a prime candidate for the problem ... so far apart from my initial scare I dont seem to have the issue (fingers crossed) ... I wonder how many actually do and if we are not panicking slightly with the suggestion of court action, under no circumstances belittling those who currently have the issue.

Just some thoughts.

Robin:natur008:

Hi Everyone,
I wandering into this forum as my wife has an S80, I have a V70 D5 MY08.

I created a post in the V70 section 08> titled "Safety Recal Notice" on exactly this subject, so far the thread has had 1817 views and 38 replies.

Obviously this issue has been diluted among the Owners Club Forum as the models have their own section, and it seems to me that it may be better if it were possible to combine threads in this section, the V70 section, and probably there are other threads on the same subject on other models fitted with the Euro IV D5 engine with DPF.

Thus we speak with one voice.

If a Moderator is viewing, or a viewer knows a moderator, can this be done please?

5 Stars seem to be due to "The Doc" there's man who knows his stuff and which door to bang on.