Engine: 2.5: 44k engine blown, warranty company not interested

[jjkenya]

Some exciting Monday night reading - Full report here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B--...ew?usp=sharing

Regarding the OBD-II I think it must have been cleared last September (matches with the approx mileage) when we had Injector number 4 replaced at the same garage where the car was inspected...

[wimorrison]

Interesting reading that is indeed bad news and I am sorry to say that I consider the report to be completely consistent and would also conclude that this engine has a history, seemingly before your ownership which has led to this failure.

The clean nature of the piston head, the completely run bearing, the scorings in the big and small ends all suggest that there were issues in this engine and the poor sealing would indicate that someone has done something in the past. You have also mentioned that an injector was replaced recently and the ECU was reset at that point thus deleting any other potential history

I fear you are going to have a serious task arguing against this detailed and generally well considered report.

Sorry I can't be as supportive as before, however I was basing my statements on your information - when I see the entire report I understand the insurance company position.

[luggsey]

I'm no expert and don't pretend to be, but after reading that report I would no be able to imply you have failed to act correctly in servicing your vehicle. The possibility that the car was used for short journeys (this is assumed only, not proven) is not grounds to invalidate a claim in my opinion, how could it be, if you only go two miles to work ever day......it's unreasonable to suggest that.
The report suggests how failure occurred but is not convincing in explaining main bearing failure in my opinion.
Honestly, I think the main bearing failed first caused by either of starvation to the crank area, unlikely, or simply a failed bearing, also unlikely but it can happen.
If the oil was as bad as suggested the turbo bearings and possibly the cam bearings would show heat damage I think.
Anybody know if the crank is splash fed oil or pumped/both?
Nothing in this report can be attributed to your negligence in my opinion, I still suggest you will cane them in small claims court.

[gregg]

I agree, they conclude in saying that the cause has been 'unfavorable engine operation' I.e. Short journeys and periods on non use. So in my opinion unless your warranty says you must only do long journeys (which of course it doesn't as that would be stupid), then they should cough up. Fight it.

[Scooser]

I'm a professional engineer and have no specific skills in this area, but I do have to provide judgement outside of my skill area relying on counsel from others, and by analysing what I see.

A couple of things trouble me. The engine is knackered - he got that right, but that's not up for debate.

The key finding is circumstantial, i.e low mileage from frequent short journeys which is bad for the engine. Nothing is proven by your low miles, it is (and can only be) an assessors OPINION. But nothing the assessors uses to substantiate the claims provide any clear burden of proof.

What was all the nonsense about adding a drop of all to a piece of paper to determine it was sooty and full of diesel. Is this an industry recognised and robust test - it seems very fishy and I wouldn't trust that test to add any weight whatsoever.

If the oil's been diluted by diesel your will notice rising oil levels which will trigger a code. I presume there's been no evidence of this as there's been no stored codes in the last 14000 km.

Now for the oil filter. It looks like a dirty oil filter. Isn't that what dirty oil filters look like? I couldn't see any major soot collection. The photo looked like any other filter I've seen. Soot build up around the engine - nothing jumped out from the photos given my untrained eye.

The assessor gives very little weight to the positives - the FSH with frequent oil changes. Even with the low mileage this the frequent oil changes following manufacturers recommendations has to be considered as a major positive.

Finally, I presume the assessor was instructed and paid for by the warranty company, so cannot be independent.

Maybe it was the short journeys that did the damage, but for me the report to too circumstantial to conclude that. Oil and paper test and photos of oil filters prove nothing.

I'd take further advice.

[TheLeeds]

(quoted from engineer's report)

Poor performance of the heavily contaminated engine oil has undoubtedly been experienced at various stages in the vehicle life. Servicing appears to have been regular and it is likely that this was almost, but not quite, sufficient to protect the engine. Therefore, over considerable time, poor oil performance has resulted in the build up of soot in critical areas and accelerated engine bearing wear.

The conclusions of the report (pages 12 & 13) seem to be suggesting the servicing of the car may have been the cause of the engine failure, but surely to say this is effectively at odds with the manufacturers who themselves specify the service requirements, mileage and time and intervals.

[Sasha94]

I notice this in the report;

It is noted that a 5 cylinder engine is fitted to this vehicle and therefore poor performance in one cylinder is likely to go unnoticed by the layman.

The acknowledgment that there is little you could have done to foresee this doesn't seem to be getting enough press here despite the report being generally well considered it isn't factual as such, mearly an expert opinion paid for by the warranty company.

You've had the car 23 months and done 18,000 miles in it which doesn't seem too bad, clearly a lot has gone on in the first 4 years and 22,000 miles. Clearly the warranty company were happy to warrant the car in the first instance but now refuse to pay despite the admissions in the report that nobody would be able to foresee the internal damage or that the service schedule wasn't comprehensive enough to look after this particular engine.

Sadly I have no idea what to suggest next!

[Jebus]

Since you can show that services have been done in-line with the service guide for the car, assume by a proper garage then they will argue but nothing they can do but pay-out.

If they are trying to blame the way it has been used, which they are right lots of short trips and inactivity is bad for all engines and certainly diesel ones but they provided you with the warranty in the first place knowing the mileage was low, and did not require any special checks to be done then that is their issue.

The report shows the engine is dead, that you have serviced it, no fault codes have shown up (you have not been driving around with the EML on)

keep at them they of course do not want to pay out for a new engine, but since they cannot show you had done anything wrong, have acted as any "normal" person would have and never stated that if annual mileage is below X they would class that as "unfavourable" and therfore require short service intervals. You side of the contact is met so they have no option but to pay up.

[NigelDay]

Can you be certain the service performed by Available Car was actually up to the standards of a Volvo dealer ? Perhaps there is something you are not being told (or will, sadly, never discover).

[taz777]

Was the manner in which the car was going to be driven a condition of the warranty? In other words, did the warranty state that you would not be covered for doing short trips?

I'd suggest that you ought to be covered as many people do short trips without any problems.

In fact, if the warranty states that you would not be covered for short trips then Volvo's own manufacturer's warranty would be void for many drivers too.