TURBO exhaust system or inlet air ????

[sheerwater]

Here is a question for the speed guys. I have a leak on the joint between exhaust manifold and the turbo on my 940. Trouble is there is no gasket and therefore it involves a complicated removal of turbo and faces ground to mate properly. My car is under 5 years warranty and so there is an arguement due to the fact that exhausts are NOT covered.
Now we come to the real arguement. I say that the turbo and joint are part of the engine and the turbo is designed as part of the air inlet system to compress air. The dealer says its part of the exhaust system and is not covered. My case is that the car would run perfectly well if the turbo was powered say by a belt instead of the exhaust gas and that the primary reason for a turbo has nothing to do with the efficiency or otherwise of the exhaust system. I would appreciate any answers to my email (as well as this site!!!) to justify my case (or not of course!!!.)
email is sheerwater@ntlworld.com Cheers Nigel ps. I know a belt air compressor is called a supercharger!!!!!

[Peter Milnes]

Although you are quite right when you say the turbo is part of the inlet system and it is only driven by the exhaust gasses, It would probably take a lawyer to make the dealers agree. The argument would have to be developed along the lines of "1) Without a turbo the exhaust would still work properly" and "2) Without a turbo the engines performance capability would be quite a lot less". Taking these two together would deem the turbo to be there for purposes of power gain via the inlet system and should therefore be covered by the warranty. That the driven part of the turbo is physically placed in the exhaust tract, does not mean that it is wholly an exhaust part. It is placed there solely to provide the driving force of the exhaust gasses. A turbo cannot be said to be wholly exhaust or wholly inlet, as it has elements of both and it would be safer for the manufacturer to err on the side of the customer than the dealer, particularly as the device is not there to improve or affect the exhaust.

This has all the potential for a dealer get-out which, unfortunately for the dealer, does not wash. Perhaps a letter to Volvo UK, copy to Volvo Sweden and Ford America might bear fruit or, at least, force a clarification of the issue.

All the best, Peter.

[sheerwater]

Thanks Peter, My sentiments exactly. I wish that I lived in America regarding this car. I think the lawsuit would provide me with a healthy pension for the rest of my life.!!!!!under the lemon laws. Cheers Nigel

I know this is an off the wall approach.... but how about you ask an EXHAUST supplier to give you a quote for a turbocharger.... or equally a letter stating that as a recognised EXHAUST supplier they do not sell, supply or fit turbochargers as these are clearly not exhaust parts.

Kind of along the lines of the warranty does not cover brake pads (as they are consumables) but does cover disks & calipers.... they are all connected but are not one 'thing' as a result.

Its a theory to try before you hit the legal eagles, good luck :)

Jim,
'96 855-R (The Flying Wardrobe)

[sheerwater]

Good points thanks. I am getting older and am adopting a different attitude towards things. Some years ago I adopted a policy of boycotting manufacturers if their product did not come up to scratch. i.e. A washing machine lasting only a year or so was not repaired and was not replaced with the same make. This policy is also being applied to cars. The only way in business to kick companies into quality control of parts is to ensure that they build cars with tried an tested bits. Jaguar adopted a policy of throwing back the total warranty repair costs onto their supplier of the part. i.e. a circlip in a gearbox failing cost their supplier 100s. Result. After years of poor quality cars the vehicles became more reliable. please note Volvo. Cheers Nigel