In some engineering environments, the machine would be placed into quarantine and the defect investigated by the manufacturer and an independent specialist.
Such as my old boss's E46 M3 which threw a rod at 10,000 miles.
Local dealer picked it up and dropped off a 330i as a replacement. Towed it back to the workshop. Removed the engine. Stripped it. Engineer from BMW AG in Germany on the first plane in the morning. Two days of analysis. Parts taken back to Germany for examination.Duff big end bolt named as the cause. Brand new engine arrived in a crate from Germany a few days later. Installed and tested. Car returned and courtesy car collected. At no time was it even implied that it was in any way the customer's problem. Being a consciencious chap, my boss explained he had driven the car hard, but not abused it to which the reply was "it doesn't matter sir, it shouldn't happen!"
They paid fuel for the courtesy car.
They provided the next two services free of charge.
They've offered him a scorching deal on a new E92 M3 when it arrives.
A different world when a dealer and a manufacturer both take a pride in the products they sell.
Cheers
DP
|
You said a mouthful there my friend - the in-laws have had a few BMW's and the only problem they have ever had was the immobiliser failing, completely disabling the whole car.
A transporter turned up with a replacement vehicle and took theirs away - fixed the problem, appologised in all ways possible and same transporter drop off of their car and collection of the temp vehicle.
I have spent so much money with the Ford group this year. I can see it going to the Germans next time.
At the risk of causing people to laugh their faces sore - how far can I trust Ford to provide a truthful assessment of the fuel pump? (they obviously do not trust the judgement of their dealer network!)
P~
|
|
|
Most manufacturers are not really worried about the odd failure such as DPs BMW big end bolt. But they are terrified of things like the Ford diesel fuel pump as they know that there may be many. Admitting to the first one is a liability as it brings into question the quality of the part and whether it was fit for purpose.
In my industry it is exactly like that. Most of the time the customer pays up, albeit reluctantly.
If my fuel pump went (also TDCi) then I am in the fortunate position of carrying out a technical investigation myself.
Keep at them. They will give in eventually, but you really need the dealer on your side. He should be happy as its a warranty job.
|
>>I then called the dealer who immediately said that as this was such a grey are, they are willing to 'back me' and get the fuel pump sent to Ford for inspection and testing.>>
Perhaps suggest to the dealer that you have the work done and pay 50% of the parts and labour (or perhaps just the total parts cost) until the investigation is complete on the basis of that being an equitable approach to a 50/50 issue. If no luck pay the money anyway and write to Ford, I am sure you will get at least a 50% contribution if not more.
|
The total bill is £2077.76. Parts alone are £1507.00 - gulp!
I am intending to write directly to the MD of Ford GB. Too much?? :o)
P~
|
Phantom, I admire your good humoured and logical attempts to resolve this. As others have said, if the "cat is let out of the bag" on this problem, it will cost Ford dearly.
Your sanity is worth more than even principle. I suggest the following:
Your car has a Ford warranty. Trade it in to your Ford dealer, and make painstaking steps to ensure that you are given the same price for it, as you would get for a fully working vehicle. This is only fair - being covered by their wonderful "warranty" it must by definition be worth the same. If the trade in value is diminished in any way, they are admitting in effect that their warranty disadvantages the customer.
Then vote with your cheque book. Although often slated, the VW group diesels are in my view the most trouble free DI units with high pressure dual phase injection on the market today, if you use the right oil and pay attention to timing belt changes. If you are not bonnet badge conscious, there are wonderful bargains to be had.
Everyone else - take note of this post and others like it.
659.
|
Phantom
My TDCi still runs, but badly. I am told the pump is faulty (alleged 'fuel contamination') and is not developing/maintaining the correct pressure. It is being traded for an Accord at the weekend. The Honda dealer is aware of the problem but they have told me that so long as the car runs and moves under its own steam they will take it (and have given me a good P/X price) because they will transport it to an auction and sell it there. They will not be retailing it themselves.
In my case my Ford dealer was very hard-nosed (as was the Ford helpline) and also wanted full payment up front. There explanation of what had gone wrong was very polished and I couldn't but help thinking that they had been through it before, if you know what I mean. The diesel repairer I spoke to told me that he keeps one or two TDCi pumps in stock so that makes me think that pump failure is not at all uncommon.
|
Well, any good humour I had is gone.
Just spoken to someone at Ford who had risen to the heady heights of 'Deputy Team Leader' and was given (as M describes) the usual pre-rehearsed lines about how they have no technical knowledge and so on.
I have two options (much like 'do you want to be kicked in the left or right one'):
- the dealer fully repair the vehicle but KEEP the car until such time as the parts have been tested and a warranty claim accepted or rejected. At which point Ford blame fuel contamination and I am done for £2077.76p
or
- the dealer removes the fuel pump and sends it away for testing. If Ford admit it's a pump failure (stop laughing!) it all gets repaired and costs me nothing...but if (100% guaranteed to be WHEN) they reject the warranty claim, I will have to pay the labour charge for the part being removed and sent for testing - more than likely up to £150.00...THEN I have to pay for the full repair at any place I desire.
BUT the real kicker is, that in both of these situations, it can take up to TWO months for the claim to be rejected (sorry, I mean 'accepted or rejected').
Would it be a HUGE mistake to take the car to a diesel specialist and have the full repair done and ask for a written report on their findings, which I could use to try and claim back from Ford?? Am I better off leaving the car there, then being screwed for any labour costs?
I cannot stress enough, that we did 200miles on the current tank of fuel and last Thursday it was running perfectly, then on Friday it just broke. To me, that's something failing instantly - NOT a steady breakdown of a fuel pump over time, caused by water contamination in the diesel. Isn't it??
If was not a grown man, I would honestly sit and cry like a baby. Embarrassing, isn't it?
P~
|
Cut and run - trade it in. Any sniff of a shabby deal due to the fault which they have a legal responsibility to fix, threaten and implement maximum publicity. It's not worth your sanity dealing with an outfit such as this.
659.
|
If you involve a third party such as a diesel specialist, Ford will wash their hands of the whole thing (they probably rather hope you'll do this). Keep at Ford until you have at least some money to spend elsewhere.
659.
|
Thing is, trading it in means giving them even more money...or at the very least sticking with Ford which for the foreseeable future I do NOT want to do.
As I sit here right now, I am strongly considering paying a 3rd party to repair the car, then trading it in against a Golf. It would be a huge shame, as I know my wife loves the size and luxuries of the Mondeo ST (lest we forget, this was just under £24,000.00 new, so it has a nice level of equipment) and after all is said and done, we will be looking at a much lower spec Golf.
Sorry to use this board to rant but - I (like I am sure we all do) bust my backside to be able to buy my wife and kids nice things. Through no fault of my own, that privilege has been undermined by what can only amount to daylight robbery by Ford. Pre-Christmas and I am going to have to find £2,000+?? I can think of at least three people (my wife and kids) who deserve it spending on them, rather than a huge corporation shafting me for it. It stinks.
I did a reasonable amount of research on the car when we bought it and I have to be honest, the fuel pump vulnerabilities are not very widely covered - only when you have one and it goes wrong, it seems!! Ha ha. I suppose research on a car and engine only introduced in 2004 was unlikely to yield anything other than the positive reviews from journalists.
Never mind - unfortunately it is starting to look very much like Ford have won this one.
For sale 2005(54) Mondeo ST 2.2 TDCi. 10,000 miles. great spec. Fully repaired. £11,000.00. :oD
P~
|
Phantom.
I will repeat - write to Ford Customer Relations, they have a good reputation, better to write than phone, they have recently moved location and the phone may be answered by agency staff with a crib sheet if the experienced staff did not relocate from Glasgow to the midlands however letters will be addressed by someone with a bit of experience and knowledge, will be given a case reference, and will be passed to tech people if required. Write and you will be treated fairly.
Also rather than rant (albeit with good humour) you need to look at both sides of the argument, perhaps in your case you have only ever filled with premium diesel however there are many, many numpties out there who put 40 ltrs of u/l in their diesel, realise as much though continue driving and then claim on the warranty when it goes wrong and there are others that make a genuine mistake, can you be sure your wife does not fall into the latter category? If so should the manufacturer underwrite the cost of mistaken misfuelling anymore than than underwriting the cost of mistakenly driving the car into a wall?
With this in mind it is perhaps not surprising that manufacturers and dealers are cautious however it is up to them to prove that contamination / misfuelling caused the problem though equally it is perhaps not unreasonable for them to ask you to commit to paying the cost of repair IF contamination is proved because they afterall are commiting to paying the cost if the failure is due to any other cause. As I said before they may consider it equitable for you to pay 50% of the cost when you pick the car up (prior to the report on the failed part) so that if the failure is proven to be contamination / misfuelling you pay the remaining 50% and if it is another cause you are refunded what you have paid.
|
I think we need to keep sight of the evidence here. Our friend Phantom has been shown a jar of contaminated fuel containing ferrous metal filings and another liquid at the bottom. Without analysis, it's not possible to identify the liquid contaminant, but the fact that he saw it, shows that it is not miscible with fuel and should therefore have been stopped by the filter.
Ford's record in dealing fairly with this (not unknown) problem has not been good. It would also grieve me beyond measure to be paying my hard earned money unjustifiably to this Company. The mental stresses involved should not be underestimated.
Cut and run - you will make a loss. If the loss is unjustifyable or unreasonable, try to recoup it via the Small Claims Court, but don't let a third party touch the car.
Have a look at the price of a recent Skoda using the VW 130 PD engine, built on the old VW Passat platform (B 5.5). You could almost certainly get a really good one of similar age and specification for the residual value of your Ford.
659.
|
>>Our friend Phantom has been shown a jar of contaminated fuelcontaining ferrous metal filings and another liquid at the bottom.
If he has been shown the contaminent already then why are the dealer proposing to analyise the pump unless they are not clear that this liquid caused the damage, in which case they are being very fair?
analysis, it's not possible to identify the liquid contaminant, but the fact that he saw it, shows that it is not miscible with fuel and should therefore have been stopped by the filter.
>>
The filter will trap small volumes of water, mls rather than ltrs, so if a filling station had a lot of water leak into an underground tank it will not avoid related problems. Also of course it will not help re a substance that mixes with diesel such as unleaded petrol.
Ford's record in dealing fairly with this (not unknown) problem has not been good. >>
As I said above there are numpties out there who put 40 ltrs of u/l in their dieseland continue driving and then claim on the warranty when it goes wrong and there are others that make a genuine mistake, should the manufacturer underwrite the cost of mistaken misfuelling anymore than than underwriting the cost of mistakenly driving the car into a wall?
Have a look at the price of a recent Skoda using the VW 130 PD engine,
The 130 PD is also liable to misfueling probs, it has a cambelt that can fail rather than the TDCis chain, it requires a very specific oil spec because of possible PD related lubricity issues, is far less refined than the TDCi and less gutsy than the 2.0 yet alone the 2.2. Futhermore anything like a Superb or old Passat is a stodgy drive in comparison.
From frying pan to fire is not a solution.
|
I bought a new 2.0 TDCi 130 Estate in March 2004 (luckily via a broker, supplied direct by Ford dealer, but £5000 cheaper). It was an excellent car apart from constant stalling when the a/c was turned on. Luckily I had ordered a sunroof, as traffic jams were a pain. I quite often see Mondeo TDCi's being stalled, so obviously a common problem, but Ford were useless!!
I must admit I did 52k miles in 18 months, and only needed a washer pump and PAS steering joint, both done under warrenty, and most of its mileage it rane with a Superchips Bluefin chip (giving about 160bhp), however the fact I only got £9500 for it (I got a company car) has shown me never to buy a mainstreem car again, even with 25% discount!! (list price was 22500, I paid 17500). We quickly replaced my wifes car with a 330d Touring? expensive yes, but it'll still be worth over £10000 when its 5 years old.
Talking about water in the fuel?. A couple of years ago my Aunts X-Trail Dci broke down on the way down from Scotland. She called the AA, who upon arrival said she was not the only one who had called them out in that area. It was traced to a garage on the A66/A1 junction, where all involved had fillup there cars with a mixture if Diesel and 'another' substance (Water or Petrol). Luckily they claimed from the petrol station for an engine drain!!
--
Neil T
E90 BMW 320d M Sport, E91 330d SE Touring
|
I bought a new 2.0 TDCi 130 Estate in March 2004 (luckily via a broker, supplied direct by Ford dealer, but £5000 cheaper). ..................I did 52k miles in 18 months, .................. however the fact I only got £9500 for it .......................... even with 25% discount!! (list price was 22500, I paid 17500).
>>
So what BMW can you buy new and only lose £8000 over 18months and 52,000 miles? A 330d Touring will lose more than £12k on the same age mileage basis. Even a 118/120d at £20k new would not be worth more that £12k after 18 months and 52,000 miles.
|
The difference is, I would have lost £8000 even if it had done 15k miles. our 330d only does 6k a year, and shouldn't loose £8000 in the first 18 months, especially as I secured a 7.5% discount.
--
Neil T
E90 BMW 320d M Sport, E91 330d SE Touring
|
Phantom
As I said earlier, get it out of the hands of Ford and get an independent expert opinion on this - complete with photos etc. It may cost £100-200 but could well be worth it. If you let me know what part of country you are in I will give my Diesel specialist mate a ring and ask if can recommend/suggest anyone in your part of the world.
As you say, an instant failure does rather suggest an catastrophic internal fault. Didn't that happen to another person on here ("Lees") a month or so ago?
I think there have now been three of these TDCI failure reported on here in the last two months. Whilst that does not represent any kind of statistical 'sample' it certainly indicates a systematic problem...
|
Whilst I agree that three reports is not a stastically significant result I wonder if this is inherent in the system design for the Mondeo or do the same things happen on the X-type Jaguar for instance??
Does the X -type Jaguar use the same injection pump etc and if not ,why not, as the engine is basically the same??
As one who has never owned a diesel engined, car I cannot accept that a small amount of water in a fuel tank can stop an engine and ruin a pump - thats surely poor design. If this is so it is surely "not fit for purpose" as contamination could reasonably be expected in the fuel during the life of the car ,or even the filter itself, which should remove it.
I would think about throwing the "not fit for purpose" words at FMC quite robustly in your next discussion!
|
I think there have now been three of these TDCI failure reported on here in the last two months. >>
Two IIRC and one on CR related probs on Honda Accords, however TDCi's out number Accords by much more than two to one.
I think the only systematic problems are filling stations not maintaing / cleaning their tanks properly and drivers filling diesel cars with petrol - either unknowingly or taking a "fingers crossed" approach when they realise it has happened.
Interestingly Ford are the only manufacturer to take the matter seriously in that they have announced a filler aperture that will only open when offered a larger diesel nozzle.
|
Phantom,if you have comprehensive insurance my advice would be to speak to your insurance company and ask them to deal with this for you as if the damage is caused by contamination of the fuel they will pay for the damage but they will want to see evidence before the repair ,if there is not enough evidence of contamination for insurance co engineer Ford might suddenly agree to stand good.
I have had a very similar experience with another major manufacturer but the cost was rather less than yours
|
Would be a nice plan, but Mr.I-am-in-a-foreign-call-centre-and-cannot-articulate-past-my-script-
in-english
at More Than insurance pointed us at the clause in our policy booklet that says our fully-comp policy does not cover fuel contamination.
Insurance will wriggle out of more than Ford will! :o)
P~
|
at More Than insurance pointed us at the clause in our policy booklet that says our fully-comp policy does not cover fuel contamination
guess that rules that out then,thankfully that was not my experience ,you have my sympathy
|
>> I think there have now been three of these TDCI failure >> reported on here in the last two months. >> Two IIRC and one on CR related probs on Honda Accords, however TDCi's out number Accords by much more than two to one.
There have been three posts, all with similar TDCI problems. From an 'A Lees', 'Menzies' and 'Phantom'.
I would not attempt to extrapolate from these to the general 'car parc' (only a tiny tiny percentage of owners ever post in the BR), however I do know from my friend who fixes Diesels for a (good) living that there is a problem with these designs. I know you won't hear anything but good about Fords, so let's leave it there and agree to differ. Personally I would not buy one with my own money and I know he wouldn't (he drives a Subaru Outback).
As to the query above about Jaguars, my understanding is that Jags are fitted with the Denso system which costs a fair bit more at the factory gate than the Delphi system used on Ford-badge vehicles.
|
Aprilia - I agree. I am a big fan of the Mondeo and Fords in general, but I was told the same thing almost word for word by a local diesel specialist when I took the Polo in for a cambelt a few years ago.
He's a friendly chap and was asking me about the car. I explained I'd just sold it, and I'd agreed to get the belt changed as a condition of sale), and he asked me I was getting. I explained I wanted a bigger car and was going for a Mondeo diesel. Before I had chance to say a mk2 1.8TD (my budget wouldn't stretch to a mk3 diesel) he went off into one about how he gets about three TDCi's a month in with either injector or pump failure, and he almost feels embarrassed to quote for the work because of the sums of money involved. Basically some people think he is conning them.
I asked him if it affects the X-Type as well and he said he'd never seen it. Apparently they do use better quality components (Denso) which last forever. So it seems this is a component quality issue rather than a design fault.
Which is a great shame, as in all other respects a 2.2 TDCi estate would be my ideal next car.
Cheers
DP
|
There have been three posts, all with similar TDCI problems. From an 'A Lees', 'Menzies' and 'Phantom'.
Plus the Honda one and I would hazard a guess that TDCis outnumber Accord Ds by more than three to one.
>>I know you won't hear anything but good about Fords, so let's leave it there and agree to differ.>>
I just try to present a balanced view in which context my comments regarding the drivers responsibility to use the correct fuel have been ignored. Agree to differ, yes.
As to the query above about Jaguars, my understanding is that Jags are fitted with the Denso system which costs a fair bit more at the factory gate than the Delphi system used on Ford-badge vehicles.
No.
X-types diesels have exactly the same componentry as the TDCi Mondeo but for the gearbox on the 2.0 Jag which is IIRC a Getrag 5 speed where as current 2.0 Mondeos have a Ford 6 speed as do the 2.2 X-Types and Mondeos.
|
I do know from my friend whofixes Diesels for a (good) living that there is a problem with these designs. I know you won't hear anything but good about Fords, so let's leave it there and agree to differ. Personally I would not buy one with my own money and I know he wouldn't (he drives a Subaru Outback).
I taken your point, but think that this is as likely to be something to do with the sheer number of TDCis there are on the road these days - I would suggest more of these than any of the other similar cars. On balance of probabilities, he is likely to see more Fords than others. It is just possible this gives him a slightly warped view of overall reliability.
Regarding the overall post, I find this case most disturbing. There must be a case for Ford giving the benefit of the doubt, or at least coming to some sort of arrangement. This "all or nothing" (most likely nothing...) attitude is an appalling example of customer relations.
|
Regarding the overall post, I find this case most disturbing. >>
Singularly lacking in imagination, I was automatically edging towards a TDCI to replace my current 2.0L petrol Mondeo - I'm certainly having second thoughts now!
Is the diesel engine in a Skoda Octavia a 'common-rail' type? Cheers
|
Not yet at least. It is a VAG Pumpe Duse unit. But like others have said here will be cambelt and not chain...
If I was buying my next car I'd have to reconsider diesel with all these common rail problems. But mine is still a company car and the more I think about it the more chance I stay with that (I could take a fairly decent allowance but pay tax on it)....
|
The current 4 cyl VW group diesels are unit injector engines (their trade name "Pump Deuse"). Although common in large diesels, VW are out on a limb with this technology as it's expensive to make and hard on timing belts and oil. The warranty claims have been high due to a lack of knowlege by owners and dealers - using technical oil specs like 506.01 usually baffles the average user and the wrong stuff gets used.
These engines are very efficient due to the high injection pressures generated by this system - approaching 2000 bar (higher than a common rail engine). They are not the most refined as the unit injector design does not allow much modulation or timing variation of the fuelling. You can adjust these parameters a bit (as VW do) by varying the solenoid energisation period and timing, but the injector cam profile places a fixed limit on what can be done.
The specific fuel consumption of these engines is second to none and the refinement is generally acceptable - try one and see. Given proper treatment, the reliability and durability are outstanding; the absence of an electric lift pump in the tank is a major advantage here. All fuel pumps and injectors are made by Bosch. Low speed torque is good, due to the use of a variable geometry turbocharger, but the power delivery is a bit abrupt for the unwary.
VW are likely to abandon this unit injector design due to cost, but as a practical workhorse, I find this engine gives a splendid balance between performance and fuel consumption. Better an engine which works reasonably well all the time, than one which .......
659.
|
|
|
|
|
