Peugeot Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My van (1.6 2008 Peugeot Expert Diesel) lost power when driving last week, oil light came on (although full), slight rattle, and RAC diagnosed turbo. Took to a main dealer who also diagnosed turbo. Upon replacing the turbo they found a bolt was missing which they were concerned was in the engine and they would need two hours labour (£192!) to investigate. Owing to a miscommunication the investigation was not done, the turbo was fitted and I have been informed that the engine now needs replacing! There are metal shards in the sump apparently. I am doubtful that the turbo was the correct diagnosis initially but knowing extremely little about vans I would really appreciate your comments. Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Have they charged you anything at all? If not, providing the repair has been carried out in full, I belive they have met their MINIMUM obligation to you. Worth taking up with Service Manager if no Joy then Dealer Principal, if no joy there then customer care dept of manufacturer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,904 Posts
I find it difficult to work out how a missing bolt would find it's way into the sump. They must have had the sump off to find the metal shards which could have originated from the faulty turbo in the first place. They could be advising a replacement engine because of the cost of cleaning the engine thoroughly due to the time required plus they probably wouldn't guarantee that all metal shards were cleaned out of all the oil galleries. Any shards left could find their way to the new turbo causing that to fail.

To successfully argue against payment for work carried out you would need an expert to prove that the original diagnosis was completely wrong and that misdiagnosis was the cause of the engine failure. Can't really see that happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
I find it difficult to work out how a missing bolt would find it's way into the sump. They must have had the sump off to find the metal shards which could have originated from the faulty turbo in the first place. They could be advising a replacement engine because of the cost of cleaning the engine thoroughly due to the time required plus they probably wouldn't guarantee that all metal shards were cleaned out of all the oil galleries. Any shards left could find their way to the new turbo causing that to fail.

To successfully argue against payment for work carried out you would need an expert to prove that the original diagnosis was completely wrong and that misdiagnosis was the cause of the engine failure. Can't really see that happening.
I may have misunderstood the original post. My understanding was that they noticed a bolt missing (presumably when putting turbo back), and requested additional labour time to strip and investigate if the bolt had gon into the engine. The investigation was never carried out and the engine run resulting in the damage. That's how I read it. In which case I believe responsibility would lie with the dealer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for the replies. I haven't paid anything yet. I perhaps didn't explain correctly but as I am led to believe to confirm the initial diagnosis of turbo they would have investigated the cause of this - oil pump, etc. Surely at the time of the investigation they should have noticed the metal in the sump? So before diagnosing turbo they would have got back to me and explained the severity. The dealership are saying the van arrived with the metal shards and it's nothing to do with them. However if they had investigated correctly in the first place surely they would have picked up on that?

I cannot prove that it didn't arrive with the shards there, just as they can't prove that they didn't cause it, but I'm getting a lot of conflicting comments from the staff at the dealership which is making me feel as though there's a cover up going on!
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top