Renault 1.5 DCI faulty engine issue.

slimjimmc

delahuntv wrote: »

Or maybe I read the OP's post correctly that very clearly stated that the fault was not the belt itself but on the pulley that caused the belt to do something it would not normally do.

Hence an inherent fault that should not have happened.

The question from a legal point of view is Would such a fault have occurred if the pulleys were not faulty. - If answer in no, then the OP has a good case.

Also, the car manual does not state the timing belt MUST be replaced. It is a recommendation / advisory and it certainly does not state that if not replaced the engine will automatically fail.



Small claims court costs €20 and a judge will decide. - A staff member of mine won against a fiat dealer over a steering column issue. They tried the "wasn't serviced by authorised dealer" line and that argument held no sway and she won.

And neither will it tell you that the engine oil filter must be replaced and that driving around with a clogged filter will result in engine failure. Like the belt change it is part of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule. While not following that schedule rigidly shouldn't mean you can expect your engine to die straight away it does unfortunately mean that you've given the other party a possible excuse to avoid a claim.


Get an estimate from the dealer and go back to Renault HQ to see if they will consider even a goodwill gesture. You may need to keep pestering them but don't harass.

Kensington

delahuntv wrote: »

Or maybe I read the OP's post correctly that very clearly stated that the fault was not the belt itself but on the pulley that caused the belt to do something it would not normally do.

Hence an inherent fault that should not have happened.

The question from a legal point of view is Would such a fault have occurred if the pulleys were not faulty. - If answer in no, then the OP has a good case.

Also, the car manual does not state the timing belt MUST be replaced. It is a recommendation / advisory and it certainly does not state that if not replaced the engine will automatically fail.



Small claims court costs €20 and a judge will decide. - A staff member of mine won against a fiat dealer over a steering column issue. They tried the "wasn't serviced by authorised dealer" line and that argument held no sway and she won.

But equally, Renault will counter-argue "Would such a fault have occurred if the pulleys were replaced according to the recommended schedule" and unfortunately for the OP, the answer could also be "no" (after all not every single Renault 1.5dci engine ever made will have failed because of this particular fault). And because the OP went against the better advice of the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, Renault has the upper hand here.

Look, it may not seem fair, or right, or moral, or just, but cars must be maintained according to the manufacturer's maintenance schedules. They are mostly durable machines but must be maintained correctly nonetheless.

If you do so, and something like this happens, you have a much stronger case for arguing the goods were not fit for purpose, as you operated the car the way the manufacturer has said it should be. But when you blatantly ignore these maintenance schedules, you're preparing the manufacturer's defense for them if something serious happens, like the OPs case.


Oh, and yes, SCC is max €2000, way below the cost of a new engine...

obrienm4

As I mentioned earlier, I completed all required service intervals when due ( every 12 months, largest mileage interval was 22,000kms or 12,000 miles) but it never occurred to me that a car with such low mileage would require a timing belt replacement. Big kick in the ass for me.

For the purpose of discussion though, service intervals are in place to guard against normal wear and tear of a component.

In my case wear and tear was not the cause of the failure, failure was as a result of a manufacturing defect which occurred when engine was built which was confirmed.

If damage occurred within 6 year and repaired for free does that make it right that the defect was there in the first place unknown to the consumer.

Kensington

All you can do with Renault is get in contact and try and plead your case on goodwill grounds.

I'd be having strong words with your mechanic too and I wouldn't be taking future cars to them anytime soon.

Don't want to keep labouring the point but service intervals are not purely distance based - engine oil degrades, belts degrades, tyres degrade - so intervals are typically "every X KM or Y years, whichever comes first". It looks the "or Y years" bit was ignored by your mechanic completely.

Take example if you have a car with 100,000KM and the engine is started 600 times a year (twice a day), and a car with 10,000KM but is started 3000 times in that same period (a pensioner nipping about the town), the 10,000KM engine could have worse wear and tear on belts (starting up is one of the most stressful times on an engine).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

obrienm4 wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier, I completed all required service intervals when due ( every 12 months, largest mileage interval was 22,000kms or 12,000 miles) but it never occurred to me that a car with such low mileage would require a timing belt replacement. Big kick in the ass for me.

For the purpose of discussion though, service intervals are in place to guard against normal wear and tear of a component.

In my case wear and tear was not the cause of the failure, failure was as a result of a manufacturing defect which occurred when engine was built which was confirmed.

If damage occurred within 6 year and repaired for free does that make it right that the defect was there in the first place unknown to the consumer.

12000 miles is less than 20000km for a start.
The timing belt was not replaced as it should have been at 6 years old. Milage is immaterial when the time restraint has superseded it. You have absolutely no proof that your timing belt went due to a machanical fault. You have a greater case to be annoyed at your mechanic than at Renault. Good luck arguing your case in court.

delahuntv

One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is how old the car is - I was assuming it was just outside the 6 year but on re-reading the thread it could be quite a bit outside.

I would say there is an arguable case if the car is up to 8 years old, and it is caused by something else that was an inherent fault.

Maybe the OP can give the actual age of the car?

ThisRegard

obrienm4 wrote: »

Big kick in the ass for me.

Not that it's any consolation, but I also learned the hard way with my first ever car. Low enough mileage, didn't even know what a timing belt was at the time. Pulling out of a drive and the car just shuddered to a stop. At the time it cost me a few hundred to get fixed, only bent 1 valve.