It's quite easy when you think of it, price is doubled in order to cover the remedial work needed when they **** it up!

Seamus, Are you in Northern Ireland or Eire?

This isn't a head gasket fault, it's a No 4 injector fault, number four being at the front (by the engine pulley) as opposed to most other manufacturers who call it No1. It's a classic miss diagnosis by a bunch of Muppets. Fix costs about £25 plus half an hour labour. Root cause is water dripping though from the vent on the bonnet or the washer jet leaking. If the head gasket was changed it wouldn't fix the problem. It's a well known problem around this mileage. I own a car with the same engine and have had to change this injector twice, both around the 100K and 200k mark but put this down to routine maintenance as the injectors have a finite life.

I've watched this posting with much amusement. We see them all the time here. It has though raised some interesting questions especially on the actions of some of the site team as Mike has pointed out in relation to posts being removed/edited etc. I have in mind a particular post in relation to a DPF issue when it was pointed out that he/she would lose was totally removed after the OP did in fact lose big time. Now in this case, removing all the noise surrounding it, it comes down to an interpretation of the law and the definition of what is unroadworthy and what is not. SOGA clearly states that the car should be roadworthy but it also states that it should be commensurate with age and mileage and it should be expected that an older cheaper car will not be perfect. Now the question is how do you determine this? The car had a valid MOT and the advisories from the last MOT were made known to the buyer. The car was checked by an independent person as well. On examination by another garage they pointed out faults which are not what I would consider as serious as individual items in their own right as are items showing wear commensurate with the age mileage and price. The only one I would say is a no no is the drop link not secured. Bring all of these together and you have a car that will not indeed handle well. However the statement drives well is open to interpretation. The problem is the MOT. At the time of test, the testers interpretation of what he/she saw at the time was that in their opinion it would need changing before the next MOT. The seller is not obliged to do this work prior to sale as he has an official statement that the car will last until the next MOT safely. The seller's responsibility is to ensure it complies in terms of tyre tread etc which he has done. I cannot see that dealer has done anything wrong here other than comply and the OP is trying to take the **** thinking she gets a brand new car for £800 and even has the audacity to try and claim for the fuel she has put in and the routine maintenance required to get a cheap car to the required standard. As Scania has pointed out.....if you don't know ...get an expert to check. Overall, for a few quid spent on what is routine maintenance, which is commensurate with the price paid and age plus mileage, despite the battle scars, she might actually have a good car.

And the compliments of the season to you too Mr Scania. Mrs Helios was seen trying to smuggle in a rather good Jura this morning so if it's what I think it is then I'll be drinking to you as well at midnight ( and Conniff as well I expect). Lorries do trundle along the motorways though as are limited to 60mph so when you get a group of them all on their own individual missions, sometimes 4 miles long on the M6, it makes it nigh on impossible to overtake in the outside lane when it is wet. Tyre design has moved on in leaps and bounds over the past few years especially with wet weather performance so whilst this technology is good news for safety of the individual driver there seems to be no consideration of the consequences of these improvements. It's not rocket science now with computer driven modelling of water flows but what it needs is legislation to force truck manufacturers into doing it just the same way as they force car manufacturers to deal with emissions. By the way, the original DPF systems you refer to I believe are now banned from new because of what you say and the problems they cause but it seems odd this wasn't known about at the time. From memory it was probably a knee jerk reaction to some sort of Kyoto conference by the EU. Current systems don't use it and future systems use this cats pee substance (urea??). Not had a lot to do with it as yet ....but then I only go and fix the issues when it all goes pear shaped!!! I trust your Swedish bird is performing well?? (Now that will put Conniff's mind into overdrive ;-) )

And a merry Christmas to you as well Conniff ( Though I do take issue with the old bugger bit you grumpy REALLY old git !!! ) When DPF's are used as designed they actually work very well but the downside is increased fuel consumption and the cost to produce in emission terms of raw materials and energy probably negates the benefits given. As you know I have been working abroad a fair bit this year in countries with little or no pollution control and it's quite clear that emission control systems do work if they are fitted like in Europe and the States.

They are not designed to remove CO2 Conniff but are there to control soot emissions. It's an EU only regulation brought in to control the soot emissions from old design engines. Current engines developed in the Europe currently meet current emissions regs without the use of a DPF but there are so many overseas manufacturers which don't which has led to a blanket regulation of all diesels having this fitted. They are a pain which does not work and leads to many other problems, some of which can be very serious. Future regs coming in involve the use of a particularly nasty substance which smells like strong cats ****. Where the EU bods would be better employed would be reducing the amount of water spray from lorries tyres especially on motorways. It seems odd that car manufacturers have to persistently conform to safety and emission regs yet 44 tonne trucks can trundle aimlessly along the roads and motorways chucking gallons of water into the air.

As pointed out this invoicing issue is not uncommon. It probably met all of the manufacturers specs as well as they are very difficult to differentiate unfortunately. If a diesel with a DPF is used correctly there is no need to use a specific supposedly low ash oil, it just gives dealers an excuse to hype the oil prices. If an engine can meet Euro 5 regs there is probably no need for DPF's any way. It's just another EU reg that controls imports from countries where cars engines have to have them to meet Euro 4. Wait until Euro 6 kicks in where the exhausts have to have a substance injected which smells like cats pee!! Coming soon to your area!! Glad it's all been cleared up though.

So now we have the details which gives an indication as to how to proceed. Initially you should write to the service manager, dealer principle and BMW GB customer services detailing the issues and requesting a visit from a regional technical manager from BMW GB based in Bracknell. You should be prepared to visit when the RTM does and be in a position to demonstrate the issues when he does but be reasonable about it. Forget going great distances, you need to be able to demonstrate the issues locally in all fairness. If the RTM agrees with you then usually you will find that they supply a replacement car until the issues are sorted out to the RTM's satisfaction........well that's how it used to be! To add insult to injury just tell them you are thinking of buying the new Jaguar 3 series sized car due out next year as they are somewhat worried about I hear.

The main thing here is that it's the correct viscosity. That's the killer on any engine especially with todays extreme tolerances. The fact it is suitable for a DPF is a myth. Oils suitable for these only have an additive which aids to a small and certain extent the emissions. The additives have little or no effect on the actual lubrication properties. When a garage buys oil it's in vast quantities such as 2000 litres at a time. Oil companies promote this and discount it which enable garages to discount. When invoicing this to the end user the computer systems are not usually set up to determine this so there is a default oil price for the fixed price servicing which is what you probably saw. As Conniff points out, the mark up on garages oil is horrendous. On balance you probably got the correct oil but because of computer system limitations it does not show as such.

You do need to state the age and type of car and price paid as this is all relevant should you need to take action. BMW give a warranty for the first 12 months then it goes to an extended warranty. The way you describe the problems suggest you bought the car within that period but as per BMW policy had the extended warranty for 3 years as well. This extended warranty is a mechanical failure policy. Nothing is clear cut here as squeaks and rattles is a very subjective issue with no clearly defined benchmark and unless you can prove an actual failure of a part then the terms of the warranty are not applicable. It's a subjective issue and it's inevitable that during use rattles will develop. Unless you have parts falling off I cannot see that you have anywhere to go with this one.

The OP needs to state some more details such as age, mileage, price paid and in this case whether or not it was a BMW dealer. SOGA is not a clear cut law in relation to cars be they used or new. Squeaks and rattles is a very subjective issue whereas SOGA is concerned. It tends to deal with definitive faults such as a failure for which squeaks and rattles would not apply. I'd be a bit careful in taking the current advice suggested by DX as the way to go on what you have posted so far. If the car is a used one then the law is very vauge. There is no predetermined standard as to what is an acceptable used car or not.

The issue here is that under the terms of the warranty given there are two stages. When you buy the part and it's fitted by an approved dealership then you get a 12 month warranty on the part alone. Now if the part fails and you go to a dealership for replacement then the manufacturer will normally cover the labour as well. If for example you had the part fitted by a non franchised dealer then you get the part only unless a franchised dealer replaces it. This is normal parts warranty procedure. In this case, you have had the part fitted at a dealership and all appeared well. The dealer gives the 12months warranty on parts and labour as this is recoverable from the manufacturer if it fails. Alongside this the dealer gives an assurance that the labour is good for 6 months. So you have a part fitted and go to another non franchised mechanic. Had the part failed then you could take it back and they would give you another one. As this is not the case what you are complaining about is the labour and the dealer is only invoking the terms of the warranty given, i.e. had you taken the car back to any authorised dealer then it might be covered if the part had failed. What would normally happen then is that there would be an inter dealer charge for the work. However as this has happened outside of the dealer network and outside of the warranty period the original fitting dealer gives then you are going to be hard pressed in pursuing this one.

They actually leak Glycol. The vast majority of engine mounts fitted in a modern car are Hydro mounts and have a fluid fill in them to dampen out input forces that traditional solid rubber based elastomers cannot.

This is not strictly true and will depend on the circumstances. The OP needs to state what the car is, mileage and price paid, how it was sold, etc etc, what the £500 has been spent on, as pointed out, before a proper objective opinion can be given.

What the OP needs to remember here is that there are two contracts in place, one for the purchase of the car and the other for the finance to purchase the car. Whilst it's true, depending on dates, the OP is within the cooling off period for the finance contract the contract for the purchase still stands. One would think however that the same would apply under the distance selling regulations. If this is the case then it opens up a whole legal argument. It could be interesting this one but one thing is for certain the dealer is going to kick and shout a bit.

The VST works on a combination of wheel speed sensors, a steering position angle sensor and a yaw rate sensor (a G accelerometer ) so changing the egr valve will have no effect. One of the often missed faults with these systems especially when accelerating is the tire rolling radius as it can detect the difference between a new tyre and an older worn tyre closer to the tread limits. A 2mm difference can trigger it and it detects all four wheels on cheaper 4WD vehicles. Weak dampers have also been know to trigger the system such weak rears as the rear end of the car sits down when accelerating and can thus trigger the system again in certain circumstances.

You're missing the point. What they are telling you is that in order to do the repair to the required standard is not economical. My point is that if the repairs are carried correctly then it should not effect the structural integrity of the car. Anything can be repaired and maintain the structural integrity of the car at a cost. In this case reading between the lines is that they are not prepared to do it, not that it is not possible. They are not also in a position to say it is a design flaw as they won't have access to data that suggests it is or even proves it is. VW might have produced a million of these cars and yours is the only one that exhibits this type of fault. CAB and TS are hardly in a position to determine this and are wrong to suggest you have a case. If indeed it is a design flaw then you have bought the car and your claim should be against VW not the dealer. The dealer can hardly be held responsible for design flaws which seem to be the line you are being advised to pursuit.

Don't confuse manufacturers extended warranties with 2nd hand used car warranties. They are not the same and operate very differently. They are though in most cases an insurance policy which is why you need to check carefully the terms and conditions of the 2nd year onwards.

The actual design life of the vehicle is 10 years or 150,000 miles whichever occurs first. The vehicle is tested to last this long without any major structural/mechanical failures in this time based on known average usage in particular markets. So some last longer if they are pampered and looked after, others can be fit for scrap if abused after 5 years, hence average. In terms of corrosion testing, again the car is tested to 10 years based on extreme operating conditions such as seen in Europe. The 10 years is based from the time the vehicle was built.

It's also statistically invalid!!

Pretty general statement and kop out from the body shop though i.e. our repairs are no good and we don't know what we are doing therefore what we do will affect the structural integrity of the vehicle. .......Give it a rest....if they do the job properly then it wouldn't would it? Sounds like they don't want the work to me and I don't blame them. To do it properly requires rather large jigs which are available but cost a fortune to rent and thus renders a 12 year old car uneconomical to repair. As bob says you're going to have a hard job proving this one under SOGA. It's worth a pop at VW though under the 12 year body guarantee but this is notoriously hard to fight unless a known major issue.

Er.....no. This is not exactly true. It depends on the manufacturer and the warranty supplied. In the first year it is true that you can do this but you need to watch the terms and conditions of the subsequent years. What you may have signed up for appears to be a manufacturers warranty but is in fact an insurance policy administered by the manufacturer. If you signed such a document agreeing to a second and third year warranty FOC then it is essentially an insurance policy and you have to agree to abide by the terms and conditions i.e. use a franchised dealer. Many people get caught out by this thinking that under eu law they can get it serviced anywhere but the reality is it only applies to the first year. 2nd and 3rd years have to go to the dealer with most manufacturers. It's important that you stick to the letter with these things as if you need to call upon goodwill at a later stage or even if a failure occurs within the time it might be thanks but no thanks.

Screw from injector arm....injector rod ...I don't think so. Perhaps the OP might like to enlighten us on exactly what they mean as perusing this on this description is bound to end in many red faces. There are no such parts as I recall on a Golf engine.

I just love these posts Audi RS4, BMW M3 , we've seen them all. Take it from me, there is nothing special about it. It's a **oody car for gawds sake. It's a piece of metal with 4 rubber rings on it with a sodding great engine in it which cannot be used practically and is only produced because mugs will buy it and it earns fortunes for Audi of BMW. Sell it and donate the proceeds to water aid or the disaster relief fund for the Philapines. You know, I drive a regular route home 5 days a week along dual carriageways, motorways, A roads, B roads and unclassified roads in a little car with 90BHP and guess what, I also do the same run in 340BHP and 550BHP cars. It always takes the same time. All you have is a cash drain and as regards an Audi full dealer service history .......well that can work against it as well. If you want a classic car and status then why not get a real classic car with something special. Will do far more for your street cred! The RS4 , like the original Quattro will be long gone the difference being the Quattro was ground breaking.