Gearbox Bearing Failure - Warranty won't pay out as say it is wear and tear

[Conniff]

I've tried twice now to give a sarcastic answer to this but it's not appearing.

 

Do CAG employ an anti-sarcasm filter now?

 

H

 

 

Obviously not sarcastic enough

 

 

Conniff, what is there to check? The professional Register Maybe!!!!!

 

 

Yes, I have a register of all who have passed the exams

Edited October 26, 2013 by Conniff

[Conniff]

I think your best way forward is to concentrate on claiming back from the warranty. The warranty assessor will be biased towards the company, they are the ones who put money in his pocket.

 

 

As I mentioned before, I had virtually the same scenario and signed his chit disputing his findings and when he saw the letters after my name he changed his mind and allowed the claim.

 

 

I will reread the thread later and see what we can come up with.

[merlin100]

The M32 gearbox has a manufacturing fault. Weve just been through this with my sons 1.9 Astra (58 plate).

There is a narrow oil distribution pipe in the gearbox that is supposed to "drip" oil onto the rear bearing and keep it lubricated.

Unfortunately the pipe is too narrow and clogs up.

Vauxhall have released an upgraded pipe that is wider and shouldnt block.

Its a well known problem, however, because it involves removing the gearbox, stripping it down and replacing the pipe, Vauxhall are trying their best to wriggle out of as many claims as they can.

Im not sure if its subject to a recall as I kicked off straight away and bullied the dealer into fixing it.

The cheapest way for him to fix it was to buy a recon M32 box and upgrade the pipe.

They are not cheap, youre looking at around £600 for a recon box and then you have to make sure it has the upgraded pipe.

[dx100uk]

The M32 gearbox has a manufacturing fault. Weve just been through this with my sons 1.9 Astra (58 plate).

There is a narrow oil distribution pipe in the gearbox that is supposed to "drip" oil onto the rear bearing and keep it lubricated.

Unfortunately the pipe is too narrow and clogs up.

Vauxhall have released an upgraded pipe that is wider and shouldnt block.

Its a well known problem, however, because it involves removing the gearbox, stripping it down and replacing the pipe, Vauxhall are trying their best to wriggle out of as many claims as they can.

Im not sure if its subject to a recall as I kicked off straight away and bullied the dealer into fixing it.

The cheapest way for him to fix it was to buy a recon M32 box and upgrade the pipe.

They are not cheap, youre looking at around £600 for a recon box and then you have to make sure it has the upgraded pipe.

 

hey great post and info.

 

so if this is the case gameover

 

manu recognised fault

 

total replacement under soga FOC.

 

dx

[heliosuk]

Er....I don't think so dx. You don't know why the pipe was modified exactly, it could have been a commonisation strategy with Ford by ZF to cut costs which is demanded year on year. It could have been a resource issue as a sub supplier has gone bust. It does not necessarily mean an admission of liability. Ford have used the same said gearbox and they don't have an issue. Further, to say it is a common problem is fundamentally wrong as you are only taking into account the reported cases of it going wrong. You need to compare like with like, repairs per thousand gearboxes in service for the exact same failure mode. Further the manufacturer can change the spec to suit themselves as and when they want.

 

So I still don't see where you are going with a pursuit of a claim under SOGA. The new car dealer when sold initially or the subsequent used car dealer could not have known if there was an issue with the box or not. Based on your hypothesis that the fault was inherent then you'd stop the whole of car production world wide let alone the used car market.

 

No......the issue here is that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are unfair and it is that which should be pursued.

 

There is a clue though in what cgg13 has posted in that with respect to engineering gearbox language, a pinion bearing is generally taken to be the bearing which supports a right angled shaft driving the sun gear. In this case the bearing that has actually failed is a main shaft support bearing.

 

Still stand by and from reports read that it would have been whineing like a banshee before failing but then perhaps it's masked by the propensity for the DMF to fail on this car as well.

 

YIKES........heading for cover now.

[cgg13]

There is clearly a manufacturing fault with these however as you will see by a google search. Vauxhall used the M32 in the Astra 1.9/Zafira 1.9/Insignia along with the Astra VXR & Corsa VXR They were also used in some Fiats and Alfa's. As far as I know they are not used in any future models (apart from possibly the Mk6 Astra - there seems to be little reports of failure in this model however so it's probable the problem has been found and rectified by this model)

 

See below for the wording of the report.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47197[/ATTACH]

Edited October 27, 2013 by cgg13

[heliosuk]

It's not a manufacturing fault. If anything from what you say it is a design fault.

 

You really need to challenge the warranty company here as the report is contradictory. However you have only published a concise section of it.

 

The pinion bearing cannot be a ball bearing and then referred to as a taper. It's either one or the other. (Actually a taper in your case). Further, to say it had separated is an indication of a catastrophic failure and they should pay out if you are adamant that there was no warning in terms of whine etc.

 

Personally I take all DEKRA reports with a pinch of salt as they just sit on the fence and get paid a lot for doing so and ain't worth the paper they are written on.

[cgg13]

Here is the rest of it, the beginning just says they were shown the car etc. Definitely no whine (as far as I know, and as I said I am OCD about noises on the car, so would have had it checked out if I had heard a noise) Ps. Thank you to everyone who has replied here.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47224[/ATTACH]

[dx100uk]

you'll have to convert the uploads to pdf cgg

 

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

*********************************************************

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

*************************************************************

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

[cgg13]

Why do I need to change them?

[heliosuk]

We need to see the full report to make an objective assessment but you need to leave out the personal details such as your address, the examiners name etc.

[cgg13]

I have 100% uploaded screen dumps of everything the report said regarding the issue.

 

The 1st page was basically my details, along with a statement saying the garage would not allow my battery to be reconnected to verify a mileage reading (live wires in the engine bay, not a wise idea to reconnect the battery) I have however told them I have 2 breakdown reports (long story, never be caught without breakdown cover again!) to verify the mileage.

 

The last part of the report is a statement saying the findings are the assessors own etc etc.

 

This was the first part.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47228[/ATTACH]

[heliosuk]

Please upload the full PDF file not a screen dump. You are not making this easy for any one. Again there is an anomaly in the 3rd JPG. We need to see the full report.

[dx100uk]

let me play I think I can grab a better copy than the screen dump uploaded

[dx100uk]

ive stitched what we have been given so far

[cgg13]

Thank you dx, I never thought of doing it that way - I don't have easy access to a printer to scan the report in tonight & I have the PDF file on my computer already hence me using screen dumps.

[dx100uk]

if that's all the pages then?

 

dx

[cgg13]

if that's all the pages then?

 

dx

Yes bar one with a couple of(poor) photos - if you require these I will

I will attempt to scan it in tomorrow. I have provided The whole wording part of the report bar the statement mentioned above.

[heliosuk]

The pictures would be useful as well.

 

So page 3 of the dx pdf is page one of the report. This is the instruction to the engineer to examine and what they are interested in seeing.

 

So it asks 5 questions.

 

1. What has failed and why? The report is clear on what has failed but does not address the question as to why.

2. What is the condition of the bearings? Is pretty succinct though contradictory in that it refers to the same said bearing as being a taper roller bearing and a ball bearing. The report failure mode is consistent with a roller bearing failure but not a taper roller. It can either be one or the other. A taper roller seldom disengages from the outer cage or race purely on the fact it is a taper. Therefore it must refer to a ball bearing which is possible.

3. What is the condition of the baulk rings and hubs? This is largely an irrelevant question in relation to the fault complained of. As the bearing has collapsed then the wear patterns would be on the selector forks and would be expected.

4. What is the condition of the residual oil? Well has been self explanatory but has not addressed the question of the quality of the oil.

5. What earlier action by the driver could have prevented or lessened the affect of the damage? Well this appears to have just been ignored.

 

The rather interesting thing is that the report in it's recommendations and conclusions gives the impression that it is not actually the report submitted by the inspecting engineer. I'm sure given the criticism it's not the same thing that he wrote. However, I'm very critical of DEKRA and the capability of their staff. You only have to follow through their web site to see how they recruit and the qualifications are just not the same as when the likes of Hammy, Connif and myself got them. Even a salesman can get MIMI now.

 

I still don't believe there was no warning, but giving the benefit of the doubt that the OP did not hear anything and having an OCD against noise it is quite clear that the report is biased, wholly unreliable from an engineering point of view and might have been written on Andrex for its worth.

 

Send me a full report via PM as a PDF and I'll send you a suitable response challenging it which will be enough to make them change their minds.

[heliosuk]

Withdrawn as advised by the site team

Edited October 27, 2013 by heliosuk
As advised by the site team

[dx100uk]

a post was sent here at 10:24 this morning by coniff

 

I have removed the above post, it has nothing to do with this thread and if you wish to continue the theme, them pm me.

 

then the two posts were unapproved by himself

 

think it might be an idea to quickly edit your heils

[dx100uk]

hammy?

 

the same please?

 

dx

[cgg13]

Thank you helios, I will try and get that over to you.

 

As said I have appealed however only did so with what I understood (which wasn't a great deal of the terminology they use - probably why they use it!)

 

Thanks for the interpretation.

 

I think the assessors answer to the last question was the statement that said I had been driving for a considerable amount of time with the defective part.

[cgg13]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47247[/ATTACH]

 

Hopefully this attachment works (the pdf)..could not figure out how to attach it in a message Helios sorry.

[dx100uk]

the attachment is great well done very clear

 

hope it helps the guys

 

dx