My mate at work owns a Rover 1.4 16v and you guessed it the head gasket went no surprise there!
It's covered by a 12 month warranty with the RAC and the dealer he bought this car from down in Barnsley s yorks non Rover but this motor is a 04 plate have replaced the head gasket and skimmed the head and refitted all.
Well a massive 400 miles later oil has mixed with coolant & he took it back for the garage to take a look at & they stripped it and said the liners have moved on 1 & 3 and the RAC inspector is coming to look at it.
He came and said the garage should have known it was like this at the time of the head gasket but they say it had not been like that, So it's a bit of a argument.!!
Does a petrol rover have liners? Thought this was diesel motors and if so where does he stand as neither want to pay up and solicitor looks favorite?
|
|
When did he buy it from the garage?
|
|
In the dim & distant past I had a Peugeot 104 with a fabricated block. AFAIR anything involving taking the head off inevitably risked disturbing the liners and checking/reseating them was part of the rebuild process.
|
These rover engines are known for this issue. Many Garages wont replace a head gasket on a Rover but only fit a replacement engine for this very reason. Once the head has been removed the liner become disturbed however carefull you are, especially if the head gets sent for machining the liners are laying there for days without any compression on them holding them into the block. Normally water and dirt seeps under the seals and start to deteriorate. Unfortunatley the block tends to corrode so where the liners sit the surface becomes very poor & the seal fails
To be honest very difficult to judge whether the garage are at fault ! as the warranty company would not of paid for them to remove and re-seal the liners ! This is where a repair is done to a price and not whats required.
No doubt the engine will need dismantling and rebuilding or a warranty exchange unit fitted.
|
|
He has had this car for four months and took out a warranty of twelve months when he bought it from them.
|
|
his beef is with the garage, legally.
|
>> his beef is with the garage, legally.
>>
Do you mean the garage he bought it off?
If you're thinking of the 6mth thing then that would be difficult. The car is already 7 yrs old and wasn't very expensive. It worked fine for 4mths so it may be hard to get someone to accept the fault was present at time of sale.
It also depends who organised the repair - did the supplying dealer have any involvement in that?
|
|
I am assuming he took it back to the supplying garage he bought it from. So they have the onus on unfit and failure to repair.
|
>> I am assuming he took it back to the supplying garage he bought it from.
>> So they have the onus on unfit and failure to repair.
>>
or money refunded, less a mileage/usage charge.
|
>> his beef is with the garage, legally.
>>
Though something similar happened to my sister's car (roughly similar age and pedigree) and the consensus here was that legally there's no leg to stand on, since at that age and price you get what you pay for.
We did actually win by default in the SCC but the traders just changed their name and continued.
|
ID may have an opinion on this but I'd always thought the final overheating event/s which would lead to the driver knowing they'd problems could in itself push already aged liner seals into failure addding to an inevitable situation once removing the head disturbed them.
Confirming again the only proper way to do these engines is a full engine replacement/refurbish not just the head/gasket.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 12 May 11 at 11:51
|
This car cost £1795 on a 04 plate a new engine plus removal and fitting i expect over £1k at least if not a bit more.
|
Confused about the first part: Are you saying that the HG went, and that it was replaced by the garage under the RAC warranty.
And then 400 miles later it went again.
Or is the first part not like that at all?
|
Confused about the first part: Are you saying that the HG went, and that it was replaced by the garage under the RAC warranty. Yes.
And then 400 miles later it went again. Yes.
|
He e mailed me the warranty advisors comments seems it's liner failure problem and should have been diagnosed better at first, but have a read......
WARRANTY REPORT
Inspection Date:
10-5-2011
Inspection Time:
08:30
Inspection Mileage:
46,820
Repairer's costs and service history:
Parts, Labour and Total Costs:
No Costs yet prepared by repairer, Cost comparison between engine rebuild /exchange unit advisable.
Service History:
10.11.2010 – 44,805
Tax Disc Expiry 30.11.2011, Stamped 02.12.2010
Condition of vehicle prior to inspection:
On arrival at the repairer’s premises we were shown the vehicle which was parked outside their workshop, the cylinder head had been removed.
Repairer comments and general observations:
We were advised by the repairer that the vehicle had been the subject of a recent cylinder head gasket replacement, but the customer had then returned the vehicle complaining of a smell and loss of coolant.
They had initially felt that this was due to a faulty head gasket, but on further dismantling they had found that two cylinder liners had dropped.
The engine is a four cylinder 16valve configuration petrol engine, for the purpose of this report any numbering will be taken from the timing cover end of the engine.
Inspection findings:
On inspection of the cylinder block, it was immediately noted that the cylinder head gasket was of very recent origin, this was found to be a sealant compound type gasket and not the new modified multi layer shim type.
There were no obvious breaches or damage evident to the gasket surfaces to suggest or indicate any potential failure. There was also no evidence of any bubbling to suggest any overheating had occurred.
The coolant residue within the block was found to have a visibly strong antifreeze content consistent with a recent replenishment.
The cylinder liners were then checked, all four were found to be tight within the block, but on checking their protrusion with the use of a straight edge it was found that the no1 and 3 liners had dropped in height, which would indicate issues between the block and the liner sealing.
None of the visible areas of the liners showed any visible scoring to indicate any overheating or picking up having occurred. The piston crowns had light carbon deposits. None showed any erosion/melting.
The oil level was found to be excessive and slightly watery suggesting that this was contaminated with coolant; this would be consistent with a liner seal issue and a loss/usage of coolant.
The expansion bottle was found to have slight emulsification residue, this was however considered to be most likely the residue of the previous gasket failure, due to the lack of any other emulsification within the cooling system.
The water pump was visually free of any coolant leaks. The radiator appeared to be free of any leaks although the core was showing the early stages of corrosion and as such any future claims for a radiator should be considered with caution.
The cylinder head face was found to have been recently skimmed and was free of any gouging or liner marks, all of the valves appeared to be seating correctly, the chambers had light carbon residue.
The camshafts showed normal wear patterns.
Recommendation & conclusion:
After inspection of the above vehicle we can confirm that there is clear evidence to indicate that the liners on no1 and 3 cylinders have dropped and as such indicate cylinder liner issues which would cause a loss of coolant.
Whilst we were not party to the evidence of the previous head gasket failure, it would be considered that there had not been any major overheating damage caused which in our opinion could disturbed the liners previously and as such we would have to consider that the more likely cause for the liner movement now evident would be general in service wear and deterioration of the block recess/liner seal.
We would also consider that whilst we were again not party to the previous evidence and repair of the head gasket, it has to be considered quite probable based on the vehicle returning very shortly after the gasket fitment that there has to be a strong possibility that there may have been a level of misdiagnosis previously and that checking of the liner heights on the previous repair may have minimised the current level of costs that will be incurred to rectify the liners/seal replacement.
|
>>>we would have to consider that the more likely cause for the liner movement now evident would be general in service wear and deterioration of the block recess/liner seal.
Interesting they include above phrase in the last but one paragraph... given that the RAC warranty excludes failure due to wear & tear!
|
Help with warranty claim. - Zero
