ASM2 Gearbox Failure

[tonyhall38]

mikey k said:

Wrong Bruce Dickinson - Iron Maidens lead singer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Dickinson

No.....right one.....what's a Luddite....is it like a bear?

[Impasse]

woolders said:

You do imply that Mikey' has embarked on his project on a bit of a whim, which since I have been contributing, or not to the forum, is not the case. It appears that every deliberate decision that he has taken has been discussed with BR after a considerable amount of thought.

Maybe Luddite would be a better tag for you

In that case, why the complaints about the lack of help from AM if you feel he has eschewed their help to carve his own path with another company?

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend. I'm not saying I agree with AM's procedures in this instance, but feel that the possibilities of their internal protocols should be pointed out. Someone has even suggested AM didn't want to breach their contract with their gearbox supplier out of spite. Utterly ridiculous suggestion.

The simple fact is, is that if Mikey had not broken the terms of his warranty by having a non-franchised garage dismantle the gearbox, then AM would have fixed his car - most likely by substituting the broken gearbox for a new one. It may have taken a little more persuasion to convince the dealership of a real problem, but there's always a higher route to choose if need be.
He would then have been free to drill holes and add oil pipes as much as wanted.

Having a go at me for passing on this very rudimentary and common way of thinking by a manufacturer is puzzling. It's a bit like complaining that it's my fault your favourite team has lost a match just because I've explained the rules of football to you.

[V12woollie]

You do seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the issue with the gearbox was not noticed by AM approved technicians and so would not have been resolved until a catastrophic failure had occurred. You also have no knowledge of what actions have been taken behind the scenes by AM, and I'm fairly sure you have no knowledge of either AM's or Graziano's stance or decision processes in this particular case.

Either state what you know to be factual or save bandwidth for some more intelligent commentary.

[Impasse]

V12woollie said:

You do seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the issue with the gearbox was not noticed by AM approved technicians and so would not have been resolved until a catastrophic failure had occurred. You also have no knowledge of what actions have been taken behind the scenes by AM, and I'm fairly sure you have no knowledge of either AM's or Graziano's stance or decision processes in this particular case.

Either state what you know to be factual or save bandwidth for some more intelligent commentary.

Oh ok. It's an outrage. Mikey should be refunded the entire cost of his car, have his mortgage paid off and given a free new car every day of the week. Anything less should mean AM must immediately close down.

[Impasse]

Borne out sheer frustration of the utter shortsightedness shown by many who frequent this part of PH. I have no idea what it is about this marque.

[stanwan]

Impasse said:

Borne out sheer frustration of the utter shortsightedness shown by many who frequent this part of PH. I have no idea what it is about this marque.

Now someone can correct me here if I am wrong here, but don't the EU block exemption laws prohibit manufacturers from restricting the supply of parts from distributor to unauthorised garages? It also prohibits manufacturers from crippling OEMs own parts network?

Read up on 2010 MVBE regulations and let me know if I have got it wrong?

The Supply of Spare Parts and Repair and Maintenance Services

What are the changes?

Since 1 June 2010 under 2010 MVBE, agreements relating to the supply of spare parts or provision of repair and maintenance services have the benefit of the 2010 Vertical Agreements Block Exemption, but only if such agreements do not contain any of the three new hardcore restrictions listed in the 2010 MBVE, which are:

the prohibition of agreements between the distributor and the vehicle manufacturer, relating to spare parts, repair tools and diagnostic equipment, if the agreements affect the ability of the distributor to sell to unauthorised repairers or end users – the so called "tooling arrangements";

the prohibition of agreements restricting the ability of authorised repairers to sell original spare parts to independent repairers; and

the prohibition of any agreement between a vehicle manufacturer and a manufacturer of spare parts preventing that manufacturer of spare parts from applying its own trademark to its products.

[Impasse]

You make a valid point, however they don't supply repair parts for the box to their own network, so can't be forced to supply similar to independents.

[JohnG1]

Interesting topic. My experience of dealing with Gaydon on two warranty issues was a very shortsighted, penny pinching attitude with no grasp of reputation and relationship. I had a potentially fatal defect with a V8V to which I only got resolution after months. But it was a known issue, AML behaved in a terrible manner.

Thanks to a few folks on here I was pointed in the right direction and got the defect fixed.

I sold that car to an AML dealer and moved away from the brand for a while.

Bought a V12V.

I had that car serviced within the dealer network and took the car to Bamford Rose for an inspection prior to the third year (last service under warranty) service.

Bamford Rose found thousands of pounds worth of defects that were never spotted by the dealer network. I used the Bamford Rose report initially as a starting point for a friendly conversation. Due to the lack of engagement I ended up in something of a conflict until AML caved in and paid up.

The point is that the dealer network do not pick up on problems or spout TADTS and ignore real issues. As such, the fig leaf of hiding behind "we only sell gearboxes as a £15,500 unit" says a huge amount about the dealer network. It says that AML do not have suitably competent technicians in the dealer network to resolve tricky problems.

As such, I don't see how working through the dealer network would have properly resolved the issues Mikey found.

For me, I'm unimpressed with the attitude of Gaydon after a sale and my V12V will be my last Aston Martin. Maybe I'll return at some AMG powered point in the far future...

[Quinny]

JohnG1 said:

It says that AML do not have suitably competent technicians in the dealer network to resolve tricky problems.

I'd suggest that now days all dealer networks are the same.....non of them have people capable of fixing anything.....all they can do is exchange one unit for another.....

Bentley..... Turbo failure Sir?? Probably just needs new bearings...... No sir, that'll be £4k each for 2 new units.... But only one has failed
They have to be replaced as a pair sir....etc etc...
Ferrari, Porsche Lambo, Audi, BMW, Mercedes.... And Kia.... Probably all have the same policies.....the only difference being the Kia never goes wrong

I suspect I'm not the only one who's glad I no longer have an AM

[NeinFondue]

Impasse said:

Borne out sheer frustration of the utter shortsightedness shown by many who frequent this part of PH.

Yourself included???

[mikey k]

I found an interesting article on Shot Peening that summarises this shambles quite well

Shot Peening causes the material in the surface zone to yield by literally shaking the metal grains into a more relaxed state. As a result, the surface layer counteracts tensile stress and effectively prevents cracking. Blast Finishing and shot peening are state-of-the art technology that deburr, clean and enhance appearance. Shot peening can even improve the fatigue life of parts such as: gears, housings and shafts.

What are the benefits of shot peening?
Machining and forming metal parts creates stress concentrations internally (burns, scratches, welds, etc.) and can cause other additional defects.
These problems may be responsible for premature fatigue failure, porosity, deteriorated strength and corrosion, but can be prevented with shot peening.
Since fatigue cracks generally begin at surface imperfections, a compressively stressed peened skin is highly effective in preventing crack formation and growth.

Hence this!

20140619_082239 by mikey k V8VR, on Flickr

All to save a few hundred pounds/make more margin at the point of sale, I wonder how much it will cost with warranty claims for replacement gearboxes? Especially as AM buy them in

Edited by mikey k on Friday 4th July 09:51

[jonby]

I find it interesting that there are so many different experiences of how the factory & the dealerships deal with warranties. I'm on my third Aston and I've had nothing but great experiences in this respect

I would make a couple of observations. Firstly, whilst I'm not suggesting for one minute that I agree with the approach of the factory towards Mikey nor am I wanting to be particularly specific about the exact circumstances of his gearbox 'dispute', you have to be incredibly naïve to think that going for relatively major engineering upgrades when the car is only 1-2 yrs old is not likely to cause huge problems if any warranty issues arise

I know Mikey was fully aware of this and went into his project with his eyes open, so I'm not suggesting he is naïve. I fully accept the idea the factory may be taking advantage of the situation to avoid paying more than they have to. But I'd reiterate, even if nobody has done anything 'wrong', IMO you are somewhat foolish if you don't accept that surgery to the extent of a project like mikey's, even if it's not on the part with an issue, is going to muddy the waters when it comes to a claim and regardless of whether the factory's attitude is influenced by specific relationship issues with BR or a general dislike/fear of people radically upgrading the mechanics of their cars, as an owner you are then on a sticky wicket when it comes to factory support for QC/warranty issues

My second point is that whilst I'll never know for sure, I've always felt that by cultivating a relationship with a single dealership to buy from and get my servicing done at, rather than shopping around each time I need a car/work done on the car, I'm more likely to gain in the instance I need 'help', potentially to a far greater value benefit than the odd 'loss' if there are occasions I could have gone elsewhere to save a bit of money. My dealer has always treated warranty issues incredibly well, any arguments with the factory (if there have been) have never been mentioned to me, they have dealt with things I was never aware of until after and others that I have brought up. They will happily test the car ad infinitum til the route of the problem is found and have always resolved to my satisfaction. They have never taken less than seriously some issues I've raised which are pretty pedantic by most peoples standards. Would this have been the same if I'd not built up a great relationship over the last 4 years - I'll never know

Oh and my only major fault with any of my 3 Astons was a complete failure on the AMS2 gearbox on my V8S Roadster - they replaced it with an entirely new unit.........................that point is not made to support any of the arguments going on in the thread as it could arguably be used on either side of the debate, it's simply a statement of fact

[AMDBSNick]

jonby said:

I find it interesting that there are so many different experiences of how the factory & the dealerships deal with warranties. I'm on my third Aston and I've had nothing but great experiences in this respect

I would make a couple of observations. Firstly, whilst I'm not suggesting for one minute that I agree with the approach of the factory towards Mikey nor am I wanting to be particularly specific about the exact circumstances of his gearbox 'dispute', you have to be incredibly naïve to think that going for relatively major engineering upgrades when the car is only 1-2 yrs old is not likely to cause huge problems if any warranty issues arise

I know Mikey was fully aware of this and went into his project with his eyes open, so I'm not suggesting he is naïve. I fully accept the idea the factory may be taking advantage of the situation to avoid paying more than they have to. But I'd reiterate, even if nobody has done anything 'wrong', IMO you are somewhat foolish if you don't accept that surgery to the extent of a project like mikey's, even if it's not on the part with an issue, is going to muddy the waters when it comes to a claim and regardless of whether the factory's attitude is influenced by specific relationship issues with BR or a general dislike/fear of people radically upgrading the mechanics of their cars, as an owner you are then on a sticky wicket when it comes to factory support for QC/warranty issues

My second point is that whilst I'll never know for sure, I've always felt that by cultivating a relationship with a single dealership to buy from and get my servicing done at, rather than shopping around each time I need a car/work done on the car, I'm more likely to gain in the instance I need 'help', potentially to a far greater value benefit than the odd 'loss' if there are occasions I could have gone elsewhere to save a bit of money. My dealer has always treated warranty issues incredibly well, any arguments with the factory (if there have been) have never been mentioned to me, they have dealt with things I was never aware of until after and others that I have brought up. They will happily test the car ad infinitum til the route of the problem is found and have always resolved to my satisfaction. They have never taken less than seriously some issues I've raised which are pretty pedantic by most peoples standards. Would this have been the same if I'd not built up a great relationship over the last 4 years - I'll never know

Oh and my only major fault with any of my 3 Astons was a complete failure on the AMS2 gearbox on my V8S Roadster - they replaced it with an entirely new unit.........................that point is not made to support any of the arguments going on in the thread as it could arguably be used on either side of the debate, it's simply a statement of fact

The warranty issue is not disputed.

AM blocking the supply of a new gearbox is frankly disgraceful

[avinalarf]

jonby said:

I find it interesting that there are so many different experiences of how the factory & the dealerships deal with warranties. I'm on my third Aston and I've had nothing but great experiences in this respect

I would make a couple of observations. Firstly, whilst I'm not suggesting for one minute that I agree with the approach of the factory towards Mikey nor am I wanting to be particularly specific about the exact circumstances of his gearbox 'dispute', you have to be incredibly naïve to think that going for relatively major engineering upgrades when the car is only 1-2 yrs old is not likely to cause huge problems if any warranty issues arise

I know Mikey was fully aware of this and went into his project with his eyes open, so I'm not suggesting he is naïve. I fully accept the idea the factory may be taking advantage of the situation to avoid paying more than they have to. But I'd reiterate, even if nobody has done anything 'wrong', IMO you are somewhat foolish if you don't accept that surgery to the extent of a project like mikey's, even if it's not on the part with an issue, is going to muddy the waters when it comes to a claim and regardless of whether the factory's attitude is influenced by specific relationship issues with BR or a general dislike/fear of people radically upgrading the mechanics of their cars, as an owner you are then on a sticky wicket when it comes to factory support for QC/warranty issues

My second point is that whilst I'll never know for sure, I've always felt that by cultivating a relationship with a single dealership to buy from and get my servicing done at, rather than shopping around each time I need a car/work done on the car, I'm more likely to gain in the instance I need 'help', potentially to a far greater value benefit than the odd 'loss' if there are occasions I could have gone elsewhere to save a bit of money. My dealer has always treated warranty issues incredibly well, any arguments with the factory (if there have been) have never been mentioned to me, they have dealt with things I was never aware of until after and others that I have brought up. They will happily test the car ad infinitum til the route of the problem is found and have always resolved to my satisfaction. They have never taken less than seriously some issues I've raised which are pretty pedantic by most peoples standards. Would this have been the same if I'd not built up a great relationship over the last 4 years - I'll never know

Oh and my only major fault with any of my 3 Astons was a complete failure on the AMS2 gearbox on my V8S Roadster - they replaced it with an entirely new unit.........................that point is not made to support any of the arguments going on in the thread as it could arguably be used on either side of the debate, it's simply a statement of fact

A well reasoned and thoughtful comment.
Commenting generally and not specifically to Mikeys case,may I add........
Like you I also go through the main dealer for servicing,not requiring upgrades etc.,trusting that if I have a problem I shall be treated with due consideration.
Thankfully I have not had a problem so I am yet to test whether my approach works.
Nevertheless,as in Mikeys case,we are free to choose with whom we do business,and as in Mikeys case,the upgrades he required were not available from Aston.
As a serial purchase of the brand I still think his problem appeared to be dealt with by a cavalier attitude by Gaydon,albeit others have argued a contrary opinion,an opinion which,as one who deals with the public as a retailer,I have an appreciation of.
I also understand why Gaydon would block Mikey from going direct to their supplier,the great majority of my suppliers would do the same.
Not saying that any of this helps Mikey for whom I have the greatest sympathy for.
So the point of this discussion is that Gaydon appeared unwilling to take a more flexible approach in enabling Mikey to sort the problem,which has left,understandably,a sour taste in his mouth.

Edited by avinalarf on Friday 4th July 12:52

[stanwan]

Impasse said:

You make a valid point, however they don't supply repair parts for the box to their own network, so can't be forced to supply similar to independents.

That isn't the point. They are actively restricting the sale and supply of grazianos parts to third party. Such contracts, if they do exist between AM and graziano, are not legal according to EU MVBE law

[jonby]

stanwan said:

Impasse said:

You make a valid point, however they don't supply repair parts for the box to their own network, so can't be forced to supply similar to independents.

That isn't the point. They are actively restricting the sale and supply of grazianos parts to third party. Such contracts, if they do exist between AM and graziano, are not legal according to EU MVBE law

Is it possible that graziano have 'developed' the components to AMLs specific instructions that does then give AML the ability to legally make such restrictions ? Effectively on the basis that an element of IP belonging to and/or funded by AML exists within the parts

My understanding is that as others have said, whilst the same basic starting point is used by a number of car manufacturers, each manufacturer further develops the box (whether directly or by paying graziano to do it for them) hence each manufacturer buying a slightly different unit

This is not a leading question - I have no knowledge whatsoever in this area

[mikey k]

My understanding is AM have no IP rights on the box as it is also sold to Ferarri and Maserati in far more developed forms
Legalities and contractual obligations aside the ethos and ethics of how AM dealt with this is does not encourage loyalty
BTW Johnny has done 300 miles today roof up NVH is dramatically lower so much so I'm hearing tyre noise from cars and getting just under 30 mpg at 80 mph and cruise on - astounding!

[stanwan]

jonby said:

stanwan said:

Impasse said:

You make a valid point, however they don't supply repair parts for the box to their own network, so can't be forced to supply similar to independents.

That isn't the point. They are actively restricting the sale and supply of grazianos parts to third party. Such contracts, if they do exist between AM and graziano, are not legal according to EU MVBE law

Is it possible that graziano have 'developed' the components to AMLs specific instructions that does then give AML the ability to legally make such restrictions ? Effectively on the basis that an element of IP belonging to and/or funded by AML exists within the parts

My understanding is that as others have said, whilst the same basic starting point is used by a number of car manufacturers, each manufacturer further develops the box (whether directly or by paying graziano to do it for them) hence each manufacturer buying a slightly different unit

This is not a leading question - I have no knowledge whatsoever in this area

Graziano can apply their own trademark to the parts they manufacture - this is expressly allowed by MVBE.