Engine goes pop after 5 months and 5k miles?

[Legacywr]

J__Wood said:

I remembered a lot of talk about wet belt failures in Commercial forum, a search returned
"Ford will be issuing a recall on all 2 litre diesel engines in Custom/ Transit (and any other applications) built 2016 to September 2017 with the wet belt.

We're on engine number 11 in just over 12 months and had to fight for Ford contribution but they now acknowledge there is a fundamental flaw."

If same engine, has recall been actioned, should seller ensured recall actioned?
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

IIRC, they had failed to recall our Transit, which is why they fitted a new engine FOC?

[Electro1980]

J__Wood said:

I remembered a lot of talk about wet belt failures in Commercial forum, a search returned
"Ford will be issuing a recall on all 2 litre diesel engines in Custom/ Transit (and any other applications) built 2016 to September 2017 with the wet belt.

We're on engine number 11 in just over 12 months and had to fight for Ford contribution but they now acknowledge there is a fundamental flaw."

If same engine, has recall been actioned, should seller ensured recall actioned?
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I believe the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring reasonable efforts are made to notify the purchaser of any recall. Obviously reasonable is dependant on the goods and fault involved.

[ellingtj]

If the selling garage is a member of the Motor Ombudsman then thus can provide another route of recourse.

[MG CHRIS]

Is it a 2.0 transit or the older 2.2 the late of the 2.2 had a habit of burning up pistons for fun. The 2.0 engine can be rebuilt done a few doesn't do piston damage just breaks the rockers and spins the cam lobe. Not an easy job and of the injectors seize into the head your in a whole world of pain.

Timing belt breaking up is a common issue and has been siad recall issues for them. Coming like fk to ford and they more than likely put one in foc.

[Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary]

Electro1980 said:

J__Wood said:

I remembered a lot of talk about wet belt failures in Commercial forum, a search returned
"Ford will be issuing a recall on all 2 litre diesel engines in Custom/ Transit (and any other applications) built 2016 to September 2017 with the wet belt.

We're on engine number 11 in just over 12 months and had to fight for Ford contribution but they now acknowledge there is a fundamental flaw."

If same engine, has recall been actioned, should seller ensured recall actioned?
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I believe the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring reasonable efforts are made to notify the purchaser of any recall. Obviously reasonable is dependant on the goods and fault involved.

My brother bought a 56 plate Subaru Impreza back in 2018, he was the 11th registered keeper of it.

I found out a few months into his ownership that his car was part of a recall for the passenger airbag. We had no paperwork to say it had been done, so I fired off an email to Subaru for him asking if we can find out whether it has been done. Forgot about it until he gets a letter through the post from Subaru about a month later (must've got his details from DVLA), saying his car needed to come in for the work FOC. This even included a piece of paper to be stamped and coded once it was done, which went with the car when it was sold. If Subaru can do that 12 years and 11 registered keepers later, I'm sure it isn't hard for Ford to do the same!

[twing]

J__Wood said:

I remembered a lot of talk about wet belt failures in Commercial forum, a search returned
"Ford will be issuing a recall on all 2 litre diesel engines in Custom/ Transit (and any other applications) built 2016 to September 2017 with the wet belt.

We're on engine number 11 in just over 12 months and had to fight for Ford contribution but they now acknowledge there is a fundamental flaw."

If same engine, has recall been actioned, should seller ensured recall actioned?
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Indeed, if Ford are no help ping me the reg and I can check any recalls outstanding/carried out already.
I very much doubt you'' get much joy from the supplying dealer but if you can find a helpful (difficult I know)
Ford commercial dealer they might just be arsed to put the case to Ford themselves.

[fred bloggs]

OldGermanHeaps said:

The wet belt transits are a ticking timebomb, i was advised by 2 seperate respected commercial vehicle mechanics to avoid them at all costs.

Are they now? Mine is a 2017 at 165000 miles. I bought it cheaper, at 145000 as that is the belt mileage. I did the belt myself, as no 'Commercial' garages wanted to touch it.
It was the easiest belt I've ever done. Its had an injector go down, and a turbo fail, but that's par for the course.

The problems happen when stupids put in the incorrect Oil , which ruins the rubber belt quick sharp.

[fred bloggs]

B'stard Child said:

I was going to ask if the wet belt had gone.........

Work colleague bought a S-max or Galaxy with wet belt set up and it went seizing the engine - really does seem like a bloody stupid idea running a belt in an oil bath!!!

Only If you use oil not formulated for this specific use.

[fred bloggs]

myvision said:

RAC man told me exactly the same yesterday.

I find it best not to listen to RAC / AA people. They can tow, but usually spread a lot of garage hearsay.

[B'stard Child]

fred bloggs said:

B'stard Child said:

I was going to ask if the wet belt had gone.........

Work colleague bought a S-max or Galaxy with wet belt set up and it went seizing the engine - really does seem like a bloody stupid idea running a belt in an oil bath!!!

Only If you use oil not formulated for this specific use.

Car was Ford Main dealer serviced for all it's life - it still crapped itself

On that basis either Ford Dealers use wrong oil or the right oil in no guarantee of a belt not failing

[OldGermanHeaps]

fred bloggs said:

Are they now? Mine is a 2017 at 165000 miles. I bought it cheaper, at 145000 as that is the belt mileage. I did the belt myself, as no 'Commercial' garages wanted to touch it.
It was the easiest belt I've ever done. Its had an injector go down, and a turbo fail, but that's par for the course.

The problems happen when stupids put in the incorrect Oil , which ruins the rubber belt quick sharp.

The mechanics seem to think so, and neither of them have steered me in the wrong direction in the past. When I am im doing work there they seem to have more transits sat in many bits than the more common french vans and sprinters which is telling.
But good for you. Well done and good luck. I wont be taking the risk when my van is my liveliehood though.

[OutInTheShed]

fred bloggs said:

B'stard Child said:

I was going to ask if the wet belt had gone.........

Work colleague bought a S-max or Galaxy with wet belt set up and it went seizing the engine - really does seem like a bloody stupid idea running a belt in an oil bath!!!

Only If you use oil not formulated for this specific use.

Most engines have rubbery bits like seals in contact with the oil.

Every way of driving an overhead camshaft has been tried and got wrong by at least one manufacturer.

[twing]

Hi OP, thanks for the email. The van has had it's cam belt inspection done (recall no. 20B44) so as long as it has good history and, as mentioned already, the correct oil used Ford will almost certainly replace the engine. It's been looked after by two major main dealer groups so I'm guessing all has been done correctly. Drop me a line if you need any more help with it.

[Austin_Metro]

twing said:

Hi OP, thanks for the email. The van has had it's cam belt inspection done (recall no. 20B44) so as long as it has good history and, as mentioned already, the correct oil used Ford will almost certainly replace the engine. It's been looked after by two major main dealer groups so I'm guessing all has been done correctly. Drop me a line if you need any more help with it.

Twing - bystander here. This looks like the best of PH. Top work.

[twing]

Austin_Metro said:

Twing - bystander here. This looks like the best of PH. Top work.

Thanks AM, hopefully we'll get somewhere with this one

[KungFuPanda]

Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary said:

Not quite right there with the CRA 2015.

As this occurred within 6 months of purchase, and providing it was a business to consumer transaction and not business to business, then the dealer will have to prove that the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase. This, I imagine, would be very difficult for them to. The right to reject has gone as that's within the first 30 days. After 6 months, the onus switches to the purchaser having to prove the fault WAS there at the time of purchase.

Edited by Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary on Tuesday 31st January 18:50

Edited by Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary on Tuesday 31st January 18:50

Surely the seller can easily prove that the fault was not there at the time of purchase because the OP’s brother managed to drive a fault free 5,000 miles over 5 months since purchase?!?!

[InitialDave]

KungFuPanda said:

Surely the seller can easily prove that the fault was not there at the time of purchase because the OP’s brother managed to drive a fault free 5,000 miles over 5 months since purchase?!?!

Not at all. Things don't fail instantly with existing faults. "It was fine when it left here" doesn't really cut it.

[twing]

InitialDave said:

Not at all. Things don't fail instantly with existing faults. "It was fine when it left here" doesn't really cut it.

This wet belt thing has proved itself to be a PITA. It's had it's recall done and been deemed ok so the supplier does have a leg to stand on.

[KungFuPanda]

InitialDave said:

KungFuPanda said:

Surely the seller can easily prove that the fault was not there at the time of purchase because the OP’s brother managed to drive a fault free 5,000 miles over 5 months since purchase?!?!

Not at all. Things don't fail instantly with existing faults. "It was fine when it left here" doesn't really cut it.

So in your view, the distinction with any fault occurring within three months or six months doesn’t matter then?

[InitialDave]

KungFuPanda said:

So in your view, the distinction with any fault occurring within three months or six months doesn’t matter then?

I didn't write the CRA.

You can have an existing fault that doesn't cause a failure immediately.