New car with dodgy flywheel - should warranty cover this?
Discussion
Hi guys,
I bought a Mk2 Focus RS 2 months ago from a main Ford dealer, It came with a 3 month national Ford warranty. Last week I noticed a strange noise so took the car to my local Ford garage who diagnosed a failing flywheel. It was then put to me that if they remove it the only way that this would be covered by the warranty would be if it is a "manufacturing defect" which has caused it, i.e if its worn or damaged they don't want to hear about it. The car is 5 years old with 35k on the clock.
Where do I stand with this? Should I accept this or push them to cover it.
Happy new year too!
cheers
-Grant
I bought a Mk2 Focus RS 2 months ago from a main Ford dealer, It came with a 3 month national Ford warranty. Last week I noticed a strange noise so took the car to my local Ford garage who diagnosed a failing flywheel. It was then put to me that if they remove it the only way that this would be covered by the warranty would be if it is a "manufacturing defect" which has caused it, i.e if its worn or damaged they don't want to hear about it. The car is 5 years old with 35k on the clock.
Where do I stand with this? Should I accept this or push them to cover it.
Happy new year too!
cheers-Grant
Centurion07 said:
I'd hardly call a failed/ing flywheel with 35K on it fair wear and tear...
If it's been abused, as it could well have been, then it's not fair wear and tear. But it's not a manufacturing defect either. However, given that the OP has not long bought the car, the debate would then be who is responsible for the repair costs.OP-this three month national Ford warranty-was the car by any chance purchased from a dealer group with the initials "EH" and who market themselves as Europe's biggest dealer group or some such tosh?
Centurion07 said:
I'd hardly call a failed/ing flywheel with 35K on it fair wear and tear...
You can wear out a clutch or damage a flywheel in 35k. I'm not saying you don't have to be 'special' to do it, but it's well within the realms of possibility for a clumsy footed, traffic light racing numpty.
If you can get them to agree to either cover parts or labour if it is wear and tear, or perhaps to put it back together so you can get it done somewhere cheaper after examining - if they refuse to cover the replacement -you'll be doing well.
One of the reasons I cancelled my warranty wise policy upon reading the small print. Within the 1 month cooling off period. The list of get out clauses is so long that pretty much nothing was covered as they could quote wear and tear on just about everything.
I figured I would put a couple hundred quid in the bank each month. That way if it breaks I have a reserve pot to fix it and if it doesn't break then great I have a nice chunk of change as a deposit on my next car.
I know personally of someone who had an oil leak on an item above the auxiliary drive belt. The leak was only small but eventually the belt failed doing damage to the water pump pulls. Warranty wise would cove the cost of fixing the initial oil leak, but wouldn't cover anything else as it is a consequential loss cause by the oil leak and hence weren't covered. Not even the drive belt which snapped as a result of the oil leak.
In the end I just lost all faith in aftermarket warranty companies. I will take the risk myself. I for one run a Porsche Cayman without a warranty afte cancelling the policy (see earlier in the post). I purchased the warranty at a cost of 1100 pounds for 3 years, mainly worrying about bore scoring and ims failure. Upon reading further into the terms and conditions neither of these failures would be covered anyway. I imagine the chances of successfully claiming £5-8k for an engine rebuild would be nearly impossible.
I figured I would put a couple hundred quid in the bank each month. That way if it breaks I have a reserve pot to fix it and if it doesn't break then great I have a nice chunk of change as a deposit on my next car.
I know personally of someone who had an oil leak on an item above the auxiliary drive belt. The leak was only small but eventually the belt failed doing damage to the water pump pulls. Warranty wise would cove the cost of fixing the initial oil leak, but wouldn't cover anything else as it is a consequential loss cause by the oil leak and hence weren't covered. Not even the drive belt which snapped as a result of the oil leak.
In the end I just lost all faith in aftermarket warranty companies. I will take the risk myself. I for one run a Porsche Cayman without a warranty afte cancelling the policy (see earlier in the post). I purchased the warranty at a cost of 1100 pounds for 3 years, mainly worrying about bore scoring and ims failure. Upon reading further into the terms and conditions neither of these failures would be covered anyway. I imagine the chances of successfully claiming £5-8k for an engine rebuild would be nearly impossible.
Centurion07 said:
I'd hardly call a failed/ing flywheel with 35K on it fair wear and tear...
I have a female customer who's had 2 clutches and a DMF in 5 years in an astra (09 plate) she whines like hell about the crap build quality even though she never and i do meen NEVER removes her foot from the clutch pedal, she refuses to understand it's her driving that wears them out but fortunatly her husband (who pays the bill) does, the car currently has 72 K on it, thats 3 clutches and 2 DMFs and 1 dumbass in 7 years.As a side note 5 years old is not new it's S/H, makes a big differance.
Centurion07 said:
I'd hardly call a failed/ing flywheel with 35K on it fair wear and tear...
You can wear out a clutch or damage a flywheel in 35k. I'm not saying you don't have to be 'special' to do it, but it's well within the realms of possibility for a clumsy footed, traffic light racing numpty.
If you can get them to agree to either cover parts or labour if it is wear and tear, or perhaps to put it back together so you can get it done somewhere cheaper after examining - if they refuse to cover the replacement -you'll be doing well.
It's a Mk2 Focus RS - it's unlikely to have lived a sedate life for the last 5 years and will probably have been given some abuse by the previous owner(s).
TBH if it's anything like a lot of other Mk2's, it's possibly been modified and then quickly returned back to standard by the last owner before it ended up being sold or going into the dealer.
There have been quite a few Mk1 & Mk2 FRS over the years, on Ford forums, that have been heavily modified and pushed well in excess of reasonable power levels during an owners lifetime only for them to be quickly stripped back to standard with the ECU flashed by a tuner, before the owner then sells it on as "standard / lightly modified" or trades it in, leaving the new owner with problems a few months down the line.
TBH if it's anything like a lot of other Mk2's, it's possibly been modified and then quickly returned back to standard by the last owner before it ended up being sold or going into the dealer.
There have been quite a few Mk1 & Mk2 FRS over the years, on Ford forums, that have been heavily modified and pushed well in excess of reasonable power levels during an owners lifetime only for them to be quickly stripped back to standard with the ECU flashed by a tuner, before the owner then sells it on as "standard / lightly modified" or trades it in, leaving the new owner with problems a few months down the line.
I'm not saying it's impossible to wear out a clutch in 35K, but with the OP having owned the car for only 2 months, if it got legal I doubt a judge would see 35K as fair wear and tear.
Two questions that would get asked if it went legal: 1. how many miles has the OP driven in the car i.e. did he manage to f
k the clutch himself, and 2. is 35K a reasonable mileage for a clutch to suffer FAIR wear and tear to the point it needs replacing with ZERO contribution from the dealer?
I would say OP has a reasonable case for at least getting SOME contribution from the dealer, if not all of it. Getting that out of them however is another story.
Two questions that would get asked if it went legal: 1. how many miles has the OP driven in the car i.e. did he manage to f
k the clutch himself, and 2. is 35K a reasonable mileage for a clutch to suffer FAIR wear and tear to the point it needs replacing with ZERO contribution from the dealer?I would say OP has a reasonable case for at least getting SOME contribution from the dealer, if not all of it. Getting that out of them however is another story.
Thanks for all the contributions guys, I appreciate it.
I have covered around 1500 miles in the time I've owned it. I have considerable experience with this clutch set up as I used to run it in my heavily modified Focus ST before the RS so know how to take care of it. I've to call the garage I got the car from to discuss getting a contribution with the boss. Trouble is Ford want in excess of £1200 for the work, my local RS/ST specialist will do it for £750 so even a £400 contribution won't cut it.
I'll continue to update this thread for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar pickle.
Cheers
I have covered around 1500 miles in the time I've owned it. I have considerable experience with this clutch set up as I used to run it in my heavily modified Focus ST before the RS so know how to take care of it. I've to call the garage I got the car from to discuss getting a contribution with the boss. Trouble is Ford want in excess of £1200 for the work, my local RS/ST specialist will do it for £750 so even a £400 contribution won't cut it.
I'll continue to update this thread for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar pickle.
Cheers
I think that if you have only done 1500 miles then it's a fair bet that the fault existed at sale so it becomes the dealer's problem. I'd be looking for a very big contribution from the dealer or I'd get legal. You could do this via Trading Stds, a 35k mile car shouldn't be lunching a flywheel, and certainly not after 1500 miles with the new owner and I suspect a court would see it this way.
Whether the dealer knew is immaterial, if I sell you a pork pie that turns out to have metal in it then it is unfit to eat and should be replaced. The fact that I don't know it's in there is neither here nor there, likewise the manufacturer is liable to prosecution. IANAL but this much I do know through my day job, which does indeed at times involve pork pies.
Whether the dealer knew is immaterial, if I sell you a pork pie that turns out to have metal in it then it is unfit to eat and should be replaced. The fact that I don't know it's in there is neither here nor there, likewise the manufacturer is liable to prosecution. IANAL but this much I do know through my day job, which does indeed at times involve pork pies.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff