Jaguar DPF issues
Discussion
Burwood said:
swagmeister said:
Burwood said:
I think if it's going to be an issue with low mileage(short journey) users then certainly, the dealer should advise the customer. I am sure there are many customers who regularly trade in at the same dealership ever couple of years. My point being if they only manage 5-6k per annum they should steer them away from a diesel, surely.
Sheeps point is that a 5k lease, particularly a JLR diesel may be very close to misspelling. You may disagree but the law would suggest otherwise. Key wording 'the product or service is unsuitable for the customer's needs'
You make a good point actually, to the point that the salesman that sold me my car didnt ask me requirements or situation, I am now considering returning the car and asking the armchair legal experts in here to back me up. The car has since purchase failed to deliver on all points so therefore ISNT the car for me. Points of failure are :Sheeps point is that a 5k lease, particularly a JLR diesel may be very close to misspelling. You may disagree but the law would suggest otherwise. Key wording 'the product or service is unsuitable for the customer's needs'
Chick magnet - FAIL
Makes me a driving god - FAIL
Does 200MPG - FAIL
Does 20Costs zero in maintenance - FAIL
Random strangers telling me Im their hero due to my car choice - FAIL
People stopping and asking to touch the car or have their photo taken with it - FAIL
swagmeister said:
Sherlock you missed the fact the whole point was that the salesman DIDNT ask.
It's not a fact, because you made it up. (I hope!). 
Joking aside, what you wrote is a good example, I think. If you were used to all the things you highlighted, why would you think the new car would be any different?
Same with these dpf issues. If you've never had a problem before, then get a new car and start having problems, it's really not acceptable for the dealer / manufacturer to suddenly say "Ah - this car needs to be driven in a special way". That way might be completely at odds with your normal use case.
What's a bit awkward about DPF problems is they tend to take a while to show up, and the dealer will often sort out the first issue under warranty. So by the time is happens again you're towards a year into ownership and they know full well it's extremely difficult to reject a car at that point, and they know most people can't legally pursue it as they haven't got a spare car to use in the meantime.
Burwood said:
I think if it's going to be an issue with low mileage(short journey) users then certainly, the dealer should advise the customer. I am sure there are many customers who regularly trade in at the same dealership ever couple of years. My point being if they only manage 5-6k per annum they should steer them away from a diesel, surely.
Sheeps point is that a 5k lease, particularly a JLR diesel may be very close to misspelling. You may disagree but the law would suggest otherwise. Key wording 'the product or service is unsuitable for the customer's needs'
There was a court case in London a few years ago with an Estate Agent who was having all these DPF issues with an XF.Sheeps point is that a 5k lease, particularly a JLR diesel may be very close to misspelling. You may disagree but the law would suggest otherwise. Key wording 'the product or service is unsuitable for the customer's needs'
After continual complaining the dealer, they told him that it was his own fault for only driving short distances; hence the court case. Sadly I can't recall the outcome.
Kinky said:
There was a court case in London a few years ago with an Estate Agent who was having all these DPF issues with an XF.
After continual complaining the dealer, they told him that it was his own fault for only driving short distances; hence the court case. Sadly I can't recall the outcome.
He broke down on the way there and the judge threw it out. After continual complaining the dealer, they told him that it was his own fault for only driving short distances; hence the court case. Sadly I can't recall the outcome.
I ran a Vectra then an Insignia.
Both renowned for DPF problems.
Diesel dumped into the sump causing 'O' Ring failure (pick up pipe, low oil light, crank bearing failures).
Fix was to wire a led into the heated mirror circuit.
When that make of car does a regen it turns on the rear demist and heated mirrors to load the engine.
When the led lights up just dont stop the engine.
It came on every 600-700 miles. No need to overrev, just normal driving for about 10 minutes.
Both renowned for DPF problems.
Diesel dumped into the sump causing 'O' Ring failure (pick up pipe, low oil light, crank bearing failures).
Fix was to wire a led into the heated mirror circuit.
When that make of car does a regen it turns on the rear demist and heated mirrors to load the engine.
When the led lights up just dont stop the engine.
It came on every 600-700 miles. No need to overrev, just normal driving for about 10 minutes.
In the U.S. (New Jersey) someone has filed a $5 million+ law suit against Jaguar Land Rover alleging that it knowingly sold cars with faulty DPFs and deliberately concealed information related to the faults from its customers. Isn't that what it's been doing everywhere it has sold diesels since 2015? Every time those magical words "driving style" come at you, that's a deliberate lie, right?
QUOTE.....
7. Despite notice of the DPF Defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, warranty data, customer complaints at dealerships, and dealership repair orders, Defendant has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Defect, has not offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the DPF Defect.
8. Defendant knew of and concealed the DPF Defect that is contained in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated repair costs, from Plaintiff and the other Class Members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles.
END QUOTE
https://www.classaction.org/media/shaaya-v-jaguar-...
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33992545/...
An Australian investigation is under way. http://bannisterlaw.com.au/jlrdpfclassaction/
A UK Lawyer has written an article, "Driver mis-use or Dealer Misselling?" https://stormcatcher.co.uk/resources/land-rover-dp...
Time to circle the wagons, maybe.
QUOTE.....
7. Despite notice of the DPF Defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, warranty data, customer complaints at dealerships, and dealership repair orders, Defendant has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Defect, has not offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the DPF Defect.
8. Defendant knew of and concealed the DPF Defect that is contained in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated repair costs, from Plaintiff and the other Class Members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles.
END QUOTE
https://www.classaction.org/media/shaaya-v-jaguar-...
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33992545/...
An Australian investigation is under way. http://bannisterlaw.com.au/jlrdpfclassaction/
A UK Lawyer has written an article, "Driver mis-use or Dealer Misselling?" https://stormcatcher.co.uk/resources/land-rover-dp...
Time to circle the wagons, maybe.
Edited by DisillusionedSport on Monday 21st September 12:03
If the dealer and literature/brochures don't state that the diesels are unsuitable for certain types of driving, then the reasonable expectation by a customer is that the car *is* suitable for normal use, regardless of mileage, particularly if advice around regeneration in the owners' manual is followed. Therefore within the warranty period, any DPF issues should be covered. That is the view of at least one OEM with which I've been in employment.
A challenge with the manufacturer directly rather than the dealer with the above should result in a warranty repair, as the expectation is that courts would side with a customer in that regard. Outside of warranty, there's less chance of it being covered if you're doing bugger-all miles, but is a sliding scale (a month out of warranty, it would probably still be covered, regardless of use). All the above applies to GPF too.
Additionally there may be further protection if the dealer said something like "the car is perfect for driving around town, it won't have any issues with short journeys" as that opens up liability beyond just the warranty period. The manufacturer would often refuse to cover a repair out of warranty for something like that, and get the dealer to cough up as they are the ones who mis-sold.
But as I said, the above is direct experience with only one OEM.
A challenge with the manufacturer directly rather than the dealer with the above should result in a warranty repair, as the expectation is that courts would side with a customer in that regard. Outside of warranty, there's less chance of it being covered if you're doing bugger-all miles, but is a sliding scale (a month out of warranty, it would probably still be covered, regardless of use). All the above applies to GPF too.
Additionally there may be further protection if the dealer said something like "the car is perfect for driving around town, it won't have any issues with short journeys" as that opens up liability beyond just the warranty period. The manufacturer would often refuse to cover a repair out of warranty for something like that, and get the dealer to cough up as they are the ones who mis-sold.
But as I said, the above is direct experience with only one OEM.
SuperPav said:
If the dealer and literature/brochures don't state that the diesels are unsuitable for certain types of driving, then the reasonable expectation by a customer is that the car *is* suitable for normal use, regardless of mileage, particularly if advice around regeneration in the owners' manual is followed. Therefore within the warranty period, any DPF issues should be covered. That is the view of at least one OEM with which I've been in employment.
A challenge with the manufacturer directly rather than the dealer with the above should result in a warranty repair, as the expectation is that courts would side with a customer in that regard. Outside of warranty, there's less chance of it being covered if you're doing bugger-all miles, but is a sliding scale (a month out of warranty, it would probably still be covered, regardless of use). All the above applies to GPF too.
Additionally there may be further protection if the dealer said something like "the car is perfect for driving around town, it won't have any issues with short journeys" as that opens up liability beyond just the warranty period. The manufacturer would often refuse to cover a repair out of warranty for something like that, and get the dealer to cough up as they are the ones who mis-sold.
But as I said, the above is direct experience with only one OEM.
Thank you for this informed view. I guess JLR put out this next document in 2018 to guide responsible retailers in the right direction. So that's good, surely? Only up to a point. The problem for JLR in the blame stakes is that it waited fully 3 years before sharing this knowledge with the dealer network. The point made in the Shaaya class action is that JLR makes a big thing out of the millions of miles of dyno testing and real world driving that it performs, so it should therefore be expected to identify engineering issues (like those with DPFs) well before they present problems for owners. The SCN JLRP00100 wasn't released until 2 years had elapsed since it had made the first EU6 sales. However you look at it, the timing of these documents (both of which are only known about because they were leaked by concerned employees) points to a 2 to 3 year long cover-up by the manufacturer. It surely deserves all it gets.A challenge with the manufacturer directly rather than the dealer with the above should result in a warranty repair, as the expectation is that courts would side with a customer in that regard. Outside of warranty, there's less chance of it being covered if you're doing bugger-all miles, but is a sliding scale (a month out of warranty, it would probably still be covered, regardless of use). All the above applies to GPF too.
Additionally there may be further protection if the dealer said something like "the car is perfect for driving around town, it won't have any issues with short journeys" as that opens up liability beyond just the warranty period. The manufacturer would often refuse to cover a repair out of warranty for something like that, and get the dealer to cough up as they are the ones who mis-sold.
But as I said, the above is direct experience with only one OEM.
Advice to JLR Dealers - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzyachz7o24axiw/JLR_Arch...
JLRP00100 - https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/download/file.p...
I can't comment on the JLR case.
What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
SuperPav said:
I can't comment on the JLR case.
What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
As soon as you make something idiot proof, the world just invents a better idiot.What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
DisillusionedSport said:
In the U.S. (New Jersey) someone has filed a $5 million+ law suit against Jaguar Land Rover alleging that it knowingly sold cars with faulty DPFs and deliberately concealed information related to the faults from its customers. Isn't that what it's been doing everywhere it has sold diesels since 2015? Every time those magical words "driving style" come at you, that's a deliberate lie, right?
QUOTE.....
7. Despite notice of the DPF Defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, warranty data, customer complaints at dealerships, and dealership repair orders, Defendant has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Defect, has not offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the DPF Defect.
8. Defendant knew of and concealed the DPF Defect that is contained in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated repair costs, from Plaintiff and the other Class Members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles.
END QUOTE
https://www.classaction.org/media/shaaya-v-jaguar-...
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33992545/...
An Australian investigation is under way. http://bannisterlaw.com.au/jlrdpfclassaction/
A UK Lawyer has written an article, "Driver mis-use or Dealer Misselling?" https://stormcatcher.co.uk/resources/land-rover-dp...
Time to circle the wagons, maybe.
I do laugh at the size of American lawsuits. Totally disproportionate by 100x. QUOTE.....
7. Despite notice of the DPF Defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, warranty data, customer complaints at dealerships, and dealership repair orders, Defendant has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Defect, has not offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the DPF Defect.
8. Defendant knew of and concealed the DPF Defect that is contained in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated repair costs, from Plaintiff and the other Class Members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles.
END QUOTE
https://www.classaction.org/media/shaaya-v-jaguar-...
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33992545/...
An Australian investigation is under way. http://bannisterlaw.com.au/jlrdpfclassaction/
A UK Lawyer has written an article, "Driver mis-use or Dealer Misselling?" https://stormcatcher.co.uk/resources/land-rover-dp...
Time to circle the wagons, maybe.
Edited by DisillusionedSport on Monday 21st September 12:03
What if there are several hundred claimants? What does a new DPF cost to fit on a top end Range Rover? If a US court rules that an allegation of deliberate deception is proved, it surely has the power to award punitive damages. Under the United States penal code, regarding fraud, for every violation an offender may receive up to five years in prison and also be fined up to $5,000 for each count. Coughing up $5 million cash in a civil settlement that gets rid of this liability in the States might turn out to be a good result. Of course, then it might be repeated in other jurisdictions once the lawyers get their hooks into it. How many pi$$ed off DS and Evoque owners got stung by this here? That definitely runs into the hundreds.
Jazzy Jag said:
SuperPav said:
I can't comment on the JLR case.
What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
As soon as you make something idiot proof, the world just invents a better idiot.What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
FiF said:
Jazzy Jag said:
SuperPav said:
I can't comment on the JLR case.
What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
As soon as you make something idiot proof, the world just invents a better idiot.What I will say is that having been involved in product development, I can guarantee you that no matter how many millions of miles you cover in 3 years of a development programme, and how many hours of test bench engine running you do, there will ALWAYS be real-world customer use cases that you either:
a) didn't think of
b) couldn't adequately replicate or reproduce due to the nature of the use-case
c) tried to reproduce but the forced conditions such as reduced timeframe/other restrictions resulted in minor but significant differences to that of the real use-case you're trying to replicate
Sometimes the simple fact that you're trying to cover a 150k miles use within a 12 month test programme means you physically cannot reproduce the same conditions that an engine will operate if it did the same 150k miles over 8 years, as the heat aging and all the other temporal cycling cannot be 100% replicated in a lab over a shorter period of time.
This is why real-world failures are, unfortunately, sometimes inevitable, and are part of refining and improving internal standards to avoid similar problems in the future.
I've spent 39 years in the motor industry.
Just when I think I've seen it all, some idiot amazes me..
FiF said:
Then along comes the great unwashed public doing things that you never envisaged anyone would be stupid enough to try because it's obvious that's just a bad idea.
The thing is, in this case it's just using the car normally. For many that's a matter of shortish commute, school runs, shopping trips etc. JLR could give cars to a few yummy mummies to simulate 'normal' use.Sheepshanks said:
The thing is, in this case it's just using the car normally. For many that's a matter of shortish commute, school runs, shopping trips etc. JLR could give cars to a few yummy mummies to simulate 'normal' use.
I don't think that the people who bought or leased one of Land Rover's faulty diesels really deserve the pejorative epithet mentioned two posts up. To develop the point made by the last poster. People who have bought 2.0L diesel SUVs from LR since September 2015 have encountered serious DPF problems - oil contamination and clogging. Yet others, who bought a Jaguar XE or F-Pace with the same engine and built to the same (EU6) emissions regime, have experienced no problems. How can this be?Easy.
By Spring 2014, JLR had built a good EU6 exhaust for the in-line AJ200D Jaguar XE. But when they tried to migrate it to the DS/Evoque, they found it wouldn't fit into the D8's engine compartment, transversely mounted. The modified aftertreatment arrangement they came up with proved to be too long, the DPF positioned too far from the turbo and, to compound matters, it relied on a dual-purpose DPF-SCR device (SCRF) that wasn't fully developed and hadn't been adequately tested. They also had a bit of bad luck with the EPA prosecution of VW so the NOx cheat devices all had to be torn out leaving their new SUVs to run in test mode all the time.
The consequences were profound. Forced to burn cooler to reduce the NOx output, the engines in these cars produced excessive quantities of soot. Passive regeneration barely worked at all (due to the complex chemistry of the exhaust hardware) meaning that all the soot collected had to be regenerated using post injection. The architecture of the exhaust dictated longer fuel burns to achieve the same oxidation rate. This all combined to increase fuel in oil dilution by a factor of 2 to 4, depending on driving style. The probability of interrupted active regenerations increased proportionally, leading to blocked DPFs and AMBER warnings. The software algorithms became overwhelmed by the inability of the DPF to regenerate and frequently crashed, leading to premature RED warnings. The AdBlue tank was inadequately sized for the "clean air" NOx processing, the extent of which hadn't been anticipated in the original design. The excessive post injection impacted fuel economy pushing the reported median (e.g. HJ, WhatCar) to about 37 mpg.
No special skills were required on the part of drivers to trigger a whole range of DPF issues. People just had to driver them "normally" in rural or urban environments (the way they had driven their EU5 diesel, for instance) and the problems appeared as if by magic.
I would expect someone in their fourth decade of working in this industry to be slightly more informed before slamming owners. On second thoughts, maybe not. Maybe this is precisely the attitude that's needed to work for Jaguar Land Rover. The same attitude that thinks of people forking out £40,000 to £50,000 for one of its shoddy products as "the great unwashed", uninformed idiots that will believe anything they are told and still keep coming back for more.
Edited by Grimsby on Wednesday 23 September 02:17
Just to point out, the very first line of that sub thread discussion started with the words "I can't comment on the JLR case."
Thus it was a separate, albeit off the specific topic, discussion about product development in general. Consider that before you go off accusing of unfair comments re the JLR case.
Thus it was a separate, albeit off the specific topic, discussion about product development in general. Consider that before you go off accusing of unfair comments re the JLR case.
Warranty Oil Change - a word of caution From DS forum.
For any of you still in a 16.5/17MY vehicle that is subject to goodwill oil changes (hopefully not many left of these), it has emerged that *certain* retailers have not been changing the oil and filter after all, merely resetting the oil service counter and handing the vehicle back to the customer.
It is imperative that you get some sort of evidence that a warranty oil change has been completed; either by insisting that your OSH is updated to reflect it as an "arduous service", or a zero-cost invoice/receipt is issued. Handing the keys back with a cheerful "All done Sir/Madam" is not evidence enough, and will leave you with zero recourse should something happen at a later stage because of this. If they won't issue any paperwork, ask for a copy of the warranty submission claim and the vehicle file, and don't be fobbed off.
Forwarned is forarmed.
For any of you still in a 16.5/17MY vehicle that is subject to goodwill oil changes (hopefully not many left of these), it has emerged that *certain* retailers have not been changing the oil and filter after all, merely resetting the oil service counter and handing the vehicle back to the customer.
It is imperative that you get some sort of evidence that a warranty oil change has been completed; either by insisting that your OSH is updated to reflect it as an "arduous service", or a zero-cost invoice/receipt is issued. Handing the keys back with a cheerful "All done Sir/Madam" is not evidence enough, and will leave you with zero recourse should something happen at a later stage because of this. If they won't issue any paperwork, ask for a copy of the warranty submission claim and the vehicle file, and don't be fobbed off.
Forwarned is forarmed.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff