MAN engine knackered camshaft question

[tcm]

Re: forging

afaik, gear wheels never forged, usually SG iron castings to allow some give. Forging's to get nice grain structure flowing along summink complicated like a conrod.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Nauti Fox]

Re: why was the engine smokey

Surely if it was damaged by a foreign object would'nt the teeth on the fuel pump be damaged as well?I trust they are going to replace that gear also.Do you know if there is a history of this happening,although I don't know where you'd find out.I would'nt have thought that there was a backlash setting for them so my guess would be a fault with the gear,forging or hardening etc.Like JFM says I don't see why it would cause the smoky running.
I've seen similar things on high performance engines,like on cams where the majority of the load is placed together, also on primary gears, but not on something with a relatively light load.
Regards, Al.

<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.

 

[PaulF]

Re: why was the engine smokey

Yes Matt, if the gear wheel with the 4 missing teeth originally had say 120 teeth then each tooth is worth 3 degrees, so you could have had a 12 degree shift. It could most definately account for the excess smoke.
I tend to agree with above that this very likely would have been a poor casting from which the gear was cut. Quite honestly this stinks. How MAN can allow a customer to go through this, when surely they must realise that the sort of backwash in lost reputaion will cost them many times what it would cost to smooth over.
This is not a problem of neglect or overloading. It is one of the failure of a major part in normal service. The failure of one tooth could result in the other 3 failing by jamming it all up , but if one flaw could be found in the bits I would expect you have the bones of a damn good argument.I dont know who against, but the Marketing Director of MAN wont be pleased Good luck. Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: teeth details

the power takeoff for the fuel pump is on the camshaft. There are few teeth busted on both the straightcutgear on the camshaft and on the gear with which it meshs on fuel pump.

Wouldn't this put fuel timing out a bit, hence lots of smoking?

Agreed though, there is weedy (ish) force on that gear, really, s'just a fuel pump, and anyway can't have had shock load, hence bit of a wurry...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[John_d_Smith]

Sorry to hear about your bad news, Re your first post i think MAN is part of the VW Audi group, not that that helps in any way.

<hr width=100% size=1>John

 

[tcm]

Re: yep, although...

from my point of view, yes i cd rant and rave. But i spose the ancillary costs of getting engine out and aircon praps at this stage 2.5 yrs are a bit beyond, cos i mean the engine could be in a er deep well thingy and cost £20k to get out.

Cripes, i'm being a bit reasonable aren't I?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Nauti Fox]

Re: why was the engine smokey

Would'nt you get that shift of timing every revoloution though?If it was enough of a gap to do that would'nt it just stop it.
Al.

<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.

 

[John_d_Smith]

Re: yep, although...

Far too resonable, i couldn't see Ann Robinson letting go so easily!

<hr width=100% size=1>John

 

[PaulF]

Re: yep, although...

Yes Matt, I had missed the bit where you said MAN had replaced the parts FOC. Frankly that was the minimum they should have done. A couple of grand or five towards the rest of the grief would not have gone amiss though would it?
Bit different from the Jaguar report above.

MAN could have asked if they could analyse the parts themselves, at which point a request for an independant test would have been appropriate.
Bummer. Have a good weeekend. P

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Nauti Fox]

Re: why was the engine smokey

Although thinking about it,it could have altered the timing as it happened, then carried on a tooth or two out.


<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.

 

[PaulF]

Re: why was the engine smokey

Not necessarily, some years ago a friend bought a boat with one'lazy engine'. Lazy? The bloody thing was on benefit! Anyway it turned out to be pump timing out by several teeth. It is surprizing just how far out some settings can be to stop an engine running altogether, especially retarded pump settings. All the marks, and teeth (sorry Matt!) are usually there, so it should not be a problem to get it correct to start with. If there is a good side to this sort of problem it is that the timing will always go retarded, and therefore far less likely to do damage than than being over advanced, which can break an engine.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[martynwhiteley]

Gear Expert

Matt,

I've managed to locate an expert on transmission gears, who does do survey for the likes of Corus etc.

Company: TRANSMECH

Guy : GRAHAM REVITT

01384 402261 / 07774 227548

He's based Scunny way, but he might be able to offer advice, or know a fellow expert based nearer D2.


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue> <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mboat.org>http://www.mboat.org</A></font color=blue>

 

[boatless]

Might have missed something, but MAN are just offering parts cost? Think they should stump up for all the cost of dismantling and rebuilding engine. Asking MAN for the parts back so that you can organise detailed analysis of them would help 'persuade' them to cover this.

I tend to agree that the rest of cost - engine in/out and yard costs are yours, as you, the reasonable bloke, acknowledge.

Another poss cause, gear not running true on camshft, or fuel pump gear not true. Would overload teeth.

With that many teeth missing, if it slipped once (and altered timing) I'm surprised that it didn't slip again and again.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mjf]

Re: yep, although...

I have said this before......how about a rethinking the insurance claim issue.

If you have appropiate cover under your H&M then the insurance co / underwriters will fight MAN. Their lawyers will get the tests done etc , and you get the full cost of the work back less deductable.

This route also gives you a bit of peace of mind vis a vis port side unit too.

No?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DepSol]

Re: yep, although...

No they wont, they will say that the the fault originated before you bought the engines and were covered for insurance so it does not get covered by the policy. Dont worry I have been down the same road as Matt and if I had stuck to my guns for longer (I bailed out with a comprimise as I wanted to use the boat that year) I would have probably won.

Loads of people said I would prob get nothing back even tho I should however, a compromise was reached and it wasnt too costly in the end.

<hr width=100% size=1>Dom

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.soltron.co.uk>the website</A>

 

[mjf]

Re: yep, although...

I do not understand if the policy (mine) says cover is extended 'to physical damage to main engines and attached gearboxes due to the breakdown of any componant' surely that is a catch all job. ie valid claim?

What you imply is that insurance will not pay as the damage was done prior to policy inception.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Time for some real advice.

I've had a dig about with my cog experts from the motor racing days.

It's not unusual for this kind of failure to be the result of blockages affecting the pump. The size of everything being relational, big pump, big blockage = big loading on big cog. Once the cogs damaged it ain't going tto heal up it's going to get worse.

If you want to pursue the MAN men and you need technical advice PM me and I'll give you the intro to the top cog man in the UK who would be prepared to consider your problem.

The test you'd need carrying out is called a Rockwell test.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DepSol]

Re: yep, although...

Yup damage caused by accident or something being struck is different to damage caused by material defect. What they do is get their own surveyor down who will sy it is in his opnion that the part was defective, then insurers say go see anufacturer your insurance does not cover this.

Anything that is covered by a warranty will not usually be paid for by insurers.

Not always the case but in my experience thats what I was fobbed off with.

<hr width=100% size=1>Dom

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.soltron.co.uk>the website</A>

 

[mjf]

Re: yep, although...

I would want my insurance to indemnify me and then to deal with manufacture / warranty etc.

It does not exclude material failure.....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bejasus]

<I tend to agree that the rest of cost - engine in/out and yard costs are yours, as you, the reasonable bloke, acknowledge.>

why? If they are proved at fault surely you would be looking for a lot more. I.e. If there had been no problem the boat would not be out, and no costs incurred. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif


<hr width=100% size=1>