The Man from Volvo

[Col]

Re: burnt valve=forget hydraulicing

I have to agree Matt, water ingress will not burn a valve seat. Dom, you really do have a strong case, try and resist the temptation to cave in for the sake of getting back on the water.
What are Jenneau doing to help?

 

[ChrisP]

Re: burnt valve=forget hydraulicing

I think I must have dropped the ball here. Conrod bent then damaged the valve?
I would have thought that is the conrod length was such that the piston cleared the valve gear in normal running, if you bent the rod surely it would shorten the rods overall length thereby increasing the gap between the crown and the head gear. I know that loads of engines have had timeing belt failures that have caused valve and head damage but that due to the valves being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the timing gear on this engine was ok at the time of the strip down how could the valves connect with the piston crown?

Friend of mine had all kinds of trouble with a claim for engine damage and who's fault it was. He finaly paid out loads of cash and employed one of the best known and respected engine surveyors in the country. A big reputation still stands well in a law court. Surveyor did a few basic tests issued his findings and at least part of the total claim evaporated. I know it means biting off a huge amount of cash to get somebody in but it can make all the difference to the firms position once you show that you intend going the whole hog. Maybe worth a try.


Good luck

ChrisP.

What do you mean the sea gull in front's walking !!!

 

[andyball]

Re: burnt valve=forget hydraulicing

I don't think (?) volvo claimed the bent rod burnt the valve, but that the bent rod/water damaged the oil cooling nozzle (under the piston?) thus overheating the piston & supposedly excess heat to valve .



Agree with needing an engineer with reputation as expert witness,volvo prob. won't cough up just 'cos any other guy disagrees with 'em.

ignoring the hydraulicing theory....small amounts of water could possibly cause detonation & certainly damage aluminium- cold(ish) water in a hot cylinder will expand violently.

 

[chippie]

Re: Depsol

Do you have a turbo? If so, there would be some evidence of thermal shock if Volvo's case is to be believed.

 

[Will_M]

Got any pics

Have you any photos of the bits & damage area, can you post them online so we can have a look?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Dom, sorry to be cynical but I have some experience of engine manufacturers in my own business. Firstly, Mr Porter may be a nice bloke but his primary duty will be to reduce Volvo's costs and he will be looking for any reason to wriggle out of a warranty claim, whatever the circumstances. Basically you cannot just expect him to roll over and commit his company to some serious costs without a fight. Secondly, presumably you bought the boat new from a Jeanneau dealer so, IMHO, your contract and the relevant warranties will be their responsibility however much they may try to fob you off by telling you to deal direct with Volvo.
You are obtaining an engineers report which is fine but I think you need to involve a good solicitor who is familiar with local CI consumer law who should then pursue the claim against the supplying dealer, at least initially. This should also have the effect of galvanising the dealer and, maybe, Jeanneau themselves into fighting your corner with Volvo. You have to show them firstly that you have a case and secondly that you are serious about pursuing it
Regarding the circumstances themselves, I'm no technical expert but even if (and it sounds like a big if to me) the engine failure is due to hydraulicking, I would have thought that you have some claim against Jeanneau themselves as the boat will have been built to a certain Category (Cat B, I guess) and I doubt whether a wave up the backside in a marina would be considered outside the Category requirements

 

[jfm]

Re: Who\'s your contract with

Deleted User, we already covered this earlier. Despite the fact the boat is bort from Jeanneau or a dealer, the wty contract is still with Volvo.

 

[halcyon]

Last try at a answer.
KAD43 are stern drive,
Stern drives had two flaps over exhaust outlets to stop back feed of water on deceleration or going astern.
Do KAD43 have them ?
If so how did water get in ?
Most replies I read assume seperate hull fitted exhausts without flaps?
Tend to agree with the earlier post, trying to get responces can be very frustrating.


Brian

 

[boatone]

Insurance question

I would assume that damage to the engine itself is not covered by normal insurance. However, if there is consequential damage does this then become the subject of a possible claim and could Dom then enlist the support of the insurers, who, presumably, would then have an interest in a claim against the engine manufacturer?



www.boatsonthethames.co.uk

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Re: Who\'s your contract with

Must have missed it, jfm! Sorry, its a long thread. I bow to your greater legal knowledge but it does surprise me. When you buy a BMW car you dont deal with Bosch when the alternator fails under warranty so why does Dom have to deal with Volvo? Surely, the one and only contract he has is with the supplying dealer? Is not the Volvo warranty a contract between Volvo themselves and whoever purchased the engine, presumably Jeanneau or has there been some kind of legal transfer of the warranty to Dom?

 

[hlb]

Re: Who\'s your contract with

I fell for this one too. But he's in the chanel Isles, so different law. So we dont know.

No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer!!!

Haydn

 

[jfm]

Re: Insurance question

Yes, in theory, maybe. By consequential damage maybe you mean loss of use of boat, etc, but I would think not many insurance policies cover that.

More fundamentally, you have to decide tactics. IMHO, and it is only MHI, I would not introduce a third party like the insurance co, due to "quality dilution". Being blunt, an person from an insurance co who gets involved will, more than likely, not be sharpest tool in the box.

This is about whether VP pay Dom under the warranty contract. If you think the law says they should pay (here it seems they should, though I dont have all the facts) then you simply apply maximum legal skill to makem. Start by making considered argument, then work through legal process. The law doesn't recognise VP's bigness compared with punter's littleness. You simply fight very skillfully, and VP will see that you're the one punter in 100 who knows what he's doing, and they will pay before it goes to court. You have to forget you're a punter. I know and work with/against the best lawyers on the planet, I mean the whole planet, the £800-1500 an hour brigade. They are good, but no better than an good ordinary punter who knows what he's doing and doesn't go off on tangents like "unfit for purpose" (sorry, Haydn!) and simply beats them at their own game. And therefore IMHO, getting an insurance person, not of your choosing, in what is a simple process fundamentally, will work against you.

So I would start by getting "better" engineers report than theirs, from a more highly qual engineer. Take their argument apart bit by bit. They've already started badly, remember. Then work thru legal process till they settle. Standard stuff, but has to be done right.

All IMHO, everyone will have their own view

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Re: Who\'s your contract with

Haydn, its not an issue of whose jurisdiction under which the contract is enforceable but who the contract is between and who is obliged to honour the warranty and with whom but then what do I know, thats why we employ legals

 

[boatone]

Re: Insurance question

Totally agree re getting better engineer etc but always problem here for possibly not so well off consumer up against pots of money manufacturer and costs involved needing to be weighed up against probability of winning or losing.
Re consequential loss not so much thinking of loss of use but if any other damage incurred due to engine failure eg bashed dockside or ran aground or whatever.



www.boatsonthethames.co.uk

 

[jfm]

Re: Who\'s your contract with

That's exactly right. Wehn you buy a product with "manufacturer's warranty" you do in fact have a contract for warranty repairs with the manufacturer, as well as a contract to purchase the item from the dealer. The dealer acts as agent for the manufacturer in entering into the warranty contract, or alternatively the warranty contract is created by the custmer accepting an open offer (not an "invitation to treat") made by the manufacturer.

With BMW, the 3 year warranty contract is with BMW UK, as is the car purchase in fact. As a matter of law, the dealer is an agent of BMW UK. The dealer is a disclosed agent in relation to the wty contract, because they make clear it is a BMW UK wty, whereas they are an undisclosed agent in relation to the car purchase contract, in other words the punter thinks he is buying the car off the dealer. The dealer is a principal in relation to service/repair work. But all that's a bit peculiar to the UK car market.

A better example is expensive watch/camera. You can buy it in one shop and another will repair it under warranty, because it comes with manufacturer's warranty not a supplying retailer warranty.

Basic point is, you are right that it matters who your cantract is with, but English law allows wide use of agency and undisclosed agency, so you can enter into a contract without knowing who your counterparty is. Of course, to protect the punter, the law also says you can sue an undislcosed agent as if he were a principal, but the fundamentals are that you can become party to loads of contracts without realising it.

 

[jfm]

Re:jurisdiction

Deleted User, the jurisdiction of the wty contract is crucial. It will state the jurisdiction in the wty. It probly says English law, but it might say Swedish. Most likely it will not say guernsey. This matters because the laws/court procedures of the country that has jurisdiction apply in interpreting the words of the wty contract and figuring out whether VP have to pay up or not.......

 

[Guest]

Re: Insurance question

Agree, but surely the cost of even the best engineer for a day or two must be considerably less than wearing the cost of an engine rebuild. A comprehensive engineer's report that systematically destroys VP's position, coupled with the threat of court goes a long way...

IMHO, of course

 

[boatone]

Re: Insurance question

All agreed ......but....! When do you decide how likely you are to win and the possible costs if you lose against deciding to cut your losses and get your boat back in commission?



www.boatsonthethames.co.uk

 

[tcm]

Re: Threatening to go to court

an expensive lawyer told me never to do this. He said you should only say exactly what you plan to do, and in writing. A verbal threat is ephemeral~; your written promise to get a surveyor must mean that, and then get a solicitor must be followed by exactly that, and then the solicitor says court proceedings in 2 weeks means they are begun on the 15th day. The good thing about suing is that you are in control - but if you ever threaten what isn't followed thru, the other side will dare you further and hence it costs more£££.

 

[ChrisP]

Re: burnt valve=forget hydraulicing

I haven't done the figures but if the con rod's bent surely the piston won't make full cylinder travel thus dropping the the cylinder pressure and the temperature. I would have expected a severe missfire on that pot and excessive smoke from the partially burnt fuel charge. With the cooling system intact I would have expected the cylinder temp to drop rather than increase to the point where components designed to resist the temp's and pressures of a working cylinder, fail.

Without sounding stupid I'd really like to know where my logic falls over even if it's only for my own piece of mind.

ChrisP ;o)

What do you mean the sea gull in front's walking !!!