Volvo Penta Technical Support

[pvb]

Laying-up procedure...

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Tulloch who is Volvo Penta`s technical support executive at Watford refuses to supply me with the company`s approved procedures for winterisation.

[/ QUOTE ]VP's approved laying-up procedure is specified in the Operator's Manual, which you can download here.

 

[gandy]

How old is the engine?

 

[david36]

In my experience Volvo Penta in UK, and probably most of Europe at the very least , are unaware of the concept of true customer service as it relates to the end user ie the yachtie who " drives" one of their products. They prefer to concentrate upon builders who will install their products in new yachts and so provide a future captive market for over priced spares.They are like insurance companies who rely upon fine print to avoid what any reasonable person would view as their responsibility. I now always recommend that potential buyers only purchase yachts which have engines supplied by other manufacturers. However, that does not help the originator of this thread. I regret to say that my advice is that you have had a bum deal but VP will do nothing to help and everything to obstruct you in your fight. My advice, reluctantly, is to forget it and get on with your life. I wish it were not so but I think that you will get nowhere except to raise your blood pressure to no good effect, I suggest that you place VP and the dealers actions on every possible website , especially the american ones, as a suitable warning to others, but for you, I can offer little hope. Better luck with the rest of the season.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
I hold Volvo Penta to blame for failing to discipline their dealers into following specified procedures - in my case to protect an engine against moisture ingress specifically over the winter

I have now joined the growing Club of British boat owners who will never buy another boat with a Volvo engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

James,

You keep harping on about Mr. Tulloch, but he is the furthest person from the cause of the damage that you can find, (apart from me and the Man on the Moon).

I think you have not a cat in hells chance of proving that Mr. Tulloch and Volvo Penta had any part to play in the loss that you have suffered - It is unlikely that he even has a duty of care to you, never mind having breached it so as to cause reasonably foreseeable damage.

In chasing Mr. Tulloch, you sound a bit like the bloke who had his crappy boat evicted from Bristol Docks, (or wherever), and he has got nowhere, apart frombeing able to hang his lifes work around his fruitless campaign.

If, as you suggest, the sprayers sprayed water up your exhaust, then it is they who are to blame, assuming that this caused the damage - not rocket science.

If, by not plugging the exhaust hole to prevent water ingress, the winterisers have partly contributed to the damage, then you could also hold them liable.

Get the Court process started and see what happens.

 

[pvb]

It\'s nothing to do with Volvo Penta...

I think you're overlooking the fact that the original poster's dispute actually has nothing to do with Volvo Penta - his contracts were with the dealer and the marina, and they are the people to take action against.

Obviously Volvo Penta are going to concentrate their sales efforts on boatbuilders, because that's where the main market is for new engines. But don't overlook the fact they have a very efficient global parts operation which means boat owners can get VP spares quickly almost anywhere. The stocking implications of that policy mean that parts won't ever be cheap.

 

[tillergirl]

I'm sorry I find this confusing. In one bit you say that you were charged £290 for winterisation - merely changing the oil - and in another that they couldn't get the key so just walked off. Like others I think this has nothing to do with Volvo.

You ask for an alternative suggestion as to the cause of three boats with seized engines - some malicious sod who has nothing to do with either company sticking a hose pipe up the exhausts when no-ones around. In fact, that might be a valid insurance claim but you would need the evidence of the person who cleaned the antifouling to say that s/he didn't spray in the exhaust, the evidence of the winteriser to say that everything was done properly and the evidence of an independent engineer who would say that water could not have entered the exhaust pipe accidently. But I suspect you wouldn't get the first two bits of evidence now! Long shot but worth thinking laterally rather than pursuing Volvo who clearly aren't involved.

 

[PeterGibbs]

Re: Costs...

Quote: you don't need a solicitor:


On the general point, you are correct in that there is no need to engage a solicitor to submit a claim in the small claims court, and such costs would not be recoverable in procedure anyway. That's why I did not infer a solicitor is used. My point here is that any professional advisor would prompt that revenues must exceed costs to make the effort worthwhile.

The costs are not minimal as you infer: to simply submit a statement of claim without substantiating proof of liability (even if withheld in detail to the day of the hearing) would likely get short shrift from the defendant. Building the case will cost.

Banks and the like are easily spooked into submission, the basis of your claimed experience in this area, but small traders are much more tenacious.

Returning to James' issues: I don't see any liability attaching to Volvo in the details provided - they are too remote from the causation. You would have to demonstrate the engine/installation directly under their supervision was negligently undertaken. Volvo had no hand in the maintenance of the boat that lead to the flooding.

PWG

 

[jamesensor]

Re: Costs...

I have some knowledge of the Law and am appreciate that there is a solid potential claim for Breach of Contract against both parties who might be judged to have been negligent, in this situation. I would like to thank readers for this helpful encouragement and legal advice.

What I find especially disappointing is that neither Messrs Mitchell nor Kimmersh appreciate that amends might be due. They do not manage small firms nor sole traders. The Marine Industry especially in the Solent seems to employ youths with poor attitude and provide them with scant guidance or training. Indeed Mr Kimmersh of RK Marine assured me that his employee was right not to start the engine nor inform me of his failure to do so when he did not immediately locate the key, provided on the chart table. As this line obviously did not sound well he then changed his story to suggest that Universal prevented the engine from being run, a line swallowed by Volvo Penta, without further investigation. This is denied by Universal. But Mr Kimmersh has declined to return the £290 paid for a failed engine protection task.

In a previous encounter a Volvo Penta dealer on the Avon repaired a leaking fuel line with sticky tape. Subsequent engine failure in the Bristol Channel led to a lifeboat rescue. The dealer rashly pursued a claim for payment for this shoddy work and even more rashly failed to attend the hearing. The Judge having watched yacht wrecks as a youth on the North Cornish Coast awarded the crew exemplary damages of £1,000. Mr Tulloch took no interest in this Case either and the dealer is still selling high priced Volvo parts minus some stock collected by Bailiffs.

Surely litigation should not be necessary if Volvo Penta had any concern for its Owner Body. On the other hand, if more of us took action and publicised our success, perhaps the penny would finally drop.

 

[tillergirl]

Re: Costs...

Oh dear. I think you are fixated on volvo and not listening (sic) to what people are saying to you. I think you should stop trying to bad mouth Volvo at every opportunity and become objective. The previous incident is entirely irrelevant and the presence of fresh water in the exhaust on this occasion is not their fault. Sorry you didn't think much of my alternative suggestion. It does seem to me that at the moment you are some way from having a viable case against anyone for the wrecked engine. You do seem to have some clear grounds that the £290 was improperly obtained by just an oil change. Have a look at the inhibiting directions in the 2030 manual - the book that is supplied with the engine. But what were your directions to them? The problem I see is that you are making an assumption that the high pressure hose man was careless and filled the exhaust before the winterising. If you have evidence of this, fine; if not you have to rule out the possibility of subsequent malicious action

 

[gandy]

Re: Costs...

This all sounds more and more far fetched, especially as you don't provide any details of the age or type of engine. All I can do is imagine the same situation on our boat and our engine.

Firstly the Volvo instructions don't specify that the exhaust should be blanked off, so whether the engineer did or did not follow their procedures doesn't seem material.

Secondly it would take a bloody lot of pressure washing to squirt water over the gooseneck, then completely fill the waterlock then fill the exhaust hose up to the level of the exhaust elbow before water could enter the engine. That would take more than just carelessness, I would think it would need to be deliberate. It could only happen if the entire output of the pressure washer was directed up the exhaust for several minutes on end.

And lastly of course, the idea of complaining to the company who made your engine 30 years ago seems pretty bizarre. What could they have done to prevent the madman with the pressure washer, and they haven't any control over how your engine was installed. You can't surely be saying their original manufacture of the engine was the cause of the fault.

 

[jamesensor]

Re: Costs...

Sabotage has obviously crossed my mind. But Universal is in the habit of moving boats around without informing Owners. Mine was moved three times. On one occasion it took me half an hour to find it. It happenned to end up in May next to two other Boats with whose owners I chatted. Both had had their engines so severely damaged by water ingress over the winter as to require replacement but like me had no definite idea as to the causation.

From the state of the engine in May, it would seem that fresh water had been there for a long period, probably even before the other two boats with damaged engines came ashore. It seems very unlikely that a saboteur would make successive visits to the yard to damage engines at random. How should he have obtained a pressure hose within the premises? If he had done so it may be that the yard would still be judged to have a responsibility for custodial care.

The engine is not 30 years old and Volvo Penta played no part in causing the damage. I do not believe that anybody has suggested that. But Owners who expect support in investigating engine damage from whatsoever cause will likely be disappointed. Potential engine buyers should be able to factor this into their buying decisions. I have now done just that, at some extra cost in terms of changing propellor.

 

[alan006]

Re: Costs...

I'm curious as to why the engines were judged to be beyond economical repair. We are a small marine engineering company and this year have repaired 2 volvo engines that had been seized by water damage (we are not volvo dealers) the first which was a straight six was seized when the cylinder liners seals failed and the internal cooling water entered the engine and seized it over the winter. The second was a straight four where the head gasket failed and water entered the engine that way. In both cases we had to remove the engines from the boats, strip them right down and replace the damaged parts and rebuild them. The charges we made were a lot lot less than buying new engines ( labour rate £35 per hour).
You don't have to go to Volvo dealers there are other companies who can help.

 

[jamesensor]

Re: Costs...

I would certainly prefer to bring the boat to Kent as the Solent seems to be very high priced for everything: pehaps for the next winterisation? Can you tell me what tasks you would normally undertake for this service, with the boat on land in a yard where you are able to run the engine.

 

[scottie]

Re: Costs...

do you use these http://www.coverallsale.com/

 

[alan006]

Re: Costs...

I've never needed them so far.......do you know something I don't. The only point I was trying to make is that its worth checking around before accepting that something is uneconomic. The sad fact is that IMHO it would be hard to establish exactly what caused the engine to fail without stripping it, if you don't do this and simply go for new engines how can you be sure that the problem won't reoccur. If you are going to strip it then you are well on the way to rebuilding it.
With regard to our winterisation procedure, this varies from boat to boat. We normally agree a procedure with the owner that we both feel is suitable.

 

[Its_Only_Money]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that there must be fairly frequent engine seizures through water ingress from all causes or insurers such as GJW Direct would not seek to exclude such damage from their policies. Not being privy to insurance data, I have no accurate idea of the frequency. But if it is affects one in ten thousand engines in an average winter, then the statistical probability of finding three boats in a line with such damage in a single yard is one in a trillion. If it is as frequent as 1 in a thousand then it would be one in a billion. This is neither an allegation nor an alledgation but simple mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this partially hoist you by your own petard? Given these probabilities then if you find three varied boats lined up with the same issue then it is NOT likley to be the engines/faults themselves but an external factor, which may or may not be the pressure washing you suggest. This may be why Volvo are reluctant to get involved as as far as I can see it doesn't look like an engine issue....

 

[jamesensor]

Thank you for the contact in the AB Volvo Press department. This has at last led to a rapid and courteous response from the VP of market support in Gothenburg. May I suggest that anyone anticipating problems with the Volvo Network in England, Scotland or Wales note down the email of michael.mr.rooney@volvo.com

Just to reiterate, I have never found anything wrong with Volvo`s engines, over several years usage, nor indeed with part supply other than price. Neither the engine design nor AB Volvo Penta could have had any possible influence on the action that has affected my engine and perhaps others, too. But perhaps some closer supervision of the UK dealer network could have enforced proper winterisation procedures which should have prevented the damage developing throughout the winter. I feel that I have paid dearly for an insurance policy that has failed me.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that I have paid dearly for an insurance policy that has failed me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean the "insurance" of having a Volvo, or the "insurance" of paying for winterisation, or your actual insurance policy which doesnt cover the damage, and clearly says so.

 

[pvb]

I think this is now a waste of time, Richard. It's apparent that the problem occurred months ago, that the guy's had a new engine fitted, and that he hasn't logically pursued a claim against the dealer or the marina. All he wants now is to criticise Volvo Penta in public.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is now a waste of time, Richard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. I just cant help getting drawn in.