CliffordGuernsey
Member
Fishing Fool - no, my tachs have not been verified I have however been told they vary by less than 100. I do take your point however and I need to get them checked!
Yanmar 315HP 6LPA STP
- Thread starter CliffordGuernsey
- Start date
CliffordGuernsey
Member
Daka - the second engine gave up after 315 hours and 6 years 5 weeks! Under the sales of goods act one can extend the 6 years by an application to the court where it would have been impossible to know there was a problem during the 6 years. In the case of a failing pump this would probably apply. We do not have a sales of goods act in Guernsey which means the 6 year cut off is not, as I understand it, relevant. My initial two engines were fitted in Guernsey so they come under the Guernsey law.
The Yanmar warranty is 2 years or 20,000 miles so I do not see that a 6 year life for an engine is realistic especially after only 315 hours. The legal route is a great deal of hassle but I do not see I have any choice if Yanmar/Barrus simply refuse my out of warranty claim without any explanation. Fortunately I have legal insurance but even then I could do without having to fight for compensation.
The Yanmar warranty is 2 years or 20,000 miles so I do not see that a 6 year life for an engine is realistic especially after only 315 hours. The legal route is a great deal of hassle but I do not see I have any choice if Yanmar/Barrus simply refuse my out of warranty claim without any explanation. Fortunately I have legal insurance but even then I could do without having to fight for compensation.
CliffordGuernsey
Member
DAKA - I forgot to mention. The engines were recommended and fitted by a Yanmar dealer. They have been serviced correctly. I have already replaced the engine. In fact within 18 days of the incident the boat was back in the water with its new engine!
CliffordGuernsey
Member
Fishing Fool - I have just bought a Phototachometer so I can start getting to the bottom of this problem. As has been said I need to sort out why this has happened in order to make sure it does not happen again. Thanks for your advice along with other peoples advice. I have learnt a lot about engines that quite frankly I was quite happy not knowing! It has been an interesting few days.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
The 6 year bit is something of a red herring. It does not mean you have a 6 year warranty - just that the supplier can be sued if you can prove the failure was due to a defect which was there when the product was manufactured. As you can imagine, it is "proof" that is the issue, not the right to pursue.
As you might imagine manufacturers are likely to defend against such claims very strongly as a carte blanche 6 year warranty would kill most businesses.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Not sure why we are on the warranty tack again, not a warranty issue.
As far more practical and hands on posters than myself have stated, this failure is due to contaminated fuel taking out injector and damaging the fuel pump on the way. The scenario given by the OP's expert will not stand up once statements are submitted.
Under normal circumstances this failure would should be kicked into long grass because owner has not complied with his responsibilities, i.e fed motors with contaminated fuel.
HOWEVER if Yanmar installation guidelines are inadequate OR installer has not complied with guidelines to the letter, which has led to Clifford's engines being fed bad fuel which has led directly to the failure then ball back in Yanmar distributor/agent installers court.
The fact that the distributor paid in full including in out labour for the first failure without any technical investigation would suggest that they have an exposure. Lack of facts precludes us from knowing why this contribution was made. The continued lack of technical explanation for both the first and now the second failure which has received outright rejection is playing into the hands of OP's legal team.
But now comes the rub, despite experienced input on this thread from Spannerman, Tinkicker and Volvopaul the OP is flying off at a tangent and charging the wrong guns by relying on the opinion of an obviously batty 'expert' who at one point was stating that a fuel lubricated fuel pumps were not fit for purpose.
The engine distributor will eventually have to start discussing this matter and 'acting reasonably'. Decent legal team should obtain the right outcome for the OP provided that they are not encumbered with all this 'fit for purpose' ****. Without identification of the root cause in this vessels installation lightning is likely to strike a third time.
If we are to assume one proposal is for example for free issue engine to be installed at Cliffords dime, with still no technical expanation of the cause then it is not unreasonable for his team to push hard for extended warranty by say a letter of commitment for say a further two years.
Why, because without nailing the cause of the contamination, lightning will strike a third time.
As far more practical and hands on posters than myself have stated, this failure is due to contaminated fuel taking out injector and damaging the fuel pump on the way. The scenario given by the OP's expert will not stand up once statements are submitted.
Under normal circumstances this failure would should be kicked into long grass because owner has not complied with his responsibilities, i.e fed motors with contaminated fuel.
HOWEVER if Yanmar installation guidelines are inadequate OR installer has not complied with guidelines to the letter, which has led to Clifford's engines being fed bad fuel which has led directly to the failure then ball back in Yanmar distributor/agent installers court.
The fact that the distributor paid in full including in out labour for the first failure without any technical investigation would suggest that they have an exposure. Lack of facts precludes us from knowing why this contribution was made. The continued lack of technical explanation for both the first and now the second failure which has received outright rejection is playing into the hands of OP's legal team.
But now comes the rub, despite experienced input on this thread from Spannerman, Tinkicker and Volvopaul the OP is flying off at a tangent and charging the wrong guns by relying on the opinion of an obviously batty 'expert' who at one point was stating that a fuel lubricated fuel pumps were not fit for purpose.
The engine distributor will eventually have to start discussing this matter and 'acting reasonably'. Decent legal team should obtain the right outcome for the OP provided that they are not encumbered with all this 'fit for purpose' ****. Without identification of the root cause in this vessels installation lightning is likely to strike a third time.
If we are to assume one proposal is for example for free issue engine to be installed at Cliffords dime, with still no technical expanation of the cause then it is not unreasonable for his team to push hard for extended warranty by say a letter of commitment for say a further two years.
Why, because without nailing the cause of the contamination, lightning will strike a third time.
Last edited:
DAKA
Well-Known Member
Hi Clifford,
there is some great advice above from all different directions, some posters will give you precise legal definitions and others will give you vague moral guidance.
you need to read the lot and make your own judgement.
It is unlikely this will ever make a court room, the very fact that Tranona implies a possible claim is adequate for you to give the illusion that you are prepared to take this to court.
Print all your emails , compile all your reports together including the previous engine replacement, send them recorder delivery (emails then become submersible in court) make several mentions of your commitment to go to court and the fact you have legal insurance so it will not cost you anything to take it to court (not sure what cover you have but chances are it will not be much help with this).
You need to present a case, they will then hand the file to someone like Tranona who will hopefully advice their client to make a deal in order to prevent legal costs.
even if there is only a 10% chance you will win they will cave in as your success would cost them hundreds of thousands as it would open the flood gates for other claimants.
Put simply they can not afford to loose.
They might even resort to threatening you in that they will sue you for costs but they have 0 to -1 % chance of success at claiming above a nominal amount back and would need to prove malicious intent.
We have had a few similar cases to this on the forum with out of warranty issues and many have happy endings but never get posted as they are deals of silence.
Now tot all your costs up, divide the fair portion to ask for (life expectancy less your 6 years use) 4/10 years , 6/12 years 3/9 years until you are within small claims court limit (presume you have small claims courts).
Good luck
ps to Latestarter
I only mentioned warranty in my previous post as the OP started to suggest anyone thinking of buying a new engine should choose a manufacturer carefully, it seemed an appropriate time to mention Cummins 6 year warranty on major parts.
there is some great advice above from all different directions, some posters will give you precise legal definitions and others will give you vague moral guidance.
you need to read the lot and make your own judgement.
It is unlikely this will ever make a court room, the very fact that Tranona implies a possible claim is adequate for you to give the illusion that you are prepared to take this to court.
Print all your emails , compile all your reports together including the previous engine replacement, send them recorder delivery (emails then become submersible in court) make several mentions of your commitment to go to court and the fact you have legal insurance so it will not cost you anything to take it to court (not sure what cover you have but chances are it will not be much help with this).
You need to present a case, they will then hand the file to someone like Tranona who will hopefully advice their client to make a deal in order to prevent legal costs.
even if there is only a 10% chance you will win they will cave in as your success would cost them hundreds of thousands as it would open the flood gates for other claimants.
Put simply they can not afford to loose.
They might even resort to threatening you in that they will sue you for costs but they have 0 to -1 % chance of success at claiming above a nominal amount back and would need to prove malicious intent.
We have had a few similar cases to this on the forum with out of warranty issues and many have happy endings but never get posted as they are deals of silence.
Now tot all your costs up, divide the fair portion to ask for (life expectancy less your 6 years use) 4/10 years , 6/12 years 3/9 years until you are within small claims court limit (presume you have small claims courts).
Good luck
ps to Latestarter
I only mentioned warranty in my previous post as the OP started to suggest anyone thinking of buying a new engine should choose a manufacturer carefully, it seemed an appropriate time to mention Cummins 6 year warranty on major parts.
Last edited:
CliffordGuernsey
Member
DAKA - thanks for this opinion. Yes, we do have small claims courts.
My concern has now extended beyond the replacement of the second engine as the issue of the possibility of wrong engines for my boat being recommended, supplied and fitted.
I have bought a phototachometer as suggested and once it arrives I will check the tachometers on the boat and get back to everyone who has taken an interest in my problem.
QUESTION
Does anyone think that if my tachometers turn out to be inaccurate and the WOT is not between 3950 and 4050 and it appears the engines are overloaded that this may have contributed to the injection pump failure? If so how?
My concern has now extended beyond the replacement of the second engine as the issue of the possibility of wrong engines for my boat being recommended, supplied and fitted.
I have bought a phototachometer as suggested and once it arrives I will check the tachometers on the boat and get back to everyone who has taken an interest in my problem.
QUESTION
Does anyone think that if my tachometers turn out to be inaccurate and the WOT is not between 3950 and 4050 and it appears the engines are overloaded that this may have contributed to the injection pump failure? If so how?
CliffordGuernsey
Member
LateStarter 1
Thank you for your contributions. Just one correction. The experts have not said the injector pump or the engines are not fit for purpose. That is a legal expression describing any product that does not provide the service it was designed to do. The experts have only stated that the cause of the failure was the injection pump seizing. They also said on the second pump that there were signs of water marking but on the phone told me this was not the cause of the failure. They have also verbally said the seizing was from insufficient lubrication from the diesel. The diesel analysis showed the fuel viscosity was OK.
I hope this clarifies the "expert" opinions.
Thank you for your contributions. Just one correction. The experts have not said the injector pump or the engines are not fit for purpose. That is a legal expression describing any product that does not provide the service it was designed to do. The experts have only stated that the cause of the failure was the injection pump seizing. They also said on the second pump that there were signs of water marking but on the phone told me this was not the cause of the failure. They have also verbally said the seizing was from insufficient lubrication from the diesel. The diesel analysis showed the fuel viscosity was OK.
I hope this clarifies the "expert" opinions.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Hi Clifford,
there is some great advice above from all different directions, some posters will give you precise legal definitions and others will give you vague moral guidance.
you need to read the lot and make your own judgement.
It is unlikely this will ever make a court room, the very fact that Tranona implies a possible claim is adequate for you to give the illusion that you are prepared to take this to court.
Print all your emails , compile all your reports together including the previous engine replacement, send them recorder delivery (emails then become submersible in court) make several mentions of your commitment to go to court and the fact you have legal insurance so it will not cost you anything to take it to court (not sure what cover you have but chances are it will not be much help with this).
You need to present a case, they will then hand the file to someone like Tranona who will hopefully advice their client to make a deal in order to prevent legal costs.
even if there is only a 10% chance you will win they will cave in as your success would cost them hundreds of thousands as it would open the flood gates for other claimants.
Put simply they can not afford to loose.
They might even resort to threatening you in that they will sue you for costs but they have 0 to -1 % chance of success at claiming above a nominal amount back and would need to prove malicious intent.
We have had a few similar cases to this on the forum with out of warranty issues and many have happy endings but never get posted as they are deals of silence.
Now tot all your costs up, divide the fair portion to ask for (life expectancy less your 6 years use) 4/10 years , 6/12 years 3/9 years until you are within small claims court limit (presume you have small claims courts).
Good luck
ps to Latestarter
I only mentioned warranty in my previous post as the OP started to suggest anyone thinking of buying a new engine should choose a manufacturer carefully, it seemed an appropriate time to mention Cummins 6 year warranty on major parts.
Situation for the OP is outside scope of warranty. I am certain Cummins would have rejected the first claim outright. Later discussion around the way engines applied MAY have resulted in contribution under Cummins Policy as goodwill gesture and clearly made as such. Also Cummins like CAT are obsessive regarding installation sign off and very few dealers have had the training to qualify so generally done by dedicated application engineer. For £500 represents good value and goes along way to safeguarding both parties interests.
The OP is is good shape due to the fact that distributor has something to hide evidenced by supply of first new engine AND in out labour. Once his legal team get moving unecumbered by all the fuel pump gobbledygook all they need to do is go on a 'fishing expedition' by making request to the Court for disclosure regarding all communiations between the Distributor and their dealers. Rather than face any chance of exposure an offer will be on the table in double quick time.
As to Cliffords question, we have two separate issues. One is fuel and the other is possible engine overloading.
On the subject of fuel, something passed through the pump damaging it, I would suggest that this would show up in spalling of the cam plate. However that 'something' took out the injector tip which did all the damage. I contend that the fuel pump was highly unlikely to have suffered a full siezeure if it had done so may have actually saved the engine, this would have shown up in damage or witness marks on the cam belt as another poster has mentioned to me privately.
Engine loading had nothing whatsoever to do with initial failure, however if engine was overloaded this would account for both the speed and severity of the failure.
Other problem is old beef of mine, throw away engines. Good motors however Yanmar LP and to an even greater degree LY are throw away engines, repairs are neither feaseible nor practical.
Forget the pump once and for all, just sat there grinding itself to death as a sideshow. The 'hosing' injector did that for you and engine loading just made it all the more painful.
Read up on Fishing Fools advice on engine loading also his advice on multi stage filteration, we are in accord.
Last edited:
CliffordGuernsey
Member
I am following your advice. (My legal insurance does seem to be holding up)
Hopefully I will be able to check the tachometers in the next few days.
The fuel filtration system was installed by the Yanmar dealer here in Guernsey. I am currently investigating its suitability as if what you and several others say is correct this is a major issue to avoid all this happening again.
By the way, I have the injectors off the first failed engine as I kept them as spares along with several other bits. The injectors are still on the second engine in a workshop in Guernsey along with the failed injector pump so it is still possible to check these if necessary.
Hopefully I will be able to check the tachometers in the next few days.
The fuel filtration system was installed by the Yanmar dealer here in Guernsey. I am currently investigating its suitability as if what you and several others say is correct this is a major issue to avoid all this happening again.
By the way, I have the injectors off the first failed engine as I kept them as spares along with several other bits. The injectors are still on the second engine in a workshop in Guernsey along with the failed injector pump so it is still possible to check these if necessary.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
'They also said on the second pump that there were signs of water marking but on the phone told me this was not the cause of the failure.' Do not bother serving their statements, they will sink you.
Answer staring experts in the face but they choose to ignore it! Water destroys fuel systems period.
You have the EVIDENCE of the contamination in the pump which went on to take the injector tip out. Just think of the poor old pump as innocent bystander just caught in the crossfire.
CliffordGuernsey
Member
Last edited: