Euro Vans

hyundai should still have paid and then got compensation from the fuel company given they are so confident of the cause and the components were hidiously expensive ringing alarm bells to me about hyundai vehicles

Why is Hyundai NZ ltd job to repair it and seek compensation from the fuel company they were not involved in the faulty fuel transaction or filling at all!

because of a potential warning light failure and an obvious filtration problem which may also make them liable and what ever happend to customer satisfaction, thats what is missing here.

Regardless of wether the light failed (which it didnt) the fault was caused by contaminated fuel, not a product fitted, sold or made by Hyundai NZ ltd.
Whats the point in a warranty at all if they should just cover it under "customer satisfaction" how far do we take that!should Toyota NZ ltd cover a rusty 1973 corolla under the umbrella of "customer satisfaction". We need to get real and lay blaim where it belongs the fuel company. Why arent we all arguing that the fuel company should just cover it under "customer satisfaction"!

The first water contamination Toyota D4D I had to deal with was a $23000 bill for the customer and he got all his money back from the fuel Co. The price tag on a D4D water damage job is abit cheaper these days with the price of the injectors being half price and SCV on the HP fuel pump only $250 now makes the job of compensation not as hard to retain. NZ has the worst fuel storage habits and it is not the car makers fault.

What other componants were replaced under that $23000 equates to more then a set of injectors and a pressure limiter valve

Well back in 05 there was no direct import of the SCV's or injectors so a whole new HP pump had to be fitted and the injectors were 8k for the set. New lines from the common rail as these are form inplace seats and that one needed a new common rail also as the pressure relief valve had been damaged by water also. Now the bill would be under well 10k

and thats the point why are hyundai charging so much for parts that used to be very expensive but are now common and much cheaper. the point is i bet if it happened to me the motor company would be a lot more forgiving and yes i have had a warranty claim for a damaged engine due to something in the system and no i didnt pay anything

You simply can't categorically state that Hyundai are not responsible for the warranty repairs given the information that we have to hand. Without ALL the facts we can only best guess.

I am not saying it IS or it Isn't their fault but I will say this given what we know about the story:

1. The attitude of the Hyundai rep on T.V was poor, as is the handling of the issue.

Legal requirements aside if you are going to specifically market to non-savy customers and when you sell a brand new vehicle to an elderly person you do not just hand them a 20K bill in a situation like this. That is TERRIBLE customer service and being a poor corporate citizen.

They have spend 50K 2 years ago with you, its only good service to make some calls on their behalf to see if you can help ascertain who is responsible for the damage.

The other thing that should have been offered is to do the job on a "break even" basis. They have already made considerable profit out of this guy. It would have been a lot more fair to go to him in the first instance and say:

"Bad luck, this isn't our fault, we suggest you follow up with your fuel company for compensation. If you have no luck there,while we don't believe the failure is Hyundai's fault due to the contaminated fuel but we are willing to repair it on a "break even" basis. You just cover the wholesale cost of parts and enough labor to pay our workshop costs and wages."

2. There was a lot of rust in that filter housing. Why had this not been picked up when it was in for service last! Perhaps its all happened since the last service, perhaps not, or was the 2 year service the "first" service! If it was the first service how do we know the water wasn't sitting in there when the vehicle was sold new!

3. We don't know for sure that the contamination was emulsified or not and just how much water was in there. Therefore we don't know whether a sensor has failed or not. I am not "hinting" at anything here, I am simply saying that with what we have to go on we can't prove or disprove anything.

This all boils down to the attitude of the Hyundai guy again. He was just flatly and rudely interrupting and saying "he wouldn't look at a warranty claim". Why would he not even "Look" to me "Look" means you investigate things thoroughly and determine whether there is a possibility of system failure etc. Certainly the impression given from the very vague answers and bluster was that the investigation has not been very thorough at all.

He also did a terrible job of explaining how the warning system worked. He made it sound like Hyundai had designed it so that water damage could occur before a warning system was activated. He did not give any reasons why and actually dug his own grave by saying not "enough" water was there to activate the sensor. He should have explained more about emulsification etc if this was a suspected issue.

Now, in fairness the guy from Hyundai may have been carefully cut and edited by Fair Go, T.V programs do that. He may also have not responded as well as he would have without the immense pressure of T.V camera's pointing at him. However, they did have opportunity to take it upon themselves to treat the situation better from the beginning.

You say I am harming my credibility, well yours is at serious risk with what you are saying here.

Comparing a 2 year old vehicle bough brand new from the dealer with a nearly 40 year old Toyota is simply absurd.

Some vehicles are only serviced every 2 years nowadays even, alsothe value of the purchase and a repair bill is approaching half the new value of the car and most of its secondhand value (in a repaired state).

If he were to lose faith in the vehicle, pay for the repairs and then sell it. There is a very good chance that he would have lost almost his entire $50'000 in just two years. That's completely unacceptable.

This is definitely a time for Hyundai to be fair and reasonable and make some effort to be good citizens and look after an elderly and vulnerable person.

This is an excellent question and here is the answer.

Because HYUNDAI are the first point of contact and the savy party in this situation and they are dealing with an elderly and non-savy customer.

THEY should be at minimum directing and assisting THEIR customer through this situation. Instead when the old guy has come back and said "fuel company says the fuel is O.K" they have just taken the path of least resistance and got the old guy to foot the bill.

You may also wonder why I am not praising them for their half price repair offer and new vehicle. That's because they have only done it because of the pressure of the media spotlight, so it means almost nothing because how many other old people have they given such poor service too and got away with it!

Think about it. If Kazbanz sold a horrible old 10K vehicle with little profit in it to a customer and had a problem like this. Do you think he would just give them a massive bill and tell them to sort the fuel company situation on their own!

I don't think so somehow, I would think he would at least be explaining things properly and doing his best to help them out. and that's from a secondhand car dealer with minimal profit involved.

Some of your comments make no sense, are we to believe the customer was "not savy" enough to seek resolution through the fuel retailer but "savy" enough to include fair go in a dispute with the manufacturer!

Regardless of politics or hear say the FACTS are the fault, regardless of warning systems is the result of contaminated fuel, NOT a manufacturing defect and therefor not warranty

I agree the DEALER themselves (not Hyundai NZ ltd) in this case should have cut margin to retain customer satisfaction as ultimately he is their customer, but the point remains the same contamination will not, nor will it ever be a legitimate cause for a warranty claim and this justifies Hyundai NZ ltd decision to deny the claim

well said jazz and thats why i sayif it where me the motor company would react differantly as i buy a lot of new cars but because it was an elderly gentleman they took advantage of him. I know ultamitly its the fuel supplier at fault but as a hyundai customer and with hyundai having all the electronic data it is hyundai that should be helping this man

there are still some possibilities where the manufacturer is at fault one being a light and an admition by the mechanic that fixed it that the light should have activated, point two is whether the filtration system is addaquit so a propper investigation is the correct thing to do

They havnt taken advantage of the customer at all, they are simply sticking to the warranty policy that if it isnt a manufacturing defect or fault in workmanship it isnt covered under warranty.
Why is that so hard to comprehend,

because the mechanic said the light should have gone thats an admition of fault. now the reason i think they should have helped him is because i have been there before, not with water but something else that did valve damage and a good motor company pays first then comes up with a solution and trust me if they want to keep you in there product they pay.

The light never came on because the water had emulsified into the diesel , but EVEN if the light had have malfunctioned it wasnt the light that caused the fault it was the contaminated fuel. It is beyond me why you cant grasp that concept

the mechanic said it should have gone is that hard for you to understand. i bet if it were me they would have paid thats the differance

The system is designed to detect free water, when it is emulsified it just passes through with the diesel

You just dont get it do you! EVEN if it did have a faulty light, the light didnt cause the damage did it

it doesnt change the fact that if it were me they would have paid. we know the cause but customer satisfaction is missing. you havnt been listening i had a motor rebuilt from fuel contamination and paid nothing even though they worked out the fault it wasnt hyundai but a japanese vehicle and i still buy them new many years later thats the differance

but continuing to drive it without warning of water did

1. Customer clearly was not savy, it was the son that involved fair go and he even said in the interview that the father was embarrassed and was reluctant to tell him.

2. Hyundai should have looked into this properly before just flatly refusing the claim. Warranty claim or not if the water was in the system before the vehicle was delivered Hyundai or the dealer should be paying.

They should also be checking to see if they missed picking up the water at service time. this would be the dealers fault if it should have been.

The warning system should be tested and investigated. This may be anopportunity to pick up a possible design flaw and improve the product and protect the brand. Even if they still deny the rest of the claim if the warning system is faulty it should be fixed under warranty, especially as it may prevent another disaster.

"If it was me they would have paid", thats not fact. It sounds as if you have dreams of grandeur and think your some kind of princess.

I was going to say the dealership you buy a "heap of vehicles" from must cringe when your in for service but the more you post the more im convinced you dont own any new vehicles let alone "a heap" of them

hey jazz do common rail diesols have a catch bowl for water, my injected diesol tractor had a bowl full of water and i only noticed it by accident checking other things, concerned about how it would affect my fuel pump i rang my mechanic and he got me to clean my filters and bowl reinstall but i could have other damage so i asked how much for a new pump and he said 1500 odd bucks of the top of his head so given that i flushed the system of water and diesol reinstalled and carried on, several months later no problem. so what happens with common rail!

Exactly!

Also, where is the proof the water emulsified with the diesel! I may need to watch the video again and forgive me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure this is something savanna has introduced as fact when its not even mentioned in the story. The story from what I remember just mentioned "not enough water to trigger the alarm" which sounds more like a design flaw if true. Either way we have no proof at this point what happened so we can't draw a conclusion.

We would however have a better idea if Hyundai bothered to investigate things properly and tell us instead of just flatly refusing to "look at it".