Wouldn't have a clue and it doesn't matter anyway. What it shows is a OM long block and it clearly shows it does not have a cam belt fitted to it.
differentthings,
Feb 6, 1:53pm
BTW, I do feel bad for the OP. I would be pissed off as well if it happened to me. Don't get me wrong the Japs have made some rubbish cars but the Euro cars all seem to crapped out between 100-200,000k where the Japs cars seem to go fo about 300-500,00k before something like that would happen.
franc123,
Feb 6, 2:32pm
More like it wouldn't happen at all. The only Jap engine I can ever recall that I've seen more than one crank failure on was the Mitsi 6G74 which was the 3.5 V6 used in Challenger etc. This Audi stuff is supposed to be premium product, it's a abundantly clear that it's as badly manufactured as anything else VAG makes. Why people pay so much for this trash is anybody's guess.
bill-robinson,
Feb 6, 2:40pm
usual then price goes up what you get is less. a long block used to be a complete engine assembly with no accessories such as manifolds, flywheel, alt/gen with belt possible front pulley, distributor, leads and plugs. now i gather it is a block and head but we do not know what else. and they will trust a R&R man to fit a critical belt. how standards have dropped.
elect70,
Feb 6, 3:43pm
Im sure the dealer& Audui dont want this in the open bad for business .They have accepted it shouldnt have happened so i dont see why he should pay anything . Obviously they couldnt find a used one of same milage too bad .At worst they may say pay half of instal cost seeing as how it is a new engine
differentthings,
Feb 6, 4:39pm
I The main problem it's not Audui that will cop it it's the dealer who sold them the car that will take the hit. By the sounds of things he brought it from a Audui dealership thece the long block as they would done a deal with head office. I would say if the owner pays $2-6g for labour/parts etc it would be a win for both parties.
tony9,
Feb 6, 5:40pm
The broken crankshaft was clearly a manufacturing defect. A reasonable person would not expect that to happen to that vehicle at that age and distance travelled.
A reasonable person would expect that condition to be rectified and the vehicle put back to the same condition before the crankshaft broke, at no cost to the owner. That it cannot happen with no betterment is of no consequence or value to the owner. Problem needs to be fixed properly to the satisfaction of the owner, but no cost, or the deal is unwound and the owner gets the full purchase price back.
If in any doubt, read the CGA.
differentthings,
Feb 6, 6:27pm
A reasonable person would expect that condition to be rectified and the vehicle put back to the same condition before the crankshaft broke, That would be fine if they were going to put in a S/H engine, but the are going to put in a brand new long block. So they would be making it far better condition before it broke down.
curlcrown,
Feb 6, 9:12pm
Even way after two years and 50000km of purchase?
curlcrown,
Feb 6, 9:22pm
I predict that if the purchaser goes to the tribunal they will get less than what they are being offered now.
rpvr,
Feb 7, 3:47pm
So why didn't they suggest fitting a S/H engine? No doubt lack of availability, which is not the fault of the owner. If it were me I would much prefer a S/H engine to be fitted, with similar kms, and nothing to pay. You buy a vehicle for an appropriate price in keeping with its age and kms, then sell it later based on the same thing. You don't expect to be paying out thousands of dollars to maintain its value, because lets face it, in its present state its worth what a wrecker would pay for it.
gooff,
Feb 7, 4:21pm
We have just come back from the Disputes Tribunal, this case falls under the Consumer Guarantees Act and the dealer has to pay to fix.
rpvr,
Feb 7, 4:27pm
Well done mate. I hope they now get on with it and don't try to stuff you about.
rpvr,
Feb 7, 4:29pm
And well done Tony, you called it correctly
rpvr,
Feb 7, 4:34pm
The question now has to be asked, now that the dealer has to pay, will the aforementioned $160 per hour guy still be doing the work, or will the dealer now find some way to get it done *ahem* cheaper?
trouser,
Feb 7, 6:12pm
Why would they do that? It would be much cheaper for the dealer to carry out that work in-house than to contract it out. $160 is their charge out rate but they pay the tech $40. So maybe about $65 an hour actual cost to the dealer of which a portion would probably be refunded by Audi.
curlcrown,
Feb 7, 8:36pm
It would be interesting to see the link. They are made public. It is interesting that you know the outcome, usually a decision is mode known some days after the hearing.
sw20,
Feb 7, 8:45pm
Funny way of saying you are wrong.
rpvr,
Feb 7, 9:43pm
I've been involved with a couple of cases over the years (much less money involved than this one), but both times the decision was made at the conclusion of the hearing.
gooff,
Feb 8, 7:19am
She effectively told them how she would rule. She sent us all out for 15 minutes to think about things. We all came back in and they agreed to fix the car.
She has left it open and if nothing has happened in 4 weeks we go back and see her and she will make her ruling immediately.
carkitter,
Feb 8, 4:23pm
I think you were very fortunate. I would have sided with Kazbanz.
If the manufacturer is supplying a brand new long block then all toothed drive belts, oil seals, lubricants and gaskets supplied with it should also be new and included at THEIR cost. Different story if only a short block is supplied.
I'm surprised the judge didn't do some sort of pro-rata payment as although it is a manufacture liable fault, 125,000kms and several owners is hardly negligence and an Audi Allroad which is one of the worst built and least reliable modern cars that has a new long block supplied and fitted under warranty at 125,000 kms is significant betterment.
Non-matching numbers is unlikely to be a problem for an Allroad owner unlike with Porsche owners and the 991 GT3 conrod bolt recall.
gooff,
Feb 8, 5:32pm
The adjudicator said the law on this case was very clear cut. The dealer is the supplier and they supplied a faulty product (which we are the second owner and it has a full service history). 125,000km is not a reasonable time for a crankshaft to break. She said this is (should be) a quality product from a top end manufacturer. We bought it from a reputable dealer probably with a bit more of a mark up than we would have paid privately BUT as we did buy from them the CGA applies. It is up to them to get reimbursement of their costs from the manufacturer.
carkitter,
Feb 8, 7:37pm
Hmmm. Whatever he / she says goes I guess, but I still think the dealer has provided good service and if the manufacturer wants to go above and beyond by offering a long block then that's good news for you.
skull,
Feb 8, 8:26pm
I think the dealer was providing good service up to the point they wanted $10k to fit the motor, at that point they were taking the piss. I imagine Audi is providing the long block to them gratis so they should have been looking for a way to break even, not make a killing.
rpvr,
Feb 8, 9:45pm
I don't understand how the situation can be classed as betterment. At 125,000k, the owner was entitled to expect many more years of motoring from this vehicle, and due to a manufacturing defect, this did not happen. Would having what amounts to a new engine, increase the value of the vehicle? I think not, in fact if I was interested in purchasing the vehicle and found that it had needed a new engine at 125,000k, my first question would be why? Probably re-think whether that make/model is worthy of any further consideration.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.