|
The OP was posted just 3.5 working days after contacting Vauxhall by email - that's totally unrealistic expectation - if you need an urgent response, use the phone.
|
|
I did not check the timing element of the OP's complaint when I made my comment about arrogance etc. I still stand by the concept regarding failure to reply, but in the light of the time scale involved do consider the OP to have been too hasty in posting his comment, should have waited longer before turning to social media for assistance.
Edited by Smileyman on 04/09/2016 at 23:58
|
|
Its a 6 year old modern design mass produced vehicle, and as such has many parts fitted that will fail sooner or later, the clutch and DMF just as with turbochargers and lots of other parts can have a short or long life even if the parts are perfect if every driver doesn't use them sensibly, or with the latter part use sensible servicing too.
Don't really see the problem to be honest, the response of their customer services crew to email could arguably have been better, personally in the same circs i'd have been on the phone if for no other reason than to get the most likely response quickly...''no chance matey, its a clutch at the end of the day''...so i could find an indy asap to get the car back on the road cheaply as possible.
What i do wonder though is 6 years for a modern mass market highly technical car now 2/3rds into its design and/or economical life? and how, apart from buying brand new and driving and maintaining everything in old old school way, can the life of a car with unknown previous use be extended to the 20+ years we expect and get easily from previous designs.
Edited by gordonbennet on 05/09/2016 at 08:54
|
|
The problem is that people wanted economical vehicles (hence diesel) with plenty of 'oomph' (torque). Diesels have all that lovely low-down torque, as you know only too well. So to protect gearbox from all that torque from the ham-fisted / ham-footed driver, they put in the DMF. Else first and second would end up with the cogs stripped in no time.
Personally, I reckon the OP is an 'older' driver. One of the type who we see going "In 50 years of driving, I've never broken a clutch yet, this one must be faulty", while they rev the nuts off the engine while pulling away in first, as their 'feel' has gotten worse, and they can't hear the engine bouncing off the rev limiter.
We've all seen / heard them (or smelt the clutch burning !)
|
|
I have no reason to question the way the OP drives, as i understand it the car was used so could have seen any previous use and drivers.
Though taking your point about torque and modern vehicles, in particular but by no means alone Diesels, in my previous work driving car transporters the move to ever more powerful (once up to revs) engines that are actually far too easy to stall and completely gutless at low revs, coupled with too high first and reverse gears have exacerbated this problem no end, in some extreme cases cars being unable to climb the decks at all, how did these things get past typa approval, does TA mean anything?
Forgetting my minor and now obsolete delivery quibbles, having to rev an engine to get any sort of moving off power exacerbated by high gearing day in day out on the road is going to lead to short clutch life and overheated DMF's no matter how good a driver is inthe cut and thrust of trying to get moving on busy junctions.
Modern vehicles, which when you work it out are now getting on for 1.5+ times the weight of their previous incarnations, yet often fitted with similar sized (in cc terms) engines plus higher first and reverse gears to boot, and no matter how many turbos or other fantastic bits they bolt on to get more blood from the stone, its still a 1.3 1.6 or 2.0 litre engine in its most basic form getting drive engaged at what should be stall revs.
Why do we need first gears capable of near enough 40 mph, its there to get the car moving not beat the drag racers at Santa Pod.
Getting back to my previous work, some 4x4's simply cannot climb the really quite kind decks on a modern transporter in normal drive without serious clutch abuse and have to be put in low range to load them, no worse angle than say a 1:5 hill, who and why decided a 4x4 weighing well over 2.5 tons should have the combination of such a weak engine and such high first/reverse gearing, good luck with the clutch on manual versions of that thing when towing its rated 3+ tons.
|
Though taking your point about torque and modern vehicles, in particular but by no means alone Diesels, in my previous work driving car transporters the move to ever more powerful (once up to revs) engines that are actually far too easy to stall and completely gutless at low revs, coupled with too high first and reverse gears have exacerbated this problem no end, in some extreme cases cars being unable to climb the decks at all, how did these things get past typa approval, does TA mean anything?
You describe my common rail diesel perfectly with this. Its a got no torque at idle and I have to turn off the aircon if I come to a stop or I'd have to rev it hard to pull away. I much prefer my older IDI diesel which although having rather a high first gear can pull away on idle by just engaging the clutch.
|
|
|
Though taking your point about torque and modern vehicles, in particular but by no means alone Diesels, in my previous work driving car transporters the move to ever more powerful (once up to revs) engines that are actually far too easy to stall and completely gutless at low revs, coupled with too high first and reverse gears have exacerbated this problem no end, in some extreme cases cars being unable to climb the decks at all, how did these things get past typa approval, does TA mean anything?
Type Approval doesn't impose minimum standards - it imposes consistency.
All my own cars have been medium/large automatics for decades but courtesy cars are usually small manuals - I often find that 1st is too low for a flat start but 2nd is too high
|
Type Approval doesn't impose minimum standards - it imposes consistency.
All my own cars have been medium/large automatics for decades but courtesy cars are usually small manuals - I often find that 1st is too low for a flat start but 2nd is too high
Well it should, some of the lorries, or rather some of the automated manual boxes fitted that i've had the displeasure of being saddled with, i would have abandoned the test after about 30 seconds and suggested they chuck the box in the skip where it belongs had i been a test driver.
Whats the point in consistency when some are things are just unfit.
Yes my car choices, whilst not new by any means, are TC auto every time.
|
Type Approval doesn't impose minimum standards - it imposes consistency.
All my own cars have been medium/large automatics for decades but courtesy cars are usually small manuals - I often find that 1st is too low for a flat start but 2nd is too high
Well it should, some of the lorries, or rather some of the automated manual boxes fitted that i've had the displeasure of being saddled with, i would have abandoned the test after about 30 seconds and suggested they chuck the box in the skip where it belongs had i been a test driver.
Whats the point in consistency when some are things are just unfit.
Yes my car choices, whilst not new by any means, are TC auto every time.
Legislation and regulation is used to impose minimum standards - unfit products usually being shunned in the market place - but of course vehicle fleets are imposed on it's drivers.
|
Legislation and regulation is used to impose minimum standards - unfit products usually being shunned in the market place - but of course vehicle fleets are imposed on it's drivers.
Thats the amusing thing though, they arn't, people just make sure (and this is advised here regualrly) to not own one out of warranty.
Which means the maker isn't in the least bothered if the things cost some poor blighter an arm and leg a few years down the line, the people keeping this business model going are doing their bit.
Ironically whilst being appalling things to have to use in lorry world they are extremely reliable and have proved their worth by not allowing idiot non drivers of which there are legion to do their worse.
The downside being when attached to a vehicle struggling on 10 (optimistic) bhp per ton the last things you need are slooowwwww changes or having to come to a complete halt at a moving junction because the box can't cope and isn't ready or having the vehicle fail a steep sudden hill climb completely due to a combination of unfit box coupled to modern engine, as you rightly say we get no say in the matter.
Not to worry its only me wingeing, another 5 years and i won't care how much electronic unfit tat they stuff in the things.
Edited by gordonbennet on 05/09/2016 at 23:01
|
|
Why do we need first gears capable of near enough 40 mph, its there to get the car moving not beat the drag racers at Santa Pod.
Pah, my vintage car will do 45 in first. And 80 in second. And that's it, only two gears, no reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Until VX have been given reasonable chance to comment and the exact cause of failure has been determined how can anyone with a fair mind even begin to form an opinion?
I tend to leave things like this to the "flaming torch" mobs
Edited by TedCrilly on 05/09/2016 at 11:10
|
Until VX have been given reasonable chance to comment and the exact cause of failure has been determined how can anyone with a fair mind even begin to form an opinion?
I tend to leave things like this to the "flaming torch" mobs
+1
|
Why do we need first gears capable of near enough 40 mph, its there to get the car moving not beat the drag racers at Santa Pod
We had a Mondeo TDCi 130, 2002 vintage. First geat in that was truly pathetic, worst feature of a great car. Pull away with any vigour and all you got was wheelspin. Pull away normally and watch a Citroen Saxo 1.1 leave you for dead. Think it maxed out at about 22 mph at the govenor, pointless. Once into second or above a great car.
My Caterham has a close ratio box fitted, @7000 rpm 1st runs to 45 mph, 2nd 67 mph etc. On the road with a torquey engine the ratios suit a light car perfectly. When I was racing @8400 rpm the Quaiffe box ran to 60 mph in first, 84 in second etc. On the road even in a light car it was hard work with a peaky engine.
There is no simple answer, the ratio's, the engines spread of power, car weight etc all need to be perfectly matched and that is something you rarely find in a road car. I know I mention it on occations but the ratios in my Seat Leon 1.4 TSi are great even with a full load in the car. Match the engine perfectly but it has to be said the fact the engine pulls like a train form 1500 rpm helps.
|
it has to be said the fact the engine pulls like a train form 1500 rpm helps.
Yes that is half the battle won, nothing worse than an engine with nothing up to a certain rev point, often around 2000rpm, then all hell breaks loose for a 1500rpm rev band if you're lucky
which brings us neatly to Mondeo (again), we had a Mondeo pool car with whatever would be the Diesel of its time, exactly as you say either you gave it some welly and it went off like a scalded cat scrabbling for grip with the exhaust smoking like a train then ran out of revs 2 seconds later...or you didn't give it a bootful of welly and it stalled straight out, horrible horrible thing to drive, would probably have been quite acceptable with a TC autobox for point and squirt technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
