Just because something is new does not mean it is not, or cannot be, faulty. If this were the case, OEMs would have no need to ever offer any warranty and the SOGA would be completely wasted Parliamentary time.
In my previous life as an Automotive R&D Engineer, I have spent a few years in the warranty recovery department of a large Midlands manufacturer. I used to see pallet loads of returned turbos in the warehouse awaiting testing. As it happens, a significant proportion had no fault (dealer misdiagnosis), but a fair proportion were faulty in some way.
Sounds to me like you've an open and shut case. But the question must also be asked about what is the fault with the new turbo and why? Fitting a new turbo is all very well, but were any peripheral actions required that were not carried out? For example, if the original failed due to oil starvation to the bearings, then the cause of the starvation needs to be remedied or else the new turbo would suffer the same fate.
It seems to me that if this does go to County Court, you'll need more info than just "the turbo was not working".
|