|
To braindead and petel, Thanks guys for the info and advice. Think maybe finding a good local specialist is the order of the day after this little incident. Merry Christmas to you both.
|
|
I have a 2000 Corsa 1.8 to look at this week. It has a straightforward ignition problem (intermittant misfire). Its been brought to me by the owner who's just collected it from the Vauxhall dealer. They charged him £270+VAT for a new MAF sensor and unsurprisingly it didn't cure the fault. Unfortunately its very difficult to get money back in cases like these - the dealer is win-win every time.
|
Kathy - what area of the country are you in?
If you let us know the general area then someone here will probably be able to recommend a good independent or an auto electrician to you.
It is mad to use a Main Agent as their prices have to maintain their glass and aluminium palaces...
I had this sort of problem with my company Vauxhall Vectra. Garage just wanted to keep changing bits until the problem went away. What you need is someone who can make a proper diagnosis not someone who wants to change everything.
May I suggest before committing to the Main Dealer replacing any other bits at extortionate prices you ask them to read and advise the code faults they have found and then ask on here what the meaning is.
If they offer to supply and fit a replacement item ask if it will definitely cure the problem and if they will not commit themselves , walk away.
|
helicopter, thanks for your reply. The only reason I am going back to the main dealer this time is because its an ongoing problem that was supposed to have been rectified in September. I'm now armed with a bit more confidence when the car goes in tomorrow.
Live in the Warwickshire area so if anyone does know of a reliable auto electrician for future use I would be grateful.
Kathy
|
Kathy, if you look in Directories on this site ( top left ) you will find a list of recommended garages in your area for possible future use.
Let us know what happens with your main dealer.
|
Right guys you are not going to believe what they told me.
The problem was the crank shaft sensor which needed replacing. P0335. When I queried this with the guy and told him that was the code that came up in September, why wasn't it replaced then when you replaced the ECU? He said 'Any random spike can cause the ECU to breakdown and as it was only random it didn't mean the crank shaft sensor needed replacing' I told him this sounded untrue - {swearing edit by DD} and a bit of a coincidence that this sensor is now actually faulty and needs replacing. Just kept repeating it was a random spike. The cost of this is another £230. I hit the roof so they 'kindly' knocked £50 off the bill. Whoopee!! Pardon me if I don't get excited. Surely if they had changed the sensor initially in September I wouldn't now be faced with this bill, which also includes yet another diagnostic test cost. To rectify this problem has cost me in total £778.
When I collect my car tomorrow and hand over the money that is the last penny the Vauxhall dealer will get out of me.
Thanks to you all for the advice - I shall be checking out the Directory for alternative garages for future use.
|
|
On the basis of what you've told us this is a straighforward rip-off (or incompetence). I would ask them to refund the money for the new ECU. If they refuse then consider taking them to small claims court for a refund. How a code for crank sensor translates to new ECU is crazy, especially as crank sensor fault is fairly common and they should be familiar with the fault. 'Random spikes' is just a smokescreen to try to confuse you.
|
|
Thanks for the advice Aprilia. Don't think I'm going to get anywhere as I can't prove anythingand they're not going to admit to incompetence. As they keep records of repairs I've asked for a printout of all the work carried out over the years. Don't know what I'm going to do with it, except weep buckets. Ah well, you live and learn. Going to have another go tomorrow anyway. lol. Thanks again.
|
Kathy
The proof shouldn't be too difficult; they've hung themselves. The new ECU - even loaded with the latest software - simply didn't fix the problem and their own notes prove that the, blatantly obvious, crank sensor code should have been - but wasn't - followed up. Ask them to explain - in writing - the exact basis for their decision to change the ECU.
Sometimes, changing the most likely part is the only conceivable option; but you have to have a clear, logical, reason to do it. Swapping an expensive ECU, without a shred of evidence to back such a wild stab in the dark, won't stand up for a moment in a Small Claims court - and they know it. They won't waste their money defending such a clumsy attempt at a blatant rip-off; after a bit of blustering, they'll pay up. Usefully; SCCs nearly always back the victim.
Ignore "crank sensor spikes" - random or otherwise - they simply don't exist. That's just a desk-jockey's dreamt-up bullshine. [This is someone who clearly doesn't know a watt from an ohm.] Try getting some advice from Trading Standards; the CAB; or a motoring organization - if you're a member.
|
Any decent garage when they had the crank sensor fault code in front of them would have cleared it & taken the car for a run to see if it reappeared again with that same fault again
If the fault didn't re-show itself then give it back to the customer with a small charge for extracting fault / putting light out & ask them to bring it back should the light come on again & go from there with a new crank sensor.
ECU's hardly ever go worng, only ever seen them killed by damage or abuse.
|
|
Right guys I'm really fired up to get this sorted (not normally like me!!). I'm going to ask them to give me a written explanation as to why I have had to fork out all this money for this repair (probably to finance their Christmas knees up) and if necessary go to Trading Standards - threaten them with small claims court while I'm at it. Will keep you posted. Thanks again.
|
Kathy
They'll have doubtless heard irate customers threaten to take them to court before; so, to really show that you mean business, smile sweetly and ask them to give you - in writing - the address of company's registered office and the "address for service" [of a Small Claims writ.]
Provision of these details are a requirement of Companies House legislation and they cannot refuse. Expect ant-hill style confusion to reign and appearance of florid shirt-sleeved "suit" from back office....
Just say nothing and keep smiling - scares the hell out of them....
|
Good for you, give them Hell, there is far too much of this sort of thing going on.
Rgds.
|
How awful. I wish you luck and by the sounds of it you should win your case easily.
A lot of garages take the 'michael' and most customers are either none the wiser or simply give up in desparation. Persistance is the key and armed with all your evidence I can't see how you can fail.
I love the internet! Power to the people! [remember Citizen Smith?]
|
I always go on the defensive when I hear 'it's the ECU'. They rarely give trouble and sometimes are changed by garages who have basically given up on anything else. Hence why I asked the question in this thread: www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=47...6
I suspect changing an ECU and loading its associated software is quite a nicer earner...
In this case it may be a genuine mistake but either way you are entitled to some pay back IMO.
|
|
Thanks everyone. I've printed off all your messages to remind myself of the amount of support I've got. Going down there in about half hour whether car's ready or not and let them know the route I intend taking if I don't get some satisfaction. Power to the People! lol
|
Just got back from the dealer. Bit of a result. The initial bill yesterday of £230 was reduced to £180 yesterday afternoon. This morning 'as a gesture of goodwill' (more like a gesture of incompetence), the bill has been further reduced by another £75.
Spoke to the Service Manager and told him that I'm not happy about paying £778 for a job that really should have been a fraction of that cost. Asked why the crank shaft sensor wasn't done rather than the ECU. To cut a long story short he conceded that it did indeed sound suspicious that the 'random spike' (for want of a better phrase) initially was the crank shaft sensor and now the crank shaft sensor actually needs replacing and virtually admitted that they should have changed the faulty crank sensor first to see if this cured the problem. Also, which I find a bit strange, he said he's never heard of ECU's being repaired? I was more than happy to quote you guys. He then said we at Vauxhall don't repair, they replace, as you guys confirmed. I asked him why, IF the ECU was the fault, why didn't you give me the option of taking it elsewhere for the repair? No reply.
I told him that I would be writing to the dealership (and Vauxhall) setting out the route that I intended to take (small claims) if a refund for a new ECU was not forthcoming. He said he will be looking at the work card and if they find a 'mistake' they will indeed refund the money, although it might be difficult to prove. At this point I came in with the 'giving the customer the option of having the ECU repaired elsewhere' speech and 'doing the route of replacing crank shaft sensor first' He finished by saying it may not come to going through the small claims. So fingers crossed.
What's scarey is that if I hadn't been told about this website, this morning I would have handed over another £230 instead of £105, so even if nothing else is gained I've saved £125. You guys would have been proud of me this morning, I'm sure. A great big THANK YOU to everyone for the advice, giving me the confidence to do something about it and the messages of support.
I will of course keep you updated as and when anything occurs.
|
Result! - Keep going it sounds like you may get a refund for the work they didn't need to do.
I have to say this foum is one of the best places I have ever come to for advice - my thanks to all on here also.
|
Sounds promising Kathy. Far too much 'replace the ECU because we really don't know what else to do and it will earn us a few bob' going on these days, instead of the proper systematic diagnosis of old.
Good luck, and keep us updated as promised. Welcome to the forum by the way!
|
Well done Kathy - Good for you - Girl Power rules!
Sounds as though you may get a result.
I'd love to have been there to see his face.
Seriously, this sort of Main Dealer rip off is all too common so keep us informed as to what happens -
|
Kathy
Well done: you've made us all very proud of you!
A very promising start; now that you've got them on the run, keep the pressure on and you could well have a real result here.
|
|
A new ECU translates into much needed help for the Service and Parts Managers meeting their targets. When these guys are under pressure it must be very tempting to railroad a customer (especially one who doesn't appear knowledgable) into expensive repairs and I guess most cough-up without a murmur.
|
|
Well done Kathy, give them stick !
|
Morning all, As I told you yesterday I got copies of the invoices of the work carried out on my car over the last few years. Last night I briefly had a look through them. Last November when the car went in for its service and MOT they also had to free the off brake load valve as it was seized. I can't remember if this was a symptom I noticed when I was driving or something the service/mot revealed. Anway I was reminded of the reason they gave me for it seizing - please don't laugh - Mechanic: "Do you have many passengers in the back?" Me: "No not really." Mechanic: Ah, well that's the problem." Me: "Right, OK then," making a quick mental note to make heaps more friends and ferry them around in my car to stop the off brake load valve seizing again. I've had camping equipment, garden rubbish etc., in the back, but not, apparently, enough passengers. Is this a girlie thing to believe what he told me or is it plausible?
(Please bear in mind I was having a new radiator fitted a few weeks ago and was directing the engineer to a gas pipe that I thought would be handy for heating the radiator, rather than a water pipe (cringe!) - so the mechanics and understanding of such things go way over my head) Thought I'd give you a laugh! lol.
One other thing, before I get off to work. The wording on this last invoice reads 'found fault code P0335 CRANKSHAFT FAULT MALFUNCTION'. The invoice in September reads 't/code P0335 not present' Does this mean one in the same or are they covering their backs by saying it is a malfunction? I shall be putting my letter together this evening and I don't want to threaten them with all sorts if the evidence doesn't stack up in my favour.
Have a good day guys.
|
hey kathy , glad you're getting somewhere with the car
the tale about passengers in the back does have some truth to it, its a valave that moves to ajust the rear brakes when you have a full load...so what he's saying is a car full of passengers amy have kept it free
i hope you are going to find a trustworthy garage now, think of the money you will save!
|
|
Thanks Steve. Phew! I'm not completely gullible then, but why I believed him I have no idea lol
|
Kathy
Just to clarify the code-status issue. A stored fault-code can be marked in two different states. "Present;" the fault is logged and is still happening right now and, "not present" - the fault isn't happening at the moment; but it has occurred, at least once, since the fault-memory was last cleared.
They don't seem to say whether the code was still "present" or "not present" at the second visit. The fact that it returned at all clearly shows that it wasn't correctly dealt with the first time.
This, in a nutshell, is your case. They have admitted [in writing, on the first invoice] that the P0335 code was there, stored in a "not present" state. They manifestly failed to action that fault-code correctly. Any "reasonably competant person" should have known to first test the signal from the sensor and, if found necessary, replace only that component. Their technician's failure to carry-out a simple diagnostic procedure has directly led to you incurring a "financial loss" [the replacement of a perfectly sound ECU - without a shred of evidence that it was faulty.] They have proved it by replacing the doubtful component [the sensor] and successfully curing the fault.
Their error - their cost.
|
Thanks for the response Screwloose. I now have a clearer understanding of the sensor fault and am 100% sure of their incompetence. This has just made me even more determined to see it through to the end.
Wrote the letter to the dealership - one to the Service Manager, copy to the Managing Director of the dealership (both hand delivered) and just for good measure have sent one to Vauxhall Customer Care at Luton. (Totalled up the invoices last night and since May 2005 - including a service and MOT last November - have spent over £2100 on the car for repairs at Vauxhall). Don't suppose I'll hear anything back until after the New Year now but will let you all know what happens.
Have a great Christmas all
X
|
Update. Have today received a telephone call from the Managing Director of the Vauxhall dealership. Said it was just a courtesy call to let me know that he had received my letter and as soon as the Service Manager returns from holiday in the new year they will be looking into my complaint as he agrees that it seems rather strange the ECU was replaced. Now I'm not counting my chickens because they could just as easily put their heads together and come up with a plausible explanation as to why it was replaced. On the positive side the service manager has said it looks suspicious and the managing director has all but admitted it looks suspicious. Will keep you posted.
Hope you all had a great Christmas!
|
|
Update 2. I have just received a telephone call from the Vauxhall Care Centre to say they had been in touch, this morning, with the Managing Director of the Vauxhall dealership (hence the call from them earlier, I suppose) regarding my complaint. Told her I'd received a courtesy call from him. She said she was pleased he'd contacted me and promised me that it would be investigated and everything will be sorted and if we have any further problems or are not happy with anything to contact her. So far, so good. And well done Vauxhall Care Centre, only posted their letter yesterday - on the ball I think!
|
Finally received a hand delivered letter from the local Vauxhall delaership (another saga!). They have said that the 2 faults on the care are "completely unrelated and stand by the repair process...." Unfortunately I am unable to decipher what they mean so can I call upon your expertise to help me out. Extracts from the letter as follows:
"Based on the documentation we have, our diagnoses was correct in replacing the engine ECU on 12 September 2006 as the Tech 2 and protocol process showed code P0335 which diagnosed defective component A5 control unit. (see attached sheet 1)" This is a screen printout which reads as follows:
P0335 Crankshaft Position
Defective component: A5 Control Unit - Motronic (which they have highlighted with a pen)
Important: Reset concerned control unit (engine or immobiliser control unit) with diagnostic tester before replacing. Select immobiliser in the diagnostic tester and call up the corresponding test in the menu ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS. Ensure that both control units are never reset and replaced at the same time.
Thing is how can I be sure they followed the above instructions anyway?
The letter continues:
"The vehicle performed satisfactorily we believe until 20 December when you brought the vehicle back into us with the engine management light on again. We gather you had the same characteristics as before but on carrying out further tests, these tests diagnosed a different fault related to the same trouble code number (P0335). The fix on this occasion was not related to the original repair in September, this time the diagnosed defective component was B34 impulse sensor crankshaft. (see sheet 2)" Again a screen printout which reads as follows:
P0335 Crankshaft Position
Short circuit to ground between: A5 control unit - Motronic.
Siring harness connector (woring harness side) terminal 10 (X47) and
B34 Impulse sensor - crankshaft
Wiring harness connector (wiring harness side) terminal 1
or
A5 control unit - Motronic
Wiring harness connector (wiring harness side (terminal 42 (X47) and
B34 Impluse sensor - crankshaft
Wiring harness connector (wiring harness side (terminal 2)
OR
Defective component: B34 Impulse sensor - crankshaft (which they have highlighted with a pen)
If someone could compare what was on my original invoice (which is in my first post, I think) and what they have printed out I would be grateful.
Sorry this is a long post. All my initial enthusiasm for getting this sorted is flagging somewhat. Either they're being too technical and trying to throw me off the scent or I'm being too 'girlie' and just don't understand. Please bear in mind they reduced the cost of the second repair by 55.5%. Why? If they had nothing to hide with the first repair why such a big reduction? Thanks guys
|
Kathy
Quite simple really; the second Tech 2 printout is totally plausible and is a real one - the first is a concocted fake. P0335 is never for anything else other than the crank sensor.
They should be thorougly ashamed of themselves for trying such a ridiculous scam!!!
|
|
Thank you so much, Screwloose. So in a nutshell they are 'manufacturing' evidence to make it look as if the original fault was the ECU? I can't believe a major dealership would go to such lengths, or maybe I'm just naive. I think my next step is another letter asking them to reimburse the cost of an ECU. Failing that the small claims court. Thanks again.
|
>>They should be thorougly ashamed of themselves for trying such a ridiculous scam!!!
I tend to agree.
Vauxhall checking procedures, and their sucessors, checking protocols, always make you check the whole circuit before condemning an ECU. This is certainly true for the crank sensor - you have to
check the sensor resistance
check the wiring between the ECU and the sensor
check the alternating voltage while the engine is running
After all that has been checked as OK, then you can get o the point of considering an ECU.
This is how it should be - fitting an expensive part should only be done after the cheap and easy bits have been looked at.
Number_Cruncher
|
The protocol correctly leading to a replacement ECU should look a bit like this one below;
General
Date:Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Dealer:
Customer:
Customer Complaint:
Additional Information:
Base Vehicle:5-MT | 2000 | AGILA | Vauxhall | Z 12 XE
Electronic System to be tested:Motronic ME1.5.5, Z 12 XE
Vehicle Configuration / Installed Equipment:
Performed Diagnostic Tests
A Diagnostic System Check
T01 Checking Procedure Validity
Yes
T02 Customer Complaint Validation
Yes
T03 System Operation as Designed
No
T05 Preliminary Diagnostic Check (Visual Inspection)
Yes
T06 Connect Diagnostic Tester and Establish Communication
Yes
T07 Diagnostic Trouble Codes
Refer to test step
B-01 DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE CODE
DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE CODE
P0335 Crankshaft position sensor "A" circuit high input
Refer to table
C-04 Crankshaft Sensor Circuit
T01 Check: Short to Voltage of Signal Circuit
Yes, 0.2
T02 Check: Short to Ground of Signal Circuit
Yes, 600K
T03 Check: Short Circuit in Wiring Harness
Yes, 600K
T04 Check: Interruption of Signal Circuit
Yes, 800
T05 Check: Component
Yes, 1.5
E01 Result: Defective Component
Yes
A Diagnostic System Check
T07 Diagnostic Trouble Codes
Number_Cruncher
|
Thanks Number_Cruncher. All this will hopefully go a long way to proving my point that the ECU did not need to be replaced.
You guys have fired me up again. Thanks.
|
" I can't believe a major dealership would go to such lengths "
You can now.
Rgds.
|
|
I'm stupid and naive, Petel. I daren't even think about the £2100 I've spent on repairs since May 2005.
|
I meant no critisism of you Kathy, this is a lesson that we all learn, just some sooner than others.
Rgds.
|
|
No offence taken Petel. Its great to get the support on here. Hopefully my experience will help others. Thank you for posting. X
|
|
