Hi Folks,

My mother owns a 54 plate KIA Picanto 1.1LX.

The fiasco of the well documented crankshaft pulley bolt failure, in our experience, goes back as far as 2008, when I read an article that described the manufacturing defect and the KIA “campaign” to inspect and/or replace the crankshaft pulley assembly if necessary.

After reading the article, I contacted the supplying dealer (Fisken KIA- Forfar) and was advised, over the phone, that they did not know of the problem. They checked their database to see if my mother’s car was affected. The response was that SP54 UJG was not listed or affected. Not being entirely convinced by this answer, particularly after reading numerous articles to the contrary on the internet, I telephoned a second dealer (Ken Hope - Kelso) to ask their opinion. Once again, I was assured that the Picanto was a very reliable car and they had no knowledge of the crankshaft pulley bolt problem or any recall/campaign. On the assumption that two official KIA dealers must have the correct information on file we both believed that crankshaft pulley bolt failure was not going to be a problem.

In September 2011, my mother complained that her car was starting to lose power, e.g. struggling when going up hills, was not idling smoothly and had a slightly different engine note. I immediately made contact with KIA Customer Service to verify the situation with the crankshaft pulley bolt failure. Initial contact with KIA was very positive, the representatives were very friendly and sounded genuinely concerned about the issues that were reported and it was recommended that the car was booked into the local KIA Dealer (Belmont - Selkirk) for diagnosis ASAP. This was all handled with complete courtesy and professionalism.

The car was presented to Belmont – KIA, specifically for suspected crankshaft pulley bolt failure and while waiting at the dealer, I observed the car being revved up whilst connected to a diagnostic machine. I had expected to see the car up on a ramp for the technician to verify the torque setting of the pulley bolt? The car was returned at the end of the day with the observation that the spark plugs may have been slightly worn and the gaps adjusted accordingly. I was advised that if the problem continued, they would require the car to be left for the whole day, rather than just a single afternoon. The dealer also advised that the car chassis number did not fall within the range of cars affected by the crankshaft pulley bolt failure. I asked for verification that the car could not be affected by the crankshaft pulley bolt failure and was again assured that the car was not one of the vehicles affected.

Driving the car home from the dealer, power felt even lower than when I drove it in for the inspection. The following day, I contacted KIA Customer Service and asked to speak with Abbey (one of my earlier points of contact). I explained what had occurred and said that I’d really like to know if they had physically checked the pulley bolt. Abbey advised that she would call back the following day after speaking to the dealer. This did not happen. The following week, I finally spoke with Abbey and she advised me to take this matter up with the dealer for verification.

I immediately took the car into the dealer and asked to speak with the service department. It was confirmed that the crankshaft pulley bolt was not inspected as it was not deemed to be possible based on the dealer information received from KIA. That is to say that SP54UJG fell out-with a range of chassis numbers deemed (by KIA) to be affected by Crankshaft Pulley Bolt Failure.

The service manager (Neil) asked what I would like him to do about the problem. I suggested that the torque setting of the crankshaft pulley bolt should be checked by default, as that was the original concern when the car was brought in for inspection during the previous week. I explained that the symptoms and diagnosis of the problem at the dealers was identical to the cases I’d read about on the internet – on cars where the pulley bolt had failed, often with catastrophic engine damage following incorrect or incomplete diagnosis by KIA representatives or agents.

The dealer intended to book the car in for inspection some 2.5 weeks later but fortunately the KIA Master Technician was available and he understood the gravity of the problem. He explained that had heard “a lot of chat” regarding the known factory manufacturing problem via other KIA Technicians. He advised that the car needed to be inspected properly, as soon as possible.

The car was booked in on the Thursday morning (two days later) and by early afternoon the diagnosis was received that the crankshaft pulley bolt had failed and the pulley was loose! Further investigation would be required to verify the extent of damage caused to the end of the crankshaft.

Up until the diagnosis of the crankshaft pulley bolt failure was received, it has to be recorded that KIA Customer service was superb. Talk of goodwill repairs gave confidence that the matter would rightly be taken care of by KIA.

Once it was established that KIA were at fault, the tone changed and there was no certainty that KIA were obliged to pay for any labour charges to replace the defective KIA parts that caused the problem. It was implied that if the car had a full KIA dealer service history this would be taken into consideration for full costs to be covered due to customer loyalty. The fact that the pulley bolt was not a service item is a moot point. I also understand that there should be no discrimination for using independent service outlets.

Another aspect of this fiasco that really concerns me has been the lack of knowledge of the crankshaft pulley bolt problem shown by the KIA dealers. Even the information that they have received from KIA has been lacking or incorrect.

During my last phone call to KIA Customer service, I was advised that the problem is no longer deemed to be simply affecting a specific range of chassis numbers. The consumers were aware of this situation long before KIA, based on the internet reports and personal experience.

The car waited in limbo at the dealers for some three weeks while KIA UK made a decision for the repairs.

The Sale of Goods Act records that goods must have durability to last the expected lifetime for that type of product. It should remain free from faults which can be attributable to the design or manufacture of that product assuming it has been used correctly.

It is down to the manufacturer or retailer to prove that any faults are NOT down to an inherent defect. As verified by the KIA agent (Belmont KIA – Selkirk) the cause of the problem with our vehicle was Crankshaft Pulley Bolt failure.

In this scenario, it was a known inherent manufacturing defect that caused the problem and as such, the remedy under the Sale of Goods Act is that the product must then be repaired within an acceptable timeframe without charge, or replaced, or refunded.

The current situation is that KIA has paid for the parts to repair the car and my mother has paid the labour costs.

I've already written to KIA UK to ask for a refund of the labour costs as I see it as being their responsibilty.

KIA UK have replied and consider that the car only came with a three year warranty and therefor deny any responsibility for the cost of the repairs and consider that by paying for the parts as a "goodwill repair" that's the end of the matter.

I have previously explained to KIA UK that I am not asking for a refund ofl labour costs based on any implied or expired warranty, I have cited the sale of goods act and the remedy under the act.

Any advice or action that anyone can suggest?

This is not a one off situation - scores of people are affected by this problem -some have had the problem taken care of buy many have paid for the full cost of repairs including parts.

Edited by gtd2000 on 19/12/2011 at 19:07