[alfieblack]

Basically guys I purchased an RAC Warranty when I bought my 147. The only condition of the warranty (£130 per annum) was that the car was serviced within the last 6 months or if not, to be serviced within 2 weeks of the warranty being taken out. Which I did.

The big end went after 700 miles.

The RAC have claimed, on the advise of an idependant engineer, that this is due to it being run on low or poor oil over the last 700 miles and will not pay out the warranty for repairs. This is not true.

West Sussex Alfa inspected it for me at 87058 before I purchased the car and did not note any concerns over the oil levels or quality (in writing), I personally inspected on several occasions, and it was serviced at 87510 at Alfa Tecnico (200 miles prior to failure). It also has a full service history and was serviced 11,000 miles prior.

Upon break down, the RAC engineer noted the oil level was fine, as did the garage it was towed to at 87715 miles. It was then towed back to Alfa Tecnico, Lewis states that the oil levels were fine and was the quality.

I therefore hope to prove that there has been no neglect over the period the engineer has claimed. Any advise? What else can be the cause?

Ive got a report from the person who inspected the car at 700 miles prior to failure, report from ALfa Tecnico 200 miles prior to failure and also Alfa Technico and the RAC breakdown engineer at breakdown milage. Im planning to get an Alfa Specialist to compile a report to draw these facts together to dismiss the RAC claim.

The report from the RAC engineer states -

Inspection Date: 16-8-2011
Inspection Time: 15:00
Inspection Mileage: 87715

Service history:
No service book with the vehicle.
Last service from repairer on 02.08.11 @ 87510 miles.


Condition of vehicle prior to inspection:
Generally in good condition, parked in front of the workshop with the engine removed.

Repairer comments and general observations:
We were advised by Lewis the vehicle was recovered to their premises by the RAC with
abnormal engine knock.

The RAC patrol advised there was adequate oil in the engine.

Inspection findings:
On arrival at the repairers the engineer was escorted to the vehicle.

A visual inspection took place, the engineers observations were thus:
The engine had been removed from the vehicle and had been partially dismantled with the
removal of the cylinder head, sump and number 3 piston with connecting rod.
Extensive damage was evident to the crankshaft big end journal on number 3 cylinder.
Extensive damage/wear was evident to the corresponding big end bearing shells, one half of
the bearing had turned over.

The bearing shells had turned within the connecting rod.

Impact damage is evident to the piston crown indicating impact to the cylinder head
combustion chamber resulting from the wear/movement of the big end bearing shells.

Number 2 big end bearing cap was removed to inspect the bearing shells, these were found
be undamaged with no indication of abnormal wear other than debris damage.
The oil pump strainer was clear from any blockage.

The internal parts and surfaces of the engine are generally stained and discoloured due to
prolonged operation with poor quality and depleted oil level.

Recommendation & conclusion:
In the engineer's opinion, being based on evidence written reported and observed during this
assessment of the above vehicles engine, the following can be concluded:

Excessive damage/wear was evident to number 3 cylinder big end bearing shells, crankshaft
journal and connecting rod.

The damage/wear is restricted to only one cylinder.

This is indicative of the engine running short of oil at some time in the past.

There has been metal to metal contact between the big end bearings and crankshaft journal
resulting in wear due to high temperature culminating in eventual failure of the bearings.

The usual cause of this type of occurrence is a failure to ensure an adequate quantity of
lubricating engine oil within the engine sump. The oil swills around in service/engine operation
within the confines of the sump baffles (due to vehicle motion, braking, cornering etc) and if theoil level is too low, due to depletion, a sudden temporary loss of oil pick up can occur and the oil pump and pick up scavenges for oil. The oil becomes cavitated (i.e. the pressurised oil is interrupted with air which has been drawn in). The air causing a momentary lack of correctlubrication pressure coating on the bearing surfaces, which instantly causes scoring/pick up to occur. Repeated engine revolution/operation then causes the bearing surface to be worn way quickly resulting in bearing free play and further over heating and damage. The low oil level can cause the oil to burn /boil slightly and cause localised over heating generally, again effecting the oil lubrication and cooling characteristics.

The bearings are quickly damaged by running dry of oil, friction increase and temperature
increase occurs and then total failure occurs. This can take place in matter of seconds and
sometimes before the vehicle oil pressure warning devise is activated, as in this case.

We would conclude therefore that a lack of adequate oil supply/level in the engine has causedthe above-described damage. There was no evidence of a mechanical defect.
This type of damage can be avoided by a driver checking the oil level at very regular intervalsand topping up accordingly.

In all probabilities this has occurred within the last 700 miles.

 

[hdseven]

i know ur angry mate but what point are u disputing?
the report seems in order, big ends normaly go through lack of oil etc...... no sign of other damage leads to only conclusion that oil was too low?

:0(

Gary

 

[trashbat]

Prior to my ownership, I've got two job sheets from Alfa.

One is at 54k where the cambelt snapped, but it also says the owner had run it low on oil.

The other is at 61k where the MOT/pre-sale service found an engine rattle so they replaced the big ends.

Obviously I don't know the full story, but my point is that it could be quite some time before failure to maintain oil level manifests itself as a problem. I think that 700 mile figure is nonsense, but it could well be that the previous owner didn't look after it.

Did originally obtaining the warranty cover require any kind of inspection?

I'm not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination, but otherwise what the report says sounds correct - just a question of when.

 

[alfanano]

The last line of the report has to be a wild guess - how on earth can he say "In all probability" this occurred in the last 700 miles. There is every chance it happened before that - it was probably damaged before you bought it. I know it’s a technicality but it might suggest the engineer isn't all that independent.

 

[hdseven]

The last line of the report has to be a wild guess - how on earth can he say "In all probability" this occurred in the last 700 miles. There is every chance it happened before that - it was probably damaged before you bought it. I know it’s a technicality but it might suggest the engineer isn't all that independent.

he is looking at it from a point of how long the warranty as been running isnt he.........unless i read it wrong, so he is saying it as occured during the warranty period, if so thats "fact"

what the engineer as said is its lack of oil........which is what kills big ends....again "fact"

hope it dont sound like in a bringer of doom but it does all seem correct unfortunatly

 

[hdseven]

alfieblack

this bit ..........
"Upon break down, the RAC engineer noted the oil level was fine, as did the garage it was towed to at 87715 miles. It was then towed back to Alfa Tecnico, Lewis states that the oil levels were fine and was the quality."
unfortunatly means little as they will say you could have topped up the knocking engine

these people will go a long way to not pay out...........what your gonna have to do is show or prove what made the big end go, apart from lack of oil, which is neglect and not covered

 

[alfanano]

he is looking at it from a point of how long the warranty as been running isnt he.........unless i read it wrong, so he is saying it as occured during the warranty period, if so thats "fact"

what the engineer as said is its lack of oil........which is what kills big ends....again "fact"

hope it dont sound like in a bringer of doom but it does all seem correct unfortunatly

I'm reading it as the inspector saying the lack of oil occurred in the last 700 miles. How does he know? It could have run short of oil 1000 miles before the failure - ie before the OP bought it!

The failure definitely occurred in the warranty period and was definitely caused by lack of oil at some point in the past. Isn't this a reason why you buy a warranty? To cover you for a fault that isn't apparent when you buy the car?

I don't think the OP will get anywhere with this even though there is a good chance the car was already damaged when the insurance company happily sold him a policy - but I'd like to see him have a go!

 

[Dave Brand]

From what I've read in previous threads on TS big end failures the symptoms seem consistent with a cambelt breakage at some time in the past.

 

[hdseven]

I'm reading it as the inspector saying the lack of oil occurred in the last 700 miles. How does he know?

beacuse it was inspected before he took the warranty out 700 miles ago, an inspector would have noticed it was knocking its head off !!

so by deduction and logic its happened in the last 700 miles

infact it was in the last service was 200 miles ago so its since then surely............?

Dave pointed out another option but if belts had broken and engine goosed there would be some documentaion ??? or someone as been naughty !!!!
very very naughty infact
it may be worth looking into that.............contact previous owner and ask

 

[alfieblack]

these people will go a long way to not pay out...........what your gonna have to do is show or prove what made the big end go, apart from lack of oil, which is neglect and not covered

Any ideas?

Can a lack of oil prior to the 700 miles cause the damage. Wouldnt the damage be detected by the Alfa Specialist prior to my purchase?

i know ur angry mate but what point are u disputing?
the report seems in order, big ends normaly go through lack of oil etc...... no sign of other damage leads to only conclusion that oil was too low?

At no time of the 700 miles was the oil low. There was no knocking at anytime apart from when the failure happened.

Did originally obtaining the warranty cover require any kind of inspection?

Nope. No inspection was requested.

beacuse it was inspected before he took the warranty out 700 miles ago, an inspector would have noticed it was knocking its head off !!

No noise when purchased (inspected by Alfa Specialist West Sussex Alfa), no knocking after 500 miles (when serviced and inspected by Alfa Specialist Alfa Tecnico) and there was none until the failure.

 

[alfieblack]

Isn't this a reason why you buy a warranty? To cover you for a fault that isn't apparent when you buy the car?

Hopefully I'll be able to prove that I have takebn all reasonable steps to care for the car and I will be able to provide invoices for a full service history. The last oil change being 11k prior by another Alfa Specialist.

 

[alfieblack]

he is looking at it from a point of how long the warranty as been running isnt he.........unless i read it wrong, so he is saying it as occured during the warranty period, if so thats "fact"

The oil did not run low over the previous 700 miles. Its been inpected by numerous engineers over this period as well as myself checking. Upon failure, the oil level was still fine and of good quality as it has been changed 200 miles prior.

 

[rgwm]

There is obviously no dispute that the failure occured in the last 700 miles - however some of the engineer's conclusions seem somewhat peculiar.."The internal parts and surfaces of the engine are generally stained and discoloured due to prolonged operation with poor quality and depleted oil level." - Poor quality oil, maybe.....but how does depleted oil level cause staining and discolouration? And if his point is that this was caused by "prolonged operation with poor quality and depleted oil level." how does this fit with his opinion that this was in the last 700 miles? There is ample evidence of the oil level being checked (and indeed changed) by specialists within that period, and unless they are suggesting that the engine's oil useage was grossly excessive - in the order of 200 miles to the pint - then I can't see how the level could have been low in the OP's tenure. Oil consumption of that level, whilst not unknown on an Alfa, would most likely have been evident to the specialists who checked the vehicle before purchase.

I'd be much more likely to suspect that there was a belt snap in the last couple of 1000 miles, and it was fixed without the big-end shells being changed - I know that there are people on here who say that its not necessary to change the shells after a belt-snap.....but they are wrong!

 

[Pud237]

Any ideas?

Can a lack of oil prior to the 700 miles cause the damage. Wouldnt the damage be detected by the Alfa Specialist prior to my purchase?

Yes, it is possible it was ran out of oil at some point before you bought it, and this is what has caused the initial damage that has lead to failure. The damage wouldn't be detectable without removing the sump and inspecting the big end bearings, so it wouldn't be picked up on a service unless it was showing symptoms, like a knocking noise, or a slight 'growl' at certain rpms.

No noise when purchased (inspected by Alfa Specialist West Sussex Alfa), no knocking after 500 miles (when serviced and inspected by Alfa Specialist Alfa Tecnico) and there was none until the failure.

Hopefully the warranty company will back down before you take them to court. But I think they are probably correct in the overall diagnosis of low oil or poor quality oil causing the failure. But perhaps not necessarily in the last 700 miles, its hard to say how long it would take for a damaged big end bearing to make itself known. Whether you are covered or not comes down to their Ts & Cs, and whether the law says they have prove beyond doubt that it is caused by oil starvation or whether it is down to you to prove it was caused by something else.

 

[symon]

Running on Selenia and changing it every 12k as recommended will result in staining of the inside of the engine. I have had a 156 with a Full Alfa service history, 75k on the clock and the engine internals were as black as a witches cat.

Often big end issues dont show up for a few thousand miles after either it has been run low on oil, or the cambelt has snapped and been repaired.


There are plenty of instances of it happening.

Not sure you will get far with the warranty, the engine damage was already there when you bought the car, although it hadn't made itself obvious by that time.


If you have only had the car 700 miles, you may be better off taking it back to where you bought it, as the car is not fit for purpose.

I think you are covered up until around 6 months after purchase. The dealer may use the warranty as an excuse to try and wriggle out of it, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on according to trading standards law.

 

[alfieblack]

down to you to prove it was caused by something else.

Is there anything else that could have done this apart from previous neglect? Lewis at Alfa Tecnico says the cylinders and shells are smooth and I think he said this rules out any damage caused by contaminated or poor oil.

Looking at the service history, the cam belt did snap and there is no evidence the shells were changed at this time. I guess this is an indicator of the failure and not poor oil levels and quality.

Do you have to change the shells at cam belt damage repair? Is not doing so neglect? Is this information supportive or negative to my claim - should I highlight this?

 

[Pud237]

Is there anything else that could have done this apart from previous neglect? Lewis at Alfa Tecnico says the cylinders and shells are smooth and I think he said this rules out any damage caused by contaminated or poor oil.

Looking at the service history, the cam belt did snap and there is no evidence the shells were changed at this time. I guess this is an indicator of the failure and not poor oil levels and quality.

Do you have to change the shells at cam belt damage repair? Is not doing so neglect? Is this information supportive or negative to my claim - should I highlight this?

In that case failure is probably as likely due to previous damage from cambelt failure than low oil - but either way the damage was done before the warranty was taken out, I'm not sure the RAC will see it any differently and you may have a bit of a fight on your hands.

Most Alfa specialists will always change the big end bearings as a precaution when dealing with a 16v TS engine that has a snapped cambelt. But garages that are not Alfa specialists will not know about this issue of big end bearings failure after a repair from timing belt failure, its not even normal to check the bottom end when repairing a car from a snapped timing belt on other makes/models of car. Its just experience with the 16v TS engine that teaches specialists to do so.

I'm not sure if you should point this out to the RAC..

 

[alfieblack]

Thank you all for your useful responses.

I guess I need to identify other ways that the damage may of occured, away from neglect. If I can present other possibilities, perhaps I can argue that neglect can not be proven.

So..... any ideas? Oil cooler failure?

 

[Pud237]

Thank you all for your useful responses.

I guess I need to identify other ways that the damage may of occured, away from neglect. If I can present other possibilities, perhaps I can argue that neglect can not be proven.

So..... any ideas? Oil cooler failure?

Oil cooler failure would cause a blockage & oil starvation, but it could be prooved or disprooved by inspecting the oil cooler. Or it would fail and allow oil & water to mix, but again there would be evidence of this also.

Has the oil pump been inspected to show it is not worn and providing a lack of oil pressure, or that the pressure release valve on the oil pump is not stuck open? Although in either case it would cause the low oil pressure warning to come on, unless that component is faulty also (and when it is, it usually reports low pressure when there is sufficient pressure, rather than the other way around)

 

[Alexie]

I can't see how a new owner can be held responsible for a failure quite possibly caused by damage that occurred prior to them buying the car. So long as they maintained the car in accordance with the warranty they should be covered regardless of the previous history (this is just one of the risks warranty companies take obviously).

The Engineer's report doesn't make sense to me. Claims there is a general oil problem that caused no. 3 bearing to fail but then states that no. 2 bearing was undamaged. This is nonsense. Not sure I'd trust an "independent" engineer (no doubt selected by RAC) any further than I could throw them (the "within 700 km" comment is just way too convenient for the warranty company to be credible). Did it not occur to this guy that the problem could also simply be caused by a blocked oil way on number 3, did he test for this ?.