Shady Dealer

berrypendel · 15-02-2012 11:51pm

zeteckiller wrote: »

it wouldn't have passed the nct emissions test judging by the state of the engine, plus the engine management light came on which is also a failure point.

p.s. limerick man, please don't attack me for having an opinion.

how do you know?

16-02-2012 12:09am

zeteckiller wrote: »

it wouldn't have passed the nct emissions test judging by the state of the engine, plus the engine management light came on which is also a failure point.
...............

I reckon it might well have passed an emissions test to be honest, I wouldn't be 100% sure that an engine warning light on a petrol is an NCT fail. I actually think it would pass, ABS and airbag warning lights etc are fails as a safety system has gone t1ts up.

zeteckiller · 16-02-2012 12:16am

berrypendel wrote: »

how do you know?
If sn internet thread had weight in court everyone prosecuted would be posting saying they did no know the red light meant stop

in my opinion it wouldn't. i'm a mechanic and i have seen engines in a similar state failing the nct on excessive emissions caused by worn piston rings, worn valve guides etc etc

how do you know that it would pass? are you a mechanic?

i said i don't know if an internet thread has any legal weight. i was only suggesting a possibility.

16-02-2012 12:18am

... I really think your wrong about the engine light being a fail, and I also think a Saab with a knock might well pass an emissions test.

L-M · 16-02-2012 12:19pm

zeteckiller wrote: »

in my opinion it wouldn't. i'm a mechanic and i have seen engines in a similar state failing the nct on excessive emissions caused by worn piston rings, worn valve guides etc etc

how do you know that it would pass? are you a mechanic?

i said i don't know if an internet thread has any legal weight. i was only suggesting a possibility.

The picture of the sump sive that i posted past the Nct a week previous. I think you should just stop posting because you clearly haven't a clue and the advice you're giving the OP is hust confusing them further.

zeteckiller · 16-02-2012 8:30pm

Limerick man wrote: »

The picture of the sump sive that i posted past the Nct a week previous. I think you should just stop posting because you clearly haven't a clue and the advice you're giving the OP is hust confusing them further.

i will stop posting because obviously anybody that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong and to be honest i have far better things to be doing than arguing with people like you. i just gave my opinion based on my experience, if thats not good enough for you, thats your problem.

L-M · 16-02-2012 9:36pm

zeteckiller wrote: »

i will stop posting because obviously anybody that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong and to be honest i have far better things to be doing than arguing with people like you. i just gave my opinion based on my experience, if thats not good enough for you, thats your problem.

You said the car wasn't "roadworthy" because the something is wrong with the engine and that it was illegal for the seller to sell it.

it's not about opinion, that's wrong.

berrypendel · 16-02-2012 10:35pm

how do you know that it would pass? are you a mechanic?

I do not know and am not a mechanic. i did not say it would or would not pass. I never said i knew

i said i don't know if an internet thread has any legal weight. i was only suggesting a possibility.

You said

the ''trade sale'' and ''sold as seen'' on the invoice could be shot down if you didn't know what these terms meant and the dealer didn't explain them to you. judging by your first few posts this seems to be the case and you can use this thread to prove the fact

And I said i did not think an internet thread could be used to prove anything

If you are going to stop posting it is because some of what you post is incorrect and you seem to be upset when you are corrected and not because, as you say

i will stop posting because obviously anybody that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong

berrypendel · 16-02-2012 10:36pm

OP how did you get on?

zeteckiller · 16-02-2012 11:48pm

If you are going to stop posting it is because some of what you post is incorrect and you seem to be upset when you are corrected

i should have said could instead of can

You said the car wasn't "roadworthy" because the something is wrong with the engine and that it was illegal for the seller to sell it.

it's not about opinion, that's wrong.

from the current nct manual, page 5.

Testers may refuse a test in the following circumstances:
(iii) where the vehicle’s engine does not comply with the
preliminary check requirements under Test Item 2.

the checks are listed under the diesel smoke test but they apply equally to petrol vehicles.
item 4 of these checks on page 10 is the engine warning light. item 7 is that the engine is free of obvious defects (unusual noises, oil leaks, misfire, etc )

a tester may refuse to carry out the test for these reasons. if the tester refuses to carry out the test, the vehicle will fail the test and therefore be unroadworthy in my opinion.

i also asked all the other mechanics at work if they thought a car with an eml on would fail the nct, they all said it would.

that's not wrong, that's my interpretation of the guidelines laid out in the nct manual. if you interpret them differently, that's not wrong either.

16-02-2012 11:53pm

zeteckiller wrote: »

..........

the checks are listed under the diesel smoke test but they apply equally to petrol vehicles..........

Just wondering, does the manual say that they apply equally to petrol vehicles or is that your interpretation?

I haven't looked you see and would prefer not to bother.

L-M · 16-02-2012 11:57pm

Buying a car with a check engine light on, or one that develops a few days later, does not make the car unroadworthy.

Unroadworthy is the car being two cars welded together etc. or something relating to the brakes/tyres/steering etc. that would make the car unsafe

Sec 13, par (2) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 provides:

"Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle"

Having a blown engine isn't unsafe, it's just unlucky.

zeteckiller · 17-02-2012 12:08am

RoverJames wrote: »

Just wondering, does the manual say that they apply equally to petrol vehicles or is that your interpretation?
I haven't looked you see and would prefer not to bother.

the manual says.....
Testers may refuse a test in the following circumstances:
(iii) where the vehicle’s engine does not comply with the
preliminary check requirements under Test Item 2.

the manual does not say that it applies to both but neither does it say that it applies to diesels only. there is no checklist specifically for petrol cars only. i have always been told that the rules applied to both and have applied them as such.

17-02-2012 12:15am

zeteckiller wrote: »

the manual says.....
Testers may refuse a test in the following circumstances:
(iii) where the vehicle’s engine does not comply with the
preliminary check requirements under Test Item 2.

the manual does not say that it applies to both but neither does it say that it applies to diesels only. there is no checklist specifically for petrol cars only. i have always been told that the rules applied to both and have applied them as such.

It doesn't say it applies to diesel only but it does say....
"
Preliminary Check before carrying Out Diesel Engine Smoke Test
"

For example "
1 Check with the vehicle owner /presenter that the camshaft belt has been changed at the manufacturer’s
specified interval. Removing the camshaft belt cover is not part of the roadworthiness test" would you apply that to petrols too? The NCT folk don't.
To me that's diesel only

zeteckiller · 17-02-2012 12:29am

RoverJames wrote: »

It doesn't say it applies to diesel only but it does say....
"
Preliminary Check before carrying Out Diesel Engine Smoke Test
"

For example "
1 Check with the vehicle owner /presenter that the camshaft belt has been changed at the manufacturer’s
specified interval. Removing the camshaft belt cover is not part of the roadworthiness test" would you apply that to petrols too? The NCT folk don't.
To me that's diesel only

fair point, but earlier in the manual it says ''the vehicles engine'' no mention of either petrol or diesel. i have always applied the rules to both because i think its good practice to do so. and i don't see why a diesel engine would be subject to a strict set of rules and not a petrol engine. it just doesn't make sense to me.

L-M · 17-02-2012 12:33am

You seem to be ignoring my post.

This thread should be deleted, it's such a muddle of bad information that anyone that reads it would come out 10 times more confused than when they came in.

randy hickey · 17-02-2012 1:10pm

Limerick man wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring my post.

This thread should be deleted, it's such a muddle of bad information that anyone that reads it would come out 10 times more confused than when they came in.

I don't think it would be fair to the OP to delete this thread.I, for one, am very interested in finding out how his problem is resolved.
Perhaps a couple of posts that were in danger of derailing the thread should be deleted, but surely not the whole thread?

Anyways, back on topic; Any update Joeradd?

KamiKazi · 17-02-2012 3:15pm

Some people talking serious bollocks in this thread.

JoeRadd · 21-02-2012 8:56pm

I got a few pictures and a breakdown of whats wrong from the mechanic.

http://imgur.com/a/2gPAf

On startup from cold knocking heard from engine and blue oil smoke from exhaust
While running whine could be heard constantly - this is consistent with a blocked oil pump strainer guaze

Sump removed and found to be very badly coated in carbon deposits
Oil pump strainer almost completely blocked with carbon deposits
Oil in bad condition, a lot of sludge in the bottom of the sump
The oil filter is obviously quite old as there is rusting on the collar of the filter and it is dirty consistent with a long period of time since replacement

Removed big end caps (cyl 3 & 4) to find scoring on both bearings and crankshaft
Removed rocker cover to find, again, heavy carbon deposits in both the cover and around the camshafts
Found play in timing chain - would need replacing

Sludge deposits found in crank case breathers (although modified breather kit was fitted previously)
The engine oil was low, dirty and thick
There is excessive play in the turbocharger shaft and engine oil in the intercooler pipes

Other items:

Check Engine Light was coming on intermittently on initial examination - fault code stored for a failing coil pack
Rear exhaust badly corroded
Front anti-roll bar links needing replacement
Service overdue (no indication of how far overdue, but filters & plugs look very old)
Hard to start when cold on initial examination (possibly down to reduced compression and coil issue combined)

Its seems to be a Giant lemon of a car altogether

dr.fuzzenstein · 21-02-2012 9:34pm

That is shocking alright.
It looks like there's worms in the oil strainer.
That oil looks like it hasn't been changed in years! That car was neglected and thrashed.

JoeRadd · 22-02-2012 1:24am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is shocking alright.
It looks like there's worms in the oil strainer.
That oil looks like it hasn't been changed in years! That car was neglected and thrashed.

To my face they swore the engine was flushed and refilled with new oil!

22-02-2012 3:28pm

Apart from the engine your car does not seem too bad. Unfortunately the B205 and B235 engines fitted in 9-5 until about MY03 do not take well neglect and low quality oil and your's was probably suffering from both. As many people here said second hand engines for these are hard to find. Another typical fault apart from inadequate PCV and resulting sludge blocking the strainer is that oil rings in pistons get stuck in their grooves and cause excessive oil consumption. Garrett GT17 turbos are known to be weak too although most die due to oil starving from the sludge issue.

This is what I'd do if I couldn't find a guaranteed low mile non-neglected engine from MY04+ 9-5. Either buy a fully reconditioned engine (ebay has some to give you an idea of cost) or buy a second hand engine with good crank. Disassemble both of the engines and assemble with the better of the two blocks after honing the cylinders with the better set of the two piston sets with new piston rings and bearings and that good crank. Get the better of the two heads skimmed, valves lapped and decarbonised and assemble with new valve stem seals. Renew the timing chain, sprockets and tensioner. Assemble with new oil seals all around. Fit a good Mitsubishi TD04 turbo from Aero. After that go to ecuproject.com and learn how to tune your car from 150bph to 250bhp with almost no cost.

Parts to rebuild are quite cheap: About 600 EUR for full piston ring set, gasket set and timing chain set from partsforsaabs.com.

PS. I own an oil burning 2.3. Going to do pretty much the above later this year when I have time/funds to do so. IMO a working 9-5 is a damn fine automobile. I have also solved two CELs with an ebay bluetooth diagnostic interface and Android torque very effectively in the past.

JoeRadd · 22-02-2012 5:50pm

samih wrote: »

Apart from the engine your car does not seem too bad. Unfortunately the B205 and B235 engines fitted in 9-5 until about MY03 do not take well neglect and low quality oil and your's was probably suffering from both. As many people here said second hand engines for these are hard to find. Another typical fault apart from inadequate PCV and resulting sludge blocking the strainer is that oil rings in pistons get stuck in their grooves and cause excessive oil consumption. Garrett GT17 turbos are known to be weak too although most die due to oil starving from the sludge issue.

This is what I'd do if I couldn't find a guaranteed low mile non-neglected engine from MY04+ 9-5. Either buy a fully reconditioned engine (ebay has some to give you an idea of cost) or buy a second hand engine with good crank. Disassemble both of the engines and assemble with the better of the two blocks after honing the cylinders with the better set of the two piston sets with new piston rings and bearings and that good crank. Get the better of the two heads skimmed, valves lapped and decarbonised and assemble with new valve stem seals. Renew the timing chain, sprockets and tensioner. Assemble with new oil seals all around. Fit a good Mitsubishi TD04 turbo from Aero. After that go to ecuproject.com and learn how to tune your car from 150bph to 250bhp with almost no cost.

Parts to rebuild are quite cheap: About 600 EUR for full piston ring set, gasket set and timing chain set from partsforsaabs.com.

PS. I own an oil burning 2.3. Going to do pretty much the above later this year when I have time/funds to do so. IMO a working 9-5 is a damn fine automobile. I have also solved two CELs with an ebay bluetooth diagnostic interface and Android torque very effectively in the past.

I would absolutely love to do this, nothing interests me more than learning how to fix cars, unfortunately i don't have the funds for this kind of project, i paid less than 2000 for this car and i wouldn't want to spend the same again sorting it out, i was genuinely taken in by these guys, i didn't know what to look for and they made so many claims which turned out to be complete lies.

Honestly it was a really comfortable and and smooth car (didn't like the clutch) i would buy another, but not without a full service history and a mechanics eye over it.

L-M · 22-02-2012 6:25pm

JoeRadd wrote: »

I would absolutely love to do this, nothing interests me more than learning how to fix cars, unfortunately i don't have the funds for this kind of project, i paid less than 2000 for this car and i wouldn't want to spend the same again sorting it out, i was genuinely taken in by these guys, i didn't know what to look for and they made so many claims which turned out to be complete lies.

Honestly it was a really comfortable and and smooth car (didn't like the clutch) i would buy another, but not without a full service history and a mechanics eye over it.

You have to realise this happens everyone of them. i knew of a 03 2.3 with 64k miles and a full service history and it was the same story!

delthedriver · 17-08-2012 1:56pm

What was the final outcome in this case?

JoeRadd · 17-08-2012 3:21pm

delthedriver wrote: »

What was the final outcome in this case?

Oh yeah, is just coming to a close now. I went the small claims route and they sent a registered letter to his home address about the claim which returned unclaimed. I had to get onto the CRO to confirm the business address and ask the court to resend the claim to the business address plain post, this took awhile but they did it.

There was no response so they issued judgement in my favor and I'm waiting on the 4 week payment window to expire after which I'll need to get the sheriff onto him as assume he won't cough up the cash.

Cheers

JoeRadd · 17-08-2012 3:22pm

mods? Now he's confirmed dodgy by the courts can I name the business?

JoeRadd · 17-08-2012 11:26pm

Seriously for the good of Dublin motorist and consumer can I out not name the company

goz83 · 18-08-2012 2:06am

Let us know if you actually get paid OP. Also, did you get car sorted in the end? I have been reading the whole thread, but I must admit, i'm exhausted and might have missed a key post.

L-M · 23-08-2012 10:39am

JoeRadd wrote: »

Seriously for the good of Dublin motorist and consumer can I out not name the company

Firstly, thread cleaned to an extent.

Secondly, no you cannot name the Dealer in question.

Thirdly, anyone who describes the Dealer using derogatory terms will be banned.

delthedriver · 23-08-2012 11:50am

Limerick man wrote: »

Firstly, thread cleaned to an extent.

Secondly, no you cannot name the Dealer in question.

Thirdly, anyone who describes the Dealer using derogatory terms will be banned.

Interesting !!

dr.fuzzenstein · 23-08-2012 1:25pm

It is an annoyance in Ireland.
In the UK there would be BBC Watchdog plastering the dealer's face all over the TV and the internet, with a caption that says: This is Mr Robert Jones of 34 Everglade Drive, he is the CEO of Bloomingdale Enterprises, he is a shady dealer, do NOT do busines with him!"
In Ireland, the most a cowboy can expect is that "Some dealer" has "allegedly" engaged in bad business practice.
And so they continue, laughing in their sleep, knowing that if anyone outs them, they can just sue and make even more money out of their dishonesty and crookery.
The boys looking out for de boys, don't worry, I got ya, if anyone says anything, I'll slap 'em down so hard, they won't know what hit him. Pub?
It is such a small, inbred country, Sean will always look out for Seamus, sure didn't I go to school with him. And that is why crooks, thieves and conmen will always be allowed to carry on with impunity.
As long as you're a member of the boy's club, you're sorted.

delthedriver · 23-08-2012 1:37pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It is an annoyance in Ireland.
In the UK there would be BBC Watchdog plastering the dealer's face all over the TV and the internet, with a caption that says: This is Mr Robert Jones of 34 Everglade Drive, he is the CEO of Bloomingdale Enterprises, he is a shady dealer, do NOT do busines with him!"
In Ireland, the most a cowboy can expect is that "Some dealer" has "allegedly" engaged in bad business practice.
And so they continue, laughing in their sleep, knowing that if anyone outs them, they can just sue and make even more money out of their dishonesty and crookery.
The boys looking out for de boys, don't worry, I got ya, if anyone says anything, I'll slap 'em down so hard, they won't know what hit him. Pub?
It is such a small, inbred country, Sean will always look out for Seamus, sure didn't I go to school with him. And that is why crooks, thieves and conmen will always be allowed to carry on with impunity.
As long as you're a member of the boy's club, you're sorted.

My sentiments entirely!
One has to ask, who is protecting whom?

delthedriver · 05-09-2012 9:31pm

delthedriver wrote: »

My sentiments entirely!
One has to ask, who is protecting whom?

Was this case ever resolved?

L-M · 05-09-2012 11:18pm

Limerick man wrote: »

Firstly, thread cleaned to an extent.

Secondly, no you cannot name the Dealer in question.

Thirdly, anyone who describes the Dealer using derogatory terms will be banned.

delthedriver wrote: »

Was this case ever resolved?

This is the answer i was given from the higher powers. This is final.

delthedriver · 06-09-2012 1:00am

Limerick man wrote: »

This is the answer i was given from the higher powers. This is final.

Point taken. However was the issue resolved? Yes? Or No?

JoeRadd · 06-09-2012 8:04am

delthedriver wrote: »

Limerick man wrote: »

This is the answer i was given from the higher powers. This is final.

Point taken. However was the issue resolved? Yes? Or No?

No not yet, this week I will be given an order I can give to the sheriff. I'll make sure to post when/if I get my cash back

L-M · 06-09-2012 8:34am

delthedriver wrote: »

Was this case ever resolved?

Whoops, I misread your post. Apologies.

mickdw · 06-09-2012 8:56am

Was your case taken again the business alone or the individuals? If its against the business, who is to say it even exists anymore?

delthedriver · 06-09-2012 9:53am

Limerick man wrote: »

Whoops, I misread your post. Apologies.

No problem!

JoeRadd · 13-10-2012 12:39pm

delthedriver wrote: »

Limerick man wrote: »

Whoops, I misread your post. Apologies.

No problem!

Just got call from the sheriff who is enroute out there now

The judgement is against a sole trade so should be enforceable

Chuck_Norris · 13-10-2012 1:33pm

JoeRadd wrote: »

Just got call from the sheriff who is enroute out there now

The judgement is against a sole trade so should be enforceable

Best of luck Joe. Hope it's sorted for you today.

JoeRadd · 13-10-2012 7:26pm

Yeah he was calling for directions, hopefullyI'll hear on Monday

delthedriver · 16-10-2012 11:15pm

JoeRadd wrote: »

Yeah he was calling for directions, hopefullyI'll hear on Monday

Any update Joe.?

JoeRadd · 17-10-2012 12:28am

delthedriver wrote: »

Any update Joe.?

Yeah, Dublin city sheriff took it but turns out its Dublin county sheriff territory so they passed it on. I gotta follow up with them in the morning. I'll keep this thread going as I hear more.

delthedriver · 18-10-2012 5:23pm

JoeRadd wrote: »

Yeah, Dublin city sheriff took it but turns out its Dublin county sheriff territory so they passed it on. I gotta follow up with them in the morning. I'll keep this thread going as I hear more.

Joe,
Well done, keep up the good work, and keep us posted. It is great to see what can be achieved by standing up to these bullies and chancers. Without doubt there are genuine garages out there , who do the best for their customers. Good on you Joe. Best wishes,

Robertr · 24-10-2012 2:55pm

What happened with the car? Did you get it sorted?

delthedriver · 26-10-2012 9:11pm

Robertr wrote: »

What happened with the car? Did you get it sorted?

Hi Joe, any news?

delthedriver · 16-11-2012 10:04am

Robertr wrote: »

What happened with the car? Did you get it sorted?

Any update?

guttenberg · 16-11-2012 10:13am

Would a PM not get you a more regular response RE the progress of the case?

Shady Dealer

Comments