was i ripped off

reddanmm

I recently brought a 98 freelander for nct knew it would fail so i brought the results to a well known franchise it was rear brakes and emissions.fine you think. Left the car with them they fixed the brakes and said that there was a hole in the exhaust box that were prob causing high emmisions cost 670 euros ,went back for retest and it failed again same thing but emmisions were higher, brought car back to them , they then said i needed a new cat new o2 sensor and a brake regulator got all these and he made out he was doing me a favour to fit them ,cost 130 euros ex parts ,low and behold failed emmisions again CO 0.46 rang him again yesterday and he said he would ask someone about it , have not heard from him since, i now have it with rossa motors hope they can fix it waiting for him to get back to me, What is my recourse any help appreciated

Saab Ed

I think you've spent enough on this car anyway. Freelanders are not the most reliable of machines to start with and one of this age is gonna have its problems. Its hardly worth what you have spent on it in repairs so far so I think its time to draw a line. Emissions can be alot of different things, it really is how long is a piece of string. Not the answer you want to hear but .....

reddanmm

If they had told me that in the first place i would not have spent the money. Ifell ripped off

bladespin

Niggling problems are a real pain (expensive too), there's no way a dealer can guarantee a repair will solve the problem completely so they have to keep throwing parts and labour at it until it's fixed, that could mean rebuilding it form the pipe all the way back to the engine itself and so on.

As Saab Ed says, you have to question if it's worth throwing this much at a car that is more than likely going to give more trouble.

sundodger5

to put the finance thing in perspective.i assume you own the car no loan.
for arguments sake you spend 400 to fix the car.
lot of money?? buy a new one on finance no trouble but the payments per month will be more than 400 and the depreciation will kill you.
that said you need to get to the bottom of the current money pit and have resolution to the problem.

robtri

I would feel a bit ripped off if it was me, I know its very hard to diagnose the problem with emmissions... and can be very expensive to fix, but surely the main franchisee dealer would have had the emmissions checked before handing jeep back to you

beachlife

reddanmm wrote: »

I recently brought a 98 freelander for nct knew it would fail so i brought the results to a well known franchise it was rear brakes and emissions.fine you think. Left the car with them they fixed the brakes and said that there was a hole in the exhaust box that were prob causing high emmisions cost 670 euros ,went back for retest and it failed again same thing but emmisions were higher, brought car back to them , they then said i needed a new cat new o2 sensor and a brake regulator got all these and he made out he was doing me a favour to fit them ,cost 130 euros ex parts ,low and behold failed emmisions again CO 0.46 rang him again yesterday and he said he would ask someone about it , have not heard from him since, i now have it with rossa motors hope they can fix it waiting for him to get back to me, What is my recourse any help appreciated

If it has a high co then it could well be a vacuum leak. However i have to say that alot of garages DON'T have all the equipment needed to test the car.if it failed the emissions,why didn't the garage check the emissions after the repair?? do the have a gas analyzer??? Do the have a vacuum tester??Bring it to a emissions expert only.Where are you based?? there are two great places in dublin

Johnboy Mac

bladespin wrote: »

there's no way a dealer can guarantee a repair will solve the problem completely

I don't understand that?

Táck

reddanmm wrote: »

was i ripped off

reddanmm wrote: »

I recently brought a 98 freelander

yes

beachlife

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I don't understand that?

i'll explain it. Let's say you bring your car in for rough idle(or what ever) now the first thing the tech will(should) do is plug it in and check for fault codes. Then perform some basic checks (compression etc...)now lets say that the computer says the o2 sensor is faulty. Then a good tech will test the sensor with an oscilloscope to PROVE the fault. If found faulty then replace the sensor. However that part was only a contributing factor to the fault, further diagnostics can not be carried out until the sensor is replaced(as it effects the fueling etc,results would not be correct)So even after getting the sensor replaced you may still have a fault.Thats not to say your o2 sensor was not in need of replacement. Most problems on a car are usually a collection of a couple minor faults(eg. worn plugs AND dirty air filter,dirty fuel filter etc..)only by understanding the symptoms and possible causes and using a methodological process can you fix the car with the minimum of parts and time. My best tip to anyone would be NEVER repace a part unless you can PROVE it's faulty...

Johnboy Mac

beachlife wrote: »

i'll explain it. Let's say you bring your car in for rough idle(or what ever) now the first thing the tech will(should) do is plug it in and check for fault codes. Then perform some basic checks (compression etc...)now lets say that the computer says the o2 sensor is faulty. Then a good tech will test the sensor with an oscilloscope to PROVE the fault. If found faulty then replace the sensor. However that part was only a contributing factor to the fault, further diagnostics can not be carried out until the sensor is replaced(as it effects the fueling etc,results would not be correct)So even after getting the sensor replaced you may still have a fault.Thats not to say your o2 sensor was not in need of replacement. Most problems on a car are usually a collection of a couple minor faults(eg. worn plugs AND dirty air filter,dirty fuel filter etc..)only by understanding the symptoms and possible causes and using a methodological process can you fix the car with the minimum of parts and time. My best tip to anyone would be NEVER repace a part unless you can PROVE it's faulty...

Sorry I'm still at a loss. You originally stated '' there is no way a dealer can guarantee a repair will solve the problem''

So if that's the case why carry out a repair at all?

The OP left this car in to a main dealer to repair NCT failures and the dealer did'nt do so, regardless. What are main dealers there for, is it just to carry out guess work?

I genuinely feel for the OP and nobody should be making any excuses for this main dealer in particular.

Drummerboy08

Lads, its a 98 Freelander FFS. They are not exactly the most reliable machines in the whole world. There could be 101 things wrong with it to cause this.

In all fairness, and i dont mean to sound like a twat, but why in all that's holy did you buy a 98 Freelander when you knew it would fail the NCT? Is that not setting yourself up for a major lump of heartache?

I think the best thing you can do is start saving and try to get scrappage for it. Its only going to turn into a bottomless pit if you keep it.

bladespin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Sorry I'm still at a loss. You originally stated '' there is no way a dealer can guarantee a repair will solve the problem''

So if that's the case why carry out a repair at all?

The OP left this car in to a main dealer to repair NCT failures and the dealer did'nt do so, regardless. What are main dealers there for, is it just to carry out guess work?

I genuinely feel for the OP and nobody should be making any excuses for this main dealer in particular.

It's very simple, you're not asking the garage to fix a specific problem (cracked manifold) rather you're describing a symptom to them because the problem can't be clearly defined: rough idle, high emissions, both could be caused by any number of parts not working correctly, the only way to be sure of a fix would be to replace everything, FI, engine, manifold's, exhaust etc etc.
Or as you say 'why bother?' - just buy a new car.
The garage can 'best guess' a repair but couldn't guarantee it would fix the problem completely, with these kinds of problems it's trial and error.

Johnboy Mac

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Lads, its a 98 Freelander FFS. They are not exactly the most reliable machines in the whole world. There could be 101 things wrong with it to cause this.

In all fairness, and i dont mean to sound like a twat, but why in all that's holy did you buy a 98 Freelander when you knew it would fail the NCT? Is that not setting yourself up for a major lump of heartache?

I think the best thing you can do is start saving and try to get scrappage for it. Its only going to turn into a bottomless pit if you keep it.

Your missing the point.

The OP paid to have the vehicle repaired and it was'nt. No more to it than that.

p.s. Your right Freelanders are crap but that's neither here nor there.

Johnboy Mac

bladespin wrote: »

It's very simple, you're not asking the garage to fix a specific problem (cracked manifold) rather you're describing a symptom to them because the problem can't be clearly defined: rough idle, high emissions, both could be caused by any number of parts not working correctly, the only way to be sure of a fix would be to replace everything, FI, engine, manifold's, exhaust etc etc.
Or as you say 'why bother?' - just buy a new car.
The garage can 'best guess' a repair but couldn't guarantee it would fix the problem completely, with these kinds of problems it's trial and error.

Fook me! Glad I don't use your services!

Drummerboy08

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Your missing the point.

The OP paid to have the vehicle repaired and it was'nt. No more to it than that.

p.s. Your right Freelanders are crap but that's neither here nor there.

I think i'd have to agree with Bladespin on this one all the same. An emissions problem can be very hard to nail down.

It could be any number of things. Unless the OP wanted all of these different parts replaced, the only option he had was to trust the mechanic's instinct as to what may be causing the problem.

Saab Ed

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Your missing the point.

The OP paid to have the vehicle repaired and it was'nt. No more to it than that.
.

I'll reapair it for 3 grand. I'm bloody sure it'll be fixed then.

And you see thats the problem. The OP hasnt presented a specific problem to fix , what they have presented is a problem with lots of different reasons why it might be happening. Do you think the garage is gonna fork out for various different parts only to discover that was not the cause and then not charge the customer? Trial and error, thats what it has to be. So long as the garage keeps the customer informed as to what work they are doing on the car then what more can they do? The car wasnt worth fixing in the first place by the sounds of it and you can be sure the OP as much as suggested that they didnt want to spend much money on it to the garage at the start.

Johnboy Mac

You guys make me laugh! Read the OP's post again.

The OP has paid TWO invoices and the vehicle is not repaired. Not even a simple emissions check carried out after the first repair!!!!!

If the MAIN dealer had explained, that for them to repair the vehicle it may be excessive in relation to value of the vehicle, fair enough. But going on the OP's post it seems the dealer did'nt explain sod all and just took in the job.

No good enough.

But it reallys sums up why garages get a bad press..................and it's even worse when members of the trade try to justify the carry on of this main dealer.

Drummerboy08

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

You guys make me laugh! Read the OP's post again.

The OP has paid TWO invoices and the vehicle is not repaired. Not even a simple emissions check carried out after the first repair!!!!!

If the MAIN dealer had explained, that for them to repair the vehicle it may be excessive in relation to value of the vehicle, fair enough. But going on the OP's post it seems the dealer did'nt explain sod all and just took in the job.

No good enough.

But it reallys sums up why garages get a bad press..................and it's even worse when members of the trade try to justify the carry on of this main dealer.

Nowhere does the OP say that he brought it to a main dealer. He only says a well known franchise. That could mean Advance Pitstop or even Burger King for all you know. Easy on the tar there.

robtri

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

the only option he had was to trust the mechanic's instinct as to what may be causing the problem.

I am sorry, but thats BS, the garage should have checked the car after it is fixed to make sure problem is sorted... I doubt you would let your other half pick up a car from a garage, that was dropped in with no brakes, and the garage fixed it on instinct and didn't check it was working ok after wards...

Saab Ed wrote: »

I'll reapair it for 3 grand. I'm bloody sure it'll be fixed then.

And you see thats the problem. The OP hasnt presented a specific problem to fix , what they have presented is a problem with lots of different reasons why it might be happening. Do you think the garage is gonna fork out for various different parts only to discover that was not the cause and then not charge the customer? Trial and error, thats what it has to be. So long as the garage keeps the customer informed as to what work they are doing on the car then what more can they do? The car wasnt worth fixing in the first place by the sounds of it and you can be sure the OP as much as suggested that they didnt want to spend much money on it to the garage at the start.

A specfic problem was presented, emmissions are too high...

the value of the car or whether it would be worth fixing a Freelander is completely irrelevant, thats is up to the owner to decide, not me not you and not the garage...

the point is the garage was asked to fix the problem on two occassions, they failed to do so!!!

Darragh29

OP can you post up your fail data here from your NCT datasheet? For both the emissions issue and the brake imbalance...

Johnboy Mac

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Nowhere does the OP say that he brought it to a main dealer. He only says a well known franchise. That could mean Advance Pitstop or even Burger King for all you know. Easy on the tar there.

Your dead right, the OP did not say a main dealer franchise only a franchise, my error. But I don't think it was fast food franchise, give the OP a bit more credit!

As for for the 'tar' as you put it, the Op still left the vehicle into a garage for repair main dealer or no main dealer, fact remains it was'nt repaired!

Drummerboy08

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

As for for the 'tar' as you put it, the Op still left the vehicle into a garage for repair main dealer or no main dealer, fact remains it was'nt repaired!

Absolutely, i agree. If the work was paid for, then it should have been done properly. But that "garage" could simply be a one man band working from a shed behind his house for all we know. When the OP tells us where he got the work done, then we'll go for it....;)

Johnboy Mac

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Absolutely, i agree. If the work was paid for, then it should have been done properly. But that "garage" could simply be a one man band working from a shed behind his house for all we know. When the OP tells us where he got the work done, then we'll go for it....;)

I'm glad somebody agrees

bladespin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Fook me! Glad I don't use your services!

I don't provide services.

I'm just applying logic, how can you expects a garage to be psycic?

Saab Ed

robtri wrote: »

I



A specfic problem was presented, emmissions are too high...

the value of the car or whether it would be worth fixing a Freelander is completely irrelevant, thats is up to the owner to decide, not me not you and not the garage...

the point is the garage was asked to fix the problem on two occassions, they failed to do so!!!

This is going to sound very patronising so I just want to say its not ment to be.

Its very difficult for someone outside of a garage environment to understand the many different things going on within the dynamic of this particular situation.

1) Did the garage inform the customer initailly that it might not be worth repairing and it might get very expensive

2) Was fixing it the only option for the OP due to financial constraints

3) What was the body language of the OP when aggreing with the mechanic to allow him to fix the car, i.e was it a certain " what ever it needs just fix it " or was it a " look just see what you can do " People in the later instance tend to think mechanics can perform magic and then the reality sinks in.

4) Has somebody previously tried to fix the problem themselves and covered it up just to sell the vehicle on? Now the current mechanic could be working to fix a problem that he doesnt even know is there.

5) What if the actuall fix was the first attemp that the mechanic made but that ended up costing 2 grand? Mechanics do tend to try and eliminate the cheapest options first in trial and error cases like this.

Just as a matter of interest to thoses agreeing with the OP do you really think that fixing something like this is just as easy as identifing the problem and then fix it...just like that...because it might seem that way to the ordinary joe but its not the case in the real world.

Johnboy Mac

bladespin wrote: »

I don't provide services.

I'm just applying logic, how can you expects a garage to be psycic?

Your logic is misplaced in this situation I can assure you.
Diagnostic skills and good customer communication are two of most basic tools required in a garage, which have nothing to do with mythical powers.

robtri

bladespin wrote: »

I don't provide services.

I'm just applying logic, how can you expects a garage to be psycic?

who asked the garage to be physic.... they where given a car, told precisely what the problem was with the car ( yes I am aware that the cause of the problem can be a fecking bitch to find) they took the work on, they said they repaired it on two seperate dates... neither time did they actually fix the problem.....

all it would take is for them to check the emmissions after each repair to see if it was fixed....
nothing physic or special about powers needed for that.....

Saab Ed

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Your logic is misplaced in this situation I can assure you.
Diagnostic skills and good customer communication are two of most basic tools required in a garage, which have nothing to do with mythical powers.

Johnboymac; I have to say I think your responses are both lacking in mechanical and technical knowledge. You seem to be sure what should have been done yet I dont think you have a good comprehension of whats envolved in repairing this item. Just for pigiron can you give me 3 reasons why the OP might be having this problem?

Mr.Diagnostic

Throwing parts at a car in an effort to fix a problem is extremely unprofessional. The very term “diagnostics” suggests that the problem should be actually diagnosed. It is possible to test rather than replace parts. Any garage that cant should not be doing that type of work.

If the garage had tested the emissions after their “bolt on diagnostics” session they would have known it was not fixed. If they didn’t test it they should have, assuming they have a gas analyser. If they don’t have a gas analyser they have no business doing emission work.

robtri

Saab Ed wrote: »

This is going to sound very patronising so I just want to say its not ment to be.

Its very difficult for someone outside of a garage environment to understand the many different things going on within the dynamic of this particular situation.

1) Did the garage inform the customer initailly that it might not be worth repairing and it might get very expensive

2) Was fixing it the only option for the OP due to financial constraints

3) What was the body language of the OP when aggreing with the mechanic to allow him to fix the car, i.e was it a certain " what ever it needs just fix it " or was it a " look just see what you can do " People in the later instance tend to think mechanics can perform magic and then the reality sinks in.

4) Has somebody previously tried to fix the problem themselves and covered it up just to sell the vehicle on? Now the current mechanic could be working to fix a problem that he doesnt even know is there.

5) What if the actuall fix was the first attemp that the mechanic made but that ended up costing 2 grand? Mechanics do tend to try and eliminate the cheapest options first in trial and error cases like this.

Just as a matter of interest to thoses agreeing with the OP do you really think that fixing something like this is just as easy as identifing the problem and then fix it...just like that...because it might seem that way to the ordinary joe but its not the case in the real world.

I worked in the trade for 10 years dealing with repair facilities virtually every day, I understand the complexities of getting to fix this type problem.

I don't have the answers to the above....
but as far I see it, op went in with problem grage said fixed handed car back and it wasn't.... they seemingly found a fault and fixed that fault but did not check the car at the end of the job to see if the original fault the emmisions levels where resolved....
now in my book that is WRONG,
I am not expecting mechaniscs to be physic but I do expect any reasonable garage to check the vehicle after repairs to ensure the problem is resolved...

Johnboy Mac

robtri wrote: »

who asked the garage to be physic.... they where given a car, told precisely what the problem was with the car ( yes I am aware that the cause of the problem can be a fecking bitch to find) they took the work on, they said they repaired it on two seperate dates... neither time did they actually fix the problem.....

all it would take is for them to check the emmissions after each repair to see if it was fixed....
nothing physic or special about powers needed for that.....

Robtri, as you and I know emissions failures is a commom on vehicles, there's hundreds every week failing at NCT's - there's no rocket science required to rectify it.

mickdw

To be honest, these people sound like cowboys. Now I agree that it can be difficult to pin down emissions faults but to send it out twice without even checking the results of the work carried out is just not good enough.
Alot of this type of work is down to the skill & knowledge of the technician. Sure, its easy to plug the computer in and get a fault code. The skill is in interpreting what the fault code might mean and therefore what to do to cure it.
Get an expert to look at it and preferably one who has experience with this system.

Saab Ed

robtri wrote: »

I am not expecting mechaniscs to be physic but I do expect any reasonable garage to check the vehicle after repairs to ensure the problem is resolved...

Yeah I agree with you 100% on that but the fact remains that the garage would still have done the initial work only to discover that the emissions we'nt right. Customer would still have to pay for work done and then decide to go on and do more work or call it a day.

robtri

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah I agree with you 100% on that but the fact remains that the garage would still have done the initial work only to discover that the emissions we'nt right. Customer would still have to pay for work done and then decide to go on and do more work or call it a day.

Completly agree with that statement.... the garage is entitled to bill for any work carried out in the repair to the car...

Saab Ed

Johnboymac you havent answeres my question. Give me 3 reasons the OP might be having the original problem.....or are you just spouting off for the sake of it!

Johnboy Mac

Saab Ed wrote: »

Johnboymac; I have to say I think your responses are both lacking in mechanical and technical knowledge. You seem to be sure what should have been done yet I dont think you have a good comprehension of whats envolved in repairing this item. Just for pigiron can you give me 3 reasons why the OP might be having this problem?

ECU - fooked
Vaccun leak
Cat - fooked
Air Sensor - fooked
Wiring short
Inlet air restriction

That's six, and yuor point is?

Saab Ed

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

ECU - fooked
Vaccun leak
Cat - fooked
Air Sensor - fooked
Wiring short
Inlet air restriction

That's six, and yuor point is?

So which one would you attempt to fix first and why?

Oh and why is the cat / air sensor fooked in the first place or what caused a wiring short. Would you just replace the loom or would you dig deaper?

What if you discover anything and repair that yet still discover the emissions are off...what then?

Mr.Diagnostic

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah I agree with you 100% on that but the fact remains that the garage would still have done the initial work only to discover that the emissions we'nt right. Customer would still have to pay for work done and then decide to go on and do more work or call it a day.

But if the emissions were the same after the parts were fitted as before then the parts were replaced in error. It is 100% possible to test both cats and O2 sensors aw well as the effect of a leaking exhaust. Anyone who replaces these parts to see if that will fix the problem is either very lazy or not up to standard from a tech point of view.

robtri wrote: »

Completly agree with that statement.... the garage is entitled to bill for any work carried out in the repair to the car...

That’s a different matter. Every garage should make a customer aware of the cost of starting the diagnosis process and subsequently get the customers authorisation to proceed as needed.

Mr.Diagnostic

Saab Ed wrote: »

What if you discover anything and repair that yet still discover the emissions are off...what then?

give it to someone who knows what he is doing maybe??





Sorry, could not resist. Half in jest, whole in earnest.

Saab Ed

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

But if the emissions were the same after the parts were fitted as before then the parts were replaced in error. It is 100% possible to test both cats and O2 sensors aw well as the effect of a leaking exhaust. Anyone who replaces these parts to see if that will fix the problem is either very lazy or not up to standard from a tech point of view.

....so long as its something you can identify via a computer. If the bores are worn then every sensor will be showing dodgy readings so do you replace every sensor. Even with all the high tech gizmos we have there is no replacing trial and error.

Mr.Diagnostic

robtri wrote: »

Completly agree with that statement.... the garage is entitled to bill for any work carried out in the repair to the car...

Only if the work done and parts fitted were genuinely required

bladespin

robtri wrote: »

who asked the garage to be physic.... they where given a car, told precisely what the problem was with the car ( yes I am aware that the cause of the problem can be a fecking bitch to find) they took the work on, they said they repaired it on two seperate dates... neither time did they actually fix the problem.....

all it would take is for them to check the emmissions after each repair to see if it was fixed....
nothing physic or special about powers needed for that.....

Totally agree, the garage should have checked the emissions after the attempted repair.

But they weren't told a specific cause, just a problem/symptom, they tried two different fixes that weren't successful. It's unlucky that after two try's they hadn't a solution but not unusual given the problem. I just don't see it as a rip off is all.

Saab Ed

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Only if the work done and parts fitted were genuinely required

Yeah but thats the point, you'll never know sometimes till you try!

Mr.Diagnostic

Saab Ed wrote: »

....so long as its something you can identify via a computer. If the bores are worn then every sensor will be showing dodgy readings so do you replace every sensor. Even with all the high tech gizmos we have there is no replacing trial and error.

Absolutely not.

Other tools form part of the diagnostic process eg vacuum gauges, scopes, compression gauges.

There is no excuse for not testing what can be tested.

Mr.Diagnostic

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah but thats the point, you'll never know sometimes till you try!

Take the case in point. It got a new o2 sensor, cat and exhaust.

Can you really tell me its not possible to test these?

Can you really believe it made more sense to fit new one to try?

Johnboy Mac

Saab Ed wrote: »

So which one would you attempt to fix first and why?

Oh and why is the cat / air sensor fooked in the first place or what caused a wiring short. Would you just replace the loom or would you dig deaper?

What if you discover anything and repair that yet still discover the emissions are off...what then?

I'm not the technican here and never stated or implied I was. You've put yourself forward as the the 'man' and your the one willing to defend the OP's repairer.

More importantly I was not the one who took payment twice for a repair that was not carried out.

Now if you if your so interested in me I suggest you start a topic elsewhere.

Saab Ed

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Other tools form part of the diagnostic process eg vacuum gauges, scopes, compression gauges.

There is no excuse for not testing what can be tested.

Which combined leaves the technician with choices to make as to what to do to repair the issue at hand. I've yet to see a diagnostic machine that says " for sure replace No2 inlet valve on cylinder 4. Various readings combined with intuition should leave the technician with answer he/she needs to make. But even still using this example the head still has to come off to see for sure that the valve is bust....and what of the other damage a broken valve might have done. Do you strip the engine to the bones or replace said parts and hope. The right thing to do is probably strip the engine but whos gonna pay for that?

Saab Ed

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Now if you if your so interested in me I suggest you start a topic elsewhere.

No Im just pointing out that you're arguing something you dont understand thats all. Hope that didnt hurt the aul ego too much

Anyway we're going round in circles here and its not helping the OP at all.

Johnboy Mac

Saab Ed wrote: »

Which combined leaves the technician with choices to make as to what to do to repair the issue at hand. I've yet to see a diagnostic machine that says " for sure replace No2 inlet valve on cylinder 4. Various readings combined with intuition should leave the technician with answer he/she needs to make. But even still using this example the head still has to come off to see for sure that the valve is bust....and what of the other damage a broken valve might have done. Do you strip the engine to the bones or replace said parts and hope. The right thing to do is probably strip the engine but whos gonna pay for that?

You don't do anything until you communitate with the customer and get his or hers authority to proceed. Basic stuff really.

Johnboy Mac

Saab Ed wrote: »

No Im just pointing out that you're arguing something you dont understand thats all. Hope that didnt hurt the aul ego too much

'SAAB' , Saab Ed, ego's?