Main dealer - issues with car?

mickdw

Damien360 wrote: »

Could the car be an ex rental ? You know the saying "the fastest car on the road is a rental" or something to that effect.

Mileage could be right but maybe it was driven very hard and never serviced before resale to you. You mentioned a 50 point check but that is a check and not a service.

The car is an Astra but was it sold to you at an Opel dealer ? I know anyone can service them but costs might have dictated little or nothing done.

Does he say it was an astra?

Damien360

mickdw wrote: »

Doss he say it was an astra?

Yes. One post below yours on page 1. Opel Astra owned since August 2014

Stheno

mickdw wrote: »

Yes. Now is not the time to be querying this.
I just think the car is not what it should be having only 25k km on it.

It was on 25k when his gf bought it and she's put another 13k on it so hard to argue retrospectively given that the mileage has increased by 50% since she got it

mickdw

Stheno wrote: »

It was on 25k when his gf bought it and she's put another 13k on it so hard to argue retrospectively given that the mileage has increased by 50% since she got it

I Did say that now is not the time to argue.


I would however expect a car with 25k km to have been absolutely as new when being retailed at main dealer.
Tyres cracked from old age, wipers in bits, suspension rattles, I dont see how it's acceptable that these items would not be addressed before being retailed on a main dealer forecourt.
Someone suggested it may be an ex rental. I think that is a strong possibility.

Stheno

mickdw wrote: »

I Did say that now is not the time to argue.


I would however expect a car with 25k km to have been absolutely as new when being retailed at main dealer.
Tyres cracked from old age, wipers in bits, suspension rattles, I dont see how it's acceptable that these items would not be addressed before being retailed on a main dealer forecourt.
Someone suggested it may be an ex rental. I think that is a strong possibility.

Agreed, but should have been addressed when buying

Crumbs868

Stheno wrote: »

It was on 25k when his gf bought it and she's put another 13k on it so hard to argue retrospectively given that the mileage has increased by 50% since she got it

48 (current) - 25 (when purchased)= 23

Dia1988

Silvera wrote: »

I agree with you George, on the face of it it reads like that anyway.

However, in her defence it was an intermittent squeak and she was told by the so-called 'main dealer' that it was "only dust in the brakes, nothing to worry about". She is a very cautious driver and would always alert me (or previously her dad) if she felt anything was wrong with the car. She had no idea that the pads were so low (as it turns out from the day she purchased the car!). She felt re-assured that everything was spot-on having purchased it from a long-established main dealership.

Added to that the fact that the vehicle had undergone a so-called "150 point safety check" she did not expect (nor did I ...and I have many years experience in the motor trade) that the rear brake pads would be worn so badly from the day the car was handed over to her ...after she had paid a 5-figure sum for the vehicle. In my experience this is the stuff of a 'fly-by-night' operator, not what a person would expect of a main dealer. As I previously mentioned, there were other consumables which were not replaced prior to sale, e.g. the wiper blades were almost falling apart, and as a result caused several fine scratches to the windscreen.

I have now looked at the service book and can confirm that it states the car was "serviced" at 25,000kms. There is 38,000kms on it now - not the 48,000kms I had originally thought/posted. (She was away visiting her folks up the country when I started the thread. Apologies for not getting the details right from the start).

My main priority now is to confirm if the mileage is correct. Where can I get the ECU checked to confirm if the kms on the clock are accurate?

Just because it has a full main dealer stamped service history doesn't tell a whole lot about it's maintenance.

I once looked at a car that boasted a Full service history car with 110,000 miles on it. He had the service book all stamped but he had no receipts.

So, I got the garage where it was serviced to email me all the receipts/invoices they had for the corresponding service stamps.

Turns out only the oil and filter was ever changed at each of the main dealer service intervals, so no record of timing belt change, brake pad change etc

George Dalton

Crumbs868 wrote: »

48 (current) - 25 (when purchased)= 23

The OP has since stated that the current mileage is 38k, not 48k as originally posted.

bucketybuck

Stheno wrote: »

Haven't you put 13000 kms on the car since you got it with the original 25k on it? That's another 1/3 of wear on the brake pads since tbh

Don't know why the OP is ignoring this. Clearly there was at least 13000km worth of life left in the brake pads when the dealer serviced the car.

A service doesn't automatically mean fit new brake pads, if they are serviceable then you drive them on. Would anybody here pay to replace their own pads if there was stlll 13000km left on them? I know I wouldn't. So why expect the dealer to do so?

dr.fuzzenstein

bucketybuck wrote: »

Don't know why the OP is ignoring this. Clearly there was at least 13000km worth of life left in the brake pads when the dealer serviced the car.

A service doesn't automatically mean fit new brake pads, if they are serviceable then you drive them on. Would anybody here pay to replace their own pads if there was stlll 13000km left on them? I know I wouldn't. So why expect the dealer to do so?

The inner pad was worn to the metal and squealing badly.
The OP told the dealer the next day, who said checked it out and said "it's grand, only a bit of dust, nothing to worry about"
So the OP's GF kept driving it, because the mechanic, who should have inspected both pads, inner and outer, obviously just shone a torch through the wheel, saw the outer pad was OK, but didn't see the inner pad was to the metal, then said "Yep, that's good to drive"
I cannot believe the amount of posters here willing to jump in to defend the cowboy mechanic, who should have spotted a very obvious and basic fault that I could have spotted and blame to OP instead.
Oh wait, it's Motors, rule 1: blame the OP, rule 2: if that is not applicable, refer to rule 1. :rolleyes:

Do I really need to say it again? OP buys car, brakes down to metal, OP brings car back to dealer who says "everything is fine", turns out it wasn't.
How in the name of Zeus's BUTTHOLE is that OP's fault?
Anyone? Answer on a postcard? And don't bother with "Oh, OP should have known better", not everyone is capable of diagnosing faults in a car, some people will have to take the word of their mechanic, because they do not have the knowledge to throw her up on the ramp and give it the once over.

Stheno

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The inner pad was worn to the metal and squealing badly.
The OP told the dealer the next day, who said checked it out and said "it's grand, only a bit of dust, nothing to worry about"
So the OP's GF kept driving it, because the mechanic, who should have inspected both pads, inner and outer, obviously just shone a torch through the wheel, saw the outer pad was OK, but didn't see the inner pad was to the metal, then said "Yep, that's good to drive"
I cannot believe the amount of posters here willing to jump in to defend the cowboy mechanic, who should have spotted a very obvious and basic fault that I could have spotted and blame to OP instead.
Oh wait, it's Motors, rule 1: blame the OP, rule 2: if that is not applicable, refer to rule 1. :rolleyes:

Do I really need to say it again? OP buys car, brakes down to metal, OP brings car back to dealer who says "everything is fine", turns out it wasn't.
How in the name of Zeus's BUTTHOLE is that OP's fault?
Anyone? Answer on a postcard? And don't bother with "Oh, OP should have known better", not everyone is capable of diagnosing faults in a car, some people will have to take the word of their mechanic, because they do not have the knowledge to throw her up on the ramp and give it the once over.

The inner pad was worn to the metal when the op checked it 13000 mms after the dealer did is my point

dr.fuzzenstein

Stheno wrote: »

The inner pad was worn to the metal when the op checked it 13000 mms after the dealer did is my point

OK, make sense, but since it was squealing from day one, it would suggest that it wasn't in pristine condition then.
Also, pad worn down to the metal can ruin the disc, since it's on the inside, again, OP would not see current condition, it could look grand from the outside and like a badly scratched record on the inside. Well, I suppose he knows know after replacing the pads.
The Op said the squealing was bad from day one and got worse later on, this would suggest to me that it was on the wear indicator (if it has one) and then went down to the metal.
This points towards the check from the dealer consisting of the apprentice shining a torch through the wheel, he saw the outer pad with lots of material left on it and that was the extend of the check.
Had he taken the wheel off and inspected the inner pads I would bet a modest sum of money, he would have found the inner pads looking less pristine.

Del2005

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, make sense, but since it was squealing from day one, it would suggest that it wasn't in pristine condition then.
Also, pad worn down to the metal can ruin the disc, since it's on the inside, again, OP would not see current condition, it could look grand from the outside and like a badly scratched record on the inside. Well, I suppose he knows know after replacing the pads.
The Op said the squealing was bad from day one and got worse later on, this would suggest to me that it was on the wear indicator (if it has one) and then went down to the metal.
This points towards the check from the dealer consisting of the apprentice shining a torch through the wheel, he saw the outer pad with lots of material left on it and that was the extend of the check.
Had he taken the wheel off and inspected the inner pads I would bet a modest sum of money, he would have found the inner pads looking less pristine.

Brakes making noise can happen on brand new pads without the application of copper grease, and even when I've put copper grease on I've had to take them back off to apply a bit more as they might still be a bit noisy but less is always better when applying grease to the back of brakes pads. If as you think that the pad was on its wear indicator from the day it was bought then 13,000km more driving would have destroyed the disc.

I'll agree that the garage missed that the inside pad was worn more than the outside pad but the operator of any vehicle is ultimately responsible for ensuring that there car is safe and ignoring a noise from the brakes for 13,000km places some blame on the operator.

Also stop with the main dealer service and buying from a main dealer. Dropping a 5 figure sum on a car and not spending €50 or €100 to get it independently checked out by a mechanic, or even someone who knows cars, is the reason why people end up in situations like this.

bucketybuck

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The inner pad was worn to the metal and squealing badly.
The OP told the dealer the next day, who said checked it out and said "it's grand, only a bit of dust, nothing to worry about"
So the OP's GF kept driving it, because the mechanic, who should have inspected both pads, inner and outer, obviously just shone a torch through the wheel, saw the outer pad was OK, but didn't see the inner pad was to the metal, then said "Yep, that's good to drive"
I cannot believe the amount of posters here willing to jump in to defend the cowboy mechanic, who should have spotted a very obvious and basic fault that I could have spotted and blame to OP instead.
Oh wait, it's Motors, rule 1: blame the OP, rule 2: if that is not applicable, refer to rule 1. :rolleyes:

Do I really need to say it again? OP buys car, brakes down to metal, OP brings car back to dealer who says "everything is fine", turns out it wasn't.
How in the name of Zeus's BUTTHOLE is that OP's fault?
Anyone? Answer on a postcard? And don't bother with "Oh, OP should have known better", not everyone is capable of diagnosing faults in a car, some people will have to take the word of their mechanic, because they do not have the knowledge to throw her up on the ramp and give it the once over.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Ugh, you again.

How obvious can I make this. The brake pads were not worn to metal the day the car was brought back to the dealer, because if they were the damn car could not then have driven 5 months and 13000 kms afterwards.

Christs sake this isn't rocket science.

Stheno

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, make sense, but since it was squealing from day one, it would suggest that it wasn't in pristine condition then.
Also, pad worn down to the metal can ruin the disc, since it's on the inside, again, OP would not see current condition, it could look grand from the outside and like a badly scratched record on the inside. Well, I suppose he knows know after replacing the pads.
The Op said the squealing was bad from day one and got worse later on, this would suggest to me that it was on the wear indicator (if it has one) and then went down to the metal.
This points towards the check from the dealer consisting of the apprentice shining a torch through the wheel, he saw the outer pad with lots of material left on it and that was the extend of the check.
Had he taken the wheel off and inspected the inner pads I would bet a modest sum of money, he would have found the inner pads looking less pristine.

Op clearly said the squealing was intermittent and only became constant in the past week which is when the pads were found to be worn out