momentum warranties - the wear and tear scam

marlot

verityboo wrote: »

Looking at the Honest John site the Turbo seems to be the only thing that does not go wrong.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/mercedes-benz/c-class-w203-2000/?section=bad

You missed the lines which say

"Diesels can suffer failed Turbos."

and

"14-12-2011: Turbo failure on C220CDIs after 6 years or so not unknown. Vital to keep turbo oilway clear and to change engine oil at least once a year."

marlot

OP - If you're sure of your ground and can back it with some form of expert opinion, your best option is to sue the warranty company in the small claims court. Its not that hard to do and the judge will do his/her best to listen to both sides.

fred7777

mkirkby wrote: »

Any more people with long lived turbos?

My Peugeot 406 sold last year with 145K miles on original turbo
2 Peugeot 405s company cars sold in 2000 with 190K and 196 on original turbos
2 Citroen Xantia company cars running around the same time with over 150K on original turbos.

I must have missed something here, the OP says he has an engineers report stating the turbo didn't fail due to wear and tear so why is everyone arguing about turbo life and wear and tear.

laidbackgjr

I see two options for going forwards.

1) Try Mercedes for a goodwill gesture
2) Small Claims Court against the warranty company, using your engineers report. I suspect it will come down to which engineer the judge believes is the most credible report, is it your engineer that says not wear and tear failure or the warranty companies engineer that says it is wear and tear. What qualifications do the two engineers have, are either Mercedes specialists with Mercedes training certificates?

verityboo

marlot wrote: »

You missed the lines which say

"Diesels can suffer failed Turbos."

and

"14-12-2011: Turbo failure on C220CDIs after 6 years or so not unknown. Vital to keep turbo oilway clear and to change engine oil at least once a year."

fred7777 wrote: »

I must have missed something here, the OP says he has an engineers report stating the turbo didn't fail due to wear and tear so why is everyone arguing about turbo life and wear and tear.

The failure might not be wear and tear but may have been caused by a blocked oilway? (a maintenance issue). Can't see anything in the OP's report about that?

s_b

worried_jim wrote: »

http://www.oldcoach.plus.com/

The car is a Mercedes 220 CDI

thank you for the link as i couldnt get it to work
having read it it actually says what i said
bearing wear
we have no idea of the history of the car and OP even mentions previous women drivers so its possible its had 3 4 5 6 7 owners never mind the company repo that had it first ,most women dont know how to lift a bonnet never mind how to treat a piece of finely engineered german motorcar

basically OP has got nothing better to do with their time and i suggest they pay for a new turbo and in future only buy new cars seeing as second hand pre used abused is never going to be satisfactory to their obvious poor grasp of metallurgy

rxbren

If the sprinters use kkk and not garrett you cant compare
If previous owners have hammered that car from cold and just switched off at high revs or while turbo is in positive boost they will lead to failure
Im not going to go to some external website when you cant be bothered to post all the relevant information on here
Your only option is pay to get it sorted then take warranty company to small claims

rxbren

I just looked at that link and its some site you have made in an attempt to shame them into paiyng i hope they dont pay you and you lose in the small claims court

geoffky

rxbren wrote: »

edited because post removed

Please explain why you are bitter? and can not spell paying?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

eileandonan21

I thought this was a money saving expert site?
I am pointing out - from first hand experience - the pitfalls of such warranties that therefore you might want to save your money instead. Why is that bitter exactly? Am I on the wrong site?

secondly, wear and tear is a valueless get-out. I have just spent lunchtime with a metallurgist who is doing the report for the SCC. Turbos wear, but they don't wear out - hence fail - at early mileages.

My grievance is that the car was insured against turbo failure as well as the other things. It failed in service. It wouldn't have failed if left in a box in the garage. Most don't fail at mileages up to 200k - as other poster demonstrate.

You can post up all the potential lubrication issues, past drivers, history, temperature etc etc - and yes they're all relevant, and yes all other cars do have those issues as well yet not all their turbos fail.

Insurance is for unexpected events. Turbos are not expected to fail, so a failure like that is an unexpected event, therefore it is insured. You can say that all turbos will fail eventually - but then warranty cover does not extend indefinitely, or if it does at a risk premimum to reflect that.

Can it be demonstrated that turbo failure is an unexpected, statistically unlikely event at that milegage and with proper service history. Yes you can by motor industry data, by observation, and by reverse logic - Momentum wouldn't have insured it if it was likely to fail.