Private sale, car has gone catastrophically wrong

spacey2012

Yes that engine is a disaster, allegedly The Big end bolts were miscalculated in strength snap and the oil pump is not up to the job and bearing failure is very common.
Reaching 60k on the same engine is seen as a badge of honour.
The common fix is to lower the Turbo pressure, remap the engine and put it back to the power and torque range it was designed for.

Dukesy

spacey2012 wrote: »

Yes that engine is a disaster, allegedly The Big end bolts were miscalculated in strength snap and the oil pump is not up to the job and bearing failure is very common.
Reaching 60k on the same engine is seen as a badge of honour.
The common fix is to lower the Turbo pressure, remap the engine and put it back to the power and torque range it was designed for.

Yeah... sounds like we were lucky to get the 77,000 we managed out of the original engine, but we didn't exactly push the thing much, rarely towed or took a full load etc. Pity, as when they're running well, they're extremely good.

albionrovers

A well-documented problem should have set alarm bells ringing in advance for the buyer. Pity they did no research ... and they're looking for someone to blame. Hunt them.

TrickyWicky

Dukesy wrote: »

Pity, as when they're running well, they're extremely good.

You can say that about ANY engine - when its running well its extremely good. Thats the whole point! It's when they don't run well that you need to pass judgement on. In this case I'd say it's a crap engine - if it doesn't live until at least 100k without issues its a bad engine. When I read your opening post I found myself thinking "truck, engine.. it must be a nissan". Sure enough after reading through the replies I get to your reply stating that very fact.

You can ultimtely blame Renault for the engine. They bought Nissan a few years back and thats when the quality went downhill (it can't be an accident can it?!). Renault are renowned for their unreliable engines and failures and suddenly it spreads to the once bullet proof Nissans. Thats no coincidence.

spacey2012

It was around the time German manufacturers were turning out 130 bhp Diesels other makers were caught very short.
Ford pushed the TDCI to 130 BHP, which most are now in scrap yards for shredding the DMF whilst the 110 bhp version soldier on and on.
Nissan did the same with the 2.2 lumps
The other truck company who used the same basic engine did not push the power up and they run without problems, hence why some of the Nisan Owners de-tune back to the first spec the engine had on the Terrano.

Dukesy

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You can say that about ANY engine - when its running well its extremely good. Thats the whole point! It's when they don't run well that you need to pass judgement on. In this case I'd say it's a crap engine - if it doesn't live until at least 100k without issues its a bad engine. When I read your opening post I found myself thinking "truck, engine.. it must be a nissan". Sure enough after reading through the replies I get to your reply stating that very fact.

You can ultimtely blame Renault for the engine. They bought Nissan a few years back and thats when the quality went downhill (it can't be an accident can it?!). Renault are renowned for their unreliable engines and failures and suddenly it spreads to the once bullet proof Nissans. Thats no coincidence.

Yep... having read what I have now found on the net, we certainly wouldn't get another. It's appalling that so many of these engines have gone bang on what I would have thought of as relatively low mileage.

paddedjohn

Dukesy wrote: »

The engine was warranteed for a year, but we gave him all the paperwork to look through and keep when he turned up to pick the truck up, so he should have been aware that it was non transferable before he handed over the money. We just stated facts on the advert.

Regardless of the paperwork did you state in your advert that the engine had a 1year warranty without making it clear that it wasn't transferable?

Dukesy

paddedjohn wrote: »

Regardless of the paperwork did you state in your advert that the engine had a 1year warranty without making it clear that it wasn't transferable?

I honestly can't remember exactly what I wrote, and I can't find the advert anymore as it's dropped off my ebay lists. I wouldn't have written that the warranty would have transferred on to the next owner.

motorguy

Dukesy wrote: »

I honestly can't remember exactly what I wrote, and I can't find the advert anymore as it's dropped off my ebay lists. I wouldn't have written that the warranty would have transferred on to the next owner.

You are absolutely in no way liable for this.

Do not get involved any further and cease any communication once you have given the guy any info you might have that is useful.

This is not your problem and you're in no way responsible.

Splott

spacey2012 wrote: »

It was around the time German manufacturers were turning out 130 bhp Diesels other makers were caught very short.
Ford pushed the TDCI to 130 BHP, which most are now in scrap yards for shredding the DMF

Yet many are happily still driving about with well over 100,000 on the clock along with the 170BHP STs....

Quite a lot of petrols have DMFs as well but you remain strangely quiet about those...