"intelligent motorists pack"

bowlhead99

But the question is, was it actually an 'unwanted addition'.

In other words they do flat rate servicing at a price of £195 for the 1yr/9000 mile service and they are choosing to break down some components to help their internal accounting (such as, parts and labour for an engine flush happens to be £25 and is included in the £195 along with a load of other itemised points, but they are not actually willing to sell you a 1-year/9000mile service for £170 if you wanted them to do the first service on the car without doing the engine flush).

Or is the standard 1-year/9000 service offered for £170 and they assumed that you would like to buy a premium additional service for £25.

If the latter then you would have a case to complain that they sold you something above and beyond their normal 1-year/9000 service schedule that you did not want.

In the old days, initial 'running in' periods were important for all cars - running the car gently and only accelerating cautiously to some arbitrary low rev limit while the moving parts of the engine 'bedded in'. As the engine bits rubbed together and started to work more smoothly you would start to leave little bits of metal or other contaminants in the oil and there would typically be an oil change or flushing process required earlier than the standard service schedule. With modern oils and improvements in engineering and manufacturing tolerances, this is largely unnecessary as the engine will simply 'work' straight out of the box.

Still, some mechanics would recommend taking extra care of the engine in the first few thousand miles regardless of whether the manufacturer says the service intervals can be far apart and oil changes sporadic, so it is not massively surprising to see something extra on the schedule for the first ever service.

50Twuncle

bowlhead99 wrote: »

But the question is, was it actually an 'unwanted addition'.

In other words they do flat rate servicing at a price of £195 for the 1yr/9000 mile service and they are choosing to break down some components to help their internal accounting (such as, parts and labour for an engine flush happens to be £25 and is included in the £195 along with a load of other itemised points, but they are not actually willing to sell you a 1-year/9000mile service for £170 if you wanted them to do the first service on the car without doing the engine flush).

Or is the standard 1-year/9000 service offered for £170 and they assumed that you would like to buy a premium additional service for £25.

If the latter then you would have a case to complain that they sold you something above and beyond their normal 1-year/9000 service schedule that you did not want.

I have no idea what a "standard" service covers or entails
Except for the fact that it states oil change and checks on many other items
It does not specify the additional engine flush
I have emailed and received a reply from Honest John
"If you have been running on Shell V-Power Nitro Plus it certainly did not need either the oil flush or the fuel system additive. Obviously the dealer has been nobbled by the additives distributor to get into the 'the Good Garage Scheme' which I regard as a rip-off of my much longer established 'Good Garage Guide'"

ChumLee

50Twuncle wrote: »

I have no idea what a "standard" service covers or entails
Except for the fact that it states oil change and checks on many other items
It does not specify the additional engine flush
I have emailed and received a reply from Honest John
"If you have been running on Shell V-Power Nitro Plus it certainly did not need either the oil flush or the fuel system additive. Obviously the dealer has been nobbled by the additives distributor to get into the 'the Good Garage Scheme' which I regard as a rip-off of my much longer established 'Good Garage Guide'"

In future read what you're signing for when you leave a car with a main dealer. Don't fall for the sign here and we'll ring you when it's done.

Deneb

For a car that has only done 3,500 miles from new and is only one year old I would be asking them why they consider that either the car, the oil used by the manufacturer or both are unfit for purpose.

Whether or not you have actually paid any extra for the "snake oil" is immaterial to the question of why they feel it is necessary. Whilst highly unlikely in your case, as your engine was almost certainly as clean as a whistle, being so new, the use of flushing treatments can actually damage an engine by dislodging deposits that would otherwise not be disturbed.

You might want to write to Suzuki and ask them whether they recommend or require the use of oil treatments on their vehicles, and if they will cover any damage caused by or resulting from the use of such additives under their warranty. I imagine the result will be quite revealing.

bowlhead99

50Twuncle wrote: »

See http://www.rhinoman.org/manuals/swift/sf310_sf413.pdf for workshop manual for car - page 0B2 - This is what I am going by...

Manufacturers service schedules show the bare minimum of what must be done to preserve the warranty, and they do not need to warranty their cars up to 100k+ miles so they don't show everything that could be done.

The service schedule per the link you provided shows replace engine oil and filter at 9k miles/12 months (or 6k miles /8months if your car is a certain variant or doesn't have the oxygen sensor) and to replace the rear differential oil at first service (if 4wd version). It doesn't specify that additives should be used nor a special type of flush. But that doesn't mean that an individual garage couldn't decide to include those services within their own specification as a matter of what they felt was 'best practice', whether or not that was anything to do with a 'good garage scheme' or smooth talking from their additives suppliers.

Honest John mentions that a fuel additive should not be necessary if you have been running exclusively on the most expensive type of premium Shell fuel (*note that your question to him did not say you had been using that fuel, it is just the one that he promotes on his website as being the best). It would be very reasonable for most garages to assume that their typical Suzuki buyers do *not* choose to spend 5-10% extra on all their fuel when the car is not specified to need it - because over the course of the year that's quite a chunk of cash.

So, if most customers are typically choosing to spend 112p/litre on their fuel instead of 120p on Nitro Plus to 'clean out the gunk' over the course of the year, then maybe an additive is quite reasonable for the garage to deploy at the first service after running in. The fact that you personally have only done 3500 miles before your year is up, instead of the full 9000 like other customers, doesn't mean you would automatically get a tailored or cheaper service from whatever their advertised rack rate is; that's not how business works.

I have no idea what a "standard" service covers or entails
Except for the fact that it states oil change and checks on many other items
It does not specify the additional engine flush

If you feel £195 for your first service was unfair and you would have preferred to pay less, but don't know what garages put into their service menus and whether the standard rate was £170 and you accidentally paid more, it is quite simple. Call up the garage posing as a new customer and ask what it costs for a standard first service on x car with x miles. See if they say £170 or £195. If they say £195, I don't think you have been screwed, if you got a bill for £195, no matter what the itemisation was. You have just paid the standard price for the service that they like to offer to people who show up asking for that service. You could see if that price is different with other dealers around the country, by calling a few. Maybe others charge £150 or £250; it would be worth you finding out.

There is certainly a lesson for you here, if you are not asking for a quote before you ask them to do a job, because it is much much harder to complain about something being done against your will when you weren't specific about what you wanted and didn't clarify with them what it would cost.

50Twuncle

Deneb wrote: »

For a car that has only done 3,500 miles from new and is only one year old I would be asking them why they consider that either the car, the oil used by the manufacturer or both are unfit for purpose.

Whether or not you have actually paid any extra for the "snake oil" is immaterial to the question of why they feel it is necessary. Whilst highly unlikely in your case, as your engine was almost certainly as clean as a whistle, being so new, the use of flushing treatments can actually damage an engine by dislodging deposits that would otherwise not be disturbed.

You might want to write to Suzuki and ask them whether they recommend or require the use of oil treatments on their vehicles, and if they will cover any damage caused by or resulting from the use of such additives under their warranty. I imagine the result will be quite revealing.

Right - I will do just that....

50Twuncle

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Manufacturers service schedules show the bare minimum of what must be done to preserve the warranty, and they do not need to warranty their cars up to 100k+ miles so they don't show everything that could be done.

The service schedule per the link you provided shows replace engine oil and filter at 9k miles/12 months (or 6k miles /8months if your car is a certain variant or doesn't have the oxygen sensor) and to replace the rear differential oil at first service (if 4wd version). It doesn't specify that additives should be used nor a special type of flush. But that doesn't mean that an individual garage couldn't decide to include those services within their own specification as a matter of what they felt was 'best practice', whether or not that was anything to do with a 'good garage scheme' or smooth talking from their additives suppliers.

Honest John mentions that a fuel additive should not be necessary if you have been running exclusively on the most expensive type of premium Shell fuel (*note that your question to him did not say you had been using that fuel, it is just the one that he promotes on his website as being the best). It would be very reasonable for most garages to assume that their typical Suzuki buyers do *not* choose to spend 5-10% extra on all their fuel when the car is not specified to need it - because over the course of the year that's quite a chunk of cash.

So, if most customers are typically choosing to spend 112p/litre on their fuel instead of 120p on Nitro Plus to 'clean out the gunk' over the course of the year, then maybe an additive is quite reasonable for the garage to deploy at the first service after running in. The fact that you personally have only done 3500 miles before your year is up, instead of the full 9000 like other customers, doesn't mean you would automatically get a tailored or cheaper service from whatever their advertised rack rate is; that's not how business works.
If you feel £195 for your first service was unfair and you would have preferred to pay less, but don't know what garages put into their service menus and whether the standard rate was £170 and you accidentally paid more, it is quite simple. Call up the garage posing as a new customer and ask what it costs for a standard first service on x car with x miles. See if they say £170 or £195. If they say £195, I don't think you have been screwed, if you got a bill for £195, no matter what the itemisation was. You have just paid the standard price for the service that they like to offer to people who show up asking for that service. You could see if that price is different with other dealers around the country, by calling a few. Maybe others charge £150 or £250; it would be worth you finding out.

There is certainly a lesson for you here, if you are not asking for a quote before you ask them to do a job, because it is much much harder to complain about something being done against your will when you weren't specific about what you wanted and didn't clarify with them what it would cost.

Lesson learned about not getting a quote pre work done
I did not expect a reduced charge because of my low mileage either.....

But that doesn't give them permission to TREAT MY CAR PAINTWORK with some long life spray, costing £250 either - does it ?
(Not that this has happened on this occasion - but they may next time)

facade

Deneb wrote: »

You might want to write to Suzuki and ask them whether they recommend or require the use of oil treatments on their vehicles, and if they will cover any damage caused by or resulting from the use of such additives under their warranty. I imagine the result will be quite revealing.

50Twuncle wrote: »

Right - I will do just that....

Somewhat a Pyrrhic victory if they tell you they will refuse all warranty work on your car because you just told them that it has been so treated, and you then have to chase the dealer through the courts to get them to pay for any warranty work.

I'd leave well alone.

Inner_Zone

50Twuncle wrote: »

I didn't get a quote first
The car was bought from them - as was the previous, and my wifes car - they are always serviced by the main dealers, and have never had this unwanted addition in the past....

Not very MSE nor is paying the bill before checking it.

bowlhead99

50Twuncle wrote: »

But that doesn't give them permission to TREAT MY CAR PAINTWORK with some long life spray, costing £250 either - does it ?
(Not that this has happened on this occasion - but they may next time)

Do they have any history of giving any of your cars a £250 protection spray in the past without you asking for it or agreeing to it when offered?

That just sounds like irrational hyperbole. You might as well have said :

But that doesn't give them permission to REPLACE MY CAR WITH A BRAND NEW ONE, costing £10,000 either - does it ?
(Not that this has happened on this occasion - but they may next time)