Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen transmission defect (5)

[weldted]

Hi All Happy new year and thank you for all your support.

The first time at 1479 miles the clutch pressure plate, friction plate and slave cylinder were replaced. This time at first it was thought that the bell housing was cracked this was misinformation, it was only the end casing that was defective and this was replaced together with the DMF, Clutch assembly, slave cylinder, and new four bolts as itemised on the invoice.

I visited the dealer whilst the van was stripped down and saw inside the bell housing where there was evidence of heat stress but having got the clutch very hot the first time with lots of smoke and smell was this from the first time? as this time there was no smell or vibration, i am particualy aggrevied as having had the van road tested there was no paperwork generated at the garage so i could have said it all happen just up the road so much for being honest. i might add that I am happy with the dealers assistance in this matter and would look to Fiat not the agent for footing the bill.

[weldted]

sorry I meant at the garage in Spain (to much new year juice??)

[Brian Kirby]

Ted, on MHF you said, writing of the first clutch failure:

"It went to My local Fiat Agent and the clutch was replaced under warranty but the Dual Mass Flywheel was not."  You clarify above that this first replacement included "clutch pressure plate, friction plate and slave cylinder". 

Back on MHF you went on to say, of the present condition of the components:

"the clutch friction plate is discoloured but has plenty of material left on it the pressure plate is not scored but is also discoloured as is the DM Flywheel."

The discolouration (presumably from heat) of the pressure plate seems to point to heat generated after the first failure since, as you say above, the pressure plate was replaced during the first clutch replacement.  Trying to argue whether the heat generated during the first clutch failure, or that later heat, was responsible for the DMF failure, seems very conjectural.  The garage is bound to defend itself by saying it carried out a thorough examination of the DMF when the first clutch replacement was carried out.  Fiat will have little appetite, I would have thought, to argue their designated repairer is incompetent, or telling fibs, so would presumably be inclined to go along with the garage.  What I'm saying, in effect, is that I don't think you have a leg to stand on over the rejection of the second clutch replacement under warranty.  Sorry, that is my personal opinion (for which I accept you have not asked!) based on what you have said to date.  My reaction, overall, is that it is not worth your while spending any more money backing this particular lame horse.

Turning to the loose gearbox mounting end plate, you said on MHF:

"re the gearbox casing two of the four threads in the casing where it is bolted to the mounts have no thread left in them at all the third one shows signs of movement and the fourth is unmarked". 

I believe this plate, plus the gearbox and bell housing must all have been removed to access the clutch during the first repair.  My reaction to this is that the garage that made the first clutch repair must have failed to re-fit the plate and torque the bolts correctly, and consequently they should bear the full cost of labour and parts for replacing the damaged gearbox casting.  I would not accept a helicoil repair, but would insist a new casting is fitted.  It is your property that was damaged by their carelessness or incompetence, and you are under no obligation to accept a helicoil "bodge".  So, if the £1,760 for the second new clutch and DMF includes any parts or additional labour connected with replacing fixings for that gearbox mounting, I would press for the relevant sum to be refunded in full (inc the VAT).  If the second clutch is being replaced by a different garage, you'll need to provide the first firm with the evidence of their failings, and the cost of the consequent repair, and ask them to reimburse you for the second garage's repair costs.  If either refuses, you should have reasonable grounds to sue via the small claims procedure, but talk first to your local Trading Standards people.  This will be obviously be much easier if both jobs were carried out by the same firm.

Unfortunately, I think you have merely learnt a very expensive lesson about the limits of warranty cover, and have suffered a very unfortunate clutch failure that may be due to failings at the time of the first replacement.  It is rotten luck, but I think trying to pursue the second clutch repair will merely end up costing you more money.  Unless your engineer can find compelling evidence the the first replacement clutch was incorrectly fitted, therefore, I afraid I think you'll just have to grin and bear it.  Sorry!

[weldted]

Brian I take note of your comments, but would ad the following this van has suffered from a realy bad judder when reversing from new sufficent that it would draw attention at campsites when reversing onto a pitch if there was any slight slope let alone trying to reverse onto leveling blocks which should have been well wiehin this vans capabilities, we probably get more use out of this van than a lot of users so problems would come to light sooner, we camp up to 150 nights a year so the revering that takes again is more than most this would I would think subject mountings and friction parts to quite a bit of excessive wear and tear as Fiats advice to avoid the (judder) was to increase the rev's when reversing. This in its self would generat some heat multiplied by the fact that unlike a delivery van this motorhome is a say 90% fully loaded every time manovering is carried outall this add to if the power train was up to the job and did not shudder would it have failed/ When the previous model of this van that we had on the 2.8jtd had very similar use whent to most of the same places but did not suffer the same problems?

[AndyStothert]

We're back from our warm walking holiday in the mountains of La Gomera, and we even managed to encounter a defective Boeing on the way back ( a knackered old 757-200 series) - much scarier than a Ducato at its worst.

 

The intention now is to set up a website which will try to provide an ongoing time capsule of information for current and future owners who encounter problems with their Ducatos (or Boxers or Relays) within the next few years.

The hope is that owners of unmodified 2.3 models (and even maybe vans which have been modified as we still aren't totally sure of the longevity if the mods) who have transmisison defects in the future will be able to access sufficient information to take the matter back to Fiat and have them carry out the repairs and/or modifications even when the vehicle is well out of warranty. Quite how this can be accomplished I know not (in website terms) but Mel has volunteered to provide the necessary expertise to provide an oultet for my brain's aching load of Fiat related information.

We are both open to any suggestions.

 

As far as Ted's clutch failures go the original replacement was obviously done as cheaply as possible (without a replacement DMF) and the garage were acting purely as Fiat's agents in this so his dispute is with Fiat, and he shouldn't have to run about in trying to prove who was at fault.

Unfortunately, as Brian alludes to, the motor trade in general seem to think that clutch failures are an easy get-out where the warranty is concerned, so he may have a bit of a frustrating and ultimately disappointing result with Fiat.

However it is still worth putting this one to the SMMT warranty codes of practice conciliation and dispute procedures, as it won't cost anything and you just never know what they will come up with.

The number for the SMMT is 0870 751 8270, and the lady who deals with this is Theresa Howell. Or send her an email (consumer@motorindustrycodes.co.uk) or look at the website.

 

[colin]

Teds casing

[Brian Kirby]

Ted

Have you registered the van with Fiat as a judderer, and have they carried out any modifications?  I agree with Andy re trying the SMMT conciliation service but, to be honest, I wouldn't hold my breath.

So, Fiat said to increase the revs when reversing.  Do you have that in writing from them, and did they say what revs to use?  Can you prove you never exceeded those revs, and never used them unless absolutely necessary?  You are, in effect, saying you do more than average reversing, and use higher than average revs while doing so.  Do be aware Fiat monitor this string, and you may be handing them gifts by saying such things. 

I am not wanting to imply I think you are being treated well, or fairly, I do not.  I am saying that I can't see how anything you have said to date amounts to a convincing, winnable, case that would be worth trying to take to court.  I understand that you want there to be a case, and I share your frustration but, in the final analysis, where is your conclusive evidence that the second clutch failure is due to Fiat's faulty materials or workmanship?  That, I think you will find, is all that the guarantee actually covers.

[weldted]

Hi Brian I said that Fiat suggested increasing the revs when reversing I did not say I did so!! It was their answer to my question at the NEC show Febuary 2009. This from one of their reps on the stand at the show who said he was not aware of any problems but it may ease the problem if you can work that one out!! he then just walked away? I would not say that I do more than the average reversing I you keep a car or a van in a garage every night and use it every day how many time will you reverse in a year If a delivery driver puts his van in a yard every day how many times will he reverse in a year buses are garaged every night the same applies. The area supported by the four bolts in the gearbox casing is greater than the are supported where the mounts attach to the chassis why would the bolts strip in the housing. I is a dificult point to prove but I have lots of time and patience. Thank you once again for you objective point of view Ted.

[weldted]

Van first registered 01/03/08 judder registered with Fiat 10.15 05/03/08

[Brian Kirby]

weldted - 2010-01-01 10:38 PM ............... The area supported by the four bolts in the gearbox casing is greater than the are supported where the mounts attach to the chassis why would the bolts strip in the housing. I is a dificult point to prove but I have lots of time and patience. Thank you once again for you objective point of view Ted.

On the face of it, because the monkey who tightened those bolts at the time of your first clutch fix failed to engage the threads properly and mangled the lot, or simply used grossly too much force and mangled the lot.  Problem for garage, not Fiat.

If you know for a fact that the gearbox mounting was not removed while fitting the first replacement clutch, and can prove it, then the monkey was Italian,or at least belongs to Fiat!  Problem for Fiat, but difficult to prove!

[weldted]

calling the people who work on the van monkeys does not help the cause valid points of view are constructive and helpful but I think derogatory terms help no one and can only alenate people who might be in a position to assist I have been honest in my situation all the way through and treat people I have to deal with with respect and expect them to do likewise. The fact that Fiat have cast aspersions on my driving abilites is their way of trying to mask the fact that their products are of questionable quality which may or may not be proven if required in a court of law. The gearbox casing may be sent away a forensic examination but at the moment I have sent a polite request to Fiat asking them to reconsider their desision based on facts that I have sent them and their reply will shape the next course of action.

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2010-01-02 1:07 PM

On the face of it, because the monkey who tightened those bolts at the time of your first clutch fix failed to engage the threads properly and mangled the lot, or simply used grossly too much force and mangled the lot.  Problem for garage, not Fiat

 

I'm not convinced of that. If you look at the bolt on previous photo's (from anougher van ) you will see the ali has picked up on last couple of threads this can often happen if there is contamination in the tapped hole, or if the bolt has bottomed out, wouldn't normaly look like this if cross threaded, ted's may not have been same, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2010-01-02 6:36 PM  I'm not convinced of that. If you look at the bolt on previous photo's (from anougher van ) you will see the ali has picked up on last couple of threads this can often happen if there is contamination in the tapped hole, or if the bolt has bottomed out, wouldn't normaly look like this if cross threaded, ted's may not have been same, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Agreed, Colin, but as that mounting was presumably fitted correctly during manufacture, the threads would presumably have been clean, and the bolts of correct diameter, length and thread.

Then, someone removed the mount, and, eventually, re fitted it, and the problem arose.  The holes wouldn't have changed while the bolts were out, but they may have become contaminated if left unprotected.  I understand it is considered good practise to blow out vertical and horizontal blind drillings for that reason.  Even better to cap the holes as soon as the bolts are out where there is a risk of dirt entering.  Then again, how could the bolts bottom out, if the correct length bolts were being used? 

If a bolt tightens before it is fully home, unless it is a tapered thread, which these are not, something is not right.  Consequence of using a pneumatic driver instead of tightening by hand?  However, whose fault is that?

Who re-fitted the mounts in question, a garage, or Fiat?  He who botched the re-fitting is the person who is responsible for the fault, not the person who correctly executed it the first time.  If that is the level of skill employed on these jobs, I make no apology for calling the person concerned a monkey.

Their time is charged out at at high enough rates: for that I expect properly executed, and not botched, work.  I also expect the job to be checked, and the firm concerned to take full responsibility for what is wrong, and to rectify the defects at their own cost, without prompting or argument.  The man who does a good job earns my respect and confidence, no one deserves it, or would get it, for work like that.

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2010-01-02 7:14 PM

 

Agreed, Colin, but as that mounting was presumably fitted correctly during manufacture, the threads would presumably have been clean, and the bolts of correct diameter, length and thread.

 

I would not presume that, even in these days of CAD/CAM it still goes wrong. Just the wrong taper on a tap and the bolt binds up on last couple of threads and we have the situation seen on these two vans.

[Derek Uzzell]

Regarding Fiat's advice to use at least 1300 revs and slip the clutch to counter juddering, this was mentioned in a 2008 forum-thread by Andy Stothert who quoted Fiat Service News Circular reference 10/42.06 of 24.11.06 (Note the date.) It's perfectly valid advice and may be helpful for drivers who happen to be 'mechanically challenged' and fail to understand that it's unrealistic to expect a high-geared vehicle to crawl along under load with the motor at tick-over speed and the clutch fully engaged.

 

However, if a driver (whatever his/her level of mechanical sympathy and driving expertise) is forced to adopt this technique for any length of time (ie. more than a few seconds) then clutch overheating will be inevitable and predictable. X/250-based motorcaravans are not unique in this - motorhomes based on FWD Transit Mk 6 and Mk 7 chassis with the 5-speed gearbox are also vulnerable due to their uncomfortably high reverse-gear ratio. If a vehicle is to be driven very slowly with its clutch fully engaged, then it must be suitably geared to permit this.

 

As far as the stripped threads in the gearbox casing are concerned, there are several possible explanations, but it's going to be difficult to contradict Fiat's explanation (however implausible it might sound) without iron-clad proof that the diagnosis is wrong.

[rolandrat]

Food for thought. Some years ago there was a truck on the road called a Scania 111, it was a great truck to drive and well ahead of its time but it had a design fault, the gearbox bellhousing was used as the rear engine mounting and because of the power output and torque produced the bolts stripped the threads of the casing causing the gearbox to drop so the first repair was by helicoil and if it didn't last then it was a retap or new casing.

Fiat aren't alone in design problems.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2010-01-02 7:23 PM

I would not presume that, even in these days of CAD/CAM it still goes wrong. Just the wrong taper on a tap and the bolt binds up on last couple of threads and we have the situation seen on these two vans.

However, the gearbox castings are machined by CNC machines at high volume, each being drilled and tapped by the same machines using the same tools and settings.  Surely if your hypothesis were the case they would all be duff and all be showing the same characteristic?  Is it not the case that the poorly fitted mound in your original pic is from a 2.3 litre power train, which has a different gearbox to the 3 litres?  Yet only these two have so far, shown the fault.  I'd be interested in Nick's opinion, if he feels so inclined!

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2010-01-03 9:30 PM

colin - 2010-01-02 7:23 PM

I would not presume that, even in these days of CAD/CAM it still goes wrong. Just the wrong taper on a tap and the bolt binds up on last couple of threads and we have the situation seen on these two vans.

However, the gearbox castings are machined by CNC machines at high volume, each being drilled and tapped by the same machines using the same tools and settings.  Surely if your hypothesis were the case they would all be duff and all be showing the same characteristic?  Is it not the case that the poorly fitted mound in your original pic is from a 2.3 litre power train, which has a different gearbox to the 3 litres?  Yet only these two have so far, shown the fault.  I'd be interested in Nick's opinion, if he feels so inclined!

The only people who will know for sure is Fiat, don't think they will be commenting on wheter a batch or two where manufactured out of limits, but if your in to conspiresy thoereies, then it's odd that several people have taken vans in for mods but have had to leave them longer because 'extra parts are required', what sort of way is that to run a workshop?But going back to bolt in original photo, doesn't look too healthy to me, was it in this state before or after thread was damaged? what you may not be aware of is the problem automotive industry have had in last few years with fasteners, the shift in manufacturering to China has caused some big headaches because of quality control, many are now specifing british manufacture as bolts snapping on a production line doesn't do a lot for productivity or costs.

[tonyg3nwl]

Hi. Regarding the comments posted in the last post or so, When my van was inspected by Peugeot expert from Coventry, He too advised that engine revs should be raised to drive through the vibration speed in reverse. (1300rpm approx) He also demonstrated the technique on my local test slope to prove his point. It was an uncomfortable experience travelling backwards at excess speed with limited rear view, ( above Caravan Club recommended "Walking Pace") but Peugeot now tell me that there is no further cure available. ( gearbox changed twice, new engine mounts and egr valve replaced.)

 

I have been promised sympathetic consideration IF a failure occurs, but refused extended warranty (clutch not covered in warranty anyway, read the book) They maintain that there is no need to worry, and I should enjoy the use of the vehicle !

 

Where do I go now,( apart from on holiday to seaside and get a bucket of sand to bury my head ) ?????

 

1300 rpm Without slipping clutch by the way

 

tonyg3nwl

 

[weldted]

A couple of questions, If Fiat maintain that the problems are down to Driver Abuse by me bearing, in mind how many Fiat X250 3 litres in various conversions and multi drop delivery driver versions there are on the road (and this is not aimed a white man van as they have a job to do I have just had my special dog food delivered by one, he made the extra effort through the snow as he knows it is important and please I want a reply to the question and not critisism of other drivers) Am I the only one who has managed to cause this problem if so how have Fiat reached this conclusion as, My independant enginner and a local enginnering works have come to different conclusions. The results of which I will not publish at the moment as there may be a legal action. And secondly to all you legal minds, If I were to produce in court statments from other affected parties could I from them enter a written statment, a witnessed statement, a sworn affidavit or would the person have to be present in court. This is at a small claims court as it is for under £5,000 and one has to look at the costs and inconvience caused

[Brian Kirby]

I guess the first question has to be, who would be suing?

[tonyg3nwl]

Hi, A stupid question no doubt, but has anyone with a juddering/torque vibration x250 2.2l Peugeot based van actually had a successful cure applied . I dont mean a "slight improvement" or other such vague phrases, but an honest statement that juddering/vibration has been completely eradicated and reverse is now as smooth as any forward gear use.

 

If so, what was the successful cure, part numbers etc, and where was it done.

 

edit.

Six speed gearbox model please

 

Tony g3nwl

[Guest peter]

Brian Kirby - 2010-01-03 9:30 PM

colin - 2010-01-02 7:23 PM

I would not presume that, even in these days of CAD/CAM it still goes wrong. Just the wrong taper on a tap and the bolt binds up on last couple of threads and we have the situation seen on these two vans.

However, the gearbox castings are machined by CNC machines at high volume, each being drilled and tapped by the same machines using the same tools and settings.  Surely if your hypothesis were the case they would all be duff and all be showing the same characteristic?  Is it not the case that the poorly fitted mound in your original pic is from a 2.3 litre power train, which has a different gearbox to the 3 litres?  Yet only these two have so far, shown the fault.  I'd be interested in Nick's opinion, if he feels so inclined!

Totally agree Brian. Tapped hole was stripped by an idiot posing as a qualified mechanic.When he realised what he had done he kept quiet and hoped no-one would notice until it was removed again. Then the person removing it would think they had done it. Sound plausible?

[weldted]

It has to be in the first instance the supplying dealer as that is who the contract of sale is. And the instigator will be me!! if I have to

[Brambles]

"Totally agree Brian. Tapped hole was stripped by an idiot posing as a qualified mechanic.When he realised what he had done he kept quiet and hoped no-one would notice until it was removed again. Then the person removing it would think they had done it. Sound plausible?"

 

This is total supposition.

How about mechanic/fitter checked his manual, set his torque wrench and tightened bolts. Unknown to him the alloy casting is not to specification, note the different texture of corrosion compared to other half of case, and then the threads were weakened and subsequent failure occured.

 

Or, the bolts where reused but unknown to fitter thay had threads which where not formed of the correct size. Tightened correctly for a second time, but this time the mating threads in alloy failed.

 

Shouting off about the fitter helps no one. How about his torque wrench, was it within calibration at the time he used it.