Motors blows after Annual Service - dealer refuses to honor warranty

Are there any particular things that can be done to minimize failures? I.e. things to address on an engine-out service?

I bought a '96 car that has had a major service and a lot of incidentals last year and it has had an engine and gearbox rebuild about 8 years ago. I want to make sure I keep up the maintenance plan as much as I can...

(and yes, I have researched the 355 forum but additional opinions and/or experiences are always welcome).

Thanks,.

 

Of course it matters! It speaks to competence. If the repair wasn't done competently and led to subsequent engine failure, the engine needs to be repaired at the SOLE cost of the dealer. It's called a warranty on work performed.

It is in question. It's called a half-measure if the part was installed incorrectly. If so the engine needs to be repaired at no cost to the owner.

Dealers should care more about their reputation. And, questioning posters ethics while holding dealers harmless is silliness.

 

And this is the $1,000,000 question.

If it was the latter, then the product being used becomes a moot point.

 

And who pays for the diagnosis?

 

I would say... not looking too good for FoFl now.

 

And looking even worse...

 

I've only seen this one other time in my life. A beginner technician ram rodded the pulley onto the shaft and began tightening the bolt without checking if it was seated properly with the key. He only noticed the issue when the bolt reached it's torque but the pulley was still not lined up. An unscrupulous tech may tighten the bolt even more than torque spec to try to get the pulleys to line up and it might even hold for the life of the car.

 

It was pretty clear from the context what "wollard out" meant but since I'd never heard the term before I looked it up on Urban Dictionary:

wollard-out = worn out, wobbly, stretched, overused, abused, out of round

I've seen exactly this type of damage before with a shaft and a woodruff key when the bolt holding the timing gear was not properly torqued. I have never seen this situation with a bolt torqued to factory spec.

 

If installation was the problem, the dealer pays. (a contract would be made up before the tear-down, and both parties sign).

If client ws made aware that part was used, and no used parts carry a warranty, and the installation was not the problem, then client pays (a contract would be made up before the tear-down, and both parties sign).

Obviously it's not that cut and dry in this case, as there seems to be a dispute about used parts being used without the client's consent, and vice-versa. This would need to be determined prior in order for my proposal to work.

 

Lets Give the dealer the benefit of the doubt. Assume the OP knew the gear was used. Where in all the correspondence before the final invoice is the warranty disclaimer for the gear. Where is the OP's acknowledgement of thos disclaimer before the job started? Without those items the dealer loses 99 times out of 100. If Florida follows the doctrine of good faith maybe even a punitive damage case.

Art

 

Thanks

 

Absolute truth here.


This was 100% assembly error.

 

I had a similar challenge with an Fcar dealership. They did a major on my TR. Within a couple of weeks the car was overheating. I checked the antifreeze and there was oil in it. So I either had a head gasket or something else wrong.

The water pump, that they charged me for parts and labor to rebuild had failed. No brainer, right? Wrong! They double talked and bamboosled their way into basically telling me to get stuffed. After talking to the tech that did the work, he told me that he never touched the water pump, because they were out of parts... but charged me for the work anyway.

It wasn't until I wrote a letter (in Italian and English) to Montezemola that I got anything close to a result. They still ended up screwing me. So, count me in the 'find a good independant' if you can't DIY.

Good luck...

 

this says a lot.

 

+1

Dealer at fault for incompetent work.

Hire Brian as your expert witness.

 

Yep... I concur. All the evidence would point that way, used gear or not. It's not a gear failure, new or used. It's an assembly issue.

EVEN IF it COULD BE because of a used part being used, I think the evidence of the other dealer's inspection should have let them to give the benefit of the doubt to the customer, as painful as that may be to face.

You break it, you fix it.

 

Probably wouldn't even need that - just subpoena FCI to report their findings. Actually, with that in hand back then I don't understand why the OP did not pursue FoFL with a firmer hand.

 

So the error was.. just so I can understand... and hopefully avoid this in the future at least for myself..

Used gear was put onto shaft with the woodruff key normally seated flat and properly in its groove, will seat equally in the groove.

Instead it appears the key wasn't seated properly and the gear torqued down. This leads to deformation of the key and its groove in the gear. (surface by red arrow in blue above black line) The resulting deformation weakens both mating surfaces, with each turn, until enough play is present that valve impact occurs. Therefore even though a used gear was used, and a new key used.. the failure was independent of parts used.

Yeah not looking good for FoFl..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hello fellow Fchat members,

I am sorry for my delayed response. I was actually in the hospital when this thread began and i did not want to reply from my phone or in the irritable state that I was in.

First off, for those of you who do not know me, my name is Garrett Hayim and I am the owner of Ferrari of Fort Lauderdale, As most of you already know, I am NEVER angry when these types of threads come out. I think it is good for all of us to either address issues of for us to learn how to better handle our customers. In the past I have replied to these threads even when it could put us in harm’s way. I feel that it is best for all of us fellow Ferrari lovers to be able to discuss ANY issue at ANY time.

With that said, I must admit that this thread upset me quite a bit and I am taking great caution not to sound defensive. The reason why i am upset is because the facts are so far from the truth that I feel that my beloved FCHAT was used as a weapon not a way to share good information and experiences (whether good or bad). What I mean is that i welcome any feedback (GOOD OR BAD) but i cannot tolerate blatant lies and omissions which not only make our dealership look bad but also deceives all of you guys who diligently keep all Ferrari owners in the know.

In one post the Mayor said that there are a ton of reasons that we will not respond. While I agree, I simply do not think it is fair to leave this post unanswered. From the limited (I am being gentle here) information that you have been provided, I agree with all of the posts so far. I too would find this incredible or shameful and go on and on about legal rights. But the truth is that you were not given the facts and there is a reason that this has not gone legal. With all of the facts in hand there is no legal case and any lawyer would say that he is liable for libel and slander. But that is neither here nor there. And FYI he did bring in legal advice. He had his sister represent him in a legal capacity as a lawyer. We still worked with her and did not shut down in any way or refer her to our legal council.

I am proud to say that I run an honest and well run shop which I am proud of. If you look at old posts you will see that many of our clients go to bat for us and any issues that have arose (things happen, it is how you deal with it that sets you apart) had been addressed and everyone has left happy. Most of these posts discuss whether or not there are legal rights. But most posts have not asked the real question. The OP claims that his engine blew up after a major service yet fails to mention that the engine came in for loss of power and only did a service because the motor was already out. Did he mention that he put over 3000 miles on the car? if the the cam nut was not tightened as he proposed it certainly would not have stayed on for 3000 miles? Did the OP mention that the part failed in the exact same way that the first part failed? In short I think it is best for you to know the entire story and then decided for yourself. I don’t want to shut this Thread down. To the contrary I am welcoming feedback as I believe in F-Chat as a member and as a Ferrari lover. However, I never want to see my beloved community used as a tool against ANYONE. It is too powerful and too honest to be manipulated. The basic premise is that anyone can post and or be called out if they are wrong. There are so many voices that eventually the facts are DRIVEN to the surface. So here goes and I hope you appreciate my sincere effort to get the true facts out in the open.

I will be attaching many documents and pictures but here are the facts in short form as a timeline with mileage updates to show usage:

1) August 13, 2012 (71,587 miles) - The car did not come if for a Major Service, nor did it arrive in November. The car came in August 13, 2012 For "Lack of Power coming off the line.... Doesn't feel like 375 HP". Please see the OP's online service request submission as well as Invoice number 60492 attached where we advised him of necessary repairs and client declined and took the car unrepaired.

2) October 9, 2012 (71, 768 miles). Customer put 181 miles on a car that was clearly not running properly. Once again the car did not come in for a major service. The car arrived for the same performance problem and approved a tear down and eventually the work to repair what was found (customer did agree to the major service because the motor would already be torn down for the repair. After teardown we found that the the key hold in the timing bearing had worn down which caused the timing issue. We were unable to obtain this part from FNA and we found a used Timing Gear for him which he approved. All other parts including seals, gaskets, sprockets etc. were new parts. We even sent him pictures of the gear side by side to the old one, Pics are attached.I also attached a picture showing that the bolts were tight (and if you watch the video from the teach at FCI, he also confirms that the bolts were tight even after the failure). Additionally, he wanted to see the used part to make sure he was ok with it and came to our shop to give a final "ok" which he did. (On a side note we later learned that the customer had this car worked on by 3 different shops trying to fix valve issues. It is unclear why they had to work on this 3 times without being able to fix it. We now know that the keyway in the timing gear has failed again (the exact same way it failed when we repaired it the first time) because most likely the crank shaft or bearings are worn. When you read below you will understand why this is relevant as the key hole was worn most likely from a worn crank that was “walking” which is common for a high mileage car like this and this excessive play or movement is putting pressure on the key and causing the failure). Customer picks the car up on November 30, 2012. Please see attached Invoice # 62972

3) December 3, 2012 – E-Mail from the mesoscale stating “The past 48 hours have been nothing but bliss at the Brinkley household. Over the weekend, I’ve put close to 100 miles on the car in a variety of driving conditions and speeds. I can honestly say that for the first time in nearly two years I did not see a drop of oil, coolant or gearbox fluid on the floor before driving to work this morning.” See attached email dated December 3, 2012

4) Dec 11, 2012 (72,330 miles) Customer had put 552 miles on the car and was extremely happy and requested some other minor repairs that had no connection to the initial repair. He wanted the Handbrake adjusted, a rubbing noise (which turned out to be the rear deck lid needing adjustment) and a clunky shift which would require a new gear syncros which the customer declined. No engine issues whatsoever. See invoice # 62972

5) April 4, 2013 (74,878 miles – as reported by FCI) The customer had put on 3,111 miles since the repair - the customer complained of a noise in the motor. Since the client was currently in South Carolina we suggested that he take it to FCI for a simple inspection as a “noise” can not be diagnosed and it could be a simple fix or we told him that he could ship the car to us. He chose to send the car to FCI as it was much closer, which I personally agree was a prudent decision. When FCI learned that car had low compression they wanted to do a tear down. At this point we further explained that the warranty from FNA on parts only covers a failure of the part replaced. He did not purchase any warranty on the motor or the car itself. Therefore he must authorize the tear down. Because if the cause is not from the part, then the warranty does not apply and he would be responsible for the bill. The client wanted the car to stay up there (we once again explained that we could ship it down to us). We did tell him that if the failure was due to our mistake we would pay for the tear down and ship the car down at that point so we could repair it properly. After the tear down, the first thought was that something was left loose and it was a labor mistake. However, after learning that it had been 3100 miles since the repair and that the same part failed in the same exact way, an assembly error was ruled out and the most logical cause was that the crank or the crank bearings were worn out and the crank was “walking” creating play that wore out the key slot again for the second time. There were many conversations with Mesoscale at this point and at this time we learned of the multiple attempts to fix the timing and valve issues at other independent dealers, to no avail and that no one had inspected the lower part of the motor. This further backed the conclusion that the crank shaft was worn. FCI offered to perform the repair for $27,000 with a USED engine swap out.

We had no liability to perform this new full engine repair nor were we obligated to warranty this type of failure that did not arise from our workmanship or the part that was replaced, but we were and are committed to our customers. We felt that although we had no way of knowing that there was a crank related issue and it is unfortunate that the car needed additional work, on a moral side it is not fair to leave the client high and dry either. In short the underlying cause of the failure was there when the client brought us the car. We fixed the worn key hole in the timing gear problem. At that time, without further tear down which was not indicated there was no reason to know that there was another issue causing the keyhole failure. We wanted to help him with this new repair. The following offer was make to Mesoscale ( and his sister Rebecca who was representing him as a lawyer and a sister at this point):

- We pay 100% of the labor to overhaul the engine with no charge to the client
- Mesoscale will pay for the parts at our special Vintage reduced Pricing. Estimated: $5,000
- Discounted transport of disassembled car for $500
-
Mesoscale initially agreed and accepted this offer only to reneg and make new demands:
- Refund all work done thus far $12,787 including the repair, all parts as well as the major service performed.
- Pay FCI for all labor to diagnose the repair
- Pay all of transportation costs.
- See Email dated June 4, 2013 from Mesoscale.
-
Our offer was one of good will and we were not willing to refund for a repair especially when we did not make a mistake. Additionally, since we have not been permitted to see the car we could not confirm any findings or see if any parts had truly failed which would allow us to make a warranty claim through FNA. In any light a Parts warranty does not cover transport. Once again this was not a purchased Extended Warranty. We Explained this to the client and he agreed to come to the store to talk about it.

6) June 17th – The client and his sister/lawyer arrived at our store. The client asked us to communicate with his lawyer and remained outside. We walked her around the shop. Showed various engines in different stages of rebuilding and explained that we had the skills and knowledge to best make this repair. We were still trying to help the client. She asked for a few moments to think about and then later called us and said that her client/brother was getting married and could not pay for the repair and asked if we could assist in selling the car. We found a buyer and put the client and the buyer in touch (Forfeiting any type of sales commission).

7) June 19th – Emails of gratitude from the client’s lawyer/sister thanking us for our terrific service and helping the client in so many ways. She actually called us AMAZING!!! See Emails dated June 19th.

8) June 28th – after the sale of the car organized by us the OP posted this thread.

In conclusion, parts do break on a 20 year old car with 75,000 miles. While we cannot be responsible for other failures we try very hard to take care of our clients. We offered various solutions to his problem all of which cost us money. He selected one of those options. This is not some routine maintenance that ended up in an engine failure as the OP would suggest. While it is unfortunate, we did not cause it and we made every attempt to solve the clients dilemma.

If I can give any advice to the OP or anyone else in a similar situation. I would say first off if you have a problem with a car that was repaired the first place it should go is back to the dealer if they are willing to stand by their work. If they are reputable you have the best chance at getting some good will which we clearly offered. That means even if we didn’t cause the failure we certainly want to help a client who already spent significant amounts of money with us. It is in our best interest to make you happy. This also minimizes issues and/or opinions of multiple service providers who want to either look good or drum up more work for themselves.

Similarly, we have no reason to down play the official Ferrari warranty on parts. If we find that the part failed (which we must show to Ferrari) then not only does the client have no out of pocket expenses but we get paid in full. But we need to see the car and the parts to be able to make that determination. I believe Mesoscale is confused between the 2 different warranties (which I explain below).

Finally, to the OP, I understand your frustration but knowing all of the help that we provided and all of the attempts we made to better your situation including the final one that helped you “offload” the car as you requested, I would hesitate before making a post that was misleading, at best. We didn’t want to sell the car, you did. I understand your regret but remember that decision was made because you didn’t want to pay for the additional repairs that were necessary. So instead of paying FCI $27,000 for the repair or $5,000 to us with no labor costs you chose to collect money by selling the car “as is”. I happen to be a 355 lover so I understand the pain in parting with your car, but please do not take that out on us.

One last caveat. Some of the posts are confused about the different types of warranty offered. First off there is a Ferrari Parts Warranty on any new Ferrari part sold. If that part (and only that part) fails then the entire repair is covered under warranty at ANY Ferrari dealership.

Additionally, we stand behind our labor. If our dealership made a mistake, we will stand by the repair as well (however this is only valid at our dealership and cannot be honored at some other dealership). In this case we did offer for the car to be sent here and when the client wanted it to go somewhere closer we told him that the closest dealer to where the car was located at that time was FCI. At all times, the Ferrari New Parts Warranty was valid assuming that one of the new parts failed which could not be determined until there was a tear down approved. If the new part was not the cause of the failure then the warranty would not apply. We did offer to send the car to us so he would have the benefit of both warranties (Ferrari and our desire to stand by our work) as well as any good will that we could offer. But the car was never sent to us and it was torn down by FCI who ultimately determined that the part did not fail nor could they point to any failure in the work we provided. The ultimiate conclusion was that worn crank or bearings was the most likely cause and would need to be inspected. (As I said above parts do go bad on a 20 year old car with high miles). This never happened as the car was sold.

I hope all of you find this information helpful. While I know that an engine failure is never a happy moment and it is easy to find a villain. Sometimes the villain is just the enjoyment of car for 20 years and 75,000 miles. I tried to give an unbiased true account of everything that went on for close to a year. I tried not to be defensive in any way and to give as they say "JUST THE FACTS MAAM" but I also included the back up as well.

Garrett

 

Key needs to fit the groove properly or you have a total CF..

The driving force of the shaft to the sprocket is achieved via the clamping force of the sprocket between the nut and the shoulder of the shaft. The key ONLY provides an indexing function. Period, exclamation point.

Gear/shaft drives of this kind have been made without keys and work quite well if everything fits well and reliable clamping force is provided. Up to a certain amount of torque this works well. Above that point a more expensive splined shaft will be used but since the very earliest 308 motor the keyed shaft has served Ferrari very well in this application.


With a key, as in the Ferrari design, take away proper clamping force and destruction of the key and the key slots in the shaft and gear will happen every single time without fail. The design was never intended for the key to transmit the torque. The materials are just not hard enough to avoid it. That will be a process of progressive destruction.

Clamping force can only be lost (or never achieved to begin with) if the fit of the parts was not good at the start (assembly problem) or if the nut was improperly torqued and either was loose or got loose (again, an assembly problem). Those nuts are of a proprietary locking type. They should be replaced at every removal and in addition for the last 30 years or so I have made it a habit of using locktite as well as a safety measure.

The other possibility was that a collection of junk parts was used. In that case it's fate was sealed to start with and should never have been assembled. Getting shafts and key ways repaired is hardly a black art and could have been done for a reasonable amount if damaged parts were all that were available.

 

"the crank or the crank bearings were worn out and the crank was “walking” creating play that wore out the key slot again for the second time."

Can this happen and/or have you ever seen this manifest on a 355 motor?

 

Crankshaft movement was in no way responsible.


If the lower drive gear bearings were bad the gears could have been damaged but how that could possibly cause the nut to come loose to allow the belt drive sprocket to come loose and damage the shaft and key defies explanation.

 

FYI the nut never came loose. If you look at the video that the tech and FCI made and the OP posted. The nut is tight. it is a lock nut. Also I attached a picture of the lock nuts pushed on the gears when we assembled them.

The key hole in the Gear wore out (for the second time) because of hte play inside. There is only one way to put the woodruff key in and you dont torque it down. You only torque down the nut the nut that holds the sprocket in place not on the key itself. When the crank moves back and forth slightly it causes the key and keyhole to waddle and therefore wear.

Keep in mind guys that we have not seen the car since the failure and we are piecing this together.

If you look at the picture i posted it shows the worn out key hole in the gear and the replacement part. THe same thing happened again when they tore down the car at FCI. The fact that the same wear occurred twice in the exact same place leads us to believe that there is another underlying issue which we suspect is the worn crank or crank bearings causing excessive play and movement.

I hope that helps clarify for you. I want to give as much info as I can. I am in way arguing back and forth. I have been discusisng this with all of my Master Techs as i am not an tech expert.


Garrett