dilemma with a CS ECU(TCU)

You shouldn't have waited so long to try the part. 11 months is past ridiculous to expect a refund or exchange on a electrical part.

 

Sorry you feel that way and I think you are wrong. I buy or have bought from everyone in the Ferrari parts business in North America and all I can say is if you do not like Ricambi's service you really wont like the other guys.

 

Well, except that you consistently misspelled 'Ricambi'. I wouldn't touch the product if I were them. Even them testing it might imply some level of responsibility, and why should they do that? They are not a repair shop. Why isn't the shop that you used able to test it?

By "fair outcome" for both parties what you really mean is you want some compensation by Ricambi then. It's been 11 months and unless the product has a 1 year warranty no vendor would touch it.

 

It does have a 1 year warranty if purchased from and installed by a Ferrari dealer. He presumably circumvented that route in an effort to save money.

Oh. And I forgot to mention. It has to be installed in the correct car. Ferrari does not like experimenters putting CS parts in non CS cars.

 

i'm pretty sure Ricambi is not hurting for the loss of your business. after 11 months there is just no way.

i did read the entire thread (it's only 2 pages). i assumed you did not consider the test that the shop did to be satisfactory. because why do you care to have Ricambi re-test it?

 

I don't see what harm it would do for them to test the unit. You have stated several times that you are not fishing for a refund, so why would they object to testing the unit if you are going to ship it to them on your dime?

Sounds like they know it is bad and are afraid what you would say/ask for if they confirm it is bad and refuse to give you a new one.

 

Vendor has no way of testing the TCU. And Ferrari will not supply a replacement or do anything else so long after it's been shipped to vendor.

So I believe it's a case of vendor unable to help rather than refusing to help.

 

The only way to test is to put it in a car. I don't think Ricambi has a spare 360 laying around. There is also always a risk that damaged electronic units can damage other equipment in the car.

Want to volunteer your car?

 

Ok, all posts from both threads are now merged here.

Carry on, but one thread only please.

DM

 

I think the most salient point here is Brian's.

If you had the dealer or a mechanic buy and install the part, if it fails on install, it's on them. Brian is the only mechanic in this discussion, and if he says policy at that point would probably mean the mechanic was stuck with the part, and would have to eat it, then that same policy applies to you when you buy a part for your mechanic to install.

With the Dino, I often supplied parts because I had done extensive research into sources, and I liked finding the hard to find stuff. Even so, when installed it was clearly understood that if the part failed it was on me, even if it failed during installation.

Also, if a mechanic or dealer had purchased the part, no way it would have been 11 months before it was installed. The time delay from purchase to install is the final nail in the coffin I think, that plus the part wasn't being installed on a CS.

There's no upside for Daniel here. If Brian is correct and it has to be placed in a car to test, then how would he accomplish that? If it has to go back to the factory for testing, I'm sure they're not interested in a year+ old part. Either way, Ricambi would end up eating the part, and there's just no way of knowing, once installation was attempted, what may have caused the electronics to fail. Your installer may have inadvertently zapped it on install, should Ricambi pay for that?

All in all, I would never expect any vendor take back an almost year old electronic or mechanical part. My company has a strict 90 day return policy. Now mind you, what I make costs on average under a buck, so we don't get a lot of returns, but we won't consider one on stuff that's a year old.

DM

 

My company has over 625,000 customers in 32 countries, and many of the products we sell are electronic, and I can not think of any situation that we would take back a part that was 11 months old. I have also been doing mods to cars for over 30 years, and have bought countless parts that either did not work right, were installed wrong or or were defective. In fact there is graveyard of these parts in one of my warehouses I have bought from this seller, and would have nothing but good things to say about him. I am not trying to point blame, but I have learned from experience, to check the parts I order right away, looking for any physical damage, and if installation is required to check if they are functional, then have that done ASAP.

 

Fishing expedition gone wrong. You sat on the part for 10 or 11 months (you stated both) and put it into a car it wasn't designed for. If you were looking for a trial in the court of community opinion, the verdict is "donkey" and the resulting verdict is not in your favor.

 

End of thread, nothing more to be said.

 

Most electronic stuff from many retailers has a no return policy from Day 1---11 months later? I wouldn't take it back either..... Maybe try a different shop for the install and rule out a problem on Classic Coach's end...

 

Balenciaga made clear he is NOT looking for a refund or exchange.

Most responses then seem to mock him for trying to get a refund or exchange.

I know threads get hijacked into discussing off-topic even with best intentions. But with all the manufacturing and business expertise you guys represent, I'd like to learn your thoughts on his original question, which I take as follows: For low-volume, several-thousand-dollar parts, why wouldn't the mfr be willing to run at least a test? Even if they won't replace it, not even if its their own manufacturing error, wouldn't any mfr want to know the cause and potentially improve their product?

 

Derek- The no return on electronics parts parts is an industry standard. One other thing you need to realize is installing an ECU or TCU is not exactly rocket science. Pull the old one out, and plug in the new one. A ten minute job for Brian or your techs, and a half hour job for an amateur. So they plugged it in a year after you bought it, and it did not work. Nobody knows whether you played catch with it, dropped it on a concrete floor, or had a water leak where it was stored for a year. If it was a tie-rod, Daniel would have taken it back in a flash, because a visual inspection would confirm it was unused. For all Ricambi knows, you installed it yourself, did not seat it properly, and it fried itself. No way to know. That is why they, and everybody else, have the policy. I have seen Daniel take back stuff I figured there was no way he would do it. But they were mechanical or cosmetic parts where you could easily resell them. He cannot in good conscience send out your TCU to another customer.

Sorry mate, you are SOL.

Frank- What parts distributor has the test gear to do that? Test an alternator, battery, sure, but who has access to the proprietary software and tools to do the checks on all the ECUs on a modern car? All most can do is a continuity check.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Ricambi didn't make the part, Ferrari did. You are assuming that Ricambi is equipped to test these units and that isn't at all clear, or likely. That means you are suggesting he send something back to Ferrari saying 'I bought this 11 months ago and it doesn't work please test it'. Not likely to get any response; OK, maybe a laugh or two. Why would Ricambi want to put themselves in the middle of that situation? There is no possible win for them, lots of extra work, and a lot of bad possible outcomes.

As far as chastising him, he says he isn't looking to badmouth Ricambi BUT he posted in two sections and basically says 'they won't do what is right'. Looks like he is trying to pressure them in the court of public opinion. That is why he is getting shelled. If he was sincere about not wanting a refund and only wanting a test, why didn't he say 'I bought a CS TCU, it didn't work, how should I proceed?' Or he could have said 'any suggestions on how to diagnose the problem'. No need to provide a long description about how he purchased it blah, blah, blah.

 

I answered that in post 24. Ferrari makes cars and they sell parts to fix those cars. They are not in the business of testing parts they long ago sold in hand holding exercises. Neither is Toyota, Mercedes Benz or Ford. If they do not why would Ferrari? There are avenues for warranty of bad parts but this guy circumvented the required process that would make this part subject to warranty consideration.

Is there any part of my explanation that is unclear?

As far as mocking him, yes to a degree many are but most did not start out that way. His failure to handle the situation correctly has been explained to him over and over and he still feels poorly treated. It is his own fault and it was his decision from the outset to pressure Ricambi by naming the company in the thread to start with. It was also his choice from the very start to perform a repair or modification to his car in such a way that there was no warranty on the process. It was a manner chosen to reduce his cost. It also increased his exposure and now that it went bad he wants a do over. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Is there any part of that explanation that is unclear?

 

can anybody give the guy some advice on how to perhaps salvage the simulation with his apparently defunct tcu?

 

If there is no sign of physical damage, and there is no magic trick that needs to be done (like a reset) when a new ECU is installed, the ony way I can think of is to find someone, that not only could read the chip but knows what it should be. That is not going to be easy.

 

Ferrari's 360 F1 gearbox is controlled by a 3rd party electronics vendors equipment, it was actually bought in solution (custom programmed for the 360) and manufactured by Magneti Marelli, it is a rather inexpensive unit, an AMT TCU (transmission control unit). Its not a new technology and the TCU's have been in production since 1997. The newer 430 uses a faster processor edition of the same TCU (next gen cpu used clocked at a faster speed.).

If you google for cars that use a automated manual transmission (AMT) gearbox you'll see that quite a few car manufacturers use the same identical TCU in their cars including Alfa Romeo [selespeed] and many others such as Maserati. The main differences being the software programmed onto them (different for different car applications but all using the same hardware!). The first thing to do is CHECK ALL THE PINS are all intact, its very easy to bend a pin during installation which would stop the unit powering up. Its very rare for these units to fail, they are pretty robust.

There are 2 variants of the TCU in operation, one for inside the car (not in the hot/cold engine bay) and another for the engine bay (has to be constructed with a harsher environment in mind hence a little more expensive casing, etc.). Ferrari fit the TCU in the 360 behind the seat so its the cheaper version, the CFC32xx variant.

Here's a quick breakdown [sales blurb] of what the TCU does.

The CFC3XX Transmission Control Unit allows you to manage a robotized gearbox assuring vehicle performance and fuel consumption reduction by mean of gear shifts optimization. Actuators valves high accuracy control for multiple applications (x-y, s-cam types). Clutch and gears position control with contactless sensor interface.

>> Vehicle compartment mounting
>> High electronics integration
>> Small size
>> Fully software & logic core configurability to meet customer requirement [in this case Ferrari]