Tough one. Let’s say you’re one of the usuals and stock a range of parts for ten Jaguar classic models. It’s probably more but ten makes the math easier. Same if you say they can supply a thousand parts for each. Probably more for some and less for others but we’re concentrating on the ten most common models that probably are also reflected in the popularity on these forums.
By dint of some mathematical jiggery-pokery, that comes out at 10,000 parts (don’t applaud, just throw money).
I’m not sure what kind of batch sampling or goods-in QC, or test program you have in mind but I suspect pro-active parts testing is not on the cards, especially when there are varied versions of the same part - such as chain tensioners - to suit differing customer budgets. Rolon are not newcomers to chain drive and if I were a trade buyer I’d expect them to deliver the goods, as it were. The average full-service vendor is probably more p*ssed off than us if their supplier doesn’t accept there’s a problem or doesn’t help with reparations, as they have more skin in the game.
To date, the only one it’s tough on is the car owner with the blown up (or about to be blown up) engine. No one expects these smallish suppliers to have full fledged QC testing. But when they are told about problem parts and deny there’s a problem, they are the problem. No recalls, no service bulletins…nothing but denials. Nobody knows nothin’. When Rolon and the supplier of the chain guides do not deliver the goods, they get away with it. Maybe the part is quietly dropped from the usuals inventory, but that’s the extent of it. Reparations? I’ve never heard of a supplier springing for the cost of an engine tear down to extract a junk part.
It is very frustrating when a part fails, especially when that part takes other good parts down with it. However, I believe it is even very rare for a current auto maker to cover parts and labor on a part. I may know of one that does, but I would have to check that. Typically, the most warranty any part has is for the part, no related parts and no labor, and the time is often fairly short. It is very hard to warrant a part and labor when someone else supplies the labor. That is a lack of control. If you want “total” warranty, you would probably have to go to an engine rebuilder. And even then, because of the miles most of these cars get, that warranty, because of time, would probably only cover a few thousand miles.
The point is that there are known faulty parts in the hands of car owners and almost certainly installed in customer’s engines. The suppliers refuse to acknowledge that fact. Why? Because they don’t want to spend a penny to fix the problem and clearly don’t care if your engine blows up…more parts for them to sell. It’s patently unethical.
That’s easy for them and something has likely been done in that regard (although they’re not talking). What about the junk already installed in customer engines or sitting on the shelf waiting to be installed? And the engine damage that has occurred, or that will occur down the road? Those chain guides have a very clear stress riser that will fatigue, cause a crack, and ultimately fail. Why is it OK for them to stay silent about this ticking time bomb? They have a computer record of who bought those parts, and when. Not a peep from them.
No, but when I notified my parts supplier about a chain damper failure a couple years back I was offered any gaskets needed to do the tear down. In retrospect the radius bend in the part was too sharp, and that’s where it broke. It could be argued that a more experienced engine rebuilder would have inspected the damper more carefully before installing it, would have seen the potential for a fatigue failure and rejected it. It wouldn’t have been the first time I sent parts back. The Rolon tensioner may be another matter. I’ve got one of those installed too.
But who should pay for repairs? A supplier buys his parts in good faith from the manufacturer and the customer buys his parts in good faith from the supplier. If it turns out those parts are defective it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer to eat the cost and the responsibility of the supplier to discontinue selling the part (which, incidentally, is what the supplier of the failed chain damper assured me he would do). If the supplier continues to sell the defective part then the liability shifts entirely to him.
Those Rolon tensioners were sold by just about all of the usual parts suppliers. While there are anecdotal accounts of high failure rates nobody’s actually sought to quantify and document the frequency of failures, as in “how many have been sold and how many of those have actually failed?”. Another question is “did they fail because of design or because of installation error?”. There was a restorer in J-L whose rebuilt engine was noisy and he traced it down to lower timing chain slap. It will be in the archives, 5 years or so ago. In conversation we figured that when he installed it he hadn’t released the tensioner plunger properly - the procedure for the Rolon is different from the original Renold - which he was able to correct by turning his engine alternatively clockwise and counter-clockwise to pump the plunger and get it released. Otherwise, you’d expect the action of the chain slapping against the plunger shoe might eventually tear it off and precipitate a failure. I’ve got 8,000 miles on this rebuild and so far the Rolon has held up.
If there really is proof that the Rolons suffer a high failure rate I submit the only way owners who installed them could be compensated is through a class action lawsuit of the manufacturer after documenting the issue. Unlikely. More likely we’ll just grumble and eat it.
No, there’s another avenue that is more onerous for manufacturers and suppliers of safety critical parts. As I’ve said previously, knowingly selling (or not recalling) safety critical, failure prone parts is a serious offense in the aviation world. I believe government highway people see it that same way.
Not a fan of advocating for more socialist policies but,…… it would be nice if there was a venue for buyers to leave “feedback” as is possible with the Ebay site. Now that would cut down on the inaction of these suppliers when asked to correct their mistakes. Would you buy a part from a supplier with a 50% positive rating? Probably not.
Phillip
So I take it you’re an advocate of quietly eating the expense of rebuilding your imploded engine because these suppliers knowingly withhold information on faulty parts? (By the way, I can make that case).
What? Give the customer more power to advance the quality of their parts. Govern yourselves and you have real power. Now please be quiet, I’m trying to eat!!!
Phillip
“So I take it you’re an advocate of quietly eating the expense”
I’m an advocate of growing a pair - no offence - and realising that being alive caries risks. The only way to avoid certain risks is to avoid the behaviours carrying those risks, but that in itself has downsides if the activity is otherwise pleasant. E.g. It would be perfectly possible to eliminate every STD, if people could be persuaded to only ever have sex with their first partner. I might think that was a perfectly reasonable policy that would free up humungous resources for other things, but I wouldn’t expect to persuade everyone. It remains an option for individuals, with 100% success guaranteed and totally free of charge, but life is often a little more complicated. Same goes for many seventy year-old mechanical contraptions assembled by DIY hobbyists. We live and learn and often a low-energy approach yields better results than combative stances where people put up defensive barriers.
I once had a 123 seize on me within 5 miles. I was worried about the effect on the bronze drive gear and could have made a case (in fact DID make a case) for the seller to pay for a stripdown and any new parts. In English law the seller is liable iand whether they get compensated by their own supplier doesn’t concern the retail customer. So there was a clear-cut failure, accepted by the seller and the maker, but the engine hadn’t blown up and hand on heart the chances are it wouldn’t. Summer was near, I wanted to drive that D replica, not spend time rebuilding it, so we settled amicably for a new part, a partial credit and a gasket set. I fitted the new 123 and stored the gaskets for another day. Nobody died, nobody got rich and hopefully we all came out feeling like reasonable human beings with normal cortisol levels. This very thread started combatively but it soon appeared that a calmer discussion ensued and both parties came out OK?
What’s your point other than making vague insults. Where I come from growing a pair does not entail bending over… I have an engine that very likely has the crack prone chain guides installed. I haven’t taken it to a shop to have it checked and at the moment don’t have the time to take it apart myself. Nobody from the supplier has bothered to even suggest that any of us in possession of these parts take a look. Now, I’m sure they’re reading this as they have told me that they read these threads every day. So, here’s a perfect opportunity for them to give me a call, offer their assistance, and make it right. Show me that they “have a pair”. If I don’t hear from them, I’ll call them myself. When they start the tap dance, I’m going to make it a Federal issue. I’ve tossed numerous junk parts during the restoration and absorbed the cost. (Parts from all of them). This is a big one to absorb.
I’d just like to know. No way anyone will “make it right” - I guess that’s OK with me, as it’s the way it is, but I’d sure as heck like to know the dates, part numbers and orders that “they” think are suspect. The tensioner I put in had a regular Jag part number (no “X” or -1 , as Terry’s or XK’s seemed to use), but I have no idea if this is a ‘Rolon’ or Reynold. My guide shoes all had “X” suffix (except one, which had no suffix). All from 2015. It would be real, real nice if they’d call me and let me know if I’m at risk. Even in this hyper expensive world, spending over $20 grand with someone should rate an e-mail…
On second reading, you’re right - I wasn’t very clear. It seemed logical at 0500h or whenever it was SWMBO got up.
I was suggesting it may not be realistic to expect retailers to QC check every part they sell, or to rebuild your motor before anyone knows if it would have failed in your lifetime.
Aspirational? Sure, in an ideal world. We’d all love it if parts sellers gave the kind of deep back-up of a blue-riband service provider. They don’t, by and large, as there are no service fees, just parts costs. though some of them do go the extra mile sometimes.
As someone said, if you buy a complete rebuilt engine you should be able to expect help if it fails under normal conditions. But just buying some bits for a rebuild may have too many variables to expose them to cut 'n dried liability. I’m guessing involving the Feds would close down most options under advice from their lawyers.
I myself have just lost $2150 dollars on a fake triple SU & manifold ad here on J-L (which is why Gunnar has suddenly put caveat reminders throughout the Classified section). There was a major bank involved in the wire fraud but I don’t expect the Feds to do much as a result of my filing. When/if they ever pull their finger out, I also expect my slim chances of redress-by-negotiation will evaporate like mist from an winter Jaguar’s tailpipe.
I think Eric continues to make a clear compelling case.
I’m sure vendors may have arguments to the contrary, but I would venture
they’d be based mostly on self interest, rather than fairness. Of course
you have to make money to stay in business.