The biggest killer of DMF's is placing them under a high load regularly.

 

This is mostly done at low RPM and too high a gear.

 

For example when rigidly obeying the on-dash gear recommendation, or generally lazy driving, not changing down soon/often enough.

 

Skoda will happily tell you when and why they provide goodwill. You have to be able to demonstrate loyalty to the brand such as full Skoda service history, previous Skoda buying history and have a car less than 5 years old.

 

On a positive note, you may well have received some goodwill from Skoda UK but no doubt this will have only offset the total price difference between your chosen local garage and a fully franchised main dealer, so overall you probably aren't financially worse off.

I agree silver, that's probably the short and tall of it. I was annoyed because they refused a goodwill gesture because I didn't take to a Skoda garage which wasn't practical in the time available. I understand there's no guarantee but the car did have a full skoda history and was serviced at Skoda in the summer.

 

If this was a safety issue they'd recall them all and don it for nothing like they are doing with EA189 engine it has fitted. My argument is failure at 32k is not acceptable and is a well known fault. Saying mine hasn't failed for 100k doesn't prove anything as most will but the point is that far too higher percentage do fail early due to a poor design issue and this is well known for VW/Skoda and has since been redesigned as if proof were needed. If it was a safety issue as I said they'd recall it.

 

If you can't see why being forced to take to a garage that charges twice as much "or else" is anti competitive then we'll have to leave it at that. They didn't even ask to see the pictures or the bill or where it was taken. If you vought a house off Wimpey would you expect to only be able to use them for repairs?

Edited 19 January, 201610 yr by tonyt747

Yet, by law, we are permitted to have a vehicle serviced during the warranty period by a third party using OEM parts and still be covered. If your repairer used OEM parts then maybe you do have cause to complain.

I agree silver, that's probably the short and tall of it. I was annoyed because they refused a goodwill gesture because I didn't take to a Skoda garage which wasn't practical in the time available. I understand there's no guarantee but the car did have a full skoda history and was serviced at Skoda in the summer.

 

If this was a safety issue they'd recall them all and don it for nothing like they are doing with EA189 engine it has fitted. My argument is failure at 32k is not acceptable and is a well known fault. Saying mine hasn't failed for 100k doesn't prove anything as most will but the point is that far too higher percentage do fail early due to a poor design issue and this is well known for VW/Skoda and has since been redesigned as if proof were needed. If it was a safety issue as I said they'd recall it.

 

If you can't see why being forced to take to a garage that charges twice as much "or else" is anti competitive then we'll have to leave it at that. They didn't even ask to see the pictures or the bill or where it was taken. If you vought a house off Wimpey would you expect to only be able to use them for repairs?

Yes it's a bit like when you could get a government grant (£500 I think it was) for a combi boiler but you had to go to one of their approved suppliers like the Gas Board. I got one installed from a supplier without the benefit of the grant and got it cheaper!

 

I understand your anger, Skoda shouldn't be paying out via goodwill but because the part has failed prematurely.

 

Disappointingly this applies to many products nowadays, not only cars. 

The trouble is, the legal costs to prove a part is inherently faulty rather than simply an earlier than expected failure. This is where the American style 'class action' pays dividends. A whole lode of affected customers agree to work together with a 'no win no fee' lawyer, sharing the subsequent legal costs from the individual payouts. Otherwise, it's you v the VAG lawyers, with the onus on you to prove fault. Also, your contract is with the dealer, not Skoda, so who do you sue?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes it's a bit like when you could get a government grant (£500 I think it was) for a combi boiler but you had to go to one of their approved suppliers like the Gas Board. I got one installed from a supplier without the benefit of the grant and got it cheaper!

 

I understand your anger, Skoda shouldn't be paying out via goodwill but because the part has failed prematurely.

 

Disappointingly this applies to many products nowadays, not only cars. 

It's a pity car manufacturers did not have the customer service that my bathroom and kitchen fitting companies have. Both gave 5 year warranty on any item they installed. The warranty period ends this year and I have used them both twice during the warranty period, one just last week and they have fixed or replaced the items without question. The one last week was the vent fan in the shower room and it was a £140 item.

Inherent fault or earlier than expected failure - they should both be paid for by the manufacturer in my book.

 

It's understandable that manufacturers design, produce and source parts as competitively as possible but in many instances they seem to lean too much towards price rather than quality and it is the customer that suffers and sometimes has to pick up the bill. 

 

As has been said already I don't think it unreasonable for cars to last 10 years without fault unless it has been abused and in that case it should be for the manufacturer/dealer to prove that not the other way round.

 

We are after all going to what is supposed to be one of the best manufacturing groups in the world. Like many I assume, buying from Skoda as they are part of VWG, share many parts and expect to get good quality and reliability. If we went for e.g. a Dacia and had problems then we shouldn't be too upset and surprised.

 

As I've said I was considering buying second hand from within the VWG range but nearly everything I was considering had issues and put me right off which is pretty damning really!

 

Take the DMF as an example. We know that premature failure of these can be from accelerating too hard from low speed in a high gear or from riding the clutch. The latter would come under abuse and the claim could be thrown out if the clutch has excessive wear for the mileage. But other than that, surely they can design a DMF that doesn't fail or at least only a small percentage? Not all people drive sympathetically and well and unless the car is being abused components should be able to cope with that.

 

Other failures like the cam chain would seem to fit with poor design/cost saving and should certainly be replaced at the manufacturers expense during the 10 year life as long as the oil has been changed as specified. One car I was considering was a 3.0 Tdi A6. But research showed that these were a risk if the oil hadn't been changed at 10k. mile intervals. As most would be on variable servicing and therefore 20k. oil changes then that isn't going to happen is it!

 

Whilst my TT has the latest 2.0 TFSI and hopefully has all the issues sorted associated with the TSI engines I still have the oil and filter changed every year which was after 4k. in the first year to reduce the risk to a minimum as I intend keeping the car for quite a few years. Unfortunately the majority of owners of most new cars will probably get a new one after 3 years and don't care, they go by the book which some times is insufficient.

 

I know that better components cost more but I wouldn't have thought would add a massive amount to the cost of a car. And given the discounts that are made available there is obviously some wiggle room for the manufacturer.   

I can't comment about car manufacturers but I suspect all are the same.

My experience is in TV retailing over a number of years. Manufacturers in those days (15 years ago) only supplied through appointed dealers and the sets were fixed price, if yuo discounted them you lost your agency for that make!

The sets were much more expensive than today and only offered 12 months guarantee. Trade discounts were 33% BUT the dealer was expected to fix any problems during the guarantee period, in other words the customer was paying for any problems up front. The banning of Manufactures Recommend Pricing put an end to this and prices started to come down but guess who had to absorb the price reductions? The dealer! The manufacturers sat in their factories with their income not reduced at all.

This gradually changed but as price fixing was banned the small local dealer then had to contend with the discount warehouses that sprang up everywhere  who could purchase in bulk and retail at less than the local dealer could buy at. So your friendly local dealer gradually disappeared,  in common with most other retailers.  The question is still the same today, do you want lowest prices or are you prepared to pay a bit more for something that used to be called SERVICE?

 

Way of the today's world, but not mine!

 

Fred

Edited 24 January, 201610 yr by g6zru