Did our Fabia 1.2 clutch replacers cause the engine timing to go out?

[NeilTM]

Fabia 1.2 petrol 55 plate.  BME engine.

Firstly, a fond hello to Wino if he is still here, and who saved our 
daughter's Fabio from a fruitlessly expensive journey to the scrap yard 
for the mother of all obscure faults - a still mysterious break in the 
wiring in an inaccessible part of the cabin behind the dash next to the 
bulkhead, in a cableform - an absolutely brilliant piece of patient 
sleuthing and testing by Wino that undoubtedly avoided the inevitable ECU 
change the professionals we contacted would have needlessly inflicted on 
us to no purpose.  2.5 years of fault free motoring later, we arrive at 
another challenge to its future after having just had two broken springs 
replaced for the MOT, all too quickly followed by replacing a clutch as 
well for a broken release bearing, which we also correctly diagnosed.  

In a nutshell, the subject line is what we need answers to to be 
confident that the Mr Clutch franchise we employed to change the clutch 
were in fact responsible for failing to prevent a known hazard, namely 
the timing chain being caused to jump a couple of teeth, which we believe 
to be the case from our own investigations.  A preliminary phone call to 
the garage met with denial of failure to secure the flywheel from moving 
backwards as it would upon tightening the clutch cover bolts if not first 
secured.  This according to more than one forum post we found can cause 
the tensioner to 'unload' its tension, precipitating a jump of the timing 
chain of one or two teeth.  Further confirmations that this is known to 
happen would be appreciated.  

No engine management light was on when the car went in for the clutch 
work, nor when it left for the 2 mile journey home, despite this being 
contradicted by the person we spoke to who said that he had done the 
work, and who claimed the light was on when we brought the car in, yet 
never informed us of this at any point.

So my first Q is how long is it likely before the ECU would recognise the 
persistence of a fault, as opposed to a transient, before logging trouble 
codes and putting on the engine management light?  The delay experienced 
was a 2 mile journey home, plus approx 1.5 miles into a trip the next day 
before it came on?  Is this a possible delay?  

However the running and power was noticeably poor from picking up the car 
compared with how it was, taking it in.  The garage obviously noticed 
something amiss because they reported that it had an engine fault, in 
that the revs were limited to 3,000 whereupon the engine cut out until 
the revs had dropped down a bit.  They speculated it might be a blocked 
cat and we let them book it in to investigate the problem for this coming 
Thu.  

Meanwhile we put a basic code reader on it and got:  

The first scan was on "Engine"
 and the codes were: 16725 16490 16556 16514 
The second scan was on "ABS" and the codes were: 01314 18265  

I understand from others of Wino's and other posts and informations that 
the last two ABS codes merely point to going to look for engine 
management fault codes, is that correct?  

The best informations seemed to be at:  

https://mechanicalee.blogspot.com/2013/03/volkswagen-audi-skoda-vag-fau 
lt- codes-engine.html  

The last lines being a list of possible causes of the error codes.  

16725 - Camshaft position (CMP) sensor A, bank 1 - range/performance 
problem Insecure sensor/rotor, air gap, wiring, CMP sensor  


16490 - Manifold absolute pressure (MAP) sensor/barometric pressure 
(BARO) sensor  

- range/performance problem Intake/exhaust leak, wiring, MAP sensor, BARO 
sensor  


16556 - System too rich, bank 1 EVAP canister purge valve, fuel pressure, 
injector(s), HO2S  


16514 - Heated oxygen sensor (HO2S) 1, bank 1 - circuit malfunction 
Heating inoperative, poor connection, wiring, HO2S  


4 fault codes and 3 sensors suddenly being implicated, having never been 
seen before, and the last time I checked for codes was this Sept before 
the MOT, only getting DTC: 01 00532 - battery voltage too high or too 
low, (I think in relation to airbag operation?), and not seen since.  

So when we stumbled upon more than one report of recent clutch changes as 
being implicated in throwing the timing out with at least two of those 
codes, 16725 and 16514, we checked this out:  

Using a mm graduated rod through the plug hole to determine TDC on No.1 
cylinder, we observed the angle of the notches on the end of the 
crankshaft by removing the plastic end covers, and photographed the 
misalignment that was indeed present, according to forum information that 
at TDC the notches should align parrallel to the face of the cylinder 
head.  Is that correct, and does anyone have an authoritative source for 
that information?   

I ask as I want to be certain of my facts before perhaps deciding I don't 
want to trust this garage to carry out the corrective work, if they, as 
it seems were unaware of having caused the fault, and thought it might be 
something expensive like the cat being blocked which I can't see 
implicated anywhere, and they seemed in denial and defensive over the 
fact of whether a prior engine management light was present, and of the 
possiblity of an unsecured flywheel turning backwards at some point. They 
also claimed there were no fault codes, but seemingly contradicted that 
by saying that they would look for historical fault codes as part of 
diagnosing the cause of the bad running and 3,000rpm rev limit, which 
would of course have showed up no less if they had checked the codes, and 
without checking the codes they cannot possibly know that there weren't 
any as they claimed! Nor can you have the engine management light on and 
no codes presumably?  There is no date time stamp on these code 
occurances is there?  Do they log mileages with the codes?  


If it is reasonably believed that the business in question cannot be 
trusted with the work or to take proper responsibility for their 
mistakes, I understand that we ought to be entitled to engage another 
business to do the necessary work and report honestly on what they had 
found.  If that matches what we are saying is wrong, and what caused it, 
I would put in a claim for the cost of that work to the original garage, 
and be prepared to take out a county court summons to recover the amount, 
plus costs if they held out, and defend our claim in the court.  Unless 
of course I am persuaded of not having such a case, hence my post. 

I want to get them to agree in principle to not making a charge if our 
analysis proves correct, and the whole story, otherwise given their 
response so far I don't feel confident of honest dealing, or competent 
work, and would at such a point of refusal tell them I was taking it to 
an independent garage instead and will charge them for the work unless 
their report was inconsistent with our analysis of course, but there is 
no way that this car went in running as badly as it came out, and with 
these fault codes, and observable bad angle of the cam shafts, so it 
seems reasonable to assume that it still wouldn't have these problems if 
they hadn't been precipitated by the garage.  

We have calculated an angle that we believe the timing to be out by based 
on the published length of the stroke (86.9mm) and the 11mm we measured 
the piston rose by before levelling off, after the notches had already 
aligned parrallel to the cylinder head:  22.78 degrees, which at 10 
degrees per tooth (is that accurate?) would indicate at least a jump of 
two teeth.  Have we got that right based on those figures?  The actual 
angle from the photos looked possibly steeper than that, but some of that 
could be going past TDC, but before the noticeable fall of the piston.  
Measuring the rise after the point of camshaft notch level seemed a more 
reliable guide to the actual angle of error though.

Finally is it possible for an engine to run driveably, and without 
damaging anything, albeit under 3,000rpm, which is quite restrictive on 
this engine, when the timing is out by this amount - about an eighth of 
the piston's travel to go to catch up with the cam shaft?   

Best wishes,  NeilTM

[Breezy_Pete]

Hi Neil, I don't have time to look into this in depth just now, but can later.

 

There is a counterhold tool recommended to prevent rotation during loosening/tightening of the clutch cover (must admit I didn't use it when I did one), detailed on this page:

https://workshop-manuals.com/skoda/fabia-mk1/power_transmission/gearbox_02t/clutch_control/repairing_the_clutch/removing_and_installing_clutch_on_vehicles_with_1.2_ltr_and_1.4_ltr_engines/

 

So you may have a case if Mr Clutch say they didn't use that, or can't produce said tool when put on the spot in person?

 

 

 

 

[NeilTM]

On 19/11/2019 at 10:17, Wino said:

Hi Neil, I don't have time to look into this in depth just now, but can later.

 

There is a counterhold tool recommended to prevent rotation during loosening/tightening of the clutch cover (must admit I didn't use it when I did one), detailed on this page:

https://workshop-manuals.com/skoda/fabia-mk1/power_transmission/gearbox_02t/clutch_control/repairing_the_clutch/removing_and_installing_clutch_on_vehicles_with_1.2_ltr_and_1.4_ltr_engines/

 

So you may have a case if Mr Clutch say they didn't use that, or can't produce said tool when put on the spot in person?

 

 

 

 

Thanks Wino, that's very good of you.

Just one quickie before early tomorrow, anyone:

Am I likely to do any harm driving the 20 miles to the garage with the 
timing out by this much?  23degrees!

Best wishes, Neil Taylor

[Breezy_Pete]

There are 36 teeth on each cam sprocket, and 18 on the crank sprocket, from memory, so given that the two cams still seem to be in phase with each other, I think it's most likely just jumped 1 tooth on the crank sprocket, so 20° out.

 

On 18/11/2019 at 23:14, NeilTM said:

according to forum information that at TDC the notches should align parrallel to the face of the cylinder head. Is that correct, and does anyone have an authoritative source for that information?

 

Following up this, the locking tools that are used during chain removal/replacement fit into these slots on the cam ends, and will only do so when the slots are parallel to the head/block joint (due to the fixing screw in each).

They will also only fit when the cams are at TDC No.1 on the compression stroke (when the off centre slots are above centreline of each cam, as opposed to below, as yours appear to be).

Whether No.1 is at TDC compression or TDC exhaust won't make any difference to the misalignment angle though.

Picture of a pair of cam locking tools:

 

 

 

 

Any damage caused by this timing offset will already have been done, if there has been any, I think; so a further 20 miles isn't likely to do anything more.  @Tech1e, would you agree?

 

Edited 20 November, 2019 by Wino

[NeilTM]

3 hours ago, Wino said:

There are 36 teeth on each cam sprocket, and 18 on the crank sprocket, from memory, so given that the two cams still seem to be in phase with each other, I think it's most likely just jumped 1 tooth on the crank sprocket, so 20° out.

 

18 crankshaft, 36 camshaft would certainly produce the 4 stroke cycle, and the crankshaft sprockets on ebay seem to have 18 teeth.  I didn't know the numbers of teeth on the crank and cam shafts, so came up with 22.78 by different means as cited in my original post, so 20 degrees could easily account for an error in measuring the rise of the piston, as well as being the minimum error produceable by the chain jumping a tooth. 2 teeth would have been 40 degrees and surely impossible for  an engine to start or run that far out.

 

But this gives me the confirmation I sought, thank you.  The camshaft locating tools are indeed 'authoritative'!, and I can take the laptop in if they want to argue the toss, but they should know this anyway.

 

Wish me luck with them for tomorrow morning.

 

Best wishes,   Neil

 

 

 

[NeilTM]

Took car back to the garage which replaced the clutch.

The most the mechanic would or could agree to, (he can't ask his boss 
because he's on holiday until Monday), was 'lets see what it is and I'll 
call you before doing any work'.  I told him that I now knew for certain 
that the chain had jumped one notch, but he was still favouring a blocked 
cat.  Obviously he must have chosen the easier option to check out first, 
and so he discovered that I was right.  But he wasn't prepared to restore 
the chain to its proper position as I asked him to, as clearly (he said) the 
timing chain and tensioner had wear issues and whatever had caused it to 
jump (the minute they started the engine to move it into their workshop 
we are being asked to believe), would cause it to likely go again before 
long.  Then there is the little matter of the £375 incentive not to 
simply restore the existing timing if you can charge for a new chain on 
the basis that the old one is not serviceable, which they cannot know, 
only guess to be the case, which in any case from the customer's pov is 
not an attractive option if indeed it might jump again at some point in 
normal use?  The labour cost would be the same whether you changed the 
chain and tensioner or not.

£375 for fitting  new timing chain and tensioner, which on top of the new 
clutch at £243 comes to more than the thing is worth, and especially if 
you factor in the two new springs it needed for the MOT in Sept.  If only 
it were possible to have hindsight earlier!

So I said no way to the £375, went back in and he gave me the key and I 
said thank you and drove it home.

No one is calling anyone a liar, but logically there are only 3 
scenarios:

1.	We are lying about what happened, or genuinely oblivious

2.	He is lying about what happened, or genuinely oblivious

3.	We are both right about what happened.

For the last option to be true it is necessary to accept the possibility 
that between us delivering the car to their workshop with the engine 
running just fine, and no engine management light, and them starting it 
up to move it into their workshop, whereupon the light was on and the 
running rough, it was precisely at that point of starting it that the 
timing chain jumped a cog, before anyone touched it mechanically.  This 
is what they are claiming, unless at some point they want to say we are 
lying or mistaken and we brought it in like that. He  refused to 
speculate as to why or how such an unlikely thing happened, let alone AT 
PRECISELY THAT POINT, and that no way did the flywheel move backwards at 
any point during the clutch replacement.  No fault codes or engine 
management light were present upon completion of the work because the 
battery had been disconnected for the work, and that clears the codes.  
How long does that take?  I don't know.

He had no answer as to why, when the engine management light came on they 
did not report it to us in order to make an informed choice about the 
combined costs of two major faults.  He said that they presumed we knew 
the light was on.  This comes close to implying we knew the car was 
crippled, rough running, radically down on power and rev limited, but for 
some reason decided we wanted just the clutch done anyway, but implicitly 
that maybe we hoped to con the garage into accepting liability for fixing 
this also.  How else could you defend assuming that we knew the light was 
on, and therefore need not inform us of this?

He is obviousely a knowledgeable and experienced mechanic, and knows all 
the get out of jail answers for sure.  He knew that this jump would not 
have been possible with a new chain and tensioner, but then whether it 
was possible in the way it occurred according to them is another matter.  
I'm guessing it probably could, but what compared with either of the 
first two scenarios is the probability that it is as the garage claimed?

	What is the probability that we experienced both faults at much the 
same time, but thought we might be able to blame the timing jump on the 
mechanic, and thus only incur a clutch change bill and so lied about the 
engine management light not having been on when we took it in?  This also 
presupposes prior knowledge or research on the possibility reported by 
some number of forum members that they experienced the chain jump 
occuring as a direct result of having the clutch changed. Or were we 
oblivious of the poor running because the dragging clutch making driving 
difficult sufficiently distracted on a journey in a 30mph zone masked the 
bad running and 3,000 rpm limiting?  The answer to that has to be no on 
two grounds.  The car was driven home at 70mph on a dual carriageway, and 
not driven again until taken the two miles to the garage. The top speed 
possible now at 3,000rpm is approx 53mph.  And it is vanishingly unlikely 
that the revs did not hit 3,000 through the gears, even in the 30 limit 
as this requires geriatrically slow driving, and doubly unlikely if you 
are trying to avoid too many gear changes, and so letting it stay longer 
in the lower gears. 

        Is it fair to say the latter scenario, of the clutch change procedure 
triggering the jump, which is a known and reported event is more 
probable?  The odds on a jump occuring during engine cranking (even if 
ever heard of?) at the precise moment the mechanics first started it, 
seems like a rank outsider in the probability stakes to me?

The balance of probabilities is what the small claims court would surely 
base their decision on a claim for correcting a fault not present when 
the car went into the garage for other work, but emerged from with the 
fault?

Unless the guy with the full deck of get out of jail cards knows how to 
get out of that?  Anyone?

Maybe the manager might be prepared to go some way to put this situation  
right, or failing him the national Mr Clutch franchisers.  We will have 
to see on Monday.

Neil Taylor

[sepulchrave]

I think you need to be very clear that the garage did not deliberately damage your engine, it was accidental at worst.

It is possible that the chain jumped when it was started, we have seen that on here many times before, car fine when parked up, then will not run properly upon starting the next morning.

It would be impossible to prove in any event and an all or nothing tilt at county court might result in nothing, so I suggest you throw them a bone and negotiate a deal where you pay for the necessary parts and they do the work.

[J.R.]

If you reset the chain to the correct alignment without replacing it or the tensioner then you run the risk of it happening again if the engine turns backwards, there are many scenarios where this could happen, stalling the engine at an uphill stop and rolling backwards, a spin (hopefully unlikely) or a well intentioned but ignorant person like me checking the timing or inspecting the belt for wear by pushing the car backwards in gear.

 

Or a mechanic changing a clutch that does not know he has been delivered a car with a latent defect.

 

Luckily you have not bent the valves.

[NeilTM]

17 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

I think you need to be very clear that the garage did not deliberately damage your engine, it was accidental at worst.

It is possible that the chain jumped when it was started, we have seen that on here many times before, car fine when parked up, then will not run properly upon starting the next morning.

It would be impossible to prove in any event and an all or nothing tilt at county court might result in nothing, so I suggest you throw them a bone and negotiate a deal where you pay for the necessary parts and they do the work.

 

Good advice sepulchrave, thank you.  It hadn't actually occurred to me that they might have deliberately damaged the engine, but now you come to mention it, the possibility seems no less unlikely than  some of the other possibilities, such that the mechanic screwed up on this occasion and decided to cover his back with his boss, knowing it could not be proved, but I have been going the other way and trying to convince myself that it wasn't an accident either - something the mechanic vehemently denies, and this might be, just as he said, how they found the car.  Now that you tell me that chains jumping at start up is a known occurrence, that changes the picture for me, leaving me just with the incredible timing of the mistiming.  Which leaves me thinking that if I am supposed to swallow that, as it seems I must, because however unlikely, it might be true, then they equally should return that good faith by accepting that  this is indeed what happened, at the point they went to start it to drive it into their workshop, and that therefore they were not making a reasonable assumption that we knew the EM light was on as an excuse for failing to inform us BEFORE they did the clutch work, any more than I would have been entitled to assume they must have triggered the chain jump by letting the engine move backwards, when a perhaps less likely possibility existed.  Had they informed us before, not after they did the clutch work, and investigated that at that point, then we would not have gone ahead with either work at that point.     For a decent firm, that ought to be enough as you say for them to shoulder the labour, and me to pay for the parts.  We shall learn if they are a decent company on Monday.

[Breezy_Pete]

Neil, I think you may be wrong about fault codes being erased by battery disconnection.

I believe they are stored in non-volatile memory.  

 

I would just get them to fit the new chain/tensioner for the £375 quoted, or see if you can find it cheaper elsewhere, though I'm not sure cheaper is necessarily better on that job. Similar price from a more trusted establishment may suit better?

The £243 for the clutch job seems extremely cheap to me (having done the job and knowing what's involved labour-wise) so between getting a new clutch and a new chain/tensioner your daughter still will have good value motoring for a good while into the future, I expect, compared to buying another car.

[NeilTM]

17 hours ago, J.R. said:

If you reset the chain to the correct alignment without replacing it or the tensioner then you run the risk of it happening again if the engine turns backwards, there are many scenarios where this could happen, stalling the engine at an uphill stop and rolling backwards, a spin (hopefully unlikely) or a well intentioned but ignorant person like me checking the timing or inspecting the belt for wear by pushing the car backwards in gear.

 

Or a mechanic changing a clutch that does not know he has been delivered a car with a latent defect.

 

Luckily you have not bent the valves.

 

Yes, plus the fact that as sepulchrave says 'many' instances of chains jumping at start up have been reported also.  All the more reason to do as you say and replace the parts.  Although I would take issue with your penultimate sentence, as it should be a known issue to a specialist that this can happen on the basis of normal wear alone, despite not being a service item like timing belts, and why there are counterholders presumably?

 

Which brings me to 'what parts'?  Ebay has a bewildering choice of kits with different contents, and widely differing prices.  Replacement cam and crank shaft sprockets seem to be most commonly included, apart from just the chain and tensioner, but not always.  Included in the quote the garage gave was the cost of an engine oil and filter change, something I always do myself.  Is this invariably needed?  The garage will presumably want to source parts themselves.  Is it possible to say a range within which a reasonable charge for parts might be expected to fall?

 

 

[sepulchrave]

Neil, I get that you're angry, it's incredibly bad luck, but you cannot expect a generic mechanic to know that a counter hold tool might be required, that's why you pay the big bucks to a main dealer for a manufacturer trained technician with access to specialised tooling.

 

The camchain is the Achilles heel of that particular engine, it's hard to see how you could strip it all down without dropping the oil first.

 

I suggest you get a price for the complete kit from Skoda in the morning, I would only use genuine parts on a car I was keeping.

[classic]

Neil this really is a nightmare scenario, I really feel for you.

I think your Fabia on a 55 plate, whatever the mileage, is going to be worn and liable to events like this.

Reading the events I think your car has a worn chain and the Mr Clutch mechanic has turned the engine backwards at some point - probably when undoing the pressure plate bolts or putting the gearbox back in - causing the chain to go slacker and then jump a tooth before tension was restored with the engine running.

The problem with older cars is that they need heavier and heavier repairs, and working on one part can interfere with worn parts which had previously been holding together until disturbed.

I’d get the chain done, probably not by Mr Clutch though..

[NeilTM]

2 hours ago, Wino said:

Neil, I think you may be wrong about fault codes being erased by battery disconnection.

I believe they are stored in non-volatile memory.  

 

I would just get them to fit the new chain/tensioner for the £375 quoted, or see if you can find it cheaper elsewhere, though I'm not sure cheaper is necessarily better on that job. Similar price from a more trusted establishment may suit better?

The £243 for the clutch job seems extremely cheap to me (having done the job and knowing what's involved labour-wise) so between getting a new clutch and a new chain/tensioner your daughter still will have good value motoring for a good while into the future, I expect, compared to buying another car.

 

Thanks Wino, I could do with as much certainty as possible over whether merely disconnecting the battery in the course of the however many hours out of the day they worked on the clutch would clear the codes as the mechanic claimed.  Isn't there an issue of capacitors discharging, or of needing to employ some other procedure such as turning the ignition on and off three times (we read somewhere) for the codes to be cleared that way?  This now seems critical to establish, as it now occurs to me that they may have deliberately cleared the codes and with them the engine management light in order to be able to get the customer to take the vehicle away after paying the bill, whereas with the light still on, wouldn't some or most customers be reluctant to drive the vehicle at all?  They did report rough running, and revs limited to 3,000 and offered to book it in at first available opportunity to be looked at, and this appointment we ultimately kept, after having meanwhile establishing the cause, and reporting this to them.  This is absolutely critical to establish, because if the codes disappearing incidentally, non intentionally, because of the legitimate battery disconnection for the clutch work could not happen, their narrative collapses, and the basis of trust in them is destroyed.

 

I am not angry by the way sepulchrave, more in shock and utterly dismayed that this nightmare could have unfolded, trying to be calm and rational and explore all possibilities.  I want to discover the truth of what happened if possible.  The mechanic seemed to know what he was talking about, and certainly had all the answers, and unless the battery disconnection clearing the codes could not have happened, his narrative remains possible, whatever the probabilities might be.  One possibility is a deliberate clearing of the codes and extinguishing the engine management light in order to minimise the alarm of the customer taking their car in for a  broken  clutch and receiving it back with a broken engine!  He was still emphasising his favourite contender, a blocked cat,  just before he discovered yesterday we were right about what the fault was. 

 

Answering other replies for brevity, (not my strong point!):

 

Cheapness:

 

 

 

[NeilTM]

3 minutes ago, NeilTM said:

Answering other replies for brevity, (not my strong point!):

 

Cheapness:

 

Sorry, some key combo keeps sending my replies before I'm ready to send them.

 

Yes the clutch work was 'cheap', but then they were billing themselves as clutch specialists - 'Mr Clutch', and they seemed to have good reviews.  There was a £10 voucher included, and we got other quotes under £300.  It subsequently became more apparent that they were generalists (as well?).

 

Tough as it might be for a struggling lone generalist mechanic to get caught out unexpectedly by this engines nasty trick of jumping the timing chain if not proceeding correctly, they would none the less be responsible for correcting their mistake, but I can't accept ignorance of this scenario from an experienced clutch specialist as the guy in question was insisting he was.  I can of course accept an honest mistake, but he absolutely insists this didn't happen, and couldn't have happened because he knows what he is doing.  It must be nice to be incapable of ever screwing up, but there we are, LOL.

 

Code clearing is my focus now.  Can his narrative still stand up?  To get a car into a workshop that throws a wildcard like this must be challenging to know how to deal with for the garage as well, which will naturally want to minimise, or entirely disown liability.  I would be naive not to properly explore the possibilities of back side covering strategies coming into play here.  Sepulchraves suggestion of paying for the parts if they agree to the labour is what I'm favouring so far unless their code clearing narrative falls down.

[Breezy_Pete]

Harking back to the previous business with the wiring fault; I vaguely recall that being associated with the ECU relay. 

I'll double check later but I think that relay interrupts all 12V supply to the engine ECU when not energised. This implies that whenever the car is shut down completely and key out of the ignition, the ECU has no more power supplied to it than when the battery is disconnected. Thus fault code info must persist in the absence of battery power.

 

[NeilTM]

1 hour ago, NeilTM said:

Included in the quote the garage gave was the cost of an engine oil and filter change, something I always do myself.  Is this invariably needed?

 

This post escaped before I could edit this out having learned from reading the Haynes manual that the sump has to come off as part of the quite considerable work involved in getting at the timing chain.  Based on the look of the job, the quote of itself might be reasonable, even for a specialist used to doing this, but this of itself is not the issue.  If Mr Clutch don't come through, the VAG independent specialists I know and trust, but who wanted £388 for the clutch, I might get to quote for the work, but wouldn't expect it to be cheaper necessarily. 

[Breezy_Pete]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Clutch would subcontract out a timing chain change rather than doing it themselves, but I could be wrong.  Doesn't seem logical that they would have the necessary tooling and expertise in-house.

[classic]

6 minutes ago, NeilTM said:

 

This post escaped before I could edit this out having learned from reading the Haynes manual that the sump has to come off as part of the quite considerable work involved in getting at the timing chain.  Based on the look of the job, the quote of itself might be reasonable, even for a specialist used to doing this, but this of itself is not the issue.  If Mr Clutch don't come through, the VAG independent specialists I know and trust, but who wanted £388 for the clutch, I might get to quote for the work, but wouldn't expect it to be cheaper necessarily. 

The quote itself might be reasonable, but if it was me, I wouldn’t trust the Mr Clutch to fit the timing chain. You rightly suspect they’ve jumped the timing chain on your engine and then tried to cover it up by deleting fault codes.

 

[sepulchrave]

Mr Clutch is a franchise, occasionally one is bought by a decent old school mechanic who hires decent people and has high standards, but it's a brutal lottery, most of them are deeply dishonest and incompetent like most of the rest of the motor trade.

[NeilTM]

Just wanted to bump this one of my original questions:

 

So my first Q is how long is it likely before the ECU would recognise the 
persistence of a fault, as opposed to a transient, before logging trouble 
codes and putting on the engine management light?  The delay experienced 
was a 2 mile journey home, plus approx 1.5 miles into a trip the next day 
before it came on?  Is this a possible delay? 

 

Might actually have been 4.5 to 5 miles.  The rough running and 3,000rpm rev limiting were certainly there from picking up the car.

[NeilTM]

My son is testing the possibility that the codes were erased by the battery being disconnected, by doing the same, and we'll know the answer later today. 

 

My son wrote to me:  "I .... asked him to explain the issue where he described the engine struggling to rev above 3000rpm though he said could do after trying for a little while at which point it gave a "pop" and would then rev higher (not our experience). At no point in that conversation was EML mentioned by either of us."

 

This in itself is worrying, as it seemed obvious to both of us that a rev limiter bang on the round figure 3000 mark every time would be an ECU limit introduced, so trying and apparently succeeding to make it rev higher with a 'pop' sounds alarming and irresponsible, and makes me wonder if any damage might have been done by doing this?

They also said to my son they would have to read the 'historic codes' when it came back in for assessment, logically thereby also claiming they never read them when the engine management light was on, which they never mentioned at all to my son, or reported it having been at any time whatsoever until I went in with the car, informing me only then that it was on when they first started the car.

 

 

[NeilTM]

Battery disconnected all day.

 

Re-connected, codes and EML still there.

 

Dealing with a BS merchant.

 

No time to deal with this on Monday, so will tackle manager Tuesday.

[Damo152003]

Ive not read all of this but if it has a fault code stored disconnecting the battery wont erase it. 

Timing chains are common item to wear so could just be bad luck. 

From what your saying it wouldnt surprise me if they just used an airgun on the flywheel bolts anyway. 

I would go with genuine only on your new kit.

 

I hope you get sorted best of luck. 

[NeilTM]

I am reproducing below the essentials of the Mr Clutch response which 
took them exactly the promised fortnight to come up with.  Right arrowed 
is their text, with my comments and questions inserted:  

On 12 Dec 2019 at 11:33, Customer Services | Mr Clutch wrote:

> Dear Mr Taylor,
> 
> I am writing to you further to your email dated 27th November 2019.
> 
> We would like to respond as follows.
> 
> The sequence of events :
> 
> Your vehicle came to us on the 13th November 2019 for diagnosis and after
> a very quick test in the car park without moving the vehicle we could
> ascertain that the clutch had catastrophically failed and was
> undriveable.
> 

That is egging it a bit as we drove the car to them.  The clutch was 
working but dragging - not fully disengaging and as we thought, they 
stated that it was a broken clutch release mechanism.

.........

> It was noted that there was an EML light on and the engine was slightly
> rough in running before we stripped the vehicle. 

This was first mentioned only after we had diagnosed the timing chain 
jump and reported this to them.  Only then did they change the narrative 
to claim that the light was on when they took the car into their 
workshop.  But when I asked why it was not still on upon receipt of the 
car after the clutch work, they falsely claimed that disconnecting the 
battery lost the codes.  This we tested by disconnecting the battery for 
a whole day, whereas their work took 5 hours.  The EML and codes were 
still there upon re-connection without re-starting the engine.  Therefore 
either they lied about the EML being on before their work, or they lied 
about deliberately deleting the codes since that would have been the only 
way they would have disappeared and the EML extinguished.  

> However, due to the severity of the clutch failure we presumed that
> the two were linked in the same way. 

The EML light was on because the clutch was broken?  How does that work?

> After replacing the clutch the
> engine was smooth on the idle, however did lack performance when
> tested. No light was on at this stage and all work we carried out was
> rechecked. 
> 

So after demonstratig to them that this narrative doesn't stand up - 
couldn't have happened - they simply repeat it, merely omitting the bogus 
battery disconection explanation given at the time!  They are not coming 
up with a possible narrative.  I also reported their stupid forced 
revving beyond the ECU imposed 3,000rpm limit, but they've just blanked 
that.  

> The car was collected from our Autocentres and advised suspected catalytic
> converter blocked, due to symptoms we had experienced, had we plugged in a
> diagnostic machine at this stage and retrieved the codes you retrieved out
> of the vehicle then it would have pointed to the timing chain and not the
> catalytic converter and we would have advised accordingly.
> 

Which begs the Q as to why they didn't do this, and do it before the 
clutch work, since it is trivial to do and takes a few minutes at most, 
yet they apparently had time to rev the engine and repeatedly force it 
with a 'pop' to go beyond the 3,000rpm limit after the clutch had been 
changed.  Only after the clutch work did they show this much interest in 
the engine running.

> With reference to the technician concerned he is a long standing employee
> of many years with us and is not a liar, he is part of our National
> Support Team and is held in high regard.
> 

And Popes are infallible too.  I caught him in a lie, so why not use the 
word, when it is demonstrable?  They on the other hand have implicitly 
claimed that we were lying by claiming a prior engine management light 
that never was, but still fail to provide an explanation when challenged 
to account for it disappearing during the clutch work.

> To reiterate the information the poor running was due to the clutch
> breaking up and not any other problem, we refute causing the problem of
> the timing chain failure and could have been caused due to the severity of
> the clutch failure.
> 

Apart from this not being a grammatical sentence, but I'm assuming a 
missing 'it' between 'and' and 'could', can anyone tell me if a broken 
clutch release mechanism, preventing full disengagement of the clutch, 
such that the gears crunched when getting into first or reverse could 
cause the timing chain to jump?  Has anyone heard of this happening?  

The thought that this might be possible occurred to me before it 
apparently occurred to them, since they have taken until now to relay 
this possibility.  But is it a possibility, in which case what is that 
scenario - how does that work?   

If anyone has ever hand cranked an engine with a spanner, or a starting 
handle for that matter, they have probably noticed that if this hand 
cranking is ceased while a piston is approaching TDC on the compression 
stroke, that the pressure built up might result in a slight backward turn 
of the engine.  This can also occur if the starter motor is released 
prior to successful firing and running of the engine can it not?  Is this
slight backward rotation what can cause the TC tensioner to 'unload' its 
tension, allowing for a then slack chain to jump?  I am assuming that 
since this particular car never had any starting issues, always firing 
and running straight away, that this scenario simply never occurred to 
allow for a TC jump?

I would also like to know if there are any professional experts out there 
that anyone knows of who might be able to give a definitive opinion on 
this Q such that a court would take them as an expert witness? Who could 
I turn to for not merely a legal opinion, but an opinion of a qualified 
technician or engineer, or a technical document?  If they are trying to 
fudge the issues of the codes, as opposed to just being too stupid to 
understand what they are talking about, then it would be good to have an 
authoritative reference about the non volatility of these codes.  By 
miserable coincidence, the other day my son in law used his fiesta as a 
torch with which to light up the front of the house putting up xmas 
lights, then forgot to turn the headlights off.  The resultant voltage 
crash lost the apparently volatile (VRAM) engine running settings, such 
that when I got the car started after re-charging the battery it wouldn't 
idle.  It eventually re-learned its settings and was OK again.  But I'm 
still assuming, and our experiment confirmed that this does not apply to 
engine sensor codes such as camshaft etc?  

> With regards to the EMC light coming on, it can vary how quickly the light
> comes on and there is no set time or mileage.
> 

Yes, or at least that's what I've heard, but irrelevant.  What I asked 
them to account for was the *disappearance* of the EML during the clutch 
work.  

> Taking the above into account we are more than happy to carry out the
> repair for you but we cannot do it free of charge.
> 

Now that it seems we are potentially going to have to take them to the 
small claims court to get a bill for fixing this elsewhere paid, I need 
to have expert testimony that I have a good case on the central points 
above.  I think the failure of their narrative, and simply repeating it 
without offering any explanation in place of the one I demonstrated to be 
false, suggests that my exposure of that falseness is not possible to get 
round without liability, if only because being caught in a lie destroys 
the probability of the jump occuring before the car landed on their 
forecourt as they claim, and makes it much more probable that it occurred 
during the clutch work which they simply refuse to entertain the 
possibility of. Why lie about something that wasn't their fault?  But 
also their failure to notify of the engine fault revealed supposedly by 
the EML being on before commencing the clutch work?  

Can a broken clutch release mechanism put up a code?   

Not notifying us of other issues before undertaking major work 
contravenes their RAC approved garages accreditation, but their chocolate 
fireguard remedy involves binding adjudication, a process that apparently 
can take up to 3 months, so nothing to do with getting a needed car back 
on the road in a timely way, and so unlikely to ever be invoked much I 
imagine.  

Any information and advice on the above would be much appreciated.