[928uk] Thrust Bearing Failure

[Paul Lacey]

Hi,

Very sorry to hear about your engine ! 

The following are my views only !!

 

Also sorry to say I don't think you have much chance of pursuing the
"specialist", bear in mind no court is going to have a clue what you are
talking about, they will see a 130K mile engine broken in a 21 year old car
! But....

1.       I agree TBF is unheard of except when caused by flexplate pressure,
how many manual cars have had TBF = zero

2.       I agree they have not been / have not correctly been checking the
flexplate

3.       If the pinch bolt was loose this would cause some very nasty noises
but would not cause TBF I don't believe

4.       The cam gears have a surface which wears through, they then wear
quite quickly. It's not caused by over tightening of the belt. But they
should have noticed this last time the belt was done and recommended
changing the cam gears. If those are the original cam gears they have lasted
well at 130K miles !

5.       ATF in the diff - I presume you mean gearbox since there is almost
no way ATF can get in the diff on an auto box. This is most likely the
intercooler in the radiator leaking. Again this should have been spotted and
they should have advised you.

 

I do think we need to know who this "specialist" is so they can be avoided !

 

Finally, you may be lucky and find your block is not scrap, they can be
repaired !

 

All the best,

Paul Lacey

 

From: 928uk-bounces at lists.928.org.uk [mailto:928uk-bounces at lists.928.org.uk]
On Behalf Of go928
Sent: 19 February 2012 17:20
To: 928uk
Subject: [928uk] Thrust Bearing Failure

 

Late last year my S4 auto suffered terminal tbf - the engine is probably a
write-off.  

Briefly, I've owned the car about 10 years, covering about 6,000 miles a
year.  She has 130k on the clock.  Throughout the last 10 years she has been
maintained and serviced annually by the same firm and a flex plate check has
been specified at each service.  Over the last couple of years I have had a
series of problems with difficulty starting, stalling and uneven running.
She has been back to the specialist on a number of occasions and fuel pump,
MAF and ISV among other things have all been replaced.  Each time the
immediate problem has been resolved, but the car was not running quite
right, although it was hard to say precisely why.  I now suspect this was
early symptoms of the pending failure.

My view is that the Porsche specialists who look after the car should bear
some responsibility, but they do not agree and have washed their hands of my
situation.  Maybe I am not being as objective as I should be so I would
welcome any thoughts.

My reasons for blaming the firm who looked after the car are: 

*	Everything I have read about tbf seems to suggest it is unheard of
where the flex plate has been checked and released regularly.
*	The engine finally seized only about 2,000 miles after the last
service/flex plate check.
*	When the tbf was diagnosed (by a different firm) the pinch bolt was
only finger tight.
*	The firm admit that they do not change the pinch bolt when they
check the flex plate.
*	The cam belt rollers are damaged due to overtensioning of the belt.
(As they have changed the cambelt twice since I acquired the car, to my
mind, even if they didn't cause the damage they should have spotted it and
changed the rollers). 
*	ATF in the diff.

 

The last two points have no direct bearing (ha ha) on the thrust bearing
failure, but do indicate a questionable level of care.

My questions: 

*	Is it fair to pursue the firm for a contribution towards the cost or
should I accept (as they claim) that the thrust bearing can fail at any
time, even if the flex plate is regularly checked?
*	If I do have a claim, any thoughts on how best to get them to do the
decent thing?  I will take them to court if necessary but would prefer to
avoid all the hassle if possible.

 

Thanks in advance. 

Graham 
(91 S4 auto) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.928.org.uk/pipermail/928uk/attachments/20120219/baaee9b1/attachment.htm>