So this is the paraphrase of the report.
The independent opinion was that based on the physical assessment, info they were supplied (not directly from me though) observation made and previous experience.
When the engineer arrived the oil had already been drained and the sump was off, not exactly independent so far. They were informed that only 1.5 litres of oil left in the sump.
Only No 5 crank journal was removed which showed evidence of scoring, the corresponding engine and big end bearing worn and hammered consistent with oil supply interruption.
Seizing of the big end resulted in the fracture of the con rod and damage to the crank case.
Notable oil seepage under the vehicle but they do not believe that there was sufficient to result in the reduction in the oil level.
Inspection stopped at that point.
Not much I can say really my word against theirs and it seems it’s weighted in their favour due to the expert opinion. The fact that I have checked the oil regularly has not been taken into account for this report at all. Using the term seizing is incorrect in my opinion as there is no engine parts welded together, which is what I understand as seizing. Personally I think con rod let go.
All a bit one sided.
|