|
ETM Issues Discuss issues regarding the problems with ETMs fitted to Volvo cars. |
Information |
|
ETM Court CaseViews : 4490 Replies : 22Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Dec 20th, 2006, 20:48 | #11 |
Junior Member
Last Online: Feb 18th, 2023 16:06
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Aberdeenshire
|
"Whilst I would like to think that the judgement was right, it could just have been a lucky break for me.
My advice to anyone considering taking legal action, would be to take legal advice as well. As you say if Volvo were to put all their might to a defence the result could be completely different." There is a barrister in London who specialises in this type of claim. He is expensive, but just about guarantees to get a result, even if the normal 1 year guarantee period is expired. He was on TV on one of the consumer rights progs' about a year ago. He stated that if people in the UK complained more, or used the law as it should be used, then we would not be suffering from the shoddy treatment we get from manufacturers of substandard goods. Well done Andy. Regards Malky |
Dec 20th, 2006, 21:08 | #12 |
stephen-in-hull
Last Online: Sep 22nd, 2007 14:09
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kingston-upon-Hull
|
Great work
Great work, Andy.
I run too old a Volvo to be personally affected by this issue (until perhaps 2031). I have three points to raise: Firstly I'm disappointed that the directors of the VOC have decided not to get involved in this battle with Volvo. The sodality of a club like ours ought to extend to matters of fundamental principle, like this. Secondly, the unreliability and haphazardly short life of the ETM is quite obviously related to either mis-specification of the rotary resistor by Volvo as OE specifier/purchaser, or inadequacies in its performance in normal duty. For a Volvo main dealer and retailer to find acceptable a failure rate of 6.59% is ludicrous. (Incidentally 40 is not 6.59% of 1,172, it is actually only 3.41% according to my calculation.) A major change from traditional Bowden wires, push rods and simple mechanical linkages that have been tried and tested over the last century, and to go to dangfangled "fly by wire" electronics that are clearly not up to the job is simply bad engineering, bad commercial practice and bad marketing. And at £700 a throw daylight robbery. Thirdly, if Volvo seeks to sell to the world, why can't each territory be treated with equality? Or is it that the liability consciousness of our litigation-happy trans-Atlantic cousins is what sharpens their corporate minds to allow concessions there? Quite simply everyone affected by this issue should follow Andy's example, without exageration or hyperbole, and give every seller of Volvo cars firstly the opportunity to make redress, or face similar judgement in the County Courts. Andy, you ought also to send details of this to Private Eye. Although it is seen by many as a scurrilous rag, it does publish serious corporate incompetances and loves to see justice being done. It also has an exceptionally high quality readership in monied professionals, including many of m'learned friends. Airing the ETM case there to Volvo purchasing readers would further embarrass the Volvo suits. Private Eye's Email address is strobes@privateeye.co.uk And not forgetting that arse Clarkson. Oh, and if the defendents are slow in coughing up, follow through. There's nothing like sending in the bailiffs to sharpen minds. Keep up the good work, and don't forget to keep us posted on how things go. Thanks again. |
Dec 21st, 2006, 02:15 | #13 | |
Forum Support Team
|
Hi,
Quote:
Linky.... They knew in so much as they admited there was a problem. Take it as read, they would have known there was an issue long before they actually admited there was one. From that you can infer that Volvo Corporation were aware that there were certain issues. And anyway, from the case above, you do not really need to prove that the dealer knew there was an issue or not. The sold that car on the basis it would last for years: it won't! There is a fundamental flaw in the construction of the vehicle: thus not fit for purpose. However, should you experience problems (or should that be when?) then you will need to get it fixed, and then - if it is not done for free - pay and sue. But if need be get some legal advice - CAB or paid expert. Des. . .
__________________
Density:- Not just a measurement ~ It's a whole way of Life.! ! ! I drive a Volvo, Please Don't Get In My Way! He shows up. People die. He vanishes. People should not be afraid of their governments. "He'll deliver more justice in a weekend than 10 years of your Governments should be afraid of their people... "V" courts & tribunals. Just stay out of his way." "I plan to."
|
|
Dec 21st, 2006, 15:45 | #14 |
Guest
Location:
|
Question to Volvo Cars UK - Sweden - USA
A very valid point to raise to Volvo. We see Amazons, 240s, 700 and many other production years cars on the highway after decades of use. How many of these have had such expensive and 'catastrophic' parts failures? I would hazard a guess few! What I am getting at here is that Volvo made a decision in 1999 to change/modify the throttle system.
The 'modification' was not time proven in so much as the part used was inferior to the usual stringent quality systems Volvo employ. The failure of this part which has been 'determined' by the US to require replacement though emissions issues, is in fact dangerous and thereby compromising the very foundation mission statement Volvo have traded on - SAFETY. Here in the UK we see product recalls for all manners of quality and build failure. More importantly those affecting the health of children are totally withdrawn or replaced/refunded. Most people buy Volvos because they want them to protect their family. Majority of people can ill afford new Volvos, so settle for second hand. Not all come from a main dealer. There is a serious issue here for Volvo to attend to in a manner other than beating around the bush and giving 'negotiated' or 'discretionary' discounts for replacement units. I would happily pay £200 for a part to be replaced on my car. For 4 years Volvo (Ford) made profit on the sales of cars with safety as the main selling point. Many of those who bought new have undoubtedly sold their cars on, and those who haven't are now paying big money for a part to be replaced. So come on Volvo, best you can do is replace F.O.C. or worst for me is offer to replace for £200. |
Dec 21st, 2006, 15:56 | #15 | |
Economy motorist
Last Online: May 16th, 2024 23:05
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
|
Quote:
But surely based on that reasoning I could claim for new tyres, based on the fact that if manufacturers had stuck with the original tried and tested solid rubber design, instead of opting for pneumatic variants, they would have lasted the life of the car.........? I'm not defending Volvo here, just trying to demonstrate that the reasoning is not as straightforward as it might seem. |
|
Dec 21st, 2006, 16:29 | #16 |
Guest
Location:
|
One could argue that. But It is a known and proven fact that pneumatics are better than solid. But use a cheap pneumatic and it won't give the performance of an expensive one. However, tyres are catalogued as 'consumables' as plugs, filters and similar parts which are at 'consumable' acceptable prices.
The ETM was advancement in technology as 'drive/fly by wire' has become a pretty accepted throttle system where ECU engine management is par for the course. A carb is a serviceable part. One can modify the engine with a different carb to get more power, but at some cost to the manufacturers designed performance. The throttle cable can wear and break, but that is a cheap part and effectively a 'consumable'. The whole thing about technology is that we design, improve and utilise to benefit in some way shape or form. Here, I am saying that Volvo have implemented a design change which in its component design, stability and integrity has fallen well below the norm for Volvo. Volvo are big boys in the motor world, not timid children or those hanging on the edge of bankruptcy. There is a problem which affects the performance of a vehicle within their range. There is a serious risk to the occupants of the vehicle should failure take place on a busy highway. If your pneumatic tyre fails while doing 60 on the highway, you have an opportunity to manouevre safely to the verge/hard shoulder without the car behind driving into your back seat. However, if you go from 60 to 15 miles per hour and you have no control over it, the vehicle behind will be inviting you to see your front radiator grille from inside the engine bay! Come on Volvo, safety first, be a man and admit to the error second. |
Dec 21st, 2006, 16:44 | #17 | |
Economy motorist
Last Online: May 16th, 2024 23:05
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
|
Quote:
Volvo ought to take a view here, as I doubt the cost of the replacement part (in real terms) is anything like it's quoted price to the consumer, I wonder how much they cost from the manufacturer. |
|
Dec 21st, 2006, 17:06 | #18 |
Guest
Location:
|
ETM Cost
Nordic quoted me £325 which is new with exchange (i.e. they want the old unit back). So if a Volvo garage are charging £600 plus for fitting inclusive of part it's a rip off. A manufacturer/manufacturers agent profiting more at the expense of the victim of a manufacturers failing!
|
Dec 21st, 2006, 17:19 | #19 | |
Economy motorist
Last Online: May 16th, 2024 23:05
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
|
Quote:
|
|
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:51 | #20 |
Guest
Location:
|
ETM Cost
I think the dealer/Volvo recover the cost of the clean and software update from the eventual replacement of the ETM at £600 plus.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|