Engine Seizure

[mathal]

Hi all,
Please if anyone could help and offer advice it would be very much appreciated.
I recently purchased a 2006 Vauxhall Astra VXR from a trader. After only 90 days and only 1428 miles covered, the engine seized due to lack of oil and now requires a replacement engine unit, obviously at great cost to myself.
I'm naturally gutted but the trader is claiming this is a result of poor maintenance of my oil levels and therefore my responsibility.
However, I did replenish the oil during this period. Vauxhall's guidelines advise 1 litre of oil for every 1000 miles. My car has a 5 litre engine oil capacity and I have covered less than 1500 miles in a 3 month period so I do not think the engine should have been dry unless there was an underlying problem.
Aside from picking the car up from the Trader (about 100 miles), I have only used the car for short journeys to and from work, a 6 mile round trip. The engine seized during a medium Journey of about 15 miles. I have not thrashed the car and previously owned a similar performance car (Focus ST170) and never had to replenish oil levels as frequently.
The trader believes that if there was a problem with the engine this would have become apparent sooner but I believe my oil top ups and low mileage might have actually masked the problem and delayed the inevitable.
I was told when I purchased the vehicle that I would not be able take the car immediately as there was an oil problem and the Head Gasket needed replacing. I took the car on the good faith the repair had been carried out as promised but received no paperwork for the work done.
I'm certainly no mechanic but assuming the Head Gasket was replaced, would it be fair to assume that the engine would have been topped up with fresh oil which should have lasted longer than 3 months and 1500 miles?
Also, prior to the engine seizure, the car was emitting black smoke? Does this suggest anything?
Finally, there was no evidence of an oil leak and no oil light was illuminated on the dashboard. A Service light was illuminated and the car was booked in for a service so i'm quite confident of this.
If anybody could please offer any expert advice or insight on the matter it would be gratefully appreciated.
Many Thanks
Mat

 

[st24]

Hi Mat if there was black smoke you should have stopped asap.
If you knew there was a problem before you picked up the car you should have walked away.

It sounds like you could be in for a expensive lesson.
Sorry this is bad news i have had a similar experience the dealer did everything to get out of it.
Hope you have better luck

 

[SLEEPER]

Black smoke is usually running too rich . blue smoke is burning oil.

As far as the damage is concerned who says it seized through no oil ?
I would get that checked independantly, especially if the oil light wasnt on because it should have been. and that can still be checked

If the trader "repaired" a similar fault it may be worth checking he fixed the problem

Take it somewhere and have everything rechecked and dont take it back to his mechanic under these circumstances especially if he isnt helping with the cost

 

[MasterAuron]

It's rare for an engine to seize from no oil these days, as SLEEPER says the oil warning light should have been on. If it had its fill of oil when you picked it up (which you should check, obvs) and has used that in 1500 miles something somewhere was seriously wrong to begin with.

I can only echo the good advice above to take it to an independent garage and see what they say.

 

[stamford]

Does the oil check light actually work? Evident when ignition on before starting. I would get an expert opinion from a Vauxhall mechanic before going any further. Then if this throws up something that contradicts the trader then i would contact Trading Standards. Was the car bought on finance or cash sale? I would not cave in and pay before I exhausted all avenues.

 

[mathal]

Thanks for the comments.

The car was towed to an independent garage who confirmed the engine had seized due to lack of oil. However they were non-commital why this might have occured. Would an independent AA or RAC vehicle inspection show up any underlying mechanical fault or would it be impossible to tell?

Although the oil light did not show, the garage say it was connected. Are there any other explanations why this might be?

Mat

 

[MasterAuron]

Better off having the garage look....if the oil light didn't show and it works it must have dumped the oil very quickly indeed. There was definitely oil in when you bought it?

 

[stamford]

To be honest the only way to know for sure would be to strip the engine. It may well be something to do with the work allegedly carried out and if done correctly. The issue here is the trader who sold it to you and what they had or had not done to the car prior to you collecting it. Unfortunately you should have walked away as soon as they mentioned the issues and the fact you had no proof of the work carried out. It should have been guaranteed regardless. I smell a rat for sure.

 

[SLEEPER]

+1 for a rat

The traders defence is that you did not maintain the car and he will be sticking to it for sure but thats not valid if the oil light didnt come on especially as it should have - and remember he had just changed the head gasket so would be oblidged to have checked the levels . You said it had an oil problem - its a fair chance it still has ( or did) and that would be 100% the traders fault
As above if it seized without the light coming on then it must have dumped the lot pretty sharpish.
As to confirming that the engine sealed due to lack of oil thats a gimmee (how else could it seize) The question is did it have any oil . If not why wasnt the light on etc

All these need to be answered becasue as I too smell a rat

Unless you are going to walk away from it someone needs to do the engine . Find someone else independant and get him to check everything .

 

[mathal]

Thanks again for the input.

I'm definately not going to let the issue lie. So far the trader has refused any responsibility or to check the car over. I'm prepared to take the matter to court but I need to gather as much evidence as possible to prove that there was an existing problem when I purchased the car.

In hindsight I should have walked away but when I left the deposit I was at first told the car just needed a replacement cap(?) or something which seemed a small thing at the time. Only when I picked up the car did they tell me they had replaced the head gasket. Naively I guess I thought they had done me a favour but obviously not.

Is it likely that an independent strip of the engine would reveal the cause of the problem? As it stands, it is simply my word against his. I replenished the oil but he will maintain I did not check my levels.

Am I right to think if the head gasket was replaced the job would require the oil levels to be topped upto the maximum line? Therefore the car has lost 5 litres of oil (minus the amount I put in), in less than 1500miles. Surely this can't be normal consumption?

 

[stamford]

From the date of sale and the mileage covered I doubt if he has a leg to stand on tbh. However you will need to back any data up. How long have you had the car in total? Not sure if there is any come back with regards how long you have had it and for it to be in such a condition against cost for it to last a reasonable amount of time before a defect occurs. Definately oe to pursue be it via trading standards and court. Trading standards being the first port of call. Good luck.

 

[SLEEPER]

A long reply but in this instance I do have some experience as used to sell classic cars.

Most traders will tell you to go away intially based on their previous experience that most people dont have the bottle to carry it through.
Dodgy traders will have been through all this before so will try to drag it out and blame anything but themselves.
Being nice to him will acheive nothing but dont go OTT.

You may find that he changes his tune when he sees you are serious .

one important thing (WHICH THE TRADER WILL KNOW BUT WONT TELL YOU ) is that as long as you you sue for an amount under £5000 it can be done through the small claims court .
This is very easy and cheap to do and often the most unhelpful trader will suddenly change his tune as soon as he sees a court date. And often they dont even turn up in which case you will win.

If the car cost less than £5K you could just sue for your money back and if not you can keep the amount under by sueing for the total cost of putting it correct including expenses (and keep the car)

To win in court you will unfortunately need some type of independant report , thats if he turns up and contests the case.

Even if you are prepared to settle for less it is worth calling his bluff .

But do it sooner rather than later - I cannott stress enough that the longer it drags on the more confident the trader will likely become.

You do however aslo need to give him a chance to pay for the repairs in writing

You should send him a letter by recorded delivery ( shows you are serious )

Keep it short and to the point with no sidetracks.

Tell him that you hold him fully responsible because the car wasnt fit for purpose and refute his claim about not topping up the oil (which by the way he cant prove)

Get a quote for repairing the car and enclose it .

Tell him you have an engineers report but dont send it and yes it is wise to get one first .
Advise him that you expect him to agree to pay for it and that if he doesnt agree within 14 days you will be taking further action .

After the 14 days you can take him to the small claims court .

Rouge traders assume people dont have the bottle to do this so showing him you do should get his attention.


remember even if you do not want to go to court , he doesnt know that and he may well know the car wasnt 100%,

The above will cost very little and will often get a result you are ok with.

The point is all the time you do nothing things will most definately stay as they are now.

 

[TCJBOLDIE]

IF the motor was running out of oil the water temperature gauge should have been well into the overheating zone.