In short, when engine leaks not addressed, will lead to total failure. Same for other leaks. Most owners don’t open bonnet pull out dipstick n check
I have my skepticism about the TS postings.
Reliability is a very subjective word in the automotive industry. Yet the general public brandish this like a huge knife that stirs emotions into a judgement passed without substantiating it.
Based on the general knowledge of the automotive industry, reliability can be understood as the ability to meet the predefined KPI of the Quality management system which it is bonded to adhere to. They can mostly be broken into 2 types:
(1)Delivery PPM - liabilities stretches to the receiving quality at the point of disembarkation prior to transferring ownership to receiving party
(2)Field failures - liabilities reaches end user. Failures that happen while in the end user's custody. Failures caused by user abuse or unauthorized modifications are excluded as acceptable reasons of failures.
Breakdown classification by the customer has also to be measured by the quality system's complaint receiving team (warranty) and pitted against the sales figure to generate a failure rate. If it meets KPI, the model meets the predefined level of reliability. Therefore it is considered reliable. The KPI itself has to be defined using past history and justified.
The experience of marginalized owners' who unfortunately bought lemons is understandable. No one wants to make unhappy customers. But as long as the figure of discontentment does not exceed what the organization defines as acceptable, we cannot pass a judgement of 'unreliable' on the product.
My next question also comes in on how the vehicle was managed in the workshop. Engines and gearboxes are major components of the vehicle whose replacement has to be justified. The workshop who brokers the car has to have a warranty agreement with the factory. Justification of the warranty has to be made prior to the replacement so as to meet the quota/cost KPI of warranty. The golden question: How did they come to the conclusion that the engine and gearbox needs replacement? Was there a fault code? Were they trying to create a swing unit to facilitate cannibalization? Were they trying to just down the vehicle to buy time on its puzzling diagnosis so they conveniently pushed to the engine. Was the engine eventually replaced? During replacement, was it done properly as clutches nd transmissions are part of the driveline attached to the engine. A 'mis-installation' of the engine can lead to problems in the driveline leading to the eventual damage of the clutch and transmission. And in his case, the onus of the whole episode falls on the workshop and the owner and not Volvo.
Though the TS did not lay the blame on Volvo specifically, the title and the nature of the discourse suffice to lead future postings into prejudice against Volvo.
Just my 2cents worth after more than 10 years in the automotive industry.
