Auto Transmission issue

[monstar]

It will be different in Sports Mode and again in Manual (TUTD) mode.
Will hardly do it in Sports and not at all unless really crazy like second gear burnout TUTD.

 

[saroadie]

Luckily for me it was just the truck with plenty of space in front, although I was hung out to dry when it happened.

Most disconcerting thing is it takes time for the brain to comprehend that "something" has gone wrong. Not too good in busy conditions, for sure.

Glad you were able to back out of it.

It'd be awful if one had been at the head of a stream of held up cars and your gap was gone.

 

[Smashfist]

Couple of points to consider after reading this thread, hope I can clear questions up:

1) The boxes ARE indeed remanufactured by FluidDrive - the FluidDrive boxes are not far off fully new anyway. They reuse core components that tend not to fail (I would expect those to be things like housings/shafts etc - they do get tested before reuse).

2) Warranty is covered by either the remainder of the factory warranty OR 2y/50,000km, whichever is LONGER. If you get a box fail at 1y and the replacement fails at 6y under a 7y warranty, Holden won't be making any big issues (apart from a quick look at why the same car has had 2 box failures but that's irrespective of warranty terms really).

3) There is no requirement under the ACL to use brand new parts - for major components remanufactured is acceptable assuming the remanufactured unit is fit for purpose.

4) The dealer wouldn't be able to tell you what exactly failed as they don't know. Transmission diagnostics are essentially "follow these flowcharts and you either need a new valve body or transmission". Dealers are not allowed to nor are they paid for pulling down the original trans for the purposes of diagnosis. An educated guess would be as close as they can offer you.

 

[Skylarking]

3) There is no requirement under the ACL to use brand new parts - for major components remanufactured is acceptable assuming the remanufactured unit is fit for purpose.

There is no requirement for a purchaser to accept a repair for a major failure. He is entitled, in law, to choose the remedy he prefers, which can be a full purchase price refund.

If the pruchaser likes the vehicle type, then it's best to ask for a full refund and go buy the same new one.

If that is difficult due to supply, then only accept a repair if the repairer guarantees to use a "new" and not reconditioned gearbox.

The first "if" is law, the second "if" is negotiation... please understand the difference

 

[Smashfist]

Have just done a refresher course on the ACL - remember that a "major" component failure does not constitute a "major" product failure if it can be rectified by the manufacturer within a "reasonable" timeframe. In the case of a transmission a "minor" component of the transmission can fail causing a "major" component failure that can be considered a "minor" product failure. In a case like this the manufacturer can choose the remedy if it's a) a component of the transmission that has failed that causes the whole transmission to be changed and b) the transmission can be changed without excessive delay.

Please understand the difference in your application of the term "major".

 

[Skylarking]

@Smashfist, i haven't done any course but i read the ACL legislation and ACCC's interpretation of it..

Nowhere in the law is a major failure defined around component issues, nor has it any relationship to how simple it is to fix.

Basically a major failure as defined under law is:

260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if:
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
(b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects:
(i) if they were supplied by description--from that description; or
(ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model--from that sample or demonstration model; or
(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to:
(i) the supplier of the goods; or
(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made;
and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.

The main point to take from the above law is the "or" which means any of the points is a trigger to classification as a major failure. If it was instead written with "and", well that would have a different meaning.

ACCC's take of major failure is:

A product or good has a major problem when:

• it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it
• it is unsafe
• it is significantly different from the sample or description
• it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed.

The fact they are bullet points is misleading as ACCC has lost the meaning of "or" in it's interpretation of ACL (likely sloppy writing).

So in relation to power steering failures, airbag failures and likely some gearbox failures, the ease of repair is irrelevant. That fact that they may be a component failures is also irrelevant. With all these faults, they can be defined as safety issues and in all cases had one known about the defect they'd not have purchased the product. This is the major fault trigger in ACL

You have not mentioned where you got you ACL refresher/ If it was via company training, it's not unheard of for companies to put a wrong self serving skew on their reading of the law. It may just be a fob of tactic to be used by their employees to reduce their product warranty costs.

Case in point is the logic that must have existed within Holden for them to be breaking the law that lead to Holden's undertaking to the ACCC (that they will follow the law). Heck, smoking was advertised as healthy back in the mid 50's early 60's even after the companies knew through their research it was anything but healthy, deadly actually... And companies haven't really changed much.

IANAL but please explain in law where you get your differing understanding that a major component failure that can be easily fixed is not a major product failure under ACL.

At the end of the day, if people are treated badly by some retailer and then the manufacturer, when the have a serious problem with a product they purchased, I've provided enough information and links that they can educate themselves rather than listen to elelrs or manufacturers take on thw law. If they chose to remain ignorant and not use the laws available to them, it's their choice.

 

[Poor old Dad]

So in relation to power steering failures, airbag failures and likely some gearbox failures, the ease of repair is irrelevant. That fact that they may be a component failures is also irrelevant.

You mentioned gearboxes.

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Motor vehicle sales & repairs - an industry guide to the Austalian Consumer Law.pdf

Minor failures
Minor failures to comply with the consumer
guarantees of acceptable quality or fitness for
purpose include those where a vehicle has a fault that
significantly affects its operation, but can be fixed
within a reasonable time. For example:
> a vehicle where the windscreen wipers
stop working
> a vehicle with a small fault in its transmission,
which the manufacturer can quickly resolve by, for
example, replacing the entire transmission rather
than repairing only the faulty component.

So, by my reading "the ease of repair is irrelevant. That fact that they may be a component failures is also irrelevant" is entirely relevant.

This is my final post on this subject.

We can to and fro all you like but neither of us are lawyers so our interpretation may or may not be correct and I don't have the time to get into some convoluted discussion on a forum.

 

[Skylarking]

@Poor old Dad, thanks for the linked document.

I do agree with you that with minor faults, as the linked document calls it, ease of repair is entirely relevant.

However, my comments were related to a major fault classification and why i stated "some gearbox issues". Major faults under ACL are an entirely different beast where ease of repair is irrelevant. Maybe i should have been clearer with this distinction.

In your case, you previosuly stated when overtaking "the gearbox hung you out to dry" but you were "lucky with plenty of spave in front". Being unable to overtake with reliability I'd call a safety issue. As such, this may give rise to a classification of such problems as a "major fault" which offers one the right to ask for their chosen remedy.

But as we both recognise we are not lawyers, and given that written law can be modified by higher court rulings, to which i've read none, who really knows for certain where the minor/major fault boundries really exists I'd suspect its defined on a case by case basis

Guess all i was trying to impart (across multiple threads) is that people should read such documents critically themselves and interpret the law in their own favor if possible. Then speak to leagal aid or their lawyer and get further clarification as to how theiir reasoning holds up and how strong the case would be as a major fault classification under ACL. Why just take the industrys view about something being a minor fault and easy to repair being relevant and not use the law to ones advantage if there is scope for classifying a particular issue as a major fault under ACL?

Obviously there will always be differing views as to whether an issue if a "major fault" or "not a major fault" under ACL. Such determinations often need to be put in front of a judge as they are the only ones that can really decide when a dispute is in deadlock. Answering one question could assists in making that determination a little easier; would you have bought the car knowing of the problems it had (rhetorical question)?

Going through Civil & Administrative Tribunal is a rather cost effective option but if people are happy to repair major faults with their vehciles (knowing the law), there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

We are all adults and we can interpret things how we chose, each to their own as is usually the case

Sad that @Juicifruitz had issues in an amlost new vehicle (luckily resolved now). Also sad that @.05 is too scared to plant his foot in his preformance vehicle. And i've had my own gearbox moment in my MSE performance machine. Just wonder whether there is an element of product missrepresentaion when a performance vehicle seems to require so much gearbox torque management to stop things breaking... GM3 level certification - bah humbug.

 

[Poor old Dad]

n your case, you previosuly stated when overtaking "the gearbox hung you out to dry" but you were "lucky with plenty of spave in front". Being unable to overtake with reliability I'd call a safety issue. As such, this may give rise to a classification of such problems as a "major fault" which offers one the right to ask for their chosen remedy.

That maybe the case in theory.

In the real world that gives rise to all sorts of issues. Time, money, anger, hours spent on forums arguing my case, lol.

What happens when I take the car in and dealer does their diagnostics and says "yep, we won't know what it is until we pull the transmission out" ?

At that stage no-one knows whether its a major or non-major fault.

Turns out it's a bearing failure so they replace the bearing (or the transmission). At least they tell me it's a bearing failure. Is it? I don't know but again, what do I do about it even if I do doubt it?

Yep, all finished - good to go.

No, I want my money back!

I don't think so and the ensuing legal fight I fear would favour the dealer - and tbh I don't have an issue with that.

I might think differently if it did it driving home from picking the car up but after 25K kms I'd be happy with a warranty repair.

I'm only after a reasonable outcome and imo that is one.

In any event I think monstar's explanation has merit but I'll run it past dealer at the next service and see what they say.

We actually had a case of a dealer bending to our wishes a few years ago but that's another thread on it's own.