[Sankar]

Originally Posted by 100BHP

*UPDATE DAY 28*
MSIL report points :

"We would like to inform that based on our expert inspection of the failed engine parts, compression testing on engine and vehicle fuel sample test results, our conclusion is enumerated as below,
1. The compression in the engine cylinder is below the standards due to wear in cylinder bore.
2. Due to abnormal bore wear there is an increased engine oil flow upwards to combustion chamber. Excess oil getting spilled into intake/exhaust engine circuits .
3. The pattern of bore wear confirms usage of adulterated fuel.
4. To further cross check the available symptoms, the fuel sample collected from the vehicle was tested through an accredited lab.
5. This result re-confirmed the symptom level inspection findings (1114 mg/kg of Organic Chloride leading to excessive bore wear).
In the light of above, we wish to confirm that the damages in the engine bore resulted in engine oil splashing was not due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle or malfunction of any part but due to usage of adulterated fuel in the vehicle."

Adulterated fuel caused bore wear. Only in one cylinder?

High pressure fuel pump (HPFP) gets its lubrication from Diesel fuel only. And this adulterated fuel did not cause the pump to fail? Its a piston pump afaik, pump should fail first.

Injectors did not fail?

Have a few more questions for MUL but no point asking them, even these are in vain.

[kpzen]

Originally Posted by Sankar

High pressure fuel pump (HPFP) gets its lubrication from Diesel fuel only. And this adulterated fuel did not cause the pump to fail? Its a piston pump afaik, pump should fail first.
.

If at all, MUL theory has to be believed then the only difference I see here is the operating temperature.
Fuel pump temperature would be lot lesser compared to the temperature inside engine cylinder. Higher Temperature helped the organic chlorides to react.

Originally Posted by Sankar

Injectors did not fail?
.

Tip should have damage as per MUL theory.
Injectors should be replaced.

[lurker]

MUL has thus effectively shielded the dealer in place of the customer, because they have a longer term and more valued relationship with the dealer than they can have with the customer.

Lesson for customers of NEXA:

1. Kindly take oil samples after every NEXA oil change. It is not necessary that the dealership is rotten, a few unscrupulous employees can easily turn every experience sour and in an attempt to shield the dealer, it is the customer who shall have to bear the brunt.

Oil change is too critical and a rather inexpensive ingredient to be left plainly to a dealer alone.

[roamer012]

Originally Posted by kaushik.genius

SGS test report accuracy totally depends on the sample presented. Since your case has been presented well in TBHP and as MSIL gave the initial diagnosis as fuel adulteration they won't back down as say it was a lie.

What is the guarantee that MSIL submitted the exact same sample from your fuel tank untouched?

In my line of work every month I send fifty different oil samples to SGS for testing, once the sample bottle labels got interchanged and the test reports for the oils got interchanged.

@100BHP should have taken fuel sample from your tank and independently tested it from SGS.

SGS is the same firm which ran the marker based fuel testing for PSU oil companies for years and minted millions in the process. after it was found that the process of testing as well the marker itself was not tamperproof the test was done away with. Anyways, since the process started by MSIL has taken its course and the OP is satisfied with the same, nothing much can be done about it and further discussions on causes of engine failure will continue to remain educated guesses or hypothesis. Let's now hope that the vehicle becomes road worthy ASAP. Best of luck 100BHP and kudos for not giving in or giving up through the ordeal.

[pixantz]

Originally Posted by lurker

MUL has thus effectively shielded the dealer in place of the customer, because they have a longer term and more valued relationship with the dealer than they can have with the customer.

There is one counter point we guys have missed to see here. Just in theory, if we agree that MUL has shielded the dealer from us customers and covered up a botched up bad lubricant fiasco, or whatever you can call it, how is it a profit for them at least monetarily in the long run?

I mean you don't let your dealer keep on saving about 2000/- on an oil change and give the customer more than 2lacs new engine everyday, do you? You have to take his 'case' and stop the foolishness somewhere right?

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by kpzen

If at all, MUL theory has to be believed then the only difference I see here is the operating temperature.
Fuel pump temperature would be lot lesser compared to the temperature inside engine cylinder. Higher Temperature helped the organic chlorides to react.

A quote from pounders marine diesel engines book is given below.

A number of ships have suffered serious machinery damage in recent years from contaminated or adulterated fuels, the culprit components identified
as:

• Petroleum-based solvents, with the potential to destroy lubricant oil film and cause damage to the rubbing parts of fuel pumps and engine cylinders.
• Organic chlorides, which not only damage machinery but are also hazardous to ship staff.

The damage potential is very high. A very high wear rate can be expected between fuel pump plungers and barrels, and also between piston rings and cylinder liners.

In a contaminated marine diesel oil incident, the fuel injection system failed due to corrosion, paint was stripped off pumps and engine components, rubber seals and gaskets dissolved, and crew members suffered skin irritation.

---

Is MUL also recommending a change to the fuel system? If not why? If this thing can cause cylinder damage it supposedly can wreak havoc in the fuel system.

[lurker]

Good point, for a case of "fuel contamination", they have been eerily quiet about fuel filter, fuel pump and related parts. And from rudimentary reading 'organic chloride' is no kerosene type of contaminant, it is a product of poor refining or naptha based crude derivatives.

Originally Posted by pixantz

There is one counter point we guys have missed to see here. Just in theory, if we agree that MUL has shielded the dealer from us customers and covered up a botched up bad lubricant fiasco, or whatever you can call it, how is it a profit for them at least monetarily in the long run?

I mean you don't let your dealer keep on saving about 2000/- on an oil change and give the customer more than 2lacs new engine everyday, do you? You have to take his 'case' and stop the foolishness somewhere right?

they may or may not deal with the dealer at their leisure, but more urgently this excuse allows them ti save face and prevent any belligerance from the customer. Once they have the customer on back foot, they can deal with issues on their terms. It gives them breathing space to repair or misrepair at leisure.

IMHO this is exactly what we used to accuse skoda of doing umpteen times, shielding its dealers and supporting design/part defects as 'fuel adultration'. So this IMHO foray into premium for maruti has resulted in the skoda-ification of maruti.

[pixantz]

Originally Posted by Sankar

Is MUL also recommending a change to the fuel system? If not why?

Precisely because they are just "claiming" it to be an adulterated fuel induced damage. A story they want us to buy. Which doesn't seem practically possible in this case given the circumstances. The real reason is apparently different. That's why.

By the way 110bhp should be asking this question to MUL, just for fun

[kpzen]

Originally Posted by Sankar

Is MUL also recommending a change to the fuel system? If not why? If this thing can cause cylinder damage it supposedly can wreak havoc in the fuel system.

Agree !
As of now, they say Fuel system replacement in not required.
Will get precise details once they start working on the car.

Originally Posted by lurker

And from rudimentary reading 'organic chloride' is no kerosene type of contaminant, it is a product of poor refining or naptha based crude derivatives.

Ideally, it cannot come from refinery.
Refineries work on a zero chloride QC standard and at max <1mg is the permissible limit.

Most likely, some drycleaning waste has got mixed at transportation or storage to have chloride content 1000 times more than the permissible limit.
Its INSANE and UNBELIEVABLE !

Surprising part, the usual adulteration culprit Sulphur is also within limit.

[BPS_93]

Sorry to hear about your ordeal. Here are a few things you could do now-
1- Get a sample of fuel from your car before the service guys take a decision to flush it without prior information and get it inspected from some government recognised/authorised testing facility.
2- I assume you must be maintaining your babe in time so there is no doubting the fact that its a manufacturing defect and your car is in warranty and DEFINITELY you can claim it.
3- Adulteration explanation is very vague and if you can get a report by yourself which most probably will be in your favour then the company is liable to pay for the expenses not the customer.
4- Consult a lawyer, serve them with a legal notice. You don't need to pay for the repairs.
5- My father has dealt with some cases of this manner so if you need any information and/or suggestion regarding the legal and mechanical aspects of the issue I would be happy to help.

[procrj]

Originally Posted by kpzen

Agree !
Most likely, some drycleaning waste has got mixed at transportation or storage to have chloride content 1000 times more than the permissible limit.
Its INSANE and UNBELIEVABLE !

Originally Posted by Sankar

• Petroleum-based solvents, with the potential to destroy lubricant oil film and cause damage to the rubbing parts of fuel pumps and engine cylinders.
• Organic chlorides, which not only damage machinery but are also hazardous to ship staff.

Putting the above together, it basically means that Organic chlorides are a real threat to IC engines and hence the logical deduction would be that a lot many other cars would have suffered similar damage. If that is the case, we should have seen a few more reports on all kinds of media, which is not the case.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There is also a nagging question in the back of my mind. Maybe in 100BHP's mind too. None of us seems to really believe this fuel-adulteration talk, but I wonder if 100BHP has said to them, if it is, then what is to stop it happening again tomorrow. In which case what use is the car to me? Or any other buyer?

You have hit the nail on the head. If I was 100BHP, I would surely ask this question as my biggest concern would be a repeat of this incident. What is MSIL doing to ensure this does not repeat for 100BHP or any other owners?

If I owned an S Cross, I would be shooting out emails to regional manager to confirm this report and ask for a guarantee that I will be fully covered in case the fuel from my regular filling station suddenly generates organic chlorides and ruins my engine.

[tracerspiff]

Originally Posted by Sankar

Is MUL also recommending a change to the fuel system? If not why? If this thing can cause cylinder damage it supposedly can wreak havoc in the fuel system.

Exactly! If it is adulterated fuel, the whole fuel system has to be changed.. starting from the pump to the injectors!

An anecdote narrated by my father :
A very well known cement company had three 1.2MW diesel power plants. Costing a few crores each. These engines are humongous and consume 210 litres of oil everytime oil is changed. All three of them blew up in "exactly" the same fashion described by 100BHP here within 15 mins of oil change. having lost atleast 6- 8 crores of equipment, the big cement company wants them replaced on warranty. When the engine company service manager(My father) gets there, he rejects the warranty claim saying adulterated oil has been used.
He even documented the failure mode and the "brown varnish" colouring on the crankshaft and oil pan and sent it to higher officials in the engine company. It was a good learning for them. These engines can take a bit of abuse in terms of fuel and oil quality but you can never design for human greed!

The oil was bought by the cement company officials from a 'big name" oil brand warehouse. The oil company manager had mixed recycled oil with new oil to make some extra money!

Naturally, the big cement company threatens to sue and gets the oil company to pay for the blown engines and many heads rolled that day at the oil company.

This is one reason my father never offers to sell oil to his customers. He sticks to selling them engine spares and engines. He suggests a good brand of oil and leaves the customer to buy his own oil.

The only difference here is the dealer pulled the wool over 100BHP s eyes and got rid of the oil and the filter before he got there. And I am guessing 100BHP does not have the clout of a big cement company.

Had an analysis been done on the oil, it would have shown a near zero "TBN" which means the oil was basically oil coloured liquid! There should have been an analysis done on the oil the same way the fuel was analysed and the truth would have come out.

[AutoSphere]

Originally Posted by lurker

this has been in my head for sometime now, do not depend upon service centres to put clean oil in your car esp if it a diesel, use the service centre oil change as an engine flush opportunity and real enthusiasts can change oil themselves after the service center does its stuff.

Very good idea and this is what I do, especially, when I want to use synthetic oil after the dealer has done the regular service/oil-change.

[Jaggu]

So did they finally start the work? Or are still waiting?

Originally Posted by 100BHP

*UPDATE DAY 28*

MSIL report points :
===
5. This result re-confirmed the symptom level inspection findings (1114 mg/kg of Organic Chloride leading to excessive bore wear).

What is the maximum allowed limit of chlorides in diesel?

Originally Posted by kpzen

Most likely, some drycleaning waste has got mixed at transportation or storage to have chloride content 1000 times more than the permissible limit.
Its INSANE and UNBELIEVABLE !

This so called sample, was it taken in front of 100BHP? and signed off?

Originally Posted by tracerspiff

Exactly! If it is adulterated fuel, the whole fuel system has to be changed.. starting from the pump to the injectors!

And would have resulted in failure of the parts also. I seriously doubt the theory now.

He even documented the failure mode and the "brown varnish" colouring on the crankshaft and oil pan and sent it to higher officials in the engine company. It was a good learning for them. These engines can take a bit of abuse in terms of fuel and oil quality but you can never design for human greed!

Was the dealership cheated by the oil vendor in 100BHP's case? Are there other cars from the workshop with similar issues reported? Maybe other workshops in the area where the supplier might be delivering.

Oil analysis was done to rule out this issue?

Last but not the least was the so called adulteration report shared back with the fuel station? What do they have to say about it?

This case is full off questions, i have a feeling this is a classic case of arm twisting by MSIL and dealership to prevent further brand bashing and getting away easy without addressing the real issues.

[tracerspiff]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Was the dealership cheated by the oil vendor in 100BHP's case? Are there other cars from the workshop with similar issues reported? Maybe other workshops in the area where the supplier might be delivering.

My guess is that its the dealer doing the mixing. If it was the oil supplier, we should be seeing similar reports from other service centers too.