[stallmaster]

Originally Posted by Slickshift99

Looking forward to your valuable inputs on what should be done further in the matter.

Thanks.

In my opinion, this looks like a case of poorly heat treated steel, or worse, carbon content of that part of steel is way off the mark. Something QC department missed clearly.

If it was me, I'd be wary of driving that car, even after Kia fixes that particular part. Looks like a serious safety concern.

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by bkc

Apology, repair and more extended warranty is fine but asking for a new car is little too much. They are here for business and wouldn't have put that part, if they'd known it would fail.

I’m sorry but I do not agree with this line of thinking. According to indian consumer protection laws, a company cannot sell a defective product to a customer. This is a clear case of manufacturing defect, and it’s a critical one. There have been many cases in which the dealer or the car company have been forced by the authorities to pay the customer for much more minor defects than the one seen here.

https://auto.economictimes.indiatime...e-car/66091665

Many Indian car OEMs and their dealers have been made to pay the customers even the full price of the car in many cases.
https://www.mycarhelpline.com/index....1004&Itemid=10

https://m.economictimes.com/industry...w/65840972.cms

I am not sure about the person affected here, but if this happened to me, I would always have this in my mind that some other part could break too. If this happened to my brand-new car, I would definitely ask for a replacement car. Otherwise I would try to sell this car away to the dealership itself or anyplace else for a decent amount and probably buy a new car from some other OEM.

This is a very major quality control issue and I hope Kia takes cognizance of this and makes amends, Otherwise they will continue to lose all the reputation that they have developed in India for their brand.

[futaboy]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

These are, for example :
- hardware failure due to cosmic rays or a random gamma particle striking a silicon atom and converting a 1/0 into a 0/1 - a problem due to a limit on the level of accuracy that can be achieved with the way silicon is purified and doped and then made into semiconductor chips.
Even in this case, the industry has been clever enough to build redundancy into the circuits/storage so that software errors do not occur.

Processor manufacturing goes through binning process so each batch yields processors at different level of failures. These are then marketed & sold as different products at various price range. So if this was the case with car manufacturing then this would not make good business.

Originally Posted by venkyhere

And then there are issues/problems which simply don't have such an excuse to begin with :
The aforementioned 'redundancy' is the simple/elementary "safety factor" about which we learn as students. Say a beam or pillar of a building requires X dimensions to support the weight above it, it is given 2X or 3X or even 4X size to counter against non-uniform loading (say 300 people stand in one room in one corner of the top floor, which is meant to accommodate only 30 people) and against material quality variation. If such safety factors are ignored, high probablity for the problem to bite back. This is exactly what happens when beaureacrat-contractor corruption nexus results in bridges and buildings built with bare minimum quality and quantity of material and one fine day, when the loading reaches an extremely rare combination, catastrophic failure ensues.

Over engineering a component or product does not offer much value to either manufacturer or end consumer. No product can be designed that won't ever fail or wear out. Even battle tanks that have very high factor of safety do break down during routine field exercises. The probability of failure is not absolute zero even for a brand new car.

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Design specifications from the manufacturer provided to the vendor has to ensure that even if the vendor doesn't stay within the quality tolerance limits , there is enough "redundancy" in the design to circumvent it. How do you think engine mounts in millions of other cars are not failing even if the person driving it, drops the car at 140 kph into a sudden mega pothole ? is it because the vendor who supplied those mounts is the same guy who supplies parts to NASA rockets ?

There are issues/failures which can take recluse in "random" and then there are ones which simply can't. Engine mounts belongs to the second category.

Despite consumer paying road tax and toll tax our roads are not safe and pot hole free. Good roads do come with lot of benefits such as reduced accidents, less travel time, better for the car suspension and tires, better fuel efficiency etc.

[PankajKara]

I came across the huge Hyundai issues thread here and also the recent GNCAP ratings of the Seltos. Now this thread. I was anyway wary from Korean cars but these threads are really alarming.

I used to work for a big Korean smartphone and electronics manufacturer and got to learn quite a bit about how these guys work. Sorry for generalising or stereotyping but those same things are applying to the Korean cars too. Tell me if the below don’t make sense.

1) Rushed products to market without proper QA. QA done after products are sold. Aim is to be in market ASAP.

2) After first batches of defective products are returned by customers, special QA flown in from Korea to check these cases and report back to HQ. Fix issues in consecutive batches at factory. In the meantime, keep replacing units and keeping customers happy.

3) Cases where manufacturing defects are present, those products are reworked not recalled (literally opening the packed box - replacing said faulty part, then repacking the box and putting the manufacturer tape back on. Read: No recall). Now recalling is much easier for electronics compared to cars and yet this happens there. They avoid recall whatsoever.

4) Bribe customers with goodies, replacements for their faulty (burning phones) product in exchange for signing an NDA.

This is why many customers stay shut. That damn NDA and the goodies they get. You only ever read about the few cases where the team didn’t get the customer to sign the NDA.

Where I was, the goodies given depends on the nationality of the customer or their status. In that nationality list - Indians were not even in the top 10. The automotive laws here need to get way more strict and more people need to come out publicly with these issues in order for these guys to take us seriously. Until then, we can expect things to stay more or less the same.

To me points 1,3&4 seem to be applying to Korean cars too. Let me know if you disagree and why.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by futaboy

Processor manufacturing goes through binning process so each batch yields processors at different level of failures. These are then marketed & sold as different products at various price range. So if this was the case with car manufacturing then this would not make good business.

Not talking about binning or DFT at all.
Bit error correction on data & hang prevention in accelerator/state machines , after they get deployed in field, they are part of the design itself

Originally Posted by futaboy

Over engineering a component or product does not offer much value to either manufacturer or end consumer. No product can be designed that won't ever fail or wear out. Even battle tanks that have very high factor of safety do break down during routine field exercises. The probability of failure is not absolute zero even for a brand new car.

Over engineering is precisely this thing that you are describing as it isn't. Reducing probability massively to guard against "age related or casting related weakening"

[SgtRepeat]

Originally Posted by Rahul Rao

He got what he paid for. Normal Hyundai Kia gimmics. Great finishing, lot of electronic gizmos and cost cutting in core engineering.
Not very common but this is not un heard off in Creta either.

Considering that he paid almost 14 big ones OTR, I'm not sure he got what he paid for.

Cost cutting (especially in core engineering) at such a price point is unacceptable.

[ACM]

Too many issues with the recent Kia and Hyundai cars.

These are not small niggles but either manufacturing or design flaws. Unacceptable.

It seems to be a combination of quality, cost cutting and poor engineering in a quest to get new models released faster?

[arjab]

Originally Posted by gmhossain

Thanks Arjab for pointing out the specific parts that one should look for possible misalignment/damages during the repair process. Given the engine was revolving/revving while it got dislodged from the mount, I presume, it will impact/strain almost every moving parts connected to the engine.

Do you think such impacted engine/driveshaft/car combination will ever run smooth as earlier?


Thanks,

It should not be a problem if the impacted parts / sub-systems have been correctly identified. For example: driveshaft replacement is a very common service requirement on our ravaged roads: cars run fine after such a service.

Also I do not think there has been much severe damage as it does not appear, (from the owner's write-up that is), that any oil leakage, (which may indicate a punctured oil sump) etc has happened. A thorough inspection before taking the car back should be sufficient to negate worries.

What I am worried about: is that if one "A"-mount has failed in one SONET, it is definitely something to do with the batch supplied by the engine mount supplier. Now, how many of these "A"-mounts are rotten apples, that only KIA can answer.
It would be wise for KIA to initiate, even a "soft recall", to cover this particular component's supply batch and do a "goodwill" replacement irrespective of failure status.
Yes, there will be a cost attached to such a recall, but bear in mind that the bulk of this cost will be borne by the mount supplier. This will help KIA gain valuable brownie points from the customer's perspective.

[rpm]

It's really unfortuante that such a failure happened in a new car. My best wishes to your friend for a swift and satisfactory resolution.

Coming to the discussion at hand, I see the 'one off/ they're a business looking at profitability/ business focused' vs 'unacceptable quality/ lowered QC/ consumer focused' perspective. I'll admit that I'm no expert in either the business or consumer laws field. What I do find a bit troubling is, given the reality that nothing can be perfectly fool proof of manufacturing defects, and various brands having different levels of success with QC; the 'lemon' vehicles that roll off the assembly lines, is it fair for a customer to bear the expenses of 'manufacturing defects'? Considering the perception that consumer laws in India are fairly slow at delivering justice and require you to fork out some part of your wealth as well. (NOTE: I do not know if the same is actually the case with consumer laws, please correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't it almost feel like playing a game of lottery where you are at the mercy of the dealership even after paying the same price you would for a 'non lemon' vehicle?
Is the consumer wrong to expect a relatively problem free car when going for a new car as opposed to a used car, considering it may or may not have factored in to the buying decision, for the supposed peace of mind?
Do note I'm not singling out KIA alone, it is the case with every manufacturer, you'd find 'lemons' everywhere.

These thoughts aside, I do think the key would be how KIA handles the issue. They should give a detailed breakup of the damage to the vehicle. If the damage is severe and not just localised to the engine mount, I'm of the opinion that they should replace the vehicle, but I do note that the probability of such an outcome is highly unlikely and the OP's friend should not in any way consider this as advice, but an opinion.

I also see comments trying to help the owner cope with the issue and not let it hinder their ownership experience by sharing their own experiences, all in good faith, but I do think it is not as easy to forget something that happened not so long ago and that too, to a new car. Time will help surely, with the assumption that no new issues crop up and it is smooth sailing henceforth. I suggest that you accept that the grief and frustration is normal instead of fighting it. With time, this phase shall pass too and you'll be back to your usual self . Again, I wish you all the best for a swift and satisfactory resolution.

[futaboy]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Over engineering is precisely this thing that you are describing as it isn't. Reducing probability massively to guard against "age related or casting related weakening"

Kia Sonet (and Hyundai Venue) are not yet mature designs. An early failure (infant mortality) maybe due to incorrect installation or design and material (most likely). From reliability point all infancy failures rapidly reduce with time - Bathtub Curve.

.

These initial defects although unavoidable do hurt brand image, undermine customers confidence and are undesirable. Hope these incidents do result in more robust design in future.

[2000rpm]

Oh dear! Poor soul.

Such experiences will ensure he never fully trusts the car. I think he should be very firm with the dealership for a complete replacement and nothing less.

I think I would like a refund in such cases and wont like to touch a similar car again.

[raunaqv471]

This is appalling to say the least. And here we dissed Honda civics for running through mounts every 60k kms. Obviously this is a defect in that particular car. Mounts should ideally not have issues atleast for 1 lakh Kms, heck in some cars, they last the life of the car. I have heard of collapsed mounts causing vibrations during cold starts or while doing high speeds as well as thumping over potholes, but this was a safety hazard. All components in the engine bay should be inspected since the engine would have moved around a bit after it happened. The strut mounts too should be inspected assuming the impact of the pothole was severe. Needless to say , any collateral damages including the motor mounts should be replaced free of cost by the dealer as manouvering potholes is what vehicles are expected to be able to cope with without parts snapping prematurely.

[ps_abhijith]

An engine mount being damaged is common on our roads, but one breaking off in a brand new car is a rare sight. If the suspension / wheels have no damage, then this definitely is a structural failure. Also, from the pictures, it looks like the broken part attached to the engine is resting on top of an AC line. Would check out for any kind of damages on the line if it was me.

I am not sure of how the engine in sonnet is mounted on the cars body, but if this mount on one side broke off, where is the engine resting on then? Is it being supported by just the drive shafts? Or is the engine resting on the suspension / subframe? Wont this damage these parts? Experts please weigh in.

My brother in law has a 2017 tata tiago petrol, of which the engine mounts routinely goes bad, like in a pre defined schedule. He has done 80k+ km on the car, and he has replaced an engine mount during almost every service he did. 5 mounts from his memory, 6th one is damaged now, and due for replacement. He attributes this to the added vibrations of a 3 cylinder engine and mostly to his usage pattern, which includes mostly rural roads, non paved roads and mild off roads demanded by his work. The tell tale indicator for him is increased engine vibrations. But no once did a mount completely shear off for him.

[vk007]

Originally Posted by bkc

So, as long as the laws are not stringent, people find ways to maximize profits and just pass the current regulations (About the safety of cars). The Mount failure can be a manufacturing fault of just one out thousand mounts, manufactured by a supplier. Each mount cannot be tested but, one randomly selected ones might be selected.

My engine mount bolt failed in swift after a lac kms. Bolt is not a casted part and I was too shocked. But doesn't mean my car is unreliable.

Point taken mate. But are we not supposed to hold the manufacturers to a higher standard? Engine mount getting broken is a possible safety issue IMO. Its a brand new car and the Engine Mount broke. Kia can't cover it up. They owe the customer his peace of mind back. Lets hope they take the right steps towards it.

[Jeroen]

A lot of people claiming the suspension, rims, tyre might be damaged as well.

Not necessarily.

If you are unfortunate to drive over something that would pass under you cars bumper but not the sump, or any other engine component protruding from the bottom, you can potentially get this sort of damage. And if it is a relatively narrow object, you might hardly notice the bump itself.

So before jumping to any conclusion I would really like to see some good images of the underneath of this car, the engine sump and the engine. Have a good look at the sump. It is not unknown for a sump to take a hit and literally move a few mm towards the rear. It would still seal and all, but the bolts would be quite badly damaged when you try and remove the sump from the engine base.

Trust me, having driven low slung sports cars all my life, you can sustain a lot of damage to the underneath and components such as engine mounts without ever hitting a pot hole. It is just a lot more rare on regular cars with decent ground clearance.

The Kia folks are going to do just this. They will put it on a lift and look for signs of damage to anything from underneath. If I were you I would insist to be present and take lots of pictures. Let them point out where they think your car hit something and take images.

Obviously, it could still be a manufacturing defect. But if they see obvious damage it is going to be a different story.

Good luck

Jeroen