|
|
Post by dave1800 on Nov 15, 2013 1:11:12 GMT
It seems that every day there is a recall announced for x million cars because of some fault that has been identified often several years down the line.
I wonder if we apply today's recall criteria standards to the Landcrab what would be included in the list. Or maybe I should be asking what wouldn't be!
Ideas?
David
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Nov 15, 2013 19:17:08 GMT
You refer, I take it, to the "Great Dipstick Fiasco" of 1964/5; rather than the Aussies turning an already tough car into an indestructible cross-country tank?  Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by Nick RS on Nov 15, 2013 22:15:47 GMT
A recall is used for safety related issues that dictate that the manufacturer must act. I am not sure that the 1800 would have had any. Service actions where a dealer is alerted to make a fix when the car next comes in would be a different matter and I am sure there would be plenty. The dipstick is well known, worth considering is valve clearances on early cars. Then there were report of rattling steering, and tyre scuffing requiring steering adjustment. I'm sure the warranty department was kept busy.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Nov 16, 2013 1:45:32 GMT
Reading on Tony's site in the Tech section suggests that a number of on-going issues were dealt with as cars came in for service without there being an actual recall in Oz. I have never seen this level of information being available in the UK relating to our cars.
I suppose that it depends on how the manufacturers view their responsibilities. We have probably all noticed that Toyota have had several recalls over the last few years and VAG have just announced one in the last few days.
In my own field (appliances), Bosch have done a recall about dishwasher PCBs on a voluntary basis because they didn't like some of their service stats. Beko had to be instructed by the BEAB to do a recall on a large number of fridge freezers, because they wouldn't accept that the fire risk was unacceptable. Manufacturers at opposite ends of the quality scale in this instance, just taking their responsibilities rather differently.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Nov 16, 2013 2:13:15 GMT
There's sometimes a blur between what is a safety related item and what is advisable. In the case of the 1800 an example is the tie rod nuts coming loose. In Australia they even noted that the nylock nuts were not the complete answer and advised locking two nuts together. How many owners know this? It could have safety issues under braking. Another example was the mismatch between upper front suspension support arms and the tie rods, sometimes from side to side on the same car, this is however noted in later UK w/s manuals. Then we have our "own" G valve issues. There are also issues with the front displacer hoses rubbing. David A recall is used for safety related issues that dictate that the manufacturer must act. I am not sure that the 1800 would have had any. Service actions where a dealer is alerted to make a fix when the car next comes in would be a different matter and I am sure there would be plenty. The dipstick is well known, worth considering is valve clearances on early cars. Then there were report of rattling steering, and tyre scuffing requiring steering adjustment. I'm sure the warranty department was kept busy. Nick |
|
