Stuck at Cape York

[Tom D]

I am amazed that Arthur doesn't know what happened. I'd have either popped in to the dealership and talked to the actual technician and got answers, or at least got them on the phone. In my experience you'll learn a lot more from the mechanic than the service manager. Hopefully we'll find out what happened soon enough. It must have been some sort of track damage as I can't see an insurance company shelling out that kind of money if they didn't have to. I'd love to know what it was. If a rock or a stick did fracture an oil line, you'd think the red lights would come up before major damage occurred.
All I can imagine is that the turbo ran dry and suffered a catastrophic failure sending bits into the engine... The noise sounded like major engine failure, so surely it mush have ingested something. If it was purely an issue with engine internals you'd think it would have been a warranty job as its hard to imagine how that could be environmental, unless it was water ingress..

 

[Tazzieman]

YT comments have been paused, not surprisingly.
Once the village idiots smell blood, they go feral.

 

[finlandstation4]

Looking at the previous video in the series the group of Grenadiers exceeded the maximum wading depth by 300-400mm crossing Pascoe's River on the Frenchman's Track the afternoon before.

The top of the front fender is 1150mm and the top of the tyre is 800mm.

Interestingly John Canny has not uploaded Arthur's crossing, however they were using a spotter and one would assume he followed the same path.

If your waterline is nearly up to the window when it's meant to be not above the top of the tyre...you know.

I think these fellows knew exactly what they'd done the day before and put it on Ineos for a new engine. Ineos watched the videos and said nup!

Moral...... don't go posting incriminating evidence of your stupidity on YouTube when trying to rip of a car company

 

[Bluesurf]

Here is another troublesome story.

View: https://youtu.be/h1Ayay0d0cs?si=PadZn4TCtx4MKmRa

 

[MrMike]

Here is another troublesome story.

View: https://youtu.be/h1Ayay0d0cs?si=PadZn4TCtx4MKmRa

This is what we've been discussing

 

[Bluesurf]

This is what we've been discussing

INEOS needs to get hold of that truck and investigate what went wrong immediately. Will they? What failed in that engine?

 

[Blackwolf]

INEOS needs to get hold of that truck and investigate what went wrong immediately. Will they? What failed in that engine?

That is pretty much what has happened, Ineos has the truck, there's been a spat between Ineos and the owner's insurer about liability because Ineos has concluded that the damage was "environmental", i.e., caused by the driver's actions and not the result of a manufacturing or design defect. As yet, other than stating that the repair involves replacing the complete engine, neither Ineos nor the insurer has explicitly stated the failure mechanism.

It's worth reading this thread and watching the videos in the series. It is not a clear-cut case and my personal view is that Ineos has behaved pretty well.

 

[ADVAW8S]

Make sure I understand correctly, IA gave him a new motor, no out pocket cost to owner.

The public is upset that IA won't release the cause. Also, IA was going to have the largest sales numbers ever in Australia. This is based upon the YT comments of people about to buy one but won't now.

If IA stated the engine blew because of water crossing, they would set a precedent for future incidents. You would get fools going over max water levels and expect a new engine.

 

[Blackwolf]

No, IA did not 'give him a new motor'. A new motor has been/is being fitted, the cost of repairs (and recovery) is being picked up by owner's insurance company.

 

[ADVAW8S]

No, IA did not 'give him a new motor'. A new motor has been/is being fitted, the cost of repairs (and recovery) is being picked up by owner's insurance company.

My bad so no out pocket expense? Except the insurance premiums he has been paying. The owner walks away no harm no foul.

I will add, this is one of those wild fire moments that I mentioned earlier about that IA needs to get in front of. Just release statement even if it throws the owner under the bus.

 

[Mountain4x4]

As mine has sat for a month on an unusual rear locker issue and denied front drive shaft failure, patterns are emerging. Some areas of real concern;

1. Towing 100 miles is completely absurd, it should be maybe 500miles given the dealer network and maybe a discount for further.
2. An engine is not 65,000.00 in parts, hell a full blown and built new BN58 is 15K all over the internet, other options much cheaper.
3. Hiding what the environmental factor is, that is terrible. We are seeing a lot of duck and cover, and similar with software access or dealing with the front drive shaft disaster.
4. That 3rd party call center is a train wreck. I had trouble communicating with them, but since it would have been a 2500.00 tow bill I of course gave up.

Clarity and communication are non existent in the car warranty world, but Ineos as a small and new car company MUST do better. On the good side for me, my dealer has been communicating bad news with me on a regular basis. I appreciate my dealer.

 

[Commodore]

As mine has sat for a month on an unusual rear locker issue and denied front drive shaft failure, patterns are emerging. Some areas of real concern;

1. Towing 100 miles is completely absurd, it should be maybe 500miles given the dealer network and maybe a discount for further.
2. An engine is not 65,000.00 in parts, hell a full blown and built new BN58 is 15K all over the internet, other options much cheaper.
3. Hiding what the environmental factor is, that is terrible. We are seeing a lot of duck and cover, and similar with software access or dealing with the front drive shaft disaster.
4. That 3rd party call center is a train wreck. I had trouble communicating with them, but since it would have been a 2500.00 tow bill I of course gave up.

Clarity and communication are non existent in the car warranty world, but Ineos as a small and new car company MUST do better. On the good side for me, my dealer has been communicating bad news with me on a regular basis. I appreciate my dealer.

No doubt that Ineos needs to improve their communications. B57 engines don't just fail out of nowhere. In this case it appears that the max depth was exceeded and that is the owner's fault and not a warranty issue. I'm guessing that corporate attorneys are advising them to say nothing. The problem is that this is really a business decision and shouldn't be the call of the legal department. The attorneys might be mitigating their liability but in doing so they are causing reputational damage.

I deal with attorneys all the time in a business setting and value their guidance. The good ones recognizance balancing business and legal. The bad ones just push the legal aspects. As this relates to Ineos, their legal is protecting the company from lawsuits but if they keep this approach their won't be a company to protect next year.

 

[Blackwolf]

It is only speculation (entirely by people who were not there) that deep water was the root cause of the failure, and there are plenty of other things that could have happened. As I recall (I'd have to rewatch the videos to be sure) at the time those present thought that a rock may have been thrown up and broken a turbo oil line. My point is that unless or until we know what killed the motor it is rather futile to speculate and no-one should make assumptions.

It is extremely regrettable that Ineos has not shared the findings that led it to conclude it was 'environmental' with the owner since unless or until they do the internet will be alive with speculation and the bad-mouthers will have a field day - as indeed they appear to be doing.

The fact that the owner's insurance company has accepted liability indicates to me (assuming that Australian insurers are as reluctant to accept any liability as UK ones are) that there is compelling evidence that it was accidental damage not a warrantable breakage, because they would not accept liability unless convinced and they won't be stupid - the evidence must be compelling. There should therefore be no question that Ineos is avoiding any responsibility. Do not forget that it was Ineos that towed the dead car for 2600km and undertook the investigation at its expense in order to ascertain if it was a warrantable issue. Most makers and insurers I have dealt with would not have moved it an inch until the cause had been determined.

Finally I have to wonder what would have happened if the vehicle had been an L663 Defender (it would probably still be in Cape York) or a Toyota. If it had been a classic Defender it would have been repairable at the roadside of course!

 

[hus-iq]

Looking at the previous video in the series the group of Grenadiers exceeded the maximum wading depth by 300-400mm crossing Pascoe's River on the Frenchman's Track the afternoon before.

The top of the front fender is 1150mm and the top of the tyre is 800mm.

Interestingly John Canny has not uploaded Arthur's crossing, however they were using a spotter and one would assume he followed the same path.

If your waterline is nearly up to the window when it's meant to be not above the top of the tyre...you know.

I think these fellows knew exactly what they'd done the day before and put it on Ineos for a new engine. Ineos watched the videos and said nup!

Moral...... don't go posting incriminating evidence of your stupidity on YouTube when trying to rip of a car company

I had to go back to look for his crossing and noticed he didn't upload it, doesn't take a genius to work out why. If one goes through water, and way above the max wading depth, that's on them and noone else.

Ineos aren't perfect but saying an environmental factor caused it...to me at least, that implies water in the engine. They should just come out and say it, but yes could be a legal viewpoint.

There's loads of hateful comments on social media about the Gren and it seems, as someone else described it, they've now gone feral.

 

[ADVAW8S]

I had to go back to look for his crossing and noticed he didn't upload it, doesn't take a genius to work out why. If one goes through water, and way above the max wading depth, that's on them and noone else.

Ineos aren't perfect but saying an environmental factor caused it...to me at least, that implies water in the engine. They should just come out and say it, but yes could be a legal viewpoint.

There's loads of hateful comments on social media about the Gren and it seems, as someone else described it, they've now gone feral.

Here is video that no one commenting has watched. It also looks like it was edited to remove Arthur's crossing. It all went down on the Frenchman Track.

View: https://youtu.be/BFJFFipKpVM?si=fNj4hTGPM6_TxfvZ

 

[landmannnn]

Here is video that no one commenting has watched. It also looks like it was edited to remove Arthur's crossing. It all went down on the Frenchman Track.

View: https://youtu.be/BFJFFipKpVM?si=fNj4hTGPM6_TxfvZ

This bit at the start shows water above the air inlet.

There flow looks left to right too.