Exhaust smoke

[bruce]

Just change to a thicker oil so hopefully less will escape past the rings. It's worth a shot. Don't overfill it.......

[StanTheMan]

I had a similar issue with smoke but it was for other reasons.

essentially ignored the smoke. G0t a letter by the EPA about excessive smoke & to repair my engine.
I parked Patchy 6 months ago. Preparing a 1.8 conversion.

[bruce]

It has to be excessive smoke for that to happen. Just claim it's a diesel.

[Forgiven]

[quote="Forgiven"] the engine is no good - the rings haven't bedded. No. 3 is extremely wet, but all are in trouble.

An update: A formal demand for a refund of the loss in value elicited an offer of "I will replace the piston rings at no charge". (He said he hadn't realised that he had used a business invoice, and thus was subject to Australian Consumer Law. He's not a licensed motor vehicle dealer and, because he sells fewer than six p.a., doesn't have to be. But if it had been a private sale, I'd be whistling in the wind.)

From the description of the problem (above), is this the solution I need?

But the bigger issue, even if it is all that is necessary to fix the engine, why would I trust him to do it? I'd need at least an independent inspection at one or more points in the process wouldn't I?

[StanTheMan]

sounds like hes a clown to even admit that sort of dodgy dealing.

[hks_kansei]

I believe legally he has the right of rectification.

ie: the business who stuffs up has a right to fix it, then if they stuff up the fix you can go elsewhere and send them the bill.


Maybe give consumer affairs a phone call to check your rights first.

[Forgiven]

I believe legally he has the right of rectification.
ie: the business who stuffs up has a right to fix it, then if they stuff up the fix you can go elsewhere and send them the bill.
Maybe give consumer affairs a phone call to check your rights first.

I did the ACCC thing (State Consumer Affairs administer the Australian Consumer Law) before I sent the demand.
The remedy to which one is entitled depends on whether the failure is a 'minor failure' or a 'major failure'. Unfortunately the ACCC website information contradicts itself for my situation: in one place it says that 'Major problems cannot be fixed or are too difficult to fix', while in another it says that 'There is a major failure...when..you would not have purchased the product if you had known about the problem.'

So I called it a 'major failure' and asked for one of the three remedies allowed - compensation.

I think a reasonable person - say somebody helping at Consumer Affairs - would say that rectification is reasonable. So now I need to ensure that the work is done well.

[hks_kansei]

Yeah, personally I would have considered excessive smoke etc as a major flaw with an engine.

Generally if you had an engine rebuilt and it came back smoking heavily, you would not purchase it.
It's not something minor like a small rattle for example where you may buy it anyway and ignore the rattle.

That, and cars that emit excessive visible smoke arent actually roadworthy (cant remember if it's a RWC thing, or an EPA thing)

[olboy]

I had a similar problem with a rebuilt engine using oil
Fixed it by changing from 5w40 to 10w40 it was getting past the valve guides

I'd be changing the oil so you know what you've got

[93_Clubman]

Fixed it by changing from 5w40 to 10w40 it was getting past the valve guides

It's already been diagnosed by another Mazda specialist:

But the engine is no good - the rings haven't bedded. No. 3 is extremely wet, but all are in trouble.

[Forgiven]

the engine is no good - the rings haven't bedded. No. 3 is extremely wet, but all are in trouble.

An update: A formal demand for a refund of the loss in value elicited an offer of "I will replace the piston rings at no charge". (He said he hadn't realised that he had used a business invoice, and thus was subject to Australian Consumer Law. He's not a licensed motor vehicle dealer and, because he sells fewer than six p.a., doesn't have to be. But if it had been a private sale, I'd be whistling in the wind.)

From the description of the problem (above), is this the solution I need?

But the bigger issue, even if it is all that is necessary to fix the engine, why would I trust him to do it? I'd need at least an independent inspection at one or more points in the process wouldn't I?

Still looking for words of wisdom on these two questions.

[93_Clubman]

engine is no good - the rings haven't bedded. No. 3 is extremely wet, but all are in trouble.

formal demand ... elicited an offer of "I will replace the piston rings at no charge".
From the description of the problem (above), is this the solution I need?
As per mid Apr PM exchange, it may not be all that's required.
But the bigger issue, even if it is all that is necessary to fix the engine, why would I trust him to do it?
Indeed, but options appear limited.
I'd need at least an independent inspection at one or more points in the process wouldn't I?

So now I need to ensure that the work is done well.
Good luck with that! As hks said above, it will need to be stuffed up again before you can get it fixed by a repairer of your choice & send the the bill to the seller.

[bruce]

Wisdom from an internet forum is an oxymoron!
Not any options left - let him attempt to fix it.
I would put markings on bolts and gaskets so you can check afterwards that he did in fact dismantle the engine again (and that he didn't just change it to a thicker oil to reduce the smoke).

[Forgiven]

Thanks everybody. I'll accept his offer. Worse case scenario: he takes it for the 10 days he needs, puts in different oil, and hands it back!

[Forgiven]

Just seen your reply Bruce. Thanks for the suggestion. Can you give, for a non-mechanically minded person, exactly where and using what, I mark?