Dealer Service Center Oil Change Nightmare

[Tromatic]

Originally Posted by Davev

We used to put ATF in 5 ton military cargo trucks when that was all we had on hand (Cummins). And we put motor oil in the auto transmissions (Allisons). And a couple times had to substitute mineral oil cause we ran dry and it got us going for a week. For a time all the cargo fleet used ONLY 30w oil in everything on the trucks.

I say this because we were taught all these lubes have similar base composition and will interchange. An expert could be found- I'm sure - that would say no harm done.

Motor T dudes. Seems we took better care of your shit than you did. Our trucks were always up, now I know why!

[Tromatic]

Originally Posted by poptart

Dude, I found your source. He put 1 quart of ATF into the engine and was told people used to use that to degunk.
That's a big difference from running straight ATF as a total substitute for the proper oil. We need a expert tribologist, but I bet he would say it's entirely conceivable the engine would suffer premature wear from this accident. It's not like it got driven 30 miles with
10w30 instead of 0w20, transmission fluid is far from meeting the manufacturer specified lubrication.



https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3174553AAZEE38

Mmm, metal on metal.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by poptart

Dude, I found your source. He put 1 quart of ATF into the engine and was told people used to use that to degunk.
That's a big difference from running straight ATF as a total substitute for the proper oil. We need a expert tribologist, but I bet he would say it's entirely conceivable the engine would suffer premature wear from this accident. It's not like it got driven 30 miles with
10w30 instead of 0w20, transmission fluid is far from meeting the manufacturer specified lubrication.

Congratulations Columbo. I wasn't hiding the source. The implication for the OP would be that the short duration of exposure to ATF instead of oil in his car was not likely to be detrimental.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Mods do not void warranties. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mag Moss only prevents manufacturers from denying warranty claims for mods that were not material to the failure. However, failures that are linked materially to the mod are not protected. For example, if you install an aftermarket blower and you blow a rod, they can deny that claim. If you install an aftermarket brake kit and a strut fails, they can't deny that claim based on just the mod.

Presently, Audi and Mercedes are able to scan their ECU's and detect not only a performance upgrade program installed, but also if the ECU has ever been flashed at all. They're voiding powertrain warranties on those cars and inserting an electronic flag on the car that warns any tech who connects a scan tool that the car has no powertrain warranty and to stop work and return the car to the customer.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

Shit, that goes double for your kid then. 40 if the lets you do it! To be clear, OP's engine is probably OK, minus about 10K of expected life. The "experts" at the dealer f-ed up. I'd walk away happy with free scheduled oil changes forever and double the powertrain warranty. But I'd be REAL pissed off.

OP, get it fixed and drive the wheels off the thing.

Yeah, the bit about reduced expected engine life is pure conjecture, but I agree the engine internally is probably fine (and probably a little cleaner).

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by stugray

That escalated quickly!

Things take an ugly turn when folks start quoting Ron Burgundy.

[CarzCarzCarz]

Read the OP, that's just crappy, sorry to hear. Didn't get to read all the rest yet, but Which dealership was this at in Houston? As a H-town native I would like to know for future reference, as would others I'm sure.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by poptart

Dude, I found your source. He put 1 quart of ATF into the engine and was told people used to use that to degunk.

Yeah, it wasn't a whole crankcase as FRS Dad pretended. One quart mixed in is definitely not the same as a whole fill.

People used to use ATF to clean out high mileage engines in the days when motor oil lacked the detergents we have today. My grandfather used to do that. One quart mixed in with the regular motor oil would do the trick, and you didn't do it every oil change. You only did it after tens of thousands of miles. You certainly didn't fill your whole crankcase with it and run the engine with no oil, not even for 20 miles.

Now think about that for a minute. One quart diluted in four or five quarts was enough to clean out the gunk that had built up with 1960s or 1970s era oil after 60K or 80K miles. That should give you an idea of how caustic this detergent is.

The problem for the OP is that the engine didn't grenade. What I would be afraid of instead is that the engine was subtly damaged so that performance will degrade over time, which would be difficult to make a claim for. Even if he took the 100K mile warranty, that wouldn't help him if the engine just wasn't running at its highest efficiency and was vaguely sluggish, or just "not quite right." It also doesn't help him if the car really should last 250K miles and it grenades after 101K.

If I were the OP I would want to unload this car and get a replacement that I could be confident in. It wouldn't be honest to sell this car to someone else without disclosing the ATF incident, and it's going to be difficult to sell it if it were disclosed. Therefore, to be fair, the dealership should assume that responsibility by buying the car back from the guy and finding him a replacement. At 8400 miles, I don't think it's unreasonable for that replacement to be new. Then, once they've taken the damaged car back, they can sell it and either be the dishonest ones or take the loss if they're not.

[mike the snake]

It's not like something with no lubricating properties was put in the engine. Unless the ATF has some affect on the seals, I say no damage was done with as few miles driven.

A guy I used to work for at a small German repair shop used to fill old engines with ATF and run them for a few days to clean the sludge. Those cars all survived with no issues.

Someone here posted that ATF is the same viscosity as 0-20

[stugray]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Therefore, to be fair, the dealership should assume that responsibility by buying the car back from the guy and finding him a replacement. At 8400 miles, I don't think it's unreasonable for that replacement to be new. Then, once they've taken the damaged car back, they can sell it and either be the dishonest ones or take the loss if they're not.

I agree.

But WAIT! I bought my BRZ used and it had 9000 miles on it......

I wonder if it had an ATF "flush" as well?

[Braces]

Regardless if the engine is damaged or not .... you can see that the majority of forum members agree that the engine is damaged somewhat. This is the perception right or wrong. When it comes time to sell this car ... the car's value will be reduced. The dealership needs to understand this diminished value that they placed onto the OP. Extended warranty does nothing for the perceived diminished value unless OP plans on keeping the car past 100K miles (not realistic). The dealership needs to make this right.

[Rico415]

Originally Posted by stugray

I agree.

But WAIT! I bought my BRZ used and it had 9000 miles on it......

I wonder if it had an ATF "flush" as well?

And..... That is why I buy new and pay the depreciation premium to KNOW my ride's history...



OP. Take the new engine...

[stugray]

Originally Posted by Rico415

And..... That is why I buy new and pay the depreciation premium to KNOW my ride's history...

OP. Take the new engine...

The bonus is.... I have a 100k mi powertrain full SOA warranty

[FRS Dad]

I did misread (and misquote) the question. The guy I sourced was asking if his engine would have been damaged by adding some ATF fluid to his existing motor oil. It was not a case where the crankcase held nothing but ATF. I stand corrected.

I had a chance to roundtable the issue with the owner of a respected indie shop here and a couple of his techs. All were fascinated as to how the shop managed to screw up an oil change so badly. That aside, the consensus was that if the duration was short, and the owner saw no smoke and didn't get an oil pressure light, no permanent harm done. ATF is not the right petroleum based lubricant for an engine but it is still a petroleum based lubricant.

I asked about the wisdom of pulling the heads and inspecting the cylinder walls for scoring or burning. The consensus here was that the engine is so precisely built with such tiny tolerances, opening it up for exploration would probably result in more issues than the ATF mistake caused. They stated if the engine was torn down you'd likely find it to be unusually clean but undamaged.

With respect to mitigation and the owner's understandable anxiety, they felt that complimentary oil changes and the extended warranty were appropriate.

The shops owner addressed the issue of getting bigger damages ( a new engine, a replacement car). He pointed out that no dealership or shop is going to voluntarily replace an engine or buy back the car because that remedy is so disproportionate. A law suit would be required, and he felt that the mediator and the judge would find the extended warranty to be fair compensation.

With respect to future work, the consensus was that the OP's car was going to get the star treatment here on out and is probably the safest place for future oil changes and general maintenance.