incorrectly assembled / fitted rear suspension

[AshLaw]

Lets say for arguements sake that one of my rear suspension struts / springs was incorrectly assembled and then fitted;

Would the rod of the strut not be secure and would this strut affect the handling of the car and put more pressure on the remaining struts to the point that one of the front struts would fail (leak, etc.)?

 

[zinc2000]

affect handling?...yes, break another strut?...doubtful

 

[AshLaw]

ok - another question - for my own peace of mind - is it possible that a seasoned mechanic could somehow incorrectly assemble a rear strut / spring assembly and if so, would he not notice at any point?

 

[zinc2000]

Quick answer...Yes, I worked with a very experienced mechanic who managed to assemble some rear brakes incorrectly even though he could do the job with his eyes shut normally, everybody makes mistakes, if you think it is wrong, question it

 

[AshLaw]

The company that makes the suspension has had their technical guys look at the suspension and come back with a report that states that one of the rear struts / springs has been incorrectly assembled.

The seller of the suspension (different company) has read the same report and stated that the reason the front strut failed was because of the incorrect assembly of the rear strut.

 

[zinc2000]

Interesting....unless the rear strut was solid (not damping at all) or simply not damping due to say the rod moving freely within the tube (again not damping at all) I fail to see how it could cause another strut to fail, front strut has most likely failed due to it being faulty itself.
You could in theory remove the rear struts completely and apart from the car looking as though it was taking part in the wacky races I am fairly certain it would not cause a front strut to fail.
I take it from the post you have a problem with a front strut?

 

[Frank]

When dealing with court type things, including 'small claims courts' there is one golden rule - NEVER ask a question that you do not already know the answer to (...and is the answer you want)

Thus, if I wanted to 'prove' reasonable doubt, I would phrase the question like this -

[post]357745[/post] ok - another question - for my own peace of mind - is it possible that a seasoned mechanic could somehow incorrectly assemble a rear strut / spring assembly and if so, would he not notice at any point?

...simply because there is only one answer and it is the answer I was after. For example, is it possible that I would dance along Folkestone sea-front, clad only in a mankini and whistling 'Dixie?' - the answer has to be yes, but it's pretty damn unlikely. However, since we are all agreed that it is possible, then if I was to claim I was doing this and you were unable to prove otherwise?....(in that case you would then opt to show that the doubt shown was unreasonable, as indeed it is! But it gets long and drawn out)

So, you would phrase it like this -

[post]357745[/post] ok - another question - for my own peace of mind - is it a reasonable suggestion that a seasoned mechanic could somehow incorrectly assemble a rear strut / spring assembly and not notice the difference between an incorrectly installed rear strut and the undisputed correctly installed rear strut, either after installation nor later on at least one subsequent occasion when he was specially asked to check the suspension system after my concerns regarding the handling of the vehicle?

I suggest that it is not a reasonable suggestion.

(all I'm doing is moving the emphasis of what is possible to that of what is reasonably possible and highlighting that no one is disputing that the other rear one was installed correctly)

 

[zinc2000]

And thereby putting the blame back on the front suspension guys, which is what you presumably need.....that's very clever Frank and even though I think I understand it my brain now hurts :grin:

 

[Frank]

[post]357764[/post] And thereby putting the blame back on the front suspension guys, which is what you presumably need....

Yep, keep the questions short in the knowledge that a reasonable person will come to the same conclusion as you did. A conclusion reached like that is far more persuasive than anything I could say.

..that's very clever Frank

It's really not, just techniques that most people don't come across.

The really clever guys are those mechanics who do those 1.7 cambelts! ...damned if I could.

 

[AshLaw]

Thanks for the replies so far - Frank & Zinc2000.

You see I am having trouble putting any sort of blame of the mechanic who installed said suspension (I have been using him for over 10 years with all sorts of vehicles that I have owned).

I was there when it was installed and with £800+ of parts to install alongside the suspension - you could say that I was in the "perfectionist" mode as was the mechanic.

I assembled the suspension - I mean it's not exactly rocket science - the How To's on this website are invaluable - plus I had the watchful eye of my mechanic there anyway.

As far as I am concerned one of the front struts failed out of the box - the front end was bouncy from day 1 but then I was also told that they require bedding in (up to six months)?

 

[zinc2000]

I think the days of "bedding" suspension parts in are long gone, technology has moved on so that most parts work as they should from the box.....by all means don't hammer it for the first couple of days to allow for movement but 6 months!!
If front end was bouncy I would say duff shocker

 

[Frank]

What is not in dispute in this non-independently tested report is that 2 units had failed and 2 had not. I suggest that not only is it highly unlikely that a failure of a unit at the rear would have caused a suspension failure at the front of the vehicle, but that it is equally as likely that the failure of the front unit caused the failure of the rear unit.

I further suggest that I was supplied defective goods by this retailer.

Add that after the question and suggestion that I posed here - http://www.projectpuma.com/viewtopic.php?p=357762#p357762 and then shut up.

The case is clear and the bench already know what sections of the consumer legislation have been broken before they even sit. The onus is on the retailer to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not supply defective goods. Given the already quoted bumptious, aggressive and blustering style of the retailer, that would actually be quite amusing to watch him try that in court.

If the retailer has any sense then they should just bite the bullet, save themselves the 450+ mile round trip bus fare money and pay up now.