Velar Engine Failure

[SRBA]

Hi All,

I had a 67plate Velar on lease (ended 22/12/2020) and the engine ‘failed’ a few weeks ago with JLR stating they will not cover this under warranty.

Car was serviced as required, using genuine JLR parts and oil.

Communication form their side has been poor and I am standing my ground saying that I will not be held liable for engine failure on a 3yo car, serviced as required and still within warranty.

Anyone else had engine failure issues with the Velar?

[10126 Torino]

Failed in what way ?

Piston through block , complete loss of oil pressure , seized solid ?

[SRBA]

All I’ve been told so far is ‘metal was found in the oil filter’

Nothing on email, all over the phone and very little information given so far!

[TarquinMX5]

Is the car actually still under warranty, what engine? Who serviced it and when? What are the circumstances of the failure? Some more information might be helpful.

[NMNeil]

SRBA said:

All I’ve been told so far is ‘metal was found in the oil filter’

Nothing on email, all over the phone and very little information given so far!

Does it still run, does it rattle?
Just finding metal fragments in an oil filter does not automatically mean an engine has failed.

[Gnevans]

Ok

Search Honest John engine failure:

There are also some court precedents for engine failure outside of warranty if you search.

Personally I know two people with Land Rover engine failures I believe its a regular thing.

Also consider specialist solicitors/reject year.com for help.

[Gnevans]

Forgot to say, the friend with the recent failed discovery said there were another five in when she had her’s fail. The loan car also broke down..

[darreni]

If it’s still under warranty, they should just get on with repair or replacement?
What’s the reason for not being covered, has it been remapped?

[itcaptainslow]

We've only got about 1/4 of the story here.

Firstly, what's the reason Land Rover have refused to cover the repair? What repair is needed?

[cayman-black]

darreni said:

If it’s still under warranty, they should just get on with repair or replacement?
What’s the reason for not being covered, has it been remapped?

This. It is still under manufactures warranty.

[MrC986]

MrsC has a friend who had a Velar on a business lease (less than 2 yrs old) & the car blew its engine up earlier this year with no warning on the motorway after about 25k miles - it’s not as rare as you might think & her leasing company dealt with it (she’s now got a new Velar P400 Phev). If the OPs car is still under manufacturers warranty and hasn’t had any remap that might invalidate a warranty claim, & has been serviced to the manufacturers spec, I’d struggle to see how JLR can step away from a warranty claim. I’d suggest the OP gets hold of the name of the head of customer service for JLR and starts making some noise before going to a solicitor.

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

I'm guessing that there is more to this story than what we are being told.

[anonymous-user]

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I'm guessing that there is more to this story than what we are being told.

serviced outside the network?

[Throttle Body]

Isn't the solution simply to hand the problem over to the lease company? The warranty is theirs, isn't it?

[Hammer67]

The Spruce Goose said:

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I'm guessing that there is more to this story than what we are being told.

serviced outside the network?

When I was in dealer aftersales, engine failures in the latter years of warranty were viewed with suspicion by the manufacturers. A new engine under new car warranty often meant a bill running into 5 figures.

Hence, when this sort of thing occurred, the manufacturer IME always requested details of the service history.

Not just a stamped book but actual invoices and quite often an oil sample from the engine for testing.

Any sort of deviation from the schedule would usually result in claim rejection BUT would occasionally attract goodwill payments from the manufacturer judged upon the merits of the case.

OP doesn`t state why JLR have refused warranty but they must have a reason. I would hazard a guess at a less than full service history being the most likely.

[10126 Torino]

SRBA said:

Hi All,

I had a 67plate Velar on lease (ended 22/12/2020) and the engine ‘failed’ a few weeks ago with JLR stating they will not cover this under warranty.

Car was serviced as required, using genuine JLR parts and oil.

Communication form their side has been poor and I am standing my ground saying that I will not be held liable for engine failure on a 3yo car, serviced as required and still within warranty.

Anyone else had engine failure issues with the Velar?

"Car serviced as required using genuine JLR parts and oil "..... suggests not main dealer .

[Driver101]

10126 Torino said:

SRBA said:

Hi All,

I had a 67plate Velar on lease (ended 22/12/2020) and the engine ‘failed’ a few weeks ago with JLR stating they will not cover this under warranty.

Car was serviced as required, using genuine JLR parts and oil.

Communication form their side has been poor and I am standing my ground saying that I will not be held liable for engine failure on a 3yo car, serviced as required and still within warranty.

Anyone else had engine failure issues with the Velar?

"Car serviced as required using genuine JLR parts and oil "..... suggests not main dealer .

I was thinking it may not even be a VAT registered garage with the wording.

It'll be interesting to hear more of the story.

[Hammer67]

10126 Torino said:

"Car serviced as required using genuine JLR parts and oil "..... suggests not main dealer .

Not an issue assuming it has been done by a bona fide VAT registered garage, using OEM standard parts, using the correct oil and following the correct schedule and procedures.

Proving all of that will be difficult if your suspicions are correct.

It would also IME rule out any chance of goodwill from the manufacturer as being loyal to the dealer network was one of the main criteria for such payments.

[leef44]

The Spruce Goose said:

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I'm guessing that there is more to this story than what we are being told.

serviced outside the network?

Well, he said it's serviced with genuine parts as opposed to serviced by dealer so that would suggests outside the network.

Perhaps paperwork missing or proof of genuine parts so JLR finds metal elements in filter and cannot verify all genuine parts used. This is all speculation but just saying that at this stage we can't jump to conclusions whether dealer is wrong or owner is wrong. We just have to wait for OP to come back to provide more detail before we can help one way or the other.

[Jazzy Jag]

There is far more going on here that the Op has told us.

Metal filings in the filter is a symptom of wear and doesn't give any grounds to reject a warranty claim.

Something has given the retailer to question the validity of a warranty claim and, based on the evidence JLR have decide to reject a claim.

Having an Service at an independent with JLR parts and the correct oil does not void the warranty but would impact reciprocation of "Goodwill".