slk 230 problem - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Go Back   Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Roadster Forums > R170 SLK Class
New User? Register - Forgot Password

BenzWorld.org is the premier Mercedes-Benz Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2004, 04:55 PM   #1 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
slk 230 problem

I have an slk 230. I had a hydraulic leak from the locking/unlockng cylinder in the upper roof panel. I took it in to a local mechanic. He put the new cylinder in but hooked up the hydraulic lines to the pump backwards. Now 2 of the valves that he connected these lines to in the pump are broken and I need a new pump. He tells me the valves were bad prior to me bringing him the car. I know this is not true, but does anyone know where I can find any information regarding what happens to the pump under these conditons? I need something in writing casue I am taking him to court. I went to the mercedes dealer, they repaired the problem but would not go as far as to say that crossing the lines broke the valves due to legal issues. However, they did tell me openly that this did cause the valves to break. Any help would be appreciated!
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-04-2004, 05:37 PM   #2 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

it only noted that the lines were crossed. Did not say that crossing the lines damaged the valves. they would not go as far as to say that.
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2004, 05:57 PM   #3 (permalink)
Lifetime Premium Member
 
AMPM's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2003
Vehicle: SLK 230
Location: Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Co. Maryland.
Posts: 1,498
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via ICQ to AMPM
RE: slk 230 problem

Look on the pump for the manufacture name.
Search the Internet for them and e-mail them your question.
Don’t mention anything about damage or lawsuits, Just get the response.



__________________
*********************

I Drive Route 4, Southern Maryland's Autobahn.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!!
AMPM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2004, 10:23 PM   #4 (permalink)
BenzWorld Extremist
 
SledDog's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 2004 SLK32 AMG
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 807
RE: slk 230 problem

Quote:
downtick - 6/4/2004 5:37 PM

it only noted that the lines were crossed. Did not say that crossing the lines damaged the valves. they would not go as far as to say that.
I believe that Linh is referring to the paperwork from the local mechanic not MB service. I assume he meant if the local mechanic didn't note the valves as being broken in the original paperwork, the parts weren't broken to start. You would think if the valves were broken that replacement would have been included in the original quote. Should be interesting to hear him explain why it wasn't included.
SledDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 06:41 AM   #5 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

It wasn't included becasue I told him I only have a leak, which I did only have. The roof was operating just fine, even while leaking until it ran out of fluid. The valve problem came up when I picked up the car from these idiots.
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 07:02 AM   #6 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

hey ampm, thanks for the tip. I have the defective pump in my trunk. I went to look for the label on it, and wouldn't you know somebody scratched it off with a key. However, it was in the box of a new pump that I replaced it with. Mercedes put their own label on top of the MFG. label, but I was able to peel it off and uncovered the MFG to be a company called Hoerbiger. They have offices eveywhere in the world, even 20 mins away from me. I will start with them and see what they say. Thanks for your suggestion!

downtick
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 07:17 AM   #7 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

This is even better than I thought, this Hoerbiger company makes the exact check valves for the hydraulic pump. The valves are what was broken from these idiots! Thanks again, hopefully they will respond. They have tons of offices, I will mass email all of them.

thanks man!

downtick
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 09:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
BenzWorld Extremist
 
SledDog's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 2004 SLK32 AMG
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 807
RE: slk 230 problem

Quote:
downtick - 6/5/2004 6:41 AM
It wasn't included becasue I told him I only have a leak, which I did only have. The roof was operating just fine, even while leaking until it ran out of fluid. The valve problem came up when I picked up the car from these idiots.
If you are taking this mechanic to small claims court, you are dismissing this much too quickly. Just because the roof was operating prior to this doesn't by itself preclude this from being a pre-existing condition that ultimately failed after the work was done. While it will be nice to be able to prove that reversing the lines could cause this failure, that does not disprove a claim that it was a pre-existing condition. Just be glad you weren't having this guy work on a safety related system.

To your benefit, the limitation of what you told him shouldn't matter. You only pointed out the problem you knew about. The mechanic should have inspected the car, at least the affected system, before he started working on the car to see if there was something else wrong that also needed repair. How would he know that that valves were broken in the first place if he didn't do that, or see it while he was fixing the pump? If the valves were broken, at a minimum he should have told you about the valves being broken. He really should have put the issue on the quote or the closing paperwork. That is what Linh was pointing out based your statement of the mechanic's claim - if he knew, he should have put it in writting. If he knew about it in the beginning, he should have told you about in the beginning and/or included in the paperwork. If he found it while he was working on it, he should have told you so you could have him fix it or not. If you are really taking him to court, you will have to be able to counter his claim that it was a pre-exisiting condition.

Good luck, hope this guy pays for all of your expenses related to getting your car fixed.
SledDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 11:01 AM   #9 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

very easy to prove it was not pre-existing. If it were, the roof would have not unlocked thus I would not have had a hydraulic leak as I did. If the valve was broken, fluid would not have been able to flow through it. And remember, out of all the valves in the pump, 2 of them were broken, the ones that the lines were inverted into. The valves all work independently of each other. It would be extremely rare if not impossilbe for these specific 2 valves to break at the same time, especially when one of the valves wasn't even triggered yet to do it's job. Can you tell me how the second valve in question can break when it wasn't it's turn to function? I can, it wouldn't break. I just need as much evidence that inverting lines would damage the valves as mercedes states it did.
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 11:09 AM   #10 (permalink)
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Vehicle: 2003 ML-350
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 37
Send a message via MSN to downtick
RE: slk 230 problem

also, how can this be a pre-existing condition prior? Either the valve works or it doesn't, there is no half way case here, it either functions as designed or doesn't function at all. If it were pre-existing, roof would have never unlocked, that's what mercedes tells me as well. But i do understand what you are saying, only that it's impossible in this valve situation to be pre-existing as my roof would have never retracted to begin with as a broken check valve, let alone 2 valves, would not funtion thus not allowing any roof operation at all. This being the case, mercedes had to replace the entire pump.
downtick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Roadster Forums > R170 SLK Class

Bookmarks



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.