Broken Timing Belt ruined engine three days after purchase

[Zigner]

The damage was the OP's fault. He drove the vehicle and that is what caused the timing belt to break/slip. If he had not driven it, it would be just fine. It would need a new timing belt (which in itself would not cause it to fail inspection) but it would be running.

I have to believe this was said tongue-in-cheek. What negligent/abusive act could the OP have done in 15 miles that would break the timing belt?

ETA: Yes, a broken timing belt WILL cause the vehicle to fail inspection. A non-running vehicle automatically fails.

 

[justalayman]

I have to believe this was said tongue-in-cheek. What negligent/abusive act could the OP have done in 15 miles that would break the timing belt?

ETA: Yes, a broken timing belt WILL cause the vehicle to fail inspection. A non-running vehicle automatically fails.

No, it was absolutely serious. The car ran fine when he bought it (or at least well enough to be acceptable to the OP). How does anybody know what he did that caused the belt to break/slip?

Using your argument, I can go buy a car, hot rod the hell out of it until the engine blows up and as long as it is within the time limit, I can demand my money back.

ETA: the car was running just fine until the OP did whatever he was doing at the time to cause the belt to break/slip.

 

[Zigner]

No, it was absolutely serious. The car ran fine when he bought it (or at least well enough to be acceptable to the OP). How does anybody know what he did that caused the belt to break/slip?

Using your argument, I can go buy a car, hot rod the hell out of it until the engine blows up and as long as it is within the time limit, I can demand my money back.

ETA: the car was running just fine until the OP did whatever he was doing at the time to cause the belt to break/slip.

Just - please read the law that was posted. The OP would have had to have done something negligent or abusive in order for the protections to not apply. Timing belts break under normal usage...normal driving is not negligent or abusive.

 

[justalayman]

Just - please read the law that was posted. The OP would have had to have done something negligent or abusive in order for the protections to not apply. Timing belts break under normal usage...normal driving is not negligent or abusive.

I did read the law.

provided, that the defects which are the reasons for the failure to issue a certificate of inspection were not caused by the abusive or negligent operation of the motor vehicle

If the belt needed to be replaced, driving the vehicle without replacing it is negligence.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

good luck in your attempt however I do not think you will prevail. The broken timing belt and damage will most likely not be considered a component of the failure to pass inspection.

I am not gloating for your loss. I take impeccable care of my vehicles and had premature timing belt failure at 111k, 9k before the second change interval on one of my cars. Rather than pay 5k for another engine, I sold it to a parts reseller who had a used engine.

Cars that do not run automatically fail inspection. To be eligible for a refund under the Lemon Aid Law, you must demonstrate that the estimated cost of repairs for safety or emissions related defects (and not the problem that is keeping the car from being inspected) is more than 10% of purchase price. Proving this may be difficult because it requires that a mechanic locate the problems and estimate the cost of repairs for these defects.

 

[Zigner]

I did read the law.



If the belt needed to be replaced, driving the vehicle without replacing it is negligence.

ASSuming the buyer KNEW it needed to be replaced. And, on an interference engine, the damage is basically instant when the belt breaks.

(A timing belt is not something that is checked during a mechanical inspection.)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

ASSuming the buyer KNEW it needed to be replaced.

I have never seen one you could visually inspect without disassembling. Hopefully, OP's engine does not have a zero tolerance engine design.

 

[Zigner]

good luck in your attempt however I do not think you will prevail. The broken timing belt and damage will most likely not be considered a component of the failure to pass inspection.

You don't think so, huh? How do you expect the vehicle to pass if it's not running, hmmm?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You don't think so, huh? How do you expect the vehicle to pass if it's not running, hmmm?

safety or emissions related defects

The proof is in the states legal definition. ( either way)

 

[Zigner]

I have never seen one you could visually inspect without disassembling. Hopefully, OP's engine does not have a zero tolerance engine design.

It's called an "interference" engine - and OP already stated that the car DOES have one.

 

[Zigner]

The proof is in the states legal definition. ( either way)

Of course, as Steve pointed out - the LAW does not limit it to safety/emissions problems.

 

[justalayman]

ASSuming the buyer KNEW it needed to be replaced. And, on an interference engine, the damage is basically instant when the belt breaks.

(A timing belt is not something that is checked during a mechanical inspection.)

I know about interference engines. A bit more than I would care to in fact.

Since the inception of them and due to the amount of damage that results from a timing belt breaking or slipping, most, if not all manufacturers have a stated replacement interval. The onus was upon the buyer to determine if the belt had been changed as specified by the manufacturer. If it hadn't, the buyer took the risk of driving it prior to changing it i.e. negligence

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I know about interference engines. A bit more than I would care to in fact.

Since the inception of them and due to the amount of damage that results from a timing belt breaking or slipping, most, if not all manufacturers have a stated replacement interval. The onus was upon the buyer to determine if the belt had been changed as specified by the manufacturer. If it hadn't, the buyer took the risk of driving it prior to changing it i.e. negligence

That was the way I felt it would be interpreted also.

 

[Zigner]

The onus was upon the buyer to determine if the belt had been changed as specified by the manufacturer. If it hadn't, the buyer took the risk of driving it prior to changing it i.e. negligence

Nope, not in MA. If the SELLER sold a vehicle that had not been properly maintained and it caused the vehicle to not pass inspection, then it's on the SELLER.

 

[justalayman]

Nope, not in MA. If the SELLER sold a vehicle that had not been properly maintained and it caused the vehicle to not pass inspection, then it's on the SELLER.

but it would pass inspection (presumably) when it was sold. The buyer failed to have it inspected when it would still pass inspection therefore, still, it's on the buyer.