Country Sales & Service

*SEE ATTACHMENT*Re: Complaint ID: [redacted]) To Whom It May Concern,[redacted] purchased an engine from us on 04/07/2016. On or about 07/22/2016, customer called and stated the engine had failed and would like to submit the engine for warranty. We received the engine at our facility on...

or about 08/01/2016. At this time a warranty inspection was performed and the engine was found to have failed due to an improperly functioning turbo charger. Customer was informed of the findings, and at this point disagreed with our assessment. The following information will provide the reasoning behind our findings.Upon initial inspection of the turbo charger, it was found that the impeller was found to be offset to the 3 o'clock position (should be centered) and the turbo housing was also found to be scored due to contact with the offset impeller. This would not allow the turbo charger to function as designed and in turn would not allow the engine to function as designed. The resulting damage was caused by reduced airflow to the engine due to an improperly functioning turbo. This prevented fuel from proper ignition resulting in unburnt fuel. The accumulation of this caused excessive carbon build up, which in turn impeded the proper function of the exhaust valve and exhaust guide. This prevented the exhaust valve from sliding freely in the valve guide and resulted in a hung exhaust valve. This caused an imbalance of movement between the exhaust valves and put increased stress on the rocker arm bridge stud causing it to break. The customer disagreed with this initial inspection, therefore we proceeded to re-inspect the entire engine in order reconfirm our findings.At this point, we noticed the fuel screws and anti-tampers were missing on the engine. We can confirm that they were in place when the engine left our facility due to the following reasons. First, all our engines are tested/ran before they leave our facility to insure they are functioning to factory specifications, If the fuel screws were not present when the engine was tested the engine would not have performed to the aforementioned factory specification and would not have left our facility. Secondly, in the picture provided, it is shown that there is an absence of paint where the fuel screw and anti-tampers should be. This clearly shows that they were in place when the engine left our facility as the engine is sent to the paint room after the engine is tested. The absence of these fuel screws would cause the engine to run at full fuel all the time which, in addition to an improperly functioning turbo, would be the source of the excess soot found in the engine. The customer stated that in the absence of happened in one cylinder and not all four". We disagree with this statement. On this engine, the exhaust ports on the exhaust manifold merge at cylinder number 2. The accounts for the excess soot found on the number 2 cylinder where it would be expected to find increased levels of soot as compared to the other cylinders due to the increased levels of fuel and heat at this location. As a Kubota Authorized Service Center with 20 years specializing in the remanufacturing and servicing of Kubota engines, we took the extra step and submitted our findings to Kubota engineering. In their response, Kubota agreed with and confirmed our assessment as can be seen in the attached document. In addition to the previous steps, we also sent the turbo charger to Spencer Diesel injection & Turbo, Inc. in Spencer, IA. for and independent inspection. In summary, the results of this inspection (which are attached) find that the turbo charger was improperly assembled and failed due to oil contamination. This confirms our results showing the engine failed due to an improperly functioning turbo charger, exacerbated by the removal of the fuel screw and anti-tampers, causing the excess soot found in the engine which resulted in the failure of the valve bridge stud.A final important note with regards to the valve bridge stud and guide. These are not parts that will show degraded performance, rather they are parts that will either: 1.Function properly according to specifications or 2. Not function at all. Keeping this in mind, the customers assertion that then engine failed "because the valve bridge guide failed" does not account for the excess carbon build up found in the engine. Upon failure of this part, the engine would have shown obvious signs of distress (i.e., smoke and excessive noise). This would require the engine to be immediately shut down and not restarted in order to prevent additional damage to the engine, either through willful damage or negligence. if, according to the customer's assessment, the engine failed due to a "valve bridge guide" and not an improperly functioning turbo we should not find excessive soot.  Since we find excessive soot in this engine it leads us to believe that either; The engine failed, as we have shown, due to an improperly functioning turbo or the customer continued to run the engine, willfully or negligently, causing additional damage, neither which is ever covered under warranty. Please find additional information which we used in making our decision regarding the warranty on this engine. Any supporting documentation with regards to customer statement can be found attached.1. Customer stated multiple times that the "turbo charger was a brand new reman installed the same time the engine was installed. The turbo charger was manufactured correctly to factory specs with a brand new center section" and "we are aware the turbo failed and because it had just been remanufactured with a NEW center section we took it to the company that did the work for their analysis". They also state "The company that rebuilt the turbo for us has sent us invoices and an affidavit showing what was done to rebuild it factory specs". To date, they have not provided any documentation to confirm this. At this point, our company would see any documentation as suspect considering the delay in producing this documentation. 2.      Customer was asked to provide pictures showing the fuel screw and anti-tampers were in place before the engine was shipped back to us for warranty. Customer stated in this regard, "You are correct that they were in place when you shipped the engine to us. We took a number of photos, as well, before shipping the engine back to you. We can confirm  (emphasis added) the screws were still in place and untampered with when we shipped it back to you. To date customer has not provided pictures as requested. 3.      Customer as stated multiple times, "I never stated the engine ran fine, it has been underpowered since installation" and "The engine has 19 hours on it since installation but it just does not have nearly the power it had with the last engine". The customer never contacted us regarding this issue prior to the engine failure. This only lends credence to our findings that the engine failed due to an improperly functioning turbo as the engine was not receiving the required air to fuel ratio which accounts for the lack of power the customer experienced. 4.      As implied by the customer, we do not, nor have we ever  removed or tampered with any anti-tampers on an engine in order to "make it appear you removed them so we could void their warranty".  Neither myself nor ''someone under my "direction"" removed them in order to fabricate evidence to void warranty. Also, as implied by your company, no employee at our company is so fearful of losing their job as a result of making a mistake that they would be "motivated to protect his job by making a 'way out". This can be attested to by any and all employees' of our company. 5.      Customer stated our motive to "fabricate evidence", in order to void their warranty, is financially motivated. This is not the case as I currently have three employees, in addition to myself with more than 25+ hours each involved with this process. We take pride in our workmanship and strive to provide our customers with a quality product. We also stand behind our product and have no qualms providing warranty if it is found to be a deficiency on our part. if our motive was to limit our financial impact, it would have been cheaper for us to "payoff" the customer. The reason this was not done is we will not be bullied into providing warranty for a customer induced failure.In conclusion, we feel we have gone above and beyond in order to show to our customer that the failure of his engine was in no way a result of either; a defective part or a defect in workmanship. We typically try and work with our customers in these situations in order to reduce their financial impact. In this case, the customer has taken an all or nothing approach. They have demanded that we cover their customer induced failure under warranty. Barring that have indicated they will file with the Revdex.com (which they have) and if not satisfied with the result will proceed to sue us. We appreciate your time in reviewing our submission. If you feel you need further documentation, pictures, etc. I would be happy to provide what I have available. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions.Thank-you,Daniel S[redacted] General Manager