My daughter bought a 2009 Holden Cruze on October 5 of last year. She paid $5999. The build date on the compliance plate is September 2009 - so it was 5 days after the statutory warranty expired (which she acknowledged on transfer contract). On Christmas day, it suffered a head gasket failure, which was have been quoted as anything from $1500 for a head, to $4000 for an engine replacement.
Can I expect the dealer to do anything other last laugh at her, under Australian Consumer Law?
I mean does it matter
Its a cruise…. the engine failed… so its essentially a day ending in Y
*Cruze đ
And it was more to see if the date is even relevant or if it has massive kms
Autocorrect lol. I did type Cruze
Yeah fair enough but from my exp at my work Cruzeâs are absolute rubbish. I reckon itâs number one car for engine replacements.
@jimbobaus: Oh for sure lol they're crap! The Aussie made engine/gearbox was the best (the 1.4T) but still not a great car
135,500kms - so it meets the warranty conditions for kms travelled
A licensed motor car trader must provide a statutory warranty if the car:
is less than 10 years old, and
has travelled less than 160,000 kilometres.
https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/cars/buying-a-used-car/warraâŚ
Do these apply? If so, you'll have three months or 5000 kilometres after purchase warranty. Whether it covers that failure or not is another question.
October (purchase date) is later than September (build date). The car is definitely over 10 years.
No warranty here.
Warranty generally starts at first point of sale not compliance date.
Manufacturer warranty starts at the date of sale while statutory guarantees starts at the date of manufacture.
That really sucks man, but is how life goes sometimes.
The best you can do is just ask. See what they say. Maybe work with them and offer to pay partial. Unfortunately, the Cruze is a shitbox. Iâm sorry you/she paid $6k for a 10yo one, but throwing more money at it is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.
And yes, start looking up your avenues for ACL and what it covered in the way of used, 10yo cars. Do some homework before you call.
The good news is that at least with a blown head gasket, thatâs not too bad. You seldom need a whole new engine for a blown headgasket, unless it hydraulic locked or got well over heated
canât wait till brendanm gets here. I know he looooves the Holden Cruze.
Hehe… Wiki wrote that comment , not me. I deleted it as soon as I became aware of it.
And how does she know about the 'other site'? đ
In a previous life, she worked with sexual deviants and came in contact with many sex workers.For all I know, she might have met that lady. TBH, nothing surprises me anymore, not after she introduced me to Angela White anyway.
15 mins later….and still no reply. Enjoying Angie's body of work?đ¤¨
Cruise
Cruze.
If you did any research for your daughter you would have seen these are are absolute cr@p. Same with holden cr@ptiva and petrol auto Ford focus lw mk2.
2 minutes on Google would have saved a world of pain. Consider the $1500 a lazyman tax.
My dad calls them craptivas too.
Only ever bought secondhand private Toyotas and Hondas based on my dads recommendation and mechanic. Corolla was 12 years old 270k and bulletproof.
Nothing else. In my 15 years of owning them, never had any mechanical issues except for the Honda,which after 5 years still had manufacturers warranty, had an engine mount issue which was covered.
Serviced regularly, always use 98.
Lol does it need 98? 98 is pressure to light the fuel not quality…
What a waste using 98
@brendanm: 98 BuRnZ cLeAnEr aNd i GeT mOaR MiLeZ aNd MoAr PoWaH fRoM pReMiUm 98 wHiLe iT cLeAnZ mY EnGiNe!!!1!!1!
@brendanm: Naysayers why don't you do a test?
https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/98-ron-fuels-aâŚ
Economic and environmental benefits of higher-octane gasoline
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=98+oâŚ
Drive did a test, E10 uses 7.64% more fuel than 98 and 91 uses 3.72% more than 98. Again, this can vary wildly between vehicles
https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/fuel-efficiency-showdownâŚ
…why donât you do a test?
Bzzzzzt, wrong. I spent a good portion of my life dyno testing and tuning cars, so, thanks, I have done the tests…
Yes, 98 will get more than E10, but putting 98 in a car designed for 91 will net no extra performance. 98 is only a benefit in cars with high compression engines, like smaller, turbo charged economy cars. So, in a shitbox Corolla, it would have absolutely no âenvironmentalâ benefit.
You see, there is no energy density benefit of 98 over 91. 1kg of 91 has the same energy density as 1kg of 98. There is no bigger bang, no extra power, no improved economy.
E10 has about 96% (or there abouts) the energy density of straight petrol, so thatâs why there is a change in economy from E10 to straight fuel. You need to burn more of it to go the same distance.
But, if you are burning 98 in your shitbox Corolla and that Corolla only requires 91, you are just the gullible type that petrochemical companies love.
Basically, I have talked at length about it several times and once in particular I broke down why 98 is no better than 91 with an example from a Corolla owner…
And here is how stupid your example is, if your Corolla averages about 7l/100km, a 3.72% increase on mileage would make it 6.7l/100km
Economic
and environmentalbenefits of higher-octane gasoline
Because I'm not tired and I'm bored… Let's do some math!!!!
Let's use your figures of "3.72% more efficient" from above and say the average 91RON fuel consumption for a Corolla is about: 7.0l/100km = 14.3km/l. That means a 3.72% increase in economy would make 98 about 6.7l/100km = 14.9km/l.
The average Corolla has, let's say, a 55l fuel tank.
55 x 14.3 = 786.5km/tank (7.0l/100km)
55 x 14.9 = 819.5km/tank (6.7l/100km)
In my area, 91 = 136.7/l, 98 = 156.7/l
91 Tank of fuel cost = $75.19
98 Tank of fuel cost = $86.19
Amount of 91 used to go 819.5km (819.5/14.3) = 57.3l
You use 57.3l of 91RON to go the same distance as 55l of 98RON
57.3l of 91RON = $78.33 This is $7.86 cheaper than 98 for the same distance.
It's over $10 cheaper per tank to fill up on 91 and works out cheaper in the long run once it's spread out over multiple tanksâŚ
eg: Over a year or approximately 15,000km (providing the price of fuel remains static)
(15,000 / km per tank) x (cost to fill tank) =
91 would cost you $1,434
98 would cost you $1,578
You are costing yourself about $144 a year by using 98 instead of 91 (using your figures you gave me…)
Bet you feel a bit silly now in saying that 98 has "economic benefits".
I might make another Excel sheet tomorrow so people can input fuel prices and average economy to work this shit out automatically…
PS: I read those links and you really didnât read them before you posted them did you? The âenvironmentalâ benefit link was mainly about adding ethanol to fuels to boost the RON. The environmental advantage is the ethanol, not the fact that it boosted RON. Lol.
The 3.72% test data page is absolutely full of shit. Their test wasnât done in a lab or on a rolling road, it was done in variable conditions. This data is absolute rubbish data. Different roads, different conditions, different drivers, different weather… But best all all, if you actually read it, it says that 91RON was the most economical to use in the vehicle. It even says that E10 was cheaper than using 98 over that same distance.
So, thanks for the links, and as laughable as they are, only go to reinforce that you are wrong. :D
@pegaxs: Yes. after reading the above thread I was going to do the same maths, but you have done this well.
Given the standard E10 vs Unleaded argument has been if there is more than 3-4% difference in price then e10 is cheaper, less than that unleaded is the cheaper.
Of course if you car has to use 95 or above then its a different story.
You are costing yourself about $144 a year by using 98 instead of 91
@RockyRaccoon: So you agree you wasted $144 unnecessarily? I'm confused.
@Muzeeb: @Korban Dallas is filling up their car with 98 with this erroneous belief that 98 gives better range per tank (which is doesn't, because 91 and 98 have the same energy density).
They then went on to quote a bullshit study (done on a larger engine Camry for a start), full of misleading information where absolutely no scientific testing was conducted and came back with a figure of 3.72% more economical (which is laughable, because turning the aircon on or off for a trip would net a much bigger economy boost than swapping RON. Hell, the weather during the trip could change this figure by that much.)
So, I used this 3.72% unicorn number to show that if someone filled up their Corolla on 98, that they are still actually wasting money even with this "claimed" economy boost.
So what I am saying is, even if this 3.72% increase was real, then @Korban Dallas is still costing themselves more money per year than just filling up on regular 91RON.
If you did any research for your daughter you would have seen these are are absolute cr@p. Same with holden cr@ptiva and petrol auto Ford focus lw mk2.
Agree with the characterisation of the Cruze and Craptiva; but what were the well-known gremlins with the 2nd-gen Focus though?
The auto transmission on the petrol is absolutely rubbish. Google powershift problems.
Interesting read, but that's clearly the 3rd-gen Focus the article is referring to, as per the below quote:
And a great example of that was the LW model Ford Focus, sold here from 2011 to 2015
I believe MS Paint was also referring to the 3rd-gen.
The majority of the second-gen Focus cars didn't have the Powershift Transmission, save for the post-face lift models made during the tail end of the production run, which were technically called the "Mk2.5" or LV.
@Gnostikos: LW mk2 is 3rd-gen. The mk2 switched production from germany to thailand and came with a few extra bells and whistles. both LW variants had the powershift. They reverted back to an old school torque converter for the LZ.
Focus naming convention in Australia is a bit different to other parts of the world.
@hellbound: Weird. It definitely does seem to to be case on Carsales.com.au and Gumtree. So that would make the 2nd-gen, the Mark I, and the 1st-gen, the Mark 0?
Not all of the 2nd-gen cars were made in Germany, especially those sold in the Australian market. We got more of the South African-produced models.
Step 1. Try this and pray. https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/nulon-nulon-head-gasket-âŚ
Step 2. Send vehicle to auction.
Step 3. Purchase a Corolla.
How many km on the clock on date you bought it?
Thatâs just typical Cruze behaviour.
What was she expecting?
which she acknowledged on Transfer contract
That tells you something.
The Dealer was aware that they didnt need to provide a warranty, and reinforced this with a clause in the contract.
I really doubt if they will do anything otherwise they would have deleted this clause. As others have said the act doesnt require them to give a warranty and they haven't.
By all means try but I doubt you will be successful.
Unfortunately a costly learning lesson. Research over the heart.
Sorry cant give you better news
Been in this situation as well. thankfully i know how to change the HG on the car i bought (x-trail, renowned for horrible HG's prior to 2007) so got away with just a new HG after getting the radiator swapped, block and head looked fine so new VRS gasket set and head bolts was all I needed (still a fair amount of work, parts etc but a lot cheaper when i could do it myself)
There may be some remedy under the ACL as this still applies even after the statutory warranty, but you'd have to follow that up.
Just a warning to anyone out there considering a cruze, craptiva or other rebadged daewoo… don't.
Buying a used car from a licensed dealer can you give you rights and warranties; Usually you will get a 5,000km / 3 month warranty when buying used (car must be less than 10 yrs old / 160,000kms).
So if you purchased on October 5, you are likely to have a warranty up to January 5 as long as the mileage accrued has been less than 5,000kms.
On face value, it appears you might be within luck.
However check with your state's legislation to see what applies in your circumstances.
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/car-âŚ
The build date on the compliance plate is Sept 2009 - so it was 5 days after the statutory warranty expired ( which she acknowledged on Transfer contract )
The vehicle was more than 10 years old.
You're the first person I've ever heard call Honda 'reliable'.
Haha what? Honda are generally very reliable.
Was the car maintained to the service book and all works undertaken. Low Kms for age? Did it just suddenly blow? Believe warranty from date of purchase. I would argue under warranty. Just have balls and record your conversations with the dealer/manufacturer.
Why did she buy a Cruze when a single Google search would tell you that they are terrible? There are several for sale at any one time in my region alone for $1k or so with blown head gaskets or transmissions.
Which engine is it? Who made the diagnosis of head gasket, and how did they come to that conclusion?
OP gone away for long lie down
How many kms on the car?