Trap Oxidizer Campaign - Can the Dealer Get Away With This? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jgl1 · #1 10-23-2006, 07:46 AM

Have a '87 300TD that was taken to the dealer for just an alignment. The dealer took it upon themselves, without checking with me, to perform the trap oxidizer campaign.

The only problem is that the vehicle had no trap oxidizer - I removed years ago and replaced it with a straight pipe from a 350SDL. And with the pipe in place the vehicle ran beautifully - great full economy and even better performance. And no threat of heat soak from the trap resulting in a cracked head. When I asked for my old parts back I was informed that they had been submitted to MBUSA as per the campaign. When I asked what they were submitting as the oxidizer, I was referred to the mechanic who serviced the vehicle - and he stated that what I was calling the cross pipe was actually a trap oxidizer! When the service manager was brought in I was then told that the campaign was required by law and that nothing could or would be done to reverse the work performed.

The campaign involves installation of an oxidation catalyst and a new modified exhaust system. So even if I purchased a new cross pipe (several hundred $), I couldn't install it without buying the old style exhaust.

Somehow I can't help but feel scrrewed here. Any recommendations?

mbdoc · #2 10-23-2006, 07:59 AM

You didn't get screwed at all, your car got a modification that should make help make the "AIR" better!

And a complete new exhaust system to boot!

Hatterasguy · #3 10-23-2006, 01:56 PM

You got a free brand new exhuast system from a MB dealer on a 20 year old car and feel screwed?

the tenor man · #4 10-23-2006, 04:08 PM

The MB dealer replaced my system with the new one about 8 years ago and so far...still working.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the "Time Valve" company will custom make a new front pipe for your car...you can remove the oxygen catalyst that is now on you car....albiet at a cost. I bought a stainless steel exhaust from them for my 260E...

Hope this helps.

ILUVMILS · #5 10-23-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgl1

Somehow I can't help but feel scrrewed here. Any recommendations?

Yeah, I recommend you enjoy your new, free exhaust system

sixto · #6 10-24-2006, 01:33 AM

He's probably upset that he didn't get a new turbo out of the recall.

Sixto
93 300SD

jgl1 · #7 10-24-2006, 08:49 AM

No, you guys are missing the point here.

First, the car already had a new M-B exhaust system on it, so there's no gain here on my part. Second, the dealer didn't ask permission to do the work... this wasn't a recall, this was a service campaign, a technical upgrade. And it was performed on a vehicle that was already owner-modified. What used part is the dealer submitting to MB USA as proof of trap oxidizer renewal? ...the car presented with no trap oxidizer on it to be removed. And yet the mechanic who did the work insisted that the pipe and bellows assembly removed from the vehicle was a trap oxidizer. The service manager conceded that the mechanic is new and wasn't familiar with M-B's early oxidizers but refuses to return the pipe that I had purchased to replace the trap.

The "14" cylinder heads were prone to cracking due to heat soak from the traps and the original traps had problems with the honeycomb material degrading and being ingested by the turbo. It took M-B ten years to come up with a replacement device with sufficient durability; prior to that their recommendation was to renew the trap on a regular basis (assuming the head hadn't cracked by then). I avoided both those problems by removing the trap and installing the exhaust pipe. And everything worked fine. I'm not upset about not getting a new turbo; the vehicle didn't need one because I had the foresight to remove the trap and avoid the problem entirely.

But I am upset when I receive a call telling me after the fact that my car had a trap oxidizer on it (which it didn't) and that it was replaced under an open campaign, without my permission. And then being told by the very mechanic... who should know better... that the part he removed was a trap oxidizer! What sort of confidence do you have in the quality of service performed on your vehicle when the mechanic doesn't even know the parts he's removing? This vehicle is used in a very hot environment; the set up I had was engine safe and known to work. The new oxidation catalyst is an unknown variable in my book.. its further downstream than the original trap and less likely to thermally stress the head... but I was hoping for some constructive feedback regarding this catalyst. And fewer gripes about how I should enjoy my new exhaust.

dalba · #8 10-24-2006, 09:37 AM

They just wanted to charge MBUSA for the work, they're not concerned about what you want, probably were able to charge 6-8 hours labor and parts for the compaign.

You could write a letter to MBUSA noting this, and explaining the fruadulent nature of the claim/charge MBUSA will be receiving.

P.E.Haiges · #9 10-24-2006, 10:00 AM

jgl1,

I would go with the suggestion by dalba and write a letter to MB about the dealer's fradulent claim.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the dealer didn't get paid for the work and the parts.

P E H

lkchris · #10 10-24-2006, 10:06 AM

Of course, your car is now legal.

If that matters.

BenzDiesel · #11 10-24-2006, 10:17 AM

You are saying that the car was yours! You wanted a front end alignment and that is ALL! The dealer determines that your car is THEIR car and does what they think they need to do to their car, replace that foreign contraption that you had put on their car that wasn't supposed to be there. It was probably an honest mistake as the tech had been instructed to look out for the trap oxidizers and the car being almost 20 years old, the tech was probably about 4 years old when your car was new and had no idea what a real trap looked like and anything in the trap's location MUST be a trap that needed to be replaced. Even still, the fact that you weren't NOTIFIED prior to a semi-major repair is disturbing. It's the PRINCIPLE of the customer being in charge of what repairs are performed on his/her car, up and until the customer relinquishes that control to the mechanic to make decisions and perform the repair in lieu of having to contact the customer to inform him/her of the decision made that was breeched. Just be glad they didn't change your engine without notification and you had to pay for that crate engine before you could get your car back.

BenzDiesel

mbdoc · #12 10-24-2006, 10:20 AM

Smog legal again! and that is a good thing!

You tampered & disconnected emission equipment & you want us to say that is a GOOD idea? There is too much smog now!

That campaign only paid 2.8-3.5 hrs & was NEVER a money maker.

THEY (the dealer) did the right thing & made the car comply with smog standards!

SD Blue · #13 10-24-2006, 10:44 AM

I can see where you would be upset about not being notified, and rightly so on that point, but I don't think you are being screwed. Like others have mentioned, enjoy the new exhaust.

There have been several other folks here that had to pull teeth, jump through hoops and make phone calls to MBUSA to get the dealer to do the recall without charging them.

Ken300D · #14 10-24-2006, 10:48 AM

To me it sounds like they ran your VIN through the central MB database and saw that the Trap Oxidizer campaign had not been run on your car. Perhaps it was a slow day, and they saw a way to make some easy money from MBUSA.

I think we all know that neither the original nor replacement oxidizer on these vehicles does much in the way of cleaning the air. It is not really a catalyst, it is a place where the excess carbon particles are heated and burnt. In fact, what it really does is contribute to global warming by producing carbon dioxide instead of what it receives as carbon particles.

I believe you can press the issue by returning to the dealer and stating that you want your old parts back, or you will write MBUSA with the complete details of what they did to your car. Either way, they are out of a payment for the work. If you pursue this option, don't take your car back to this dealer again, because the relationship will be strained.

The service agreement should cover this sort of thing. Before signing, you can make sure it is in the agreement, circle it carefully with your pen and initial it, or you can write some such instruction as "service provider will not perform any work on car unless authorized in writing by owner" on the agreement.

Good thing your Doctor doesn't follow some such policy as this. Who knows what they'd do to you when you were on the table under the anesthetic.....

Ken300D

coachgeo · #15 10-24-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.B.DOC

Smog legal again! and that is a good thing!

You tampered & disconnected emission equipment & you want us to say that is a GOOD idea? There is too much smog now!

That campaign only paid 2.8-3.5 hrs & was NEVER a money maker.

THEY (the dealer) did the right thing & made the car comply with smog standards!

Did the right thing... are you crazy!!!! Next your going to tell us that its ok when someone goes in for gal bladder surgery its ok if the doc goes ahead and does plastic surgery to fix an ugly face. Heck it's all better for everyone else that way right! Next time your going to tell us the Govt can force famlies to limit households to only 2.5 children.

ok... crazy examples butt.... Think you get the point. NO DEALER, NO GOVT., NO NO ONE, should "make" a citizen comply especilally when done so behind their back. I don't consider a criminal a citizen by the way. (till they have reearned the right of citizenship) Citizens ARE THE GOVERNMENT not the other way around.

A phone call should have been made by the dealer to the owner. It would have been more appropriate to inform the owner he is NOT in compliance with smog laws and would he like the FREE service to help him become so! They could also say... if you choose not to get the service do be aware that I am obligated to report you to the authorties for having improperly functioning smog equipment on your vehicle.