Another post stated that this car might have a 722.4 trans. The .4 is just a downsized .3 so the hydraulic system will be the same. The portion of the manual I posted is listed for the .3 and .4.

So you would rather them blindly pay any claim that comes their way? The ins co asking for proof isn't a sign of them being "difficult".

If you got a call from someone stating that you had backed into their car in a parking lot and they were demanding money, would you just pay what they wanted or ask to see proof of damage?

Yes the trans failed after a tow, but no proof has been shown that the tow caused the failure. Even the dealer is changing their story between the rear pump failing and the rear pump working fine to the point it "over pressured the system". Neither of these diagnoses are even valid as the rear pump isn't needed to make the car go, later trans didn't have the rear pump installed.

How does the ins company know that someone making a claim didn't have a trans that failed on it's own then buddies up with a tow company to file a false claim? ( Now before others get all riled up, I am not suggesting that is what the car owner is doing in this thread. )

Do ins companies pay for crash damage and not even look at the car? ( Or at least have an ins certified body shop have a look.)

This can be true as shops don't often have excess space / time, however they can't be faulted for this. If the shop does a line pressure test right from the start / output flange check, they may find the problem.

In the end, the owner manual states that short tows are permissible, if the tow company did nothing counter to the manual, should they still be held liable for the trans not working post tow? If so, why?


If the manual stated that any flat towing was not permissible, then they would not have any wiggle room and would likely be liable for damage if it could be proven that the tow damaged an otherwise functional trans.

I agree with you here. It is important to know what they are paying on, before they pay to keep costs down for all of us. I wish medical insurance worked more in this fashion.

The dealer should have done a line pressure test to give him a real diagnosis. Do you think the dealer just doesn't know how to work with these transmissions that don't have a computer to tell you what is wrong?

Send the insurance company a copy of the owners manual re towing. They are just trying to scare you. Tell them you'd rather hire a lawyer who can simply point them to the owners manual. If they want it torn down because they dont believe the manufacturer they can do it on their own penny. What a load of ****.

__________________
http://superturbodiesel.com/images/sig.04.10.jpg
1995 E420 Schwarz
1995 E300 Weiss
#1987 300D Sturmmachine
#1991 300D Nearly Perfect
#1994 E320 Cabriolet
#1995 E320 Touring
#1985 300D Sedan
OBK #42

Then it's a 722.416.

Sixto
87 300D

Here are two EPC data card extracts using VIN# I have on hand.

1985
300TD
Engine: 617952 12 090634
Transmission: 722315 02 563257

1985
300TD
Engine: 617952 12 102840
Transmission: 722315 02 619979


.

__________________
ASE Master Mechanic
https://whunter.carrd.co/

Prototype R&D/testing:
Thermal & Aerodynamic System Engineering (TASE) Senior vehicle instrumentation technician.
Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH).
Dynamometer.
Heat exchanger durability.
HV-A/C Climate Control.
Vehicle build.
Fleet Durability
Technical Quality Auditor.
Automotive Technical Writer

1985 300SD
1983 300D
2003 Volvo V70

https://www.boldegoist.com/

If this company wants to assess the trans, so as to limit their loss, they are free to ask permission from the owner to take the car to the shop of their choosing to tear down the trans... just as they would be free to have their own adjuster or a shop of their choosing do an estimate on collision damage, if they don't agree with what the customer submits from their own bodyshop. To suggest the customer pay to tear down a trans for the adjuster's convenience is a non-starter.

To alter the scenario: when one of their clients runs into your car, next week, and they say the damage is cosmetic and you argue the car has to be put onto a frame machine to be fixed properly... you will be okay with the tow to the shop, and any teardown required to fully assess damage being on your dime until they decide to agree with you?

Ok so the scenario would be that a tow company employee is risking his job to file a false claim on his employer's policy, so a pal can get an old Mercedes transmission repaired or replaced with a used one (they won't be buying him a rebuilt, that is for sure)? If this were a 2010 BMW SUV, with a trans worth $8k, I could stretch to envision that. If you can even imagine that as a scenario for an old 722, well wow....

The entire issue with what the owner's manual says is actually a red herring as far as I am concerned. The best practice in towing is to tow the car with the drive wheels off the ground. Period. Now had the driver asked to see the owner's manual, and indeed seen the proviso on short distances, I agree that would put him off the hook. Otherwise the question is not what footnote Mercedes put in the book... In the absence of the driver having confirmed such practice was acceptable, it boils down to what should have been done.

This is a sub-$1,500 claim (they are not going to buy the customer a rebuilt or new trans, they will pay for a used one, their obligation is only to put the car back into the same condition as pre-incident). In fact, many companies now pay out low $$$ value claims such as that without sending an adjuster, or at most a 'mobile adjuster' working out of a minivan comes, lays eyes on the car and cuts a cheque without preparing a detailed estimate.

But even if they do want to "look".... does the customer have to pay for that to happen?

__________________


Mac
2002 e320 4matic estate│1985 300d│1980 300td
Previous: 1979 & 1982 & 1983 300sd │ 1982 240d

“Let's take a drive into the middle of nowhere with a packet of Marlboro lights and talk about our lives.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zacharias is spot on with his description of the tear down. The expectation that you would pay for it is ludicrous. I also agree with his assessment about the flatbed, but it doesn't really address the limitation of transmission requiring that the driveshaft be disengaged or that the front wheels be on the ground. I coudln't find the manual online but I am pretty sure it states what happens if you don't do it. That, in itself should be enough for the insurance company to pay out on. But I'm not a lawyer by any means.

__________________
http://superturbodiesel.com/images/sig.04.10.jpg
1995 E420 Schwarz
1995 E300 Weiss
#1987 300D Sturmmachine
#1991 300D Nearly Perfect
#1994 E320 Cabriolet
#1995 E320 Touring
#1985 300D Sedan
OBK #42

Here is a thread referencing sudden loss of FWD and REV motion,( No cause found yet )

300sdl won't go into gear



The car owner and the dealer have not proven that towing caused the trans failure. The dealer at first was blaming a non functioning rear pump then claimed the pump worked too well causing increased pressure. Neither of these are valid, the later version of his trans didn't have a rear pump and , according to a poster in the thread, rebuilders remove the rear pump.

If the ins co pays for a tear down and the tow didn't cause the issue, who should pay the bill now? ( I'm guessing many car owners would never pay the bill leaving it to the ins co.)

Here are specific posts containing what the car owner said about towing wheels down. Do you still feel the ins co should pay even though towing wheels down per the manual is allowed?

In post 8 the car owner says:
"It was only towed about 3 miles I guess."

In post 8 the car owner says:
"It wasn't towed at more than 40 miles per hour. Town driving."

In post 10 the car owner says:
"Checking the manual it says a short tow under 30mph is okay with driveline connected."

#######
( Yes I know that 40 is greater than 30, but distance traveled was low. Towing is a function of speed and distance where, to some extent, you can trade one for the other. )

Until the car has had at least a line pressure test and trans flange inspection, we can't come close to placing "blame" yet.

Any updates on this thread? I sent an e mail and PM to the OP a while back asking for an update but none has been forthcoming.

Also, look at this thread for sudden loss of forward and reverse motion. ( and they flat towed the car 2 miles after losing the flange. . .)

Transmission Output flange- Needs Parts ASAP

So the car is still on Long Island, and still for sale.

I am *not* on Long Island; about 3000 miles away.

I refreshed the listing in the FS forum, but wanted to give a heads up here that the car is still around and for sale.

I really don't have a technical update regarding the trans, or a legal / insurance one either. Sorry. I know that's what people are most interested in. But I'm really just not in a position to be able to take care of it right now.

So. If anyone is reading this from the Northeast, and is interested at all in purchasing a wagon, let me know. I can probably arrange transportation if that is the issue.

I need to get rid of this car. Someday I'll own another one...

Good news is the Subaru I bought for $2500 is performing admirably.

__________________
Aaron
85' 300 TD

Whether or not the transmission failed on its own or the failure was the result of the tow company's negligence is the issue. The fact that the industry standard is to tow with the drive wheels OFF THE GROUND does not bode well for the towing company. The insurance company can argue all day long about the condition of the transmission PRIOR to the tow; it isn't relevant. The fact that their tow company did not adhere to industry standards which may have resulted in transmission damage IS THE ISSUE.

You could call a lawyer versed in Business General Liability Claims and tell him/her what happened and ask them what options they think you have.

To me, this is reason #89 to not use the insurance company's towing company.

Wish I was close.....would love to adopt the wagon

__________________