Rear shock failure

[em13]

My T5 SE has just turned 3 years old, but before the anniversary I took it for its first MOT - while it was still in warranty. I was horrified that it failed its MOT on a badly leaking (ie: completely failed) shock absorber! Now VW refuse to cover this under warranty as a shock is a wear and tear item - which I understand but it has failed at 11,200 miles and the van was serviced at 7,000 miles (not due until 20k) and in for a check over in between, so it is very well looked after!

I wondered if anyone else had had similar issues, and in particular if anyone has had similar experience with VW customer service? I have been disgusted by VW Commercial Customer 'Care' attitude - which is basically to refuse to consider in any way that it is totally unreasonable mileage for such an item to fail - so currently it seems I will be footing the bill for a new shock absorber at 11k miles!

 

[Meoncoast]

so currently it seems I will be footing the bill for a new shock absorber at 11k miles!

you will be footing the bill for a pair rather than 1 I think. Our 2012 T5 did 63k without issue but I have had others cars fail before 1st MOT

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=34110

 

[DM]

My 1998 Mazda 323 needed a pair of shocks at 240,000 miles. I'd had it since 50,000 miles so pretty sure they were original. To be fair the mechanic said that only one was leaking but I reckoned I could just about run to a pair after that distance.

The Cali is a much bigger vehicle though so I guess they're not going to last so long.

Have you been given a quote?

 

[jts46]

Perhaps it failed due to lack of use.

 

[sidepod]

Garaged or kept outside?

 

[WelshGas]

The fact that a Shock Absorber has failed at 11,200 miles is, in a way, immaterial. It is, by your own admission, 3 years old. The seals are 3 yrs old and from the milage have not been in use for prolonged periods of time and so are more likely to dry out and fail when used again. No different to tyres which can fail after prolonged periods of storage and low milage, or the Rubber Cambelt that has to be changed at 4 yrs even at low milage.

 

[jts46]

Entirely agree with welshgas & sidepod

 

[em13]

The Cali is a much bigger vehicle though so I guess they're not going to last so long.

Have you been given a quote?[/QUOTE]

The dealership is currently looking at working out a deal for me.

 

[em13]

My 1998 Mazda 323 needed a pair of shocks at 240,000 miles. I'd had it since 50,000 miles so pretty sure they were original. To be fair the mechanic said that only one was leaking but I reckoned I could just about run to a pair after that distance.

The Cali is a much bigger vehicle though so I guess they're not going to last so long.

Have you been given a quote?

The dealership is currently looking at working out a deal for me.

 

[rod_vw]

I would agree with others above in that it's downfall is probably down to too little use. The shaft of the shock-absorber probably gained a film of rust / corrosion between uses and that wore the seal prematurely.
I've had three previous T5s and a similar number of T4s which have always been everyday vehicles and never had problems with leaking shockers.

Rod

 

[em13]

The fact that a Shock Absorber has failed at 11,200 miles is, in a way, immaterial. It is, by your own admission, 3 years old. The seals are 3 yrs old and from the milage have not been in use for prolonged periods of time and so are more likely to dry out and fail when used again. No different to tyres which can fail after prolonged periods of storage and low milage, or the Rubber Cambelt that has to be changed at 4 yrs even at low milage.

I totally accept your point (particularly about tyres) - I run several motorcycles which I am more than happy to replace/repair items on them after low mileage because they perish. Plus I work in the motor trade and deal with our warranty claims, so I understand how things work, but we have some flexibility to decide between us and the manufacturer if an item's failure is 'acceptable' or not, depending on mileage, condition, maintenance, etc. Also, the van does have regular use (if low mileage) and so it compares terribly with my 13 year old car that is used irregularly AND is kept outside but has not yet needed a new shock. All of this just lead me to feel it was an unreasonable failure and VW themselves barely had the decency to be courteous, let alone attempt to help in any way!

 

[em13]

Perhaps it failed due to lack of use.

Might be low mileage but it is used regularly. I could understand the failure if it had stood for months or something :-(

 

[em13]

I would agree with others above in that it's downfall is probably down to too little use. The shaft of the shock-absorber probably gained a film of rust / corrosion between uses and that wore the seal prematurely.
I've had three previous T5s and a similar number of T4s which have always been everyday vehicles and never had problems with leaking shockers.

Rod

Thanks Rod - I've literally just posted about this. I could understand the failure if that was the case, but although it isn't used everyday it IS used regularly and not left standing , which is why I was so put surprised it failed. My old car is maintained the same, kept outside the same, used about the same and never suffered a failed shock. Thanks for your input though.

 

[B J G]

Example pricing of alternative to VW supply.

http://www.eurocarparts.com/shock-a... - Broad - Car Makes - Volkswagen - T5 - Rear

There are other suppliers, plus you could upgrade to Bilstein.

Not just VW that doesn't cover dampers. Years back when running company cars for up 45k miles per year failed dampers had to be replaced by the company not either the Leasing outfit or manufacturer. Cars were replaced when 2 years old.

 

[em13]

Example pricing of alternative to VW supply.

http://www.eurocarparts.com/shock-absorber?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search - Shock Absorbers - Broad&utm_term=+vw +t5 +rear +shock +absorber&utm_content=Shock Absorbers - Broad - Car Makes - Volkswagen - T5 - Rear

There are other suppliers, plus you could upgrade to Bilstein.

Not just VW that doesn't cover dampers. Years back when running company cars for up 45k miles per year failed dampers had to be replaced by the company not either the Leasing outfit or manufacturer. Cars were replaced when 2 years old.

Thank you for that - I'm already looking at alternatives if myself and the dealership can't come to a sensible arrangement. They have been extremely helpful in the past though so will wait to see what is suggested. Either way it's going to cost me! :-D

 

[sidepod]

Stop posting on here and crack on and sort it out. Order the unit. 1hour to swap it out. Beer.

 

[Mike Maguire]

Lol!
Disagree with the rest of you! Given 3 years, very low mileage but used regularly, failure is NOT acceptable! But going to war with VW for the price of replacement standard shocks is probably not worth the effort.
The warranty is not necessarily relevant. You might have recourse to consumer law & contact with Trading Standards a port of call if you're that bothered.

 

[ian210]

Interesting, my shocks were failing at 15k miles, no leaks, but very bouncy. I am looking to replace the rears first. I do like Monroe, but two are listed, V1169 for standard suspension and V1170 for Heavy Duty suspension. I'm thinking that because the Cali is running close to gross weight all the time, maybe the V1170 would be a better fitment. Can anybody help?

 

[Mike Maguire]

Interesting, my shocks were failing at 15k miles, no leaks, but very bouncy. I am looking to replace the rears first. I do like Monroe, but two are listed, V1169 for standard suspension and V1170 for Heavy Duty suspension. I'm thinking that because the Cali is running close to gross weight all the time, maybe the V1170 would be a better fitment. Can anybody help?

Not with a recommendation for Monroes specifically. Have the same problem but having Bilstein B6s to improve damping and rubber spring assisters to stiffen & slightly raise the suspension fitted shortly.
When you think about it, there’s a great deal of weight at the back of the Cali. Going slowly over those sharp narrow profile sleeping policemen (the spring snapping sort at speed) I find the front end dampens well with very little rebound but the rear suspension is very & deeply bouncy with seemingly minimal damping. Not surprising given the shocks fitted are transporter standard ones ... so I would suggest going with the hd Monroes ... far more likely to cope with restraining that heavy rear end?

 

[Skewif]

Interesting, my shocks were failing at 15k miles, no leaks, but very bouncy. I am looking to replace the rears first. I do like Monroe, but two are listed, V1169 for standard suspension and V1170 for Heavy Duty suspension. I'm thinking that because the Cali is running close to gross weight all the time, maybe the V1170 would be a better fitment. Can anybody help?

I can highly recommend fitting HD rear shocks if you suffer from any kind of wallowy / bounciness. Std rear shocks are woefully under rated for a Cali IMO. Fitting HD rears to mine transformed the ride / feel of the whole van for the better with no negative effect. Not had experience of the Monroe HD but the Sachs HD 314 725 is another option to look at as are highly regarded on the German forums and there are several members on here who also have them fitted.