# Volvo MD 2030 Engine Failure - Lack of Support



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

Approximately 2 weeks ago, my 2004 Volvo MD2030D engine (I have had since new) suffered a complete failure and requires either a replacement or a rebuild. The engine has about 750 hours on it. It has been maintained to a very high standard (oil and filter changed at least as often as the owner's manual states) and all parts used have been OEM. The oil level is checked religiously prior to each use and the engine has never been operated with a low oil level. As a matter of fact, the engine did not have any oil leaks, nor did it show any evidence of using oil, and prior to the failure, it ran quite smoothly. I have never experienced anything getting wrapped around the prop, etc.

The engine has been examined by the mechanic working on it, as well as an independent technical expert hired by my insurance carrier to determine the cause of failure. They agree on the cause. I have sent their information (as well as Volvo's theory of what happened) to another mechanic, complete with photos, and he states: "I'd have to agree with the insurance summary".

The report I received from the independent technical expert is as follows:
"Bottom end of failed connecting rod and bearing shows evidence of mechanical deformation and grinding due to pounding of the connecting rod on the crankshaft during operation. The bearing land on the connecting rod is not blued from extreme heat, which would have occurred had the bearing been starved of oil. The connecting rod did heat up as a consequence of pounding and failure of the hydrodynamic oil film, which resulted in lubricating oil 'cooking' onto the external surfaces causing the discoloration. The other rods and bearings show no evidence of oil starvation. The mechanic who disassembled the engine reported that he inspected the main bearings and found them to be undamaged.

The bearing cap shows evidence that the nut on the left was loose and came adrift prior to the failure as lubricating oil has cooked onto the surface where the nut would contact the bearing cap. The nut on the right side remained securely in place as the contact surface is clean. When the nut loosened, the normal bearing shape and clearance was disrupted causing failure of the oil film resulting in metal to metal contact. Once again, no bluing of the clean surface is evident.

The crankpin for #1 cylinder shows evidence of galling whereby metal to metal contact between the bearing and pin occurred as a result of the hydrodynamic oil film failing due to the bearing cap loosening. The crankshaft shows no bluing.

In my opinion, the engine failure is consistent with loosening of the connecting rod nut as demonstrated above."

Both the mechanic and the insurance technical expert agree that the cause of failure is that one of the nuts on the connecting rod for cylinder #1 came off which resulted in the engine failure. They both feel that this is the result of faulty workmanship or improper torquing of the nut during engine assembly.

I submitted all of this information to the Technical Support Manager for Volvo Penta Canada. He has come to a completely different conclusion. He states that:
"Both the crankshaft and connecting rod are blue/black. The
only reason for this to occur is that the rod was either overloaded or
starved for oil and the rod bearing failed. If the rod nuts had just
come loose there would no signs of the blue/black colour.

The rod bearing failure would have been caused by a loss of oil or a
possible overloading. The top of the bearing becomes hammered from the
overloading and this leads to an eventual failure like this. If you
exam the other rod bearings you should see signs of this occurring in
the upper shells. If it was caused by being starved for oil the other
shells would show signs of wiping of the soft bearing material.

I am sorry to say that for these reasons we will not be offering any
kind of compensation for the repairs."

The other rod bearings and connecting rods (except cylinder #1), as a matter of fact all other bearings, are in great condition, and Volvo has been told this to no avail.
I tried to post 3 photos to go along with this information, but I just received a failed message???

Anyway, I am meeting a professional engineer who deals with engine failure analysis tomorrow, and if he agrees with the mechanics and the independent technical expert, I am considering small claims court.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt this was important information for everyone to be aware of, especially if you are in the market for a new boat or a repower. My advise is: AVOID VOLVO PENTA PRODUCTS, because in my experience, they do not build a quality product, nor do they stand behind it.
However, for economic reasons, I am forced to rebuild this engine, although if I could afford it, I would repower with a Yanmar!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Generally, avoiding volvo marine engines is a good idea due to the outrageous price they charge for replacement parts...


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Had a similar experience with a brand new 2003. Burned a lot of oil from day one. Volvo said run it for a season. Next season same problem, Volvo said it was out of warranty!! After much discussion back and forth to Sweden they finally did rebuild the engine. Engine never did run that well so I finally replaced it with a Yanmar. Keep at them, take them to small claims court. I think Volvo has more unhappy customers than any other marine engine.


----------



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Update*

The engineer did his first look at the engine yesterday. He took several parts including the failed con rod and piston for metallugical testing including the use of an electron microscope. He gave me an early indication of his opinion, but I will wait until I receive his full report before updating.

I have to say I agree with Vasco about avoiding a boat with a Volvo engine in it. After reading about many other customers who have experienced both major and ongoing minor problems and having experienced it first hand myself, I am only rebuilding this engine because financially it is the only sensible option.

For further background on my problems with Volvo, I will give a brief history. First, my engine has gone through 4 sets of glow plugs. The first set burned out at 50 hours. They show no external damage, and I follow the owner's manual to the letter. The same Volvo manager told me that they don't have a problem with glow plugs, my problem is "user error". What a cop out! This problem is still ongoing, but I will hopefully fix it during the bebuild process by replaicng the entire glow plug system. This summer, I suffered a break down in the middle of Desolation Sound when the fresh water cooling pump pulley housing "just split in half"(see picture, if I can get this site to accept it). This failure cost me about $1,000 including towing and the fact I had to have the part machined because Volvo Canada didn't have any parts in Canada. My engine hour meter (along with several other owners of this same engine) works only intermitently, the tack sometimes doesn't work, and the fuel gauge reads full even when I only have 1/3 of a tank. *My biggest problem with all of this has been Volvo Canada's attitude and in my opinion, total lack of concern for their customers!!!*

My purpose here is just to make sure that consumers have information on which to base their purchasing decisions, whatever that decision will be. At least it will be an informed decision. We as consumers do have choices!

Thanks to everyone so far for taking the time to read this and to respond,
Tom


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

your post shows a short sighted approach by volvo in dealing with your problems. after reading your post a lot of sailors will not want a boat with a volvo in it.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

As I recall, you have a Volvo Saildrive...correct? I believe that Tartan/C&C just switched to these on all their new boats about 18 months ago after their dispute with Yanmar. 
Anyone know what other brands are using Volvo saildrives today? 

Sorry for your troubles firehoser. Hope this gets Volvos attention and that it works out for you. They don't need this kind of publicity . Please keep us posted on your progress.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Good luck, firehoser. Since I have no knowledge of the Canadian legal system, beyond a suspicion that you do indeed have one that involves old men in white wigs perhaps?, I can only ask if you have any equivalents to the US Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or Magnusson-Moss Act, both of which provide for statutory warrantees, address hidden manufacturing defects, and are enforced by our state and fedearl courts AGAINST the manufacturer (warrantor) requiring the warrantor to prove in court that the defect was not theirs.

If you have similar protections, Volvo Canada would be required to refute the statements of your experts, and pay all costs, including court costs, as part of the proceeding. A manufacturer in the US would have to be terribly confident in their claims before they would go to court on that kind of warranty claim.

Do let us know what comes of it. Consider hiring a solicitor (is it?) to let Volvo Canada know how badly they may get trounced if they aren't certain they're in the right--and able to prove it. Or at least, to find out what your legal rights are up there.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

There is no way on this earth that if you had a lubrication failure that the damage would be confined to one single con-rod.
The bores would score, the other bearings would score, other damage would be apparent. Coolant failures lead to horrible bore scoring, but rarely threaten the crank unless the motor is glowing red hot or something. By then it has siezed anyway. No-doubt your bores are perfect? 
Also, the motor rattles like a box of rocks if there is a lube failure.

This is a disgusting cop-out, and 750 hours is a joke.
I understand this motor is a Perkins design, and it has been around for a long time. Someone has messed up on a con-rod torquing, or something similar, or the bolt failed.
I particularly liked the bit about "overloading". How do you overload such a motor?
This is just drivel.
I have a Volvo in my ship, the earlier MD17C. It is well-built, and runs well but heaven help you if anything breaks. The spare parts prices are shocking.... £1300 for an exhaust manifold, like 11 years ago.

Take the weeds to court. They have already said to you that other scoring of the crank would be apparent for a lube failure. There is no other scoring. Their point is self-defeating. This is your money they are messing with, and plenty of it, and that has to be remembered.


----------



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Thanks for the Support*

Cam,
Yes the boat does have a Volvo saildrive, as do C&C, Tartan, Halberg Rassy, and I would imagine the other Swedish boats (not sure who else). Therein lies the problem, if I wanted to repower with a Yanmar. I have been told that I would have to also replace the saildrive making a total repower with a competitor about $20,000 (yikes). 
Hello,
I am not totally up on our legal system either, but I do know that I can go to small claims court (under $10,000) and do so for very little cost to myself. I will consult a lawyer if the engineer's report does not support Volvo's conclusions to determine what my chances are.
Rockter,
Thanks for your support and comments. You know what I find totally confusing by Volvo's response to my legitimate problem, it is that they could have resolved my issue with a solution that I had in mind that would have probably cost them nothing out of pocket. Unfortunately, now, due to decisions they have forced me to make by responding the way they have (which reduced my viable options), that opportunity is gone. I find that a real shame, as the outcome would have been so different. I would have been a happy customer, and come on these forums praising them! Wouldn't that have been great and it would not have cost them a dime of their existing money. 
Anyway, thanks for everything and I will update this thread once I have received the PEng's report.

Tom


----------



## sailor5017 (Oct 7, 2008)

I am in agreement with firehoser it's a very bad reflection on the bussness practices of a company such as Volvo. Im sure every marine engine manufacturer has the odd problem with a product. the real test is if they stand behind their product and the customer. it would certainly make me shy away from buying a vessel with a Volvo engine in it.
Camaraderie good you enlighten me on the yanmar dispute with Tartan and C&C


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailor5017... You can see more about that dispute on the Prospective Tartan Buyers thread in the Buying a Boat if you are interested. The lawsuit is with Mack Boring Company...the Yanmar Distributor.


----------



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Preliminary Update from Professional Engineer*

I just received an e-mail from the PEng investigating my engine failure. He stated: " I have found conclusive evidence that the one nut was not sufficiently torqued."

He is still conducting additional testing and I am expecting his complete report before the end of next week. I will provide a more detailed update at that time.

Regards,
Tom


----------



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Report of PEng and Question for you*

I now have the complete report from the Professional Engineer (metallurgical) who examined my engine failure to determine cause.
Basically he examined the entire lower end of the engine and took several photos. He found no evidence of oil starvation or other problems. All bearings, except the one that was damaged, were in good condition. He took two piston assemblies to his "shop" for closer study. Using a high powered microscope, he discovered that the one nut that had "come undone" had not been torqued properly to manufacturer's specifications. Apparently, when a nut is torqued, it does microscopic "damage" to the mating surface (in this case, the con rod cap). This "damage" was evident (and consistent) on 3 of the 4 nuts and mating surfaces that he examined. Where the nut that failed was concerned, the "damage" was significantly less. To examine this, he first had to remove the "baked on oil" that was on the mating surface where the nut would have been (if it had not backed off prior to the heat being developed) He estimates that the applied torque to the failed nut was approximately half of the manufacturer's specified torque that was applied to the other nuts examined. He explained that manufacturer's specs for torque are calculated to include a "safety factor" to exceed the various expected loads. In this case, he feels that the torque applied to the failed connection was just adequate (or slightly beyond) to hold, and hence it took this relatively long time for the connection to fail (because of little or no "safety factor").

His conclusions are as follows (and I quote):
"1) Failure of the subject Volvo MD2030D engine occurred when one of the connecting rod to rod cap nuts backed off.
2) Backing off of the nut allowed the connecting rod and rod cap to slap the crankshaft journal, thus causing significant heat and bearing shell damage and the "rattling sound" that was heard prior to engine shutdown.
3) Backing off of the connecting rod nut occurred due to insufficient torque of the nut.
4) With consideration to the reported information, which did not include service history involving the connecting rods, the insufficient torque occurred during original assembly of the engine."

*Obviously this failure is due to a manufacturing defect.*
My question is: should I try to contact Volvo Canada again (third time) to give them this new information and another chance to "make good", or should I just file for court?

Thanks for taking the time to read all of this and for your advise,
Tom


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

How long is the warranty and does any other diesel offer better ?


Volvo has a lot of practice in court as there big block powerboat inboards love to suck in water which they allways claim not there fault


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Firehoser-
Most courts will give (or take) brownie points when you try to resolve issues BEFORE filing suit. So it is to your advantage to contact Volvo, because if nothing else the court will note (without saying anything) that at least you TRIED to settle this.

I would suggest that you line up a lawyer, do not contact Volvo directly. A letter from a customer sadly means less to them than a lawyer's letter advising that their client has professional evidence, has retained counsel, and will file a suit unless they make good on their warranty--AND the cost of the professional engineer, etc.

The warranty probably excludes "consequential damages" including loss of use of the vessel, but if not...speak to the attorney. Sometimes offering to "settle now for actual damages, or we'll file suit and seek consequential damages as well" is all the incentive they need to realize it is going to be cheaper to pay up front, than to gamble in court. There may also be some provision to penalize them for "bad faith" in the warranty matter, which your lawyer also should know about. Probably a one or two hour consulation fee to get that checked out and have a letter sent out, and I'd say well worth it.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Firehoser :

So much for lubrication failure and "overload".
Volvo are dead in the water. 
They are going to lose.


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

*Another Option?*

Hi Firehoser,

I do not know if this idea may work for you and hope it is not a waste of your time. That said, we have the MD2040 with 120S Saildrive in our 2002 sailboat in the states. We have had some minor issues with the engine and had to go to Volvo for help. The guy we dealt with at Volvo in the US was great to work with and very helpful. His name is Doug Rose and I believe he is in charge of tech support for at least the US market. He is located on the east coast. You may want to try to reach out to him at douglas.rose at volvo.com . Hope this helps and good luck!

121Guy


----------



## firehoser75 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Final Report - Good News*

My engine has been almost totally rebuilt, and now has about 10 hours on it since the rebuild. All appears well, except at first, there was a small "rattle" that now seems gone. I hope that it was just something "working itself in". Anyway my mechanic has heard it before it went away and is therefore aware of it. Unfortunately the engine won't get much use for the next few months.

How did all of my various dealings (financial) work out you may ask? Well both my insurance company and Volvo Penta Canada came through in the end. All of my expenses associated with the engine and rebuild have been covered. I am quite happy with the final outcome.

Thanks for reading about my "adventures",
Tom


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Just don't buy another one firehoser.
I won't.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Thanks for "completing" the thread Tom...always good to know how these things turned out. Good result for you butcertainly a black eye for Volvo to have put you through all this and gotten such wonderful publicity!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam—

Unfortunately, some companies need to get a black eye before they'll step up and do what they should have done in the first place.


----------

