Lekkas v Perry Engine Reconditioning
[2010] QCAT 374
•12 July 2010
| CITATION: | Lekkas v Perry Engine Reconditioning [2010] QCAT 374 |
| PARTIES: | Elefterris Lekkas |
| v | |
| Perry Engine Reconditioning |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | 199/09 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other Minor Civil Disputes |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 July 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Pine Rivers |
| DECISION OF: | J Bertelsen, Adjudicator |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 July 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Pine Rivers |
ORDERS MADE: | I dismiss the application. |
| CATCHWORDS : | Alleged failure of respondent to competently carry out mechanical work; motor failed due to an incorrect camshaft and valve spring combination; work carried out in accordance with specific instructions given by the applicant to the respondent; substantial damage to the motor could have been prevented had applicant followed respondent’s instructions; application dismissed. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Elefterris Lekkas |
| RESPONDENT: | Perry Engine Reconditioning |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
The application filed 21 August 2009 sought the costs for the repair/rebuilding of the Applicants motorcycle motor at a total estimated cost of $7,387.42 consequent upon the alleged failure of the Respondent to properly rebuild the Applicant’s motorcycle motor in the first instance.
History and evidence
The Applicant
The Applicant contacted the Respondent in early October 2008 to rebore the piston block of his Honda motorcycle motor. He alleged that the Respondent indicated that it could handle the rebore of the motor through to the porting of the cylinder head. He alleged the Respondent rebored the piston block and carried out work on the cylinder head.
The camshafts were required to be reground and because it appeared to be taking an inordinate degree of time the Applicant called the camshaft shop, Ivan Tighe Engineering separately retained by the Applicant for that purpose, which indicated that some problems were being encountered but did not specify that the necessary work on the camshafts could not be properly completed. The camshafts were subsequently received by the Respondent and the motor rebuilt. The Applicant received the rebuilt motor on Christmas eve 2008, installed it in the motorcycle and began to use it in accordance with instructions from the Respondent. Once started the motor exhibited a loud tappet noise. The Applicant then rode the bike on a roadway at low rpm’s before running the motorbike at 4000 - 5000 rpm’s as he says he was instructed to do by the Respondent. The Applicant alleged that subsequently the motor exhibited a severe rattling noise and started smoking from the muffler. He took the motor back to the Respondent who after some time indicated the motor had a broken exhaust valve which punctured the piston and damaged the cylinder head and other internal parts. It was indicated to the Applicant that the responsibility was his as the Respondent had rebuilt the motor as instructed by the Applicant and to his specification.
The Respondent
The Respondent for its part asserted that the Applicant gave it the task of machining the engine block to suit pistons being supplied by him, reconditioning the cylinder head and porting and polishing the cylinder head as required by the Applicant and then reassembling the motor. The Applicant supplied all parts and was following a performance motor rebuild that he had apparently got from a USA company specialising in such rebuilds (engine rebuild kit). The Applicant’s instructions to the Respondent did not include the regrind of the camshafts. That was independently arranged by the Applicant with Ivan Tighe Engineering. Tighe in fact carried out the regrind of the camshafts and after a length of time they were returned to the Respondent for inclusion in the motor rebuild. Before the motor rebuild the Respondent contacted Tighe to ask what the valve clearances ought to be for the purposes of the rebuild. The Respondent informed the Applicant that the camshafts had been machined at varying sizes and this was not to its liking. The motor was reassembled in accordance with the Applicants specification, with the motor being machined and rebuilt according the Applicant’s design.
Shortly before Christmas 2008 the Applicant collected the motor. The Respondent asserted that it was pointed out to him that at the time of pre start he was to obtain oil pressure and if correct oil pressure could not be obtained not to go any further with the installation of the motor. The Respondent asserted and the Applicant admitted that the motorcycle with the motor fitted had been run whilst there was a tappet noise apparent. This should not have been done as it only served to exacerbate any problems resulting from the rebuild of the motor as specified by the Applicant.
The motor was returned to the Respondent’s premises. Upon removal of the cylinder head it was apparent that the motor had dropped a valve and that a number of valves had been damaged and were partly inoperative. The Respondent indicated to the Applicant such would only happen if the motor had been over revved. The only other reason for the motors failure would be incorrect valve springs having regard to the modifications made to the motor. Enquiries were made at the website of the USA manufacturer that the Applicant was following for the purpose of the motor modifications. It became apparent that with the profiles of the camshafts that the Applicant was following that it was not a bolt in performance upgrade and that the upgrade itself required high compression pistons, performance valve springs and performance exhaust. The Respondent noted that the Applicant had carried out 2 of the 3 “must do” steps with high compression pistons and the performance exhaust but not the valve springs.
The Respondent took note of the valve lift specifications on that website and measured and compared same with the camshafts supplied by Tighe Engineering. Upon measurement it was immediately apparent that the camshafts were not what the Applicant had asked for and were in fact larger.
The Respondent asserted it explained to the Applicant that unless Tighe Engineering had purchased a pair of camshafts from the USA manufacturer and ground its own master copy from them that there was no way that Tighe Engineering could have delivered correctly specified camshafts. The Respondent further asserted that it contacted Tighe Engineering which indicated that the camshafts profile was only something “close” to the performance specification and that in fact the performance grind by Tighe Engineering was partly of a different Honda motor specification and partly of a Kawasaki motor specification.
Further enquiries were made by the Respondent about the valve springs to be utilised in the performance upgrade. The Respondent asserted that the Applicant had told the Respondent that the valve springs did not need changing. The Respondent asserted that the USA company involved indicated to anyone carrying out an upgrade that factory valve springs would not work and that performance valve springs were necessary.
Conclusions on evidence
10. The Respondent did not design the modification and even if the camshafts were machined as per instruction from the Applicant to Tighe Engineering the Applicant in any event had not followed the instruction clearly marked out on the aforesaid website. A screen shot supporting this contention was placed in evidence by the Respondent and not refuted by the Applicant.
11. The damage could have been prevented in any event if the Applicant had shut down the motor after the initial start up when he, the Applicant, said he heard a tappet noise: that the continued use of the motor under these circumstances simply compounded the problem.
12. The Respondent’s chronology and assertions were stated by Wayne Perry. The two witnesses for the Respondent Adam Perry and Scott Thompson confirmed the Applicant’s instructions to the Respondent. Mr Thompson is an engine reconditioner of at least 16 years experience and presented as highly experienced and technically savvy. I accept all the evidence of the Respondent as set out above and particularly as clearly articulated by Mr Thompson.
Findings
13. I find on the evidence that the motor failed due to an incorrect camshaft and valve spring combination; that such incorrect combination was the result of specific instruction by the Applicant to the Respondent; that the Respondent is in no way to blame for the motors failure; and that in any event substantial damage to the motor could have been prevented had the Applicant followed the Respondent’s instructions and shut down the motor after initial start up when the tappet noise was immediately apparent.
14. I dismiss the application.
0
0
0