MotorVehicle Consumer Group
Main Story
NHTSA (USA)
Consumer
Complaints
UNSAFE VOLVO
Mr Lim Teng Hooi, a C h a r t e r e d Quantity Surveyor from Kuala Lumpur, purchased his third Volvo back in 1985 and promptly decided that that will be his last Volvo, thank you.
It's not surprising considering the fact that he had problems with his brand-new Volvo 760 GLE within days of delivery and subsequently was embroiled in a legal tangle with the finance company and the sole agent for Volvo cars in Malaysia for over a decade.
"Sometime in mid-August 1985, I called at the Volvo showroom with the intention of purchasing a new Volvo. The salesman, praising this models various safety features, in particular the superior brake system, persuaded me to test-drive one and also gave me a brochure on the Volvo 760 GLE which praised, inter alia "the triangular split, dual-circuit braking system which maintains both an 80% braking effect and course stability even if one brake circuit fails".
 |
 |
| E.g. A typical brake parts | E.g. A typical Brake Calipers |
"I therefore entered into a contract to purchase this Volvo model for RM83,492.38 after paying an initial deposit of RM23,492.38 on 30 Aug 1985. Federal Auto Holdings Bhd then arranged for the balance to be paid for by Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd with whom I entered into a hire-purchase agreement on 24 Sept 1985".
"On that same day, exactly one week after taking delivery of my car on 17 September, I wrote to the Managing Director of Federal Auto. Complaining about the appalling condition of my new Volvo, I lamented how the salesman concerned could have assured me that his company had carried out a thorough Pre-Delivery Inspection".
"I cannot imagine how this 'inspection' could have been carried out when there are so many defects including a horn decibel level that is so low even a cat will not flinch, a front dashboard demister grille that has not been properly fixed, a cassette housing that's full of scratches, engine that's so noisy it sounds more like a diesel car, an oversized air-conditioning belt that fell off by itself when the car was in motion, gearbox that sounds very scratchy when stalling, the sprinkling of priming paint on the paint work of the car and the temperature needle which indicates that the car is 'hot'. In my letter, I requested Federal Auto to do something about this before the engine explodes," informed Mr Lim.
He also sent a copy of this letter to the Volvo Car Corporation in Sweden.
In early October 1985, Mr Lim wrote to Federal Auto again to report on more defects namely the brakes (non-responsive) auto servo pump (defective), left headlamp (out of adjustment) and the general condition of the car (out of adjustment).
According to Mr Lim he was involved in a minor accident on 10 Jan 1986 because of the defective brakes which were not sufficiently effective enough to slow down or stop the car. He had to fork out almost RM900 for the repairs.
Three days later, expressing his regret at having purchased a Volvo 760. he threatened to return the car to Federal Auto should they fail to properly repair the brakes or should the many defects crop up again.
Just over two months later, he complained to Federal Auto again of more defects: leaking of oil from the defective front wheels bearings; the "thud noise from the steering whenever the car rounds corners and also when the signal light is on, when the car is stalling the engines and the automatic transmission gives a scratchy sound; and again, defective brakes
Despite sending his car to Federal Auto's workshops on at least 13 occasions thereby incurring extra expenses and suffering much inconvenience, the defective brake system was never satisfactorily rectified. The defect always resurfaced shortly after leaving the workshop.
On 21 Aug 1986, Mr Lim finally had the brakes system of his Volvo tested by United Sagawa Automobile Industries Sdn Bhd. They confirmed that the brakes were indeed defective.
His confidence in his car eroded, and afraid of another accident thereby endangering his own life and that of other road users, he finally had no choice but to rescind the hire-purchase agreement by returning the car to Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd on 29 Aug 1986.
Suing the finance company as well as Federal Auto for breach of contract (by supplying him with a car that was "not of merchantable quality and not reasonably fit" for the purpose for which it was sold i.e. a car that was not roadworthy and unsafe for use on roads) he demanded reimbursement of the deposit (RM23,492.38), 10 installments of RM2,066 each (RM20,660), cost of repairs to his car after the accident of 10 Jan l986 (RM883.80) and cost of installation of sunshade (RM342.90).
This website is sponsored by the MotorVehicle Consumer Group
April 1998 Vol 28 No.6
Disclaimer: All the information printed on this website are to be used for your personal entertainment viewing only. Some of the information gathered here are compilation from the Consumer Association of Penang publication. We are not affiliated with Volvo and Consumer Association of Penang or with any other automobile manufacturers.