Diesel in petrol not my fault.

Dogbreath · 1 Sep 2012 at 13:25

Liampope said:
What?! you mean it was not diesel in the tank at all?

That was obvious from the first post in the thread.

A ripped rubber coupling for the throttle body would let extra air in, which may result in the engine RPM increasing if extra fuel was delivered as well (depends on type of injection system, many look at throttle angle which wouldn't have changed).

It's very odd how it only showed itself right after filling with fuel though. Given the level of incompetence displayed so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the dealers caused the damage whilst removing the throttle bodies, and the high revving was caused by something trivial like a pinched throttle cable. Pure speculation of course and no way of proving it now.

ShakenNstirred · 1 Sep 2012 at 14:51

dsb said:
No update today other than its not a fuel issue but it gets worse, bike is nine months old. Apparently somebody has removed a screw/bolt from the throttle body and it's ripped a rubber grommet or something which has caused further issues, and because the screw or whatever looks like its been removed tampered with Suzuki might not hold up the warranty, to say I'm not happy it is an understatement, I don't know what a throttle body is let alone mess about with one.

I phoned my dealer who has done all the servicing on it and there going to fight my corner.

The part that is needed might take up to ten days to get delivered and I have a ferry booked to Santander on the 12th. Not happy!!!!

sounds like the garage messed up and tried to hide the fact by saying diesel was in the tank

Orion21 · 1 Sep 2012 at 15:40

Surely if it's only 9 months old and assuming you bought it from the dealer themselves and have not modified it yourself. Then the dealer would still have to fix it under warranty, as they would have sold you one of an 'official used main dealer vehicle' and I would have thought unless they stated otherwise it would be reasonable to assume its fully covered by warranty and standard.

Eliot · 1 Sep 2012 at 16:30

To me that suggests you filled it with something more flammable and it exploded. However you filled it with diesel which is not more flamable than petrol.
It would have to be a serious blowback too.

Finglonga · 1 Sep 2012 at 17:54

ShakenNstirred said:
sounds like the garage messed up and tried to hide the fact by saying diesel was in the tank

But the bikes fuel tank will still have diesel in it.

Sounds like coincidence to me that it broke down just after filling up. As said diesel will not cause a throttle body any damage.

ShakenNstirred · 1 Sep 2012 at 18:59

Finglonga said:
But the bikes fuel tank will still have diesel in it.

Sounds like coincidence to me that it broke down just after filling up. As said diesel will not cause a throttle body any damage.

who said it has diesel in the tank though? was it the garage?
and the OP did say in his last post its not a fuel issue as thought

The Edge · 1 Sep 2012 at 20:31

I would have thought that it would be engineered to be impossible to put diesel from a tanker in a petrol tank at the station. You'd just make the coupling incompatible.

TaKeN · 1 Sep 2012 at 20:35

The Edge said:
I would have thought that it would be engineered to be impossible to put diesel from a tanker in a petrol tank at the station. You'd just make the coupling incompatible.

The tanker will have a standard pipe, with a standard fitting. Otherwise they'd need to take lots of different hoses & adaptors.

Dogbreath · 1 Sep 2012 at 21:13

Finglonga said:
But the bikes fuel tank will still have diesel in it.

Why? The only person that has mentioned diesel is some idiot from the garage that the OP's bike was recovered to.

iaind · 1 Sep 2012 at 21:29

TaKeN said:
The tanker will have a standard pipe, with a standard fitting. Otherwise they'd need to take lots of different hoses & adaptors.

I had already explained this further up the page the first time someone mentioned that - do people not read the thread :confused:

The Edge · 2 Sep 2012 at 08:25

TaKeN said:
The tanker will have a standard pipe, with a standard fitting. Otherwise they'd need to take lots of different hoses & adaptors.

You wouldn't need lots you'd need two. One petrol hose, one diesel. A mildly trained monkey could then do it without getting the tanks wrong. I'm shocked if this really isn't the case, the consequences of getting it wrong are so dire and potentially expensive.

Yes, i have read the thread, and i really can't believe that oil companies would not take such an obvious step to protect themselves.

danielanthony · 2 Sep 2012 at 09:35

I have had a petrol hire car in the past and my own cars have always been diesels, when I went to fill the hire car up I picked up the diesel pump and tried to put it in but the nozzle was too large, alerting me to my error. I think they make diesel nozzles larger than petrol ones, based on my one experience of trying to do this!

monkey_boy · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:43

If putting petrol in a diesel car is more catastrophic than diesel in a petrol car then wouldn't it make sense to have bigger petrol nozzles that don't fit into diesels rather than the other way round?

Dr Who · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:50

monkey_boy said:
If putting petrol in a diesel car is more catastrophic than diesel in a petrol car then wouldn't it make sense to have bigger petrol nozzles that don't fit into diesels rather than the other way round?

Only if you then change the filler neck of every car made after 1992, so in other words no.

The thin petrol filler is so only UL fuel would go into a car with a cat. Of course now we don't have leaded at the pumps so the size is used for diseasal but there are still millions of cars with a slim filler neck that would need to change, so in a nutshell, it will never change.