'Roverlink' : very poor after sales service

[ceedy]

[/QUOTE]
Regarding losing direction from the OP thread, I think this is very relevant. This is because the link to the listing that you put up, gives the part no. KKH101372 and the description of a 1.8, not a diesel.

It is therefore the wrong part .[/QUOTE]..

yeah ? so ...

If you read the thread . That link I put up was in support of a question to the OP , which was answered by him in post 14 .?

so the link seems totally applicable

So why the criticism ? what's the problem ?

I don't quite where you are trying to go with this ??

Chris

[Dorset Bob]

No criticism towards you Chris. Sorry if you thought that.

I think you will find that the link to the original listing stated that it was suitable for a diesel.
Now it describes it as only suitable for the 1.8.

So "Yeah so......" means that it looks like the OP has been supplied with the wrong component and not what he thought he was buying. (i.e one suitable for a diesel).
That is the problem.

It looks like this philatkid is in the same boat:

Originally Posted by philfatkid

It used to say it was suitable for a diesel, that's why i bought it, the listing has changed !

[ceedy]

Originally Posted by Dorset Bob

No criticism towards you Chris. Sorry if you thought that.

I think you will find that the link to the original listing stated that it was suitable for a diesel.
Now it describes it as only suitable for the 1.8.

So "Yeah so......" means that the OP has been supplied with the wrong component and not what he thought he was buying. (i.e one suitable for a diesel).
That is the problem.

It looks like this philatkid is in the same boat:

100% in agreement !!
I was fairly sure the advert in that link had been changed since the first post . If it had been always advertised as only for a 1.8 the OP would not have any grounds for complaining in the 1st place..

I'll be back on this tack ( will start another thread tho' ) as soon as I check out my other mounts to see if they are causing the mis-alignment I have on my lower one .

take care

C.

[David Lawrence]

Originally Posted by ceedy

100% in agreement !!
I was fairly sure the advert in that link had been changed since the first post . If it had been always advertised as only for a 1.8 the OP would not have any grounds for complaining in the 1st place..

I'll be back on this tack ( will start another thread tho' ) as soon as I check out my other mounts to see if they are causing the mis-alignment I have on my lower one .

take care

C.

I'm puzzled why Roverlink have not posted on here to explain their position and set the record straight. We are after all a huge marketplace for a company called Roverlink and I'm sure many would be happy to support them with future business if we were confident of their customer service.

[rich17865]

I have used Roverlink and found their service to be great.

[jondonwar]

i ordered pair of rear suspension arms ,and got them next day hand delivered, so i found them a great service jondonwar

[Arctic]

Originally Posted by ProfDave

well I have just removed the powerflex one after 24000 miles as I had become paranoid and I picked up a genuine one as I found one for sale for a fiver over the Roewe Mount that I was planning to fit. (at a former local Rover dealer to be fair I had not thought to ask)

The OEM one is better at damping particularly at around 1650 - 1800 rpm

HOWEVER the PF bushes were fine (see below and yes I have had a look under the metal too and its not all cracked and broken like some I have seen on 8000 miles on posts). I wonder in some cases where there is rapid failure there are other worn mounts elsewhere giving too much lateral movement. I will keep my PF one as a spare! This mount is designed for forward and backward motion and not side to side. Most of the failure pics have seen look like there is a fair bit of sideways motion on the mount

Originally Posted by neilb740

That was my thoughts exactly, What caused the original mount to fail?
If it was worn mounts elsewhere as you sugest, and the whole engine is jumping around like a box of frogs, you cant expect the one new mount to take all the strain.
Not saying it was this, but its worth a look

I think that the wish bone bushes have a part to play in these lower engine mounts failing as they can split




or be at the first stage of spliting note the black line the sign of wear as opposed to the split one above,




thus adding pressure to the side way movement of the lower engine mount, where as some of the RED power flex teared apart,






i also note on the failed Roverlink one in the thread that the rubber insert it's self is in tact but the alloy centre as moved sideways (photo borrowed)
making it fail

as did the RED powerflex but that ripped it's self apart being all rubber insert, of cause this is only my opinion.



I to am surprised that ken as not been on and informed us about this mount maybe he had a bad batch as you can see from my pic the number is different, hopefully he will come on and let us know how he intends to deal with this situation Arctic.

[philfatkid]

Finally got round to fitting the new lower engine mount, the difference is incredible, no vibration whilst driving now, as you can see in the photos it failed just like the one in another post, there is a sound on starting/stopping the engine that sounds like the exhaust rattling, i have checked the wishbone bushes, but all seem ok, there seems to be a lot of play in the top engine mount, so i will see about changing this next.



http://i808.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/P4150471.jpg
http://i808.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/P4150470.jpg





Still no reply from roverlink ?

[MSS]

This thread does raise the question of how the Rover/MG driver community wants to treat the likes of Roverlink - as part of the community providing a service to keep our cars on the road, sometimes taking risks on behalf ofthe community. Or, purely as businesses where legal positions take precedence and threats of bad feedback, claims etc. start to be raised as soon as something doesn't work out.

I tend to support the "collective risk" option whenever I purchase anything that is not genuine MGR from such suppliers. In this case, Roverlink (ond one other parts supplier) brought to us a part in good faith at a reasonable price and we were all excited about the prospect. No one could have reasonably expected them to have carried out exhaustive testing on a diesel. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Roverlink and the other supplier have learnt their lesson and changed the "adverts".

One reasonable option is to treat this as one of those lessons learnt and collective risk that didn't work out - a bit like getting a puncture when on a shingle drive.

I'm not sure what Roverlink could possibly say that would not inflame the situation so the silence is understandable.

Just my thoughts.

For anyone choosing the genuine MGR option, College motors sell the diesel version for £63. I've just received mine.

http://www.rovermgspecialist.co.uk/i...product_id=298

[philfatkid]

Originally Posted by mss

This thread does raise the question of how the Rover/MG driver community wants to treat the likes of Roverlink - as part of the community providing a service to keep our cars on the road, sometimes taking risks on behalf ofthe community. Or, purely as businesses where legal positions take precedence and threats of bad feedback, claims etc. start to be raised as soon as something doesn't work out.

I tend to support the "collective risk" option whenever I purchase anything that is not genuine MGR from such suppliers. In this case, Roverlink (ond one other parts supplier) brought to us a part in good faith at a reasonable price and we were all excited about the prospect. No one could have reasonably expected them to have carried out exhaustive testing on a diesel. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Roverlink and the other supplier have learnt their lesson and changed the "adverts".

One reasonable option is to treat this as one of those lessons learnt and collective risk that didn't work out - a bit like getting a puncture when on a shingle drive.

I'm not sure what Roverlink could possibly say that would not inflame the situation so the silence is understandable.

Just my thoughts.

For anyone choosing the genuine MGR option, College motors sell the diesel version for £63. I've just received mine.

http://www.rovermgspecialist.co.uk/i...product_id=298

Whilst i agree with you to a certain extent, by changing his description on e-bay he is admitting liability, so a quick message explaining his mistake wouldn't go amiss, and may be offering the op a refund !