MG4 Reduction Gearbox Oil Leak

sdjmchattie said:
Dropped my MG4 off at the dealer today to look at the leak. It’s not due in before Tuesday next week but I can’t use it while it’s leaking so they may as well have it. I’ve asked them to check the bulging under tray as well while they’re in that area.

I called the AA (again) this morning to get the car recovered. They sent a van out within 20 minutes of my call and the guy had a look (actual AA van this time) and he looked stuff up on his dashboard computer. He said MG have told them cars with the issue can be driven which is consistent with what others have been told. He said I should drive it there myself and he’ll follow me in case of problems.

So I did. They’re taking the car in and hopefully it’ll get fixed. They didn’t have any courtesy cars available and the AA gave me a lift back to my house. Really amazing service from the AA. On top of that, the cover MG pay for with AA is Relay Plus which gets you a courtesy car until yours is repaired. So I’m expecting to be able to go pick up a car from Enterprise in the next day or so.

Can’t fault the AA at all. The car is also a dream to drive. The garage/dealer could be doing a lot more to reassure me and get my new car in fit-to-drive condition though. They’re really not pulling their weight at all.
Click to expand...
Good to hear you've finally got a consistent diagnosis and view from the AA, and as you say sounds like good service there this time. Unfortunate that you didn't get this originally, hope it gets sorted on or soon after Tuesday. Interesting and helpful to minimise impact to you if you pick up courtesy car through the relay plus.
 
Last edited:
Sutts said:
Well, I had a very swift reply from my dealer (Chorley's of Burnley). They will give me a full refund and I will return the car later this week. I am very pleased with their response obviously.

I feel sorry for the salesman, he was great, but as I explained to him, a 7 year warranty and I have a problem after three days...hmm.
Click to expand...
I doubt they care much if a car is returned to them as they will just put it on their lot and resell it in no time due to the current waiting list. I doubt they will even have the modified breather fitted.
Things may change down the track though when more MG4's become available.
Dealers and MG are doing themselves no favours by continually selling new vehicles with oil leaks as Karma will intervene when more EV competition arrives down the track.
 
Sutts said:
Well, I had a very swift reply from my dealer (Chorley's of Burnley). They will give me a full refund and I will return the car later this week. I am very pleased with their response obviously.

I feel sorry for the salesman, he was great, but as I explained to him, a 7 year warranty and I have a problem after three days...hmm.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about your issue, and can't blame you for rejecting. Chorley have a decent reputation and sell more cars than most dealers so we might have hoped that they would have insisted on fitting new breathers before letting cars go out.

Miles their innovation development manager has advertised the groups used vehicles on SpeakEV

This includes an MG4 at a saving of £400 over new (2023) prices so £600 more than it would have been sold for at Christmas.

I'm pretty sure any members here will soon be able to take @Sutts lightly used vehicle for more than he paid for it. Bargain
 
I have just tweeted the Environment Agency about this thread.
Combining all the leaks, how many litres of polluting oil (and dangerous for other drivers) have been dumped to the environment?
I would suggest all affected people to do the same so MG is asked to ACT.

In the EU the manufacturer has an expanded responsibility for environmental protection. I would be surprised if the UK does not have the same.
 
Spaniard said:
I have just tweeted the Environment Agency about this thread.
Combining all the leaks, how many litres of polluting oil (and dangerous for other drivers) have been dumped to the environment?
I would suggest all affected people to do the same so MG is asked to ACT.

In the EU the manufacturer has an expanded responsibility for environmental protection. I would be surprised if the UK does not have the same.
Click to expand...

We have gone over this before 🤦🏻‍♂️ all SAIC will have to do is provide design documents proving that the design won't leak which they will most likely have computer simulations to prove from prototyping.

The duty of care is on the vehicle owner as you are culpable not the manufacturer, if you are driving a vehicle you know leaks.
 
Ayoull said:
We have gone over this before 🤦🏻‍♂️ all SAIC will have to do is provide design documents proving that the design won't leak which they will most likely have computer simulations to prove from prototyping.

The duty of care is on the vehicle owner as you are culpable not the manufacturer, if you are driving a vehicle you know leaks.
Click to expand...
If the design is proven flawed, as it happens, I am pretty sure their quality management system requires to raise a non-conformance, investigate, and issue a CA/PA.

As they already have designed a new breather, it's evident this already happened and they are fully aware their car may dump contaminant oil to the environment in regular operating conditions (nobody designs a new part if it is not needed regularly).

They should not be allowed to send cars out to our roads as the final leak check environment. This final test should be done in their premises where any dump would be controlled and disposed accordingly to current regulations which the Environment Agency governs.

Accidental dump is that; an accident, but the current number of cases we are seeing are not an accident, it's a trend, and it is happening in all countries.

We need to provide the Env. Agency with enough evidence that this is not accidental but a common defect, and MG is risking the environment to save some pounds, which is unacceptable.

All this is on top of the owner's responsibility who cannot be blamed for the first leak that could have been avoided by an available and known solution. Furthermore, we owners are demanding to have this solution installed before a environmental damaging event happens! We are doing our part. I find normal to ask the EA to enforce MG to do theirs.
 
Spaniard said:
If the design is proven flawed, as it happens, I am pretty sure their quality management system requires to raise a non-conformance, investigate, and issue a CA/PA.

As they already have designed a new breather, it's evident this already happened and they are fully aware their car may dump contaminant oil to the environment in regular operating conditions (nobody designs a new part if it is not needed regularly).

They should not be allowed to send cars out to our roads as the final leak check environment. This final test should be done in their premises where any dump would be controlled and disposed accordingly to current regulations which the Environment Agency governs.

Accidental dump is that; an accident, but the current number of cases we are seeing are not an accident, it's a trend, and it is happening in all countries.

We need to provide the Env. Agency with enough evidence that this is not accidental but a common defect, and MG is risking the environment to save some pounds, which is unacceptable.

All this is on top of the owner's responsibility who cannot be blamed for the first leak that could have been avoided by an available and known solution. Furthermore, we owners are demanding to have this solution installed before a environmental damaging event happens! We are doing our part. I find normal to ask the EA to enforce MG to do theirs.
Click to expand...
Having worked with the EA on equipment reported for leaks, what's likely to happen is they will approach SAIC ask to see copies of design documentation, along with validation exercise evidence usually prototyping results.

If these show no issues, they will raise the fact a new design breather is available, and they'll state there are a few vehicles that appear due to engineering tolerances to be outside of spec as does occur in mass production.

They'll show that during the PDI dealers are asked to inspect for oil prior to release as the vehicle is driven around the dock when being loaded and unloaded from the transport vehicle.

At this point EA will most likely ask SAIC to provide details of all vehicles provided with the new breather and ask if there are any patterns in VIN numbers, if not they may issue an instruction that no more vehicles are sold without the breather, and also issue instructions that no current MG4 is to be driven until it is inspected by a garage and a leak rectified if present, which MG will communicate to all owners.

Or EA will go the current system in process is sufficient and the duty of care is on the owner to contact the manufacturer to remedy leaks.

Edit: I do however think that if EA went route 2 they'd state they want a stock holding in the UK opposed to we'll ship it in from China.
 
Last edited:
That sounds like it could take many months to complete, while cars will continue to be given to owners with an oil leak.
 
This is really starting to irk me.

On the SpeakEV forum a dealer is advertising used MGs for sale. Fair enough, this is a dealer with a good reputation and means that some people will be able to get into an EV without wailing for delivery.

Then it dawned on me that in some cases the dealer is selling the initial car at a profit. That car is being rejected due to an oil leak and is then being sold second hand for more than the original new price due to MG increasing rrp by £1000.

Conveniently this leads to higher profit for the dealer but leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth.
 
MG are knowingly releasing vehicles that are likely to leak. They are not proactively advising owners of the potential problem and they are not proactively preventing risk of leak with the fix. Many owners will have developed a leak and be ignorant of the fact eg those parking on gravel driveway who do not frequent a forum. How can these owners be “culpable”? I hope the EA gets involved, it’s despicable behaviour from MG.
 
On the surface it seems crazy that MG are still allowing cars into the wild with the faulty breather. The cost to fix is very modest and the reputational damage from the on-going saga more than justifies it.

Unless, and this pure speculation on my part, they know that the new breather is not a good long term fix.

Due to its convoluted construction maybe all the oil does not return to the chamber. Maybe it will mix with detritus and clog up the tube meaning pressure is not released and in the longer term seals are compromised. This might be a bigger problem than leaking oil from the breather. Maybe removing and flushing the tube as part of the service would manage this but that increases service overheads when the dealer just wants to inspect a few things.

Maybe MG are working on repositioning the breather or adding an internal baffle which means that the modified breather is not required?
 
WalkingBootWeather said:
On the surface it seems crazy that MG are still allowing cars into the wild with the faulty breather. The cost to fix is very modest and the reputational damage from the on-going saga more than justifies it.

Unless, and this pure speculation on my part, they know that the new breather is not a good long term fix.

Due to its convoluted construction maybe all the oil does not return to the chamber. Maybe it will mix with detritus and clog up the tube meaning pressure is not released and in the longer term seals are compromised. This might be a bigger problem than leaking oil from the breather. Maybe removing and flushing the tube as part of the service would manage this but that increases service overheads when the dealer just wants to inspect a few things.

Maybe MG are working on repositioning the breather or adding an internal baffle which means that the modified breather is not required?
Click to expand...
I do take your points and share your irritation. But not doing the right thing for owners now because a better fix might be down the track would in itself also be indefensible.
 
Les burrows said:
We ain’t going to get to 2000 it seems as when a new post is placed here the numbers go down so what going on ??Question is for admin on this site
Les
Click to expand...

I help moderating and I haven't seen anything here to indicate posts being removed so can't explain what's going on.
 
I don’t think removed - more combined and condensed…
 

Are you enjoying your MG4?

  • Yes

    Votes: 470 79.1%

  • I'm in the middle

    Votes: 79 13.3%

  • No

    Votes: 45 7.6%
See comments…
Support us by becoming a Premium Member

Latest MG EVs video

New EVs from MG: MG S9 & MG9 plus hot topics from the forums
Published
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom