Could this be fraud?

[dderolph]

My son recently bought a 2002 Mitsubishi Montero Sport. He asked me to change oil in it while he was at work.

To access the oil pan and filter on this vehicle, a panel must be removed. It is attached by six bolts. I found that these bolts were severely rusted on the exposed ends the protruded on upper side of the panel. In fact, two of them broke when I tried to remove them. Fortuntely, they fastened to another panel further forward; it runs from the panel under the oil pan to just under the radiator. I removed it and took it to a local auto mechanical shop; they heated it and got the broken bolts ends out.

The other bolts were also difficult to remove due to the rust. The threaded receptical for the rear three bolts are integrated into the vehicle frame. I found the threading in one or two of the bolt recepticals to be damaged. I attempted to put a new bolt into one of those rear recepticals and the threading on the new bolt was damaged. So, this is a major problem as far as future removal and reinstallation of this panel.

The oil looked very dirty. The seller told my son the oil was changed every 3,000 miles. I think that's an outright lie. I suspect that panel has not been removed for a year or more, perhaps much longer than a year. The vehicle has 72K miles on it. So, those bolts simply would not have been in such a rusted condition, to the point where two of them broke, if this vehicle had been serviced every 3K or so miles. In other words, maintenance on this vehicle has been grossly neglected.

This vehicle also has 6 grease fittings on tie rod ends, etc. I did not try to grease all of them because I ran out of grease. But, I did try one that was rusty and would not accept grease.

I'm afraid my son has been deceived by the seller. Any comments on my assessment of the condition of the bolts, etc?

[BullShifter]

Those things are known for rusted bolts in the shields. That's why anti-seize was invented. It is a stupid design on a vehicle that 90% of the time will never need the added protection. To make it easy on yourself just leave the things off unless your son is a serious off roader.

I agree with you the maint was probably neglected, shit people and newer vehicles think maint. is a thing of the past. What little they know until its time for a huge expense due to skipped maint.

[CraigFL]

In order to prove fraud, you would probably need pictures, old parts(rusted broken bolts & pans), oil analysis and expert opinion. Then you could file a case in small claims court. Your typical options would be to recover damages to repair the engine(if you had a problem and could estimate a repair cost) or to get your money back(and return the car).

[dderolph]

Originally Posted by jackasssi

Those things are known for rusted bolts in the shields. That's why anti-seize was invented. It is a stupid design on a vehicle that 90% of the time will never need the added protection. To make it easy on yourself just leave the things off unless your son is a serious off roader.

Thanks for your comments. I was thinking there's no reason that sheild could not be left off. I'm sure my son will not be doing any serious off road activities with the vehicle.

[dderolph]

Originally Posted by CraigFL

In order to prove fraud, you would probably need pictures, old parts(rusted broken bolts & pans), oil analysis and expert opinion. Then you could file a case in small claims court. Your typical options would be to recover damages to repair the engine(if you had a problem and could estimate a repair cost) or to get your money back(and return the car).

Thanks Craig. I think your brief explanation pretty well summarizes the approach that would taken if we felt legal action was justified. We'll keep the old oil, bolts, etc. for some months until we're satisfied legal action is not needed.