“Hope you've had a fabulous summer with your Morgan now the brakes are all fixed.” Of course my Morgan has given me great pleasure over the summer but the weather in August disappointed. I had some good luck tho’ because whenever I made plans for a trip the weather forecast (BBC App) proved reliable and the forecast days of absence of rain fell in with my plans. Going over the Cat and Fiddle I good weather would have been an additional pleasure but lengths of this route are closed for roadworks to improve safety. The deviation signs were confusing despite my local knowledge gained when I lived in the area so other travellers would do well to consult a good map and the extent of the roadworks on the website (some say the route is the most dangerous in England mainly because of the number of motorcycle accidents).
“what would it do us to know which component exactly was the problem ? I work in the automotive industry, recalls are "normality" for all manufacturers today. Let's be glad that the vehicles have been updated and we can enjoy them again.” I posted the item about FOI to correct the impression which may have been given by and earlier post that it was not possible to obtain further information. A request for FOI is one obvious route. I disagree with comment above. With respect the recall cannot be described as a “normality” given the nature of the problem and the fact that it related to all CX vehicles produced to the date of the recall (1285) and vehicles were required to be off the road for upwards of 3 months. There was an alarming and imperative letter from MMC in June 2022 and then silence without explanation as to what the precise problem was despite much speculation by CX owners as to the cause and additionally as to the effect on the continued financial viability of the Company. The recall related to a fault affecting safety to users and the public (a warning of sudden failure of the brakes and not to drive the vehicle is not a “normality”). Also there was a possibility that some purchasers were driving around ignoring the letter from MMC or having implemented what they fancied to be the satisfactory solution to the problem as they saw it (checking the brake fluid level regularly as some reported doing). To suggest that manufacturers treat this serious problem as a “normality” appears to be a slur on the industry but in any event does not engender public confidence in the industry. A freedom of information request does will reveal that a report of an expert (presumably independent) was obtained and for DIY people sight of this would be useful (there is a possibility that not all the 1285 CX vehicles have been modified) The financial viability of MMC appears to be secure as the cost appears to have been largely met by suppliers (see below and the accounts for the relevant year as commented on in previous entries on this thread) but accounts for the last year of trading are not yet available from the Companies Registry.
“MMC assemble the cars using bought in components where they do not wish to manufacture in-house. Sensible good practise is to have an agreed quality standard with suppliers based on standard QA procedures. Spec, manufacturing process, testing, batch ID etc. This after supplier assessment and drilling down through them to sub contractors. Regular monitoring SHOULD then significantly reduce/eliminate problem components. This is an evolutionary process with built in future development included. Sampling plans for testing are properly set up ( from a statistical sampling plan to 100%) with batch pass/fail. Failed batches can be isolated and 100% tested. Regular monitoring of supplier quality is an important inclusion, getting customer/supplier relations on a good footing. Building trust and reducing costly problems. That’s the over simplistic basics. Good QA/QC is designed to give end product quality AND manufacturing credibility to maintain the required standards. Just to add....in the CX cars brake issue the cause could have been anywhere in the chain from top to bottom. Clearly the cause was missed. That would be the investigation target. Why it happened? Reason? Components affected, resolution to prevent future problems.”
Presumably MMC rely on the expert’s report revealed by the FOI request. Hopefully the defect was revealed in the course of the monitoring system or systems of MMC or the supplier/suppliers. The MMC accounts appear to show that a third party supplier was responsible.
