Arvic Search Services Inc.

Ms*** is here at Tyson Motor at this moment She is in the process of selecting a new vehicle so that we can trade her out or the Dodge Journey as she wishedShe is a friend of one of our owners and a significant part of the communityIt is important for
Tyson Motor to do what is right and take care of her problem It appears , from just checking , that her problem is being handled I believe this is settled

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
Phillip [redacted]

September 18, 2017 CASE ID#:  [redacted] Complaint against Tyson Motor LLC by: Sara M. G[redacted] Response by Tyson Motor: On September 14, 2017, Ms. G[redacted] brought her 2013 [redacted] Town & Country to Tyson Motor with the concerns that her check engine light was on, her vehicle would not...

accelerate to forty mph, and the vehicle was riding roughly.  A [redacted] Certified technician performed a software scan of the vehicle’s internal computer which indicated that the engine had multiple cylinder misfire.  Using additional [redacted] software, Tyson Motor technicians attempted to locate the cause of the misfire through internal computer diagnostics.  The technician attempted to monitor the vehicle through misfire counters, but no misfires were present during the computerized testing.  Technicians test drove the van in an attempt to duplicate the misfire, and the check engine light went off. Tyson Motor was not able to duplicate any of the misfire issues, the acceleration to forty mph concern, or the rough riding problem. Following Fiat [redacted] protocol, [redacted] was contacted about the issue, and Tyson Motor was advised to release the vehicle to the customer and request her to return when the vehicle was in misfire.  Ms. G[redacted] was not content with the request to return to the service department when the vehicle was in misfire.  However, it is not always possible to “fix” a vehicle when a problem cannot be duplicated.  In the case of Ms. G[redacted]’s 2013 Town & Country, even experienced technicians are not able to correct a problem until the problem can be identified.  If a mechanical issue cannot be duplicated, the ability to correct the problem can be difficult to accomplish.  In an attempt to appease Ms. G[redacted], the Tyson Motor’s service advisor stated that through experience, a misfire might be caused by a vehicle needing a tune-up.  THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION.  Although the odometer on Ms. G[redacted]’s van had not reached the recommended mileage for a tune-up, a van which is four years old may require some additional maintenance beyond an oil change.  Although Tyson Motor RECOMMENDED that a tune-up and fuel injection service might solve the problem, we did not insist that the customer perform the service. Tyson Motor did NOT state to Sara G[redacted] that she would need to pay a $130 diagnostic fee if we did not fix her van, nor did we ask her to pay $539 before we would fix her van.  As stated above, Tyson Motor could not “fix” a problem which we could not duplicate or identify.  Additionally, Tyson Motor waived the deductible Ms. G[redacted] had with her extended service contract.  When Ms. G[redacted] picked-up her vehicle, she had NO PAYMENT. Although Sara G[redacted] is requesting a disputed amount of $669.00, she has NOT PAID for any service.  The diagnostic evaluation Tyson Motor performed was at NO CHARGE.  TYSON MOTOR provided Ms. G[redacted] a Courtesy Vehicle at NO COST.  Sara G[redacted]’s Extended Warranty $100 deductible was waived, resulting in NO CHARGE to her.  It is confusing how a customer can request a “disputed amount” when a payment for service was never made. Although Tyson Motor is a proud Local [redacted] union shop, our contract follows different dates than other Chicagoland dealerships.  The service department which Ms. G[redacted] has been taking her van for service since December 2015 is not a union shop.  There is no reason that dealer could not have serviced her vehicle.  Also, that same dealer replaced cylinders and heads on her vehicle in March 2016.  As Ms. G[redacted]’s vehicle appears to have cylinders which are in misfire, she should speak with the dealer who repaired the cylinders. As Sara G[redacted]’s vehicle was returned to her with no cost and no charge, we respectfully request that his case be closed.  Sincerely, Anthony H. B[redacted] Dealer Principle Tyson Motor LLC

Tyson Motor LLC [redacted] Shorewood, IL   60404 April 28, 2017 Revdex.com 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, IL  60611   CASE ID#:  [redacted] Complaint against Tyson Motor LLC by: [redacted]  [redacted]  ...

Response to by Tyson Motor: The Maximum Care Lifetime Service Contract which was purchased on November 16, 2011 has monetarily benefitted Mr. [redacted].  During the past five (+) years of driving over ninety thousand (90,000) miles, Mr. [redacted] has not incurred any major expenses with his 2011 [redacted] Charger.  The only out-of-pocket repair charge [redacted] has paid was a $100 deductible.  On March 7, 2017, [redacted] brought his Charger to Tyson Motor’s service department due to a concern about a clunking noise in the rear of his vehicle.  Tyson Motor technicians identified and resolved the problem by installing a drive shaft on March 22, 2017.  The only expense to Mr. [redacted] was the $100 deductible. The [redacted] Charger returned to Tyson Motor on March 28 for a maintenance appointment to flush his radiator.  Mr. [redacted] stated that he had a new clunking noise.  Tyson’s service technician located a loose retainer nut and replaced it.  As the technician inspected the radiator in preparation for the flush, a radiator leak was discovered.  The flush could not be performed.  [redacted]’s radiator was replaced April 3, 2017 at no charge; his $100 service contract deductible was waived by Tyson Motor; and he was provided with a courtesy rental.  All noises, issues, and leaks were resolved.  Every repair was corrected and field-tested.    On April 10, [redacted] returned to Tyson’s service department with a complaint of a new clunking noise located in a different location than the two previous noises.  He also expressed a concern regarding the [redacted] all-wheel-drive (AWD).  Mr. [redacted] also accused Tyson Motor’s service department of damaging his engine cover.  When a Service Manager explained that the damage to the cover was caused by strut support which the customer had self-installed, Mr. [redacted] asked the Manager to prove that Tyson did not do it.  Tyson replaced the engine cover at no-charge.  The AWD was tested and found to be working properly.  Tyson Motor service technicians, managers, and service director road-tested the [redacted] Charger attempting to identify any clunking noise.  No noise could be duplicated.  To insure that our customers receive the utmost care, Tyson Motor requested a FCA (Fiat [redacted] Automobiles) Field Service Engineer to evaluate the Charger.  The FCA Service Specialist tested Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle on April 18 and could not duplicate any noise, nor find any problem with [redacted]’s vehicle.  A call was placed to Mr. [redacted] to inform him of the results of the FCA’s investigation, and he was asked to pick-up his car.   Upon arriving at the dealership to retrieve his vehicle, Mr. [redacted] suddenly asked a service manager to fix his windshield—an issue which had never previously addressed—and complained that he now heard new squeaking noises in his dash. Additionally, he expressed anger due to the [redacted] increased mileage incurred during the attempts by FCA and Tyson Motor to locate/duplicate the clunking noise.  [redacted]’s behavior became hostile, loud, and rude in the service drive.  He intimidated the service employees that had made every effort to assist him.  Mr. [redacted]’s conduct was not only inappropriate towards our employees, but it was also unsuitable for the customers which were exposed to him.    [redacted] has stated in his complaint that his desired settlement is to “fix his vehicle at another dealer.”  Tyson Motor is happy to oblige Mr. [redacted]’s request to service his vehicle at another dealership.  The Mopar Maximum Care Lifetime Service Contract is not exclusive to Tyson Motor.  As a Mopar product, the service contract will be honored by any Fiat [redacted] Automobile Dealership which is authorized to service [redacted] vehicles.  Tyson Motor LLC will digitally submit all of the service history records necessary to enable Mr. [redacted]’s Charger to be serviced elsewhere.    Tyson Motor takes pride in the efforts which our service department employees undertake to advocate, assist, and please our customers.  It is disheartening to have a customer state that our efforts are terrible.  As Mr. [redacted] has stated that he will never return to Tyson Motor, we will promptly remove [redacted] from our customer list.  Tyson Motor LLC has complied with Mr. [redacted]’s request to service his 2011 [redacted] Charger elsewhere, and we respectfully request that this case be closed.   Sincerely, [redacted] Dealer Principal Tyson Motor LLC

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
Kristina [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: All of the service visits were related to a clunking noise. If there was a lapse in time from one visit to another it was due to an appointment being scheduled days in advance. The chain of events were as follows:1-Brought vehicle in for clunking noise, intermediate shaft replaced2- Immediately returned to dealer to inform them noise was still there ( appointment set to return )3- 2nd appointment found yoke on transmission defective. Yoke replaced. Radiator mysteriously started leaking. Radiator ordered. I was going to pick car up on a Friday and return Monday for the radiator. Picked car up and drove 2 blocks away from dealership and engine, throttle control and service all wheel drive lights came on. Returned immediately to dealer and left vehicle over weekend.4- Picked vehicle up following Monday after radiator was replaced. Lights were reset on dash. Drove away from dealership and immediately returned to service dept to let them know the car was still making clunking noise. Upon opening hood I noticed engine cover was broken. Dealer ordered engine cover and set another appointment for [redacted]s Master Technician to inspect the vehicle. While I was on the phone with [redacted], I had inquired they inspect the windshield for a delaminating issue. Windshield was out of warranty as I was well aware of but thought maybe there might have been a recall for  faulty glass. After final inspection by [redacted] found no repairs were needed.In regards to Tysons response that I have monetarily benefitted from my extended warranty is untrue. This has been the first repair using the extended warranty which could not be repaired correctly.The strut support that was self installed is a Genuine Mopar Part that once installed has no adjustment or movement whatsoever. This was installed years before the engine cover and did not cause the damage to the engine cover. I might add that the self install was completed by myself which has been an auto mechanic and auto rebuilder starting my career as a Union Mechanic at [redacted] in 1978.As far as Tyson Motors claiming my behavior became hostile, loud and rude in the service drive is a defamation of my character. It took them quite a while to respond to my claim only to write there response, proof read and edit to make it seem like the customer is at fault. I urge anyone contemplating doing business with Tyson Motors in Shorewood Illinois to visit the waiting area outside the service department and talk to customers about there experiences with there car repairs. It is not a happy place.
[redacted]

Tyson Motor LLC  1 SW Frontage Rd  Shorewood, IL   60404  November 22, 2016   Revdex.com  330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120  Chicago, IL  60611   CASE ID#:  [redacted] Complaint against Tyson Motor LLC by:   Mr. Phillip...

[redacted]  [redacted]  [redacted]  60416   Response by Tyson Motor: On October 7, 2016, Mr. [redacted] brought his 2012 Dodge Charger to Tyson Motor due to a concern of a rust spot between the rear tail light and deck lid on his vehicle.  Digital images of the rust area were taken by Tyson Motor Service Management and submitted to FCA (Fiat Chrysler America) to determine if the rusted area was covered by warranty.  Mr. [redacted] basic warranty of 36 months or 36,000 miles had expired in February 2015.  Mr. [redacted] felt that the rust repair should be cover under “Perforation” Warranty. To be considered perforation under warranty, the metal must have rust-through corrosion sustained during normal use.  Unfortunately, surface rust in not considered perforation.  Surface rust can be caused from various environmental elements such as rocks or stones hitting a vehicle while driving on a roadway.  Salt used on roads during winter is a corrosive agent and can cause surface rust.  FCA determined that Mr. [redacted] Charger had surface rust and was no longer covered under warranty.  After reviewing the complaint, Tyson Motor has intervened and advocated on Mr. [redacted] behalf to FCA.  Mr. [redacted] purchased his Dodge Charger from Tyson Motor and has had his vehicle serviced and maintained with us.  He is a loyal customer, and we will treat him as such.  FCA and Tyson Motor will repair the rust area on the 2012 Dodge Charger.  Mr. [redacted] will need to contact Dan [redacted], Tyson Motor’s Service Director, to arrange a date for the repair. Tyson Motor appreciates every customer.  We hope that Mr. [redacted] appreciates the level of service we provide to him.    Sincerely, Anthony H. [redacted] Dealer Principle Tyson Motor LLC