Bishop Ford

Nov 28, Mr [redacted] brought is Ford F-in for repair on Sept 17, Mileage was logged in at 115,milesHe stated the vehicle was running rough and that the RPM would increase when his foot was off the gasWe performed an inspectionand found an internal transmission failure_ Mr [redacted] approved the replacement of the transmissionWe replaced the transmission in accordance with the Ford workshop manualMr [redacted] picked up his vehicle on Sept 22, 2016_ Mr [redacted] claims he took his vehicle immediately to Ford of Escondido when he noticed it leaking fluidAccording to the paperwork, he took it in on Oct 11, Mileage was logged in at 117,This was days and miles laterFord of Escondido diagnosed the leaking coming from the dipstick tube o-ringThe work that was completed for Mr [redacted] was a transmission replacementNowhere in the Ford workshop manual does it advise replacing the dipstick tube o-ringThe dipstick tube 0-ring is not replaced with a transmission replacement, therefore it is not covered under warrantyShould you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact meSincerely,Tony Russell Service Manager

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 10, 2015/08/28) */ Customer came in 6/23/with overheat issueUpon inspection, found faulty reservoir capAlso found transmission fluid leak while working on vehAdvised customer, received authorization to repairAfter repairs, customer took vehand returned with overheating, found reservoir splitReplaced reservoir, customer took vehthen promptly returned with same issueAdvised customer that problem would most likely be faulty heads, or head gaskets, at which time customer declined further repairOn issue of improper oil viscosity, his transmission only uses one fluid, which is what was installedOn issue of the driveline, when ujoint was replaced, driveline was re-aligned as it was dis-assembled Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 12, 2015/08/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The maintenance shop did not run an engine diagnostic test on my vehicle or they then would have found that various sensors were at fault for the overheating issues rather than guessing that the engine heads could be at fault which they are notSix separate codes were discovered by a repair shop in Reno which consequently led to the identification of the faulty sensorsThe Bishop shop did not deduce that the overheating issues were due to a faulty radiator cap, I told them that they only verified the factOn the issue of the drive line, the center support baring bracket that was disconnected for the replacement of the u-joint, was not fastened properly therefore the bracket was discovered loosely hanging in place and is assumedly responsible for the damage done to the drive line

Mr, *** had an internal transmission failureWe replaced the transmissionThe dipstick tube o-ring is not part of the transmissionOur technician has advised us that he looked at the o-ring while replacing the transmission and said that it appeared ok to himThe Ford workshop manual does not advise replacing the o-ring, Mr*** was advised that any transmission problems would be covered under warrantyUnfortunately, the faulty dipstick tube o-ring does not fall under a transmission problemHowever, if Mr*** had been able to return to us, we would have been happy to replace the o-ring

I am rejecting this response because:
Bishop Ford promised me that if I had any issues with the transmission, " I
could take it to any Ford Dealer in the nation to have it repaired
under warranty". By not replacing the 11 year old $13.94 o-ring seal
they deprived me of the warranty they promised! Had they replaced the seal, it would have been covered by warranty.Furthermore,, every dealer and mechanic I have spoken to says they always replace old seals because the rubber gets hard over time and is unlikely to seal again. I would have never questioned a $13.94 charge on the original invoice for a dipstick tube seal. Bishop Ford mentions that I drove 1300 miles and waited 19 days before reporting the issue. That is irrelevant and baseless because it clearly states on the back of the invoice that according to the California Song -Beverly Act that I have 60 days with no mileage limit and the 60 days is extended until it is fixed if reported within 60 days. Bishop also repeatedly stated that it WAS covered under warranty during all of the calls I made to them after I discovered the leak. It wasn't until I started to seek a refund that they changed their story about it being covered. They deprived me of the warranty they promised and it cost me $265.06 to have it repaired. I don't think anyone would expect to receive a leaking transmission from a dealer after paying over $3000 to have it replaced.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/08/28) */
Customer came in 6/23/15 with overheat issue. Upon inspection, found faulty reservoir cap. Also found transmission fluid leak while working on veh. Advised customer, received authorization to repair. After repairs, customer took veh. and...

returned with overheating, found reservoir split. Replaced reservoir, customer took veh. then promptly returned with same issue. Advised customer that problem would most likely be faulty heads, or head gaskets, at which time customer declined further repair. On issue of improper oil viscosity, his transmission only uses one fluid, which is what was installed. On issue of the driveline, when ujoint was replaced, driveline was re-aligned as it was dis-assembled.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/08/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The maintenance shop did not run an engine diagnostic test on my vehicle or they then would have found that various sensors were at fault for the overheating issues rather than guessing that the engine heads could be at fault which they are not. Six separate codes were discovered by a repair shop in Reno which consequently led to the identification of the faulty sensors. The Bishop shop did not deduce that the overheating issues were due to a faulty radiator cap, I told them that they only verified the fact. On the issue of the drive line, the center support baring bracket that was disconnected for the replacement of the u-joint, was not fastened properly therefore the bracket was discovered loosely hanging in place and is assumedly responsible for the damage done to the drive line.

Nov 28, 2016 Mr. [redacted] brought is 2005 Ford F-150 in for repair on Sept 17, 2016. Mileage was logged in at 115,647 miles. He stated the vehicle was running rough and that the RPM would increase when his foot was off the gas. We performed an inspection. and found an internal transmission...

failure_ Mr. [redacted] approved the replacement of the transmission. We replaced the transmission in accordance with the Ford workshop manual. Mr. [redacted] picked up his vehicle on Sept 22, 2016_ Mr. [redacted] claims he took his vehicle immediately to Ford of Escondido when he noticed it leaking fluid. According to the paperwork, he took it in on Oct 11, 2016. Mileage was logged in at 117,014. This was 19 days and 1367 miles later. Ford of Escondido diagnosed the leaking coming from the dipstick tube o-ring. The work that was completed for Mr. [redacted] was a transmission replacement. Nowhere in the Ford workshop manual does it advise replacing the dipstick tube o-ring. The dipstick tube 0-ring is not replaced with a transmission replacement, therefore it is not covered under warranty. Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Tony Russell Service Manager