Goldberg General Contracting

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards,From my experience, what [redacted] wrote in his response to my complaint is mostly false First, I strongly believe that they did not perform the initial compression test, as was requested I spoke with two former employees, and they both said that they were required to write the compression test readings on the customer’s invoice [redacted] ’s copy may now have some numbers written on it, but they were not put on my paperwork He also did not tell me what these numbers were until after I told him the new compression numbers and detailed my issue, therefore I do not believe the initial numbers he later told me He stated that “many engines sit for a period of time and develop stuck rings and other problems from improper storage.” I brought it in on April 5th and picked it up on 5/03/ Mine sat as a winterized watercraft for approximately two weeks before we took it out on the water on May 24th of Watercrafts sit months at a time as they are designed to when properly winterized Sitting two weeks, especially after having been thoroughly cleaned, is no problem for this engine In the “second” compression check, it showed a “significant drop,” but again, this is after I told him the compression numbers I received elsewhere I’ve worked on cars for 20+ years, and have never seen a drop of this magnitude over such a short period of time In [redacted] ’s response, he is making it out to say that I refused to pay for the testing and it was released at no charge I attempted to speak with [redacted] at the time to talk it through, but he REFUSED to come to the front of the shop and talk to me, and waived fees for the “second” compression test – which only shows me that he has doubt that the first test was ever actually doneIn fact the second compression test reading were on the second invoiceI do have copy In response to [redacted] saying that he told me to not invest any further money – that is absolutely false I was told that the motor was “like new,” only needed a new battery, and that the carburetors needed to be rebuilt He said I never “verified the mechanical longevity of the machine” – but that is what I was supposedly paying them for It is not as if I came into their shop and gave them a maximum budget that I did not want to exceed I told them to make it right so that I did not break down Much to my dismay, on the second brief run on the water – with my wife on the back – it broke down She thought I was kidding and I wish I was Each time I tried to go out afterwards, it would break down and I would have to be towed in by a stranger In actuality, I did look over the machine when I received it Between my inspection and my second mechanic’s more thorough inspection, we found (and have photos documenting some of the below items): - - The exhaust that they welded was not even strapped downIt was completely loose - - The mechanical bilge hose was completely dry rotted, which I replaced - - Bolts in the skid plate were missing and broken off, which I replaced - - Diaphragms swollen in carburetors - - Unprofessional welding in the exhaust - - Burnt seals in the exhaust that were a product of poor welding When I called him about the watercraft needing a new motor, he did not tell me about replacing only the top end He told me that he tried to tell me not to bring it there in the first place since they don’t like to work on machines of this age In truth, he never told me this and was nothing but eager to bring it in and work on it So why would he be saying that they could potentially save me money by only rebuilding the top end? I clearly saw after this conversation and after what I saw that they were unprofessional and untrustworthy My watercraft obviously needed a new motor and may or may not have needed some of the fixes that I paid them to do The whole ordeal was handled unprofessionally and I did not want them working on my machine

*** ***,
What seems to be your major point is the compression
testThe compression test was most certainly performedThis is one
of the first tests performed, if the craft fails this test there
would be no reason to move forwardI'm sorry that you don't believe this,
but this fact stands and I am quite confident of the factQuestion yourself,
if it wasn’t done the first thing the first time, why was it done first thing
the second timeBecause it wasn’t done the first time???? This makes no sense
It is true that
it mandatory for the compression test results be written on every work order,
it wasIt does not show up on every receiptThe receipt is what you received
There is a lot of information collected by techs and other employees that never
makes it to the receiptIf there is a question of any of this information a
copy of the work order will be providedJust as it was provided for you
The comments
given to you about engines that sit are based on the conversation you had with
the tech, and only relate to the time it sat before you purchased the machine
Also, you now state it was winterized, not by usHowever, you seem very
confident in that service and that service maybe where this problem startedImproper
winterization is a prime cause of failed enginesi.estuck rings
You comment on
being a mechanic for over years, we don't doubt your abilitystrokes and
strokes can, do and will lose compression fast depending on the failure
within i.ea stroke that drops a valve will lose compression fastA stroke
can also lose compression quickly for the reasons presented to you in my first
response So I’m not sure of your comments
about “never seeing a drop in compression of this magnitude in such a short
period of time”. After all how can the engine that supposedly has no
compression run good even the first timeLet alone the second time if only briefly
Engines don’t magically regain lost compression
We’ve
apologized for the forgotten strap on the mufflerThis however was most
certainly not the reason why the engine failed
With regard to the bolts on the skid plate,
I believe you to mean "RIDE PLATE", are not listed on the repair
order as a problemThe bilge hose that is rotted was never listed on our
repair order to be replacedThese items know to you but not noted to us would
not have been repairedYour complaint #won’t cold startWas repairedYour
compliant #exhaust water leakWas repaired*These are the only two items
you signed for and the only two items we repairedWith the addition of a
batteryThese repairs were done within your budget We did not restore your ski and put a guarantee
on it that it would never failAfter all the machine is years oldHow it
looks is a judgment callThe choice to continue repairs with the information
given was yours and yours alone
If the diaphragms in the carbs were swollen it
is due to a fuel additiveWe only use genuine Mikuni carburetor parts and have
only seen this when aftermarket fuel additives are usedYou weren't billed to
drain and replace the fuel so this was not doneWe were not told of any
additives in the fuel and have no way to test for themNot without saying an
excessive amount of fuel additives could have certainly caused an engine
failure
You were billed
to R&I the exhaust parts and prep to weldYou were never charged for the
weldingThis repair was authorize by you just to get rid of the JB WELD that
was smeared on the pipe to keep it from leaking in the first placeThat being
the state of the machine when you brought it to usThis repair was done to
save you the cost of the new components*To quote, "see if it runs before
you put more money into it" To stay within your budgetThere are no
"seals” in the exhaust system that burnt due to the poor welding”The
welding was the best that could be expected on a piece of corroded cast
aluminum and this repair was never meant to be permanent You know this to be true. Also, the exhaust
piece in question is only a part of a water jacket, it only holds water
inIf it doesn’t leak it is doing its jobThe JB Weld repair was leaking and
could have fallen off causing the ski to sinkThis is why we took the time to weld
itThis is again, I don’t believe to be the reason for the engine
failureIf there was burnt seals, it was due to an engine overheat at some
point in the crafts life not the welding
You have obviously
found previous employees; people in which I spent a lot of time to trainIf
you are happy with their knowledge you must consider the source of that
knowledgeIf you are happy with their service, I'm happy for youYou were
never charged for anything that wasn't doneWhat happened I will never know? You
refused us the chance to open up the failed engineI was more than willing to
work with you until you stood at the register toting your refusal to pay for
anythingIf the only reason to have come to front was to have another discussion
of you not paying in front of our customers, I gladly declinedWhen you refuse
to pay for our services, no further services will be offered All this and when you called, I took your
phone call and offered to help again You
have beautiful year old ski with a new engineYou have a new mechanic your
happy withCould we just move on?

Dear Revdex.com,
  [redacted] brought in a 99 YA XL700 on 4/5/14. We
looked over the ski and performed a compression test. These numbers are
recorded on his shop R.O. as Cylinder #1 140 / Cylinder #2 145 as these
readings are within 10% cylinder to cylinder,...

close to the readings of a newer
engine and there were only other minor concerns, the engine was deemed good. Repairs
to craft began with his approval.       
  Many engines that
sit for a period of time develop stuck rings and other problems from improper
storage. They produce good compression numbers until the cylinder wears and
because the rings won’t move, they are then unable to seal to the cylinder
walls. Engines ran previously with dirty carburetors can develop a lean situation
causing a 4 corner seizure. This is because the cylinder gets too hot causing
the piston to expand beyond its clearance sticking the rings and damaging these
components.  
 [redacted] was
cautioned by the tech not to invest any further money into his machine until he
was sure that any issue like this would not occur. [redacted] didn’t take this
advice. Instead he did a nice job fixing up this machine, painting and
replacing upholstery but never took the time to verify the mechanical longevity
of the machine. He fixed it up more then rode it. By his own account the
machine ran good. If it ran good for him, then it ran good for us when it left
our shop.
 We are good mechanics however, we are not good enough to make
something run for a few hours then
fail.  We have no way to crawl inside of an
engine and inspect every piece.  All we
can do is work with what we see then counsel the consumer with that knowledge
and our previous experience.
 [redacted] returned
with a complaint of the engine stalling on 6/07/14; this is over a month later.
Not a few hours. We performed a compression test. The test showed a significant
drop from the previous test. [redacted] was called and the condition was
explained. He deemed not to have any teardown or estimate completed. He arrived
to pick-up his machine and refused to pay us for our testing. His machine was
released to him “NO CHARGE”.
 [redacted] then called.
He spoke with me stating his craft needed a new engine. I asked how he was sure
that the whole engine needed replacement and not just the top end rebuilt. Most
Yamahas have a very durable bottom ends and if the rings had gotten stuck from
sitting or there was another cause maybe we could save him some money. He just
continued to voice his displeasure and refused to bring the machine back to us.
This is where the conversations ended.
 We work on hundreds
of PWC’s every year. We see this same thing happen every season, although many
more times we are able to give the consumer a reliable craft that will last
them for many more years with the proper maintenance. We will continue with
this philosophy as more often than not the results are positive.
Sincerely,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,From my experience, what [redacted] wrote in his response to my complaint is mostly false. 
First, I strongly believe that they did not perform the initial compression test, as was requested.  I spoke with two former employees, and they both said that they were required to write the compression test readings on the customer’s invoice.  [redacted]’s copy may now have some numbers written on it, but they were not put on my paperwork.  He also did not tell me what these numbers were until after I told him the new compression numbers and detailed my issue, therefore I do not believe the initial numbers he later told me.
He stated that “many engines sit for a period of time and develop stuck rings and other problems from improper storage.”  I brought it in on April 5th and picked it up on 5/03/14.  Mine sat as a normal winterized watercraft for approximately two weeks before we took it out on the water on May 24th of 2014.  Watercrafts sit months at a time as they are designed to when properly winterized.  Sitting two weeks, especially after having been thoroughly cleaned, is no problem for this engine. 
In the “second” compression check, it showed a “significant drop,” but again, this is after I told him the compression numbers I received elsewhere.  I’ve worked on cars for 20+ years, and have never seen a drop of this magnitude over such a short period of time.  In [redacted]’s response, he is making it out  to say that I refused to pay for the testing and it was released at no charge.  I attempted to speak with [redacted] at the time to talk it through, but he REFUSED to come to the front of the shop and talk to me, and waived fees for the “second” compression test – which only shows me that he has doubt that the first test was ever actually done. In fact the second compression test reading were on the second invoice. I do have copy.
In response to [redacted] saying that he told me to not invest any further money – that is absolutely false.  I was told that the motor was “like new,” only needed a new battery, and that the carburetors needed to be rebuilt.  He said I never “verified the mechanical longevity of the machine” – but that is what I was supposedly paying them for.  It is not as if I came into their shop and gave them a maximum budget that I did not want to exceed.  I told them to make it right so that I did not break down.  Much to my dismay, on the second brief run on the water – with my wife on the back – it broke down.  She thought I was kidding and I wish I was.  Each time I tried to go out afterwards, it would break down and I would have to be towed in by a stranger.
In actuality, I did look over the machine when I received it.  Between my inspection and my second mechanic’s more thorough inspection, we found (and have photos documenting some of the below items):
-        -   The exhaust that they welded was not even strapped down. It was completely loose.
-        -   The mechanical bilge hose was completely dry rotted, which I replaced.
-        -   Bolts in the skid plate were missing and broken off, which I replaced.
-        -   Diaphragms swollen in carburetors.
-         -  Unprofessional welding in the exhaust.
-         -  Burnt seals in the exhaust that were a product of poor welding.
When I called him about the watercraft needing a new motor, he did not tell me about replacing only the top end.  He told me that he tried to tell me not to bring it there in the first place since they don’t like to work on machines of this age.  In truth, he never told me this and was nothing but eager to bring it in and work on it.  So why would he be saying that they could potentially save me money by only rebuilding the top end?
I clearly saw after this conversation and after what I saw that they were unprofessional and untrustworthy.  My watercraft obviously needed a new motor and may or may not have needed some of the fixes that I paid them to do.  The whole ordeal was handled unprofessionally and I did not want them working on my machine.