LKQ of Stockton

Review: on 9/23/2015 I purchased a engine from LKQ for $1500. I then paid $900.00 to have it installed only to find out it was a bad engine. I took it to main auto repair in Manteca to have it looked at further.It was then verified that the engine was not good and running off very low compression. I purchased this engine with a warranty so I filed the warranty claim with LKQ on 11/20/2015. It took a couple weeks for them to send an inspector to the shop. They did verify the engine was bad however they felt the need to run more test. I didn't have a problem with them doing that however I did see a problem with them wanting me to cover very high expenses for them to do so. meaning I would now have to pay for main auto repair to remove the engine for these further inspections. Apparently they need to determine whether the fault was of LKQ or the mechanic. keep in mind my car has only had 1 extra mile from the time the engine was bought and installed so It has not been driven. I don't know much of anything about cars but my mechanic has been very helpful in explaining what is going on and we are both confused on how they are figuring it is anything else but a bad engine they sold me plain and simple. This is why purchases come with warranties, so customers are assured of a working engine. why should I have to pay even more for this. All I want is for them to exchange my bad engine with a well working one that I paid good money for or simply take it back and give me a refund. I am tired of getting the run around every time I call.They are transfering me to other people. can someone please just give an answer once and for all.Desired Settlement: I have already paid not only to have this engine installed but I also paid to have main auto repair do the inspection with an LKQ inspector. they did verify the engine is bad and now they are expecting me to cover further cost for a second inspection and this is what I am disputing. I would like an exchange of my bad engine like my warranty guaranteed.

Business

Response:

The consumer was sold an engine that was run and tested prior to removal from our donor vehicle. An independent inspector was sent out to determine symptoms and possible causes. Based on the findings of the independent inspection, there are symptoms that may be due to installer error or some foreign debris that entered the cylinder after delivery, causing the issues. Due to the fact that engine was run and tested prior to delivery and sealed, to determine if this is a covered failure from our component, LKQ cannot authorize anything to be performed.The engine was sold with a parts only warranty [redacted]), with no labor coverage, and there is evidence of a possible installation issue of the engine ingesting foreign debris, we authorized $100 for additional tear down and final inspection in the event that the failure was an LKQ issue, and will not cover the additional tear down if it is installer issue/Foreign debris that made it into cylinder from installation or some other outside source.The purchaser has refused to authorize diagnosis to allow and/or facilitate liability. Without being determine cause of failure, liability cannot be determined.Overall installation to a 3rd party inspector seemed poor.[redacted]The consumer was instructed that engine to be removed for inspection and given necessary authorizations so that liability can be determined.

Consumer

Response:

In response to LKQ. In regards to the so called debris in the head gaskets. When [redacted],my mechanic at Main Auto Repair, inspected the engine he administered a pressure check to both sides of the engine to check the compression. He found 110 psi and 120 psi on right and left sides. Compression should be at least 165 psi. LKQ sent an independent inspector to look over the situation. You can see from the invoice I faxed previously , that the inspector and my mechanic performed a variety of test verifying the compression on cylinders one and five both had 120 psi, all other cylinders had 0 compression. They also performed a leak down test on cylinders 3 & 4 and it did not hold pressure for leak down. The inspector stated the engine was bad and to leave it unassembled. According to [redacted] and his mechanic there was no conversation about debris being found whatsoever.[redacted] also stated had there been any debris that it would have been blown out from the pressure of the compression check and wouldn't have made a difference either way regarding the performance of the engine. He is willing to be contacted so you can verify his statements.As far as declining the shop to pull the engine it is true but in a different aspect of the conversation. LKQ offered $100 towards the additional $1,500 of labor I was going to incur to have the defective engine removed for yet another inspection. The parts warranty should not have been an issue as the inspector had already declared the engine bad during the first inspection. There has been much anxiety caused on this issue dating back to October that now I would just like to request a refund from LKQ opposed to a replacement engine and be done with this fabricating company.Sincerely, [redacted]

Review: During the month of December 2014 my factory transmission from a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee failed. I proceeded to take the vehicle to my local shop [redacted] in San Leandro where I was issued a "new-used transmission." About a month later the replacement transmission began to fail. A second install was completed under my 6 month warranty. As of March of 2015, the transmission has failed again. I talked to [redacted], the head mechanic, about who the supplier was (LKQ) and they followed up by sending an inspector to determine the cause of failure and whether or not it can be replaced a third time. The inspector passed the news that the cause was due to the driver and abuse, such as off-roading and mud. However, although I hava off-roaded with this vehicle in the past, this transmission was strictly used only on pavement and under no circumstances was it used in off-road conditions. Although the underbody of the vehicle presented mud and debris, the transmission itself was completely clear of any abuse, dirt, mud, etc and has never been touched or used anywhere else but city streets and the highway.Desired Settlement: The original cost of this transmission was a flat 1700 dollars. This does not include the troubles and time taken from family and close friends to resolve the issues, in addition to time and gas wasted while the vehicle was in the shop for all 2 replacements. This also includes the first replacement which took a total of 14 days, an exceptionally long time for a transmission replacement. As a person who works on vehicles, I can say it shouldn't have taken more than 5 days to complete. Tot. $1700

Business

Response:

Company states: We will need the consumer's invoice number to look up the file. We were not able to locate the consumer with the information provided. Please confirm the purchaser's name and information for us to proceed.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: the purchase was made through [redacted] of San Leandro,[redacted], who has never provided me with the invoice number in regards to the purchase. All billing was filed through him, and I never received a copy of the invoice for the purchase.

Business

Response:

An independent inspection was sent to the repair facility on or about 04/10/2015, and some issues arose that appear to be installation and/or vehicle related. It was requested for those items to be rectified so we could re-inspect the vehicle as the first inspection showed. There were numerous leaks external of the transmission during the first inspection, which may cause low fluid level. We had asked for some additional information and that the vehicle was at the shop subsequently on or about 04/24/2015, post previous inspection. The repair facility stated that the vehicle was not present and the vehicle owner just wanted a replacement. Our company is attempting to determine if there is an actual failure of the transmission purchased by the repair facility, or other items that are causing symptoms that we have been unable to verify. The repair facility reported that the vehicle owner refused this, as they only wanted a replacement unit.Our warranty disclaimer is provided with the invoice provided to the repair facility that purchased the transmission, and we are attempting to work within the scope of our warranty with the repair facility. Numerous adjustments, if not performed may cause subsequent failure of the unit, so LKQ is attempting to work with repair facility on this matter. At this point in time, we cannot verify an issue, due to the vehicle not being present to inspect for failure and possible cause.[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:I was never given notice for an initial inspection, and instead was provided a replacement transmission without this inspections a a result of the first mechanical failure. In all cases the fluid levels checked ok. As a result of the last resolution to repair the problem, a full rebuild, it was noticed that numerous parts were worn down and burned such as the reverse band, all clutch plates, steels, and multiple gear. In addition, your previous claim is completely irrelevant to the information I was given. I was told that I was being accused of abusing the transmission due to the fact that there was mud located in the underbody. Upon removal of the transmission, no mud was to be found on the unit itself which complies with my statement that the transmission was never used off road and that the debris was accumulated over a trip many months prior to receiving this unit.

Business

Response:

The transmission in question was sold to [redacted], and it was requested for subsequent inspection by LKQ, in accordance with our warranty, as previously outlined in our response. Band adjustment is a maintenance item, as is throttle pressure adjustment, both of which play part into the proper operation of the supplied item, as is our right to inspect, of which LKQ had attempted to do. The installing shop stated to LKQ that the vehicle owner did not have the vehicle at repair facility and was just requesting a replacement unit, thereby refusal to allow subsequent inspection. Video was taken at time of first inspection showing the transmission was capable of shifting through the gears on the rack, showing governor was functioning properly, as vehicle was shifting through pressure coming from the governor, providing pressure to the shift valves in the transmission facilitating a shift.Automatic shifting can be overridden by incorrect throttle valve adjustment, and incorrect throttle valve adjustment can reduce pressures and cause excessive clutch wear, delayed shifting and/or slipping. There is also a check valve in the cooler line, to prevent delayed engagement, where as a stuck check valve can cause unwarrantable failure. This is housed in the transmission cooler line. If it is plugged from previous failure(s), it can cause a loss of lubrication to the transmission, and possibly stalling of the engine during a garage shift or coming to a complete stop.LKQ was attempting to facilitate diagnosis as to possible cause and remedy to the issue at hand and was refused. At that point in time, due to refusal of allowing vehicle to be present for inspection, LKQ was not allowed to continue with warranty and inspection process as outlined in our warranty.?

Review: We purchased a motor from LKQ - refurbished car engine. 4 days after "warrantee gaurentee Engine" It broke down and LKQ refuses to replace it it has a valve problem their inspector said and is covered by warentee. They refused a receipt to be sent to me. I eventually a receipt to be sent to me. I eventually got it from the garage where it was shipped. We paid $1584.43 to have the motor put in also invoice #[redacted]The motor they sold us lasted 4 days only! Also we made several calls - they refused a supervisor.Desired Settlement: Replace broken motor & or refund my money

Business

Response:

Company states: This was sold [redacted] in Santa Rosa. A claim was filed. Our tech support was contacting the shop to diagnose what was wrong with the engine. The shop refused to pull the head to inspect underneath he cylinder. We offered to cover the 2.6 hours. They refused. We have not heard anything since.

Business

Response:

Company states: This was sold [redacted] in Santa Rosa. A claim was filed. Our tech support was contacting the shop to diagnose what was wrong with the engine. The shop refused to pull the head to inspect underneath he cylinder. We offered to cover the 2.6 hours. They refused. We have not heard anything since.

Consumer

Response:

LKQ statement is as follows. LKQ Stockon refused a receipt warantee or any other written info to me. Claiming [redacted] Garage purchasedMotor as far as warantee a local Ford inspector was sent to [redacted] to inspect motor said it was bad valve. LKQ never contacted me. January of 2015 I began calling again & was told LKQ would pay 2.6 hr @ $50 an hour to [redacted] garage to remove the heads when the inspector returned to observe several phone calls went unanswered dropped - voice mail with no response. I asked for a supervisor several times but was told no one available & passed on to several different people none of whom cold come to resolution. I never got my 175$ core charge returned either. Many calls were dropped, unanswered or I was left on hold 20 mins. then cut off. [redacted]

Business

Response:

This engine was sold to [redacted] Foreign Car Garage, was run and tested. A field inspector was sent, and a problem was found, with an unknown cause. Prior to replacement, cause of failure needs to be determined so liability can be determined. Communications should be from shop to LKQ, of which shop didn't wish to remove the cylinder head for subsequent inspection at what we had requested for inspections (labor agreement was not purchased on the engine), as to determine the cause of the failure.We have not received a call from the shop regarding this claim or that the cylinder head has been removed for subsequent inspection.LKQ is attempting to see if the failure was a part failure or possible installation or operational caused failure per our warranty as listed below.http://www.lkqcorp.com/Portals/13/PDFs/Warranty%20PDFs/mechanical_warranty...⇄ />
Consumer

Response:

A) Engine was purchased by myself as an individual. Shipping was to [redacted] Garage where vehicle was located.B) Sales Assoc. [redacted] knew full well a private party, Me, [redacted]) was purchasing the motor. We had a conversation about my daughter being a commercial fisherman out for the season opener on Dungeness crab at the time, which is why I was buying the motor for her and how badly she needed a vehicle for commute to the beach for work.C) At no time was a labor agreement mentioned. Actually [redacted] told me there were 2 (two) motors available, once which had 100% compression in all cylinders (the other was %85) and I said 100% is good right. He replied "Yes" and it comes with a 6 month full guarantee. I said "well take it"D) Several requests for a receipt or warantee paperwork were denied to me.E) I feel as tho' I had a verbal contract with the sales rep. [redacted] and believed it was in good faith. As rep. for LKQ I told him and company LKQ responsible for selling me a bad product; which failed after 4 (four) days. I truly do not forsee this series of events which has been costly in it financially, stressful and unfortunate result.In closing - If the inspector found a problem with the motor, which is "guaranteed" I believe it should have been replaced long ago and with out any further cost to me as the consumer.Sincerely,Thank you[redacted]

Business

Response:

The billing was under assumption the purchase was for an Agent of [redacted]'s Garage, and not disputed upon delivery of the part. [redacted]'s Foreign Garage accepted the liability on the part upon receipt of the engine, also denoted as no sales tax on the invoice. Lack of sales tax on the invoice denotes that the person paying would be acting as an agent for [redacted]'s Foreign car garage, and accepted that term. All documentation can be found at [redacted]s Foreign Car, as they accepted the Tax exempt billing for the engine.It was previously noted the LKQ warranty, via hyperlink to our warranty, what is covered and what is not, along with what was offered. We need to determine liability, and the warranty is "Limited" and it was disclosed.A problem was found, but cause is not determined on the engine, and we are currently at a "standstill". Labor and consequential damages are not covered by the LKQ parts replacement promise.We have offered, in the event it is found to not be installation issue, 2.6 Hrs @ $50 per hour for cylinder head removal.If it is found to be installation error, then this will not be a covered failure. This can only be determined by removing cylinder head for cause of failure.As it was billed to a Wholesale account, you need to communicate with [redacted] Foreign car.

Consumer

Response:

Consumer states: [redacted]'s Garage is going to open only the open the one cylinder head this week and if LKQ can come by Friday to inspect it would work. [redacted]'s garage is not open on Saturday on Sunday.

Consumer

Response:

Consumer states: I have not received any communication from the company since sending my last message. I am trying to get them to come out and inspect the engine. My shop has already removed the heads and we are waiting for someone from LKQ to come out.

Consumer

Response:

Consumer states: I have not received any communication from the company since sending my last message. I am trying to get them to come out and inspect the engine. My shop has already removed the heads and we are waiting for someone from LKQ to come out.

Business

Response:

Please have the repair facility contact LKQ with his invoice number to start a new claim.The repair facility will need to call the Toll Free number with their invoice number..we can start claim and re-inspect.

Review: I purchased an engine from this company over the phone with [redacted] of LKQ Corporation (Redding Auto Center, Inc.)for my car and it was delivered directly to the repair shop. I was told that the engine I was to purchase had a six month warranty with parts and labor included. The mechanic installed the engine and determined that the engine that was supplied was no good. It has several cylinder misfires and a compression of 95 PSI. Myself and the repair shop owner informed [redacted] of LKQ about the problems with the engine. LKQ claims that engine is in good working order when testing proved otherwise. After several phone conversations with [redacted] of LKQ, I was told that I would receive a refund. I contacted LKQ a week later to check on refund status and was informed that [redacted] had been fired and that I would not be getting a refund. Not only do I have all of my receipts, I also have email correspondence from [redacted] and claims adjuster.Desired Settlement: I want a complete refund for the engine that I purchased in the amount of $872.00 and a refund for labor charges in the amount of $1120.00. I am also requesting that LKQ pays repair shop to remove the bad engine from my car (unknown amount to be discussed with repair shop).This has caused a hardship on myself and my family. I have been paying for a rental car for almost two months now because of this unresolved issue.