Meehan Automobiles, Inc.

In October 2013 we purchased a used 2006 suv with very low miles. On our test drive we expressed concern over the extremely loud rear of the car. We were told the car had aggressive tires which we would not be used to. Our salesman told us the estimated mpg, and gave us a quick sales pitch and we purchased the suv. Within the first month the car began to not start properly, as well as shake when the brakes were applied. We took it back to Imperial, and after 2 days the car was returned to us on Christmas Eve with all new brakes and a new fuel pump. Although they cover the repairs, the car should not have been sold in such a bad state. In March of 2014 we needed wheel bearings, but when we brought the car in to our own mechanic to be looked at we were given a long list of all the other repairs needed. We brought the list to Imperial and they did fix the items. In October we had a major issue with our ABS system, and the inability to stop. I contacted the Imperial service dept managed, but I got no response. The car was out of commission for 5 days and we had to take it to 2 repair shops to get fixed. We paid for all that repair. Now, this week we had another issue with the brakes, the car shook front to end when applying the brakes. Again it took 4 days to determine the cause. All issues are related to brakes, and all are out of the norm as far as brake jobs go. I have sent documentation to Imperial regarding these last 2 issues, and I am waiting to see if I get any resolution. However, we feel that this is just far too many extensive and expensive items to have repaired within the first year of ownership. Clearly there is something wrong with the car that slapping a band aid on just won't fix. Oh, and the mpg we were stated is not even close to what we get- and would have been a real deal breaker!

Dealership told me that the original tires with 1,193 total miles would not pass inspection. Pressured me to buy set of tires which was unnecessary.In early August of 2014 I brought my 2012 Corvette C6 Z06 in for its annual safety inspection. Was told upon arrival that the car would not pass inspection due to excessive tire wear. The tires had 1,193 total miles on them approximately 900 of which were highway miles. The Service Manager stated that because a white line was visible on the tires they had worn too much and would need to be replaced and an alignment performed (the visible white line will become very important to this issue shortly).One rear tire had a puncture in it which I knew of and wanted replaced.The alignment results provided to me after the service was performed showed that all initial readings were within the manufacturer's spec limits.Additionally, the authorized Chevrolet dealership was not equipped to install the replacement tires on the factory wheels and charged an additional $350 for mounting of the new tires.As I am a German national, I asked a local friend to contact Mr. [redacted]. [redacted] at Imperial Chevrolet to discuss the situation the following week. My friend, [redacted] contacted Mr. [redacted] by phone and was assured that at the very least, a refund for the front tires was being processed. Mr. Susienka stated that the factory tires were no longer available which required replacement of both rear tires for performance/safety reasons once the one tire was punctured.The original factory tires are still available so the replacement of only one tire was required.I contacted [redacted] directly and was informed that the white line is applied during the manufacture of the tires and that with normal driving it will "disappear as the tire wears". So the white line that the dealership cited as a wear indicator, according to the manufacturer, really indicates how little wear had occurred at the time of the inspection!I contacted the dealership on 11 September 2014 to ask the status of the refund and, to date, have received no response.At the least, the dealership personnel who serviced the car are incompetent, at worst, they are attempting to take advantage of me as English is not my first language.Desired SettlementReimbursement for the cost of one rear tire ($728.87)Reimbursement for the cost of two front tires($1264.12)Reimbursement for the mounting fee of $350.00Reimbursement for the unnecessary alignment: $69.95Business Response We will be reaching out directly to the customer today, Management was told that this hand been handled by the manager, who is no longer with us. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)After Imperial Chevrolet responded to the initial complaint having been posted, my US representative, Mr. [redacted] contacted Mr. [redacted] on 17 October 2014. Mr. [redacted] was unavailable but called back shortly thereafter. Once the situation was explained by Mr. [redacted] Mr. [redacted] stated that he would "look into the situation and be back to you today". Approximately 10 minutes later, Mr. [redacted] called to get additional information which was immediately provided. There was no further contact on 17 October 2014. There was no further contact on 20 October 2014. On 21 October 2014, Mr. [redacted] called Mr. Walsh and left a message with [redacted] to have Mr. [redacted] call back. There was no further contact on 21 October 2014. On 22 October 2014, Mr. [redacted] called Mr. [redacted] and left a message with [redacted] to have Mr. [redacted] call back. Within minutes, Mr. [redacted] called Mr. [redacted] and stated "I did not forget about you. I will have this case settled tomorrow afternoon" (Tomorrow afternoon indicating 23 October 2014). As of the writing of this reply, Imperial Chevrolet has yet to contact Mr. [redacted] The dealership's apparent response to defrauding a customer is to ignore repeated attempts at an amicable resolution. As of today, october 23rd, 2014 the dealership had failed to respond to our phone calls and that the matter has not been resolved to my satisfaction.[redacted] H. [redacted]Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)At 10:00AM on 17 November 2014, a meeting with Mr. [redacted] Sr., an employee of the dealership, a service representative from Imperial Chevrolet and Mr. [redacted] my representative in the U. S. on this matter took place at the company's Mendon, MA Chevy dealership.Mr. [redacted] provided access to the tires for inspection.Mr. [redacted] measured the tread depth and stated that the depth was approximately 4/32". Mr. [redacted] stated that tread depths can range to 18/32 for some truck tires.It was explained again that the tires in question are [redacted] highperformance tires and that they come from the factory with little tread depth initially.The Imperial service representative explained to Mr. [redacted] that the tires start with only a 5/32" tread depth. Mr. [redacted] stated that the tires were not stock on the Corvette and the service representative stated that they were in fact stock for certain models.It was explained to Mr. [redacted] that, as a result of a punctured right rear tire, it was anticipated that both rear tires would need to be replaced but that the front tires were fine and that Mr. [redacted] would be open to reimbursement for the front tires and the mounting fees for the same.Mr. [redacted] stated that he agreed the front tires would not require replacement in the reported scenario. Mr. [redacted] stated that he would speak with Mr. [redacted] and that Mr. [redacted] would receive a call later that day with a resolution.As of the writing of these comments at 10:30AM on 18 November 2014, Mr. White has yet to hear from Mr. [redacted]Final Business Response Per my conversation with Mr. White we have agreed to reimburse the cost of 2 tires and the mounting and balancing fee of those 2 tires. I explained to Mr. White that on a vehicle like his that tires should be changed in pairs per axle.