The Tire Guys

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 17, 2016/05/19) */
Ref Case # XXXXXXXX
Ms [redacted]
The following is in response to Mr. [redacted]'s letter.
His vehicle had come into our facility with a severe drivability problem. Vehicles check engine light was on and fault codes were recorded as p0300,...

p0304, p0305, and p0307 all related to engine misfires. Vehicle components were visually inspected and found that spark plugs were fouled, distributer cap and rotor had signs of arcing (ignition sparks "jumping" outside of the cap & rotor). Additionally there was carbon tracking, the primary circuit of ignition coil were out of factory specification, and the throttle plates (part of fuel delivery) had excessive buildup as well as liquid fuel visible when viewed through the throttle plate. We have pictures of faulty components also recorded. As per procedure we used our diagnostic software to confirm our diagnostic analysis. When the symptoms and fault codes were input, the software's final diagnosis confirmed our diagnosis. The software indicated there was a 97% success rate pursuing the replacement of the above components and performing the services.

The findings were presented to the Mr. [redacted] as well as options to either continue with repairs or stop at this point. Mr. [redacted] decided to continue with repairs. After components were replaced and vehicle was tested further code p0304 returned. Vehicle cylinder #4 further inspected and found that #4 exhaust pushrod had been damaged at some point in the past. Mr. [redacted] was then contacted and advised of damage to component as well as repair requirements to fix problem. Mr. [redacted] was not at any point advised that the vehicle would be okay to drive once the damaged pushrod was discovered. In fact, we counseled that the result from further use of vehicle could be possible damage to other vehicle components.

If another shop states that the dead cylinder should have been discovered, that shop suffers from the "hindsight is 20-20" or the "Monday morning quarterback" syndrome. If 97% of technicians (in our industry software) indicate that the given repairs will solve the engine runability issue the customer is having, then to waste the customers money pursuing a diagnosis with near zero probability of happening would not be right. Note all the above findings were detailed on the final invoice.
In regard to Mr. [redacted]'s business transaction at the Colton facility, the request for a refund of the tires is irrelevant. Mr. [redacted] requested 4 tires and paid for them. Typically tires are less expensive when purchased in a set of 4, as was the case here - so the price savings would have been Mr. [redacted]'s incentive to buy 4 tires.
Thanks,
[redacted] Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 19, 2016/05/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The store manager has made several statements that are completely untrue and this is the very first time that I have received any responses to my phone calls to the owners, the online email complaint, or the request from the Revdex.com up to this point. They had contacted the repair facility prior to any work beyond beyond the diagnosis being done at the other shop. The owner [redacted] stated they had asked him several questions and told him that they will contact me directly, which was never done until this. I was also told by the mechanic, [redacted] when I picked it up that the manager would contact me when he came in the next day with estimate of what it would cost me to continue beyond the 3 days and nearly $900 that I had already spent.
It is true that my vehicle came in with the engine light on and had a serious misfire, but it was the exact same way when it was returned to me! It the equipment that they relied on, as well as the visual inspection, etc. had eliminated those issues then I could understand the manager's statement of anyone after them being a Monday morning quarterback when the game is over. The game was not over! [redacted] said that I needed additional work and had no clue of how much or what was needed after three days in their shop. He states that I looked at the parts, was clearly advised on each step, and knew before I picked it up that I would leave with the exact same sypmtoms that I had $876 and three ago. I had agreed to two additional charges beyond the $120 initial diagnostic charge, but both with the understanding that they were necessary to returning my vehicle to the running condition it was before the light came on and began running poorly. [redacted] took me home in the only vehicle I had the day I dropped it off and I was not picked up again until close to closing time three days later. I had not shown any parts until that time. I was shown parts by [redacted] that he said was replaced on my truck and he had valve cover open and told that they had replace a rod and over adjusted another cylinder to compensate for a weak cylinder with the bent rod. I went into the showroom to pay as he was pulling my truck to the front of the store. I did not take the parts and believed that all of them had led to my truck being repaired. I paid the amount and started my truck and found the light still on and it missing in the same fashion as it was when it was brought in!!! I walked back into the store stating such and [redacted] said that he was told by the manager that I needed my truck that day and is why it was being released running the way it was (unrepaired!). I was on vacation and had plans that was delayed by the sudden running issues and the time and money that they had requested to repair my problem. That was the reason for purchasing the tires and having my truck in a shop the day before with the same company. Everything that I paid for and was replaced did not resolve my running issues, made the vehicle drivable, and could not be used when the engine was replaced by the Monday morning quarterbacks determined immediately that a vehicle producing the same service codes indicates that simply charging a customers for things that have not change the runability, performance, and does not eliminate the same condition that it had when it came is not good business.
I wrote them stating that my request for a refund for the tires as well is due to my lack of trust that I will be treated fairly if and when I have a need for service that they have already agreed to, like a warranty on my tires, alignment, road hazard warranty, etc. I had picked up my vehicle expecting to be contacted, I called and spoke to ** the owner who promised to get back to me, and had made a written request online and as I have stated earlier that this is the first time that I have been contacted and it had be done after several attempts to do so by the Revdex.com.