Sign in

Walton's Auto Care

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Walton's Auto Care? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Walton's Auto Care

Walton's Auto Care Reviews (2)

In response to the above referenced complaint, Walton's Auto Care received the vehicle in question on March 10, 2017. We performed a diagnostic on the engine the day we received it and the vehicle failed the injector tests for cylinders #3 and #6. The injectors were ordered from [redacted] on that day. At...

that time the customer disclosed that the vehicle had had several historical problems and that the exhaust and fuel system had been modified with after market deletes and performance enhancements. We installed both injectors and test drove the vehicle. The chief complaint was still present and the customer was advised that the engine would need to be removed and sent to an engine specialty shop for tear down and inspection. During the tear down the engine re-builder found the crankshaft main journals had been damaged and the crankshaft main journals had been damaged and the crankshaft was going to have to be replaced. The re-builder also noted that the affected cylinders corresponded with the cylinders we had diagnosed with bad fuel injectors. The customer was advised at this time and the decision was made to proceed with a complete re-manufacture of the costumes engine. Shortly after the re-builder informed us that the new crankshaft from [redacted] was only sold as part of a "short block" the re-builder stated that there would be no extra fees assessed with the short block so the customer was not contacted concerning that detail at that time. Again, no extra costs and the only method at the time was to procure a crankshaft for rebuild. The remainder of the engine, cylinder heads,valve train, camshaft, lifters, pushrods, oil delivery and all related gaskets were rebuilt and furnished by the re-builder using conventional methods. We received a complete rebuilt engine on May 1, 2017. The vehicle was put on schedule for for engine install. During the vehicle down time the customer supplied an after market turbocharge system for the vehicle. The customer stated that the turbo was meant for a different vehicle but with the customer supplied mounting that the turbo was meant for a different vehicle but with the customer supplied mounting that the turbo system should function properly in this vehicle. The engine assembly was installed and tested on May 30, 2017. Then vehicle was picked up by the customer on June 5, 2017. At that time the short block and crank shaft situation was explained to the customer. The customer returned for the complimentary oil change and inspection on June 20, 2017 with no complaints.The customer contacted me and stated that he had made it to Grand Junction, CO and when sitting at a stop light the vehicle developed a rough run or misfire condition. The customer stated that he was going to drop his trailer and find a service center. The customers second contact with me was that the [redacted] dealer in grand Junction had found a bad fuel injector in cylinder #2 and was inquiring what fuel injections we had replaced during our repairs. We advised the customer that cylinders 33 and #6 were replaced. On customers third contact with me he stated that he had been advised that there was a fifteen percent (15%) compression loss in cylinder #2 and that the engine would have to be removed for inspection. At that point I was referred to the service manager who was handling the customers vehicle but not the technician who was performing the diagnostics. The service manager stated that there was a forty percent (40%) decrease in compression in cylinder #2. At that point I made them aware that the pistons, crankshaft and all related parts were purchased through [redacted] and that if a piston or compression problem was found that I would be pursuing the appropriate warranties covered by [redacted]. At my second and last correspondence with the service manager I was informed that because of the after market modifications performed by the customer that all [redacted] warranties were null and void. I was also informed that a complete engine assembly had been ordered with the customers approval. I again inquired inquired as to the nature of the failure and the diagnosis of the malfunction. Piston failure was the answer to my  inquiry with no further explanation from the service manager. Shortly thereafter I was contacted by the customer stating negligence on the part of Walton's Auto Care was the cause due to a missing fastener in the engine valve train assembly. At that time the customer also voiced his displeasure with the engine short block and believed he was getting a rebuilt engine. Again, I explained that it was not normal practice during a rebuild to replace the short block but it was necessary at the time of repair to obtain the needed crank shaft. At this time I requested photographs of the damage or negligence and/or Anything at all to prove that there was a mechanical malfunction. The customer referred me to the service writer. I received no return telephone calls from the dealership that was performing the repairs from that point to date. Also, at that time the customer stated he was told that a fastener had been left out in the valve train and caused the malfunction. No evidence to support that claim has been provided.I did not hear from the customer for some time after that but when he eventually did call he asked me about his warranty. I advised him at that time that I needed evidence proving negligence or mechanical failure i.e. a photograph or the damaged parts showing whether or not any damage had actually occurred. Documentation and/or parts have not been provided to date. In conclusion, we feel that we have been more than accommodating to the customer under these circumstances. Additionally, we feel that requesting documentation from the customer or the repair facility to support the customers claim is reasonable request. We supplied the failed parts to the customer when he picked up the vehicle and, given the circumstances, I would think that the dealership would have tried to help him prove his complaint. In the dealerships invoice the labor description states that a broken rocker arm to cylinder #2 caused the damage. I wonder why that broken rock arm wasn't replaced to remedy the concerns? Why so many different compression numbers? Why was the failed fuel injector not replaced prior to the engine replacement? Why was the decision made to replace the entire engine instead of repairing the alleged damage? furthermore, why wasn't Walton's Auto Care provided the opportunity to refute those claims prior to the engine being ordered and installed? I am sympathetic to the customers misfortune, however, I don't have answers to any of the questions I have presented. Walton's Auto Care did not modify the vehicle and as such, we have no recourse without proof of damage(s).Regards.,Walton's Auto Care[redacted], Owner

This is in response to complaint #[redacted]. We did agree to install the supplied turbo from the customer and did talk to several sources concerning the turbo install. All recommendations were in the positive for the install. The customer was also advised that our shop had no experience with that interchange but would install at the customers request. It's also noted on the original invoice that no warranties on customer supplied parts. We have no way of knowing what the outcome would be with these untested parts. It was customers request to make these modifications and these parts were all supplied by the customer. Further more we have no way of knowing what the outcome of the high performance programming that was installed into the vehicles computer prior to the repairs made by us would have on the fuel injection system. All these are likely canidates for the engine failure. In response to the delayed repair work, we were told by the rebuilder that aquiring the engine short block for the rebuild was a lengthy process that was necesary for the rebbuild process and did cause an extended time delay for the rebuild process. Those facts can be proven with a phone call to the rebuilder. In response to the phone call to the rebuilder, I questioned the rebuilder wether they had spoken to [redacted] dealership concerning the customers vehicle and they said they did but that they had built and sold the product to my shop and therefor I was the customer to them and not the owner of the vehicle. Any questions concerning the rebuild itself can be directed to the rebuilder with his permission. In response to the pictures and the invoice, the first time we had access to the pictures is when they were provided by the Revdex.com. We recieved a copy of the invoice from [redacted] in the mail but no further correspondence with that. No letter or any other emails were recieved by anyone at this establishment. Had that information been available at the time of the repairs in colorado perhaps something could have been done to help the customer. The decision to install a new engine in colorado was done so with no correspondence with this shop. In response to the "broken or wrong" fasteners used, no where in the labor description from [redacted] does it reference a wrong or broken bolt. In fact it talks about a broken rocker arm and a vague statement about wrong hardware installed on engine. None of supplied pictures show anything that supports that a bolt was broken or wrong or that there was a rocker arm broken. In fact the supposed evidence that is shown to prove valve to piston contact doesn't show that at all. What it does show is that a piston was hitting the bottom side of the cylinder head which would suggest a failed bearing in the short block that would have been covered under the manufacturers warranty which is [redacted] which is also the dealership that did the repairs in colorado. I made the dealership aware of that fact prior to the engine being replaced but the decision was made to replace the entire engine anyhow. In response to the correspondence, several attempts and messages were made and left to contact the service manager prior to and after the repairs had been made. Only twice did we actually talk to him and once the repairs were finalized in colorado he was no longer available and no return phone calls were made to us from them. Finally, this is a very unfortunate circumstance and my heart goes out to the customer but the facts are that we were asked to repair a vehicle with several performance modifications, which we did, when the failure ocurred communication was not fluent and decisions were made without any discussion of warranty payment prior to repairs made. The product we provided is what we disclosed at the time of completion and the time schedule, although unfortunate, was necessary for the required repairs to be completed. We feel that the customer and our shop were misimformed by the shop who did the repairs in colorado and that they kept us in the dark about what was happening until it was too late to offer up alternative solutions.

Check fields!

Write a review of Walton's Auto Care

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Walton's Auto Care Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 333 W. Main St., Gouverneur, New York, United States, 13642

Phone:

Show more...

Add contact information for Walton's Auto Care

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated