On March 28, 2014, I brought my car to this auto show because my check engine light was on. He replaced a PCV value and vaccum hose (cost: $36.69). That did not correct the problem. The engenine lights was still on right away. I called him that same day to say that light was still on and he said to bring it back in. On April 9, 2014, I brought the car back into his shop. He ran a series of tests: Circuit/component test and a fuel system test (cost:$98.89). He then replaced a fuel pump (cost of labor: 89.90). The fuel pump assembly cost $745.35 to replace the entire fuel pump and 19.00 to seal the fuel tank. He said that that should fix the promblem, but it did not. After the pump was in and he ran the car, he said he still had to check it because it wasn't running right but that I can bring it back another day to get it checked out. The light came back on after I took if out of the shop and that's when I decided not to go back to him because this now the second time that he couldn't fix the problem, plus he let me take the car even though, he knew there were still more problems. In addition, he also charged me 53.35 in gas to refill the gas tank because he said the gas was bad. He filled my car with premimum gas and never told me in advance that he was going to put gas in the car. I normally don't put premimum gas in my car and would like to have been notified of this in advance.
I then took it to a different shop to get a second opnion. Within a four hour time frame, he diagnosed the problem and fixed it by flushing out the fuel system and he only charged me $142 for the entire job including labor. the light is now off. The car runs smoothly and it has been over a week and the light has not come back on.
Getting back to Czach Automotive, if he did a fuel system test (which again cost me $53), then wouldn't have been able to know that the fuel system needed to be flushed and if he replaced the fuel pump, why would it needed to be flushed out in the first place, so now I am wondering if I really needed the new fuel pump (which cost $745). I went back to Czach Auto to let him know of the situation. He asked what they did and I told him and then he said that he would have not charged me any further after the fuel pump replacement until the problem was corrected...but yet it took him two times and he still couldn't accurately diagnose the problem. So, because of this, it took nearly 3 weeks to have my car fixed, when it should have only taken a few hours since the fuel system needed to be flushed out. Plus, it took time out of my schedule to keep bringing the car back.
I am asking for a refund first for the replacement of the PCV values and the cost of labor to replace those and then also asking for a refund for the replacement of the fuel pump as well as the labor necessary to replace the fuel pump as well as the two tests that he ran which could not diagnosis the problem. I don't feel that I should pay $53 for gas either since he never told me that he was putting gas in the car at a premimum level AND if there was gas in the car to begin with,(which there was), then if he drained the gas from the car, that should not be my responsibiltiy to pay for it. The car was running fine before he drained the gas and I don't think it was necessary to put premimum gas in the car.
Contact Email: *********@comcast.net
We received this complaint by US mail on 3/29/14. On 3/26/14 the customer brought the car to our shop for a slow crank/hard start condition and to see why the check engine light was on. Testing determined that the starter needed to be replaced, an estimate was provided and approved. This work was completed, thus satisfying the starting problem. After diagnostic testing was completed regarding the check engine light, the computer was found to have two codes in memory; a "misfire" code and a "system lean" code. The technician determined spark plugs, PCV valve and PCV hose needed to be replaced to satisfy the "misfire" code and possibly affect the "lean" code. These findings were discussed with the customer, an estimate was provided and agreed upon. An appointment was scheduled to bring the car back on 3/28/14 at 1:30 - 2:00 PM for the aforementioned work to be completed..
On 3/28/14 the spark plugs, PCV valve and hose were replaced. The trouble codes were cleared and the check engine light was off. The customer was informed of more possible problem concerning the "lean" code and to return when the light came on again.
On 3/31/14 the customer returned with the car, stating the check engine was on. The "lean" code had reset. The customer was informed of the need for further testing/diagnosis which time did not permit on this day. The customer stated that he needed his car and would have to bring it back. As a courtesy to the customer we added a bottle fuel injection cleaner to the fuel tank at no charge. An appointment was scheduled for customer's convenience on 4/9/14.
On 4/9/14 the check engine light was on and the "lean" trouble code had reset. Upon testing the fuel system, it was determined that the fuel pump needed to be replaced because of lower than specified fuel pressure and volume. The results were discussed with the customer, an estimate was provided and the customer approved the repair. When the work was in progress the technician noted evidence of fuel contamination and the fuel level was very low. The fuel pump assembly was replaced and fuel was added because of the contamination/quality issues. Premium fuel was used for it's higher content of detergents. Upon retesting, the fuel pressure and volume were now up to specified levels. At this time it was clear that the car was still not running right. It was now the end of the work day and the customer needed his car. He agreed to return his car another day so we could resolve the issue.
After several days we called the customer and left a message requesting he return with the car to resolve the issue.
On 4/21/14 the customer visited the shop and stated that he had the fuel system flushed elsewhere and the issue had been resolved. He asked if the fuel pump was really needed. We explained the reasons that it was needed. Nothing else was discussed.
We value each and every customer and try our utmost to satisfy their needs. We are all ASE certified Master Technicians and have been honestly diagnosing and repairing vehicles for 40 years. It is very troubling that this customer is unhappy and that we were unable to meet his needs to his satisfaction. We do, however, stand behind the work that was done. The customer is asking for a refund on work that was necessary, competently performed and agreed upon beforehand by him. It is our assessment that the flushing of the fuel system that was done by the other shop was the final step needed to complete the job, not the solution to the entire issue. Had the customer returned, we are confident that the same resolution would have occurred, but with no additional cost to the customer. s
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My response to all this is the following: When first coming into the shop, I was told that you wanted to fix the vehicle without adding parts that would not solve the problem, which would prevent unnecessary costs. So, I have no complainant against fixing the starter, except that it still had a hard start after the new starter was put in. The hard start problem was resolved by the other mechanic that I took it too! So, putting the new starter in was fine, but nothing was done after the starter was put in to fix the hard crank!
It was agreed upon to put new sparks plugs and a PCV value and house to statisfy the misfire code and possibily fix the "lean" code as well. Obviously, after this was completed and I left the shop,the light was off, but shortly after driving, it came back on. So then, what was the need of putting in the PCV value and house if that did not fix the problem?!
I arragned an appointment to bring the car back on 4/9/14 to have the "lean" code problem fixed. The car was left at the shop for 8 hours and it was determined that the fuel pump needed to be replaced. As a customer, I took his word that this would fix the problem. As a result, this did not fix the problem. They took it upon themself to put premimum fuel in the car without my permission. He claimed the old gas was contaminated but I no problem drving the car with the old gas. Upon putting on the new fuel pump, which cost $700, I was told that the car was still not running properly, so then why was the fuel pump replacement necessary, if that did not solve the problem either! It also seems clear that their diagnostic test is not very accurate.
After talking if SEVERAL other mechanics, the fuel pump has nothing to do with the check engenie light going on.
So again, he tells me to bring the car back. How much time is needed to fix a simple check engenie light? This would have been the third time I am bringing it back to him, which is an inconvience for me as well.
As a result, I took my car to another shop and within four hours time, the problem was resolved, the check engine light was off, and the hard crank problem was resolved all at a minimal cost.
In the final paragraph of their response, they state that they value each and every customer and that they are ASE Certified Master Technicans and supposedly diagnosed the problems honestly but for some reason could NOT fix the car in a reasonable and cost efficent manner, as it I had to go back there three times and it still wasnt fixed properly.
I went back after I got my car fixed and informed the manager that all the car needed was a fuel system flushing. They claimed that this was the final step needed to complete the job. I believe that they are only saying this because I told them what was done to fix the car by the second mechanic.
If the second mechanic was able to fix the problem by a simple flushing of the fuel system, why wasnt't this done right away and as I stated earlier, the second mechanic also stated that the fuel pump system did not need to be replaced.
If they value their customers, especially new ones coming to the shop, since he told me that his business is declining, he is not doing a very good job satisfying a customer, especially a new one.
All I am asking for is some sort of reimbursement for the time and money that was spent to fix my car, because the problem was not actually fixed by their shop! At this time, I am a very upset and disgruntled customer and feel that he did not live up to his word and he replaced things that were not necessary. If he values his customers, he would try to recitfy the problem by compensating the customer for the failure to fix the vehicle.
Final Business Response
This is the first time I've heard that it still had a hard start after the starter was put in. The replacement starter tested good and no other problems were found or experienced at the time. If we had been informed of a hard crank we would have pursued that problem.
The worn spark plugs, sticky pcv valve and broken pcv vacuum hose were replaced for the misfire code of the check engine light conditions. I explained at the time that the pcv valve and vacuum hose could have an effect on the lean condition, but that we did not diagnose and repair the lean problem and the light could/would come back on. With the customer waiting, time did not permit us to properly diagnose and repair the lean condition.
The original fuel pump tested bad with low fuel pressure. The fuel pump is the heart of the fuel system and if it can't supply the proper fuel pressure,then not enough fuel gets to the engine. The check engine light came back on for a lean condition which means not enough fuel into the engine. So the malfunctioning fuel pump would be the first condition to address to correct the lean condition. The fuel pump most definitely has to do with a check engine light.
In that one 8 hour day the car was left with us, we properly diagnosed the fuel pump, estimated its replacement, got authorization to repair, ordered and recieved the parts and replace them. As with many repair processes the fuel pump was not the only fuel system problem. The business day was at an end so we returned the car to the customer because it was needed and promised to be returned for further diagnosis and repair. I'm sure we would have resolved the problem had the car been returned to us as stated. The fuel cleaning by itself would NOT have repaired this car. The other mechanic, as the customer stated, would obviously say that the fuel pump did not need to be replaced because we had already replaced it and it was new. There is no way for any other mechanic to say if the fuel pump was bad or not, as the original fuel pump had already been replaced.
I'm sorry for any and all misunderstandings and would like to resolve this matter. We did not recieve authorization for adding fuel and would like to refund this amount plus additionl monies as paid to the other mechanic as a good will offer. Please accept this $200.00. Thank you. **** ***** / ***** Automotive Inc.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I accept the solution of the $200 refund! Thank you very much! I am glad this matter is resolved!