BBB Accredited Business since

Groove Mazda

Phone: (303) 360-8000 10301 E Arapahoe Rd, Centennial, CO 80112

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Groove Mazda meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Groove Mazda include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 6 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 1
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 1
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 1
Problems with Product/Service 3
Total Closed Complaints 6

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Groove Mazda
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: February 11, 2010 Business started: 12/24/2009 Business started locally: 12/24/2009
Licensing, Bonding or Registration
Many local municipalities, townships and counties have registration, bonding and/or licensing requirements. The BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

Permit and license requirements for regulated industries in the State of Colorado can be viewed at the following website:

To view the registration of a business with the Colorado Secretary of State click below:

Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Dean Harrison, General Manager Mr. Andrew Bradford, Owner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Dean Harrison, General Manager
Business Category

Auto Dealers - New Cars Auto Repair & Service

Industry Tips
Automobile Dealers (New & Used Sales) Automobile Service & Repair

Additional Locations

  • 10301 E Arapahoe Rd

    Centennial, CO 80112 (303) 360-8000


BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

11/17/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Sale of New car without disclosing 3 year warranty was not honored and there was hail damage to saif car. I purchased a 2014 CX9 car with 5000 miles, as a "dealer demo" and in perfect condition, with the balance of a 3 year, 36,000 mile warranty. Within a few weeks I discovered from another Mazda dealer that the 3 year warranty for the entire outside of the car (all body parts, headlamps) was VOID...because of prior hail damage and perhaps other items, NEVER disclosed. Now I have a car with warranty issues and NO coverage by Mazda of America. Groove Mazda is guilty of "dealer fraud" and non disclosure for the sale of a NEW Dealer Demo car with a voided warranty. Shame on this car dealer! thanks ***** ******

Desired Settlement: the car should be returned and entire price paid refunded....or at a minimum a refund of the value of the warranty no longer in effect. I would guesstimate that to be $5000.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 16, 2015/11/05) */ This Customer purchased a CX-9 from our dealership on July 15th 2015. On Wednesday, July 29th the customer reached out to our Used Car Manager. He asked for us to refund him $499 and for us to also repair his right side mirror and front bumper. Which we did. The continued assertion that this is a New car, or a dealer Demo is inaccurate. The car was purchased as a loaner vehicle by our service department, and then sold as a pre-owned car. The only part of Mazda's warranty that's been voided is the exterior or paint warranty. There is no way to value this warranty as it cannot be sold as a standalone product. We do, however, regularly sell a well respected and effective exterior warranty from a company called Permaplate for $399. We would be glad to give the customer another example of goodwill and offer this warranty at no cost. Otherwise, we believe that we have acted in good faith thus far and see no reason for further culpability. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 19, 2015/11/09) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The dealer Never disclosed that the exteriorwarranty had been voided, that there was hail damage or other issues with the car. It was in fact sold as a dealer demo, no mention or disclosure as stated in the dealer response above. IF in fact the dealer will provide a full Permaplate application, including all exterior, windshield and underbody application, I will accept the offer and warranty offered, and end the matter and complaint. ***** ****** Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2015/11/16) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The dealer Never disclosed that the exteriorwarranty had been voided, that there was hail damage or other issues with the car. It was in fact sold as a dealer demo, no mention or disclosure as stated in the dealer response above. IF in fact the dealer will provide a full Permaplate application, including all exterior, windshield and underbody application, I will accept the offer and warranty offered, and end the matter and complaint. ***** ****** Final Business Response /* (4000, 25, 2015/11/17) */ We will provide a full Permaplate application and extend the warranty already mentioned at no cost.

8/31/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: service had turbo replaced/but in my car which resulted in engine lights after they took apart oilpan/my engine now heads and cams are ruined My car was making a whistling noise so I brought it in and was told my turbo was bad they replace my turbo and upon picking up my car August 3 and pain $1295.35 my engine light came on immediately I called the dealership and brought it back for them to look out my engine light I was told was my VVT and timing chain loose (nothing broke). That was replaced same engine light driving it less than 5 miles home on August 6. Turned around and brought it right back to the dealership and now I'm being told my cams are grinding and my heads are hitting

Desired Settlement: I would like the $4617.70 costs covered for my vehicle since they cause further damage to my car and $29 a day for a rental car since I was told by the service manager that I could not drive my car because it could've possibly blow my engine and he's not sure how severe the damages or how long it's going to be totally blows. I am a vendor for a very large scale audio company and I work out of my vehicle I need this car for work if it is not covered soon additionally lost wages.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/17) */ All evidence to the cause of the problems with this vehicle points to a lack of maintenance. Turbo oil cooler lines were plugged, banjo bolt had oil sludge in it, oil change records are missing for extended mileage intervals. Due to lack of maintenance customers turbo was damaged and out of warranty which most likely damaged the catalytic converters. Lack of lubrication also damaged the cylinder heads and cam shafts. We sought and received partial assistance from ******** for the turbo repairs for the customer despite missing records. Customer asked if she could do more damage to the vehicle if she drives it this way and the answer is yes it could. We cannot predict if or when that may happen. It does start and run at this time. The check engine light on her vehicle is on due to oil getting by the end of the cam at the cylinder head. We cannot be held responsible for damage done to a vehicle we did not cause. All dis-assembly of components was for diagnostic purposes in an attempt to protect the customer. She was not charged for the diagnosis and vehicle has been reassembled properly. Oil pan was never removed, valve covers were removed for inspection and pictures. Valve covers did not show signs of oil sludge. After check engine light came on, we removed the cam shaft cap and found the screen in the cap plugged with sludge.

1/26/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: ************ sold a vehicle as new when by**** it is used. They also misrepresented the package on the vehicle and have refused to correct the problem Hello, We purchased a vehicle from ************ on 7/12/14. The vehicle was being represented as being new and a 2014 Mazda 6 Grand Touring with Technology Package. There was no window sticker, only a hand written tag which was created by the **********. During the negotiation process we never brought our trade in vehicle, we drove our other car as a means to avoid feeling as pressured to purchase. The ********** chose to make use an offer on our trade in without seeing it. We did offer them several photos as well as the *** to a listing we'd created for it on Craigslist. Our sales representative,*************, even went as far as to try to explain her own version of how a loan works. She tried to pitch us on taking a longer term loan, with a higher rate, and paying it 20 days early. She attempted to explain to us that paying 20 days early eliminated a major portion of the interest. She is in fact correct, though only on the first payment. Subsequent payments would adjust accordingly and the total interest savings over the life of the loan would be minimal at best. This alone would not be enough to file a complaint, though is an issue which needs to be addressed because it could mislead many uninformed consumers. I asked a few times to ensure that the vehicle was in fact a Grand Touring with Technology Package. A fact which I have emails to and from the ********** after the fact which I can prove. The ********** was incorrect on the details of the car. It was in fact a standard Grand Touring model with Mazda's MRCC & FOW package. A $1000 difference as well as completely different set of features. This was what actually led me to pursue action against the **********. They have refused to provide me with the car as was verbally, and in writing on a piece of paper they will not produce again, agreed upon. Next, they provided paperwork which showed the car as not be New, Used or Demo. They left all 3 boxes blank. I have purchased from them previously and can show proof that they didn't check the box. The state also found that they violated a**** in *** case 14-1311. I was unaware of this until after allowing the state to investigate the matter. While speaking to the **********, and their management group, their legal counsel also insinuated via email that I had committed a crime because they were unhappy with my trade in vehicle. I made every effort to in fact educate them about it. The ********** did offer me $1000 to settle the matter, however that is inadequate given the situation. I have, and will continue to, stated my intention to receive a new car, with the package(s) agreed upon. ****** also gave bad information about the warranty on the car. I contacted Mazda to confirm the vehicles package, which they stated the ********** should have done also, and was informed that we were nearly out of warranty. The ********** said that it was based on the delivery date and total mileage. It was actually based on the date that they put it into service and total mileage. That meant that the car we purchased in July had its warranty clock running the previous October. Thankfully, Mazda resolved that and reset the starting date as a courtesy. However, that matter can also not go unaddressed. When looked at individually, this could be seen as a mistake. Simple human error. However, when all of these errors are made, it's hard to overlook. I feel that ****** ************* did this to try to get one over on a consumer. I feel that they are not trying to work out a resolution and am asking the *** and **** office to assist in resolution. I have copies of all necessary forms and emails which I can produce to facilitate my request. Thank you *****

Desired Settlement: I am seeking a vehicle which meets the specifications which were agreed to. The dealership sold the car as new, which it is not. They also misrepresented the features of the car, including safety and MPG ratings. If they are unable to find a 2014 model, which is unlikely, a 2015 model would be sufficient, as long as it is properly equipped. Otherwise, a cash settlement for the differences in price of the vehicle, future MPG and resale value can be negotiated as well as a carbon offset to compensate the planet for the additional emissions of our less efficient vehicle.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/01/02) */ *********** has filed many complaints on this vehicle purchased In July of 2014. We offered at that time the ability to return the vehicle, or the $1000 cash settlement. ********** has refused our offers to try and settle this matter. At this point all conversation about this matter has ended. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/01/07) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Hello, The offers by ***********a have never been in an effort to satisfy their end of the deal which was agreed to both verbally and in writing. We agreed, in both forms, to purchase a new car and were sold a used car. Additionally, we agreed to purchase a Grand Touring Model with Technology Package. We were not provided with that by ******. The offer by the dealership was initially to 'unwind the deal'. As shown in the email from myself and their corporate office, it took quite some time to arrive at a point where they made an offer of $1000. That was only able to offset the difference in the packages as they had advertised the vehicle and what was actually on the vehicle. I did not accept that offer because I was still not satisfied by their offer nor their lack of admission of wrong doing. Additionally, they were requiring that I signed a waiver form which waived many of my rights which I did not agree with. After receiving this offer, I contacted the ****************************** and allowed them to research the matter. They found that ****** had sold the vehicle as new when it was in fact used. I contacted the dealership to discuss further and was not responded to. Their statement that all conversation has ended is in fact due to their failure to respond. I last spoke to *************, ******'s*** via email on 9/9/14. I sent follow up emails on 11/8 and 11/24 to which I received no response. ****** broke laws. They are trying to back out of the deal instead of properly resolving it. I do not find their offers to be fair to me as a consumer. I am requesting that they provide me with the vehicle which we entered a contract for, a new Mazda 6, Grand Touring model with GT Technology Package. They in fact provided me with a used Mazda 6, Grand Touring with a lower package. thank you, ************* Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/01/19) */ ***********a has provided ample time and effort to try to resolve ********** issues. ********** purchased his vehicle in July of 2014. When he purchased his vehicle he was explained the vehicle was a demo vehicle with 4273 miles on the vehicle at time of purchase. ********** trade was also not as described to the dealership however we still honored our agreement of trade value to the customer. At this time we feel we have made sufficient effort to try to satisfy the customer which have been unsuccessful. Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/01/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Hello, Once again, ****** is not offering a resolution and instead trying to deflect their wrong doing. I am writing to reject this further proposal. ***********a at no time made mention to this vehicle being used. They were issued a warning by the state for this transaction. They made every effort to market and sell the vehicle as new despite the legality of the situation. Yes, we were aware of the mileage on the car, but they repeatedly called the vehicle new. They are also continuing to fail to acknowledge that they misrepresented the vehicle further in stating that it was equipped with the Technology Package, when in fact it was not. Their claim about my trade in is also absurd. They refused to look at pictures of the vehicle and even pushed us to finish up paperwork before we brought it to them. They chose to buy it sight unseen and refused all offers to show it to them. ****** is attempting to play a blame game. They made a transaction without seeing our trade in vehicle and were far too happy to close the deal quickly. In hindsight, all appearances point to them trying to get the best of a consumer, which they did. They listed a used vehicle as new and mislead us in the features and functionality of the car. ****** has behaved poorly as a business and has broken laws. They are also failing to honor a verbal, and written contract as was agreed to by both parties. I once again state my request, that ***********a supply me with a brand new Mazda 6 Grand Touring with GT Technology package, as we contracted with them for. They have failed to provide me with such a vehicle and are continuing to be an unreasonable business party.

4/16/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Misrepresentation of auto. Refund policy. Danger to public health. Not reporting drug activity to authorities. Upon driving the car initially after purchase I had a severe allergic reaction with swollen eyes, a skin rash, a difficulty breathing. I had to take perscription allergy medication and asthma inhaler several times to subside the reaction. This is a box type SUV that, after speaking with some law enforcement agents and medical professionals, I believe had methamphetimes manufactured inside it. The dealership was closed the next day. I called first thing Monday and received no call back for hours, so I took the vehicle in Monday afternoon. The sales manager, sale person, and finance manager all stated that this was false, and I should continue to drive the car, despite having a severe allergic reaction and it would eventually go away. I had to make a very big scene and finally they agreed to take the car back but charged me $499. This is a hazard to public health and safety.

Desired Settlement: Refund of $499. Taking auto off the market. Reporting to proper authorities.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/31) */ Customer Came in and test drove and purchased vehicle on 3/22 and signed the dealerships $499 return policy. On 3/24 customer came in to the dealership in the P.M. stating that vehicle had a smell to him that was causing him to have a reaction to it. Customer was given the option to let us try to get the smell out of the vehicle, and if we could not we would wave the $499 return fee. Customer declined to use that option so the fee was charged to the customer. There is no documentation that shows the reaction he had was due to the vehicle. Four different employees in the dealership have driven the vehicle with no reaction. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/04/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The dealership repeatedly refused to put the terms of their verbal "offer" to remove the smell and waive the fee in writing. The only offer in writing was the $499 fee, which is what I was bullied into taking in the back office to protect my financial liability for over $10,000 on a car that was not safely drivable. This was, as stated, a severe allergic reaction in which I had to take prescription medication to stop. I do have pictures documenting the skin rash and swollen eyes, taken within the dealership that afternoon. I also have multiple witnesses that have inspected the car and observed my reaction to it. This is not an appropriate response to my complaint and shows that Groove Mazda is still unable to take this complaint seriously. This is a dangerous position for them to take, had I had a child, elderly person, or someone with compromised health in the car this could have had lethal consequences. Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/04/10) */ After a long discussion with the customer we have came to an agreement with the customer and feel the resolution has satisfied the customer. Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2014/04/16) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

3/6/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Groove Mazda refuses to repair a car we leased from them until we buy a new set of tires from them at a cost of $750.00. Groove Mazda refuses to repair a car we leased from them until we buy a new set of tires from them at a cost of $750.00. We advised them on multiple occassions that we would be willing to get new tires for the car (assumming that what they were telling us was true - that b/c the treads on the tires do not match exactly, all 4 tires have to be replaced), but that we were not required to buy tires from them under the lease. Therefore, we requested that they fix the car per the warranty so that we could get the tires at COSTCO where we prefer to have this done. Groove has us trapped, though. They won't fix the car until we buy the tires from them. They originally said we could get the tires wherever we wanted, but they won't fix the car, so we can't take it anywhere to have the tires replaced. This seems like a scam. Because they have you trapped, there is nothing you can do but buy the tires from them so they can make money. How many customers has Groove Mazda done this to? We have incurred substantial costs and distress as a result of this game they are playing. We have had to rent a car and we are still be charged our monthly lease rate for the car sitting in their shop that they won't fix.

Desired Settlement: Cost of tires, rental car costs and reimbursement on lease for days without car.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/05) */ This was a misunderstanding. Customer thought we could replace his PTO and he could drive it to have the tires replaced without damaging it but this is not the case. He did have the option of replacing the tires first and then having us replace the PTO but since it was only necessary to replace 2 of the tires. We replaced his 2 tires at his expense but we replaced the PTO under his warranty. Customer is satisfied and so are we. Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 7, 2014/03/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

8/26/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Deceptive "MISC SHOP FEE" added to service invoice and refused to honor quoted price for work item. I dropped my car off for an oil change, providing an official MazdaUSA coupon for $24.95. While it was being serviced, they called to let me know about $300 of (unrelated) additional needed repairs, which I authorized. For these additional work items, I brought in a MazdaUSA coupon for $30 off repair items of $200 or more. When picking up the car, I discovered that not only did they seem to "lose" the oil change coupon and not charge the quoted amount ($35.35 instead of $24.95), but they also added a vague $23.88 "MISC SHOP FEE". When I challenged that, they claimed that this is a standard fee to clean up dirty rags, etc. No other repair shop that I have ever used quoted one price at drop off but then add in a clean up charge. When I further questioned this charge, claiming it was deceptive and fraudulent, they said that they told me there would be additional tax and shop charges. That may have been the case, but it doesn't change the fact that this is deceptive to quote one price for the work but leave out some unstated additional clean-up charge.

Desired Settlement: Simply to refund this deceptive MISC SHOP FEE of $23.88 and the $10.40 oil change coupon discount.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 9, 2013/08/23) */ Here at Groove Mazda we take our philosophy of YES very seriously.We try our best to quote prices to the penny when possible.Customer was contacted and concern was resolved to both of our satisfaction. Nothing intentionally deceptive happened. Training issue with service advisers have been resolved as well. Consumer's Final Response /* (-5, 15, 2013/08/26) */ ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************, I responded to/closed this case online but am following up with this email. The company resolved the matter satisfactorily. Thank you! *****

Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Groove Mazda
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)