|
Transmission Maintenance
Hello Group,
I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was newer than the rest of the car. Any thoughts?? Thanks! Mark |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
And you think he is going to tell you it doesn't need it.... Right, you got
took.. "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
And you think he is going to tell you it doesn't need it.... Right, you got
took.. "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
And you think he is going to tell you it doesn't need it.... Right, you got
took.. "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... : Hello Group, : : I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The : maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, : which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The : transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) : at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 : miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when : the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. : : Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer : had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was : newer than the rest of the car. : : Any thoughts?? : : Thanks! : : Mark : You didn't ask or approve what was going to be done beforehand? Did you tell the dealer the transmission was much newer than the car, or did you just assume he knew? Not to be too nitpicky, but if you got the transmission at 37K and had the work done at 60K, it had about 23,000 miles on it, not 13,000. Paul |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... : Hello Group, : : I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The : maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, : which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The : transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) : at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 : miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when : the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. : : Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer : had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was : newer than the rest of the car. : : Any thoughts?? : : Thanks! : : Mark : You didn't ask or approve what was going to be done beforehand? Did you tell the dealer the transmission was much newer than the car, or did you just assume he knew? Not to be too nitpicky, but if you got the transmission at 37K and had the work done at 60K, it had about 23,000 miles on it, not 13,000. Paul |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... : Hello Group, : : I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The : maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, : which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The : transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) : at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 : miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when : the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. : : Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer : had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was : newer than the rest of the car. : : Any thoughts?? : : Thanks! : : Mark : You didn't ask or approve what was going to be done beforehand? Did you tell the dealer the transmission was much newer than the car, or did you just assume he knew? Not to be too nitpicky, but if you got the transmission at 37K and had the work done at 60K, it had about 23,000 miles on it, not 13,000. Paul |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > Honda trans filters are internal to the trans, not servicable during maintenance, only on overhaul. Changing the fluid at 13K won't hurt anything, but it could have waited. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > Honda trans filters are internal to the trans, not servicable during maintenance, only on overhaul. Changing the fluid at 13K won't hurt anything, but it could have waited. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
"mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > Honda trans filters are internal to the trans, not servicable during maintenance, only on overhaul. Changing the fluid at 13K won't hurt anything, but it could have waited. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was
defective and had to be replaced? "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was
defective and had to be replaced? "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was
defective and had to be replaced? "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
mwlogs wrote:
> > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark =================== Doing the math, or thinking outside the box are not high on your dealer's list of priorities. It's you money, not his. He'll spend it as he sees fit :-( 'Curly' =================== |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
mwlogs wrote:
> > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark =================== Doing the math, or thinking outside the box are not high on your dealer's list of priorities. It's you money, not his. He'll spend it as he sees fit :-( 'Curly' =================== |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
mwlogs wrote:
> > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark =================== Doing the math, or thinking outside the box are not high on your dealer's list of priorities. It's you money, not his. He'll spend it as he sees fit :-( 'Curly' =================== |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think
Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon enough "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think
Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon enough "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think
Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon enough "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Sorry bud, but yes you got ripped. I'd escalate through their
management, especialy if its a dealer. Honda Corporate pays attention to these complaints, and their ratings get effected. On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:58:51 GMT, "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote: >Hello Group, > >I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The >maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, >which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The >transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) >at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 >miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when >the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > >Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer >had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was >newer than the rest of the car. > >Any thoughts?? > >Thanks! > >Mark > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Sorry bud, but yes you got ripped. I'd escalate through their
management, especialy if its a dealer. Honda Corporate pays attention to these complaints, and their ratings get effected. On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:58:51 GMT, "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote: >Hello Group, > >I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The >maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, >which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The >transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) >at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 >miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when >the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > >Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer >had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was >newer than the rest of the car. > >Any thoughts?? > >Thanks! > >Mark > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Sorry bud, but yes you got ripped. I'd escalate through their
management, especialy if its a dealer. Honda Corporate pays attention to these complaints, and their ratings get effected. On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:58:51 GMT, "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote: >Hello Group, > >I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The >maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, >which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The >transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) >at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 >miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when >the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > >Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer >had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was >newer than the rest of the car. > >Any thoughts?? > >Thanks! > >Mark > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
We received a notice from honda that there had been some failures and they
were extending the Warranty on the transmission. I don't recall the exact details, but it's my wife's car and I don't drive it all that often. I noticed one time when I did that it seemed to be making a low grinding kind of noise. Still shifted OK, just a noise. We took it in and they agreed it sounded like it was going bad, but didn't want to replace it at that point since it was behaving OK, and we weren't getting the 'check engine' light that was supposed to be the indication of a problem. A few months passed and we suddenly started getting a blinking check engine light, Took it in and the replaced it. "General Bowen" <ajwagen@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:TFvZb.1603$yZ1.977@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... > I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was > defective and had to be replaced? > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
We received a notice from honda that there had been some failures and they
were extending the Warranty on the transmission. I don't recall the exact details, but it's my wife's car and I don't drive it all that often. I noticed one time when I did that it seemed to be making a low grinding kind of noise. Still shifted OK, just a noise. We took it in and they agreed it sounded like it was going bad, but didn't want to replace it at that point since it was behaving OK, and we weren't getting the 'check engine' light that was supposed to be the indication of a problem. A few months passed and we suddenly started getting a blinking check engine light, Took it in and the replaced it. "General Bowen" <ajwagen@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:TFvZb.1603$yZ1.977@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... > I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was > defective and had to be replaced? > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
We received a notice from honda that there had been some failures and they
were extending the Warranty on the transmission. I don't recall the exact details, but it's my wife's car and I don't drive it all that often. I noticed one time when I did that it seemed to be making a low grinding kind of noise. Still shifted OK, just a noise. We took it in and they agreed it sounded like it was going bad, but didn't want to replace it at that point since it was behaving OK, and we weren't getting the 'check engine' light that was supposed to be the indication of a problem. A few months passed and we suddenly started getting a blinking check engine light, Took it in and the replaced it. "General Bowen" <ajwagen@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:TFvZb.1603$yZ1.977@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... > I have a 2001 Accord too. What signs were there that the transmission was > defective and had to be replaced? > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly
what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil change out of them! "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly
what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil change out of them! "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly
what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil change out of them! "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Hello Group, > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid, > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was > newer than the rest of the car. > > Any thoughts?? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The
maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid,which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was newer than the rest of the car. Any thoughts?? I change my oil every 6k miles and pull the plug on the auto tranny at every change thereby changing 3 of the 6-7 quarts in the trans. Cheap insurance against a very expensive repair. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The
maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid,which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was newer than the rest of the car. Any thoughts?? I change my oil every 6k miles and pull the plug on the auto tranny at every change thereby changing 3 of the 6-7 quarts in the trans. Cheap insurance against a very expensive repair. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The
maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and fluid,which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around 13,000 miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles (when the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The Dealer had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it was newer than the rest of the car. Any thoughts?? I change my oil every 6k miles and pull the plug on the auto tranny at every change thereby changing 3 of the 6-7 quarts in the trans. Cheap insurance against a very expensive repair. |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for
maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was scheduled. If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. good luck! Keith "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > change out of them! > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for
maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was scheduled. If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. good luck! Keith "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > change out of them! > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for
maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was scheduled. If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. good luck! Keith "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll give > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > change out of them! > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Hey all,
I was recently screwed when purchasing a Honda Civic. I live in Central Canada where it is often -30 C, and the car I purchased didn't have an engine block heater. Following is an excerpt of a letter I wrote to complain about how I was treated, and the dealers response (just received yesterday). The Dealer Principal's displeasure with how I was treated means a lot to me. My advice is if you draft up a well-written letter & direct it to the Dealer Principal, you'll get a response- if the place is worth their salt. I'll let you all know how it turns out. Here's the story; names have been changed, of course: Dear Mr. Dealer: By way of introduction, my name is Mr. John Doe, a loyal customer of yours who has purchased two vehicles from your organization within the last ten months, and four overall. You may recall an e-mail I sent you back in 2003 regarding the favourable sales transactions we had with one of your sales & leasing consultants- Steve Doe. As you may have noticed from my correspondence at that time, I believe in making a note of positive business transactions whenever possible to encourage those involved; I also believe we have a responsibility in shedding light upon any short-comings that may arise, so that areas of concern may be addressed & hopefully corrected. I wish I had another good-news story to bring to your attention, but unfortunately this is not the reason for my correspondence today. Instead, I am writing to advise you about some grave concerns I have regarding what transpired shortly after we purchased our second vehicle from your establishment in 2003. I once again want to remind you that these concerns come from a loyal customer who is concerned that the excellence with which I was treated in the past might not continue into the future. I purchased a red 2000 Civic Hatchback (earlier in 2003 we purchased an Odyssey). As I mentioned, the sales transaction with Steve Doe when purchasing the car went well, and I was satisfied with the price of the car, as well as what I received on my trade-in. A short time later, I noticed that there was no block heater on the Civic. I considered this to be an oversight, and upon calling Steve, I trusted that the matter would be promptly taken care of. During our conversation, Steve said he would talk to his "manager" (Rick Doe?) to see what could be done. Steve's response was, "John, we can put one in for you at 'cost.'" I asked what cost was, and Steve replied, "About $75." While I wasn't overly happy with this solution, I agreed- realizing that I did purchase a used car and the responsibility ultimately lies with me to ensure the car is equipped as expected (although in our climate I can't imagine selling a vehicle without a block heater). At any rate, having made this agreement I proceeded to make an appointment with your Service Dept. to have a block heater installed. Upon picking up the Civic following the installation, I was- to say the least, shocked at what I was being asked to pay. Here are the details of the transaction (copy of invoice attached): · Block Heater- $73.90 · Install Block Heater- $142.40 <= · Tax- $30.28 · Total- $246.58 Mr. Dealer, I don't believe that any reasonable person would consider what I paid for this transaction to be the generally accepted definition of "at cost." Furthermore I was quoted "about $75," there was no mention of an additional $142 in labour. When I was presented with the invoice I expressed my surprise to the service advisor, but as I was running late for a business appointment, I paid the invoice, planning to follow up with Steve later. The next day before contacting Steve, I decided I would place a "cold" call to your service dept. to inquire what it would cost to have a block heater installed on a 2000 Civic HB; I was quoted exactly what I had paid! Irate, I immediately called Steve to tell him about the fiasco, and after talking to his "manager" (Rick Doe?), Steve said all he could offer me as compensation was four "complimentary" oil changes, instead of my money- MY MONEY! (quotations added because they really aren't complimentary- I paid for them!). Mr. Dealer, what is going on here? What kind of business transactions are these? As a businessman in our local community, I would NEVER dream of treating my customers this way. Sadly, the saga continues... About four months went by when I still hadn't received anything from your dealership stating that I was to receive 4 "complimentary" oil changes. About ten days ago I called your dealership to ask for Steve Doe, when I was informed that he was no longer affiliated with your dealership. I then left a message for Rick Doe, and he returned my call- agreeing to send me something in the mail for my oil changes. I reminded Rick about what had transpired and told him that I did not believe that I was treated fairly, and that any labour charges for the block heater installation should have been promptly refunded. I told him of what Steve had promised- that I was going to get a block heater at cost. Rick said that meant "sales cost." Mr. Dealer, what does that mean? Rick explained that sales cost is what it costs the company to sell one to a customer. Using this definition, I then asked Rick if he informs all customers entering your dealership that they can have any vehicle at cost; nonsense. Again, I ask you: is this the generally accepted definition of "at cost?" What is implied when quoting a customer a price "at cost?" Nonetheless, Rick's explanation was still not consistent with what I had been quoted: Steve told me that I was to get a block heater at cost, NOT "sales cost." At this point it was becoming abundantly clear to me that I had been lied to- pure and simple. I told Rick about the cold call I made, saying that I paid the same price as anyone off the street. Hearing this, Rick became very argumentative, swore at me, and called me a "smart ass." Mr. Dealer, to say the least- Rick Doe's words shocked me! In all my years as the customer in a business transaction- professional or personal, I have never been treated this way. This was certainly not what I had expected as a loyal, repeat customer of your company, who in the last year has spent $40,000 at your dealership. I' ve been treated better at a restaurant. On Friday, Feb 13/04 I finally received my oil change certificates, but I continue to be most displeased with how I was treated. I would like what I deserve- my money. I once again want to remind you Mr. Dealer, that I am informing you of this as a customer who wants your company to remain the fine customer-oriented establishment that it has been in the past. I am not approaching you as some young 18 year-old kid that wants something for nothing. No, rather I am a 36 year-old husband & father of four children, and a professional businessman in our city, that wants to be treated fairly & equitably, just as the customer ought to be. How will you respond to how I was treated Mr. Dealer? As someone who is well versed in the strategies of customer service, I see merely refunding my $142.40 + applicable taxes to be the very bare minimum. Mr. Dealer, from my observations there appears to be one root problem here. Is it Steve Doe? Is it your service department? Or is it Rick Doe? As Dealer Principal, I'll let you answer those probing questions. Please contact me upon receipt of this e-mail to discuss this further. I will also send a copy of my correspondence through the mail in hopes that this reaches your office. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank-you, John Doe => Here's the Dealer's response: HI JOHN DOE: I JUST RETURNED FROM A TWO WEEK VACATION, I AM AS HORRIFIED AS YOU ARE, TO FIND THAT A CUSTOMER OF OURS COULD BE TREATED SO POORLY. I WILL REFUND YOUR MONEY IMMEDIATELY, I AGREE THAT IS THE BARE MINIMUM, I WILL DEAL WITH MY INTERNAL ISSUES AND I WILL FURTHER DECIDE WHAT I MIGHT DO, TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER DOING BUSINESS WITH US IN THE FUTURE. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LETTER, AND YOUR EXTREME PATIENCE IN THIS MATTER. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. YOURS TRULY, MR DEALER "Keith J" <keith_757@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jc6dnQWZpLVynardRVn-ig@comcast.com... > You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for > maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was > scheduled. > > If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd > agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess > is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should > recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a > large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following > visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business > with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. > > If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak > with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a > call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will > be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity > is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? > But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints > or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new > attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. > > good luck! > Keith > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll > give > > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > > change out of them! > > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > > fluid, > > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing > defect) > > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > > 13,000 > > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > > (when > > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > > Dealer > > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > > was > > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Hey all,
I was recently screwed when purchasing a Honda Civic. I live in Central Canada where it is often -30 C, and the car I purchased didn't have an engine block heater. Following is an excerpt of a letter I wrote to complain about how I was treated, and the dealers response (just received yesterday). The Dealer Principal's displeasure with how I was treated means a lot to me. My advice is if you draft up a well-written letter & direct it to the Dealer Principal, you'll get a response- if the place is worth their salt. I'll let you all know how it turns out. Here's the story; names have been changed, of course: Dear Mr. Dealer: By way of introduction, my name is Mr. John Doe, a loyal customer of yours who has purchased two vehicles from your organization within the last ten months, and four overall. You may recall an e-mail I sent you back in 2003 regarding the favourable sales transactions we had with one of your sales & leasing consultants- Steve Doe. As you may have noticed from my correspondence at that time, I believe in making a note of positive business transactions whenever possible to encourage those involved; I also believe we have a responsibility in shedding light upon any short-comings that may arise, so that areas of concern may be addressed & hopefully corrected. I wish I had another good-news story to bring to your attention, but unfortunately this is not the reason for my correspondence today. Instead, I am writing to advise you about some grave concerns I have regarding what transpired shortly after we purchased our second vehicle from your establishment in 2003. I once again want to remind you that these concerns come from a loyal customer who is concerned that the excellence with which I was treated in the past might not continue into the future. I purchased a red 2000 Civic Hatchback (earlier in 2003 we purchased an Odyssey). As I mentioned, the sales transaction with Steve Doe when purchasing the car went well, and I was satisfied with the price of the car, as well as what I received on my trade-in. A short time later, I noticed that there was no block heater on the Civic. I considered this to be an oversight, and upon calling Steve, I trusted that the matter would be promptly taken care of. During our conversation, Steve said he would talk to his "manager" (Rick Doe?) to see what could be done. Steve's response was, "John, we can put one in for you at 'cost.'" I asked what cost was, and Steve replied, "About $75." While I wasn't overly happy with this solution, I agreed- realizing that I did purchase a used car and the responsibility ultimately lies with me to ensure the car is equipped as expected (although in our climate I can't imagine selling a vehicle without a block heater). At any rate, having made this agreement I proceeded to make an appointment with your Service Dept. to have a block heater installed. Upon picking up the Civic following the installation, I was- to say the least, shocked at what I was being asked to pay. Here are the details of the transaction (copy of invoice attached): · Block Heater- $73.90 · Install Block Heater- $142.40 <= · Tax- $30.28 · Total- $246.58 Mr. Dealer, I don't believe that any reasonable person would consider what I paid for this transaction to be the generally accepted definition of "at cost." Furthermore I was quoted "about $75," there was no mention of an additional $142 in labour. When I was presented with the invoice I expressed my surprise to the service advisor, but as I was running late for a business appointment, I paid the invoice, planning to follow up with Steve later. The next day before contacting Steve, I decided I would place a "cold" call to your service dept. to inquire what it would cost to have a block heater installed on a 2000 Civic HB; I was quoted exactly what I had paid! Irate, I immediately called Steve to tell him about the fiasco, and after talking to his "manager" (Rick Doe?), Steve said all he could offer me as compensation was four "complimentary" oil changes, instead of my money- MY MONEY! (quotations added because they really aren't complimentary- I paid for them!). Mr. Dealer, what is going on here? What kind of business transactions are these? As a businessman in our local community, I would NEVER dream of treating my customers this way. Sadly, the saga continues... About four months went by when I still hadn't received anything from your dealership stating that I was to receive 4 "complimentary" oil changes. About ten days ago I called your dealership to ask for Steve Doe, when I was informed that he was no longer affiliated with your dealership. I then left a message for Rick Doe, and he returned my call- agreeing to send me something in the mail for my oil changes. I reminded Rick about what had transpired and told him that I did not believe that I was treated fairly, and that any labour charges for the block heater installation should have been promptly refunded. I told him of what Steve had promised- that I was going to get a block heater at cost. Rick said that meant "sales cost." Mr. Dealer, what does that mean? Rick explained that sales cost is what it costs the company to sell one to a customer. Using this definition, I then asked Rick if he informs all customers entering your dealership that they can have any vehicle at cost; nonsense. Again, I ask you: is this the generally accepted definition of "at cost?" What is implied when quoting a customer a price "at cost?" Nonetheless, Rick's explanation was still not consistent with what I had been quoted: Steve told me that I was to get a block heater at cost, NOT "sales cost." At this point it was becoming abundantly clear to me that I had been lied to- pure and simple. I told Rick about the cold call I made, saying that I paid the same price as anyone off the street. Hearing this, Rick became very argumentative, swore at me, and called me a "smart ass." Mr. Dealer, to say the least- Rick Doe's words shocked me! In all my years as the customer in a business transaction- professional or personal, I have never been treated this way. This was certainly not what I had expected as a loyal, repeat customer of your company, who in the last year has spent $40,000 at your dealership. I' ve been treated better at a restaurant. On Friday, Feb 13/04 I finally received my oil change certificates, but I continue to be most displeased with how I was treated. I would like what I deserve- my money. I once again want to remind you Mr. Dealer, that I am informing you of this as a customer who wants your company to remain the fine customer-oriented establishment that it has been in the past. I am not approaching you as some young 18 year-old kid that wants something for nothing. No, rather I am a 36 year-old husband & father of four children, and a professional businessman in our city, that wants to be treated fairly & equitably, just as the customer ought to be. How will you respond to how I was treated Mr. Dealer? As someone who is well versed in the strategies of customer service, I see merely refunding my $142.40 + applicable taxes to be the very bare minimum. Mr. Dealer, from my observations there appears to be one root problem here. Is it Steve Doe? Is it your service department? Or is it Rick Doe? As Dealer Principal, I'll let you answer those probing questions. Please contact me upon receipt of this e-mail to discuss this further. I will also send a copy of my correspondence through the mail in hopes that this reaches your office. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank-you, John Doe => Here's the Dealer's response: HI JOHN DOE: I JUST RETURNED FROM A TWO WEEK VACATION, I AM AS HORRIFIED AS YOU ARE, TO FIND THAT A CUSTOMER OF OURS COULD BE TREATED SO POORLY. I WILL REFUND YOUR MONEY IMMEDIATELY, I AGREE THAT IS THE BARE MINIMUM, I WILL DEAL WITH MY INTERNAL ISSUES AND I WILL FURTHER DECIDE WHAT I MIGHT DO, TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER DOING BUSINESS WITH US IN THE FUTURE. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LETTER, AND YOUR EXTREME PATIENCE IN THIS MATTER. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. YOURS TRULY, MR DEALER "Keith J" <keith_757@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jc6dnQWZpLVynardRVn-ig@comcast.com... > You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for > maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was > scheduled. > > If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd > agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess > is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should > recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a > large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following > visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business > with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. > > If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak > with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a > call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will > be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity > is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? > But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints > or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new > attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. > > good luck! > Keith > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll > give > > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > > change out of them! > > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > > fluid, > > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing > defect) > > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > > 13,000 > > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > > (when > > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > > Dealer > > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > > was > > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Hey all,
I was recently screwed when purchasing a Honda Civic. I live in Central Canada where it is often -30 C, and the car I purchased didn't have an engine block heater. Following is an excerpt of a letter I wrote to complain about how I was treated, and the dealers response (just received yesterday). The Dealer Principal's displeasure with how I was treated means a lot to me. My advice is if you draft up a well-written letter & direct it to the Dealer Principal, you'll get a response- if the place is worth their salt. I'll let you all know how it turns out. Here's the story; names have been changed, of course: Dear Mr. Dealer: By way of introduction, my name is Mr. John Doe, a loyal customer of yours who has purchased two vehicles from your organization within the last ten months, and four overall. You may recall an e-mail I sent you back in 2003 regarding the favourable sales transactions we had with one of your sales & leasing consultants- Steve Doe. As you may have noticed from my correspondence at that time, I believe in making a note of positive business transactions whenever possible to encourage those involved; I also believe we have a responsibility in shedding light upon any short-comings that may arise, so that areas of concern may be addressed & hopefully corrected. I wish I had another good-news story to bring to your attention, but unfortunately this is not the reason for my correspondence today. Instead, I am writing to advise you about some grave concerns I have regarding what transpired shortly after we purchased our second vehicle from your establishment in 2003. I once again want to remind you that these concerns come from a loyal customer who is concerned that the excellence with which I was treated in the past might not continue into the future. I purchased a red 2000 Civic Hatchback (earlier in 2003 we purchased an Odyssey). As I mentioned, the sales transaction with Steve Doe when purchasing the car went well, and I was satisfied with the price of the car, as well as what I received on my trade-in. A short time later, I noticed that there was no block heater on the Civic. I considered this to be an oversight, and upon calling Steve, I trusted that the matter would be promptly taken care of. During our conversation, Steve said he would talk to his "manager" (Rick Doe?) to see what could be done. Steve's response was, "John, we can put one in for you at 'cost.'" I asked what cost was, and Steve replied, "About $75." While I wasn't overly happy with this solution, I agreed- realizing that I did purchase a used car and the responsibility ultimately lies with me to ensure the car is equipped as expected (although in our climate I can't imagine selling a vehicle without a block heater). At any rate, having made this agreement I proceeded to make an appointment with your Service Dept. to have a block heater installed. Upon picking up the Civic following the installation, I was- to say the least, shocked at what I was being asked to pay. Here are the details of the transaction (copy of invoice attached): · Block Heater- $73.90 · Install Block Heater- $142.40 <= · Tax- $30.28 · Total- $246.58 Mr. Dealer, I don't believe that any reasonable person would consider what I paid for this transaction to be the generally accepted definition of "at cost." Furthermore I was quoted "about $75," there was no mention of an additional $142 in labour. When I was presented with the invoice I expressed my surprise to the service advisor, but as I was running late for a business appointment, I paid the invoice, planning to follow up with Steve later. The next day before contacting Steve, I decided I would place a "cold" call to your service dept. to inquire what it would cost to have a block heater installed on a 2000 Civic HB; I was quoted exactly what I had paid! Irate, I immediately called Steve to tell him about the fiasco, and after talking to his "manager" (Rick Doe?), Steve said all he could offer me as compensation was four "complimentary" oil changes, instead of my money- MY MONEY! (quotations added because they really aren't complimentary- I paid for them!). Mr. Dealer, what is going on here? What kind of business transactions are these? As a businessman in our local community, I would NEVER dream of treating my customers this way. Sadly, the saga continues... About four months went by when I still hadn't received anything from your dealership stating that I was to receive 4 "complimentary" oil changes. About ten days ago I called your dealership to ask for Steve Doe, when I was informed that he was no longer affiliated with your dealership. I then left a message for Rick Doe, and he returned my call- agreeing to send me something in the mail for my oil changes. I reminded Rick about what had transpired and told him that I did not believe that I was treated fairly, and that any labour charges for the block heater installation should have been promptly refunded. I told him of what Steve had promised- that I was going to get a block heater at cost. Rick said that meant "sales cost." Mr. Dealer, what does that mean? Rick explained that sales cost is what it costs the company to sell one to a customer. Using this definition, I then asked Rick if he informs all customers entering your dealership that they can have any vehicle at cost; nonsense. Again, I ask you: is this the generally accepted definition of "at cost?" What is implied when quoting a customer a price "at cost?" Nonetheless, Rick's explanation was still not consistent with what I had been quoted: Steve told me that I was to get a block heater at cost, NOT "sales cost." At this point it was becoming abundantly clear to me that I had been lied to- pure and simple. I told Rick about the cold call I made, saying that I paid the same price as anyone off the street. Hearing this, Rick became very argumentative, swore at me, and called me a "smart ass." Mr. Dealer, to say the least- Rick Doe's words shocked me! In all my years as the customer in a business transaction- professional or personal, I have never been treated this way. This was certainly not what I had expected as a loyal, repeat customer of your company, who in the last year has spent $40,000 at your dealership. I' ve been treated better at a restaurant. On Friday, Feb 13/04 I finally received my oil change certificates, but I continue to be most displeased with how I was treated. I would like what I deserve- my money. I once again want to remind you Mr. Dealer, that I am informing you of this as a customer who wants your company to remain the fine customer-oriented establishment that it has been in the past. I am not approaching you as some young 18 year-old kid that wants something for nothing. No, rather I am a 36 year-old husband & father of four children, and a professional businessman in our city, that wants to be treated fairly & equitably, just as the customer ought to be. How will you respond to how I was treated Mr. Dealer? As someone who is well versed in the strategies of customer service, I see merely refunding my $142.40 + applicable taxes to be the very bare minimum. Mr. Dealer, from my observations there appears to be one root problem here. Is it Steve Doe? Is it your service department? Or is it Rick Doe? As Dealer Principal, I'll let you answer those probing questions. Please contact me upon receipt of this e-mail to discuss this further. I will also send a copy of my correspondence through the mail in hopes that this reaches your office. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank-you, John Doe => Here's the Dealer's response: HI JOHN DOE: I JUST RETURNED FROM A TWO WEEK VACATION, I AM AS HORRIFIED AS YOU ARE, TO FIND THAT A CUSTOMER OF OURS COULD BE TREATED SO POORLY. I WILL REFUND YOUR MONEY IMMEDIATELY, I AGREE THAT IS THE BARE MINIMUM, I WILL DEAL WITH MY INTERNAL ISSUES AND I WILL FURTHER DECIDE WHAT I MIGHT DO, TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER DOING BUSINESS WITH US IN THE FUTURE. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LETTER, AND YOUR EXTREME PATIENCE IN THIS MATTER. I WILL CONTACT YOU NEXT WEEK. YOURS TRULY, MR DEALER "Keith J" <keith_757@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jc6dnQWZpLVynardRVn-ig@comcast.com... > You should make enough stink due to you paid a ridiculous amount for > maintenance that they knew you didn't need and was done WAY before it was > scheduled. > > If I was the manager and you asked for a simple no-brainer oil change, I'd > agree, no problem and laugh al the way to the bank with your cash. My guess > is that you paid in the hundreds of dollars for that maintenance, you should > recoup a good portion of that, or what they may like more, is ask for a > large amount back in the form of a credit to be used on your following > visits. It shows that you still like them and wish to continue business > with them. Plus the dealership will know that you will be coming back. > > If you get shafted by the service manager, walk out front and ask to speak > with the dealership manager. If still not satisfied, give Honda corporate a > call/letter. If it comes to a letter, you might want to say that you will > be contacting the local TV news crew on how they scr#wed you. Bad publicity > is really unwanted. A lot of dealerships change names, have you noticed? > But the same people still work there. Probably they have so many complaints > or legal action against them, hence the name change. It shows a new > attitude to the public, but with the same old workers. > > good luck! > Keith > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:59BZb.3634$6t5.425@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Thanks everybody, I agree - I was lax in not ensuring I understood exactly > > what they would be doing. I let my guard down some since the dealer had > > always been pretty much on the up-and-up with me to this point! I'll > give > > them another call and complain to the manager. Maybe I can get a free oil > > change out of them! > > > > > > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > > fluid, > > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing > defect) > > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > > 13,000 > > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > > (when > > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > > Dealer > > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > > was > > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Gimme the stats; how much you want for it?
-chris "Ron" <Homer@Simpson.com> wrote in message news:EEwZb.30050$Ff2.19155@clgrps12... > Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think > Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As > far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon > enough > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Gimme the stats; how much you want for it?
-chris "Ron" <Homer@Simpson.com> wrote in message news:EEwZb.30050$Ff2.19155@clgrps12... > Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think > Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As > far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon > enough > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
Re: Transmission Maintenance
Gimme the stats; how much you want for it?
-chris "Ron" <Homer@Simpson.com> wrote in message news:EEwZb.30050$Ff2.19155@clgrps12... > Thats what you get for trusting Honda... sorry, no offence, but i think > Honda Canada and Honda Dealers in general leave A LOT to be dessired! As > far as I am concerned, when I get rid of my 04 civic it will not be soon > enough > "mwlogs" <mwlogs@spam-me-not.excite.com> wrote in message > news:%FtZb.2697$6t5.857@fe3.columbus.rr.com... > > Hello Group, > > > > I recently had the 60K mile maintenance done on my 2001 Accord. The > > maintenance schedule calls for replacing the transmission filter and > fluid, > > which was done. My question to the dealer afterward was why? The > > transmission had been replaced (one of those with a 'manufacturing defect) > > at about 37,000 miles. Seems to me THIS transmission only had around > 13,000 > > miles on it and wouldn't need the maintenance until round 97,000 miles > (when > > the transmission had 60K on it!). He says no, it needed it now. > > > > Anyone else think I got ripped for the cost of this maintenance? The > Dealer > > had the records on the transmission replacement and should have known it > was > > newer than the rest of the car. > > > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mark > > > > > > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands