Obviously there was still a little room for the company to back up since
they decided to amend their first offer and eat the additional $2000. I
find it hard to believe that any factory rep would rescind the offer if you
request a second opinion. Personally, if that happened to me, I would go
straight to the Divisional manager and have that guy's head on a platter
(metaphorically speaking).
Maybe a little more persistence would have resolved your brake/ABS problems.
It seems to me that reminding Ford of the potential for personal injuries
and the inevitable law suits that arise from them would have gone a long way
in reducing the 2+ years of poor brake service.
I guess some of us give way to Goliath and others pick up a rock and give it
our best shot.
-----Original Message-----
From: James H. Nazarian, Ph.D. <microdoc@apk.net>
To: T. Keith Vezina <tkvezina@bellsouth.net>
Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: non-LBC (Volvo) question: Why does a bad thermostat = new
engine?
>Volvo's deal could have disappeared as soon as some non-authorized mechanic
>touched the engine. Ford has done this to me or my company twice. Once on
an
>Escort with a cracked head, the other with an Econoline conversion van with
>brake / ABS problems that lasted 2+ years. An individual can't push an auto
>company any further than they want to be pushed.
>
>Jim
>
>"T. Keith Vezina" wrote:
>
>> I don't think that the factory rep was personally involved in the
diagnosis,
>> just the adjustment of the bill. It is the diagnosis and remedy that I
>> question. Personally, getting only 50K out of a modern engine and having
to
>> pay $2000 is not my idea of a good deal; especially if an independent
>> mechanic discovers that all it needs is a new head gasket.
>>
>> If it were me, I would spend the $60 for an independant mechanic to look
at
>> it. I don't see why Volvo's "deal" wouldn't still be there.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James H. Nazarian, Ph.D. <microdoc@apk.net>
>> To: T. Keith Vezina <tkvezina@bellsouth.net>
>> Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>; Steve Shoyer
<Steve@shoyer.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: non-LBC (Volvo) question: Why does a bad thermostat = new
>> engine?
>>
>> >>From my experience, the Volvo Rep is the FINAL opinion. Steve got 50000
>> miles of
>> >use out of it, and will now get a new engine, all for $2000. Not a bad
>> deal:
>> >certainly not worth jeopardizing the offer by getting the rep pissed
off.
>> Ford
>> >and GM have no provisions for a consumer to bypass or circumvent the
field
>> rep's
>> >authority; I doubt Volvo is any different.
>> >
>> >Jim
>> >
>> >"T. Keith Vezina" wrote:
>> >
>> >> For this kind of major surgery, I would recommend a second opinion.
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Steve Shoyer <Steve@shoyer.com>
>> >> To: 'mgs@autox.team.net' <mgs@autox.team.net>
>> >> Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:03 PM
>> >> Subject: non-LBC (Volvo) question: Why does a bad thermostat = new
>> engine?
>> >>
>> >> >After spending a couple of years working on my 1980 MGB, I thought I
had
>> >> >picked up a little knowledge about engines. However, we have a 1997
>> Volvo
>> >> >850 GLT sedan. Every once in a while, the "low coolant" light would
go
>> on,
>> >> >so I'd top it off (with the "special" Volvo coolant, of course). It
>> >> started
>> >> >happening more frequently, and when we took the car in with 49,500
miles
>> >> (it
>> >> >has a 50K warranty), we had them take a look at it. They said a hose
>> was
>> >> >loose, tightened a clamp, topped off the coolant, and told up it was
>> fixed.
>> >> >Soon after, the coolant light was back on, and the "Check Engine"
light
>> was
>> >> >going on, too. The only other symptom was that the car would run
pretty
>> >> >rough after a cold start, but it would be OK after a minute or two.
>> >> Anyway,
>> >> >they said replaced the upper radiator hose and thermostat, and
checked
>> the
>> >> >head gasket for leaks. For the "check engine" light and rough
running,
>> >> they
>> >> >found gas washed cylinders which they cleaned, and they replaced the
>> spark
>> >> >plugs, oil, and filter.
>> >> >
>> >> >A few weeks later the "low coolant" light was back, as was the "check
>> >> >engine" light. The coolant leak was becoming more pronounced. We
took
>> the
>> >> >car back, and it's been at the shop for almost two weeks while they
ran
>> >> more
>> >> >compression tests and waited for the Volvo regional service person to
>> get
>> >> >back to them about something. Today we got a message that they
>> recommend
>> >> >that the engine should be replaced, which should cost about $6500.
It's
>> >> out
>> >> >of warranty, but Volvo is willing to pick up $4500 of the cost,
leaving
>> us
>> >> >to pay $2000. From what I've picked up from my wife's translation of
>> what
>> >> >the service person told her, the bad thermostat caused a crack in the
>> head.
>> >> >They said that we could try to just replace the head gasket for about
>> >> $1000,
>> >> >but only if we were about to trade the car in.
>> >> >
>> >> >The car never overheated, and the temp gauge never showed that the
>> engine
>> >> >was getting hot. I still don't understand why there should be any
>> >> >interaction between the cooling system and the "check engine" light
>> (which,
>> >> >according to the owner's manual, relates to the emissions system). I
>> don't
>> >> >know how a bad thermostat could crack the head, especially without
any
>> >> >external signs other than a low coolant level.
>> >> >
>> >> >We like the car, so we'll probably get it fixed, but can anyone tell
me
>> why
>> >> >this might have happened? Is it something we should have to pay for,
>> and
>> >> if
>> >> >not, what would be our argument for getting the dealer to pick up the
>> whole
>> >> >cost? I'm not trying to weasel out of paying if it is my
>> responsibility,
>> >> >but the car was in a few times for the same problem, and each time
the
>> >> >dealer said that they had fixed it. The $2000 would be better spent
>> fixing
>> >> >my rusted sills (although my wife might not agree).
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry for the use of the bandwidth, but if anyone has any
suggestions,
>> I'd
>> >> >like to know. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> >--Steve Shoyer (1980 MGB)
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
|