Shame on Barwick Automotive?

Hi, my name is Silvia Kelch. I want to share with you the details of a dispute - and meanwhile actually also a second dispute - with Barwick Automotive in San Juan Capistrano, CA, a 5 Star-rated authorized Chrysler dealer and service station. However, first, let me ask you this: You probably know you need your timing belt replaced every so often. Do YOU know when? Do YOU know how many timing belts your car has, if any? Do YOU know which other parts need to be replaced or repaired? If so: good for you. If not, read my story and make sure something like this won't happen to you. (Text in quotes is taken literally from documents in my possession.)

And if you have automotive repair related questions check out these web sites.
-----

Dispute #1: (Or go right to the updates or dispute #2.)

As it stands on Sunday, 5/16/99, the day of creating this web site, and the way I see it, Barwick Automotive has failed in the past to correct a problem with a repair they performed in June 1998 and is now denying the dealership's responsibility for the resulting damage despite existing warranty coverage. According to Barwick's preliminary best guess estimate to repair the current damage: $3,579 "possible may be more."

-- "Nobody beats a Barwick Deal, and we mean nobody" as on http://www.barwickauto.com

But, hey, you might think right away, you can always call Chrysler, as it will probably say in the owners manual of your Chrysler vehicle. They'll help you. Well, I have contacted the Chrysler Customer Assistance Center on 5/12/99 at 1-800-992-1997, complaint file - or as they call it care #578-2344, and asked for assistance. The assistance I got was that they noted the complaint. I was told they can't intervene in a customer/dealership dispute because the dealerships are independently owned and operated. Thanks for nothing, Scott!

But did I really have something to complain about? Decide for yourself!

To start with, I have a 1990 Eagle Talon DOHC with a 2 liter engine and a manual 5-speed transmission. In Feb. 1994 and with 39538 miles on the car, I had my timing belt replaced at Capo Valley Jeep Eagle in San Clemente, CA, after Chrysler issued a recall on the belt. I had to return the car to the dealership a few days later because it made a pinging sound. This was, per dealership, due to "timing belt loose" which was tightened and the tensioner adjusted. If you wonder why they didn't notice the pinging sound after the repair - I mean, I'm sure they road tested the vehicle, right? - well, I wondered too. But, maybe those kind of things can happen, even when dealing with the trained experts at an authorized Chrysler dealership, right?

But this is just to start with and to get you warmed up, it gets much better than that.

In June of 1998 with 78503 miles on the car, i.e., less than 40000 miles later, I had a problem with sluggish performance and pinging sounds. To repair it, the timing belt and tensioner once again needed replacement "due to three teeth off at exhaust camshaft" according to Barwick Automotive who performed the repair at a cost of $598.84.

By the way, what exactly did cause the timing belt to fail way before its usual life expectancy of 60000+ miles? Could it be that Capo Valley Jeep Eagle ...? Nah, they couldn't have messed things up twice, could they? But then, why did Barwick call me and ask who had put the timing belt in?

Anyway, after the repair, the engine vibrated heavily and created a lot of noise at about 3000 rpm. I brought the car back and the dealer then "rechecked all bolt timing marks at TDC and Distributor timing" and found that "all of them are ok." Barwick noted "minor engine vibration, also note D engine mounts too old" and recommended replacement. Otherwise the "vehicle is operating as designed." I disputed that, pointed out that there was no engine vibration and noise problem prior to the repair, the technician didn't note a problem with the engine mounts when he initially diagnosed my car problems, and they could hardly have become "too old" in a matter of two days. To no avail. Barwick's experts explained they were certain that the engine vibration could not possibly be related to the repair work.

But if you think this engine vibration business is a little odd, just wait. It REALLY gets good!

On May 6, 1999, with 85112 miles on the car, i.e., 7000 miles later, my car suddenly made a loud grinding sound and the engine stopped working. Due to my previous negative experience(s) with Chrysler's authorized dealerships, I had the car towed to an independent repair shop. This shop "diagnosed ignition and fuel system, removed valve cover and timing belt cover and inspected, located timing belt jumped and bent valves" on May 7, 1999. With the 1998 repair at Barwick still under the 12000 mile warranty, I immediately contacted Barwick Automotive and spoke with the Service Manager Richard who assured me if the jumped timing belt was caused by a part that they previously worked on, the repair would be paid for by Chrysler.

After having the car towed to Barwick on May 7, 1999, the dealership diagnosed the problem on May 11 as follows: "harmonic balancer shaft belt broke and bent valves when balancer belt broke it wrapped around timing belt." The repair of the car, so I was told on May 12 by Richard, the Service Manager, as well as J.R. Rodriguez, the Service Advisor, will not be covered by Barwick or Chrysler under warranty since the balance belt was not a part Barwick worked on in 1998. My phone call to the General Manager Steve Parajeckas on May 12 did not produce a better result.

So, back to my initial question: How much do YOU know about this timing belt replacement procedure? Do YOU know whether your car has another belt called balance shaft belt or timing belt "B"? If so, do YOU know that replacing the (camshaft) timing belt so it won't break and damage your engine makes no sense without replacing the balance shaft belt because IT can break, wrap around the timing belt, and cause engine damage? Do YOU know that this little belt costs next to nothing and can relatively easily be replaced when doing the camshaft timing belt? Obviously, I sure didn't. But never fear, because that's why you take your car to the dealership, they know everything about it and will certainly tell you what needs fixing and replacing, right?

From what I have experienced, apparently not at Barwick Chrysler! Replacing the balance shaft belt was not recommended to me which most repair shops do, as I found out now.

-- "Nobody beats a Barwick Deal, and we mean nobody" as on http://www.barwickauto.com

If you're still with me, you probably at least wonder by now "should they have ...?" and "why didn't they ...?" I can't give you any answers to that, but maybe Barwick can?

So, Barwick - for whatever reason - didn't work on the balance shaft belt, warranty doesn't apply, and the customer pays for the repair. That's where we're at. Yeah, I know, I know, there's still the thing with the engine vibration after the repair. Just forget it for right now, okay? I'll get to that. I can still give you more to wonder about before we get to that.

Just to make sure, let's double check Barwick's invoice from July 1998. It lists three separate repair items: 1. "44 Replace timing belt tensioner and R & R belt," charging for 5 hours of labor in the amount of $340, and 2. a timing belt tensioner in the amount of $114.00. The invoice continues 3. "B** replaced timing belt tensioner," and an additional 2 hours of labor in the amount of $136 are charged. Now remember, the timing belt "B" is also called the balance shaft belt, so we're talking about the tensioner adjusting the tension on the belt that broke and caused all the damage, are we not? You know, the one belt that Barwick supposedly didn't touch ...

Oh, should I also mention that Chrysler's 1994 recall letter for the timing belt stated that "the work will take about three hours to complete?" Barwick charged my for seven hours of labor! One might wonder ... well, you probably hardly need help to figure that one out.

And yes, now we finally get to the engine vibration that Barwick claimed was due to worn engine mounts and had nothing to do with the repair.

Guess what? On the Internet, I found a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB No. 09-15-93) issued by Chrysler on Sept. 17, 1993, that states: "Caution: MAKE SURE THE BALANCE SHAFT IS PROPERLY POSITIONED. It is possible for the oil pump sprocket timing marks to be properly aligned, and have the balance shaft out of phase. This could result in a SEVERE engine vibration." (Thank God for the Internet, the Club DSM at http://www.dsm.org for posting it, and Rick at http://www.vfaq.com for elaborating on it).

I have faxed the appropriate page of the TSB to Barwick a few days ago. I thought their experts could use it. By the way, for you experts over at Barwick: I don't have a 3.3 liter engine as your 1998 invoice states, it REALLY is a 2 liter engine!

-- "Nobody beats a Barwick Deal, and we mean nobody" as on http://www.barwickauto.com

For completeness, I'd like to add that a written, faxed, and mailed letter from 5/14/99 requesting assistance from the Chrysler Assistance Center is still pending. My two letters faxed to the General Manager Steve Parajeckas at Barwick from 5/13/99 and from 5/15/99 have not yet been answered other than Mr. Parajeckas calling me on 5/13/99, assuring me he would look into it and get back to me.

Updates to Dispute #1: (leading to "resolution" and dispute #2)

Monday, 5/17/99: Barwick offered to tear my engine apart at no charge to me in order to be able to determine the damage to the engine and provide me with a more accurate estimate on the repair cost. However, I was told once again, the repair cost will not be covered by Barwick.
... Hmm, somehow this doesn't sound like such a great idea to me, the customer ...

Wednesday, 5/19/99: Still no word from Chrysler, no explanation form Barwick as to why their warranty supposedly doesn't apply.

Thursday, 5/20/99: The result of another phone call to the Chrysler Customer Assistance Center: "At some point the customer just has to accept the responsibility for his vehicle." Funny, I didn't ask them to take over the responsibility for my vehicle. I just asked them to to act upon the responsibility I think they have to make sure the dealership lives up to Chrysler's standards ...

AND, if everything works out, this is the good news: In a meeting today with Mr. Al Parajeckas, Barwick's owner, Mr. Parajeckas offered to take care of the damage, provided no other cause can be determined without a shadow of a doubt. Repair should then be completed within 3-4 days.

In turn, I have promised the owner of Barwick Automotive, to "take care of this internet business" and minimize further inconvenience for the dealership by discouraging your feedback to Barwick on my behalf. I have also, for the time being, stopped promoting my web site and deleted the links my page originally contained to the Feedback page on Barwick's web site.

Saturday, 5/22/99: Received letter from the Chrysler Customer Assistance Center, dated 5/18/99: "We have received your letter and fully appreciate the concerns you have raised. After thoroughly reviewing your request and our files on this matter, we respectfully concur with the decision rendered by our Senior Staff. We appreciate your taking the time to write to DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation. We are sorry we cannot provide a more favorable reply." As I said before: Thanks for nothing.

Tuesday, 5/25/99: No word from Barwick yet. Upon my call to the Service Manager Richard, I was told that they have taken the car apart and he "is putting it all together for me" and would call me back later. He didn't.

Letters sent to several executives at Chrysler's headquarter in Michigan as well as the local zone office in Irvine, CA, explaining the situation and expressing my concern about Chrysler's position in this dispute.

Wednesday, 5/26/99: Day #20 without my car, and no word from Barwick yet. Once again, I called and Richard told me he was waiting for the information from the machine shop and would call me back later. I made it very clear that I want to see a list of repair/replacement items if Barwick decided to work on the car prior to the work starting and was advised my final invoice would provide such a listing. As I also had previously stated to Mr. Parajeckas, I insisted on seeing, i.e., being provided via fax, and approving the repair items prior to the repair. Richard said he'd call me the following day.

Thursday, 5/27/99: During my call to Barwick's Service Manager Richard, I was informed that per Mr. Al Parajeckas, Barwick's owner, I could not receive anything in writing as to the details of the repair or the repair cost being covered by Barwick prior to the repair. This was followed by a discussion about the necessity to replace both timing belts and tensioners as well as the tensioner pulleys and idler pulleys instead of just the two belts and the balance belt tensioner. Since agreement could not be reached, I advised Richard not to conduct the repair. During a return call a short while later, Richard stated that, although not necessary, all those items will be replaced. Repair should be completed Tuesday or Wednesday.

Wednesday, 6/02/99: Nearly four weeks after it broke down, my car has been repaired by the dealer and returned to me. While Barwick has also installed a new water pump (which I was going to pay for), and has decided not to charge me for it, the replaced parts have not been saved and returned to me as I had instructed when bringing the car in for diagnosis ... And Barwick states on the invoice: "... As per Service Director, repair performed as goodwill adjustment and is in no relation to any previous repairs performed."
Wouldn't it have been nice if I could have had those parts inspected by another mechanic or the Bureau of Automotive Repairs?

Anyway, the car appears to be running fine, and even the engine mounts that Barwick found "too old" last year apparently have rejuvenated: There is considerably less engine vibration than after Barwick's repair last year.

Wednesday, 6/16/99: Still no response from Chrysler to any of my letters.

Dispute #2: (resulting from dispute #1 as "resolved" according to the updates)

Saturday, 6/05/99: 100 miles after the Barwick repair, my car is suddenly stuttering and has no power when run at less than 3000 rpm. (In retrospect I have to say I'm more than glad about that.)

Monday, 6/07/99: A Mitsubishi dealer diagnosed my newly developed car problems as follows: "Customer informed that the sputtering is due to the #1 and #3 ignition wires arcing to the cylinder head. Customer authorized the replacement of the ignition wires and spark plugs. The vehicle engine is vibrating excessively due to the vehicle's balance shaft being out of time and tensioner fully compressed."
Well, does that sound like I'm right back to the situation that started dispute #1 or what?

I called Barwick immediately, but could not reach the owner or the general manager. I informed the Service Manager Richard of the situation, including the fact that Mitsubishi would be able to fix the timing belt problem the same day for only $299 (significantly less than what Barwick charged me last year for the similar repair) which would obviously also eliminate towing and rental car cost for several days that I would incur by having the car taken back to Barwick. However, agreement as to Barwick's responsibility for the balance shaft problem and hence to hold me harmless, i.e., to pay for all the costs, could not be reached.
Why wasn't I surprised? ... I then had Mitsubishi fix the car.

Tuesday, 6/08/99: Got my car back from Mitsubishi and there is no more engine vibration!

Friday, 6/11/99: Barwick received my letter to the owner, Mr. Al Parajeckas, explaining the situation. I asked to be reimbursed by June 23, 1999, for the timing belt related work, the one day rental car cost, and the cost for an engine compression check. Of course, there is no connection I'm aware of between the timing belt problem and the engine compression - other than that Barwick worked on both the timing belts AND the engine ... (whereby Barwick's last invoice does not list a compression check after they replaced the engine valves and the cylinder head.) Total cost to me - once again not counting the "inconveniences": $428,68.

Should I say it one more time: "Nobody beats a Barwick Deal ..."

Thursday, 6/24/99: If you were looking forward to finding out how Barwick might have responded to my last letter, I have to disappoint you. The dealership did not extend me the courtesy of addressing my situation with a letter, but sent me a check in the amount of $304, 27 for the timing belt related repair. Included with the check was, however, a copy of a "Response to Silvia Kelch Complaint," dated 6/18/99. I thought you might find these two statements interesting:

1. Mr. Parajeckas writes that I towed the car to Barwick on May 7 from an independent repair shop "... with the engine partially disassembled and seized." Amazing what an independent repair shop can do within 1 hour! Besides, I inspected the car prior to having it towed. The only thing I saw was that the valve cover was unscrewed and the timing belt cover was removed which I put in a plastic bag in front of the driver seat.
Is that what the expert Chrysler technicians at Barwick consider partial disassembly and seizing of an engine?

2. In regards to the latest necessary timing belt related repair performed by Mitsubishi ("vehicle engine is vibrating excessively due to the vehicle's balance shaft being out of time and tensioner fully compressed"), Mr. Parajeckas, i.e., Barwick states: "... was most likely caused by the misfiring by due to the fact that she needed spark plugs and wires (tune-up)."
So far, I haven't found a mechanic yet who thought this was possible.

Maybe that gives an indication how things would have gone if I had taken the car back to Barwick to give them, as I see it, a fourth chance to perform the timing belt installation correctly ...?

-----

Probably like most of you, I myself have no knowledge about mechanical aspects of cars and/or repairs and desperately needed help in understanding this situation. I can highly recommend two web sites to you that have been incredibly helpful to me. The mechanics at http://www.allexperts.com have been absolutely great and my thanks go out to all you guys volunteering your help and advice at that site. And just as much thanks goes to Chuck who answers questions on his bulletin board at http://www.freeautoadvice.com You guys are PRICELESS! Thank you so much!!

And also thanks to my buddy Chris who let me drive his car which gave me the time to fight the battle of the first dispute with the dealership. I love you, Chris!!

-----

Feel free to share my story with anyone you know, in fact: please DO share it so your friends know better than I and won't get into the trouble I've gotten in. And feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions. Especially if you had your own share or grief with Barwick or Chrysler, I'm interested in hearing about it.

Barwick Automotive ?