Well---Ya certainly got me there! I agree with you completely!
Evidently things have become critical in the business world. Every dime means the difference between keeping the doors open or closing shop---so---even though it takes only about three to 5 minutes to check a rear diff--and add a squirt of oil to top it off--they evidently feel that they MUST charge for a full hour---to make ends meet.
I guess the flat rate manual has gone the way of the yellow pages.

With this kind of thinking and desperation it will soon cost anyone 150.00 to have one tire changed in the event of a flat.

Are things REALLY that desperate.
Eddie?

 

When I pulled my car out of the garage after my grandmother passed a few years ago, I sent the vehicle to County Corvette. The car didn't run for close to 40 years, it just sat in the garage.....original as can be. I mostly dealt with James in service, however, he is no longer there. Now, I mainly deal with Mike in service. Craig was the technician that always worked on the vehicle. I never felt any sense of disrespect with any of the employees. They were pretty straightforward and honest and communication was great. Overall, Craig did a good job getting the car running proper. There were a handful of issues that I wasn't happy with and I let them know. For instance, recently I was able to get the car on a lift to change the oil and do a few other minor things. I noticed the power steering hoses were rubbing on the frame when turning the steering wheel to the left. As a result, the rubber part of the hose became shaved off over time and the braided core was exposed. County Corvette installed those hoses. I told them, they sent me a new set of hoses which is respectable. Also, they installed a new (blue) distributor cap and painted in black, with what looks like plasti dip. The black paint chipped off and half the cap is now blue. There were a few other issues, which I won't discuss. I paid ALOT of money for the repairs that were performed, but I knew this ahead of time. I was definitely pissed off when I found these problems, but I'm over it now. What's done is done. I let Mike know, he was cool about it. But honestly, I could care less if they think I'm a dick. Not sure if I will continue using them. Maybe I'll try other options: Corvette Paramedics or Conti's.....who knows. If this post helps anyone make a decision, great. But, in no way am I trying to crap on County Corvette. I'm just giving an honest review.

 

Hello everyone,
We thought you should be aware of our side of the story as we just learned this very unfair post existed.
To try to address John Muldoons assertions.
First John is a highly competent mechanic with his own shop. He brought the car to us in absolute frustration in being unable to fix, in his words, a “Frankenstein” car and a "2 can reman." He sent that in an email.

The car came in with poor running, drivability issues, vibrations and clunking noises. We were able to diagnose the engine misfire was due a to zip tie end stuck in a valve seat. It did take some time to uncover that. We did resolve the vibrations and noises to a certain extent, but John was upset that we would not take the car to 80 to 100 MPH where he was still feeling vibration on reproduction bias ply tires. It should be obvious to all that we did our best to reasonably fix the vibration but obviously cannot and will not drive customers cars at 80 – 100 mph. As for the harmonic balancer, he again misrepresents the facts. The car was a cobbled together collection of parts including the engine which was likely a 300 hp as it had the cast crankshaft. At some point the balancer had to come off and we informed him of the situation above described. Needless to say, its hard to learn your car is not what it is supposed to be and you overpaid for a cobbled together car. We were not willing to drill and tap the crankshaft. Yes it can be done. Sure, many of has have done it before but we did not feel we wanted the responsibility of it going wrong and a potential failure down the road. John understood this and said he would be happy to do it knowing we did not want the risk. That was when he literally put it on a hook tow truck and brought it back to his shop. At this point we gotten the car running correctly.

Sorting through the backyard restoration we found that nothing was rebuilt, rather it was all cleaned up and simply painted. John in his initial email inquiry to us , three times, called the car a “2 can reman”. We essentially did a chassis and driveline restoration on the car with the body on that was missing correct parts like 1963 specific trailing arms that we sourced, rebuilt and installed and so on. We diagnosed and repaired numerous electrical and other mechanical issues. He does not explain that in his misrepresented claims here. The engine was 300hp made into a 340 hp including a restamp, which is a counterfeit and he clearly understood this. In fact after it was all said and done and we sorted the problems, John asked that we sell the car for him. We told him we would not buy it nor sell it due to is issues stated above. It seems was upset by this and he did not want to lose money on this car and is willing to do anything to recoup his loss including harming our reputation in hoping we will submit to his ongoing attacks. He disputed his credit card payment but the credit card company sided with us based on our factual response. There were redundant charges we discounted from the invoices as well.

John did in fact sell the car for more than he paid according to what he told us. Only John can speak to whether or not he disclosed that his car was in in fact as he called it a “Frankenstein car that was a 250 or 300 hp car fraudulently made into a 340hp car. That fact would likely give people here a better picture as to Mr. Muldoon’s integrity and credibility. We did learn later that the buyer was a dealer and was representing the car as authentic numbers matching which it is not by any measure. It is as John called it, a Frankenstein car. Its not our place to render such information but in so much that John has attacked our 34 year reputation of excellence we must defend ourselves.

John made a mistake buying a car he thought was authentic and correctly restored. John seems to have expected us to cover his mistake which we refused to do.
We don’t owe it to anyone to pass on their mistakes to our customers and we refuse to do it.
As for the invoicing and appearance of redundant work , we do agree that our invoicing is unclear. We have since changed our software from “Autosoft” ASI dealer software to Mitchell which is geared more towards shops like ours.
As for our labor rates, we are less than the Chevrolet dealership, Ciocca down the street from us. We are located in an prime retail automotive zone area not in a pole barn in the woods behind someone’s house that works for cash only and no employees, we cannot compete with that and do not try. This is a business for us and we are entering our 35th year. Yes, we are too expensive for some hobbyists. That is reality but we do our best to be fair with our clients and do not charge for things we don’t do or when we make an occasional mistake. I am not going to get into any further debates on this issue here. Those are the facts from my side as the business owner.
Thank you for reading this.
Jim Jordan

 

Hello everyone,
We thought you should be aware of our side of the story as we just learned this very unfair post existed.
To try to address John Muldoons assertions.
First John is a highly competent mechanic with his own shop. He brought the car to us in absolute frustration in being unable to fix, in his words, a “Frankenstein” car and a "2 can reman." He sent that in an email.

Thank you for the accolade. Yes, I did make those statements. However they were in a jocular and sarcastic fashion. I used that verbiage to explain the cars transmission and rear axle, which I was hoping you would address. The term "Frankenstein" was never expressed by me.
Here is an image of the initial email I sent highlighting the issues I wanted repaired;


Initial email to cc


The car came in with poor running, drivability issues, vibrations and clunking noises. We were able to diagnose the engine misfire was due a to zip tie end stuck in a valve seat. It did take some time to uncover that.

I'm still curious why you didn't perform a leakdown test sooner. That would have revealed the zip tie hanging a valve open. Personally I would have performed a leakdown test after the compression test. Also, I still ruminate how the head of a zip tie being lodged between the cylinder head and valve seat didn't create any piston to valve interference.

We did resolve the vibrations and noises to a certain extent, but John was upset that we would not take the car to 80 to 100 MPH where he was still feeling vibration on reproduction bias ply tires. It should be obvious to all that we did our best to reasonably fix the vibration but obviously cannot and will not drive customers cars at 80 – 100 mph.

The car left your facility with clunking noises and marginally improved vibrations around 70 MPH. I was not "upset" that you wouldn't drive the car at 80 MPH. The corvette is equipped with retro appearing radials. There were never bias ply tires on the car while it was at your facility.

As for the harmonic balancer, he again misrepresents the facts. The car was a cobbled together collection of parts including the engine which was likely a 300 hp as it had the cast crankshaft. At some point the balancer had to come off and we informed him of the situation above described. Needless to say, its hard to learn your car is not what it is supposed to be and you overpaid for a cobbled together car. We were not willing to drill and tap the crankshaft. Yes it can be done. Sure, many of has have done it before but we did not feel we wanted the responsibility of it going wrong and a potential failure down the road. John understood this and said he would be happy to do it knowing we did not want the risk. That was when he literally put it on a hook tow truck and brought it back to his shop. At this point we gotten the car running correctly.

I was never forewarned that there were no threads in the crank until after the balancer had fallen off. I guess you can only smack them on so hard with a hammer. The only proposed solution on your part was to remove the engine and have a machine shop drill and tap the crankshaft. At which point, I was forced to tow my vehicle from your shop.

Sorting through the backyard restoration we found that nothing was rebuilt, rather it was all cleaned up and simply painted. John in his initial email inquiry to us , three times, called the car a “2 can reman”. We essentially did a chassis and driveline restoration on the car with the body on that was missing correct parts like 1963 specific trailing arms that we sourced, rebuilt and installed and so on.

Yes, you installed remanufactured trailing arms to remedy a clunking noise in or around the rear of the vehicle. It did not rectify the issue. I have emails from you stating that the clunking noise was still apparent after your repairs were executed. This was the last futile repair made on my car, so I did dispute those charges. Chase honored the dispute and I received full restitution.

I'll reiterate myself since you feel the need to really highlight the fact that I used the expression "2 can reman". Although the transmission had fresh paint, it did have some drivability concerns. I stated “two can reman” as a comical description. Had I known you would use this statement to try and defend yourself, I guess I would have been a bit more serious in my emails. Thankfully of the 43k I spent, this subcontracted repair service provided a solution to the transmission issue.

We diagnosed and repaired numerous electrical and other mechanical issues. He does not explain that in his misrepresented claims here. The engine was 300hp made into a 340 hp including a restamp, which is a counterfeit and he clearly understood this.

My interpretation is that the engine block was original to the car. The numbers on the block matched the VIN when I purchased it, so that is as far as I know. Why was this "restamp" never made apparent to me until after I was no longer in possession of the car? Did you withhold this information to not alter my perception of the vehicle's originality? I'd also like to emphasize the claims of a restamp are moot. Regardless of engine block originality, you still failed to properly repair my vehicle. You're creating a distraction from the fact that your services were unsatisfactory.

In fact after it was all said and done and we sorted the problems, John asked that we sell the car for him. We told him we would not buy it nor sell it due to is issues stated above. It seems was upset by this and he did not want to lose money on this car and is willing to do anything to recoup his loss including harming our reputation in hoping we will submit to his ongoing attacks.

I did express interest in you selling the car for me and when you declined, I respectfully carried on. The accusation that I want to harm your reputation because of this claim is false. You're fabricating a believable lie to deceive others of a false motive. My intention here is to tell my story as a consumer at your establishment. What others may do with that information is their prerogative.

He disputed his credit card payment but the credit card company sided with us based on our factual response. There were redundant charges we discounted from the invoices as well.

You offered a $2000 dollar concession after over $40,000 worth of unsatisfactory work was billed on my vehicle. Yes, I did dispute the charges for the trailing arms because they did not rectify the issue. I received full restitution from Chase card services. If I was in the wrong here, I don't think chase would have credited my account. Chase has employs analysts to interpret these situations, and they know predatory tactics when they see them.

John did in fact sell the car for more than he paid according to what he told us. Only John can speak to whether or not he disclosed that his car was in in fact as he called it a “Frankenstein car that was a 250 or 300 hp car fraudulently made into a 340hp car. That fact would likely give people here a better picture as to Mr. Muldoon’s integrity and credibility. We did learn later that the buyer was a dealer and was representing the car as authentic numbers matching which it is not by any measure. It is as John called it, a Frankenstein car. Its not our place to render such information but in so much that John has attacked our 34 year reputation of excellence we must defend ourselves.

Once again Jim, you are spewing out misinformation. I never sold the car. I traded the car and to boot, at a loss. Once again, I never called the car a "Frankenstein" car. I've searched every communicative document I have and am yet to find an example of that expression. Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I can't find it.

Can you remember your conversation with the dealer where I traded the car in? Remember they contacted you and made inquiries of originality and vehicle condition? You VOUCHED for the car. Why the change of heart on this message board? I know why - because you are trying to defend yourself by making false claims about my character. Your approach to rectify my dissatisfaction has been very unprofessional.

John made a mistake buying a car he thought was authentic and correctly restored. John seems to have expected us to cover his mistake which we refused to do.

The only service I requested was for your establishment to get my car in good running condition. Frankly after spending over 40K with you, the car still needed improvements.

We don’t owe it to anyone to pass on their mistakes to our customers and we refuse to do it.
As for the invoicing and appearance of redundant work , we do agree that our invoicing is unclear. We have since changed our software from “Autosoft” ASI dealer software to Mitchell which is geared more towards shops like ours.

Thankfully your invoices are a little more transparent. That would have been useful when I sat down and calculated all of the labor overlap and overbilled hours.

As for our labor rates, we are less than the Chevrolet dealership, Ciocca down the street from us. We are located in an prime retail automotive zone area not in a pole barn in the woods behind someone’s house that works for cash only and no employees, we cannot compete with that and do not try. This is a business for us and we are entering our 35th year. Yes, we are too expensive for some hobbyists. That is reality but we do our best to be fair with our clients and do not charge for things we don’t do or when we make an occasional mistake. I am not going to get into any further debates on this issue here. Those are the facts from my side as the business owner.

Nice justification attempt Jim. Do yourself a favor and read through some of the other members posts here. I think you'll find that your practices have deterred some consumers. Your attempt to defame my image is comical, immature and unprofessional. It's an attempt to make others question my character. Good thing these members can examine the invoices and make an interpretation for themselves.

The truth in this scenario is you took advantage of me. In the end, you can't hide from the truth. It's all there is.






Thank you for reading this.

You're welcome.
Jim Jordan[/QUOTE]

 

Ive been meaning to respond to this for a while but frankly forgot. Yes , we are more expensive than most shops for a balancer change. We do however do the job according to GM spec which call for cradle removal. Most shops bend the steering rack out of the way which we wont do. The way we do it is correct and safe. Also a GM trained tech does it. Here is the what is involved and often takes longer than 7 hours by a highly qualified technician.

We

 

I had forgotten about this and had someone mentioned the thread to me again.
A few more facts here.
Why has no one noticed that the image of the balancer installation by the original poster shows a 1965 and up frame with the big block notch. Not from this car I can assume.
Also the OP also said the credit card company refunded him and saw it his way. Its a flat out lie.
They initially pulled the amount from our account and when we proved the work was done we were paid in full.
Alot of flat out misinformation here likely to cause our company harm which it has not.
The only mistake we made here was not properly explaining the owner that his car was built from parts. Not the right parts either and everything we touched was either worn out or not for a 63 340 HP Corvette.