Public Mediation

Turbo Kraft-Dispute-#2183235

E. C. vs. Turbo Kraft
Mesa, Arizona, United States
Amount Involved: $1,000.00
    • Status: In Negotiation
      This claim has posted for public comment and negotiation. It will remain posted until resolved to the claimant's satisfaction. Suggest a resolution to help these parties reach a settlement.
    • View response from: Turbo Kraft
    • Claimant Seeks: View.
    • Claim #: 2183235
    • Amount Involved: 1,000.00
    • Filed On: Jan 07, 2012
    • Posted On: Jan 18, 2012
    • Complaint(s):
      • Problem with a service
      • "I just feel ripped off."
View less
Rate or Review on Turbo Kraft
Become an online mediator
  • Review this case.
  • Propose your solution.
  • Win the reward (1,000)
Statement of Claim
Complaints Involved (2) - View
Claimant says:
"Paid large amount of money for engine rebuild on a Porsche 911.When I got the car back it had an oil leak that was severe.Four returns to Turbo Kraft did not fix the leak.Had to go to another Porsche mechanic to fix the problem.Turbo Kraft refused to reimburse any money that I had to spend to correct their problem.The other mechanic admitted that certain parts put in my Turbo Kraft were installed improperly. I am requesting $1000 for only a portion of what I had to pay to correct the problem not taken care of by Turbo Kraft."
...
Reply Have a similar problem?
Additional Communication Between Claimant and Turbo Kraft Hide
  • Jan 19, 2012, Claiming party added:

  • Why was there a verbal offer made by Turbo Kraft that was never followed up on to pay $600 for work done to correct their mistake?

  • Jan 19, 2012, Claiming party added:

  • DJ admitted that rockers had been installed iincorrectly

What Claimant Wants Hide
1. Compensation: Money spent to fix their problem Jan 22, 2012 $1,000.00
Cash total : $1,000.00
  • 0
Do you agree with the claimant’s demands?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
Respondent's Counteroffer Hide
The claimant's settlement terms were rejected with the following explanation:
  • I disagree with the explanation / grounds provided

    "Claim #2183235-165067, Filed on Jan 7, 2012
    “If this claim is unresolved by Jan 18, 2012 it will be made public on the internet where it can be found by search engines.”

    Response: Reject with explanation

    1. Date of email notification of complaint: Jan 18, 2012 at 7:14am.
    Same day as reply by date, not the advertised 2 weeks time to reply. Hardly reasonable time provided to compose a reply or counteroffer.

    2. Car was received for repairs with metal debris in oil system from a pair of blown turbos. The engine was damaged, leaking and smoking. Two minor sources of oil leaks after rebuilding the engine:
    A. Turbocharger oil drain pipes, draining from turbochargers to the valve covers and connected with a piece of silicone hose.
    At the time the rebuild job was begun, both the technician and the manager expressed concern about this method of draining oil from the turbos as it could lead to smoking and leaking issues. It was advised to use a mechanical oil scavenging pump like the 1976-94 factory Turbo cars.
    The claimant (vehicle owner) refused this, wanting to retain with the existing drain configuration.
    B. Oil slightly seeping from between rocker shafts and camshaft housings.
    The original job proposal/estimate (#349 dated 10/20/09) lists reconditioning all 12 rocker arms and shafts for $660, or an option of 12x new arms ($1260/set) and 12x new shafts ($420).
    The claimant/owner requested reconditioning the existing parts – not new parts – and the used parts were sent to one of the top Porsche camshaft specialists in the United States for service.

    3. After engine rebuilding, the vehicle was thoroughly tested under full load and temperature on a chassis dyno, and test driven more than 20 miles. There were no leaks when the vehicle was delivered to the claimant/owner.

    4. When the claimant/owner contacted TurboKraft about a leak, the technician and owner drove 19.5 miles to the claimant’s home to inspect it and take it back for warranty repairs. After all simple repairs were attempted – including repairs to the turbocharger oil drains TurboKraft advised would be problematic – the engine was removed for a complete full top-end re-seal and reinstalled into the chassis (3/25/10).
    The car was test driven extensively – over 50 miles – often hitting full boost in order to get the engine hot enough whereby it might leak. No leaks were found and the vehicle was delivered back to the claimant’s home. There was no charge for pickup, repair, or delivery.

    5. This repeated two more times (8/23/10 and 9/23/10), the claimant complaining about vehicle leaks. Twice more it was fixed at no charge.
    The second time, the owner left the car at TurboKraft. The car sat unmoved for 20 days before a single drop of oil dripped under the engine. Hardly problematic.
    TurboKraft called on another Porsche specialist (D.J.) who came by, inspected TurboKraft’s rocker arm installation and deemed it correct. D.J. also shared that he had seen this before, and had to use silicone to prevent some 964s (1990-94 model 911s) from dripping oil. TurboKraft followed his advice, sealing the correctly installed rocker arms with Wurth red silicone sealant. Once more the vehicle was test driven significantly – over 50 miles – getting the engine hot. The vehicle was picked up by the claimant without a single oil leak.

    6. The final time the claimant complained of a leak, he was requested to take the car to D.J. for future repairs. D.J. reported leaks from between the rockers and their housings, and a few rocker arms had shifted causing more leaking.
    Leaking and shifting comes from too much clearance between the rocker shaft and housing, allowing them to move when the engine is hot despite being torqued to specification. Until this engine, TurboKraft had never had to check this clearance specification on any prior 911 engine rebuild.
    D.J. resolved it by installing all new rocker arms – what the claimant had declined at TurboKraft in the first place.

    As new rocker shafts were required in the first place and the claimant declined purchasing these, he is perhaps entitled to a refund of the cost of reconditioning his 12 used rocker shafts: $60. However, given the considerable expense of $10,850.10 incurred by TurboKraft to resolve a problem that was not explicitly of their wrongdoing – rooted in two items expressly communicated to, and declined by, the claimant – no compensation is reasonably owed.




    "

This claim will remain posted until resolved.

  • 0
Do you agree with the respondent’s Response?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
See how PeopleClaim Works
Get fast access to our Resolver community, for...
  • help with a PeopleClaim or any other complaint
  • assistance with a purchase or contract
  • expert advice
Other PeopleClaim resolvers
Want to see more? Search our directory of resolvers.
Get Free alerts when claims post in your area.
Get Alert
Cases seeking help
Pick a case. Help resolve it.
Need help resolving a dispute? Learn more.
Help resolve claims against businesses and people near you:
View more claims

Public Mediation

The shortest path from your problem to its resolution.
1
Peer to Peer

Engage the other party and use powerful tools to negotiate the best resolution.

Free
If Unresolved
2
Community Resolution

Post your case online and get help from legal professionals, industry experts, consumers & advocates competing to find the best resolution to your claim.

$14.99 + optional reward for best resolution
Full refund if not resolved to your satisfaction
If Unresolved
3
Private Mediation

Lets you mediate your case privately with the help of our professional mediators and industry experts.

Free to claimant. Mediator fees negotiable.
If Unresolved
4
Engage a Professional

Find the best community-reviewed professionals near you to resolve your issue in private online mediation or traditional court/mediation.

Resolution

A wonderful serenity has taken possession of my entire soul, like these sweet mornings of spring which I enjoy with my whole heart.

I am (not) alone, and I feel the charm of existence in this spot, which was created for the bliss of souls like mine...~ Goethe

Get a public verdict — create an online trial $50 public trial / $50 reward for successful resolution
Important: All information contained herein is the opinion of the posting parties, who are solely responsible for its content. PeopleClaim offers both free and paid services to help consumers, patients, employee, tenants, and others resolve disputes without lawyers or courts, through negotiated online settlement and public disclosure of wrongdoing or unfair treatment.
Claims against parties operating under bankruptcy protection, by law must be processed solely through the appropriate US bankruptcy court. Any claims against this party currently posted on PeopleClaim are available for purposes of public business review only and are not an attempt to collect money or recover assets subject to protections under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
*IMPORTANT: PeopleClaim is a public dispute resolution system, independent of the BBB, small claims court, or other dispute resolution services. PeopleClaim is not a law firm and does not provide legal services, opinions, or advice. PeopleClaim facilitates peer-to-peer negotiation and resolution and crowdsourced input on issues of fairness to help resolve complaints. Users should contact professional legal counsel on any matters of law or regulation regarding their claims. PeopleClaim does not review or evaluate the merits of claims submitted through its site, and users are solely responsible for all content filed in their claims.
© reserved by PeopleClaim