Snappy Lube

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/12/31) */ After speaking with [redacted] on the phone I agreed to inspect the valve stem to see if the damage had occurred at our location during the serviceI informed [redacted] that there are very well known issues with the aluminum valve stems due to corrosion from the elements and road salts used in our region and that if there were signs of corrosion that the structural integrity of the part would have been compromised before the vehicle was brought to our locationThis corrosion issue is seen mostly on all Jeep and Chrysler products built from - Upon inspection of the damaged valve stem it was found that there was a large amount of corrosion built up on the interior shaft of the valve stem which would not be visible with the sensor installed on the vehicleThus not allowing us to inform [redacted] of the corrosion before performing the service and adding air to the vehicles tiresAt the time the vehicle had left our location the valve stem was not leaking air or we would have promptly informed [redacted] of the issue because they will leak air out very rapidly and can flatten a tire within secondsAfter [redacted] and I spoke, in person on the night of 12/22, I contacted the manager on staff at Discount Tire to verify what had been told to [redacted] The manager confirmed that he had informed [redacted] that the valve stem was badly corroded and he had to break the stem further to take it apart due to the corrosion so she could bring it to Snappy Lube to have inspectedHe also confirmed that no employee had blammed Snappy Lube for the issue and that they have have seen this issue with Chryler products and the aluminum valve stems multiple times before and that just doing a maintenance routine like checking the air can fracture a weakened valve stem due to the corrosionA valve stem that has not been affected by corrosion and still has 100% structural rigidity would not break under maintenance tire inflation showing that this valve stem was severely weakened by the elements and not intentionally damaged by Snappy LubeAt this time we feel that Snappy Lube should not be responsible to pay for any repairs due to corrosion weakening the structural integrity of said valve stem due to outside elements creating a failure point in the stemAttached is a screen shot of just one page of articles showing the multiple issues of failing valve stems due to corrosion Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2016/01/05) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/31) */
After speaking with [redacted] on the phone I agreed to inspect the valve stem to see if the damage had occurred at our location during the service. I informed [redacted] that there are very well known issues with the aluminum valve stems due to...

corrosion from the elements and road salts used in our region and that if there were signs of corrosion that the structural integrity of the part would have been compromised before the vehicle was brought to our location. This corrosion issue is seen mostly on all Jeep and Chrysler products built from 2009 - 2013. Upon inspection of the damaged valve stem it was found that there was a large amount of corrosion built up on the interior shaft of the valve stem which would not be visible with the sensor installed on the vehicle. Thus not allowing us to inform [redacted] of the corrosion before performing the service and adding air to the vehicles tires. At the time the vehicle had left our location the valve stem was not leaking air or we would have promptly informed [redacted] of the issue because they will leak air out very rapidly and can flatten a tire within seconds. After [redacted] and I spoke, in person on the night of 12/22, I contacted the manager on staff at Discount Tire to verify what had been told to [redacted]. The manager confirmed that he had informed [redacted] that the valve stem was badly corroded and he had to break the stem further to take it apart due to the corrosion so she could bring it to Snappy Lube to have inspected. He also confirmed that no employee had blammed Snappy Lube for the issue and that they have have seen this issue with Chryler products and the aluminum valve stems multiple times before and that just doing a normal maintenance routine like checking the air can fracture a weakened valve stem due to the corrosion. A valve stem that has not been affected by corrosion and still has 100% structural rigidity would not break under normal maintenance tire inflation showing that this valve stem was severely weakened by the elements and not intentionally damaged by Snappy Lube. At this time we feel that Snappy Lube should not be responsible to pay for any repairs due to corrosion weakening the structural integrity of said valve stem due to outside elements creating a failure point in the stem. Attached is a screen shot of just one page of articles showing the multiple issues of failing valve stems due to corrosion.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/01/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Review: The purpose of this letter is to file a complaint against Snappy Lube #23, [redacted]

Blacksburg, VA The bases of my complaint is inadequate lubrication service over at least 2 months for failing to check and thus adding lubrication to the transfer case of my 2003 Dodge Durango. The result of which was the failure of the transfer case.

I have contacted [redacted] of Snappy Lube #23 in Blacksburg in person who has spoken with his superior in North Carolina. The resulting phone conversation with [redacted] was that they were not going to do anything for me regarding the transfer case repair bill. Even though I asked to have The Snappy Lube representative in North Carolina to call me, he apparently refuses to discuss this matter as he has not called me. The last correspondence with Snappy Lube is my registered letter which was delivered on November 16,2013. This attached letter and attachments presents my case and position regarding inadequate lubrication service performed by Snappy Lube #23 with my request for reimbursement of the transfer case repair cost.

Although the prime complaint is inadequate lubrication of the transfer case, other items that were not done properly were lubrication of a ball joint and adding fluid to the transmission, both of which are included in the service information list. The transfer case is not listed as being serviced. The Service lnformation lists Chassis Lubrication as sealed, this not the case as one ball joint is not sealed and must be greased and the Transmission Fluid is listed as inspected ok, again this is not the case because when the transfer case was replaced, the repair shop had to put two quarts of fluid in the transmission.

Best Regards

[redacted]Desired Settlement: Reimbursement

Business

Response:

Response:

In response to the complaint regarding a transfer case on Mr.[redacted] 2003 Dodge Durango. Snappy Lube does not feel responsible for the damages to the transfer case due to neglect to perform proper preventative maintenance. The manufacture service interval for the transfer case on a 2003 Dodge Durango 4WD truck is every 60,000 miles. Snappy Lube #23 performed service on this transfer case (as well as the front and rear differentials) on July 28th, 2010 at 166,270 miles. The mileage at the time the transfer case failed was 238,399 miles. The interval from the time we serviced the transfer case til the time it failed, was 72,129 miles. That being 12,129 miles past the recommended interval by the manufacturer. On September 20, 2012, at 209,623 miles, we made a note on Mr.[redacted] oil change invoice that the transfer case was going to need servicing soon. Mr.[redacted] had mentioned that two separate mechanics other than Snappy Lube mentioned that there had been no signs of a leak. That is impossible. The fluid that we filled the transfer case up with a the time of service does not evaporate nor does it burn. Having no fluid in the transfer case would have to had come from a leak somewhere. The transfer case itself only holds 2.6-2.9 pints, and a small leak could have gone unnoticed over a 3 year span and leaked all out. The number one cause of transfer case failure as well as transmissions, is leaking fluid. Even if there was a slight possibility that we didnt fill up the transfer case at time of service, then it would not have made it more than 1 week of use. So once again, I apologize for the inconvenience. We greatly appreciate Mr.[redacted] being a loyal customer to us over the years, but there was nothing presented that Snappy Lube feels like we are responsible for the failure of the transfer case. All supporting paperwork can be obtained at request at the Snappy Lube #23 location.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Response to Snappy Lube's position that they are not responsible for the failure of my 2003 Durango

transfer case, I am in complete disagreement with Snappy Lube's present position. They are directly

responsible for the failure of the transfer because of the inadequate serving of the vehicle.

First, Snappy Lube is correct, the manufacturer's 2003 Durango Owner's Manual states for 4WD , the

transfer case service is every 60,000 miles, only if Snappy Lube's word "service" represents "drain and

refill transfer case fluid." The manual also states "check transfer case fluid level(4X4) every 30,000 miles.

Snappy Lube states that "The interval from the time we serviced the transfer case til the time it failed,

was 72,129 miles. That being 12,129 miles past the recommended interval by the manufacturer."

Snappy Lube did service the transfer case on July 28th,2010 at 166,270 miles and the transfer case did

fail because it was completely void of oil at 238,399 miles. Thus, the difference being the 72,129 miles

stated by Snappy Lube's response. Again, Snappy Lube is correct, on 9/20/2012 at 209,623 miles, a note

on their service report states 'Transfer Case Svc, Recommended." This would have been 43,353 miles

since Snappy Lube serviced the transfer case, or 16,647 miles before the manufacture's 60,000 mile

interval.

However, what Snappy Lube was not aware of, at the time of their response to my claim, is that

[redacted] Dodge serviced the transfer case on 10/12/12 at 212,216 miles. Attached is a copy

of [redacted]'s [redacted] Dodge work order showing the date and mileage of the transfer case service.

This would have been 45,964 miles since Snappy Lube serviced the transfer case, less than the 60,000

miles interval. Thus, the interval between the last transfer case service and failure is 26,183, not the

72,129 miles stated in Snappy Lube's response to my claim. Therefore, the position Snappy Lube has

taken that they are not responsible for the transfer failure because the service was 72,129 past due is

not valid.

At this point I would like to remind Snappy Lube that I requested that they call me so we could have a

conversation about the failure of the transfer case. As the Snappy Lube representative did not call within

a week after my request, the only reasonable ¡nterpretation I could make is that Snappy Lube would not

talk to me concerning the failure of the transfer case.

My position is Snappy Lube should have at a minimum checked the fluid level in the transfer case every

30,000 miles as per manufacture's recommendation. Considering this positron and when Snappy Lube

serviced the transfer case at 166,270 miles, they should have checked the transfer case at 195,270 miles

and again at 226,270 miles. My records show that the transfer case was not checked at 194,897 miles,

at 209,623 miles at, 217,951 miles, at 222,375 miles nor at 235,999 miles when Snappy Lube serviced

my 2003 Durango. Thus Snappy Lube had failed to check the oil level in the transfer case six times from

the time they serviced the transfer case to their last service at 235,999 miles. I have every right to

expect Snappy Lube to meet the manufacture's recommendations on checking the fluid level in the

transfer case. Thus, I completely reject Snappy Lube's present position of not being responsible for the

failure of the transfer case. My position is they are responsible and I am due at a minimum the repair

cost.

I will now address the following Snappy Lube statement. "Mr. [redacted] had mentioned that two separate

mechanics other than Snappy Lube mentioned that there had been no sign of a leak." This is not what I

had stated. I stated that there was no sudden leak of oil, the transfer case was void of oil and only

contained dust and the seals where intact. I also stated that if there was a sudden leak, there would

have been oil all over the under carriage, which there was not. I made this statement in response to

Snappy Lube's statement that you could not tell if there was a sudden leak or a slow leak and thus

Snappy Lube was not responsible for the failure of the transfer case because the loss of oil could have

been from a sudden leak of which they are not responsible.

Yes, I agree with Snappy Lube, there was a small leak and all the oil did leak out from the time

[redacted] Dodge serviced the transfer case on 10/12/2012 to 11/2/2013 at failure, or slightly

less than 13 months, not the 3 years stated by Snappy Lube. Snappy Lube serviced my Durango four

times during this 13 month period and failed to check the fluid level, nor did they report a small leak in

the transfer case.

ln closing, Snappy Lube is directly responsible for the failure of the transfer case which resulted from the

lack of oil because they did not check the fluid level of the transfer case as recommended by the manufacturer.

Thus Snappy Lube owes me the repair cost of $1014.74 as a minimum.

[redacted]

Business

Response:

Snappy Lube's response after carefully reviewing all documentation presented by Mr. [redacted] on

12/30/2013.

I would like to start by referring to the [redacted] Dodge invoice dated on 10/12/2012. The

invoices shows that the Transfer Case on Mr. [redacted] 2003 Durango, was service by [redacted] Dodge at 212,216 miles. That service interval was performed 45,964 miles since Snappy Lube

did the Transfer Case service, which is in fact less than the recommended 60,000 miles interval. This

also had been done 2,593 miles after we made a note that the "Transfer Case Svc Recommend" at

209,623 miles.

Mr. [redacted] also stated that "the interval between the last transfer case service by [redacted] Chrvsler

Dodge and failure is 26,183" miles. Mr. [redacted] also stated that in the 2003 Durango Owner's Manual,

"check transfer case fluid level (4x4) every 30,000 miles". From the time of service by [redacted] Dodge to the time of failure was only 26,183 miles. Which in fact would not have been due

for checking according to the Owners Manual.

All the oil changes done by Snappy Lube, between [redacted] Dodge servicing the transfer

case and time of failure, would not have warranted Snappy Lube to check the transfer case level being

as it does not recommend checking but every 30,000 miles. Also, it would not be considered part of our

17pt check. Our 17 pt check was designed to check the most common fluids and filters for the majority

of cars and trucks on the road. A transfer case does not come as an option for every car or truck on the

road, therefore making the transfer case fluid a vehicle specific item that is not outlined on our service

review.

In closing, Mr. [redacted] stated that "there was a small leak and all the oil did leak out from the time

[redacted] Chrvsler Dodge serviced the transfer case on 10/12/2012 to 11/2/2013 at failure". My

argument that Snappy Lube is not responsible for the failure of the Transfer Case due to the facts

presented by Mr. [redacted], as Snappy Lube did not do the last service on the Transfer Case nor was it

due for the manufacture recommended fluid check interval.

Within this letter shows the facts that supports Snappy Lube's decision that we are not responsible for

the failure of Mr. [redacted]' 2003 Durango Transfer Case.

Snappy Lube

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I am sorry about the lateness of this response to the Snappy Lube letter dated 1/8/2014, but I have

recently had Rotator Cuff surgery on my right shoulder and I am right handed. Thus it is very painful for

me to type this letter at this time.

I will begin my response by addressing the history of Snappy Lubes' positions of not being responsible

for the failure of my 2003 Dodge Durango transfer case which failed do to the lack of proper lubrication.

At first when I showed Snappy Lube the failed transfer case which was completely void of oil, Snappy

Lubes' position was they were not responsible because there was no way to tell if the oil leak was a slow

leak or and sudden leak. When it was demonstrated and witnessed that the oil leak was not the result

of a rapid leak, Snappy Lube then stated that the oil leak must have been a slow leak. Here let me

remind Snappy Lube that they are the ones underneath my Durango, not me, they would be the ones to

observe oil leaks and need to report these to the vehicle owner which they never did in this case. Also

vehicle manufacturer service recommendations are just that, recommendations not absolutes.

Observed oil leaks maybe addressed by repairs or by more frequency checks during lubrication servicing,

particularly if they are slow oil leaks.

Snappy Lubes' next position was that they are not responsible for the failure of the transfer case

because servicing of the transfer case was overdue since it had been 72,129 mile since Snappy Lube

serviced the transfer case and the vehicle manufacturers' recommendation is every 60,000 miles. This

statement demonstrates Snappy Lubes' knowledge of when the servicing of the transfer case had taken

place and thus to comply with the vehicle manufacturer recommendation of 30,000 and 60,000 miles

Snappy Lube should have checked the oil in the transfer case at 196,270 and 226,270 miles which was

not done. As reminder, the transfer case failed because of the lack of oil at 238,399 miles and because

Snappy Lube never checked the oil in the transfer case after they serviced it at 166,270 miles.Thus, they

are directly responsible for the lack of oil in the transfer case and thus the subsequent failure of the

transfer case.

Now Snappy Lubes' third and latest position is that since [redacted] Dodge had serviced the

transfer case at 212,216 miles which was at 45,964 miles since last servicing not the 72,129 that Snappy

Lube had previously claimed, they are not responsible because it had been 26,183 miles from last

servicing to failure at 238,399 miles which is less than the 30,000 miles recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer. This latest position of Snappy Lube has no bearing at all in this case. Snappy Lube has

serviced the transfer case of my 2003 Dodge Durango, thus they have responsible of checking the oil

level at a minimum according to the manufactures' recommendations which they have not been doing.

If Snappy Lube had been checking the oil level of the transfer case based on their knowledge of the

transfer case service history they would have certainly observed the slow leak and the low oil level, as it

was at least 14,054 miles since last servicing by Thomson [redacted] Dodge and when Snappy Lube should

have checked the oil in the transfer case according with the vehicle manufactures' recommendations.

With regard to they comment on the 17 pt check, this also has no bearing on this case, the 2003

Durango is a four driving vehicle which has a transfer case which needs to be serviced and the oil level

checked, thus there has to be a service record of this being done.

It is not a monumental task to check the oil level in the transfer case, all that needs to be done is to

remove the fill plug and see if the oil leaks out, if not, put oil in the case until it does leak out of the fill

plug hole and replace the plug, a couple of minutes and you're done.

Here are some other issues relative to Snappy Lube serving my vehicles. For the 2003 Dodge Durango,

they have never greased the one front fitting that is not sealed. I had to take the Durango back to them

because there was oil spots on the pavement under the vehicle, was told that it was the results of them

not cleaning up properly after they changed the oil. This was after I had to take my 1989 Dodge truck

back after they change the motor oil and large amount of oil was leaking from the oil filter because they

did not tighten the oil filter. lf I had not made this observation when I did, the engine could have burnt

up.

In closing, my position is Snappy Lube is responsible for the cost of replacing the transfer case because

they have failed to properly service the transfer case by not checking the oil in the transfer case.

Sincerely,