**-As stated by the Business 0.0001pt;"> I have attached a copy of the invoice that was mailed to the Comsumer along with a complete refund for the total amount of invoiceHe and I spoke at length over the phone prior to my sending the check and it was my understanding that this would satisfy his uneasinessA few days later I received my invoice and check back in the mail and he had marked on the envelope that my comments in the note section were unacceptableI am unclear as to how or why they would be unacceptable as nothing written in the notes section was different from the discussion as I understood itOur lengthy telephone conversation was precipitated by a negative review he had submitted via the yelp platform He contends that we (DMC Transmissions inc.) rendered service to his Jeep that was unnecessary or otherwise not requiredI have tried on several occasions, unsuccessfully, to reason with the Consumer and prove that his position is inaccurate With respect to his original transmission failure, the under drive clutch assembly was significantly overheated and burnedThe root cause for the damage was low primary line pressure at the pump assemblyWhat was not clear at the time was that the line pressure was low because the on board computers were monitoring a lean condition at the right engine bankApparently the Consumer had cylinder head repairs performed at a local repair shop prior to visiting DMC and those engine repairs were not completed properlyThe result of the faulty repairs were subsequent low line pressure which resulted in the underdrive clutch failure(Why he chooses not to obtain a refund from that shop is a mystery) During the diagnosis period, I initiated a Technical Assistance case with both the Regional Chrysler Tech Authority office and also consulted with the local Chrysler dealership here in VenturaAt my request, the Transmission Tech at the local branch visited DMC with the Chrysler DRB factory diagnostic equipment and determined that the communication speed between ECM (Engine Control Module) and TCM (Transmission Control Module) was below factory baud rateFactory class serial data speed is 14,BPS, the Consumer’s control module was communicating at or near 8,BPSIt was at that time I recommended a new ECM/TCM combination I also recorded the serial data stream information onto my computer hard drive (which I currently have) that clearly demonstrates how and why we arrived at the decision to replace the onboard TCM assemblies In any event, at the end of the day, regardless of how much proof and/or evidence I submitted to the Consumer he felt convinced otherwiseSo, as I indicate in my invoice (attached), in an effort to restore customer confidence I/we here at DMC chose to refund the Consumer for his computer purchase...even though both onboard computers on his vehicle are factory new with the latest calibration files installed In closing, I'd like to add that I am confident in the repairs that were rendered to the ConsumerWe at no time were duplicitous, deceptive or unprofessional, in fact it was DMC that initiated further engine diagnosis at a reputable engine repair facility which should prove conclusively my sincerest desires for the Consumer to be pleased with our level of commitment to his vehicle It was and still is my desire for the Consumer to be pleased with the repairs to his vehicleHis nationwide warranty is for the full complement of years or 50,miles whichever occurs first I wish the Consumer only the best and while it's difficult to process through these things I will try to see his point of view, I only ask that he see ours
As stated by the Business I've taken the time to review your email with the attached complaint from MsM [redacted] , I've also reviewed the repair documents associated with the Chevrolet Equinox On 5/29/ [redacted] M [redacted] did in fact drop the Equinox for repair (MsM [redacted] was not present during the initial discussion between [redacted] and myself nor did I speak to her at any point during 5/29/2015), during my initial contact with [redacted] he requested a "Tune Up"I recall speaking with him in detail about exactly what he was requesting as a tune up on a computer controlled vehicle can mean several different things ranging from spark plugs only, to plugs, coils, wires, MAP sensor, MAF sensor, etcHe stated he was concerned about routine maintenance and servicing the vehicle proactivelyI agreed with his mindfulness and explained that we would scan the vehicle thoroughly and if there were any other concerns, we would address them as required At 9:10am (5/29/2015) my office manager (Nancy Saldana) prepared the invoice detailing what services were being requested, [redacted] reviewed the invoice, signed the authorization to proceed, thanked me and departed At no time did he mention an overheat condition or concern, had he mentioned it, or requested it be a part of the service we would have complied with his request and it would have been indicated on the work orderAt 10:27am 5/29/I performed a complete digital scan of the secondary ignition system (I have attached a copy of the scan record from that morning)There was a history failure record stored for interruption of serial data stream at Mass Air Flow Sensor but all other fuel delivery systems appeared in outstanding conditionAt that point, spark plugs, secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor were replaced, the failure record was cleared and we reset the ECM adaptive strategyThe vehicle was road tested and accurate MAF sensor value was confirmed [redacted] was then notified to pick vehicle up which he did (still no mention of an overheat condition, nor did I personally experience any overheating during my systems testing or road testing) In MsM [redacted] s complaint she states that the car was "Picked up on Friday", she doesn't mention it but the date was May 29thIn her statement she then contends that the car overheated on Monday but she does not include a date, she goes on to contend that she dropped the car off on Wednesday but again, no dateI mention this because if you'll look at the invoice dates there are several weeks between picking vehicle up for "Tune Up" and dropping it for an overheat concernThe drop date was the following month on 6/18/(That is the better part of a month later) Lastly, she asks for a partial refund for the repairs performed on 5/29/2015, the reason she states is because she feels we did not correct an overheat concern? She is correct in that we did not pursue an overheat condition, we performed the repairs stated on the work order that was signed by MrM [redacted] If we had pursued an overheat condition it would have had no effect on the parts and labor charges for the plugs, cables and MAF sensor as the cooling system is a completely different system of the vehicleI am deeply saddened that Mrand MsM [redacted] feel their experience here was anything less than exemplary but at no time were we duplicitous or deceptive Thank you for your time, Sincerely, D [redacted] President DMC Transmissions E Thompson Blvd Ventura, Ca (805) 652-www.dmctransmissions.com
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: Why was the Jeep not even test driven to see if the problem had been eliminated prior to receiving payment and giving it to customer !! The transmission was working fine except for the down shifting, and shifting back up under accelerationWhatever DMC Transmission did to the Jeep did not change anythingI want a full refund Regards, [redacted]
Ms. M[redacted] contends in her response that she was at DMC Transmissions the morning of 5/29/2015 to pick her husband up for a ride from the facility, perhaps that is so but she was certainly not a part of any discussion I had with [redacted] M[redacted]. He and I were the only participants with respect to a verbal discussion, during that time I recall no mention of an overheat condition. It is the very reason any and all concerns are listed in writing for the client to review and sign.
The signed invoice reflects nothing whatsoever with respect to overheating. Beyond that, if there would have been a mention of overheating it would have had no effect on the amount [redacted] M[redacted] was billed for the spark plugs, cables and MAF sensor replacement. Those parts were diagnosed and replaced per [redacted]'s request and the price would have been the same regardless of additional concerns (in this case overheating). The amount billed would have been exactly the same for repairs completed and additional repairs would have additional billing. No overcharging was done, nor was there any overlap of labor.
With respect to repairs done elsewhere I cannot comment on them, I was not present during those repairs. I have no way of confirming what was or was not done.
In conclusion, it seems apparent that Ms. M[redacted] is frustrated because she feels the root concern she had was not addressed. In DMC's defense, we would have gladly pursued diagnosing an overheat concern if we had been made aware of it. To ignore a clients vehicle concern is counterintuitive to our business model, (anyone's business model for that matter). Businesses earn profit by exchanging goods and services and this business is no different than any other.
Ms M[redacted] asks for a partial refund of her original invoice. A partial refund for what? What part of the service does she want a refund for? We did as we were asked to do, the plugs, the secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor are new and installed correctly. Neither Mr. or Ms. M[redacted] were overcharged for any service rendered to their Chevrolet Equinox, the computer failure records were cleared and there is a comprehensive warranty in place.
All of us here at DMC Transmissions Inc. wish Mr. and Ms. M[redacted] continued success with their vehicle.
Complaint: 10550652
I am rejecting this response because:
Why was the Jeep not even test driven to see if the problem had been eliminated prior to receiving payment and giving it to customer !! The transmission was working fine except for the down shifting, and shifting back up under acceleration. Whatever DMC Transmission did to the Jeep did not change anything.
I want a full refund.
Regards,
[redacted]
I've taken the time to review your email with the attached complaint...
from Ms. M[redacted], I've also reviewed the repair documents associated with the 2007 Chevrolet Equinox.
On 5/29/2015 [redacted] M[redacted] did in fact drop the Equinox for repair (Ms. M[redacted] was not present during the initial discussion between [redacted] and myself nor did I speak to her at any point during 5/29/2015), during my initial contact with [redacted] he requested a "Tune Up". I recall speaking with him in detail about exactly what he was requesting as a tune up on a computer controlled vehicle can mean several different things ranging from spark plugs only, to plugs, coils, wires, MAP sensor, MAF sensor, etc. He stated he was concerned about routine maintenance and servicing the vehicle proactively. I agreed with his mindfulness and explained that we would scan the vehicle thoroughly and if there were any other concerns, we would address them as required. At 9:10am (5/29/2015) my office manager (Nancy Saldana) prepared the invoice detailing what services were being requested, [redacted] reviewed the invoice, signed the authorization to proceed, thanked me and departed.
At no time did he mention an overheat condition or concern, had he mentioned it, or requested it be a part of the service we would have complied with his request and it would have been indicated on the work order. At 10:27am 5/29/2015 I performed a complete digital scan of the secondary ignition system (I have attached a copy of the scan record from that morning). There was a history failure record stored for interruption of serial data stream at Mass Air Flow Sensor but all other fuel delivery systems appeared in outstanding condition. At that point, spark plugs, secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor were replaced, the failure record was cleared and we reset the ECM adaptive strategy. The vehicle was road tested and accurate MAF sensor value was confirmed. [redacted] was then notified to pick vehicle up which he did (still no mention of an overheat condition, nor did I personally experience any overheating during my systems testing or road testing). In Ms. M[redacted]s complaint she states that the car was "Picked up on Friday", she doesn't mention it but the date was May 29th. In her statement she then contends that the car overheated on Monday but she does not include a date, she goes on to contend that she dropped the car off on Wednesday but again, no date. I mention this because if you'll look at the invoice dates there are several weeks between picking vehicle up for "Tune Up" and dropping it for an overheat concern. The drop date was the following month on 6/18/2015. (That is the better part of a month later) Lastly, she asks for a partial refund for the repairs performed on 5/29/2015, the reason she states is because she feels we did not correct an overheat concern? She is correct in that we did not pursue an overheat condition, we performed the repairs stated on the work order that was signed by Mr. M[redacted]. If we had pursued an overheat condition it would have had no effect on the parts and labor charges for the plugs, cables and MAF sensor as the cooling system is a completely different system of the vehicle. I am deeply saddened that Mr. and Ms. M[redacted] feel their experience here was anything less than exemplary but at no time were we duplicitous or deceptive. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, D[redacted] President DMC Transmissions 2325 E Thompson Blvd Ventura, Ca. 93003 (805) 652-2221 www.dmctransmissions.com
**-As stated by the Business.
0.0001pt;"> I have attached a copy of the invoice that was mailed to the Comsumer along with a complete refund for the total amount of invoice. He and I spoke at length over the phone prior to my sending the check and it was my understanding that this would satisfy his uneasiness. A few days later I received my invoice and check back in the mail and he had marked on the envelope that my comments in the note section were unacceptable. I am unclear as to how or why they would be unacceptable as nothing written in the notes section was different from the discussion as I understood it. Our lengthy telephone conversation was precipitated by a negative review he had submitted via the yelp platform. He contends that we (DMC Transmissions inc.) rendered service to his Jeep that was unnecessary or otherwise not required. I have tried on several occasions, unsuccessfully, to reason with the Consumer and prove that his position is inaccurate. With respect to his original transmission failure, the under drive clutch assembly was significantly overheated and burned. The root cause for the damage was low primary line pressure at the pump assembly. What was not clear at the time was that the line pressure was low because the on board computers were monitoring a lean condition at the right engine bank. Apparently the Consumer had cylinder head repairs performed at a local repair shop prior to visiting DMC and those engine repairs were not completed properly. The result of the faulty repairs were subsequent low line pressure which resulted in the underdrive clutch failure. (Why he chooses not to obtain a refund from that shop is a mystery) During the diagnosis period, I initiated a Technical Assistance case with both the Regional Chrysler Tech Authority office and also consulted with the local Chrysler dealership here in Ventura. At my request, the Transmission Tech at the local branch visited DMC with the Chrysler DRB 3 factory diagnostic equipment and determined that the communication speed between ECM (Engine Control Module) and TCM (Transmission Control Module) was below factory baud rate. Factory class 2 serial data speed is 14,400 BPS, the Consumer’s control module was communicating at or near 8,000 BPS. It was at that time I recommended a new ECM/TCM combination. I also recorded the serial data stream information onto my computer hard drive (which I currently have) that clearly demonstrates how and why we arrived at the decision to replace the onboard TCM assemblies. In any event, at the end of the day, regardless of how much proof and/or evidence I submitted to the Consumer he felt convinced otherwise. So, as I indicate in my invoice (attached), in an effort to restore customer confidence I/we here at DMC chose to refund the Consumer for his computer purchase...even though both onboard computers on his vehicle are factory new with the latest calibration files installed. In closing, I'd like to add that I am confident in the repairs that were rendered to the Consumer. We at no time were duplicitous, deceptive or unprofessional, in fact it was DMC that initiated further engine diagnosis at a reputable engine repair facility which should prove conclusively my sincerest desires for the Consumer to be pleased with our level of commitment to his vehicle. It was and still is my desire for the Consumer to be pleased with the repairs to his vehicle. His nationwide warranty is for the full complement of 3 years or 50,000 miles whichever occurs first. I wish the Consumer only the best and while it's difficult to process through these things I will try to see his point of view, I only ask that he see ours.
**-As stated by the Business 0.0001pt;"> I have attached a copy of the invoice that was mailed to the Comsumer along with a complete refund for the total amount of invoiceHe and I spoke at length over the phone prior to my sending the check and it was my understanding that this would satisfy his uneasinessA few days later I received my invoice and check back in the mail and he had marked on the envelope that my comments in the note section were unacceptableI am unclear as to how or why they would be unacceptable as nothing written in the notes section was different from the discussion as I understood itOur lengthy telephone conversation was precipitated by a negative review he had submitted via the yelp platform He contends that we (DMC Transmissions inc.) rendered service to his Jeep that was unnecessary or otherwise not requiredI have tried on several occasions, unsuccessfully, to reason with the Consumer and prove that his position is inaccurate With respect to his original transmission failure, the under drive clutch assembly was significantly overheated and burnedThe root cause for the damage was low primary line pressure at the pump assemblyWhat was not clear at the time was that the line pressure was low because the on board computers were monitoring a lean condition at the right engine bankApparently the Consumer had cylinder head repairs performed at a local repair shop prior to visiting DMC and those engine repairs were not completed properlyThe result of the faulty repairs were subsequent low line pressure which resulted in the underdrive clutch failure(Why he chooses not to obtain a refund from that shop is a mystery) During the diagnosis period, I initiated a Technical Assistance case with both the Regional Chrysler Tech Authority office and also consulted with the local Chrysler dealership here in VenturaAt my request, the Transmission Tech at the local branch visited DMC with the Chrysler DRB factory diagnostic equipment and determined that the communication speed between ECM (Engine Control Module) and TCM (Transmission Control Module) was below factory baud rateFactory class serial data speed is 14,BPS, the Consumer’s control module was communicating at or near 8,BPSIt was at that time I recommended a new ECM/TCM combination I also recorded the serial data stream information onto my computer hard drive (which I currently have) that clearly demonstrates how and why we arrived at the decision to replace the onboard TCM assemblies In any event, at the end of the day, regardless of how much proof and/or evidence I submitted to the Consumer he felt convinced otherwiseSo, as I indicate in my invoice (attached), in an effort to restore customer confidence I/we here at DMC chose to refund the Consumer for his computer purchase...even though both onboard computers on his vehicle are factory new with the latest calibration files installed In closing, I'd like to add that I am confident in the repairs that were rendered to the ConsumerWe at no time were duplicitous, deceptive or unprofessional, in fact it was DMC that initiated further engine diagnosis at a reputable engine repair facility which should prove conclusively my sincerest desires for the Consumer to be pleased with our level of commitment to his vehicle It was and still is my desire for the Consumer to be pleased with the repairs to his vehicleHis nationwide warranty is for the full complement of years or 50,miles whichever occurs first I wish the Consumer only the best and while it's difficult to process through these things I will try to see his point of view, I only ask that he see ours
As stated by the Business I've taken the time to review your email with the attached complaint from MsM [redacted] , I've also reviewed the repair documents associated with the Chevrolet Equinox On 5/29/ [redacted] M [redacted] did in fact drop the Equinox for repair (MsM [redacted] was not present during the initial discussion between [redacted] and myself nor did I speak to her at any point during 5/29/2015), during my initial contact with [redacted] he requested a "Tune Up"I recall speaking with him in detail about exactly what he was requesting as a tune up on a computer controlled vehicle can mean several different things ranging from spark plugs only, to plugs, coils, wires, MAP sensor, MAF sensor, etcHe stated he was concerned about routine maintenance and servicing the vehicle proactivelyI agreed with his mindfulness and explained that we would scan the vehicle thoroughly and if there were any other concerns, we would address them as required At 9:10am (5/29/2015) my office manager (Nancy Saldana) prepared the invoice detailing what services were being requested, [redacted] reviewed the invoice, signed the authorization to proceed, thanked me and departed At no time did he mention an overheat condition or concern, had he mentioned it, or requested it be a part of the service we would have complied with his request and it would have been indicated on the work orderAt 10:27am 5/29/I performed a complete digital scan of the secondary ignition system (I have attached a copy of the scan record from that morning)There was a history failure record stored for interruption of serial data stream at Mass Air Flow Sensor but all other fuel delivery systems appeared in outstanding conditionAt that point, spark plugs, secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor were replaced, the failure record was cleared and we reset the ECM adaptive strategyThe vehicle was road tested and accurate MAF sensor value was confirmed [redacted] was then notified to pick vehicle up which he did (still no mention of an overheat condition, nor did I personally experience any overheating during my systems testing or road testing) In MsM [redacted] s complaint she states that the car was "Picked up on Friday", she doesn't mention it but the date was May 29thIn her statement she then contends that the car overheated on Monday but she does not include a date, she goes on to contend that she dropped the car off on Wednesday but again, no dateI mention this because if you'll look at the invoice dates there are several weeks between picking vehicle up for "Tune Up" and dropping it for an overheat concernThe drop date was the following month on 6/18/(That is the better part of a month later) Lastly, she asks for a partial refund for the repairs performed on 5/29/2015, the reason she states is because she feels we did not correct an overheat concern? She is correct in that we did not pursue an overheat condition, we performed the repairs stated on the work order that was signed by MrM [redacted] If we had pursued an overheat condition it would have had no effect on the parts and labor charges for the plugs, cables and MAF sensor as the cooling system is a completely different system of the vehicleI am deeply saddened that Mrand MsM [redacted] feel their experience here was anything less than exemplary but at no time were we duplicitous or deceptive Thank you for your time, Sincerely, D [redacted] President DMC Transmissions E Thompson Blvd Ventura, Ca (805) 652-www.dmctransmissions.com
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: Why was the Jeep not even test driven to see if the problem had been eliminated prior to receiving payment and giving it to customer !! The transmission was working fine except for the down shifting, and shifting back up under accelerationWhatever DMC Transmission did to the Jeep did not change anythingI want a full refund Regards, [redacted]
Ms. M[redacted] contends in her response that she was at DMC Transmissions the morning of 5/29/2015 to pick her husband up for a ride from the facility, perhaps that is so but she was certainly not a part of any discussion I had with [redacted] M[redacted]. He and I were the only participants with respect to a verbal discussion, during that time I recall no mention of an overheat condition. It is the very reason any and all concerns are listed in writing for the client to review and sign.
The signed invoice reflects nothing whatsoever with respect to overheating. Beyond that, if there would have been a mention of overheating it would have had no effect on the amount [redacted] M[redacted] was billed for the spark plugs, cables and MAF sensor replacement. Those parts were diagnosed and replaced per [redacted]'s request and the price would have been the same regardless of additional concerns (in this case overheating). The amount billed would have been exactly the same for repairs completed and additional repairs would have additional billing. No overcharging was done, nor was there any overlap of labor.
With respect to repairs done elsewhere I cannot comment on them, I was not present during those repairs. I have no way of confirming what was or was not done.
In conclusion, it seems apparent that Ms. M[redacted] is frustrated because she feels the root concern she had was not addressed. In DMC's defense, we would have gladly pursued diagnosing an overheat concern if we had been made aware of it. To ignore a clients vehicle concern is counterintuitive to our business model, (anyone's business model for that matter). Businesses earn profit by exchanging goods and services and this business is no different than any other.
Ms M[redacted] asks for a partial refund of her original invoice. A partial refund for what? What part of the service does she want a refund for? We did as we were asked to do, the plugs, the secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor are new and installed correctly. Neither Mr. or Ms. M[redacted] were overcharged for any service rendered to their Chevrolet Equinox, the computer failure records were cleared and there is a comprehensive warranty in place.
All of us here at DMC Transmissions Inc. wish Mr. and Ms. M[redacted] continued success with their vehicle.
Sincerely,
D[redacted]
President
DMC Transmissions
Complaint: 10550652
I am rejecting this response because:
Why was the Jeep not even test driven to see if the problem had been eliminated prior to receiving payment and giving it to customer !! The transmission was working fine except for the down shifting, and shifting back up under acceleration. Whatever DMC Transmission did to the Jeep did not change anything.
I want a full refund.
Regards,
[redacted]
As stated by the Business.
I've taken the time to review your email with the attached complaint...
from Ms. M[redacted], I've also reviewed the repair documents associated with the 2007 Chevrolet Equinox.
On 5/29/2015 [redacted] M[redacted] did in fact drop the Equinox for repair (Ms. M[redacted] was not present during the initial discussion between [redacted] and myself nor did I speak to her at any point during 5/29/2015), during my initial contact with [redacted] he requested a "Tune Up". I recall speaking with him in detail about exactly what he was requesting as a tune up on a computer controlled vehicle can mean several different things ranging from spark plugs only, to plugs, coils, wires, MAP sensor, MAF sensor, etc. He stated he was concerned about routine maintenance and servicing the vehicle proactively. I agreed with his mindfulness and explained that we would scan the vehicle thoroughly and if there were any other concerns, we would address them as required. At 9:10am (5/29/2015) my office manager (Nancy Saldana) prepared the invoice detailing what services were being requested, [redacted] reviewed the invoice, signed the authorization to proceed, thanked me and departed.
At no time did he mention an overheat condition or concern, had he mentioned it, or requested it be a part of the service we would have complied with his request and it would have been indicated on the work order. At 10:27am 5/29/2015 I performed a complete digital scan of the secondary ignition system (I have attached a copy of the scan record from that morning). There was a history failure record stored for interruption of serial data stream at Mass Air Flow Sensor but all other fuel delivery systems appeared in outstanding condition. At that point, spark plugs, secondary ignition cables and the MAF sensor were replaced, the failure record was cleared and we reset the ECM adaptive strategy. The vehicle was road tested and accurate MAF sensor value was confirmed. [redacted] was then notified to pick vehicle up which he did (still no mention of an overheat condition, nor did I personally experience any overheating during my systems testing or road testing). In Ms. M[redacted]s complaint she states that the car was "Picked up on Friday", she doesn't mention it but the date was May 29th. In her statement she then contends that the car overheated on Monday but she does not include a date, she goes on to contend that she dropped the car off on Wednesday but again, no date. I mention this because if you'll look at the invoice dates there are several weeks between picking vehicle up for "Tune Up" and dropping it for an overheat concern. The drop date was the following month on 6/18/2015. (That is the better part of a month later) Lastly, she asks for a partial refund for the repairs performed on 5/29/2015, the reason she states is because she feels we did not correct an overheat concern? She is correct in that we did not pursue an overheat condition, we performed the repairs stated on the work order that was signed by Mr. M[redacted]. If we had pursued an overheat condition it would have had no effect on the parts and labor charges for the plugs, cables and MAF sensor as the cooling system is a completely different system of the vehicle. I am deeply saddened that Mr. and Ms. M[redacted] feel their experience here was anything less than exemplary but at no time were we duplicitous or deceptive. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, D[redacted] President DMC Transmissions 2325 E Thompson Blvd Ventura, Ca. 93003 (805) 652-2221 www.dmctransmissions.com
**-As stated by the Business.
0.0001pt;"> I have attached a copy of the invoice that was mailed to the Comsumer along with a complete refund for the total amount of invoice. He and I spoke at length over the phone prior to my sending the check and it was my understanding that this would satisfy his uneasiness. A few days later I received my invoice and check back in the mail and he had marked on the envelope that my comments in the note section were unacceptable. I am unclear as to how or why they would be unacceptable as nothing written in the notes section was different from the discussion as I understood it. Our lengthy telephone conversation was precipitated by a negative review he had submitted via the yelp platform. He contends that we (DMC Transmissions inc.) rendered service to his Jeep that was unnecessary or otherwise not required. I have tried on several occasions, unsuccessfully, to reason with the Consumer and prove that his position is inaccurate. With respect to his original transmission failure, the under drive clutch assembly was significantly overheated and burned. The root cause for the damage was low primary line pressure at the pump assembly. What was not clear at the time was that the line pressure was low because the on board computers were monitoring a lean condition at the right engine bank. Apparently the Consumer had cylinder head repairs performed at a local repair shop prior to visiting DMC and those engine repairs were not completed properly. The result of the faulty repairs were subsequent low line pressure which resulted in the underdrive clutch failure. (Why he chooses not to obtain a refund from that shop is a mystery) During the diagnosis period, I initiated a Technical Assistance case with both the Regional Chrysler Tech Authority office and also consulted with the local Chrysler dealership here in Ventura. At my request, the Transmission Tech at the local branch visited DMC with the Chrysler DRB 3 factory diagnostic equipment and determined that the communication speed between ECM (Engine Control Module) and TCM (Transmission Control Module) was below factory baud rate. Factory class 2 serial data speed is 14,400 BPS, the Consumer’s control module was communicating at or near 8,000 BPS. It was at that time I recommended a new ECM/TCM combination. I also recorded the serial data stream information onto my computer hard drive (which I currently have) that clearly demonstrates how and why we arrived at the decision to replace the onboard TCM assemblies. In any event, at the end of the day, regardless of how much proof and/or evidence I submitted to the Consumer he felt convinced otherwise. So, as I indicate in my invoice (attached), in an effort to restore customer confidence I/we here at DMC chose to refund the Consumer for his computer purchase...even though both onboard computers on his vehicle are factory new with the latest calibration files installed. In closing, I'd like to add that I am confident in the repairs that were rendered to the Consumer. We at no time were duplicitous, deceptive or unprofessional, in fact it was DMC that initiated further engine diagnosis at a reputable engine repair facility which should prove conclusively my sincerest desires for the Consumer to be pleased with our level of commitment to his vehicle. It was and still is my desire for the Consumer to be pleased with the repairs to his vehicle. His nationwide warranty is for the full complement of 3 years or 50,000 miles whichever occurs first. I wish the Consumer only the best and while it's difficult to process through these things I will try to see his point of view, I only ask that he see ours.