Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With NoMalfunction
08-06-2009 | 12:24 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With NoMalfunction
I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and
they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
08-06-2009 | 07:22 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With No Malfunction
Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:E5sem.57018$8B7.29521@newsfe20.iad:
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and
> they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
> owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
> about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
> System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
> when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
> light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
> or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
> reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
>
"Incorrectly positioned"? That sounds a bit odd.
Did you ask the service advisor what the technician's evidence was
in determining "incorrect" position?
Have you checked the pads yourself?
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and
> they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
> owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
> about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
> System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
> when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
> light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
> or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
> reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
>
"Incorrectly positioned"? That sounds a bit odd.
Did you ask the service advisor what the technician's evidence was
in determining "incorrect" position?
Have you checked the pads yourself?
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
08-06-2009 | 09:05 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Tegger wrote:
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:E5sem.57018$8B7.29521@newsfe20.iad:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and
>> they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
>> owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
>> about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
>> System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
>> when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
>> light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
>> or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
>> reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
>>
>
>
> "Incorrectly positioned"? That sounds a bit odd.
>
> Did you ask the service advisor what the technician's evidence was
> in determining "incorrect" position?
>
> Have you checked the pads yourself?
>
>
No, I told them I was taking the car elsewhere to have the
inspection finished. The Service Manger told me that it was a
misdemeanor for a shop to pass the car without correcting the "problem."
I told him that it was also illegal to report nonexistent problems. I
dropped the car off at the local shop we use on the way home, as they
had removed the just-expired inspection sticker. Thanks for responding,
Tegger.
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:E5sem.57018$8B7.29521@newsfe20.iad:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and
>> they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous
>> owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of
>> about $100. The rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake
>> System." The car has ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was
>> when the old battery was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS
>> light. Were they trying to pull a fast one, being a little too strict,
>> or is there actually a real problem that requires removing and
>> reinstalling the pads? The car is waiting at a local shop now.
>>
>
>
> "Incorrectly positioned"? That sounds a bit odd.
>
> Did you ask the service advisor what the technician's evidence was
> in determining "incorrect" position?
>
> Have you checked the pads yourself?
>
>
No, I told them I was taking the car elsewhere to have the
inspection finished. The Service Manger told me that it was a
misdemeanor for a shop to pass the car without correcting the "problem."
I told him that it was also illegal to report nonexistent problems. I
dropped the car off at the local shop we use on the way home, as they
had removed the just-expired inspection sticker. Thanks for responding,
Tegger.
08-06-2009 | 11:12 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Leftie wrote:
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
Nuff said, IMO.
> and they
> failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous owner 3
> years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two inspections, have
> performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads were incorrectly
> positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of about $100.
How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
tell you specifically what's wrong.
$100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
pads, etc.
Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
they're scumballs.
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
Nuff said, IMO.
> and they
> failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous owner 3
> years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two inspections, have
> performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads were incorrectly
> positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of about $100.
How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
tell you specifically what's wrong.
$100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
pads, etc.
Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
they're scumballs.
08-06-2009 | 05:39 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Greg Campbell wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>
> Nuff said, IMO.
>
>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>> of about $100.
>
> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>
> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
> pads, etc.
>
> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
> they're scumballs.
Well, they had Glenn Dreck playing in the waiting room. This is
Saratoga Honda, which at one time was good dealership. Things change...
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>
> Nuff said, IMO.
>
>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>> of about $100.
>
> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>
> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
> pads, etc.
>
> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
> they're scumballs.
Well, they had Glenn Dreck playing in the waiting room. This is
Saratoga Honda, which at one time was good dealership. Things change...
08-06-2009 | 06:36 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Greg Campbell wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>
> Nuff said, IMO.
>
>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>> of about $100.
>
> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>
> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
> pads, etc.
>
> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
> they're scumballs.
So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>
> Nuff said, IMO.
>
>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>> of about $100.
>
> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>
> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
> pads, etc.
>
> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
> they're scumballs.
So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
08-06-2009 | 07:51 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With No Malfunction
Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:m5Iem.64877$8l4.17823@newsfe10.iad:
> Greg Campbell wrote:
>> Leftie wrote:
>>
>>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>>
>> Nuff said, IMO.
>>
>>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>>> of about $100.
>>
>> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
>> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
>> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>>
>> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
>> pads, etc.
>>
>> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
>> they're scumballs.
>
>
> So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
> they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
> installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
>
Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership and ask
exactly what it was that the original tech decided constituted "incorrectly
positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
> Greg Campbell wrote:
>> Leftie wrote:
>>
>>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>>
>> Nuff said, IMO.
>>
>>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>>> of about $100.
>>
>> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
>> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
>> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>>
>> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
>> pads, etc.
>>
>> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
>> they're scumballs.
>
>
> So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
> they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
> installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
>
Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership and ask
exactly what it was that the original tech decided constituted "incorrectly
positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
08-07-2009 | 12:55 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Tegger wrote:
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:m5Iem.64877$8l4.17823@newsfe10.iad:
>
>> Greg Campbell wrote:
>>> Leftie wrote:
>>>
>>>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>>> Nuff said, IMO.
>>>
>>>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>>>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>>>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>>>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>>>> of about $100.
>>> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
>>> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
>>> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>>>
>>> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
>>> pads, etc.
>>>
>>> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
>>> they're scumballs.
>>
>> So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
>> they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
>> installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
>>
>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership and ask
> exactly what it was that the original tech decided constituted "incorrectly
> positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
>
>
The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one I
really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS, but
without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
defeat from the jaws of victory...
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:m5Iem.64877$8l4.17823@newsfe10.iad:
>
>> Greg Campbell wrote:
>>> Leftie wrote:
>>>
>>>> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today,
>>> Nuff said, IMO.
>>>
>>>> and they failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the
>>>> previous owner 3 years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two
>>>> inspections, have performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads
>>>> were incorrectly positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune
>>>> of about $100.
>>> How the heck can brake pads be 'incorrectly positioned?' I could see a
>>> missing anti-rattle clip at worst. In that case, I'd think they would
>>> tell you specifically what's wrong.
>>>
>>> $100 ought to buy you a complete front end brake job, complete with new
>>> pads, etc.
>>>
>>> Their vague, threatening ("it's illegal!") language makes me think
>>> they're scumballs.
>>
>> So it would seem. I just got the car back from my local shop, and
>> they said there was nothing at all wrong with the pads or how they were
>> installed. They charged me $11.00 and passed it.
>>
>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership and ask
> exactly what it was that the original tech decided constituted "incorrectly
> positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
>
>
The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one I
really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS, but
without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
defeat from the jaws of victory...
08-07-2009 | 01:33 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Leftie wrote:
> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one I
> really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS, but
> without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> defeat from the jaws of victory...
Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
innocent people to these worms.
It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
will help.
Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
up one of those undercover sting episodes.
> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one I
> really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS, but
> without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> defeat from the jaws of victory...
Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
innocent people to these worms.
It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
will help.
Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
up one of those undercover sting episodes.
08-07-2009 | 04:26 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction
Greg Campbell wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
>> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
>> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
>> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
>> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one
>> I really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS,
>> but without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
>> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
>> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
>> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
>> defeat from the jaws of victory...
>
> Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
> innocent people to these worms.
>
> It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
> details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
> will help.
>
> Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
> up one of those undercover sting episodes.
I may well go the BBB route. I'm reluctant to complain the the DMV
because my local shop will cut people some slack on minor defects, and I
don't want them investigated when the dealer raises a fuss. Just posting
it here will have an effect: when I had a local Volvo dealer tell me I
needed a new $3k transmission for a $300 problem, I posted it to usenet
and it now shows up when you search that dealer for complaints.
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
>> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
>> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
>> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
>> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one
>> I really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS,
>> but without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
>> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
>> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
>> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
>> defeat from the jaws of victory...
>
> Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
> innocent people to these worms.
>
> It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
> details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
> will help.
>
> Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
> up one of those undercover sting episodes.
I may well go the BBB route. I'm reluctant to complain the the DMV
because my local shop will cut people some slack on minor defects, and I
don't want them investigated when the dealer raises a fuss. Just posting
it here will have an effect: when I had a local Volvo dealer tell me I
needed a new $3k transmission for a $300 problem, I posted it to usenet
and it now shows up when you search that dealer for complaints.
08-07-2009 | 08:33 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With No Malfunction
Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in news:UDNem.132361$vp.14621@newsfe12.iad:
> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership
>> and ask exactly what it was that the original tech decided
>> constituted "incorrectly positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
>>
>>
>
> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> are improperly installed." Does that help any?
No, because it does not say WHY or HOW they were "improperly installed".
<snip>
> but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> defeat from the jaws of victory...
Don't bother trying. You got your pass and that's all that's important.
But there's nothing wrong with asking how the diagnosis was arrived at.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to call the dealership
>> and ask exactly what it was that the original tech decided
>> constituted "incorrectly positioned"? I'd absolutely love to know.
>>
>>
>
> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> are improperly installed." Does that help any?
No, because it does not say WHY or HOW they were "improperly installed".
<snip>
> but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> defeat from the jaws of victory...
Don't bother trying. You got your pass and that's all that's important.
But there's nothing wrong with asking how the diagnosis was arrived at.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
08-07-2009 | 08:35 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With NoMalfunction
On Aug 7, 4:26 am, Leftie <N...@Thanks.net> wrote:
> Greg Campbell wrote:
> > Leftie wrote:
>
> >> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> >> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
> >> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
> >> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
> >> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one
> >> I really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS,
> >> but without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
> >> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
> >> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
> >> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> >> defeat from the jaws of victory...
>
> > Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
> > innocent people to these worms.
>
> > It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
> > details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
> > will help.
>
> > Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
> > up one of those undercover sting episodes.
>
> I may well go the BBB route. I'm reluctant to complain the the DMV
> because my local shop will cut people some slack on minor defects, and I
> don't want them investigated when the dealer raises a fuss. Just posting
> it here will have an effect: when I had a local Volvo dealer tell me I
> needed a new $3k transmission for a $300 problem, I posted it to usenet
> and it now shows up when you search that dealer for complaints.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Maryland it was the State Police that regulated inspection
stations. (I had a similar thing happen to me years ago.)
> Greg Campbell wrote:
> > Leftie wrote:
>
> >> The receipt says it failed inspection "due to the front brake pads
> >> are improperly installed." Does that help any? Keep in mind that the
> >> brakes worked perfectly and there was no noise at all. Also, it wasn't
> >> just a tech: one of the other 'service' people overheard my argument
> >> with the know-little woman who handled the paperwork, and he's the one
> >> I really talked with. I believe he's the one who brought up the ABS,
> >> but without providing any details - I at first thought they wanted to
> >> replace a sensor. Not sure if he's the current Service Manager or not.
> >> I'd love to file a few complaints, starting with the DMV about their
> >> licensed inspection station, but I don't want to manage to ****** a
> >> defeat from the jaws of victory...
>
> > Assuming they are scamming people, doing nothing will only subject more
> > innocent people to these worms.
>
> > It can't hurt to file a complaint with the BBB. Even if names and
> > details are a bit fuzzy, and hard evidence lacking, every testimonial
> > will help.
>
> > Heck, forward your story to the local TV station and suggest they whip
> > up one of those undercover sting episodes.
>
> I may well go the BBB route. I'm reluctant to complain the the DMV
> because my local shop will cut people some slack on minor defects, and I
> don't want them investigated when the dealer raises a fuss. Just posting
> it here will have an effect: when I had a local Volvo dealer tell me I
> needed a new $3k transmission for a $300 problem, I posted it to usenet
> and it now shows up when you search that dealer for complaints.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Maryland it was the State Police that regulated inspection
stations. (I had a similar thing happen to me years ago.)
08-15-2009 | 05:29 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction - Final Chapter?
Leftie wrote:
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and they
> failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous owner 3
> years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two inspections, have
> performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads were incorrectly
> positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of about $100. The
> rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake System." The car has
> ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was when the old battery
> was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS light. Were they trying
> to pull a fast one, being a little too strict, or is there actually a
> real problem that requires removing and reinstalling the pads? The car
> is waiting at a local shop now.
I had left some very negative feedback when Honda asked me if I was
satisfied with my last service visit, and although I had not asked for a
response from Saratoga Honda, I got one anyway:
************************************************** ***********************
"I am responding in writing to answer your comments about your last
visit to Saratoga Honda. Your vehicle was indeed failed for “improperly
installed front brake pads”, as they are not installed as per Honda.
The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
work correctly. We can provided you with pictures and documentation to
support our proper decision.
If your vehicle passed two previous inspections with the pads in the
same position as we found them, then the person doing the inspection was
unaware of the proper installation of Honda disc brake pads. If you did
not have the pads reinstalled in the proper position prior to the
“subsequent examination by another shop showed no problem at all”, then
they do not understand the proper position of the pads on a Honda. You
are required by inspection law to notify the garage or service station
doing the inspection that you had already failed the safety portion of
the inspection recently, and give them the inspection form we gave you
so they can scan it prior to starting their inspection. The posted law
reads “It is a violation of the vehicle and traffic law for: A vehicle
owner to accept a sticker if he knows the vehicle was not properly
inspected.” We had already clearly advised you of the reason for the
failure.
In addition, our quote of $86.00 plus tax to put the pads in the
proper position was made after first suggesting that you have the people
who installed the pads improperly correct them at no charge to you.
Since the problem does exist, an investigation by American Honda’s
District Service Manager has confirmed that Saratoga Honda’s operating
practices meet the highest ethical and technical standards. I have also
called Tom Noonan at DMV, who confirms that if the brake pads are
improperly installed, the vehicle must fail the inspection. He advised
me that if you choose to you can file a complaint with the DMV charging
the garage that did the inspection for failure to do a proper inspection.
On the subject of your statement that you requested synthetic
motor oil be used, I find no evidence that such a request occurred. You
did specify 10W30 weight, but at any point if you had mentioned you
wanted synthetic oil, you would have been given a quote first.
I am confident that my Service Department gave you value-added
service, and we told you the truth. Perhaps as time goes by you will
reconsider your comments, and you will realize that we are indeed worthy
of your trust."
************************************************** ****************************
I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason given?
> I made the mistake of having a dealer inspect the car today, and they
> failed it. The front brakes, which were replaced by the previous owner 3
> years (5k miles) ago and have passed the previous two inspections, have
> performed perfectly, but I was told the 'front pads were incorrectly
> positioned and had to be reinstalled' - to the tune of about $100. The
> rejection notice just says "79.21(a) Service Brake System." The car has
> ABS, but the only time I got a warning light was when the old battery
> was failing. Once I replaced the battery, no ABS light. Were they trying
> to pull a fast one, being a little too strict, or is there actually a
> real problem that requires removing and reinstalling the pads? The car
> is waiting at a local shop now.
I had left some very negative feedback when Honda asked me if I was
satisfied with my last service visit, and although I had not asked for a
response from Saratoga Honda, I got one anyway:
************************************************** ***********************
"I am responding in writing to answer your comments about your last
visit to Saratoga Honda. Your vehicle was indeed failed for “improperly
installed front brake pads”, as they are not installed as per Honda.
The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
work correctly. We can provided you with pictures and documentation to
support our proper decision.
If your vehicle passed two previous inspections with the pads in the
same position as we found them, then the person doing the inspection was
unaware of the proper installation of Honda disc brake pads. If you did
not have the pads reinstalled in the proper position prior to the
“subsequent examination by another shop showed no problem at all”, then
they do not understand the proper position of the pads on a Honda. You
are required by inspection law to notify the garage or service station
doing the inspection that you had already failed the safety portion of
the inspection recently, and give them the inspection form we gave you
so they can scan it prior to starting their inspection. The posted law
reads “It is a violation of the vehicle and traffic law for: A vehicle
owner to accept a sticker if he knows the vehicle was not properly
inspected.” We had already clearly advised you of the reason for the
failure.
In addition, our quote of $86.00 plus tax to put the pads in the
proper position was made after first suggesting that you have the people
who installed the pads improperly correct them at no charge to you.
Since the problem does exist, an investigation by American Honda’s
District Service Manager has confirmed that Saratoga Honda’s operating
practices meet the highest ethical and technical standards. I have also
called Tom Noonan at DMV, who confirms that if the brake pads are
improperly installed, the vehicle must fail the inspection. He advised
me that if you choose to you can file a complaint with the DMV charging
the garage that did the inspection for failure to do a proper inspection.
On the subject of your statement that you requested synthetic
motor oil be used, I find no evidence that such a request occurred. You
did specify 10W30 weight, but at any point if you had mentioned you
wanted synthetic oil, you would have been given a quote first.
I am confident that my Service Department gave you value-added
service, and we told you the truth. Perhaps as time goes by you will
reconsider your comments, and you will realize that we are indeed worthy
of your trust."
************************************************** ****************************
I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason given?
08-15-2009 | 04:02 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection With No Malfunction - Final Chapter?
Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in
news:Epuhm.257719$E61.217037@newsfe09.iad:
<snip official reply>
>
> I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
> second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
> recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
> the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
> brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason
> given?
The most revealing comment in the dealership's letter:
"The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
work correctly."
The only way I can think how the pads would be improperly installed as
described in that document is that the inner pads would have been swapped
left-for-right.
Swapping left-for-right would have put the squeal tabs (wear indicators) at
the /bottom/ instead of at the /top/, where they should be on your car's
front brakes. This is what I suspected from the beginning.
Disc brake pads tend to wear most at their leading edges (relative to the
rotor's spin direction, not the car's direction), so the wear indicator is
placed there.
In your case, the wear indicator being on the bottom would mean that it
would not function as intended (being on the trailing edge, which ends up
being thicker than the lead edge), and you'd end up down to the steel on
the lead edge of the pads well before the indicator ever contacted the
disc.
Official safety inspectors necessarily must consider certain pre-determined
standards when deciding whether something is "safe" or not, and correct
installation is part of that. If the pads were in fact swapped, then they
were indeed installed wrongly, even if you might end up experiencing no
apparent consequences resulting from the incorrect installation.
Correction of this issue means removing the road wheel and the caliper,
switching the inner pads to their correct sides, then putting everything
back together again. It is not necessary to replace the pads unless they
are too far worn to keep in service.
From the dealership's perspective (and that of the state's inspection
agency), they did exactly what the law told them they had to do.
However, your independent garage unfortunately does not appear to
understand brake function as well as they should, and thus did a poor
inspection.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:Epuhm.257719$E61.217037@newsfe09.iad:
<snip official reply>
>
> I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
> second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
> recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
> the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
> brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason
> given?
The most revealing comment in the dealership's letter:
"The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
work correctly."
The only way I can think how the pads would be improperly installed as
described in that document is that the inner pads would have been swapped
left-for-right.
Swapping left-for-right would have put the squeal tabs (wear indicators) at
the /bottom/ instead of at the /top/, where they should be on your car's
front brakes. This is what I suspected from the beginning.
Disc brake pads tend to wear most at their leading edges (relative to the
rotor's spin direction, not the car's direction), so the wear indicator is
placed there.
In your case, the wear indicator being on the bottom would mean that it
would not function as intended (being on the trailing edge, which ends up
being thicker than the lead edge), and you'd end up down to the steel on
the lead edge of the pads well before the indicator ever contacted the
disc.
Official safety inspectors necessarily must consider certain pre-determined
standards when deciding whether something is "safe" or not, and correct
installation is part of that. If the pads were in fact swapped, then they
were indeed installed wrongly, even if you might end up experiencing no
apparent consequences resulting from the incorrect installation.
Correction of this issue means removing the road wheel and the caliper,
switching the inner pads to their correct sides, then putting everything
back together again. It is not necessary to replace the pads unless they
are too far worn to keep in service.
From the dealership's perspective (and that of the state's inspection
agency), they did exactly what the law told them they had to do.
However, your independent garage unfortunately does not appear to
understand brake function as well as they should, and thus did a poor
inspection.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
08-15-2009 | 05:56 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attn Tegger: '95 Civic EX Sedan: Brakes Failed Inspection WithNo Malfunction - Final Chapter?
Tegger wrote:
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in
> news:Epuhm.257719$E61.217037@newsfe09.iad:
>
>
> <snip official reply>
>
>> I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
>> second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
>> recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
>> the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
>> brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason
>> given?
>
>
>
>
> The most revealing comment in the dealership's letter:
> "The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
> work correctly."
>
> The only way I can think how the pads would be improperly installed as
> described in that document is that the inner pads would have been swapped
> left-for-right.
>
> Swapping left-for-right would have put the squeal tabs (wear indicators) at
> the /bottom/ instead of at the /top/, where they should be on your car's
> front brakes. This is what I suspected from the beginning.
>
> Disc brake pads tend to wear most at their leading edges (relative to the
> rotor's spin direction, not the car's direction), so the wear indicator is
> placed there.
>
> In your case, the wear indicator being on the bottom would mean that it
> would not function as intended (being on the trailing edge, which ends up
> being thicker than the lead edge), and you'd end up down to the steel on
> the lead edge of the pads well before the indicator ever contacted the
> disc.
>
> Official safety inspectors necessarily must consider certain pre-determined
> standards when deciding whether something is "safe" or not, and correct
> installation is part of that. If the pads were in fact swapped, then they
> were indeed installed wrongly, even if you might end up experiencing no
> apparent consequences resulting from the incorrect installation.
>
> Correction of this issue means removing the road wheel and the caliper,
> switching the inner pads to their correct sides, then putting everything
> back together again. It is not necessary to replace the pads unless they
> are too far worn to keep in service.
>
> From the dealership's perspective (and that of the state's inspection
> agency), they did exactly what the law told them they had to do.
>
> However, your independent garage unfortunately does not appear to
> understand brake function as well as they should, and thus did a poor
> inspection.
>
>
Thanks for the reply. Calling wear indicators "sensors" is
ridiculous, and lying about the screwup with the oil change doesn't give
me any confidence that they are telling the truth about the brakes. At
any rate, given the rate with which I wear down brakes, this won't be an
issue for me, because I will know, year to year at inspection time, how
much pad I have left. The car will probably still have those pads on it
when I sell it. I'll be sure to mention the issue to the next owner.
> Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote in
> news:Epuhm.257719$E61.217037@newsfe09.iad:
>
>
> <snip official reply>
>
>> I think not. Not only did I ask for synthetic blend oil, I asked a
>> second time to make sure that the woman handling my paperwork had
>> recorded it. She told me that she had "told them." Further, I did give
>> the second shop the rejection notice, and they looked at the front
>> brakes specifically. So, Tegger, what do you think about the reason
>> given?
>
>
>
>
> The most revealing comment in the dealership's letter:
> "The sensors on the pads have to be in the proper position in order to
> work correctly."
>
> The only way I can think how the pads would be improperly installed as
> described in that document is that the inner pads would have been swapped
> left-for-right.
>
> Swapping left-for-right would have put the squeal tabs (wear indicators) at
> the /bottom/ instead of at the /top/, where they should be on your car's
> front brakes. This is what I suspected from the beginning.
>
> Disc brake pads tend to wear most at their leading edges (relative to the
> rotor's spin direction, not the car's direction), so the wear indicator is
> placed there.
>
> In your case, the wear indicator being on the bottom would mean that it
> would not function as intended (being on the trailing edge, which ends up
> being thicker than the lead edge), and you'd end up down to the steel on
> the lead edge of the pads well before the indicator ever contacted the
> disc.
>
> Official safety inspectors necessarily must consider certain pre-determined
> standards when deciding whether something is "safe" or not, and correct
> installation is part of that. If the pads were in fact swapped, then they
> were indeed installed wrongly, even if you might end up experiencing no
> apparent consequences resulting from the incorrect installation.
>
> Correction of this issue means removing the road wheel and the caliper,
> switching the inner pads to their correct sides, then putting everything
> back together again. It is not necessary to replace the pads unless they
> are too far worn to keep in service.
>
> From the dealership's perspective (and that of the state's inspection
> agency), they did exactly what the law told them they had to do.
>
> However, your independent garage unfortunately does not appear to
> understand brake function as well as they should, and thus did a poor
> inspection.
>
>
Thanks for the reply. Calling wear indicators "sensors" is
ridiculous, and lying about the screwup with the oil change doesn't give
me any confidence that they are telling the truth about the brakes. At
any rate, given the rate with which I wear down brakes, this won't be an
issue for me, because I will know, year to year at inspection time, how
much pad I have left. The car will probably still have those pads on it
when I sell it. I'll be sure to mention the issue to the next owner.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pwman2002
Honda Mailing List
1
09-08-2008 08:23 PM
mjc13
Honda Mailing List
46
02-26-2008 11:41 AM
acatagorical@hotmail.com
Honda Mailing List
8
11-16-2004 11:29 PM
Cory Dunkle
Honda Mailing List
12
10-29-2003 10:39 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)