Dealer Service Center Oil Change Nightmare

[teamturbo]

Originally Posted by HeadBanger

I would be skeptical as hell buying a new-ish car with a replaced engine or tranny. The first thing that comes to mind is it was beaten, poorly maintained, or both. A dealership selling the car would try to pass it off as a good thing, but that's besides the point.

Exactly! It's enough to scare off 90% of potential buyers. @FRS Dad does make some good points in his posts, but somewhat neglects the damages done by the dealer long term.

[aznatama]

Logically speaking, think about what the oil is used for... Lubrication. Why do some engines is thinner or thicker oil? Tolerances and materials used in the engine.

That being said, thinner oil flows into smaller spaces easier, but doesn't protect as well if tolerances are larger.

ATF is pretty thin. Used in auto transmissions that have tight tolerances and lots of moving gears/parts just like an engine.

In short, at the end of the day, just pull piston, check for abnormal wear, and if none, call it a day. All this talk about compensation is just for peace of mind. Most likely you won't keep the car past 100k miles anyways.

[HunterGreene]

I have to say, this has been one of the better "Dealership F*cked Up My Car" threads, largely due to the contributions of @FRS Dad.

However, The only thing I haven't actually seen confirmed is whether or not it was ATF or MTF that was accidentally put in. People seem to be assuming ATF without it being confirmed by the OP.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by teamturbo

Exactly! It's enough to scare off 90% of potential buyers. @FRS Dad does make some good points in his posts, but somewhat neglects the damages done by the dealer long term.

I guess I'm not following how a buyer on the secondary market two years and 30, 000 miles from now would ever know the car was run for a couple of hours at 8,500 miles with the wrong lubricant in it? Not CarFax. I guarantee the shop either never closed the original ticket, or reopened the original ticket. CarFax will show a single line entry in the service history of the car with the date and "Dealer service: Lube Oil Filter changed. Hoses and belts inspected. Brakes inspected" etc. That's it.

[mike the snake]

I read that ATF is the same viscosity as 0-20, so basically no difference in viscosity.

There are many people running different weight oils in our cars. As long as oil pressure was not interrupted, again, I'd say no damage was done, especially with only having driven for a few miles on the wrong oil.

Originally Posted by aznatama

Logically speaking, think about what the oil is used for... Lubrication. Why do some engines is thinner or thicker oil? Tolerances and materials used in the engine.

That being said, thinner oil flows into smaller spaces easier, but doesn't protect as well if tolerances are larger.

ATF is pretty thin. Used in auto transmissions that have tight tolerances and lots of moving gears/parts just like an engine.

In short, at the end of the day, just pull piston, check for abnormal wear, and if none, call it a day. All this talk about compensation is just for peace of mind. Most likely you won't keep the car past 100k miles anyways.

[eyedeez]

We must remember that the factory recommendations regarding oil pertains to the life of the vehicle. If we assume the life span of an average twin to be 100k miles, then 20 miles represents 0.0002% of the expected average lifespan. Is that enough time/miles to do do irreparable damage to your motor? Possibly, if your motor is being operated with thick oil and a high oil pressure. But from the evidence that has been presented, I'm not convinced having transmission fluid in your motor leads to the type of damage that demands a full replacement of the vehicle (at least for the 20/30 miles described by OP). On the contrary, I'd say the evidence suggests - thus far - that no damage may have been done at all. Again, an extended warranty and VIP treatment seem like a pretty sweet come-up.

[FRS Dad]

Okay, I just got off the phone with my kid brother Matt. He's a general mechanic at a dealership but he's familiar with the engine and owns a couple of Subies as winter cars himself.

1) He agrees with the OP that it's impossible to know if depriving the engine of proper lubricant for any period of time started some damage process that could take many years or miles to fully materialize.

2) He would suspect any trouble if it did arise would be in the bearings (crankshaft, camshaft) and not in the cylinder walls or piston.

3) He agrees with the shop that at this point there's nothing to indicate damage provided the engine is running normally and it's not smoking, and a tear down would be way more trouble than it's worth for both parties.

4) His gut instinct is that the car will be fine.

He said, were it his car, he would do the following:

Get a letter from the dealer on letterhead acknowledging the shop's error, date and mileage.

Get the extended warranty in writing with specific language regarding coverage for repair of any problems related to oil, oil starvation and premature engine wear.

Trade the car before the extended warranty lapses.

So now I have to reverse myself because I think in this instance you do want an attorney to handle the wording of the demand to the dealer both for the letter and to write the wording of the warranty. This should run a few hundred dollars and I don't think the dealer is on the hook for it.

Alternately you could start the process with a certified letter (return receipt requested) to the GM along the lines of:

"Dear (GM)

As you're aware, during a recent service at your facility, your technician inadvertently drained my vehicle's engine crankcase of motor oil and replaced it with transmission fluid. I appreciate how quickly the error was discovered and your shop's proactive measures to remedy the error, however the car was released to me and driven for several miles before the mistake was identified.

My concern clearly is that operating the engine with insufficient lubricant could have caused damage to any number of sensitive internal engine components, and that the damage process may not be readily evident at this early stage.

My understanding is that you have offered to become a warrantor of the engine for a period of 100,000 miles to alleviate my concerns. I am prepared to accept your offer and conclude the matter under the following conditions:

-Please provide me in writing a statement on letterhead acknowledging the specific shop error and include the vehicle's VIN, the date and time of the service and the car's mileage.

-Please provide me a copy of the proposed language of the extended warranty.

Lastly, as an act of goodwill, I would appreciate it if the shop would agree to perform future regularly scheduled oil changes at no charge. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best
(OP)"

Now if I'm the dealer here I'm concerned about a letter floating around out there where I admit liability in exchange for no assurance that the owner isn't going to then take my letter, take my warranty and then go ahead and sue me for something anyway, so don't be surprised if he wants some form of a release that limits his exposure to the warranty. A lawyer should be consulted for approval of the wording of any release.

On your side, the warranty needs to have specific language outlining the process for how damage is evaluated and repaired.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by eyedeez

Again, an extended warranty and VIP treatment seem like a pretty sweet come-up.

The Subaru 100K mile warranty normally costs anywhere from $500 to $1500 depending on the dealer. It's really not that big a concession on the dealer's part. Some dealers have actually thrown it in to sweeten a deal. It's really the warranty the car should have come with in the first place.

But that doesn't really address the diminished resale value. If the owner tries to sell it, and he discloses that it was run with transmission fluid in it, he's going to have to discount it a lot more than $1500 to get it sold.

FRS Dad says that he should not disclose that to a potential buyer because Carfax won't show it, so who would know? That seems rather dishonest to me. If it were my car, I would be very uncomfortable putting the car up for sale and misrepresenting it as an issue-free car. That really sounds like he's advocating fraud. Again, I think the dealer should be the one to take on that responsibility.

I'll tell you what I would want in this situation. An even trade for a new car outright is almost certainly out of the question, but I would start by asking for that. You have to start a negotiation somewhere.

What I would ultimately want is for the dealer to buy the car back from me for the high end of what it would be worth on the used car market before they fucked it up. Then I would want them to make me a hellaciously good deal on a new car. I would be willing to bring money to the table to cover the 8400 miles of use I got out of it, up to about $4500.

This would be a win-win for both of us. I would get a car that I could have confidence in again, and the dealer could count that as a sale in their monthly numbers. Even if they lost money on the sale, they would make money back on their month end bonuses if they made their quota, and the overall cost would be less than the reputational risk they face if this situation goes really sour.

I think that's what they were thinking when they initially offered to sell him a new car, but it sounds like the salesman got a little greedy and wasn't looking at the bigger picture. I think I would have seized that opportunity to counter with an outright trade, then negotiate to a point somewhere in the middle. And I wouldn't hesitate to get a lawyer to make a call or write a letter to give me a little leverage on my side of the negotiation if the negotiation needed a little nudge in my favor.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

He said, were it his car, he would do the following:

Get a letter from the dealer on letterhead acknowledging the shop's error, date and mileage.

Get the extended warranty in writing with specific language regarding coverage for repair of any problems related to oil, oil starvation and premature engine wear.

Trade the car before the extended warranty lapses.

That might work if he has the mindset that cars are just things you use for a while and throw away when you're done with them, but what if he wants to keep the car past 100K miles? I intend to drive mine until the wheels come off, then pull it into the garage and rebuild it for a second life. If it were me, that deal wouldn't be acceptable because it locks me into a plan of getting rid of the car before the end of the service life I expect to get from it.

If my plan is to get rid of it anyway, then I would want to get rid of it now and replace it with a comparable vehicle that I could plan to keep.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That might work if he has the mindset that cars are just things you use for a while and throw away when you're done with them, but what if he wants to keep the car past 100K miles? I intend to drive mine until the wheels come off, then pull it into the garage and rebuild it for a second life. If it were me, that deal wouldn't be acceptable because it locks me into a plan of getting rid of the car before the end of the service life I expect to get from it.

If my plan is to get rid of it anyway, then I would want to get rid of it now and replace it with a comparable vehicle that I could plan to keep.

At the end of the day, passions aside, a car literally is something you use for awhile and sell when you're done with it. This is a straight up business transaction. Did it possibly change the OP's future hopes and his fervent dream of someday being buried in an old Toyota? Maybe. Stuff happens.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

At the end of the day, passions aside, a car literally is something you use for awhile and sell when you're done with it. This is a straight up business transaction. Did it possibly change the OP's future hopes and his fervent dream of someday being buried in an old Toyota? Maybe. Stuff happens.

That is a very typical insurance adjuster's attitude. I'm an auditor and I'm not even that cold.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

FRS Dad says that he should not disclose that to a potential buyer because Carfax won't show it, so who would know? That seems rather dishonest to me. If it were my car, I would be very uncomfortable putting the car up for sale and misrepresenting it as an issue-free car. That really sounds like he's advocating fraud. Again, I think the dealer should be the one to take on that responsibility.

You NEVER sell a used car and represent is as "issue free". A used car is sold As-Is, and a buyer who doesn't understand that does so at his own peril. Get it off your chest and tell the buyer that 30,000 miles ago it ran for twenty miles with tranny fluid in the crankcase and it seemed fine after that if it lets you sleep at night I guess.

Again, all of this paranoia is based on a feeling that something is wrong with the car now. Zero evidence anything is actually wrong with the car. Feelings don't depreciate cars. Damage depreciates cars. Get back to me when they find any.

[FRS Dad]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That is a very typical insurance adjuster's attitude. I'm an auditor and I'm not even that cold.

I'm sorry if a grown-up's opinion offends you But hey, I'd LOVE to have a guy like you with a big heart as my auditor. Seriously, stuff happens. Not every unfortunate thing that happens to you or your property is a lawsuit.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by FRS Dad

Not every unfortunate thing that happens to you or your property is a lawsuit.

Once again with that idiotic straw man. CONSULTING A FUCKING LAWYER DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO FILE A FUCKING LAWSUIT.

I truly appreciate the perspective you have provided on some of the insurance threads, but for the love of god stop repeating that bullshit line.