Either, the key point is that you would have explained it to the customer if you did.

In this case it went in for a job that typically does not require the motor to be removed and there was apparently no reason given to the customer as to why his motor was not in his car.

I'm not digging at you here. Just illustrating how business should be done (your way) vs how it was done in this case.

I get things happen and I get a short phone call is a poor medium to convey technical information. Seems like there was little effort done to clarify the situation once the customer was on site though. There's no excuse for that in my book.

 

The key is communication, coupled to documentation and "give a damn".

Without the latter, you'll never have the former. I want to stay out of conflicts at all costs, and that means everyone understands everything at all times. I just finished an hour long phone call gong over a bunch of crazy pieces that someone botched into a DE car, so the owner would understand.

They plumbed the accusump hose into the oil pressure sender location on the cylinder head using a -10 AN hose.... Yes, -10 adapted down to a 10mm fitting with an ID of .275".

 

I'd still be curious if the shop that was going to carry out the IMS solution install on op's car even had the faultless tool on hand, or even the regular IMS tool and just how many they have performed in the past.

Those are the first things I would normally ask if I were taking it to an unknown shop.

 

Park it and leave it until January 20th....

When sworn in, Trump is going to make all 996 Porsche's great again....

He's going to replace everyone's IMSB and make Germany pay for it....

He's going to deport all non-996 Porsche's thus demand and prices will skyrocket....

Jake Raby is going to be named Sec. of Defense....

And of course he's going to market his own brand of motor oil DT2016, putting to rest which oil is the best for our cars....

Ahhh...it will be morning in America....

 

Yes, let's absolutely turn this into a political discussion. Because having a trigger-happy egotistical nightmare in the oval office is WAY worse than having a lying, deceitful shrew who has already proven she has no regard for the law of the land in the oval office. One would almost certainly start a nuclear war with Iran; the other will continue to bribe Iran. Yay us.

This is going to be the second election in my life where I'll be writing myself in as a useless act of social protest.

 

Or, as the typical unknowing owner hears it, "They plumbed the [insert Peanuts adult speak]." and then says, "Oh, well, that's pretty effing stupid. What do you recommend?"

At which time you say, "[insert Peanuts adult speak]."

And the typical unknowing owner replies, "Well, that sounds reasonable..."

BUT...jokes aside, I agree with you. At the end of the day, it all comes down to communication. Eliminate or limit, to the best of your ability, any unnecessary surprises and it will better for all of the parties involved.

-Eric

 

What I find so comical is that there are people who don't realize the description "lying, deceitful shrew who has already proven she has no regard for the law of the land in the oval office" is also an accurate description of the "trigger-happy egotistical nightmare."

But what scares me most is that the "trigger-happy egotistical nightmare" speaks with the vocabulary and temper of an ill tempered adolescent in a sandbox fight: "Stupid ugly face Johnny was mean to me. He was. He was unfair. Very unfair. Unfair and mean. I want to punch him in the face he was so mean. It's unfair. It is."

-Eric

 

Trump is both belligerent and inconsistent. Terrifying traits for a guy who has access to "the football."

Both candidates are eminently untrustworthy in my unsolicited opinion...

 

A little comic relief after 153 posts on a very unfortunate situation for the OP.

my bad...

 

Yes, but how long do you freeze it?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/rai...pse-1592575661

 

What about legal representation, if we go back to the beginning the op has taken his car running completely fine by all accounts for an upgrade for piece of mind and ended up with a broken engine, it's some coincidence if this ims failed on the ramp in the shop, I don't believe that, these guys have messed this up, he should be rights be able to take his car to a reputable shop and get it put right then send them the bill. You don't take on work if your not confident you can carry it out successfully and if you do and it messes up then you have to pay to put it right !

 

Blimey. Just read all of this thread. What a nightmare. Sympathies to the OP, but as others have said a credit to you - and your Mrs - for finding a positive way forward.

Did you ever establish whether the mileage is the same now as when the car was taken to the dubious shop? That would at least rule out the "shop took it for a test drive" theory.

Cars do die in potentially suspicious circumstances. Take my first car, a '74 VW. Dropped it off with a mechanic friend for some brake work, he called me the same afternoon to say the engine was seized. And it was, too - I rode my bike to his shop and there's my car, exactly where I parked it, with the engine seized solid. Since I was a poor student at the time, he let me use his shop to rebuild the engine. Nice bloke.

 

A little late entering the string, but:
Run. The ***. Away.
Raby would reBUILD the engine for that kind of money. And, better.
Or, you can have the IMS replaced for perhaps a tenth that amount.

 

Correction: It pays to actually READ THE THREAD before pontificating (on my part).
Sounds like badness all the way around. Hope someone can fix or replace or rebuild what remains of the engine. Sorry for your loss.