If you have visited this dealership please take a moment and rate by clicking the review tab.
By taking a few minutes you can let everyone know how well you were treated or you can register a complaint.
If your thinking of visiting this dealer the review tab allows you to read other customer reviews.
On 5/8/2018 I dropped off my C70 for scheduled service. The next day I went to pick up the car and immediately noticed a great deal of hot air coming out of one of the driver’s side vents even when the AC was on full. I showed the issue to the service manager who agreed something was wrong. Two days later I received a call from him stating that there was an AC/heating issue that would cost $2,000 (supposedly the entire dash needs to be removed).
The car’s ventilation system was in *perfect* working condition when I dropped the car off for service. Someone at Volvo obviously made a mistake and now refuses to admit it. The service manager asked me multiple times, “Are you SURE it wasn’t like this when you brought it in?” If it had been broken I would have asked them to look at it but, as I said, the AC worked fine right up until the time Volvo service took possession of the car.
Volvo refuses to even discuss the issue and I’ve had to hire an attorney to look into the issue. I will never purchase another car or have one serviced at Volvo Cars of Cary (1375 NW Maynard Rd, Cary).
Would not budge even slightly in the price and we were ready to buy that day, kept say “they would be taking a loss”. not true. Sales woman get teary eyed to try to convince my husband to buy from her. Not professional and did not work,
Angie’s List,
Thank you for forwarding the response letter from Weaver Brothers Volvo/Volvo of Cary, (WBV/VoC). The fact that the dealer felt compelled to respond to your resolution efforts is a testament to the reality that your service has become the preeminent customer protection service. I provide as evidence of this statement the actuality that WBV/VoC refused to respond to the Better Business Bureau’s request for a continued dialogue knowing that their refusal to reply would cause the BBB to “Administratively Close” the case under the unresolved category, (as are 60% of all complaints filed against this firm) with no penalty to Weaver Brothers Volvo/Volvo of Cary, allowing them to retain a false “A” status with the BBB. Feel free to open the below URL and read why you should take great care when doing business with Weaver Brothers Volvo/Volvo of Cary!
http://www.bbb.org/raleigh-durham/viewcomplaints/3802?id=11052308
First it is important to establish that WBV/VoC has fabricated a position of creative latitude allowing them to modify the essential truths of this complaint. WBV/VoC utilizes a spokesperson rather than the principle participants of this case, allowing them to recreate details via a third party interpretation. The evidence of this structured position of plausible deniability is provided by WBV/VoC when they modified the Angie’s List reply form, crossing through your statement, “represents my actual firsthand experience”, modifying it to read, “to the best of my knowledge.” Plausible deniability is a corporate maneuver that allows Weaver Brothers Volvo/Volvo of Cary to avoid direct written statements from the participants thus avoiding accountability. Even though the WBV/VoC spokesperson has recognized that he has no firsthand knowledge of any of the facts in this case he repeatedly makes direct statements in his response that contradict facts presented in my first hand report of the event. WBV/VoC use of a 3rd party spokesperson to receive responses from their employees, and then represent them as firsthand information in the reply letter rather than clearly stating them as second hand knowledge in the body of the reply letter. This policy is at best disingenuous, and at its worst is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
WBV/VoC response, of November 10th, 2009 has a number of significant flaws that may originate from a lack of firsthand knowledge, or simply stem from the significant lapse of time that has passed since the service failure event.
· The spokesperson is incorrect about the removal of the hose from the radiator, the Volvo of Cary Service Manager stated on the morning after the engine failure…”although we had to remove the radiator hose, (as part of the $800 service the day before) that was not the cause of the overheating. The overheating was caused by the head warping from the extreme heat and the gasket between the head and the block failing, allowing the water to run out.”
· The spokesperson states, “If the hose in question had not been secured, the vehicle would likely not have gone more than a few blocks from the dealership.” The fact that steam was spraying out of the connection between the radiator and the hose after the car was driven to Durham and back would indicate to almost anyone, no matter how mechanically inclined, that the this car was able to travel more than a few blocks. At the risk of being overly simplistic I offer that the hose was not left unattached, rather it was partially attached which allowed it to slowly leak at the beginning of the trip to Durham and create a more prominent leak at the head to block gasket as we drove into Volvo of Cary.
· With respect to the repair costs quoted by WBV/VoC, the lower estimate of $1,500.00 was specifically defined by the service manager as the cost to take the engine apart, to see what had been damaged. He clearly stated that this cost did not include any repair labor, any repair parts, in fact it did not include putting the engine back together after completing the investigation. For the record the “upper range” the spokesman refers to, ($4,000) was defined by the Service Manager as a good starting point for what they typically needed to repair in overheating repair cases. Repeated requests for more clarity of a maximum cost to repair this 2001 C70, with a limited blue/black book value were not responded to other than, “We won’t know until we get inside.”
· The final point of dis-information contained in the WBV/VoC reply letter is in fact the most egregious, the statements about driving the car after the service lights came on;
o It ignores the fact that we communicated the problem of the warning light alarm to our Volvo service representative at Volvo of Cary and made every effort to comply with the directions we were given by Volvo of Cary. We were told by Volvo of Cary to drive the car back from Durham and try to stop along the way at a service station to have an attendant check the fluid levels. This advice might have been appropriate, and might have prevented the overheating 10 years ago when service stations with attendants were still doing business. However the truth remains that we followed the Volvo of Cary direction. We were never told to stop the vehicle and have it towed in.
o Further, when reading the Volvo C-70 manual, Volvo never states that when a service light comes on the vehicle should be stopped and towed to a dealership location for service. What Volvo directs is that the car should be seen by a Volvo service technician as soon as possible. We went further than the manual directed; we called and asked for advice from the individual who had directed the $800.00 service less than 24 hours earlier. The spokesperson’s reference to the common sense used by my son and I completely ignores the specific direction received from his Service Representative at Volvo of Cary.
I encourage Angie’s List to stay the course and maintain this report on the website for reference by members, and non-members alike, so that all buyers may have the opportunity to perform the necessary research and become aware of firms like Weaver Brothers Volvo/ Volvo of Cary who maintain a corporate philosophy of questionable business practices.
Reply to Mr. Small’s/Volvo of Cary, (VOC) presentation of his third party research:
Since this incident will clearly move forward, I will attempt to both address Mr. Small’s statements, (in red) and maintain a chronological sequence of events. Below I present the statements from Mr. Small’s text with a specific reply to clarify the facts;
1.) “There was no coolant residue in the front area…” I’m not sure how anyone would determine this, and if there were a way to establish this as a fact in this matter I believe that the determination would need to first be predicated on some form of evidence that after the service technician reconnected the hose to the radiator that he added an anti-freeze. Since pure water makes pure steam any residue would need to come from another source. The reality that steam was exiting the connection point between the radiator and hose is a fact, so the lack of residue Mr. Small refers to would indicate that no anti-freeze was added after the re-connection of the hose to the radiator. Mr. Small’s observation has little or no merit in his favor, as steam cleaning is a common practice used in his industry to remove residue from engines.
2.) “…steam that was observed by our sales manager when the vehicle was brought in was from the engine compartment in general, not from any specific location.” The presence of this statement in Mr. Small’s paragraph is unfortunate, but not a surprise. I asked the Service Manager and Service Advisor numerous times if the Sales Manager had been questioned about the plume of steam coming from the hose to radiator connection, and received an affirmative response. I was never told what the Sales Manager’s statement had been. It seems that the Sales Manager recalls the events of Tuesday evening with much less clarity than the direct and specific manner in which the physical evidence was presented to him. I arrived at VOC on Tuesday evening very close to 7pm and pulled into the overhang area, facing east. I opened the hood and went inside to find the person whom I had spoken to on the phone about half hour before. The Sales Manager identified himself as the person who that I had spoken to on the phone, and had told me to allow the car to cool down for a few minutes before I tried to drive it to the dealership. I asked him to follow me out to the car to witness the physical evidence. I requested that he accompany me outside the showroom, which he did, to see the clear and the unmistakable evidence of steam coming out of the engine less than 24 hours after the VOC service had been completed. The Sales Manager objected and tried to excuse himself on the grounds that he knew nothing about service, but I insisted, telling him that I only wanted him to see the steam and where it was coming from. I stood beside the front bumper and pointed, with my right hand, to the only steam coming from the engine, at the radiator to hose connection. I told the Sales Manager that when I had spoken to him earlier in the evening, at the house, steam had been coming from the entire engine compartment as well as the hose/radiator connection point. It is important to understand that a 30 to 40 mile per hour wind was blowing through the overhang during the Tuesday evening storm, and would easily explain why I was not able to show the Sales Manager any other sources of steam. The Sales Manager and I discussed why my son had not arrived ahead of me, since he had left the house before me, and the Sales Manager stated that my son must have pulled over because the storm was so strong.
3.) …when fluid was added, it only escaped from the rear of the engine where the head meets the block. This particular statement would be consistent with the fact that the hose to radiator connection is well above the head to block elevation.
4.) It must be understood the vehicle was operated after being cautioned by our service advisor not to operate the vehicle. It is not understood that I was told not to operate the vehicle, to the contrary, the direction I received over the phone, and relayed to my son, was that he was to find a service station and get someone to top off the fluids, and return the vehicle to VOC as soon as possible. At no time, in either the morning conversation with the Service Advisor, or evening phone conversation with the Sales Manager, did anyone, Service Advisor or Sales Manager, or a voice in the background state that the car should not be driven.
5.) “…while ignoring the warning lights, and advice from our service personnel…” The warning lights were not ignored, nor was the advice from the Service Advisor. In reconstructing the events of this incident and the recommendation to “find a service station” I still, to this day, know of no location between downtown Durham and Cary where a service person is available to look at and/or top off fluids. At the time the Service Advisor’s recommendation was given to me it seemed reasonable, and I passed it along to my son verbatim, however in hindsight I see no way that my son could have found a service station to top off the fluids, as every location I know of between Durham and Cary sells gas, but offers no service.
6.) “…but our prior repairs were not involved in the failure of the cooling system.” This statement is contradictory to the statement made by the Service Manager immediately after he stated that “The good news, at least for us, is that we are not responsible.” Directly after giving me his good news he stated, “even though the radiator had to be disconnected for the service we provided, the only leak I found was at the back of the engine.”
In closing, Mr. Small’s contention that my son and I were unwise in the actions we took is well supported by the fact that Volvo of Cary believes that the cost of our actions amount to discovery at $1,500, and repair at $4,000, (which Mr. Small seems to imply may go higher if all damaged parts, pieces and systems are repaired).
What Mr. Small fails to recognize is that our actions would not have been necessary had the car been properly serviced and that a failure of workmanship had not been the catalyst of our “unwise actions”. Mr. Small also fails to recognize that our “unwise actions” were taken in a good faith effort to follow the direction we received from the VOC Service Advisor. With only gas filling zippy marts available to him, the standard recommendation that has always worked in the past, to seek help at a service station, is of no value in today’s market. Had my son driven around Durham County and/or Wake County looking for someone to check and fill fluids it seems clear that I would never have been able to follow the Sales Manager’s recommendation to “allow the car to cool and drive it in, we close at 9 pm.”
Finally Mr. Small implies that the vehicle should not have been operated after the warning lights were illuminated. I don’t recall any instruction manual that I’ve ever read that says do not operate a vehicle when the warning light is illuminated. Rather I believe we are to get service as soon as possible. I contend that we did better than that, we advised VOC and followed the recommendation to the extent that it was possible to follow their recommendation. The car was back in the hands of VOC within 24 hours of VOC having completed an $800 service.