FMU’s Official Response to Manty’s Grievances

30 Nov FMU’s Official Response to Manty’s Grievances

What follows is Fluid MotorUnion’s official response to the grievances posted up by Manty (aka Mantvydas R.) on Audizine, which has since migrated to a couple different forums. Please bear with the whole story, as we’re putting this all out there at once. Everybody knows there’s three sides to everything; our side, the other person’s side, and the truth. What follows is our side.

Below, we have all the work orders for the entire history of Manty’s presence at our shop. All personal information has been removed, and the VIN only shows the last 8 digits (to match up with the Carfax, which we’ve also included). The story begins at the tail end of the 3rd work order, Invoice #4775. The entire time has car has been at Fluid MotorUnion, it has not worked properly, even including the first time he ever arrived at our shop. It has been a continual diagnostic process involving chasing down some serious gremlins. Once the work in Invoice #4775 was completed, there were still persistent issues with the vehicle, and we advised Manty that FMU was not comfortable releasing the car to him just yet, as it wasn’t performing at a level that we would deem satisfactory for driving. We suggested that the motor mounts were the next step for parts replacement on his vehicle due to heavy vibrations. Manty decided that he would install the motor mounts himself.

Upon leaving FMU in his Audi TT, which we allowed but explicitly advised against, his car began exhibiting running issues once again, no more than one mile from the shop. As it was close to us, we took the technician that worked on his car, pulled him off another job and drove that technician to the parking lot where Manty stopped. After inspecting the vehicle and attempting to revive it, we called for a tow truck to bring the car back to Fluid MotorUnion. We paid for this tow.

It was at this time that our diagnostic process discovered corrosion in the ECU. This, again, was only one problem in a long line of issues with the car, many of which could be contributing to driving issues. However, we were never allowed to have the car for enough time to fully diagnose every single issue all at once; Manty continually claimed that he needed the TT for school nearby, and proceeded to explain to us that he wouldn’t be attending class without his car. Once the corrosion on the ECU was discovered, we called Manty to explain our findings. It was at this time that he stated that his car had suffered flood damage, earning it a salvage title and a “total loss” designation on Carfax. Obviously, the flooding had created the corrosion within the ECU, and most likely contributed to a slew of other problems with the car as well. We cleaned the corrosion off the ECU as best as we could, and Manty came by to pick the car up the following day. He had not replaced the motor mounts yet. We did not charge him to clean the corrosion off the ECU.

A while later, Manty called us up yelling. He had claimed that the ‘turbo had fallen out of the car.’ We towed the car to FMU at our cost; Manty did not pay for that tow. Upon investigating the issue mentioned, we discovered that the wastegate had come loose due to a weak Helicoil job on the bolt holes used to fasten the wastegate down (which was not done by us, but either by the previous owner or a previous shop). Our assumption was that Manty’s use of the vehicle, without replacing the motor mounts, led to severe engine vibrations during operation that caused the wastegate bolts to back out of the Helicoiled threads. We also made note of one Helicoil insert in the actual turbocharger housing, as well. We explained this issue to him, along with the reason that we believe caused the wastegate to come loose. He claimed he didn’t believe us.

While the Audi TT was still in our possession, Manty agreeed to supply new motor mounts that we would install. We re-threaded the wastegate and turbo housing bolts and did not charge him for that; we replaced all possible Helicoils because we wanted to ensure that this issue did not arise again, despite a previous shop being the ones responsible for the weak original job. We installed his motor mounts, which we charged him for. Upon finishing the wastegate and motor mount work, the vehicle was still behaving iffy. He called up to ask for a status update, and we told him that it’s still having issues and that we would like to keep it to diagnose a few more potential causes for these issues. We said we would diagnose it for free, and he agreed to let us keep the car.

Once we were given the okay from Manty, we also dropped the oil pan to inspect everything inside; we found the bearings and other parts in the block to be good and not the cause of any issue. At this point, we put the oil pan back on the vehicle and refilled the oil. After this, we had attempted to start the vehicle up and let it run; the starting was intermittent, and when it did crank over, it only stayed alive for a little while and was running as rough as it had been. The starting, vibration and rough idle issues were still being chased in diagnosis, and during the course of that diagnosis we determined that his dual mass flywheel should be replaced as the next step. We quoted him for a replacement (the fifth and final workorder/quote).

We explained our new findings to Manty, who opted to pick the car up himself and drive it home. We continually insisted on two things: one, that he should tow the car home for the flywheel work, and NOT drive it; and two, that the car will require further diagnosis and that the dual mass flywheel will not be a panacea. In response to the request for further diagnosis, Manty declined this option, stating explicitly that he believed water damage cannot be responsible for mechanical damage, that it was not possible. In response to our request to get the car towed home, Manty also denied this request, coming to the shop and attempting to start the car and drive it himself. When it did not start for him, he opted to get the car towed home, the cost of which he paid.

Later, Chris received an e-mail from Manty. It contained a cell phone picture that showed halfway backed-out bolts on the oil pan and the oil drain plug itself. Regarding those bolts, our technicians have sworn up and down that the oil pan was fully bolted in, along with the drain plug. Elsewise, it would have leaked oil during the limited operation of the vehicle in the FMU lot following that work, and the TT was not responsible for any oil spill that we noticed in the parking lot. We explained to him that we still advised against driving the car, even after the flywheel installation, that the vehicle was still needing further diagnosis and damage may result. His words were, and this is taken verbatim from the e-mail with Chris: “Not driving the car.. Never asked if i should drive it. Thanks for the heads up.” So, just to recap here, Manty claimed to us via e-mail that he won’t be driving the car, nor did he inquire with us previously regarding driving the car, but now he’s made aware that he shouldn’t. This goes directly against what he did earlier when he attempted to drive the vehicle back home for the flywheel job.

It was at this point that Manty claimed that the oil-related issues began. In his Audizine post, he claimed that the flywheel replacement was done by himself, after which he started the car and drove it around the block. He did not know what a properly sounding APR Stage 3+ kit should sound like, but he still believed it to be funny-sounding. From there, he drove it 3 or 4 miles to his friend’s shop. Manty claims his friend discovered that the engine was completely without oil, as in it was absolutely starved of lubrication. After adding five quarts of oil to the motor, Manty left, and claimed that he blew a connecting rod due to starvation.

Before continuing in regards to Manty’s claims, this first part is where we have issues. We’ll try to break down each issue below:

•First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, we told Manty numerous times that we don’t believe the vehicle should be driven and that damage may result, yet he claimed via e-mail that we’d never said it in the past, and that he wouldn’t be driving it. His actions prior to this e-mail suggest otherwise; mainly, his attempts to start and drive the vehicle before taking it home for the flywheel job.

•He claims that he did not know what a properly sounding APR Stage 3+ vehicle sounded like. Despite the fact that there are numerous videos on YouTube showcasing the vehicle’s sound and running quality, and despite that a quick call to APR could provide even a basic answer in lieu of YouTube, instead he chose to drive the car several miles, against what we suggested to him.

•After the e-mail was sent to Chris regarding the oil pan bolts, Manty made no mention of checking the oil level in the vehicle while finishing up the flywheel job. We understand that there’s a certain amount of trust built into a shop, but if you allegedly discovered loose oil pan bolts and a loose oil drain bolt, would you not check the oil level manually to determine if even a drop of oil has left the vehicle? Does that not seem suspect? Especially since the rectangular screen in the middle of his gauge cluster was inoperable, undoubtedly due to the water damage that caused the ECU corrosion, and he never opted to get that fixed.

•He then claims that he drove to a friend’s shop, where they allegedly discovered that there was no oil in the vehicle. In our experience, most motors (especially ones with heavy aftermarket upgrades such as an APR Stage 3+ kit) will not last for that distance without seizing up or making such an awful noise that the only common-sense notion would be to turn off the vehicle and get a tow. Taking it to a friend’s shop, and not a completely neutral third-party shop, smacks of collusion. Especially since the motor decided to blow after the vehicle was given oil and driven more. It still has yet to be looked at by a third party to the best of our knowledge.

Returning to Manty’s story, at this point he claims he called Chris at Fluid MotorUnion, explaining how our service was unsatisfactory. He then claims Chris called the car a piece of shit. Later on, towards the end of the Audizine post, he claims the wastegate falling out is bullshit due to the recent turbo rebuild. Let’s address these claims below:

•First and foremost, we have tried numerous times to get Manty to see these issues from our point of view. Despite us continually asking to have the vehicle longer, Manty chose to buck against our garage’s professional opinion and take matters into his own hands. Even while doing that, we still attempted to try and bring the vehicle to a proper working state, even paying for several jobs and tow trucks ourselves as we felt bad that his car hasn’t worked properly since before he brought it to the shop. We have bent over backwards to help customers in the past, whether or not they have been overly willing to accept that help, and we continue to to this day. We never want a customer to leave unhappy. Manty continually went against our suggestions and recommendations.

•While calling Manty’s TT a ‘piece of shit’ was not a wise choice of words on Chris’s behalf, he did bring us a car with a salvage title due to flood damage that was deemed a “total loss,” yet did not choose to tell us this until well after jobs were being done. The car never once ran right while at our shop. His main LCD instrument panel (the one in the center of the cluster that contains numerous warning messages and the like) was never working correctly, yet he decided against putting money towards repairing it, or at least never expressed interest in it. Objectively speaking, the car looked and acted like a total lemon from the beginning, and the Carfax report says as much.

•Nowhere in a turbo rebuild kit, and nowhere in any set of written instructions, is the installer supposed to stress-test the holding capacity of (already damaged and Helicoiled) wastegate bolts by vibrating the engine continually or pulling on them as hard as possible during the rebuild of the turbocharger. We went into the turbocharger looking to fix an issue coming from play in the impeller shaft. His car was not driven enough on our end to cause the wastegate bolt Helicoils to fail, nor were we given enough time to do so. He always wanted the car ASAP, waiting until the car would barely operate (again, against our wishes numerous times) to bring it back to the shop.

•Also, let’s bear in mind that Manty did not mention in his Audizine post that his car had a salvage title due to water damage, nor also that it was deemed a “total loss” even before the first time the vehicle came to Fluid MotorUnion.

At every point in this process, we’ve attempted to follow our typical diagnostic procedure. This car was not short on issues; rather, there were many problems that were all compounding together to create a giant mess. We genuinely felt bad that Manty’s car was in such disarray, and we remained determined to get the car in working order. However, he imposed upon us demands that impeded our ability to fix the vehicle to our standards, and by following the mantra that the customer is always right, we let him continually reclaim the car despite our persistent wishes against him doing so. We always strive to deal with customer issues on a one-to-one basis, as it makes it far less complicated and dramatic, but since he’s decided to bring his side of the story to the Internet, so have we.

The images below, in order, consist of the following: 6 pages of invoices, dating from his first-ever trip to our shop (the first invoice is two pages long, split into two images); also, his Carfax report with the relevant data included. We can provide the full link to the Carfax report in the event that the rational public mind has decided that we are dirty Photoshopping liars:

The court of public opinion most always sways towards the side of the individual, and we understand that. We’re not here to get into some sort of knock-down drag-out fight. We just wanted to show our side of the story and hopefully shed some extra light on this situation, a situation that we deem rather odd.