Toyota Repair for Toyota Supra
| Note: This is one of those letters mentioned at the outset involving an error on our part.
To Whom It May Concern:
A few years back I owned a 1988 Toyota Supra that I took in for service at Integrity Auto. My first request was for a quote and a diagnosis. Duke told me that the problem was most likely the head gasket, but that it might also be a worse problem involving erosion of the head.
Duke then told me a certain price, and that it could take up to a week to fix it. I agreed to his price and lead-time and went on my way. A day or so later, when he had the head off of the car, he asked me to meet him at the shop. He showed me that the head on my Toyota's engine was eroded badly—so badly that a proper repair would require replacing the head.
He also told me that the head that he had quoted me on was not the right one for my car, and that the correct one would cost much more money than he had earlier told me. I told him that I could not afford the higher price and could only pay for the previous quote. I asked him to please put it back together the way it was.
| He did this, and to my surprise only charged me for the head gasket itself and didn't charge me any labor. The job easily took the better part of a full day, but he said that because of the difference in quotes he would do this for me.
I kept the car for almost another year till I could afford a newer one and it ran for that entire time. In my opinion, Duke did a first-rate job in keeping the customer happy, which I was.
In conclusion, the service performed on my Toyota by Integrity Auto had a very pleasant ending to what could have turned into an unhappy ordeal.
(Note from Integrity: Often times a job will have to be quoted as a series of possible scenarios contingent on what we find upon disassembly. Usually there are a finite number of scenarios, and I insist on pre-quoting the job with its various most common contingencies. The last thing I want to do is to put a customer in the situation where we've got his car disassembled and he finds out that he can't afford to complete the repair properly. The above letter describes a time when we actually got caught in a situation like this nearly six years ago. I had quoted a range of scenarios over the phone. When we began to work on the car, I realized that I had badly misquoted the worst case scenario due to improper engine identification. I was embarrassed to call Bill up. The best case scenarios were still clearly within the original quote, and I took a gamble thinking, "What are the odds it will be the worst case scenario?" As it turned out, the car did in fact need the worst case repair, and the necessary repair was badly out of Bill's ability to pay. At that point if we went back together without everything that it needed he would receive some benefit, but the life expectancy of the work would be considerably reduced. The thought of charging him for substandard work was intolerable to me, and I felt responsible for getting him into this situation due to my having misquoted at the outset and then having proceeded without having corrected my error in quoting him. As a result, at our suggestion, we reassembled it and absorbed the entire labor charge other than the $28 we charged for initial diagnosis. )