Engine repair service near Upperco, MD

The said review on our shop was very dishonest. The unfortunate situation was this had been set up on a relay call I think things got miss translated in the conversation. This customer brought their truck in on a tow truck his vehicle wouldn't move. Found the transfer case bone dry. When we removed the transfer case fill plug smoke came rolling out. This a part that shouldn't have smoke coming out of it. On top of that the entire transfer case had multiple fluid leaks. So we recommended letting us pull it out and have it sent out to be rebuilt. And do to the rarity of the vehicle the rebuild shop couldn't give us but an estimated price. I relayed this to the customer. He choose not to let us go any farther. We had already had an hour of diagnostic time in it. He told us to stop right there. As into his vehicle being held hostage is just an outrageous allegation. We just asked for the bill be paid before it got removed our lot. I am sorry you feel this way. But you have made some very serious accusations that couldn't be farther from the truth. We are a family owned and ran shop. We haven't been in business for over 30 years by being dishonest or ripping our customers off. It's just not what we do. Again sorry you feel this way.

This just happened on 12/17/15 buyer beware.

This review is specific to the Tune and Lube on Windsor Mill Road. In July 2010, they replaced my lower ball joint, and other related parts, at the cost of $550. January 2011, I noticed a noise coming from the front end, and returned to Tune for a diagnosis. Fortunately, the owner failed to remember me. The diagnosis was a problem with the same ball joint that was replaced in July. Once I reminded the owner of his work only 6 months earlier, and produced a receipt, he appeared stupefied. His proposal: Maybe he could "cut a deal on the part" (the part's cost was $67). Essentially, he proposed that I pay again for the same work performed 6 months earlier. To explain his decision, he cited legalities such as his 90-day warranty. Dismissed was the basic premise of customer service, which would impel a conscientious businessperson to correct work that was obviously faulty in some manner. He actuallly expected me to pay again for the same work he was responsible for completing just 6 months earlier.