• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Larry Garcia...... Lets Burn him @ the stake

Joined
9 January 2003
Messages
6
Anyone wanna help string up and torch the mexican NSX mechanic?

Anyways.....Here is my reply to previous posts reguarding myself and my shop....If you are not aware of this thread run a seach there is like 42 versions of it.

Larry


To the community:

I apologize, My absence in my own defense has done nothing but fuel the fire of Jsecrest. The problem with this situation is that the only remedy that would be responsible for me to peruse was not an option for mr. secrest. The fact is that I don't take to threats well. When someone says "Send ma know new supercharger or I will trash you on the Internet" The only thing I can do is say fine. I have selected to not respond any further to j's banter due to the fact that I am not at fault for his misfortune. I agree.....It is to bad but the fact is that I did not sell him this unit. Someone else did. If J is not happy with the assembly of the unit, Fine. If he is unhappy with the products that WE sold him I would be more than happy to give a refund upon receipt of the goods. What I will not due is send a working supercharger without the returned damaged unit. The fact is this. I DID NOT SELL HIM THIS UNIT. Therefore am not responsible for the units operation after installation. This unit worked, as it should in my shop. I have become the escape goat here and I am not happy about it. I did as I was asked.
 
Originally posted by F20C@NSXMODIFIED:
The fact is this. I DID NOT SELL HIM THIS UNIT. Therefore am not responsible for the units operation after installation.


Help me understand your position. I don't think he ever said you sold him the blower. He said your part in the transaction was to verify that it was in the condition stated by the seller. That means you are responsible if there is something wrong with it after you give the okay. So, are you saying that the unit was in perfect condition when it was shipped to him and all of the things wrong with it are things that he did to it after recieving it? Or are you saying you had no part in the transaction and did not agree to check it out?

Thanks.
 
I have been occasionally reading these posts but I am amazed that no one asked the following question.

Starting with the premise that most people are honest, and a mechanic like Larry has no reason to cheat someone or do a poor inspection since he has built his reputation on his knowledge of the NSX, then one has to ask what assurances does Jsecrest have or offer that his mechanic did not accidentally or inadvertantly drop the washer during the install? Just asking. No flames please.


Disclosure: I have met Larry twice at the track during the last 4 years. In 99 he offered me free advice at Laguna Seca with one look at my alignment from the wheel fender and he was dead on target. Last year I e-mailed him for advice on dampners, and he offered it again free within a day. He has not made a dime out of me nor do I have a financial interest in here. Last time I saw him was at THill for the OTC here in NorCal. We went there to support the NSX Team as well as Pulp Racing, and a few running in spec Miatas.

I don't have a clue as to who Jsecrest is. But that does not and should take away his concerns and disappointment after the install.

[This message has been edited by Hrant (edited 09 January 2003).]
 
This is indeed a very serious situation, involving a not inconsiderable amount of money, as well as the reputation of someone who provides service to the NSX community. Serious issues are at stake.

I have read the several topics regarding this situation, and I think there are some questions that are not answered (we don't know the whole story) as well as some mysteries with no apparent answer (where the washer came from). Like D'Ecosse, I am not going to express an opinion on this matter, simply because this shouldn't be a popularity contest ("I like X because..."). We can get a better understanding if some of those unanswered questions get asked and answered, which is where this topic was heading.

As a general rule, though, without regard to the specifics of this case, I have seen other instances in which a vendor dispute was publicized over the internet, and I have found myself on both sides of such arguments at various times. I think that these disputes should be argued in public only as a last resort, when it cannot be resolved in private. The two parties should be in contact and should be reasonable enough to see each other's point of view, and come up with some kind of resolution that both can live with. This is not idealizing such situations; in most dispute cases, that's exactly what happens, and you never hear about them.

In my experience, though, when both sides can't come up with a satisfactory resolution, it usually means that one side is being unfair or unreasonable. As a bystander, though, it's hard to see who is being unreasonable, because usually a bystander does not hear the entire story from both parties, and does not have the ability to ask the relevant questions to get to the bottom of what happened.

I look forward to hearing more about what happened, what the arrangement was between Larry and Jsecrest for the inspection of the supercharger, what the expectations were for satisfaction of that arrangement, and why those expectations weren't met. I also would like to hear whether both parties tried to come up with a resolution that they could live with, or whether one side simply dismissed any responsibility and blamed the entire thing on the other side without taking into account the other person's expectations for what would occur.

I hope that further discussion might move them towards a resolution of their dispute.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 January 2003).]
 
I maybe weighing into this a little late. I do not know what transpired, however I have used NSX Modified for several years to service my 99 NSX - T. In fact I used to drive down from Northern California to have the car serviced there. All I can say is that I found Larry to honest, knowledgable, inexpensive and a good mechanic. He was far more knowledgable than my local Acura Dealer. The only negative was that he was hard to get on the phone and only took cash!

In legal terms the chain of custody has been broken a numbers of times and who really know what/when happened to that supercharger....

My initial reaction when reading these threads was who would actually buy a used supercharger....that's got to be risky transaction at best....and as it turned out not worth the few grand you tried to save. Do it right next time my friend!
 
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
... I also would like to hear whether both parties tried to come up with a resolution that they could live with, or whether one side simply dismissed any responsibility and blamed the entire thing on the other side without taking into account the other person's expectations for what would occur.

I hope that further discussion might move them towards a resolution of their dispute...


This whole post (edited only to avoid repeating in entirety) is the most sensible & rational opinion I've seen on this unfortunate story - clearly there can be no winner from this chain of events, regardless of what transpires going forward. A little understanding of each others perspective would certainly help to create a hopefully mutually acceptable resolution - nsxtasy expressd this perfectly when referring to "a resolution that they could live with"; in order to reach that stage, both parties must be prepared to acknowledge to themselvestheir own shortcomings in the matter.
There is also a third party involved & to date much less has been made of his responsibilities.

One of the questions I cannot seem to reach conclusion for myself is whether the responsibility for inspection transpires to a guarantee for replacement, regardless of whether negligent or otherwise in the execution of that duty: if there was a guarantee associated with the service, then it would be clear - a guarantee could however take several forms; of refund for services rendered or a replacement of the equipment (perhaps less likely unless being supplied directly); I could also envisage where an inspection of used components could offer not much more than "they are currently functional in present condition as tested" scenario; without the details of the contract it is neither possible or appropriate to speculate on what was committed vs. delivered.
The term perception readily comes to mind & I believe each party's perception of the expectation was clearly different: that's why contracts are important, to distinctly define the expectations & deliverables.


[This message has been edited by D'Ecosse (edited 10 January 2003).]
 
Starting with the premise that most people are honest, and a mechanic like Larry has no reason to cheat someone or do a poor inspection since he has built his reputation on his knowledge of the NSX, then one has to ask what assurances does Jsecrest have or offer that his mechanic did not accidentally or inadvertantly drop the washer during the install?
I would have to agree with you on this. I have read that it is some large washer that could could not have come from a SC install. This would be a large leap of faith and an expensive one for Larry to believe. He is basically asking Larry to take blame for something that Larry would have to basically trust the cutomers word that he didn't screw it up. I don't even see a dealership doing this if they didn't do the install. Most companies void your warranty if a customer installs something, or puts serious limitations to it. (Thus the trust issue)

Because usually a bystander does not hear the entire story from both parties, and does not have the ability to ask the relevant questions to get to the bottom of what happened
I think this is what is important here and why I have reframed from commenting.


[This message has been edited by nsxxtreme (edited 10 January 2003).]
 
Originally posted by David:
Help me understand your position. I don't think he ever said you sold him the blower. He said your part in the transaction was to verify that it was in the condition stated by the seller. That means you are responsible if there is something wrong with it after you give the okay. So, are you saying that the unit was in perfect condition when it was shipped to him and all of the things wrong with it are things that he did to it after recieving it? Or are you saying you had no part in the transaction and did not agree to check it out?

Thanks.

I have no knowledge of what transpired during the installation. When we shipped the supercharger it was in spec and operational. It was my understanding that mr.Secrest understood that he was getting a used supercharger. My responsibility was to verify that it was operational and complete the assembly.


Larry
 
1. From what I have read, you knew that this supercharger was fire damaged and you did not tell this to your client who paid you to inspect the supercharger.

2. The matter of the washer is what made this really blow up... literally. The responsibility for this can never be proven and perhaps a case can be made that the installer should have done a more thorugh job of inspecting the parts.

However, just on the above item number 1, I'd say that you did not act on your client's best interests. Believe me. If you would have done that to me, I would spare no expense to punish you and "the swish legally.

Be honerable and try to work it out. Don't let this poor guy be stuck.




[This message has been edited by mikec (edited 10 January 2003).]
 
Originally posted by mikec:
1. From what I have read, you knew that this supercharger was fire damaged and you did not tell this to your client who paid you to inspect the supercharger.

2. The matter of the washer is what made this really blow up... literally. The responsibility for this can never be proven and perhaps a case can be made that the installer should have done a more thorugh job of inspecting the parts.

However, just on the above item number 1, I'd say that you did not act on your client's best interests. Believe me. If you would have done that to me, I would spare no expense to punish you and "the swish legally.

Be honerable and try to work it out. Don't let this poor guy be stuck.


[This message has been edited by mikec (edited 10 January 2003).]


Fire Damage Was not an issue. Based on my inspection of the supercharger there was nothing to indicate that the supercharger would not operate as intended. I was not a party to the discussions between the buyer and seller in this transaction therefore what was said on the condition I don't know, just an intermediary to determine the operations of the unit itself. As far as rectifying the problem, as I have advised, Due to the uncertainty of where the washer came from I would be more than happy to remedy the issue buy repairing or replacing the unit once I received the bad unit. Unfortunately JS did not like this option a demanded that I send him a working unit without first the return of the bad one. Again I am a 3rd party in this with no up side, just expense. Like I said, I feel terrible for JS but I cannot warranty a supercharger that was 1:Used and 2: I did not sell him. Again it was operational when it was shipped.


Larry


[This message has been edited by F20C@NSXMODIFIED (edited 10 January 2003).]

[This message has been edited by F20C@NSXMODIFIED (edited 10 January 2003).]
 
I don't know either Larry or JSecrest but I have some comments on this situation.

I think Larry is being unjustifiably blamed and/or punished for trying to help out an NSX owner. He had no financial interest in this matter other than the payment for inspection and "less than $100" in parts. If anything, he would have had an incentive to say "Don't buy this supercharger b/c it's in bad shape. I'll sell you one instead." But he didn't. Larry performed the inspection, felt that it was mechanically sound and forwarded it on to JSecrest. I do no think it was his responsibility to note any history of the supercharger unless he felt it would affect the performance. If he made any comments about the history of the SC, and JSecrest decided not to buy it, then the seller would be pissed at Larry and would probably be on this forum with another complaint...how Larry intentionally badmouthed his product so he could sell his own. This is why inspections (for anything) are a tough situation.

This is also why an inspection should only be an opinion about the condition or something. When you do a state car inspection, they look to see if the car functions properly and safely. Nothing else. When a home buyer hires an inspector, the inspector looks to make sure the structure is stable and that all major functions of the house are working properly. He/she does not comment their opinions on things that are not directly relevant to the purpose of the inspection. Further, there have been many suits regarding "defects" in a house found after a home was purchased..."defects" that the inspector didn't notice. It has been repeatedly determined that unless the inspector was negligent in finding the defect, or intentionally hid the defect, the inspector could not be held liable for the defect.

In this case, Larry was paid to determine whether or not the SC was in good working condition. In his professional opinion, it was. End of story. Since JSecrest brought the SC to Larry, he obviously trusted Larry's opinion. Past history of the SC is irrelevant. I don't think anyone believes that Larry failed to inspect the SC. I also don't think anyone thinks that Larry intentionally misled JSecrest in any way regarding the SC. Remember, Larry had a financial incentive to say it was in bad condition, but he didn't. Larry's opinion was that it was in good condition. That's the end of his responsibility.

No one has said the SC wasn't in good condition. Only that this washer blew it up. Yet, no one knows where this washer came from. I don't think you can blame Larry for the mystery washer damaging the SC.

Regarding the $100 in parts and the slow replies, I have read over the years about people praising Larry's work and goodwill. The only "complaint" is that Larry is busy and it is sometimes challenging reaching him on the phone. Given that this is Larry's career, I don't think he is trying to screw anyone out of $100 in parts. If he slow to reply, I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that he is avoiding the situation. Everything that I have read about Larry is that 1) if you go to his shop, he is happy to help in any way and frequently gives free advice 2) he is very good at what he does.

I understand that JSecrest is in a bad situation. But I don't think Larry is the person to blame. I'm not sure you can even blame the seller unless the seller explicitly stated that SC had not been in a fire. Unfortunately, caveat emptor seems the be the rule.

I believe Larry has offered to try and repair the SC if JSecrest sends the SC to him. This is an act of goodwill. I don't think he has an obligation to do so. As he pointed out, he didn't sell the SC. I would take him up on his offer and try to minimize your loss at this point.

As for Larry, I think everyone needs to give him the benefit of the doubt and understand that 1) he had nothing to gain from doing the inspection 2) he actually had an incentive to not recommend the purchase of SC and 3)he has a very good track record with other NSX owners as being knowledgeable, honest and friendly.

Sorry for the long post. I think it's important to resolve this issue. To most of us, the NSX is a car. To Larry, the NSX is his life. I don't think he would do anything intentionally or negligently to jeapordize his career. And I don't think it is fair to hold him responsible for what happened after he did his inspection. My advice is for JSecrest to take Larry up on his offer to help you get the SC fixed. Then shake hands and move on.

Just my two cents.
 
Originally posted by WeakestLink:


When a home buyer hires an inspector, the inspector looks to make sure the structure is stable and that all major functions of the house are working properly. He/she does not comment their opinions on things that are not directly relevant to the purpose of the inspection. Further, there have been many suits regarding "defects" in a house found after a home was purchased..."defects" that the inspector didn't notice. It has been repeatedly determined that unless the inspector was negligent in finding the defect, or intentionally hid the defect, the inspector could not be held liable for the defect.

Just my two cents.

I don't like this comparison at all. If you buy a house, and the inspector sees evidence of prior flood damage but doesn't tell you about it, is that okay? By this analogy it is... so long as the basement was dry when he inspected it.

A fire damaged supercharger could have more serous problems than those evident during a basic inspection, therefore I see no excuse for failing to inform JS of the condition.

I too am puzzled as to why Larry didn't just tell JS to pass on the SC, especially since Larry says in other posts that he has had bad dealing with the SC seller too. I wonder did the seller lie to Larry and tell him JS knew the history of the supercharger?
 
<<<I don't like this comparison at all. If you buy a house, and the inspector sees evidence of prior flood damage but doesn't tell you about it, is that okay? By this analogy it is... so long as the basement was dry when he inspected it.>>>

Maybe the home inspector isn't a great comparison. However, if there is evidence of flood damage and it has been repaired, I don't think the inspector has to inform the buyer. I can't even imagine how anyone could inspect a 100 year home given all the things that have go wrong over the years that need to be replaced. For example, if an inspector looks at the ceiling and sees that there was a wet spot from sitting water, if it's not wet, I don't think they notify the buyer. Again, a home inspector maybe isn't the best example.

I guess I don't necessarily agree that LG had an obligation to notify JS of the past history of the SC...only that it was in good working condition. I don't think LG ever said it was in "new" or "mint" condition. And it is the buyer to ask the seller questions about the history of the product. If the seller lies, that's a different story. The role of the inspector is to check its mechanical working condition.

When I bought a used 98 NSX about 2 years ago, I took it to an Acura dealership to have it inspected. I asked them about the paint, they said they couldn't comment b/c that's not what they check for on an inspection. They look at the condition of the major components of the car. Structure, enginge, brakes etc. If there were signs of an accident that would affect the structure/safety of the car, they would tell me. But if it is cosmetic damage, they don't comment b/c that's not their expertise and it's not part of the inspection.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about SC's and don't even know what they look like. So I don't know how a SC fire would look like or what impact it would have on the operation of the SC.

If LG determined that despite the signs of a previous fire, he thought the SC was in good condition, then that is his opinion. It still doesn't sound like he intended to defraud or give misguidance. Next time, the buyer should ask the seller about the product history.

I also recently had a long post about a used Lexus I purchased where I was specifically told there was no paintwork. I had the car inspected and the inspector didn't mention anything about paintwork. I learned later that the paintwork was obvious. I hold the dealership responsible for lying when I specifically asked about the paintwork. I don't hold the inspector responsible for not telling me there was paintwork. It wasn't part of his job or part of the inspection.

I hope this gets resolved soon as it sounds like everyone is getting the short end of the stick. Hopefully, LG will help JS fix the SC and life will be good.
 
One more thing. This whole issue about whether the inspector should have mentioned the previous fire is not the main issue here.

If the washer had not ruined the SC, I think everyone would be happy. JS would be happy with his SC and the inspection done by LG. No one would have complained that LG didn't mention the SC history...as long as it worked well like LG thought it would.

The inspection only became an issue when the SC was ruined by the washer. No one knows where the washer came from. Again, never having seen a SC, should the mechanic who installed it have looked inside to make sure there were no loose parts before testing? I don't know. I do know that this focus on LG is because a washer broke a SC. His inspection of the SC is secondary.

Just my opinion.
 
Originally posted by WeakestLink:

snip ...

If the washer had not ruined the SC, I think everyone would be happy.

snip

.


Amen! And thus I restate my question in the above e-mail.

An fyi for all of you out there eager to sue because you took a gamble.

Years ago when I was in college and really poor, I bought a Hornet station wagon with the Gucci trim
cool.gif
..... yes I had class then .... LOL! But before buying it, and since every penny helped getting those Hormel chilli cans for food
tongue.gif
..... I took it to a local car mechanic for inspection and he gave me a clean bill of health
smile.gif


Brought it home after filling it up with gas. Next day, eager to take it out, I see gas behind the car on the wet asphalt; I assumed it could be anything, perhaps from the previous car in that spot. My mpg was low but I ascribed it to the winter season. Second fill up, same problem ..... took it to the mechanic and there was a hole in the gas tank just above the midway mark! Cost for the repair, about $300+ ..........! After a dispute over how he could not find this because he is the mechanic and I am the innocnent bystander, the non-technical and poor student ..... I took the mechanic to small claims court for not diagnosing the problem ..... I was laughed out of the court by the judge with caveat emptor, and noting that he was not a mechanic certified for such repair just a basic maintenance mechanic ........! That was my wake up call of how the system works.

The moral of the story: if you want to nickle and dime for $1000 savings on a used SC when you are driving an exotic car like the NSX, then you better be ready to accept the consequences of a used part; they don't come with a warranty. And I don't think JSecrest will be able to provide assurances that the washer incident could not have happened by his mechanic - which if I recall correctly was not an NSX certified mechanic.

Irrespective of what else passed between the two parties, in the end, I agree with others regarding the resolution offered. Larry made a reasonable offer of repairing the SC for free. But for JSecrest to hold out until he recieved a working replacement and then forward the damaged SC without Larry seeing it first is laughable if not outright unfair - especially since JSecrest can not guarantee that his installer could have dropped the washer. Even if his installer did not drop the washer, JSecrest nevertheless put himself in this predicament by the options and gambles that he chose. These options have consequences and now he does not like the price of the gamble he took. Well, welcome to the real world, we have all been there ...... and some of us have learned that the hard way.


[This message has been edited by Hrant (edited 11 January 2003).]
 
Several comments I'd like to make. A lot of the previous statements are well thought out and in a typical situation I would wholeheartedly agree with them. However, this is not your typical situation.

1. Larry's inspection of the SC is not that simple. Apparently, the seller of the SC had an existing relationship with Larry prior to this transaction. It seems that the SC was in Larry's shop for quite some time and that several people have mentioned seeing it at different stages of what sounds like an attempt to take a possibly fire damaged SC and refurbish it and pass it off as working. Usually, the 3rd party would have the motivation to give a negative appraisal on the unit and offer to sell their own product. In this case, it sounds likely that the seller and Larry may have had an agreement between themselves. Thus, the validity of the inspection is in question and conspiracy to defraud comes into the picture.

2. Even if the SC did function, this story would not be closed because there are other issues at hand. Promising to install new parts and not doing so, leaving engine compartments uncleanly, and not delivering products purchased. All of these are not minor infractions either. Any one of these would be enough to cause a ruffle if it was our car in a shop. This is not the first time I have heard of a case where Larry said one thing and tried to skirt around actually coming through on it.

3. Caveat Emptor - Yes, this may be true. JSecrest may have gotten screwed. And he may have no recourse. Larry may have made an offer to him, but there are such things as empty offers. If you were in JS' position, how much faith would you put in the value of Larry's offer after all that has transpired?

And this is exactly why this discussion is important. We all drive NSX' and money may very well not be an issue here. What is the issue at this point is that hopefully with this incident...

NOBODY ELSE SHOULD HAVE TO GET SCREWED ALSO.
 
Thanks to Mikec, dlongo and topdaytrader for you informed reponses and logic. I think Darkcyd nicely summed up the issues.

Understandably, some my have missed my original post (before all the facts on two of the three frauds were known) which covers the great lenghts to which I went to resolve this directly with Larry. Following is the original post:

WARNING ABOUT LARRY GARCIA/NSX MODIFIED
This is a warning to anyone thinking of dealing with Larry Garcia or having their car serviced at NSX Modified in Long Beach, CA. Since October 22nd, I have been involved with Larry in an almost unbelievable story of outright fraud, inexcusably shoddy workmanship, virtually pathological lying and an appalling degree of inconsideration.
This sad saga begins back in early October when Bradley Scott Swisher (The Swish on NSX Prime) advertised his used Comptech supercharger for sale on NSX Prime. I agreed to buy it and requested that it be sent to Comptech to be checked out. He balked and thought it was ridiculous that I would ask him to have the SC out of his possession (even to Comptech) before he had received payment. Finally, he suggested we use Larry Garcia of NSX Modified as our intermediary. I talked with Larry on the phone. He seemed very knowledgeable and friendly. I also did a search on NSX Prime and Larry was mentioned a number of times. Larry agreed to perform the SC inspection and assembly for me.

So Brad or Scott (I should have known not to trust someone who goes by two different names and also has two NSX Prime identities) dropped the SC off at Larry’s. Larry tells me all the internals look great, turn freely etc and that everything is as you would expect for a 13-month-old unit. He also tells me he was even going to test it on one of his engines to verify that everything functioned properly at speed. (Not until I saw the unit being installed on my car did I realize what a ludicrous statement this was due to the absolutely prohibitive amount of work which would have been involved).

So Brad or Scott receives his wire for $5,500 the next day (October 22nd) as promised. Well, I find out, after the fact, that the SC assembly is not quite complete. Somehow forgotten was the special alternator that goes with the Comptech SC and a little item known as the FMU (fuel management unit) which happens to be quite expensive. Larry assures me Scott or Brad will be dropping these off. I also find out, again after the fact, that Larry claims he got Brad or Scott to kick another $100 to pay for fuel lines that were a mess. (It turns out Brad or Scott had promised Larry some work on his turbo NSX which is what, I suspect, led to the glowing report I received on the SC despite its deficiencies).

At any rate, after many delays, the SC finally arrives at my house November 6th, or, at least most of it. Missing are the fuel regulator bracket and carbon fiber fuel rail covers. But far worse, is the shoddy workmanship by Larry on the SC which was to arrive assembled with new fuel injectors and ready to bolt on the car. We found the rubber washers in the fuel lines to be in terrible condition (remember the E Bay ad for the burned NSX supercharger-wonder if the guy dealt with Larry?  . But the worst was that which was not apparent.
After installing the SC on the car, we start it up. Within 15 seconds we hear a loud clunk which sounded like it came from the SC. We can find no sign of a problem. On the next start, the SC seizes entirely. We take it off the car and call Larry. We catch him on his cell as he’s going to the shop, tell him the SC is seized and he says he’ll call in 5 minutes when he arrives there. Well, here I am waiting with the guy I’m paying to work on my car and Larry calls back six hours later. (As a side note, through this entire saga, both Larry’s cell phone and work phones go unanswered with mail boxes unable to accept any more messages for days on end. Larry promises to call at specific times when my mechanic and I arrange to be available. But we don’t hear from Larry).

And while were waiting for the call back, we discover that an aluminum washer at least 20 mm had jammed inside the supercharger, damaging every blade on the rotors as well as the housing. (This washer could not possibly have come from my garage where the work is being done but where cars have not been worked on previously. It is also far larger than any washers one encounters in the engine compartment while doing the SC installation. Further, an aluminum washer of this size would be rather unusual, and one might expect, pretty scarce outside of NSX shops. And finally, we didn’t remove the tape covering the openings until the unit was ready to go on the car.) To give Larry credit, he didn’t try to deny responsibility for the washer. Actually, the problem is that he is so friendly and accommodating, but then does nothing he promises which just caused this to drag on for weeks, despite the fact that Larry knew this car was my daily driver.

After taking the SC off I checked down in the manifold for washer fragments. I found a few of those, but more disturbing, reaching down inside (where it wasn’t readily visible) the inside of the manifold was covered with a gritty, sand texture oil coating. (The manifold had come with the assembled supercharger). The oily grit couldn't have come from my car and Larry told me they had dipped the manifold in a solvent tank to clean it. I would hate to see what that solvent tank looked like.

My mechanic worked extensively on the SC to try to get it to spin properly and we finally gave up. When I told Larry, he said he would send me an extra unit he had for his race car. For the next full week, I can’t get in touch no matter how many times I try. When I finally get through on a Friday night, he tells me he is preparing the unit for shipment and also working on finding a tracking number for a Split Second map sensor and boost gauge I purchased from Larry. Over the prior two weeks he had twice promised me a tracking number for this shipment. I catch him at the shop again the next Saturday morning and he tells me he is rushing to get both the SC out by an 11:00 shipping deadline and track down that elusive package which should have arrived two weeks before. He will call me with the tracking numbers.

And that’s where it ends. No phone call with tracking numbers and next time I speak with him, its clear he is doing nothing. So for my dealings with Larry, I have a broken supercharger, no map sensor, no boost gauge, no fuel regulator bracket and no fuel rail covers. He had obviously not been working on getting anything out the door. He had obviously never mailed even items I purchased directly from Larry. I told Larry I would be posting this story on the NSX websites but he appears to not care about his reputation any more than he does about his work, honesty and integrity. And even when I left messages that accepting payment for items not delivered constituted fraud and that the motor vehicle repair licensing authorities would be contacted unless he remedied things immediately, there was no response.

As a side note, our friend Scott or Brad Swisher experienced an immediate cell phone problem when he heard my name and did not respond to messages at both numbers indicating I was having a problem with Larry. (Brad or Scott lived close enough to stop by and help find out the real story with the guy he had recommended). According to Larry, Brad also owed him for things and was not returning Larry’s calls either.

Mark Basch now has the SC unit to attempt repair, but I’m not optimistic. So after being strung along for so long by Larry by false promises of remedy, things are at least moving forward. If anyone knows of just a SC unit alone for sale, I’d be interested.
 
For those who believe Larry's empty offer to send me a replacement SC, here is an exchange which took place in this forum on December 6th.:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarryNSXModified:
Mr. Jeff Crest, it is unfortunate that this situation got this far. -Larry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My response
smile.gif

Yes it is very unfortunate it got this far. As you didn't try to contact me today, there is no reason to believe you are willing to remedy this situation. However, if all you are worried about is getting a damaged supercharger back, here is my proposal. My unit is with Mark Basch who has a shop in San Diego and a very good reputation. Since everyone seems to trust Mark, we can use him as an intermediary who will give you my unit when you present your exchange unit and my other parts. If you don't trust Mark, any other reputable intermediary is fine with me.
END QUOTE

Needless to say Larry had no reponse to this offer as he has had no response to so many of the other aspects of fraud and inexcusable shoddy workmansip.

Larry charged me $220 for the inspection (his original quote was $75). He knew the price was $5,500 which is top dollar for a used SC. Larry apparantly believed it was OK to not tell me the unit was fire damaged and missing components(a position I find absurd and evidence of a total lack of integrity) since he was being paid to paint it by Brad and scrounge up missing parts. He obviously operates under the theory that if the customer doesn't find out, its OK.
The fire damage is a highly relevant fact. Even if Larry thought the unit to be repairable, this unit came off a car in a junkyard and ended up being dipped in a solvent tank-two highly possible sources of a washer and two that should never be encountered when paying top dollar for an excellent condition 13 month old supercharger.
 
Originally posted by F20C@NSXMODIFIED:
I have no knowledge of what transpired during the installation. When we shipped the supercharger it was in spec and operational. It was my understanding that mr.Secrest understood that he was getting a used supercharger. My responsibility was to verify that it was operational and complete the assembly.

Larry


If the SC was working when it was shipped and not working when received, would the shipper be liable? Was the package insured?
 
Is there no recourse to be had against Brad?? He is the one who advertised the unit as excellent condition(I GUESS HE OVERLOOKED THE FIRE DAMAGE).Never did he mention that he bought it off of ebay from erz cars or the fact that the unit had to be rebuilt and repainted, or that it was missing parts due to melting??? THAT IS FRAUD for sure. Especially since he said that the unit was on his personal car that was for sale.

I think Larry should have mentioned that he was doing repairs to the SC, whether he told JS about the fire or not.If someone is being paid to give factual advice on the mechanical condition of a device that they are doing repairs to, I feel that the repair work should be disclosed to the buyer. That in turn would have brought the lies of Brad's advertisment to the surface and would most likely prevented the whole situation. In any case I think that Brad should be held just as or more responsible for the SC fraud than Larry.

Just a side note, I feel Larry's offer to exchange or repair the unit to be more than fair since responsiblity for the washer is impossible to detemine.I think that JS's offer to have Larry exchange the SC with Mark Basch seems resonable and would give JS a sense of security over just sending a unit with open promises. Either way, damage has been done to Larry's credibility and there is for sure no win/win situation. Best of luck resovling this issue quickly.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL AD FOR SALE ON PRIME:

I have for sale a 13 month old Comptech Supercharger for sale. The kit is in excellent condition and only has about 7K miles on it. The unit is the 9psi. The only thing that I am not including is the fuel injectors as I need them for my other NSX.

Reason for sale is selling this NSX.



[This message has been edited by SNDSOUL (edited 14 January 2003).]
 
JSecrest, one of the nice things about this particular forum, unlike the other posts, is that we are all trying to assess as well as learn from this experience while also helping you appreciate the perspectives involved. This is NOT a contest of who is supporting whose claim but how realistic are your expectations to resolve this matter.

I truly understand your predicament and frustration, but you need to take a step back and re-evaluate what transpired objectively, though that is difficult. I don't think you are listening to the posts. Your e-mail responses are still showing a response based on immediate counterpoint and reaction rather than assessment.

Here are my comments and questions based on your posts. I am a consumer first and a vendor second so hopefully you will get the benefit of both in a balanced perspective.

First, let me start with a few questions:

1. Did you ever ask Scott or Brad if he had a receipt of the Comptech SC that he bought to validate or identify where he bought it from? I am assuming you did not and trusted his whatever scenario he offered you - if any. Had you asked for the receipt, you would have perhaps found out it came from EZR, and then that would have led you to ask a few more questions or research ..... and the entire scenario could have been avoided unless you still wnated to take a bargain gamble. I ALWAYS ask someone if I am buying a used item where they got it from, if they can't produce the receipt, I call the vendor to flush them out ..... no need to take risks on Internet sales from unknown sellers without some assurances .........

2. You DID check NSXPrime and confirmed that Larry was well received. That in and of itself should tell you something about Larry. Just because after the install something went wrong, you accused Larry for fraud! Did you ever think of perhaps accusing your mechanic of incompetence? What assurances have you given to Larry or this community that your mechanic could not have made a mistake in the install. Statements that this could not have happened in your garage are as self serving as Larry saying it was working when he sent it to you. Why should we trust your version vs. Larry's? Now you see the dilemma of he said she said .... Do you have any validation that it was not working before the install?

3. If I was Larry, I too would not have sent you a working SC until and unless I received the old one and checked it out personally! Sure, Mark Basch is a very reputable and honorable mechanic, but Mark was not party to the initial inspection or contract, nor is he financially at risk to send you a working replacement at an estimated value of $5,500. You want Larry to send you a $5,500 item before he even lays his eyes or inspects the failure just because you claim that it failed after an install by a non-NSX certified mechanic in your garage? Now, let's be realistic. We can appreciate your pain, but this is NOT reasonable nor fair. On the other hand, if this was a simple $220 item, I am sure Larry would have either reimbursed you or given you a replacement with no questions asked ..... to get you off his hair and ascribe it to a learning curve to never do this again. Have you read the number of times that he has offered a free replacement clutch or some other part so that a customer could attend a track event or wait for the new part to come? Does this sound like a vendor who is out to cheat you for $220 worth of service .....? Just think, is it worth to Larry the $220 aggravation and risk to do such an inspection and ready to install ......?

If I was Larry, I would not have taken this responsibility of checking the unit. The headache and risks involved are not worth it ...... [unless of course I had a personal realtionship with the customer and I trusted the customer that he would understand that this is a used part and anything can go wrong even after an inspection, .....]. I bet this discussion never happended between the two of you.

4. Your problems are twofold.

(a) You did not do proper due diligence with Scott or Brad or whatever his name is .... I will repeat from personal experienbce, caveat emptor ....

(b) You took a gamble on a used SC to save a few bucks and it backfired and you are not willing to take ownership and responsibility for the decisions/gamble you took irrespective of such efforts as having Larry check it out ......... ultimately it was a used part and statistics will tell you that there is a higher chance that they will fail ..... At $5,500, I would have paid the shipping to Comptech for inspection ....... you chose to compromise again; there is an old saying, tough love hurts!

On the other hand, Larry can be faulted for not having timely responses when he promised to send you the remaining items. But as he noted, when you start accusing someone of faulty work and then withholding the evidence or sending it to a third party, you have upped the ante and thus created further confrontation. Obviously the $5,500 tag was too high for Larry to absord so he called your bluff to the detriment of his credibility and professionalism being challenged by your posts.

Furthermore, if I was Larry, I would be conflicted in giving you advice on this product because Brad/Scott being a customer (whether he was problem customer or not doesn't matter), I would be violating his confidence and trust in disclosing details/parts worked on his car unless Brad/Scott authorized such disclosure or inquiry.

And if I was Mark Basch, I would have refused to safeguard the product as well. It just creates a circus atmosphere of menage a trois that has become a foursome now ....

Your real beef is (a) with Scott or Brad or Swish (or whatever he goes by these days) if he did not disclose any fire damage; sue his pants off. And (b) your mechanic for not inspecting the SC since you note: "reaching down inside (where it wasn’t readily visible) the inside of the manifold was covered with a gritty, sand texture oil coating." If it was visible after the failure why was it not visible before the failure and the install?
 
Obviously, Brad is at fault for fraud. However, I hired Larry to be my eyes and ears in this transaction. As holder of several professional licenses where ethics are important and having had various business law courses, I see this from the legal perspective where the lack of fire damage disclosure (unrepaired at the time of the inspection) and the undisclosed conflict of interest (read double dealing) that Larry entered into (by simultaneously performing work for Brad) while being hired to protect my interests, are the most blatant violations. This is black and white under the law. Not gray.

If you read my post after all the facts were uncovered: http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000368.html

you will note that the washer is a very small part of my complaint since it can't be proven definitively. I am emphasizing THREE DIFFERENT FRAUDS, horrendous business practices and INEXCUSABLY SHODDY WORKMANSHIP.
I am astounded that so many posts do not even mention the outright fraud of not delivering components purchased directly from Larry or the sale of used fuel injectors by Larry as new. These unquestionably prove Larry as a liar and a fraud. Still a number of people want to give him every benefit of the doubt and hang on his every line of BS as if it were gospel.
For those who find Larry's ehtics, business practices and work acceptable, deal with him. I feel I have done my part by warning the others.

Originally posted by Hrant:

And (b) your mechanic for not inspecting the SC since you note: "reaching down inside (where it wasn’t readily visible) the inside of the manifold was covered with a gritty, sand texture oil coating." If it was visible after the failure why was it not visible before the failure and the install?

The grit in the manifold wasn't discoverd by my mechanic before the install because the SC arrived installed to the manifold by Larry. It was discovered only after removal of the seized SC and it was fortunate that we did.
 
Back
Top