All Tune and Lube
(410) 265-7979
About All Tune and Lube
All Tune and Lube located at 6423 Windsor Mill Rd in Woodlawn, MD services vehicles for Oil Change and Lube, Brake Repair, Engine Repair. Call (410) 265-7979 to book an appointment or to hear more about the services of All Tune and Lube.
Map
Reviews
11 Jan, 2011
reggie
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.
Shop Location and Hours
Service Check
Check if the shop performs repair or service for the specific car brand.
Enter the car and service below.
, All Tune and Lube Provide this repair
All Tune and Lube Auto Repair Reviews
11 Jan, 2011
reggie
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.