Extremely disappointing service experience. I brought my nearly new Explorer in because water was…read moreleaking through the panoramic glass roof after heavy/pouring rain and after going through a car wash. Arlington Heights Ford kept it for five days and transferred it to their affiliated Tasca Chevrolet Wheeling collision center for diagnosis.
I repeatedly asked that the vehicle be kept indoors because it was there specifically for a water leak. My requests were not meaningfully addressed, not even with an explanation of why it could not be kept inside. Instead, it remained outside for the five-day stay, including while it rained. I was concerned that no apparent effort was made to protect the interior from possible additional water intrusion.
For the first four days, no leak diagnostic work was communicated or documented to me; the vehicle simply remained there. On the fourth day, they finally tested it by briefly spraying it with a light water mist, and based on what they documented to me, that was the extent of the leak diagnosis. I had clearly explained that the leak occurred during heavy rain and a car wash. They sent me a 14-second video showing water being sprayed mainly on the windshield rather than the panoramic roof area where the leak was occurring. I do not understand how that was supposed to reproduce the conditions I reported.
Communication was very poor. Messages and voicemails frequently went unanswered. My service advisor, Joe Aleman, also made the experience worse. I did not feel I was treated with basic courtesy or respect; his manner often felt dismissive, and I frequently felt he was not interested in listening to my concerns.
After five days, the leak had still not been diagnosed, yet I was presented with an approximately $560 diagnostic charge for work that, based on the documentation provided to me, consisted of this brief mist test shown in the 14-second video, directed mainly at the windshield rather than the leaking panoramic roof. I strongly objected and made it clear I would challenge the charge. They then dropped it.
There was also a separate concern. About two hours after drop-off, I was called with "very bad news" about an alleged attempted intrusion, which they told me was unrelated to the leak and not covered by warranty. It was presented seriously enough that I was preparing to contact my insurance company. Despite repeated requests, I did not receive pictures for several days. When they arrived, I could see no clear damage, only what looked like a very small light reflection on the paint. At pickup, even in very good daylight, the service manager looked for the alleged damage but was unable to point out anything visible.
I was also concerned by the follow-up review process. The email first asked whether I was "Completely Satisfied," with separate YES and NO links. Selecting NO routed me to a private feedback form, and after submitting my negative feedback the process ended with a message that management would contact me. I was not offered an opportunity to post the review to Google. I cannot confirm where a fresh YES response would have led, but the system clearly screens customers by satisfaction before determining the next step.
Five days, no leak diagnosis, my requests to protect a leaking vehicle from rain went unaddressed, four days before the only documented leak test, poor communication, and an attempted $560 diagnostic charge. I would not bring my vehicle here again.
