Complaint Review: S.J. Denham Inc. and Chrysler Daimer Corporation

You need to read the book titled "Lemon-Aid." Big 3 auto manufacturers all adopted new painting process, changing from three layers to two layers, eliminating primer layer and saving about 6 dollars per car. The result is that paint color coat layer is prone to delaminate from underlying electocoat layer. Ford and GM have reportedly acknowledged the problem and taken care of their customers. Chrysler has stonewalled, even claiming that there is no such problem with their cars.

There is no problem with the color coat paint layer. The paint itself is good, it just doesn't stick properly because the primer was eliminated at the factory. Expect Chrysler to blame your car's peeling paint on user neglect or acid rain or some other factor beyond its control. Don't expect it to admit that its decision to eliminate primer is responsible for your problem. Don't even expect it to admit that other car buyers have been complaining for years about this same peeling paint problem.

Properly applied car paint should last for the lifetime of the paint. It should not peel off the car, EVER, no matter how old the car is. Paint can fade and wear away from abrasion, but it should not peel away. Try this, place Scotch tape on car next to a peeling spot, then pull the tape away. The paint will come off stuck to the tape, proving poor adhesion. The paint on your 1995 Neon is, I'll bet, still of normal thickness and not faded, looking pretty much the way it did when it was brand new (except for the peeling).

As far as new car warrantly period is concerned, that just refers to Chrysler's written EXPRESS new car warranty. Every good sold is also subject to implied general warranty of merchantability, which guarantees that goods are "reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose." I don't believe that a car which is painted without using a primer so that it is rendered subject to paint peeling away is reasonably fir for its ordinary purpose.

Did Chrysler or its dealership disclose to you during the sales negotiations that the car was subject to delamination or that other customers had complained of peeling paint? Would you have bought the car if these facts had been disclosed?

I'd talk to a lawyer.

I initially hesitated to respond after being the original poster made personal comments towards me. But, like Rob, I also experienced the same problem with GM. Specific to the Bonneville, it was black (mine), burgundy, and gray that were the problem colors. GM fixed the problem if it occured within a certain period of time - but it was certainly not 7 years as is the case with the original posting here.



Also, in attempt to be impartial, I used the web to look at 24 different 1995 Plymouth Neons. The lowest price I found was $2995 and the highest was $6295 (clearly out of touch with the marketplace). The avergage appeared to be in the high $3Ks to low $4Ks. So, having these facts and information, again I ask, why would anyone paint a car when the cost to do it correctly will be around 75% of the value of the vehicle?



As a frequent contributor here, I try to insure that my replies are based on fact, not emotion - though I certainly understand that he is personally upset with this issue. However, his position is simply unreasonable, at least in my opinion and experience. If he has now lost the offer of 50%, at least consider it a lesson in how NOT to approach a car dealer in the future.

03-12-02



I want to express my appreciation to S. J. Denham, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler, Inc. for repainting the trunk flap on my 1995 Plymouth Neon. You did this under the Warranty Good Will gesture. You have restored some of my faith in the company. Too bad your business practices include the "wheeling and dealing" of old. Now I hope I don't have fuel pump failure, head gasket failure, transmission problems, catalytic converter problems, or air conditioning failure. You guys really know how to build em. Sorry I had to raise the roof to get proper service. To bad Ray had to be the Fall Guy in dealing with the public on this issue.



Thank you very much.



Gregory

03-12-02



Thanks for your comment. The car is in the shop right now getting painted at the expense of the manufacturer. Just because we have put up with worn out automobile parts in the past doesn't mean we should be complacent. Let the standards improve.

I once owned a GM vehicle with the same problem. It turned out that it was a problem with the Primer. But since it was pass the warranty period it was not covered. I beleive it was VERY generous of SJ Denham to offer you 50% on your paint job

03-06-02



Any New Car if properly taken care of as mine has been is subject to normal wear and tear. But, for a rain and wind of one day to cause 3/4 of my entire roof to ripple and peel off is unacceptable. Calling my Neon a Low End vehicle makes me believe you either are a Chrysler employee, a mechanic that has only a fair education or just plain arrogant.

Perhaps if we just net this out, it will make more sense. If you have a 1995 model, then it was likely made in 1994 or very early in 1995. It would then be a fair statement that the car is at least 7 years old. Also, it would also be fair to state that the Neon is not exactly a luxury car, and thus you are not going to reasonably have expectations as if it were a Lexus, BMW or Mercedes.



Yes, the paint should have lasted longer than it did, but frankly I'm astounded that the dealer would even offer 50%. Again, the bottom line is that: the car is out of warranty by a factor of probably 2X; the car is a low-end basic transportation vehicle to begin with; neither the dealer nor manfacturer can be held to any warranty, agreement or guarantee; anything they choose to do is TOTALLY voluntary.



Take whatever they offer you and run! And no one is going to paint an entire car just because some portions have problems. It just isn't going to happen. I understand your frustration, but this is a dead end street for you in my opinion.