Complaint Review: BlueDevil Products - Baltimore Maryland

On Sept 3rd, 2016 I used BlueDevil Pour-N-Go Head Gasket Sealant in my 2003 Subaru Lagacy Wagon to seal a very small hole in my head gasket. It sealed my thermostat instead causing catastrophic engine damage.

I followed the simple 5 step instructions, took my car out to test the application and 5-10 miles down the road my engine redlined. When I inspected the engine I found no pressure in the lower radiator hose (blocked thermostat).

I pulled and replaced the thermostat, refilled the system with coolant, took the car back out on the road and 5-10 miles later my engine was redlined. I then emailed the company for advice.

I was contacted by Zach Friedly who asked me to call him regarding my engine which I did. (In retrospect this was a mistake. if you are having a problem with this company's product keep all communication via email so you may document the entire process)

Zach's first reccomendation was that I flush the coolant sytem with BlueDevil Radiator Flush which I did. This had no positive affect on my engine. He then reccomended a professional backflush which I had performed at a local garage. This had no positive affect on my engine. He then reccomended a block dye test.

I informed my mechanic that BlueDevil/Universal Products Inc suggested a block dye test. He asked me a couple questions, I explained the situation and responded, "Don't bother, you've got a blown head gasket. We won't know how bad it is until we tear the engine down."

I gave Zach this information and he explained that his company would not pay to replace my head gasket since there was no way for me to prove his product had been 100% responsible for the problem. He further explained that the flush and backflush he reccomended had likely caused a larger hole to be torn in my headgasket while simultaniously erasing most traces of his product from my cooling system.

Zach went on to say that if I wanted to pay for the engine to be torn down and found any "other" damage caused by his product (eg: blocked radiator/heater core etc) they would discuss thier liability with me at that point. When I pointed out how absurd that idea was for a Subaru with 230k miles on it he agreed and asked me what I thought would be fair compensation.

When I informed Zach that refunding the money I had spent so far trouble shooting the problem and the cost of replacing my damaged vehicle seem fair he responded in anger and frustration and offered me $39.76 to refund the cost of the headgasket sealant.

I let him know I saw no other option but to take his company to court. While he agreed that I had no other recourse he informed me he had been through this process before and knew how it would turn out. That was our last communication until I filed a review with the BBB of Greater Maryland.

The review apparently got someone's attention because Zach got in touch wondering if there was anything his company could do to keep this form going to court. I explained that all I wanted was what I had before I used his product and that if the company was willing to pay for the headgasket repair and any susequant repair associated with the headgasket repair I would be willing to drp my claim.

Zach told me he would pass my request along to the correct people and get back to me either way. That was the last communication I received from the company. They have responded to my BBB and Amazon reviews with a laundry list of lies but that is all.

I have subsequently found dozens of stories just like mine posted on the web. I am looking forward to my day in court and I encourage everyone with a similar experience to do the same. The filing is inexpensive, the paperwork is relatively straight forward and there are numerous online help sites if you get stuck. 

This company is financially responsible (see Strict Liability laws) for damages that occour due defective manufacturing and advertising. The burden of proof also falls on the manufacturer in these cases. This is a class action lawsuit waiting for the right firm.

Note: this company also regularly employs the use of "3rd party electronic conversation interception" without consent.