Glanzmann Subaru

Cgfromm, thank you for your continued loyalty—three Subarus is amazing! It’s great to hear Erin took the time to share her knowledge and help you feel more confident with your vehicle. That kind of support really enhances the ownership experience. We’re glad you continue to choose Glanzmann! Thank you, Jeff Glanzmann

Cherylnicholas1, thank you for sharing your experience! It’s great to hear Erin made that follow-up visit so valuable and helped you discover features you might have missed. That extra support after delivery really makes a difference. We’re glad she added so much to your overall experience! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Stryker522, thank you for the great review! It’s awesome to hear you had a friendly and knowledgeable experience while exploring your options. That kind of guidance really makes the process easier. We appreciate the recommendation! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Very big dealership where you get a very personal experience!

Very big dealership where you get a very personal experience!

Teddyamy, thank you for the great feedback! It’s awesome to hear she was able to answer your questions and even guide you through things you didn’t think to ask. That kind of support makes all the difference. We appreciate you sharing your experience! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Nwillia3, thank you for the great review! It’s wonderful to hear you felt respected and well taken care of by our team. We take pride in providing knowledgeable and professional service. We truly appreciate the recommendation! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Jmullen29, thank you for the wonderful review! It’s great to hear Erin took the time to calmly and patiently walk you through all the features of your new car. She’ll definitely appreciate the kind words and the employee-of-the-year vote. We truly appreciate your support! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Amchemey, we love hearing that—thank you for the awesome review! Alex Diaczenko will be thrilled to know she made such a strong impression. We appreciate you sharing your experience! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

Michelle, thank you for the wonderful recommendation! It’s great to hear Erin took the time to walk you through your new vehicle and answer all your questions. We truly appreciate your kind words about the Glanzmann team! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann

jcdare3, we understand your frustration with the items on your vehicle that failed PA state inspection. To clarify, technicians who are authorized to perform vehicle inspections in the state of PA are bound by the state's guidelines for what may pass and fail. Those guidelines are not established by our company. We feel the threats you made to our team, of posting negatively online about them and our company if we would not pass your vehicle were unfair, as this would place our and their PA licenses at risk. After review of the pictures that our technician took of your tires and wiper blades, I can confirm that these items were clear failures under the PA inspection guidelines. We are sorry your vehicle failed its inspection, but our team looked for every possible solution on your behalf, and are sorry that we were unable to meet your request. Jeff Glanzmann

jcdare3, Thank you again and I understand your concerns and why you feel your tire should have passed. We certainly do not engage in the practices you reference. To hopefully bring some clarity as to the guidelines our technicians follow, below is an excerpt from the PennDot training for PA state technicians. Key Pennsylvania Tire Inspection Rules: * Failed Condition: A tire fails if any ply or cord is exposed, or if wear is down to the wear bars in any two adjacent grooves. * Secondary Rubber: This is the layer beneath the top tread; showing this mean the tire is worn past the usable tread cap, which fails inspection. * Minimum Tread: Tires must have at least 2/32-inch tread remaining at any point. PennDot considers the secondary rubber exposure to fall under: "a condition that renders the tire unsafe" which is part of the code you reference (67 Pa. Code §175). My intent with this response is not to prove right/wrong or engage in a back & forth, but rather demonstrate that our team was not trying to take advantage of you. We take our reputation and customer care seriously, which is why I wanted to provide further explanation on our technician's findings.

Jeff, I’m going to respond directly because your reply misrepresents both the situation and Pennsylvania inspection standards. At no point did I make “threats.” I stated that I would share my experience publicly — which is exactly what I am doing now. That’s not a threat, that’s transparency. More importantly, your claim that these were “clear failures under PA inspection guidelines” is simply not accurate. Under PA inspection regulations (67 Pa. Code §175), a tire fails if: • Tread depth is below 2/32”, • Tread wear indicators are flush with the tread in two adjacent grooves, or • Ply/cord is exposed or there is structural damage. None of those conditions were present. The tire in question has approximately 4/32” of tread remaining, with no exposed cords or structural damage. The small cosmetic mark your team identified as “secondary rubber” is not listed anywhere in PA inspection code as a failure condition. Similarly, a fully functional wiper blade with a minor nick does not constitute a clear failure unless it cannot properly clear the windshield. Mine was operational. Saying these were “clear failures” under state law is misleading. At best, your team applied an overly conservative internal standard — which is your choice — but that is very different from a legal requirement. What is more concerning is that you, as the owner, are publicly standing by these decisions. That suggests this is not an isolated judgment call by a technician, but a broader, systemic approach at Glanzmann Subaru to interpret inspection standards in a way that benefits the service department. When minor or borderline items are failed and immediately paired with high-cost replacements ($55 for wipers, $445 for two tires), it creates the appearance of an upsell-driven inspection process rather than an objective one. I fully understand that licensed inspectors must follow the law. My issue is that the law is being incorrectly cited to justify decisions that go beyond what is actually required. I stand by my original review, and I’ve provided photos (on other websites that allow this) so others can judge for themselves.

I appreciate the follow-up, but this response highlights the exact issue. What you’ve quoted is not actual language from the PA code — it’s an interpretation. The term “secondary rubber” does not appear in the regulation, and presenting it as a defined failure condition is misleading. In my case, the tire still has measurable tread, no exposed cords, and no structural damage. The condition you’re describing is being elevated to a failure by interpretation, not by a clearly defined requirement. I understand a dealership may choose to apply more conservative standards, but that’s very different from stating that PennDOT requires a failure under these circumstances. At the end of the day, this comes down to judgment — and in my opinion, that judgment was overly aggressive, especially when combined with the other items flagged during the inspection. I’ve provided photos so others can see exactly what was referenced and draw their own conclusions. I stand by my original review.

Thank you, Len and Sharon, for your continued trust and loyalty over the years. It means so much to us that you continue to choose Glanzmann, and we’re so glad to hear Erin was so helpful. We truly appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you again! Sincerely, Jeff Glanzmann