Last post on Oct 04, 2013 at 1:04 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Dec 24, 2011 (8:13 am)
So what, you cannot drop that portion of the exhaust with the engine and transaxle and steering rack to make it more accessable?
The trick is to figure out how they build it at the factory and then create and use a service proceedure that mimics the build process. That's why Ford techs figured out in order to be faster at major enigne repairs on many of the F-series pick-ups, they pull the cab off. GM techs have for a long time raised the bed of the pick-up instead of dropping the tank when servicing the fuel pump, heck we even do that with some models to replace brake lines. Major interior work like R&R a instrument panel, often times made way easier by removing the front seats.
BTW at 7.9, I don't see Audi techs mutinous over the time so there must be a way to meet it or at least be close to it. Top techs learn to figure out easier ways to do as many things as possible and not just fight the tough steps.
We can do your time study any time. Just find someone to pay for it. Three R&R's. One to learn the vehicle, the second to rehearse and try combinations. The third to see how fast it can be done. Then the real test, bring in a fresh vehicle and you'll be surprised at how easy this really should be when the fourth R&R is performed and that's the one you can time. There is a reason that they don't do real time studies anymore and havent for two decades. Imagine what the cost would be to do just this one labor operation. If we needed an EMT it would be for who ever had to write that check.
BTW, "Flat Rate" isn't flat.
#298 of 577 Re: Time Study [thecardoc3]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Dec 24, 2011 (4:46 pm)
What does Mitchell show for an R&R clutch and flywheel, 2003 Mini Cooper S (supercharged), as flat rate? I've done that one WITH a top notch mechanic, and fully equipped shop, and we didn't get perplexed, so not much time wasted---, so I'd be interested as to what Mitchell says.
I ordered up those Audi CVT parts--so we'll see.
#299 of 577 Re: Time Study [Mr_Shiftright]
Dec 24, 2011 (5:11 pm)
.3 for the clutch fork shaft bushings
.1 for the release bearing
.3 for R&R flywheel
#300 of 577 Re: It's science, not swaptronics [Mr_Shiftright]
Dec 25, 2011 (5:49 pm)
I'm with Shifty on this entire discussion. While I respect your knowledge, cardoc, your responses defend bad car design.
#301 of 577 Re: It's science, not swaptronics [hpmctorque]
Dec 26, 2011 (6:33 am)
I had to consider exactly how to respond to this as there are several approaches that could be taken. The main thing that I have to keep reminding myself is the whole reason I have even bothered to spend any time here is the publics (consumers) need to learn what is really going on inside the shops. They also need to see that many of the "respected" sources of information about how to get their car serviced are completely wrong with many of their assumptions. No-where have I seen a strong voice working to bring the realities of what technicians face day in and day out into focus for the consumer.
As I read your short response, it says to me, that you want to believe everything Shifty is saying in disregard of the fact that I have far from a pedestrian grasp on the trade and how to really go about servicing today's cars. Where you really get it wrong is that I am defending "bad designs". Far from it, I'd be the first to line up many engineers in the desire that some of the trash they have thrown at us get's to be the last thing they see on this planet. (hyperbole) Standing shoulder to shoulder with those engineers would be the writers who really haven't got a clue about what it takes to run a shop or repair today's cars. All they want is to sell their story, so they write it to tell every reader what they think the consumer wants to hear. (You can find good examples of that right on this site)
Opatience summed it up quite well a few responses ago so I don't need to repeat it here.
While you want to voice an opinion and support shifty, I am taking the difficult side of using facts and real world experience to have to show that the stereotypes no longer fit the expectations. Shifty comes from a time where marketing inside the trade largely consisted of undercutting the other shops price and both shops continually claiming that the other had no idea what they were doing. He wasted no time trying to say that I could not handle a basic R&R of a transaxle in an uncommon car, when he really doesn't know me, my experience, training, work habits, and investment towards my career. As someone who wants to represent himself as knowlegable about repairing cars, he needs to learn to respect the real professionals and not stoop to such insulting remarks.
This entire thread is supposed to be about the right to repair act and whether it is needed or not. Supporters claim that the tools, training, and software that we need isn't available to us. The facts are that just isn't true, there is nothing that the dealerships for the manufacturers that I choose to support can get, that I cannot. I currently support GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mazda and Honda all the way up to 2012 model year vehicles, and I have to spend the money to catch back up with Toyota, Lexus, Nissan and Infinity. I'm a one man shop so my pockets are no where near as deep as many others, and yet I have accomplished this over the last 10-12 years through hard work, and thousands of hours of study and training. I'll also say I have accomplished this in spite of all of the "mechanics are just out to rip you off" articles and TV news stories that I have seen through the years.
I don't like all of the expense that I have had to cover in order to take care of my customers, and I damn sure don't appreciate being called a crook for doing so. Your perception that I am supporting bad designs as a result of all of this is really just part of a consumers wishful thinking that everything about fiixing cars is supposed to be easy, and if your really smart, you'd be doing something else for a living. Shifty even went there with one comment about why am I working retail, when the clear answer is because the consumers need people with this kind of training, committment, and skill out here. R2R proponents largely have not been as committed to staying up to date with the technology in the cars, and they incorrectly believe it will solve the gaps in the information that their aftermarket tools have. It won't.
"Ignorance" that's a harsh word but it's hard to think of a better one at the moment. Everything is changing so fast these days that unless someone has had a habit of continually studying all of the new systems for the last twenty years they just don't know what they don't know. I am on the opposite side of that equation as a professional technician, shop owner, writer and instructor.
#302 of 577 Re: Time Study [thecardoc3]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Dec 26, 2011 (3:47 pm)
That's pretty good. Actual time was about 12hours...basically you have to take the entire front of the car off to replace the clutch, plus $1000 for parts. So a clutch job is about $2200 plus here in California
#303 of 577 Re: Time Study [Mr_Shiftright]
Dec 27, 2011 (5:36 am)
I have people who get all bent out of shape when a clutch job breaks $600.
#304 of 577 Re: Time Study [thecardoc3]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Dec 27, 2011 (6:51 am)
That's funny. I know similar people who think you can have a car painted for $600---and I have to tell them that you can't even buy the good quality paint for that.
One way I've tried to explain mechanic's fees is to tell folks that you'd readily pay someone who builds kitchen cabinets a great deal per hour, but squawk when a trained mechanic has to R&R superchargers, reprogram ECM modules and re-assemble a hundred pieces on the floor that have to propel you at 80 mph safely.
#305 of 577 Re: Time Study [Mr_Shiftright]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Dec 27, 2011 (7:14 am)
Parts is parts.
Screw the flatpack together with my Harbor Freight cordless drill.
#306 of 577 Re: It's science, not swaptronics [thecardoc3]
Dec 27, 2011 (12:30 pm)
Thanks for your reply, which I read carefully.
I've been a car nut for decades, ever since I was four years old. I spend a lot of time reading about cars, but, to my regret, I have little mechanical aptitude. If I had good mechanical aptitude I'd be doing what you're doing for a living. Therefore, we approach this discussion from different points of view.
I generally agree with what you say, in terms of the amount of knowledge and skills required to be a good auto technician today, and the misperceptions that much of the public has. Nevertheless, on the topic of designs, I think Shifty is correct in saying that some cars are more complex, and, thus, more difficult and expensive to repair than they need to be. He cited his Mini's sunroof and the (FWD) Audi CVT transmission as exampless. I think both examples are inexcusable, and the fact that Mini and Audi are premium brands should mean that these components should be more durable than their counterparts in mass market cars.