Last post on Dec 02, 2013 at 3:15 PM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair
What is this discussion about?
Auto Repair, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan
This topic is primarily for professional mechanics, current or retired, or ardent amateurs who would like to share the suprises, victories, tricks and challenges of working on the modern automobile. All Forums members are invited, of course, to ask technicians about their work, or comment on your own experiences dealing with mechanics.
If you have a maintenance or repair question about your vehicle, please use search to find one of our Maintenance and Repair discussions, or ask a question in Edmunds Answers.
#787 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 09, 2013 (8:07 am)
I would have done the same "repair" as you did with that piece of foam.
I've learned that a lot of dealership and "boutique" repair shops seem to think that every car should be perfect and every repair should restore the car to the way it was when it rolled off the assembly line.
I once had a Toyota Celica that the dealer told me needed a power steering pump reseal. After another 20,000 miles they told me this once again when it was in for service. I thought this odd because I had never had to add any fluid.
So, when I got home I took a flashlight and a mirror and took a look for myself.
Sure enough, there was ever the slightest seepage of oil around the shaft.
I drove that car another 50,000 miles or so and I think, once I added a couple of ounces of fluid to top it off.
So, did it "need" a PS reseal? According to the Toyota dealer it did but somehow I managed without it.
#788 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [srs_49]
Jan 09, 2013 (9:58 am)
So this week I drove the car to work (CEL on the whole way) and on the way home filled up with gas. Lo and behold, the CEL went off! So, the way I look at it, I'm two or three hundred dollars ahead of the game by not running to a shop and having the CEL problem "professionally" troubleshot.
When we diagnose and PROVE that the fault really is a loose cap you're looking at an average cost under $40, not two or three hundred. Meanwhile since there is/was no testing or documentation as you have reported you really don't know if the cap was loose and causing a mil or not.The code could be anything, you are only able to ASSUME it was an evap code. BTW, haven't you ever heard that when you assume you make an a$$ out of u and me.
Now the next question is if this was really a loose cap, why in 2009 hasn't Infinity caught up with the technology that my 2002 Explorer was built with? My Explorer runs specific testing that detects if the cap is loose after a refilling event and makes a proper report of the condition, with a loose cap light without ever having to wait for the rest of the system to run through it's testing and result in a full check engine light.
So this week I drove the car to work (CEL on the whole way) and on the way home filled up with gas. Lo and behold, the CEL went off
Now it's time to shout "Bravo-Sierra". Once the light comes on for a large or medium evaporative leak, it will take a minimum to two full tests, that both have to pass in order to turn the light back off, and that won't happen until the next time that the car is started after the second test completed. By design, the tests will rarely run more than once a day and your refueling event would have shut down the monitor if it was even trying to run at that time you refueled. You see there is really knowing how the cars work, and there are the myths like the one that you just tried to push.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say the mil acted exactly as you described. That can only add up to the the fault being something other than a medium or large evap leak, and it darn sure wasn't a small leak because that test runs several hours later after you turn the car off.
Thanks for helping me make one of my points. Without real training and experience with how today's vehicle systems work, it doesn't matter what you do for a living. The simplest systems can leave you exposed as actually having no clue in a heartbeat.
#789 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [thecardoc3]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jan 09, 2013 (10:12 am)
My Explorer runs specific testing
Good to see that Ford is getting there with self-diagnosing cars.
#790 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [thecardoc3]
Jan 09, 2013 (1:18 pm)
My Explorer runs specific testing that detects if the cap is loose after a refilling event and makes a proper report of the condition, with a loose cap light...
Maybe that's because Ford has a problem designing gas caps and so puts a special "loose cap light" on the dash .
#791 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [srs_49]
Jan 09, 2013 (4:42 pm)
I have an '02 Explorer that I bought new.
It is a great design as an SUV.
There are plenty of things (mechanical) that could have been executed better.
I still would rather drive it than my '11 Explorer, other than fuel mileage.
It's just a vehicle that my kids and I feel comfortable with.
In all that time, it's never been anywhere other then to the dealer where I bought it for service, other than for it's 3rd set of tires.
#792 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [srs_49]
Jan 09, 2013 (8:49 pm)
Ford fixed that problem. they stopped putting the gas cap on at all!
#793 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [stickguy]
Jan 10, 2013 (4:46 am)
Yep. My Escape has the cap-less filler neck.
#794 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [steve_]
Jan 10, 2013 (5:05 am)
Good to see that Ford is getting there with self-diagnosing cars.
Every manufacturer is exploring ways to build in rationality testing to make it easier and reliable to detect, and then alert the driver to system faults. It's the perception that it will make the diagnostics and repairs simpler that is completely false. The technology being added to the various systems on today's cars is only limited by the imaginations of the engineers designing them. srs seems comfortable with the idea that SWAG's (scientific wild a$$ guesses) are an appropriate "diagnostic" step instead of having a work force with all of the training and experience that would required to take an analytical approach every time. He apparently gets away with doing that with his customers, we don't. If we work like that we are incompetent hacks. Meanwhile when we try to take a true professional approach we get pressured (as can be seen by some of the responses here) towards being one of the incompetent hacks that you would turn around and complain about once again. This would all be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.
#795 of 4850 Re: Pressured to not do your best [thecardoc3]
Jan 10, 2013 (5:38 am)
srs seems comfortable with the idea that SWAG's (scientific wild a$$ guesses) are an appropriate "diagnostic" step instead of having a work force with all of the training and experience that would required to take an analytical approach every time. He apparently gets away with doing that with his customers, we don't
SWAGs have their place in the spectrum of troubleshooting tools.
We warrant many of our systems for 20 years. We provide built in test (BIT) diagnostics (hardware and software) that can be run when the system is deployed in the field to identify a problem and tell the tech what module to replace. He/she replaces the module, reruns the diagnostic routines and, if all passes, away they go - the system off to do it's mission, and the faulty module is returned to the factory for more detailed troubleshooting and repair.
So the smarts is in the hardware and software that make up the diagnostic routines, not in the tech that swaps out replaceable modules in the field. Which module the tech is told to replace is a lot more than a SWAG.
In our case it's just not practical or cost effective to provide the detailed training and test gear to those in the field who are probably only rotating through a 2 year assignment.
Is what I just described infallible? Of course not. We still have returns for failures that cannot be fixed with the techniques I described. But from an overall cost standpoint, it is still effective. I don't know what our numbers are, but if (say) 90% of the in-the-field failures are fixed by swapping out modules, leaving 10% to be returned to the factory, then that is still cost effective versus training and equiping every tech in the field.