A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood

Mr_Shiftright

So he makes $24 and hour and wants to make $60K a year. By my calculations then he has to make about $27.50 an hour. That doesn't seem a pie in the sky goal for someone with ambition.

stever

I do the pre-paid cell phone for travel and it runs me about $5 a month.

When the tech changes careers, it'll just be a different set of challenges and rewards. I'm on my 5th career, at least. My wife had 10 jobs in 30 years. You have to adapt these days. Look at you - run a shop, train techs, consult, have a radio show.

I mentioned a BMW tech a year or two back - nephew of an old friend. Caught up with said friend last month and the kid is still happy running the family manufacturer rep business and doesn't miss wrenching. He did buy his dad's 7 series, but he should retain enough skill to be able to keep it going with the occasional shop visit. His dad replaced the BMW with an Explorer.

Mr_Shiftright

I think the only way in 2016 for a tech to make really good money is to a) run his own shop and b) specialize in higher end or "cult" vehicles. That could be Porsche, or diesel trucks, or Subarus, for instance. I have friends who make good livings in all those specialties. But that's what they do, nothing else.

isellhondas

roadburner said:

isellhondas said:

It comes from gas slowly dripping into that heavy "blast furnace" that was part of the emission system.

That's the reason that "Remove and discard thermal reactor" was Number One on the to-do list of BMW and Mazda owners of that vintage- along with the air pump and EGR on '70s BMWs, but I digress...

Would they still pass emission tests?

thecardoc3

That would depend greatly on exactly what test was being performed.

thecardoc3

I think the only way in 2016 for a tech to make really good money is to a) run his own shop and b) specialize in higher end or "cult" vehicles.

You forgot stop being a technician as the most likely choice.

isellhondas

Not a good thing when current techs do their best to talk the younger people out of the business!

thecardoc3

isellhondas said:

Not a good thing when current techs do their best to talk the younger people out of the business!

What other choice is there? Allow them to commit to a career that has nothing to give back? Yes there are the rare exceptions count them, you'll see that there are more lottery winners.....

Mr_Shiftright

You work hard either for love or for money. If you are working hard for neither of those two, then get the hell out!

thecardoc3

That sums it up about as good as anything.

isellhondas

Yes, and that applies to ANY job. When the car business stopped being fun, I retired. Had it stayed fun I would have stayed another two or three years.

roadburner

isellhondas said:

Would they still pass emission tests?

I never had to find out- no emissions testing in my area. In any event, once all that garbage was removed(and the vacuum retard was disconnected) you finally had a car that idled smoothly, didn't overheat, or suffered from tip-in hesitation.

isellhondas

I once removed a smog pump from a car I owned and guess what?

It failed California emission testing for that reason and I had to reinstall it.

Of course, I left it on after passing the test. Sure I did!

Mr_Shiftright

Personally I frown upon removing smog equipment for cars on public roads. I like to play by the rules as best I can.

thecardoc3

Having to take stuff off when the car didn't run correctly wasn't a measure of skill and knowledge, anybody could do that. It was also common to see them claim that it made the car run better whether it genuinely did or not. (It usually was the not but since they didn't know any better.....)

roadburner

I have yet to find anyone who owned-or owns-a 1970-1977 BMW with an M10 or M30 engine that ran better with the smog equipment installed.

isellhondas

Mr_Shiftright said:

Personally I frown upon removing smog equipment for cars on public roads. I like to play by the rules as best I can.

I think I was 19 when I took off that smog pump. I wouldn't do that today.

I remember in the mid seventies when some new rule came out and we had to install an additional emission device in California. The "better" device involved cutting the top radiator hose and splicing in a unit that cut off your vacuum advance until a certain temperature was reached. The cheaper device was a couple of plugs that eliminated ALL vacuum advance. Of course, not many of these stayed on the cars for long.

I guess all of these measures worked since smog in the L.A basin seems much better than back in the 60's and 70's. With the huge increase in population over the past decades I can't imagine what the air would be like if nothing had been done. We hated some of these things but in retrospect, they needed to be done.

Mr_Shiftright

roadburner said:

I have yet to find anyone who owned-or owns-a 1970-1977 BMW with an M10 or M30 engine that ran better with the smog equipment installed.

You'd have to do more than just remove the emissions equipment. The 2002 wasn't that fast. They got beat up pretty badly in Trans-Am. The 2002Tii however, did very well for itself in rallys and such, because it had that extra 25 hp or so. When I had my 2002s, I didn't have much choice, living in California. Some guys though would go through the laborious process of removing all their aftermarket parts, getting emissions tested, and re-doing the whole thing over again. Great little car, though, with some very annoying faults.

roadburner

On the '70s BMWs the vacuum retard on the ignition led to overheating, the EGR killed part throttle power, and the air pump was a parasitic drag on the engine.
The Europeans didn't get serious about emission controls that didn't kill power until they had to face emission standards in their own countries. I have a photo from a BMW engine assembly plant that was taken in the early '80s; there are two assembly lines- one labeled "USA" and the other "Normal."

thecardoc3

roadburner said:

I have yet to find anyone who owned-or owns-a 1970-1977 BMW with an M10 or M30 engine that ran better with the smog equipment installed.

Early emission controls caused issues for every manufacturer, combine that with people trying to work on them that didn't get any training and its no wonder that the normal remedy was to disable anything that they didn't understand. The vacuum retard system was needed to pull timing away under deceleration and idle. With the vacuum retard operational, a wider throttle opening at idle was possible. Some of them used manifold vacuum to operate the vacuum retard and since there is little to no manifold vacuum when the throttle was open it had no effect at heavy engine loads. Other systems used ported vacuum, these incorporated controls to limit when the system was active, either way the system was only supposed to retard the timing at idle, or very low throttle openings such as deceleration with the dashpot holding the throttle open slightly.

I found lots of cars that people had disabled the vacuum retard system on. When that happened, it was common to find that the distributor mechanical advance (and vacuum advance when used) had usually failed and the end result was timing that wasn't advanced enough. Repairing the distributor advance system solved the real problem and that allowed the retard to be re-connected. The result of that was a smoother idle since the engine was running with manifold vacuum that resulted from the ignition timing then being correct for that condition.

Looking at the specs, its hard to call anything back then emission controls. Tailpipe CO that was set to 1% to 4% depending on the model and engine isn't clean, and that's after the reaction chamber which was needed to try and oxidize HC and CO coming right out of the engine. http://www.google.ch/patents/US4018048

Eliminating the reaction chamber would have resulted in CO that could easily have exceeded 6% out the tailpipe. Even today, a little CO is required to reduce NOx emissions, but by a little you have to do some reading to get the numbers and learn the difference between percentages out of the tailpipe and what grams per mile really mean. Here is a link to enjoy. http://transportpolicy.net/index.php?title=US:_Light-duty:_Emissions

roadburner

Just out of curiosity, how many 1970-1976 carbureted BMWs have you driven? Of those, how many were 100% stock?

FYI, several '70s BMWs had a double-action vacuum advance- retard at idle and ported off idle. Believe it or not, 99.9% of vintage BMW owners can tell you if the mechanical advance is operating- most have either had the distributor rebuilt/recurved or else have replaced the distributor with a fully mechanical tii unit(M10 motors) or the Bosch "Performance"(008) distributor(M30 motors). As for carburetors, most vintage cars are running the Weber 32/36 DGAV unless the engine has had some serious work done to it.

Ever since the Germans have had to meet emission standards the US cars almost never take a performance hit, so my performance modifications are usually confined to a flash tune. With the M235i, the only modifications I intend to make ASAP are the M Performance diff and a recode to eliminate the driver's seat belt warning and the "I promise to be good" disclaimer that pops up on the nav screen at every startup.

thecardoc3

roadburner said:

Just out of curiosity, how many 1970-1976 carbureted BMWs have you driven? Of those, how many were 100% stock?

Only a handful, but what does that matter? Vacuum advance/retard issues occurred across many different manufacturers and all the short-cutters made the same fundamental mistake. Instead of confirming what the total timing was at the various engine speeds and loads they just killed the retard and "it ran better" so they stopped. Meanwhile all they really did was add an additional problem instead of actually repairing the real problem. I cut my teeth on Fords, learned the right way, and have had no problem dealing with anything else the first time I ever saw them.

roadburner said:

FYI, several '70s BMWs had a double-action vacuum advance- retard at idle and ported off idle.

FYI. I double checked this morning before I posted and confirmed what I recalled. (Yea I have full specs and service information all the way back to 1948 at my fingertips) Some systems had no vacuum advance at all, they were pure mechanical, and the vacuum retard was manifold vacuum. The dual systems with advance, the retard could use either ported or manifold vacuum for the retard. But, the retard also had either temperature sensor and solenoid controls, or thermostatic ported switch to restrict operation to a warm engine. The vacuum retard systems were also supposed to be inoperative as early as 2500rpm or by 3000 rpm depending on the version and calibration.

roadburner said:

Believe it or not, 99.9% of vintage BMW owners can tell you if the mechanical advance is operating- most have either had the distributor rebuilt/recurved or else have replaced the distributor with a fully mechanical tii unit(M10 motors) or the Bosch "Performance"(008) distributor(M30 motors). As for carburetors, most vintage cars are running the Weber 32/36 DGAV unless the engine has had some serious work done to it.

I still rebuild distributors. (vintage included)

Webers, Zeniths, and Solex carbs (including duals) are not a problem. This isn't rocket science and doesn't hold a candle to the 2005 Acura I help a shop analyze this morning for a misfire after cold start.

roadburner

I spent more than a few days in Ford Purgatory in the '70s- tuning up and repairing my parents' 1974 Maverick and 1973 Bronco since the local shops were so horribly inept:
"We can't figger out why the durn thing won't idle good." Gee, you think it might be due to the hole burned into the EGR plate? The one that sounds like a Hoover upright when you pop the hood? Then there was "Don't know why it don't run too good when it's raining or humid." I guess he ruled out the quarter-size hole in the distributor cap as a possible issue.
I ended up playing with SBCs in my misspent street racing youth, and waited for the day I could afford something from Munich. I breifly returned to the Ford fold in 1993 when I bought a 1985 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe beater to keep the miles off my beloved M6. Decent enough as a work hack- just don't forget to change the secondary clutch cable every year- and always have the part number before you go to the local dealer parts counter.
Almost came back to Ford again for a Mustang GT, but the overall size, the Honda-esque option strategy, and Ford's reputation for voiding a warranty if you get within 4000' of a race track kept me out of the Blue Oval crew...

thecardoc3

roadburner said:

Almost came back to Ford again for a Mustang GT, but the overall size, the Honda-esque option strategy, and Ford's reputation for voiding a warranty if you get within 4000' of a race track kept me out of the Blue Oval crew...

I love my Mustang GT, wouldn't trade it for anything. As far as modifications go, there isn't anything out there that I couldn't do to it if I chose to, but why bother? I'm quite happy with how Ford built it. But even so, if I chose to play around with it, anything that happened would be on me because abusing it is a choice, not a requirement. That being said, I've never worried about warranties and wish I could buy my cars priced without that additional expense tacked in. I'd be happy to get a price break to sign and release the manufacturer from any liability for my purchase.

All of my cars come with a lifetime guarantee. If they break in my lifetime, you can guarantee I'll be the person fixing it. There is nothing there that I can't deal with myself, and I know a lot of great Ford techs that can do the work too so its not about capability on their part. It's just my preference.

BTW, the Acura? These captures reveal what's wrong with it.

thecardoc3

Here is that second capture with a darker overlay from a known good capture, and I even added some circles to pinpoint the areas of interest. To see more detail you might have to save the picture and then open it in paint on your PC.

thecardoc3

If you didn't try to study the above captures first, this is your spoiler alert.

Stop now.

OK, the above captures show the exhaust valve opening early and closing late. The valves need adjusted, regular maintenance on these 3.5l engines. Anyone could guess that might be the issue and with it being a required service get it done just to rule that out and gotten it right, however there is the specter of doing some four hours worth of work and not truly knowing if that was the cause of the symptom. So it needs to be proven if possible.

There were plenty of clues. A solid routine doesn't rely on just one finger pointing in a given direction and that's what diagnostics are supposed to do, get a number of results all pointing towards the issue. For one, weak manifold vacuum and fuel trims taking away fuel at idle and light cruise. This is a speed density system which means it uses a MAP sensor. Lower manifold vacuum (higher absolute pressure) results in the computer calculating a longer base fuel injector pulse width. With the higher pressure in the intake being caused by inert exhaust gasses (similar to an EGR valve sticking open slightly) the fuel trims have to take some of that injector pulse away in order to get it back into control. So why was the vacuum low? Look at the second circle. The dark blue is the known good pattern, and the Acura is the grey in the back ground. See the grey staying high a little longer and then dropping? That was the exhaust valve closing some seventeen degrees after TDC. The first circle shows the Acura pressure rising (grey) before the known good in blue. So the valve opens early and closes late at idle, its too tight.

The first capture above shows the cranking compression at ~190psi. The running compression should be about half of that but if you look you will see it off the top of the screen. It actually runs 115-120 psi and that is a function of the manifold vacuum being lower than it should be. Both of these tests do confirm that the valves do seal.

stever

So why did you have to look at the screens to know this? Shouldn't the car have told you this?

thecardoc3

It was at the limits of it's capability just detecting the misfire, they don't have the ability to know why it's misfiring.

The question you should really be asking is why don't more people know how to test like this. What you'll end up with is proof for how pressure to not reward someone for making the investment in the tools and training discouraged most from trying.

Tell you what. Do you want a measuring stick for basic competence today? Make performing testing at that level the minimum requirement. Now see who is left standing.

stever

Well, in the first place, the valves should automatically adjust. Your "limited" scope tool did detect the psi issues so the next logical step would be to have the car's ECU "throw a code" with all that info available somewhere - on the dash, on your phone, sent to your dealer or the manufacturer.

Were you able to get the scope info from the ODBII or did you actually have to open the hood?

thecardoc3

Even if it was possible, why would it be sent to the dealer or manufacturer? Why shouldn't it be available to any certified technician?

stever

That would work too - whoever you put in the settings could get it.

Been reading this discussion too long I guess - didn't think there were any "officially" certified techs in the US and if there were any, they left for greener pastures long ago.

Some Canadian provinces "officially" certify techs - does any state in the US?

thecardoc3

stever said:

Some Canadian provinces "officially" certify techs - does any state in the US?

There are some programs that have specific licensing standards although they are more often geared towards emissions testing, basic safety inspections, and slightly more than that in Michigan and California. But these are no where near where they need to be and it's noteworthy as to who really objects to having a formal technicians guild in the USA. Hint, it's not the technicians who are against it.

BTW, did you pay attention to the information in that Canadian licensing program? Where does that $450 fee go? What do they really get for having to pay that kind of money just to put in an application and if qualified get to sit down and take a written test? Besides, does the ability to pass a test with a score of 70% or better guarantee competency? Now most of what they are doing is a good starting point, especially because of the requirement to have 9000 hours, or 72 months on the job as an apprentice. Plus the techs also are required to have a shop submit work experience information prior to getting to take the licensing test, but that's not going to happen here because of who is in complete objection to such a plan. Again, ask yourself who is blocking this, because it isn't the techs. BTW, if it would come to pass, this would thin the workforce overnight and that would result in a wage and benefits correction on par with the investment that someone has to make in themselves in order to qualify to be that certified technician.

stever

So, you're for it?

Only had one run in with a shop back in the early 80s in the Yukon. I think I recall some sort of "official" looking certificate on the wall there. The assistant (apprentice?) that checked us in around 5 pm did a brief test drive and told us to expect a transmission job. The "real" tech/owner spent a couple of house puzzling over it that night and the next morning, figured out that poor compression wasn't creating enough vacuum to get the transmission to shift out of second, did some magic and got us on the way, all for cheap (we did look pretty poor that trip, lol).

I think he made his money on the adjacent motel room we stayed at that night. Gave me a lasting good impression of Canadian techs.

thecardoc3

I've been in favor of a technicians guild for a very long time. Once established the first thing that would go away would be flat rate. Follow that and you'll see who really doesn't want us to have one.

Mr_Shiftright

Far as I know, if she had a business license, your grandma could open up a repair shop and starting do brake jobs.

thecardoc3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Far as I know, if she had a business license, your grandma could open up a repair shop and starting do brake jobs.

Any of you could open a shop and maybe bother to get the business license later. In fact, that's exactly what anyone that does side work is doing.

thecardoc3

BTW. There is one thing that could prevent someone from opening up a shop legally. Zoning. In Dallas a shop that has been running for more than thirty years is being forced out because of a zoning change. https://www.change.org/p/don-t-zone-me-out-of-business

Here is an update to that story.
https://www.change.org/p/don-t-zone-me-out-of-business/u/16211387?tk=qca-KbDPXjbyEmKIa_Mf5Lv8kZ_BjL4bBd9TvMW5Vs0&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

Mr_Shiftright

Dallas has ZONING?

stever

The shop owner really screwed up by not putting a Starbucks in his shop years ago.

Of course, after six or eight months, he'd figure out the profit margins and just close the mechanic part of the shop to focus on lattes.

thecardoc3

stever said:

Of course, after six or eight months, he'd figure out the profit margins and just close the mechanic part of the shop to focus on lattes.

As long as his clients can walk to the coffee shop.....

stever

Uber would be safer. Less risk of walking into a telephone pole while texting.

thecardoc3

Uber huh?.....
http://uberpeople.net/forums/Complaints/

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/uber.html

stever

Fine, the bus then. Gotta be cheaper than the .57 cents a mile to own and operate a car.

"The annual Your Driving Costs study for 2016 found that it now costs an average of $8,558 per year to operate a small, medium or large sedan." (link)

thecardoc3

With all of this penny pinching, why in the world would you buy a cup of coffee that costs more than $4 when you could have dozens of them for $10 if you make it at home yourself?

http://www.coffeedetective.com/how-much-does-a-cup-of-coffee-cost-when-i-brew-it-at-home.html

thecardoc3

The subsidies of the bus go round and round. Round and round.......http://www.businessinsider.com/the-right-way-to-subsidize-public-transit-2013-4

roadburner

stever said:

Fine, the bus then. Gotta be cheaper than the .57 cents a mile to own and operate a car.

"The annual Your Driving Costs study for 2016 found that it now costs an average of $8,558 per year to operate a small, medium or large sedan." (link)

Interesting; my annual expenses for gas, maintenance, insurance and taxes are less than twice that number- for five cars...

stever

I kind of ran out of gas on keeping track on my Quest. Just opened the spreadsheet and I was running .31 cents a mile for gas and expenses for about the first 8 or 10 years. That didn't include depreciation or insurance or taxes.

(I do a pot or two at home @thecardoc3, cone filter into a thermos, Italian roast with a spoonful of chicory in every pot. For the road, I do a senior cup at McD's for fifty cents or so. But I'm not on a bus or trolley line rushing to work and trying to grab a cuppa).

thecardoc3

$8,558 Average for ~15000 miles. I'm driving more than four times that much and the total cost is $12,840.
I'll break 160K on my Escape before the end of the month.

Mr_Shiftright

roadburner said:

stever said:

Fine, the bus then. Gotta be cheaper than the .57 cents a mile to own and operate a car.

"The annual Your Driving Costs study for 2016 found that it now costs an average of $8,558 per year to operate a small, medium or large sedan." (link)

Interesting; my annual expenses for gas, maintenance, insurance and taxes are less than twice that number- for five cars...

$8,558?!! What are they running it on...Cabernet?

fushigi

You have to include the cost of the car, not just the cost to operate it. Capital + operating costs.

And for a low-mileage car that $.57 number is woefully low. With only 52K miles my car my per-mile cost is running $1.12. That's including purchase of a $30K+ vehicle w/sales tax & some loan interest, insurance, maintenance (oil, tires & a battery), and repairs (replaced an outside mirror, windshield replacement deductible).

Sure, the cost per mile will be nicely reduced when I sell as I'll add back in the sales price (which accounts for depreciation at the end). But estimating $11K in value as a sale/trade only reduces it to 91 cents/mile.

Cost per mile would be lower if I drove more as the fixed cost (purchase) is spread over all miles driven.

Gas, BTW, is only about 16 cents a mile.