Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Rare car indeed!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Sometimes "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do", as John Wayne said (Was that from "The Searchers"?) I'm certainly not going to pay a shop $1400 to do pads and rotors on my Mini Cooper. That's 1/4 the value of the car! And it's not rocket science, doc. A person who is careful and diligent can do it.
Besides, I've got plenty of gripes from "Mini Specialists" with all kinds of fancy diplomas on their wall. This motivates me to do some DIY.
Those would be the tin whiskers. Tin whiskers are a potential cause of the transient failures that are described in the report to cause throttle opening errors of about 5%, which are well within the ability of the brakes to stop the vehicle, they are also potentially to blame for many of the failsafe (limp-in) modes that occur.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well not exactly. The redundancy in the circuit logic would prevent a runaway because there is a tolerance for how far the two sensors were allowed to disagree. Exceed that and the system shuts down which is why whiskers would result in limp in mode if it happened.
For all of the discussion there I didn't see if anyone actually explained why they went to electronic throttle control in the first place. Today the PCM will open the throttle all the way while you are cruising down the highway and then between variable cam timing and variable valve lift the engine maintains cruising speed while a reduction in pumping losses increases fuel economy. Today the throttle is little more than a safety device.
It's always possible that the right buyer will come along.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
A dealer will see that stick and realize he will have a car that'll appeal to few buyers.
They will pay accordingly for it and for good reason.
A private sale is the way to go with this one for sure!
At around year six, my cars will have ~ 70k on them.
The front brake pads will be worn out. Time for a brake job!
Traditionally, a proper brake job requires several steps:
- remove pads
- remove caliper
- remove rotor
- resurface rotor
- measure rotor thickness
- pronounce rotor too thin and throw away
- install new rotor.
- install caliper
- install pads
- charge eye-watering amount of $$$.
I prefer another method:
- remove pads.
- gently force pistons into calipers.
- ignore rotors.
- replace pads with $20 autozone "lifetime" parts.
- have a beer.
Elapsed time 45 minutes.
The new pads will last ~ 30k miles, at which point one of the calipers is guaranteed to be frozen and I replace everything in sight, generously bleed the brakes, and now i'm good for another 70k. And hey! -- the pads are free from the "lifetime" warranty!
Cheers -Mathias
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Back when I ran a busy shop once in a great while an east coast rust bucket would come in and the guys who worked on them hated to. We had rusted brake cables and bolts that would break off etc.
We were spoiled and we knew it.
Labor rates should be much higher on rusted up cars!
In California, I'm sure I'd do it by the book and save money in the process. And the calipers would last longer than 90k miles, I bet..
http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
Without this access a shop that has already made significant investments in tools, training for their techs and software cannot complete repairs that might include the replacement of a PCM, a body computer on some models without having to sublet that portion of the repair to the dealer.
"GM has suspended access to their key codes due to technical problems. No date or time is indicated for restoration of this service. (6:51 pm, March 27, 2015)"
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So, start scratching my head, thinking this has to be an ignition switch problem . But then, as I'm putting the clutch switch back together, I see a wire from it going to this kind of credit card-looking device that has an insertable printed curcuit that you can push in or pull out.
So I pull out that circuit and it's corroded to all hell. Clean it up, boom! Car starts.
Doing some research I come to find out that this little card was what you got if you opted out of the factory alarm system. It's a substitute for the other half of the factory alarm connector.
No wonder mechanics go nuts!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Thank you qb, for the "attaboy". I needed that!
By the way, Doc, did you read that question from a user about how he says that both his crank and cam sensor show no output? 2001 Ford 250 Super Duty. I was under the impression that these sensors are magnetically induced and produce their own signal? How can both fail at once? Seems like he's doing something wrong here.
If I was to look at this I'd start back at the beginning by pulling codes, and by paying attention to the PCM's command of the fuel pump relay operation. The PCM should command the relay on at key on and then it should turn off after two seconds. Then start cranking the engine and the relay should turn back on which would mean that the PCM actually see's the crankshaft sensor signal in spite of the attempt by the OP to measure it. Now if the relay does NOT turn back on then pinpoint testing of the crank sensor circuit would include disconnecting the PCM connector and making measurements from that point, which would include testing to see of the harness is grounded which could be caused by a pinch or abrasion. If the signal is present with the harness disconnected, but you lose it with the harness connected to the PCM then the PCM itself becomes suspect.
http://jmcautomotiveequipment.com/blog/5-auto-technician-stereotypes-that-need-to-go/#.VYMBOPn5pdk.linkedin
Found a one guy shop very well versed in the sorts of cars I tend to end up in and has some real fun personality to boot.
He seems to specialize in trucks and 4x4s, but seems happy enough to work on the Grand Caravan. Shop rate is $80 so he's on a par with lots of dealers. No upsales though.
To be the technician that the consumer needs the shop to have takes decades of hard work and study and there is no finish line because of all of the changes and the robotic technology that make today's cars the best that has ever been. That top technician doing warranty diagnostics in most dealerships has to be three to five times more efficient than an average technician does in order to make a decent paycheck. The more difficult that the work is, the better compensated the technician should be but that isn't how they run their shops. That's the foundation for why "the fear of the tech" exists and instead of addressing the real problem notice how the answer seems to be that they just need a full stable of warm bodies.
Don't expect anything to change anytime soon when it comes to needing qualified technicians.
I'm pretty happy with my mechanic here. Did have one major oops. Replaced the clutch on my 04 Mazda6, admittedly because I said to. It was fading but still had life. Months later the catalytic converters (4 of them) clogged solid. Oh, well. That was time to punt.
http://carbuying.jalopnik.com/the-question-was-rhetorical-i-don-t-think-a-shop-can-c-1718877063
Now of course from that essay you get to have all of the obligatory comments. As you go through the comments you will see how he has to answer some of them in a fashion that tries to say that all shops aren't bad and that turning a profit isn't wrong. But then there are specific ones, such as how he researches prices online and how "his shop" never charges more than he can buy something online.
The reality is shops can buy things online too and that wholesale price they get there is the exact same price that those websites sell to any consumer. So in a nutshell he is saying that shops shouldn't have a mark-up on parts and some of the responses do indeed go there. The problem is if shops only charged labor, the rates would be well beyond what most would expect since a parts profit is currently a customary part of the retail business outline. Any shop that would dare to change to a labor only platform would fail to survive as a business no matter how good the techs are, or honest the shop owner is. Consumers wouldn't waste a second and not start shopping around for labor rates if they encountered someone trying to make it on the labor alone.
It was also very troubling that Mr. Lehto mentions in another response that "labor times don't come out of thin air". It was pretty convenient on his part that he refused to post my response asking him to show and explain where dealer labor time operations really do come from. (Hint, they don't come from legitimate time studies of a tech doing a given repair.) He also censored a response that challenged his position on whether shops do work at no-charge for the time invested or not. I can personally attest to thousands of unpaid hours during my career as an employee and the majority of those hours resulted in a correct diagnosis and repair.
It's pretty clear he gets to set the rules of how everyone gets to play in his sandbox. I wonder if he has the nerve to play in an equal forum.........
"Charging for unnecessary repairs. I often hear that a mechanic diagnosed a problem, repaired it and - surprise, surprise - the problem was still there. They then re-diagnose it as a different problem and repair that. Sometimes, this repeats as the mechanic conducts the Ship of Theseus paradox in real life."
The ship of Theseus paradox as described by this article in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
is based on the argument that if EVERY PART of a ship is replaced is it really the same ship when they are done? A modern day example might be used on the USS Constitution http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/collections-history/faq/#original which by the way the answer is that some ten to fifteen percent of the original ship remains. In that context it is a fair argument that the original ship doesn't exist anymore, the problem is in Mr. Lehto's attempt to stretch basic auto repair into that comparison.
Lets take his example literally and imagine anyone replacing every part on a car. What do you suppose that would cost, two to three times the purchase price of a new one? Imagine spending $45,000 to 60,000 for a $23,000 Camry, VBG.... To accept his statement that is the magnitude that you have to go to when he might really be referring to a given repair event where a car that needed a battery turned around and then needed an alternator.
There is another dynamic at play when it comes to today's automobiles and the diagnostics and repairs that they sometimes need especially when it comes to the emissions controls. The progressive nature of the computerized systems means that the tests that the computer runs usually have enabling and limiting criteria. For example if the computer detects a problem in one system, it can and will block any testing of another. A simple example of that would be if the PCM detects a crankshaft sensor signal or circuit issue. That problem will block the misfire test from running. A tech when presented the vehicle would easily identify and solve the crankshaft sensor issue which then allows the computer to run the misfire diagnostic tests. In this example that could result in the computer then generating a misfire code and that would actually be the system operating correctly. In the real world the tech didn't do anything wrong if he/she addressed the crankshaft sensor issue and stopped if there were no other identifiable issues at that time. In fact without any symptoms during the final test drive it would be very questionable behavior to suggest any additional repairs beyond scheduled maintenance as required, which by the way Mr. Lehto felt he needed to address as simply joy-riding and not explaining that there is a difference between the activities.
"Joyriding your car. This goes on more often than you want to know. I’ve represented clients whose cars were destroyed by repair shop joyriders after work had been performed. And other examples are in the headlines all the time. Does every mechanic joyride the car after a repair? No. But this is one of the things we are really learning more about with the advent of dash cameras. The problem is that if you catch the mechanic doing this and your car is undamaged, it is hard to get compensated for it."
Can you imagine how the conversation with him will go as it is explained that diagnostic time to road test and prove that a repair event has completely corrected a given vehicle issue after the repair is not only reasonable it is justifiably billable time. The fact that most shops drop the ball here and don't charge for the time actually contributes to the majority of the times that a customer gets to discover that some problem still remains after a given repair. Most shops/techs don 't road test enough and that causes many of the situations where a customer has to take a car back to a shop. Mr. Lehto did his best to try and suggest that it is wrong to road test the vehicle after repairs, meanwhile it is wrong to not take the car for a solid diagnostic road test after repairs before it is returned to the customer. Don't you just love these kinds of contradictions?