Traditional or outcome-based learning puts all students through the same program for a fixed period of time, no matter if they learn or can apply the knowledge or skills. A competency-based program is where students work on a concept and are supported until they learn and can apply it in context with their career. Once mastered, they move to the next step. Traditional education focuses on tasks or skills on systems students are studying, while competency programs focus on core skills, not the specifics of the system. For example, in current education programs a student might learn to test and diagnose a particular Ford system that contains certain core technologies, followed by learning to test and diagnose a Toyota system that contains some of the same technologies. The student has now learned the Ford way and the Toyota way, but when faced with an Audi, how do they react? In most cases they’ll say they need Audi training. In a competency-based model, the student learns how to test and diagnose the technology no matter the badge on the fender. As Koen so brilliantly put it, “Specific system knowledge cannot be a learning objective. Being able to follow diagnostic procedures is the learning objective.”
Did you follow the link and read the whole article? Here is another quote from it.
Fast-forward to today and we see the most complex data networks on the planet come into our shops, rolling on four tires that carry over 100 million lines of code in order to operate. Yet, we still only invest the same two years in our young technicians and expect the outcome to be the same. I think that is insane! So, what’s the answer? A four-year program? While that would be a good start, it is not the complete answer. Using our current outcome-based model of education, it could possibly take eight or more years to achieve the levels of post-vocational competency that we once had. I believe the answer is to modernize education by focusing on competency and the mastery of skills rather than basing our education on outcomes.
This next section reminds me of some of my career choices back in the eighties. I recall as a young technician working for Datsun being asked to go to work at the Toyota store; I was scared to death. I knew Datsuns like the back of my hand but had never worked on a Toyota. It took me less than a day to realize this one truth that I preach daily: a car is a car is a car; the engineers who designed them all went to the same schools and belong to the same club (SAE). The laws of physics and chemistry are in play no matter the brand, and the suppliers for the OEMs are shared. In other words, become competent in testing and diagnosing the technology, not the nameplate. Koen uses the history of the rear window heater to make the point. In the eighties, the rear window heater circuit was very simple. You had a control circuit with power, ground, and a switch that controlled a high-current circuit that completed the heater resister circuit and warmed the rear glass. Simple foundation electrical diagnosis was needed. In the nineties the circuit was controlled by a control unit that took the input from the switch ‘pull down’ or ‘pull up’ circuit to know when to complete the control relay circuit, which in turn activated the heater resister circuit. Today, we have complex networks that contain simple wiring or data busses with many nodes on the network that require a different set of skills both in the way we test, and in the logic we use to solve problems. To apply the outcome model to these systems creates so many variables that if a technician hasn’t mastered the competencies, the amount of time needed to solve the problem negatively impacts the shop’s bottom line and is not fair to the motorist.
The closing of the article. As Koen said, today’s students and technicians need to focus on generic skills independent of the OEM specifics. This does not mean you should not learn the OEM strategies and process; it means if you’ve mastered the competencies for each technology, when you approach OEM service information that asks you to pick up a tool or points you to a test, you’ll know exactly why and will have a clear expectation of the expected test results. A big Thank You to Koen Berends, principal at Electude, for clarifying what we need to do!
Then maybe I am, because I have not only worked on them, I have put things back together that I didn't take apart on top of being something that I had never seen before. One of the worst was the Testarossa that had a water intrusion issue that took out the body computer and the shop that was trying to repair it had litterally attempted to have the body computer repaired. I had to work my way through about thirty issues, some of which were caused by the company that tried to repair the body computer.
The article I linked and quoted from describes exactly where top techs really are with their careers and why most of us can work on anything. Specific nameplate stuff can be looked up and ultilized if the tech is truly competent. Today's students have to learn the base strategies, not specific operations.
Do you remember RB calling a tech a moron because he misdiagnosed an oil leak on a BMW? The story went that when looking at the car, the leak would appear to be coming from the oil pan so the techs would advise that repair. The problem was the oil leak could actually be coming from the oil filter adapter but due to the fact that the actual leak area is obstructed they get it wrong. Specific knowledge has it's place but what the techs really needed is to know how to test and prove where the leak is coming from and the easiest way to do that is to pressurize the crankcase to about 3psi with shop air cut down with a presssure regulator. Doing it this way, the tech can find any leak on any car the first time, everytime. The moronic way to approach vehicle problems is in thinking that someone can just know what is wrong becase they have seen it (heard about it) before because there will always be more things that someone hasn't seen than they have no matter who they are and what they have done.
I came up with the idea of pressurizing a crankcase to test for leaks in '83 when we were doing a lot of the S-10 Blazers and Pick-ups with the 2.8l V6 that had rear main seal issues. We would have to pull the engine and lift the crankshaft from the block to install a one piece lip seal in place of the two piece that the engine originally came with. Occasionally the seal would pinch and not set down in the groove correctly and you would end up with a worse leak than before you tried to fix it. By testing it before putting the engine back in, you prevented a comeback that would take another ten hours to try to solve which we wouldn't get paid to do of course. BTW, my routine didn't use a regulator, I just burped the air in using a shop rag as filler so that I didn't over pressurize the engine, somebody else added that and re-shared their improvement on my idea.
The recent example of how long it takes to do a set of kingpins demonstrates how both core competency as well as specific knowledge mold together to create an end result. I even threw out a little clue that the way I approach that job is different from what is in the book, did you catch it? If you have done them, then you probably do them the same way most people who have been shown how to replace the bushings do them. Just about everyone does both of them at the same time, and then they ream them together. My routine which I started on my own, is to replace and ream one bushing at a time on each knuckle and then do the second one. The result is I get that part of the job completed in about fifteen minutes, roughly less time than I have seen others take to just replace the bushings. Pressing the old kingpins out with the right tool takes about five minutes, ten if I have to heat anything. Doing them way I was first taught can take an hour for each side to heat the axle and then drive them out. Then you have to wait for everything to cool off which adds another hour to the job. So I really do expect to complete that job in about one fifth of the time that you were thinking. If an extra challenge or two arrises, that's just the way the work is and that goes back to core competency skills.
All in all things have come a long way, you no longer see everyone shooting from the hip for every owner who writes in saying something like "My car shuts off when I am driving, what is wrong?" Today responses guide them to first try to discover what they are losing (aka spark, fuel, both) and then setting the stage to test and prove why. That routine works everytime, on any car. The specifics of each namplate only begin to apply later in the routine and again, that stuff can be looked up.
The laws of physics and chemistry are in play no matter the brand, and the suppliers for the OEMs are shared
I am totally with Cardoc on this. I tell people the same about my work in IT. I work on a system. There is input, processing, and expected output. If I know what the processing is supposed to do then I should be able to peek into a system and identify the problem area. I have helped others with their failed processes not knowing anything about their software but just knowing what it was supposed to do and what it did not do.
In other words, become competent in testing and diagnosing the technology, not the nameplate.
One problem is there are too many vested interests involved. Framing information that is based on general physics as proprietary knowledge generates profit based on salaries, textbooks, and schools. Look at the warning in Eisenhower's final speech: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." This touches every aspect of education in this country. Every time one goes to learn something, those with the resources to teach it design it for maximum profit, maximum time in the classroom, and not minimum time and maximum learning efficiency.
Doc, my conspiracy theory is that the outcome-based education that has proven to be a significant failure is intentional. Ad infinitum it begets more schooling, it is self-fulfilling. And the schools are in cahouts with the large corporations. Those looking for work know this. If one does not have the exact exposure listed in the job posting, they will not even make the initial automated filter. This attitude about, "You have to spend X years doing exactly THIS" is like a disease in management across the country. The problem is, the person who has spent all of their time doing exactly THIS, like the article above hinted at with the Datsun mechanic, they get completely flustered anytime they are presented with a problem outside of their little world.
In IT, some certifications like MCSE mirror OEM automotive certifications. There are in fact a lot of certified people who do not know good methods!
Totally agree guitarzan. Here's an example. I saw an add and applied to see if I could grab a little side work with Waymo. I don't have the education that they are looking for so I figured it was a longshot, and no I didn't hear anything back from them. Then again they are looking for someone in Arizona and are doing very little in the Northeast so that may have something to do with it as well. The bottom line on them is they want someone to help them service and repair the cars and the person has to be familiar with running scrips in Linux for diagnostic purposes among a few other things. In short they are trying to build the computer that people think exists that could diagnose and tell someone what is wrong with a car. Well, not just any car, they want this for their autonomous cars. They want to build systems that can be added onto any vehicle and then be able to analyze an issue and determine first is it a basic vehicle fault or part of their add on system. Maybe they will get that to work, maybe they won't. Getting a computer to drive a car under most normal circumstances is one thing. Writing AI that could use critical thinking skills and come up with new ideas on it's own will be one heck of a neat trick especially when the software writers don't have the core competency skills to fix the cars in the first place.
Yeah but that's diagnostics on an ancient Ferrari. Way different set of challenges than mechanicals on a modern Ferrari. You'd need to go to school for that. And for diagnostics, I understand Ferrari makes access to the tools fairly difficult, and in some cases, impossible.
I attend training all the time, nothing new about that. If I really had to get involved with a system that I would need to get specific training on I have a source that could set that up for me.
Great. Send me a video when you do an engine-out cam belt on a 348.
You;ll also need a complete special tool set of course. The flywheel alone has 30 parts if you're doing a clutch job along with that cam belt. Be sure to charge at least $7,000 (on up).
And if it's an 360 Spyder engine you're servicing, be sure to remove the convertible top mechanism. You can slso avoid that by cutting holes in the rear access panels.
As for the more modern cars, yes, you can buy access to certain data from Ferrari.
Your link says: "Please note that Ferrari Special Tools have been designed to be used by technicians who have been trained on Ferrari vehicles, systems and components."
Have you done all the training on various Ferrari models?
My training is in another area of expertise. Why would I train to be a line mechanic? I work on cars on my current skill level.
My belief is that you don't have to know everything. You just have to know where to look, or who to ask, or who to pay to do it for you.
This presumes, of course, that one is intelligent enough to follow through on those options.
If your question meant-- do I update my training in my particular career?---sure, all professionals should do that.
If you mean, was I smart enough to be a top line mechanic when I was starting out in life?----sure, with the right training. But I think we both agree, this is no longer the best of professions for the young man.
I'm sure each of us knows how to do things the other does not.
You;ll also need a complete special tool set of course. The flywheel alone has 30 parts if you're doing a clutch job along with that cam belt. Be sure to charge at least $7,000 (on up).
First I am semi-retired and don't earn a living primarily repairing cars anymore so if I take on anything at all I can charge as much or little as I want to. Second I checked with a shop owner that I know in Florida. I can borrow every tool anytime I want to, I just have to pay the shipping. Third I linked that video because if someone can do the job like that then it is well within the reach of any skilled technician.
Sure they can. I'm sure I could do it, even though it take take me a lot longer! Probably not his first rodeo.
The point was that the professional mechanic can't afford to get beaten up tackling jobs he has no business doing. If he wants a challenge, it should be on his own time.
My training is in another area of expertise. Why would I train to be a line mechanic? I work on cars on my current skill level.
With no training, right?
When you say things like: You;ll also need a complete special tool set of course. The flywheel alone has 30 parts if you're doing a clutch job along with that cam belt. Be sure to charge at least $7,000 (on up).
And if it's an 360 Spyder engine you're servicing, be sure to remove the convertible top mechanism. You can slso avoid that by cutting holes in the rear access panels. The suggestion is that you personally have performed these repairs and are speaking from first hand experience and not from just watching, maybe helping someone else who was actually doing the repair. Parroting what you have been told by someone else, or simply watched someone else do doesn't make you an authority on the subject.
Your link says: "Please note that Ferrari Special Tools have been designed to be used by technicians who have been trained on Ferrari vehicles, systems and components."
Have you done all the training on various Ferrari models?
I'll ask again, have you? You suggest that you have with the specific steps that you wrote and I quoted above.
At this stage in my career I am totally capable of deciding what work to take on and what work to recommend to someone else. Even work that I am familiar with I don't take on unless I have all of the proper tools and information at hand. Now what you won't like is that I can take on engines and transmissions that I haven't done before if I choose to, without having to attend specific training on that assembly first. Natural talent, plus experience and core competency skills combined with just in time information allows me to be very proficient even on the first time with a given assembly.
I'm sure each of us knows how to do things the other does not.
I would never say otherwise, I always expect others to have seen and done things that I have not becaue there is just too much out there for anyone to have done it all. But one person knowing what amounts to a piece of trivia whether a second person is aware of that same information is not a measure of either person's skill or knowledge. However while your experience is in deciding what a car should be worth and is decidedly not in how to do full line repairs mine is exactly the opposite. The difference is I would never search for and try to exploit any holes in your knowledge and experience to try to call into question your abilitites but that is exactly what you are trying to do with the Ferrari stuff.
I have he same philosophy about working on cars as I did about selling them; if a particular car-or brand-doesn't interest me in the slightest, then I'd find selling or working on them to be virtually unbearable.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Your argument that you have to personally experience something to know something about it is specious at best.
If your premise were true, why would I believe anything you have posted, not having done it myself?
If you answer by saying you are a reservoir of learned experience, then I would say I know plenty of "docs" like you upon whom I can draw knowledge.
You, Doc, are like the doctor in the ER room--you see people with spikes driven through their heads, or 4 fingers removed by a table saw.
I don't have to deal with things like that. I can fix most of the things that come up with my cars.
@roadburner -- exactly. I have zero motivation for learning about a certain car if it doesn't interest me. I'd rather spend time working on my Triumph motorcycle, which I do know a lot about, then on my Mini Cooper or truck, which I like but not so much that I don't hand off most repairs and maintenance to others.
I'd have to be out of my mind to take on replacing a clutch in a Mini Cooper. Shoot me now.
As for diagnostics, It's amazing what you can learn just fishing around for information. Even if you ultimately cannot repair the problem, you've learned a good deal more about how to interact with the mechanic who will do the job.
@Mr_Shiftright - I agree, especially with respect to research; With my Schwaben scan tool, the Carly App and online access I'm in pretty good shape with the cars I own. Of course all bets are off(along with my good judgement) if I snag a Giulia or Stelvio. As for my Jeep, worst case scenario is I upgrade to a JK; it's a bit more complex than my TJ, but it's a known quantity on the Jeep forums.
-
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Watch this video. This is an example of what techs around the country run into when it comes to onboard diagnostics with some of the ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems). The system is designed to use the buzzer to tone out the codes and as the video shows if the buzzer fails the system doesn't allow you to enter manual diagnostic mode let alone communicate to the scan tool. Meanwhile the whole routine of how many times you have to push the button to try to enter the diagnostic routine and then try to retrieve what amounts to blink codes is the kind of individualism that prompted the SAE to create OBDII for the emissions control systems in the first place.
Well seems like a clever technician should have figured out that the buzzer is bad.
B.S. Once handed the answer its easy to play hindsight is 20/20. The behavior of the system would have anyone technician or otherwise condemn the module, in fact that is the more logical probability. Service information as written doesn't identify this as even a possiblity and even directs the technician to substitute a known good module if followed during this failure. Which BTW would result in no change in the vehicle's operation. So did the engineers who wrote the diagnostic material simply not know the system would do this. Why isn't there a TSB explaining this anomaly?
This is a ten-year-old car. You have to expect unusual types of failures.
You're missing the point. "flash codes" were a bad idea in the '80s and with all of the technology available today there is no reason for the system to drop communication because of the failure of an output device. This system cant even perform the manual method of pulling codes when that failure occurs. What's worse did you try to watch the blinks and count out the code? That is just bad engineering.
Do some research about the target systems required to align the ADAS cameras etc on the vehicles, and then make sure you catch some of the innovative work arounds where techs are printing out minature versions of the targets and simply placing them closer to the cameras. One camp says that's a pretty smart thing to do saving the tech/shop tens of thousands of dollars in targeting systems. The other camp asks a simple question about that practice. "What If"" there is an accident someday and the investigators come back and find out that the system wasn't set up exactly as described by the O.E.? Even if by all logic what they did worked does that keep them out of court when you have an attorney or law enforcement who needs to find someone to blame? How do you think the businesse's insurance company is going to feel about the practice?
If you haven't looked at that question and the responses take a moment and do that right now.
One of the standard answers to try to assist someone with an electrical problem is to say to check the grounds. When someone says that what exactly do they expect the person asking for help to do? I often wonder if they really understand what that means when they give that advice. Attached are the schematics for the high beams and the low beams which takes two pages because of the way the low beam circuit is drawn. Should any time actually be spent physically investigating the ground circuits?
Well seems like a clever technician should have figured out that the buzzer is bad.
B.S. Once handed the answer its easy to play hindsight is 20/20. The behavior of the system would have anyone technician or otherwise condemn the module, in fact that is the more logical probability. Service information as written doesn't identify this as even a possiblity and even directs the technician to substitute a known good module if followed during this failure. Which BTW would result in no change in the vehicle's operation. So did the engineers who wrote the diagnostic material simply not know the system would do this. Why isn't there a TSB explaining this anomaly?
This is a ten-year-old car. You have to expect unusual types of failures.
You're missing the point. "flash codes" were a bad idea in the '80s and with all of the technology available today there is no reason for the system to drop communication because of the failure of an output device. This system cant even perform the manual method of pulling codes when that failure occurs. What's worse did you try to watch the blinks and count out the code? That is just bad engineering.
Do some research about the target systems required to align the ADAS cameras etc on the vehicles, and then make sure you catch some of the innovative work arounds where techs are printing out minature versions of the targets and simply placing them closer to the cameras. One camp says that's a pretty smart thing to do saving the tech/shop tens of thousands of dollars in targeting systems. The other camp asks a simple question about that practice. "What If"" there is an accident someday and the investigators come back and find out that the system wasn't set up exactly as described by the O.E.? Even if by all logic what they did worked does that keep them out of court when you have an attorney or law enforcement who needs to find someone to blame? How do you think the businesse's insurance company is going to feel about the practice?
No, Doc, that bad buzzer diagnostic doesn't require rocket science. I mean, if you are asked to plug a lamp in and unplug it to signal someone, and you don't get a light, you would of course check the bulb.
Besides that's an OLD CAR--it might have been a bad idea, but it's way down the highway now.
RE: Accidents with ADAS -- I would think that the errors/omissions insurance would defend the shop. As for not following factory testing methods, that depends on how far you bend the rules. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. You can't prevent frivolous law suits. If you aren't comfortable fixing a system, send it to a specialist. Shops do this all the time.
RE: Grounds--well if they don't have a bazillion dollar tool chest and 10 years of training, then yeah, they should waste the time tracing the grounds. Or they can probe at the headlights. They can run a hot wire to each headlight plug and see if it was some kind of connector/junction issue. Or if they are motivated, they can test for voltage drop. You have to remember that it's crazy to give online DIY advice about electrical systems that is too specific. " OOPS! Your car burned down? So sorry".
Give 'em a hint, give 'em some encouragement. We aren't a repair shop here. That's what other online websites do with videos and message boards and back and forth with other owners.
If you are a persistent rookie, you can often figure these things out by trial and error. I could figure out the dim headlights problem. It would take me way longer than you, and it might not be methodical, but I'd get it done. Just this year I've tracked down an engine miss, a bad speed sensor, non-functioning door locks, dim fog lights, bad trailer hitch wiring on my two vehicles. No scan tool, no diagrams. Just persistence.
The ADAS example is about the setup and training of the system not diagnostics. About the only thing we can be sure of is that if something goes wrong down the road is there is usually more effort put into who to blame than what went wrong. They will ask the question, "What if the fact that the system wasn't trained exactly as designed by the manufacturer introduced a fault that it couldn't compensate for?"
The hindsight is always 20/20 stuff only happens after someone else has provided the answer. That was and still is used as a common bullying tactic by managers to try and control the technicians as the techs experience and educations advance beyond the management's comprehension. Just like what you tried to do above, and have been doing since you found out that kingpins shouldn't take a whole weekend is to try and put the tech back into his place. They can't control the tech if they have to admitt that they aren't capable of handling the work so they do exactly what you tried to do with the Ferrari stuff as well as the park assist buzzer. They preach "Everybody knows that" while they have no idea at all.
The schematics show that both the non HID high and low beam headlights share the same ground circuits. If the ground was bad it would affect both, the OP hasn't responded to say which system the car is equipped with. The HID's share part of the same ground circuit but not the whole circuit, with them a portion might need to be tested. But that doesn't mean take things apart look at them and try to clean things. It simply means measure the voltage drop on the circuit to see if it is excessive, then address that if it is. If the voltage drop isn't excessive, the problem isn't on the ground side.
That video was a fun watch. I love the end where he says, "See down here? 2-1? That's stupid, because if the buzzer is bad, the system won't even let you get the codes, so I don't know what they were thinking there."
Informative video, and a good chuckle to boot.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
If you haven't looked at that question and the responses take a moment and do that right now.
One of the standard answers to try to assist someone with an electrical problem is to say to check the grounds. When someone says that what exactly do they expect the person asking for help to do? I often wonder if they really understand what that means when they give that advice. Attached are the schematics for the high beams and the low beams which takes two pages because of the way the low beam circuit is drawn. Should any time actually be spent physically investigating the ground circuits?
The best advice I could give the owner of an Outlook is to park it in a shady area of town with the keys left in the ignition.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
If you haven't looked at that question and the responses take a moment and do that right now.
One of the standard answers to try to assist someone with an electrical problem is to say to check the grounds. When someone says that what exactly do they expect the person asking for help to do? I often wonder if they really understand what that means when they give that advice. Attached are the schematics for the high beams and the low beams which takes two pages because of the way the low beam circuit is drawn. Should any time actually be spent physically investigating the ground circuits?
The best advice I could give the owner of an Outlook is to park it in a shady area of town with the keys left in the ignition.
The ADAS example is about the setup and training of the system not diagnostics. About the only thing we can be sure of is that if something goes wrong down the road is there is usually more effort put into who to blame than what went wrong. They will ask the question, "What if the fact that the system wasn't trained exactly as designed by the manufacturer introduced a fault that it couldn't compensate for?"
The hindsight is always 20/20 stuff only happens after someone else has provided the answer. That was and still is used as a common bullying tactic by managers to try and control the technicians as the techs experience and educations advance beyond the management's comprehension. Just like what you tried to do above, and have been doing since you found out that kingpins shouldn't take a whole weekend is to try and put the tech back into his place. They can't control the tech if they have to admitt that they aren't capable of handling the work so they do exactly what you tried to do with the Ferrari stuff as well as the park assist buzzer. They preach "Everybody knows that" while they have no idea at all.
The schematics show that both the non HID high and low beam headlights share the same ground circuits. If the ground was bad it would affect both, the OP hasn't responded to say which system the car is equipped with. The HID's share part of the same ground circuit but not the whole circuit, with them a portion might need to be tested. But that doesn't mean take things apart look at them and try to clean things. It simply means measure the voltage drop on the circuit to see if it is excessive, then address that if it is. If the voltage drop isn't excessive, the problem isn't on the ground side.
I think you underestimate people's intelligence too severely. Remember, you are like the doctor in the ER room--you see all the ghastly stuff, not the healthy people.
I think you underestimate people's intelligence too severely. Remember, you are like the doctor in the ER room--you see all the ghastly stuff, not the healthy people.
I'll try to remember that while I change the oil and replace the sway bar links on a Nissan Sentra tomorrow.
He's training to do something. I have no problem with that.
So really, you'd just tear into a new Ferrari and learn as you go?
Good luck with that...
In the late 70s, I went to work for a European Import shop and I tore into Lamborghini and Ferraris. And I learned as I went. A lot of time sifting through manuals, that were only half there. It was a short stint in my career and I learned a lot of how to do it right, cause when a part is thousands of dollars, a mistake has to come out of someone's pocket.
I think you underestimate people's intelligence too severely. Remember, you are like the doctor in the ER room--you see all the ghastly stuff, not the healthy people.
I'll try to remember that while I change the oil and replace the sway bar links on a Nissan Sentra tomorrow.
I think you underestimate people's intelligence too severely. Remember, you are like the doctor in the ER room--you see all the ghastly stuff, not the healthy people.
I'll try to remember that while I change the oil and replace the sway bar links on a Nissan Sentra tomorrow.
Won't you fall asleep doing that?
So that's how the Honda dealership tech left the motor oil cap out of the car upon returning it to us after an oil change! Wondered how that happened!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Anybody can make a mistake. I've seen the most experienced people in a given field do it. Sometimes when you're in your familiar groove, you should really step out of it.
My son and I had a good time yesterday afternoon installing a 2-channel dash camera in my wife's Forester. I had to tear that car half apart to run the wiring for it... TWO wires. The end result is quite clean, though. Once I finally had everything torn apart (worst part was the cover on the driver side A pillar, due to the side curtain airbag that is hidden in there, and the resulting clips that allow it to separate in a crash, but not fly off), I turned my son (now 14) loose on the wiring in the fuse panel under the dash. He did an excellent job!
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
So I had to troubleshoot a no start, loss of communication on an Audi. The gateway module is above the glove box and look at what I found on the way there.
Nasty. Locate and repair the damaged wiring and the car was running again
Here's a shot of my son working on the wiring. He's pretty handy at 14, although, in some ways, was even handier when he was ten because he wasn't nearly so big! I did most of the install work in terms of pulling things apart, mounting the cameras, etc.; he did all the wiring. I like to do that stuff, but not nearly so much as he does. Also, the experience will matter more in his life than it will in mine.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Comments
Well, that's a relief!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
Be quiet.
Traditional or outcome-based learning puts all students through the same program for a fixed period of time, no matter if they learn or can apply the knowledge or skills. A competency-based program is where students work on a concept and are supported until they learn and can apply it in context with their career. Once mastered, they move to the next step. Traditional education focuses on tasks or skills on systems students are studying, while competency programs focus on core skills, not the specifics of the system. For example, in current education programs a student might learn to test and diagnose a particular Ford system that contains certain core technologies, followed by learning to test and diagnose a Toyota system that contains some of the same technologies. The student has now learned the Ford way and the Toyota way, but when faced with an Audi, how do they react? In most cases they’ll say they need Audi training. In a competency-based model, the student learns how to test and diagnose the technology no matter the badge on the fender. As Koen so brilliantly put it, “Specific system knowledge cannot be a learning objective. Being able to follow diagnostic procedures is the learning objective.”
Fast-forward to today and we see the most complex data networks on the planet come into our shops, rolling on four tires that carry over 100 million lines of code in order to operate. Yet, we still only invest the same two years in our young technicians and expect the outcome to be the same. I think that is insane! So, what’s the answer? A four-year program? While that would be a good start, it is not the complete answer. Using our current outcome-based model of education, it could possibly take eight or more years to achieve the levels of post-vocational competency that we once had. I believe the answer is to modernize education by focusing on competency and the mastery of skills rather than basing our education on outcomes.
This next section reminds me of some of my career choices back in the eighties.
I recall as a young technician working for Datsun being asked to go to work at the Toyota store; I was scared to death. I knew Datsuns like the back of my hand but had never worked on a Toyota. It took me less than a day to realize this one truth that I preach daily: a car is a car is a car; the engineers who designed them all went to the same schools and belong to the same club (SAE). The laws of physics and chemistry are in play no matter the brand, and the suppliers for the OEMs are shared. In other words, become competent in testing and diagnosing the technology, not the nameplate. Koen uses the history of the rear window heater to make the point. In the eighties, the rear window heater circuit was very simple. You had a control circuit with power, ground, and a switch that controlled a high-current circuit that completed the heater resister circuit and warmed the rear glass. Simple foundation electrical diagnosis was needed. In the nineties the circuit was controlled by a control unit that took the input from the switch ‘pull down’ or ‘pull up’ circuit to know when to complete the control relay circuit, which in turn activated the heater resister circuit. Today, we have complex networks that contain simple wiring or data busses with many nodes on the network that require a different set of skills both in the way we test, and in the logic we use to solve problems. To apply the outcome model to these systems creates so many variables that if a technician hasn’t mastered the competencies, the amount of time needed to solve the problem negatively impacts the shop’s bottom line and is not fair to the motorist.
The closing of the article.
As Koen said, today’s students and technicians need to focus on generic skills independent of the OEM specifics. This does not mean you should not learn the OEM strategies and process; it means if you’ve mastered the competencies for each technology, when you approach OEM service information that asks you to pick up a tool or points you to a test, you’ll know exactly why and will have a clear expectation of the expected test results. A big Thank You to Koen Berends, principal at Electude, for clarifying what we need to do!
The article I linked and quoted from describes exactly where top techs really are with their careers and why most of us can work on anything. Specific nameplate stuff can be looked up and ultilized if the tech is truly competent. Today's students have to learn the base strategies, not specific operations.
Do you remember RB calling a tech a moron because he misdiagnosed an oil leak on a BMW? The story went that when looking at the car, the leak would appear to be coming from the oil pan so the techs would advise that repair. The problem was the oil leak could actually be coming from the oil filter adapter but due to the fact that the actual leak area is obstructed they get it wrong. Specific knowledge has it's place but what the techs really needed is to know how to test and prove where the leak is coming from and the easiest way to do that is to pressurize the crankcase to about 3psi with shop air cut down with a presssure regulator. Doing it this way, the tech can find any leak on any car the first time, everytime. The moronic way to approach vehicle problems is in thinking that someone can just know what is wrong becase they have seen it (heard about it) before because there will always be more things that someone hasn't seen than they have no matter who they are and what they have done.
I came up with the idea of pressurizing a crankcase to test for leaks in '83 when we were doing a lot of the S-10 Blazers and Pick-ups with the 2.8l V6 that had rear main seal issues. We would have to pull the engine and lift the crankshaft from the block to install a one piece lip seal in place of the two piece that the engine originally came with. Occasionally the seal would pinch and not set down in the groove correctly and you would end up with a worse leak than before you tried to fix it. By testing it before putting the engine back in, you prevented a comeback that would take another ten hours to try to solve which we wouldn't get paid to do of course. BTW, my routine didn't use a regulator, I just burped the air in using a shop rag as filler so that I didn't over pressurize the engine, somebody else added that and re-shared their improvement on my idea.
The recent example of how long it takes to do a set of kingpins demonstrates how both core competency as well as specific knowledge mold together to create an end result. I even threw out a little clue that the way I approach that job is different from what is in the book, did you catch it? If you have done them, then you probably do them the same way most people who have been shown how to replace the bushings do them. Just about everyone does both of them at the same time, and then they ream them together. My routine which I started on my own, is to replace and ream one bushing at a time on each knuckle and then do the second one. The result is I get that part of the job completed in about fifteen minutes, roughly less time than I have seen others take to just replace the bushings. Pressing the old kingpins out with the right tool takes about five minutes, ten if I have to heat anything. Doing them way I was first taught can take an hour for each side to heat the axle and then drive them out. Then you have to wait for everything to cool off which adds another hour to the job. So I really do expect to complete that job in about one fifth of the time that you were thinking. If an extra challenge or two arrises, that's just the way the work is and that goes back to core competency skills.
All in all things have come a long way, you no longer see everyone shooting from the hip for every owner who writes in saying something like "My car shuts off when I am driving, what is wrong?" Today responses guide them to first try to discover what they are losing (aka spark, fuel, both) and then setting the stage to test and prove why. That routine works everytime, on any car. The specifics of each namplate only begin to apply later in the routine and again, that stuff can be looked up.
I am totally with Cardoc on this. I tell people the same about my work in IT. I work on a system. There is input, processing, and expected output. If I know what the processing is supposed to do then I should be able to peek into a system and identify the problem area. I have helped others with their failed processes not knowing anything about their software but just knowing what it was supposed to do and what it did not do. One problem is there are too many vested interests involved. Framing information that is based on general physics as proprietary knowledge generates profit based on salaries, textbooks, and schools. Look at the warning in Eisenhower's final speech: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." This touches every aspect of education in this country. Every time one goes to learn something, those with the resources to teach it design it for maximum profit, maximum time in the classroom, and not minimum time and maximum learning efficiency.
Doc, my conspiracy theory is that the outcome-based education that has proven to be a significant failure is intentional. Ad infinitum it begets more schooling, it is self-fulfilling. And the schools are in cahouts with the large corporations. Those looking for work know this. If one does not have the exact exposure listed in the job posting, they will not even make the initial automated filter. This attitude about, "You have to spend X years doing exactly THIS" is like a disease in management across the country. The problem is, the person who has spent all of their time doing exactly THIS, like the article above hinted at with the Datsun mechanic, they get completely flustered anytime they are presented with a problem outside of their little world.
In IT, some certifications like MCSE mirror OEM automotive certifications. There are in fact a lot of certified people who do not know good methods!
https://techinfo.ferrari.com/
https://techinfo.ferrari.com/tools;jsessionid=1E37DAB2F661F96917E239BB4B11407A
http://www.supercartools.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:ferrari-deis-tester-&catid=57:ferrari&Itemid=29
You;ll also need a complete special tool set of course. The flywheel alone has 30 parts if you're doing a clutch job along with that cam belt. Be sure to charge at least $7,000 (on up).
And if it's an 360 Spyder engine you're servicing, be sure to remove the convertible top mechanism. You can slso avoid that by cutting holes in the rear access panels.
As for the more modern cars, yes, you can buy access to certain data from Ferrari.
Your link says: "Please note that Ferrari Special Tools have been designed to be used by technicians who have been trained on Ferrari vehicles, systems and components."
Have you done all the training on various Ferrari models?
My training is in another area of expertise. Why would I train to be a line mechanic? I work on cars on my current skill level.
My belief is that you don't have to know everything. You just have to know where to look, or who to ask, or who to pay to do it for you.
This presumes, of course, that one is intelligent enough to follow through on those options.
If your question meant-- do I update my training in my particular career?---sure, all professionals should do that.
If you mean, was I smart enough to be a top line mechanic when I was starting out in life?----sure, with the right training. But I think we both agree, this is no longer the best of professions for the young man.
I'm sure each of us knows how to do things the other does not.
You can follow the rest of his video's from there. First I am semi-retired and don't earn a living primarily repairing cars anymore so if I take on anything at all I can charge as much or little as I want to. Second I checked with a shop owner that I know in Florida. I can borrow every tool anytime I want to, I just have to pay the shipping. Third I linked that video because if someone can do the job like that then it is well within the reach of any skilled technician.
The point was that the professional mechanic can't afford to get beaten up tackling jobs he has no business doing. If he wants a challenge, it should be on his own time.
When you say things like:
You;ll also need a complete special tool set of course. The flywheel alone has 30 parts if you're doing a clutch job along with that cam belt. Be sure to charge at least $7,000 (on up).
And if it's an 360 Spyder engine you're servicing, be sure to remove the convertible top mechanism. You can slso avoid that by cutting holes in the rear access panels.
The suggestion is that you personally have performed these repairs and are speaking from first hand experience and not from just watching, maybe helping someone else who was actually doing the repair. Parroting what you have been told by someone else, or simply watched someone else do doesn't make you an authority on the subject. But you betray that when you wrote: I'll ask again, have you? You suggest that you have with the specific steps that you wrote and I quoted above.
At this stage in my career I am totally capable of deciding what work to take on and what work to recommend to someone else. Even work that I am familiar with I don't take on unless I have all of the proper tools and information at hand. Now what you won't like is that I can take on engines and transmissions that I haven't done before if I choose to, without having to attend specific training on that assembly first. Natural talent, plus experience and core competency skills combined with just in time information allows me to be very proficient even on the first time with a given assembly. I would never say otherwise, I always expect others to have seen and done things that I have not becaue there is just too much out there for anyone to have done it all. But one person knowing what amounts to a piece of trivia whether a second person is aware of that same information is not a measure of either person's skill or knowledge. However while your experience is in deciding what a car should be worth and is decidedly not in how to do full line repairs mine is exactly the opposite. The difference is I would never search for and try to exploit any holes in your knowledge and experience to try to call into question your abilitites but that is exactly what you are trying to do with the Ferrari stuff.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
If your premise were true, why would I believe anything you have posted, not having done it myself?
If you answer by saying you are a reservoir of learned experience, then I would say I know plenty of "docs" like you upon whom I can draw knowledge.
You, Doc, are like the doctor in the ER room--you see people with spikes driven through their heads, or 4 fingers removed by a table saw.
I don't have to deal with things like that. I can fix most of the things that come up with my cars.
@roadburner -- exactly. I have zero motivation for learning about a certain car if it doesn't interest me. I'd rather spend time working on my Triumph motorcycle, which I do know a lot about, then on my Mini Cooper or truck, which I like but not so much that I don't hand off most repairs and maintenance to others.
I'd have to be out of my mind to take on replacing a clutch in a Mini Cooper. Shoot me now.
As for diagnostics, It's amazing what you can learn just fishing around for information. Even if you ultimately cannot repair the problem, you've learned a good deal more about how to interact with the mechanic who will do the job.
As for my Jeep, worst case scenario is I upgrade to a JK; it's a bit more complex than my TJ, but it's a known quantity on the Jeep forums.
-
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
This is a ten-year-old car. You have to expect unusual types of failures.
Do some research about the target systems required to align the ADAS cameras etc on the vehicles, and then make sure you catch some of the innovative work arounds where techs are printing out minature versions of the targets and simply placing them closer to the cameras. One camp says that's a pretty smart thing to do saving the tech/shop tens of thousands of dollars in targeting systems. The other camp asks a simple question about that practice. "What If"" there is an accident someday and the investigators come back and find out that the system wasn't set up exactly as described by the O.E.? Even if by all logic what they did worked does that keep them out of court when you have an attorney or law enforcement who needs to find someone to blame? How do you think the businesse's insurance company is going to feel about the practice?
If you haven't looked at that question and the responses take a moment and do that right now.
One of the standard answers to try to assist someone with an electrical problem is to say to check the grounds. When someone says that what exactly do they expect the person asking for help to do? I often wonder if they really understand what that means when they give that advice. Attached are the schematics for the high beams and the low beams which takes two pages because of the way the low beam circuit is drawn. Should any time actually be spent physically investigating the ground circuits?
Besides that's an OLD CAR--it might have been a bad idea, but it's way down the highway now.
RE: Accidents with ADAS -- I would think that the errors/omissions insurance would defend the shop. As for not following factory testing methods, that depends on how far you bend the rules. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. You can't prevent frivolous law suits. If you aren't comfortable fixing a system, send it to a specialist. Shops do this all the time.
RE: Grounds--well if they don't have a bazillion dollar tool chest and 10 years of training, then yeah, they should waste the time tracing the grounds. Or they can probe at the headlights. They can run a hot wire to each headlight plug and see if it was some kind of connector/junction issue. Or if they are motivated, they can test for voltage drop. You have to remember that it's crazy to give online DIY advice about electrical systems that is too specific. " OOPS! Your car burned down? So sorry".
Give 'em a hint, give 'em some encouragement. We aren't a repair shop here. That's what other online websites do with videos and message boards and back and forth with other owners.
If you are a persistent rookie, you can often figure these things out by trial and error. I could figure out the dim headlights problem. It would take me way longer than you, and it might not be methodical, but I'd get it done. Just this year I've tracked down an engine miss, a bad speed sensor, non-functioning door locks, dim fog lights, bad trailer hitch wiring on my two vehicles. No scan tool, no diagrams. Just persistence.
The ADAS example is about the setup and training of the system not diagnostics. About the only thing we can be sure of is that if something goes wrong down the road is there is usually more effort put into who to blame than what went wrong. They will ask the question, "What if the fact that the system wasn't trained exactly as designed by the manufacturer introduced a fault that it couldn't compensate for?"
The hindsight is always 20/20 stuff only happens after someone else has provided the answer. That was and still is used as a common bullying tactic by managers to try and control the technicians as the techs experience and educations advance beyond the management's comprehension. Just like what you tried to do above, and have been doing since you found out that kingpins shouldn't take a whole weekend is to try and put the tech back into his place. They can't control the tech if they have to admitt that they aren't capable of handling the work so they do exactly what you tried to do with the Ferrari stuff as well as the park assist buzzer. They preach "Everybody knows that" while they have no idea at all.
The schematics show that both the non HID high and low beam headlights share the same ground circuits. If the ground was bad it would affect both, the OP hasn't responded to say which system the car is equipped with. The HID's share part of the same ground circuit but not the whole circuit, with them a portion might need to be tested. But that doesn't mean take things apart look at them and try to clean things. It simply means measure the voltage drop on the circuit to see if it is excessive, then address that if it is. If the voltage drop isn't excessive, the problem isn't on the ground side.
Informative video, and a good chuckle to boot.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
And I learned as I went. A lot of time sifting through manuals, that were only half there.
It was a short stint in my career and I learned a lot of how to do it right, cause when a part is thousands of dollars, a mistake has to come out of someone's pocket.
Nasty. Locate and repair the damaged wiring and the car was running again