A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood

srs_49

They did make such an announcement

Not sufficient. Who did they announce it to? I don't remember hearing anything. What GM needed to do was to send out a notice to all registered owners - the same ones that would be notified of a safety recall, telling them of the change in the oil specification for their vehicle. Something along the lines of "tear out pages 420-422 of your owners manual and replace them with these 3 pages".

srs_49

Yes it would have been, except that the GM6094M spec is obsolete and replaced by dexos. Don't you just love it when lawyers get the last say in how something is worded?

So then, what does, or should the oil that meets the Dexos standard say in regards to the (now) obsolete GM6094 spec?

How 'bout "Can be used in place of, and is fully compatible with earlier oils meeting the GM6094 Standard"???

imidazol97

>Can be used in place of, and is fully compatible with earlier oils meeting the GM6094 Standard"???

I'm deciding if I need to sue Shell with cardoc as my expert witness for damages to me and mine for misleading me with their document on the oil container of Pennzoil Platinum 10W-30 synthetic oil. It apparently doesn't meet GM6094M requirements for cars after my 2003 which required GM4718M oil.

busiris

What GM needed to do was to send out a notice to all registered owners - the same ones that would be notified of a safety recall, telling them of the change in the oil specification for their vehicle. Something along the lines of "tear out pages 420-422 of your owners manual and replace them with these 3 pages".

While not replacing any manual pages, that's exactly what Nissan did a couple of years ago regarding the specified transmission fluid for their CVT's. It was in a form letter that also notified owners the factory warranty had been extended to 10 years/120K miles.

srs_49

I'm deciding if I need to sue Shell with cardoc as my expert witness for damages to me and mine for misleading me with their document on the oil container of Pennzoil Platinum 10W-30 synthetic oil. It apparently doesn't meet GM6094M requirements for cars after my 2003 which required GM4718M oil.

I'm sure you've been severely traumatized and emotionally scarred for life from that whole experience :P . Should be worth several million dollars, at least.

Me - I can hardly walk down the oil aisle without breaking out in a cold sweat and developing a nervous tic!

Mr_Shiftright

exactly. If GM changes a spec that's in my owner's manual, and I don't get a registered letter about it, or the dealer doesn't record that I've been informed, then my law suit for my engine failure against GM is as good as gold.

jipster

read on some dealer forums that if you want to get on some AutoTrader programs, you have to "do" Carfax. You can't use AutoCheck or any of the other similar services out there.

Wondered how that worked.

I notice that Edmunds "search for inventory" uses dealerships that supply info to AutoCheck, while Cars.com uses Carfax. Don't care much for AutoCheck as they don't include service records. :sick:

Mr_Shiftright

While CARFAX might perform a useful service, I do have some bones to pick with them. First off, we all know that there are cars out there with serious accident records that have "clean" CARFAX reports. So you can end up totally screwed even though you THINK you've done your due diligence.

I had another experience with them, when I bought a car with a "clean" CARFAX, and then **two years later**, an "accident" shows up on the report from *four years** before I bought the car!

CARFAX just told me, too bad, pound sand buddy.

thecardoc3

I'm deciding if I need to sue Shell with cardoc as my expert witness for damages to me and mine for misleading me with their document on the oil container of Pennzoil Platinum 10W-30 synthetic oil. It apparently doesn't meet GM6094M requirements for cars after my 2003 which required GM4718M oil.

There are far better experts than I on this matter. I'm just passing on a little bit of the little bit that I have learned.

Just think how appealing it was to see when someone claimed that GM's dexos1 specification licensing requirements were all about trying to make themselves some money. Once most people saw that, they really stopped looking at the rest of the issue as it got clouded over by the alleged money grab. Even now this has taken a lot of effort just to get a handful of people to understand what the specs actually mean. How could anyone get the word out to a bigger audience without it being a real big hassle to even try.

busiris

While CARFAX might perform a useful service, I do have some bones to pick with them. First off, we all know that there are cars out there with serious accident records that have "clean" CARFAX reports. So you can end up totally screwed even though you THINK you've done your due diligence.

Yep, that was my point in a previous posting.

When folks start inferring things, such as a clean history based on the absence of any reported information on a Carfax report, they're apt to get a big surprise later on in life...

jipster

I believe Carfax has a guarantee now that any accident reported will be on their records. Reported being the key word. Many single car wrecks are not.

thecardoc3

Now there's a case where instead of we consumer advocates hanging our heads in shame it should be you---when did you become an apologist for GM's failure to inform consumers properly

Really? I'm supposed to be ashamed for what, getting people to see past the media's hype that this was supposed to be all about the licensing fees?

Besides what I said there was no apology for anybody. The information was published about two years ago. "Experts" still hadn't sat down and figured it out and tried to explain it to the public. Or wait, maybe they did but didn't have the nerve to recan't the earlier stories and have to justify why the $21.95 oil and filter changes might not be appropriate for some consumers car.

If you're saying that ron's little article beat down General Motors' Info Budget, I'm gonna hafta chuckle.

Are you trying to deflect something with that comment?

busiris

I have read that they cover instances in which a car that has been assigned a salvage title that has the designation removed by interstate registration shenanigans and resold with a clean title.

http://www.carfax.com/manifest/bbg/termsConditions.cfx

Mr_Shiftright

My neighbor's 2006 Miata has had 3 accidents totaling about $18,000 in damages and has a spotless CARFAX. I've seen the records so I know this is true.

stever

Cars.com reportedly has an exclusivity contract with Carfax too. (freethedealer.org, autonews.com).

busiris

exactly. If GM changes a spec that's in my owner's manual, and I don't get a registered letter about it, or the dealer doesn't record that I've been informed, then my law suit for my engine failure against GM is as good as gold.

I'm no attorney, but I think there's some legalese term that refers to something I'll call "best case information at the time", which only requires a manufacturer to publish the most applicable requirements at the time of publication, and absolves the manufacturer from any future liability due to "after the fact" unknown conditions that are discovered at a later time, unless that information was knowingly or intentionally withheld. Of course, anything tied to safety defects falls under a different category....and different requirements.

Maybe one if the posters here is a lawyer and can shed some light on this subject.

Mr_Shiftright

i don't see how it would be possible for GM to deny you warranty on an engine because you did not follow a revised specification that they never told you about. :surprise:

busiris

i don't see how it would be possible for GM to deny you warranty on an engine because you did not follow a revised specification that they never told you about.

Aye... As they say, that's the rub...

That's why I suggested someone with a legal background give us a clue.

There really are 2 questions here...

1-Is the manufacturer required to notify owners of new requirements discovered after the fact/sale?

2-Is the manufacturer still required to cover failure if no notification of new requirements has been made?

I honestly do not know...

Add to that, if one suffers engine lubrication failure even after the warranty period due to using original, yet later superseded specs, is the manufacturer liable?

thecardoc3

Add to that, if one suffers engine lubrication failure even after the warranty period due to using original, yet later superseded specs, is the manufacturer liable?

That one is easy. The warranty is an agreement between the manufacturer and you and it has time and mileage limits. It would be no more fair for them to deny warranty coverage before the end of the term as it would be for you to try and change the agreement and want coverage after it. If the vehicle made it through the warranty period, that's the end of it.

It's kinda funny how everyone argued against the updated spec but now that you realize you really should have adopted it now you want to blame someone else for not forcing you to. And you wonder why the manufacturer had to word it the way that they did.

If they would have forced you to have to upgrade they would be bad guys for doing so. By not forcing you, they should get to be the good guys but since you would have actually benefited, they are still the bad guys. What's more the people who confused the whole issue and should have advised you that the new oil would have benefited you were the good guys, and now that you know the difference, you aren't upset with them at all for the way they worked to mislead you. They helped someone else say that the spec was all about the money, while not licensing a product was clearly about the money. Too bad Abbott and Costello are gone, they would have had a ball with this one.

kyfdx

Another day about oil?

busiris

That one is easy. The warranty is an agreement between the manufacturer and you and it has time and mileage limits. It would be no more fair for them to deny warranty coverage before the end of the term as it would be for you to try and change the agreement and want coverage after it. If the vehicle made it through the warranty period, that's the end of it.

I don't see it as a slam-dunk...

Courts routinely find that a manufacturer is still liable for repairs beyond the warranty period, simply because a reasonable person (in the court's eyes) would have a reasonable expectation for the product to last longer.

I think most reasonable people have a reasonable expectation that a modern car drive train, suitably maintained, should last longer than 5 years and 60,000 miles.

We're getting off topic here, so maybe we need a thread for legal car issues...

It's kinda funny how everyone argued against the updated spec but now that you realize you really should have adopted it now you want to blame someone else for not forcing you to. And you wonder why the manufacturer had to word it the way that they did.

I never argued against any updated specifications, nor am I blaming anyone for anything.

thecardoc3

Does it strike anybody else funny that we have been talking about dexos1 and how to choose the right oil for today's cars and there is an add poppin up for Royal Purple, fortified with ZDP?

busiris

I use my iPad when accessing these forums, and the browser I use has all advertisements blocked. So, I plead ignorance...

Mr_Shiftright

Well I hope none of you still believe that you go to court for "justice" or "truth"---you go to court to (hopefully) outmaneuver your legal opponent. Any tactic that accomplishes that is "ball in play".

One maneuver is to cast the big corporation as evil (Goliath, Satan, etc) and the consumer as a frail helpless human being (David, underdog, etc).

Casting Doc's garage as evil wouldn't work so well :P

Speaking of which---Doc! I think I have your diplomacy problem solved. Is it possible that when you first chose your name of CarDoc you thought the cars were the patients but now you think the car owners are your patients?

busiris

Well I hope none of you still believe that you go to court for "justice" or "truth"---you go to court to (hopefully) outmaneuver your legal opponent. Any tactic that accomplishes that is "ball in play".

One maneuver is to cast the big corporation as evil (Goliath, Satan, etc) and the consumer as a frail helpless human being (David, underdog, etc).


Yep, it's all about who can do the best convincing...

Here's a link where post-warranty suit was filed and settled. This one was for short-lived TV sets, but the same scenario applies to cars...

http://hdguru.com/samsung-settles-hdtv-lawsuit-millions-affected/7459/

roadburner

Well I hope none of you still believe that you go to court for "justice" or "truth"---you go to court to (hopefully) outmaneuver your legal opponent. Any tactic that accomplishes that is "ball in play".

When I would do my tour of duty in Small Claims Court I had a big advantage over my co-workers because so many cases involved automobiles. What continually amazed me was the number of people who would take their car to "Billy Bob's Tanning Salon, Tattoo Parlor, and Auto Repair" and pay money to people who looked like extras from Deliverance. I will say those shops were the exception. In any event, all the shops knew that they couldn't BS me so things moved along very quickly. Well, there was one shop that replaced a radiator- and the car began leaking ATF the same day. When the customer brought the car back to the shop she was told that it wasn't the shop's fault; one of the metal trans cooler lines had "worn out." I played dumb and asked the mechanic if it was common for metal transmission lines to wear out. "Oh yeah, happens all the time."
Guess who ate the cost of the new line...

thecardoc3

Speaking of which---Doc! I think I have your diplomacy problem solved. Is it possible that when you first chose your name of CarDoc you thought the cars were the patients but now you think the car owners are your patients?

LOL..

The nick is quite simple. I've always been told that my hand writing is so bad that I should have been a doctor. It has nothing to do with my ability or lack there of to work on cars.

Well I hope none of you still believe that you go to court for "justice" or "truth"---

That's exactly what I expect. If you have to cheat or lie to get something then you didn't earn it in my book, you are a thief and stole it.

Any tactic that accomplishes that is "ball in play

And when I told them that a signed disclaimer is written proof that the car wasn't repaired correctly when it left....

thecardoc3

When the customer brought the car back to the shop she was told that it wasn't the shop's fault; one of the metal trans cooler lines had "worn out." I played dumb and asked the mechanic if it was common for metal transmission lines to wear out. "Oh yeah, happens all the time

Guess who ate the cost of the new line

Steel lines corrode and get weak through the years. This certainly wouldn't be the first time one failed simply because it didn't tolerate the activity associated with replacing the radiator. Had the radiator not failed, the line probably would have failed on its own in a relatively short amount of time.

So now we have to weigh the options and consider what did this lesson teach that shop.

The shop replaced the radiator, and didn't up-sell the cooler lines even though they may have appeared to an experienced eye to be close to failure. If I polled 100 consumers at this point they would all applaud the shops not gouging the customer and selling them something that they didn't "need".

Take a more experienced shop/tech who notices that the lines are near failure and advises the customer of the condition loyal customers would be glad that this was noted because it prevents a trip back to the shop or especially helps reduce the risk of a breakdown. Other customers who have been trained by consumer experts would react badly to the news of the lines being in questionable condition would be reporting that they never had a problem before, so the shop must be trying to rip them off.

Sometimes the different reactions that we get from different customers over identical situations makes the job a lot harder than it needs to be. Cars I can fix, customers can be quite a challenge sometimes. :sick:

What continually amazed me was the number of people who would take their car to "Billy Bob's Tanning Salon, Tattoo Parlor, and Auto Repair" and pay money to people who looked like extras from Deliverance. I will say those shops were the exception.

That BTW suggests that they probably have cheaper prices than the top shops in the area, they would darn sure have the appearance that suggests a cheaper price, and since many consumers only understand to call around and ask the price first, well.....

So now we have the inevitable, a line fails. It could have been related to replacing the radiator, but it doesn't actually have to be. If you have seen and repaired enough of these lines through the years you would have the experience to understand why that is accurate.

So what should the shop have done at that point?
They needed to get get the car back in and make sure what happened. Now if it was definitely caused by a mistake while doing the radiator repair they should fix it for the customer N.C. If it wasn't then to be fair they simply need to inform the customer about what happened and why and that the line will be $$. The customer really has two choices at that point, remain a customer and allow them to repair it or to actually stop being a customer.

In your court case it would appear they chose the latter, to stop being a customer and probably blamed the shop for the problem, quite possibly unfairly.

These are tough situations, it could be the shop had it within their capability to have avoided the situation, and it could be that this is just another car doing what cars do, break whenever it darn well wants to. The question for the shop is whether this is really worth going to court over. IMO it's not.

Through the years I've encountered both types of people, but it has never had to go to court because the solution is quite simple. Either way I replace the line and send them on their way. The ones who don't pay for it and should have are never coming back into my shop. We can be friends on the street, we just won't do any business anymore. My Choice.

srs_49

Casting Doc's garage as evil wouldn't work so well

Let's say two consumers, cardoc3 and Sally Stay-at-Home-Mom both sue a manufacturer for failing to cover engine damage while the vehicle was under warranty. The manufacturer, GM in this case, says both failures were the result of using a non Dexos1 oil in their 2007 vehicles, for which the owners manual said to use a GM6094 product.

Cardoc3 would probably have a hard time convincing the judge or jury that he was confused about which oil to use because he has a lot of expertise in the field (for which the defense could pull up all of these forum posts as evidence thereof), and so a reasonable person would think he should have known better. So the court rules against doc.

However, Sally, who is dumb as rocks so far as cars go, could probably make a case that she was confused over which oil to use, because of the manufacturers conflicting recommendations (at least to Sally) and lack of communications when the oil standard for 2007 vehicles changed. So the court finds in her favor.

thecardoc3

Let's change that up.

Consumer "A" changes his own oil and never reads that the owners manual where it states to use an oil that has the API starburst AND meets GM4718M specification. His engine suffers a timing chain failure outside of the warranty period.

How does it work out if he sues to try and have the repair done under warranty?

Consumer "B" uses quick lubes, and has receipts demonstrating that he jumped from one cheap price or discounted service to the next. None of the receipts he has reflected the use of GM4718M specified oil.
His engine suffers a timing chain failure outside of the warranty period.

How does it work out if he sues to try and have the repair done under warranty, and who does he sue?

Meanwhile;
Consumer "C" our customer doesn't experience a failure but reads on some website that we were taking advantage of him because all he had to do was use an oil that met the vehicles specs, or "an equivalent". They (on the website) allege that we have been selling him overpriced oil that he didn't need. What do you think he does?

srs_49

How does it work out if he sues to try and have the repair done under warranty?

I dunno how it would work out, but If I were his lawyer, I would proffer to the court that the wording used in the owners manual (which almost always says "recommended", and not "required", and not "the owner shall") implied that the stated oil was optional, not required (else they would have said so).

Or I would try this approach. If the use of the proper oil was really that important, then the car manufacturer should have provided an information page at the time of purchase, that the owner signed, that stated what the required lubricants are for that vehicle. Lawyer addressing the jurors - "I mean, how many of you have really read, thoroughly, your owners manual?"

Consumer B-
He sues the quick lube place. After all, they're supposed to be the experts in the field of car maintenance, at least compared to the car owner.

Consumer C-
Sues someone, anyone, for emotional distress. His wife sues for loss of companionship. Seriously, he doesn't have any much chance as he really hasn't suffered any harm, unless you count the increased cost of using the proper oil.

roadburner

The problem was that the car(it was either a Buick or Olds)wasn't even 6-7 years old if I recall, and at that time I had a 1974 Monte Carlo that was 15 years old- with no worn out lines. I suspected that they had screwed up a line during the install and were trying to shift the blame.

jipster

If the shop brought the suit against car owner, then the burden of proof would be on them, correct? They should have brought the corroded line in with them... if there was one that is.

thecardoc3

The problem was that the car(it was either a Buick or Olds)wasn't even 6-7 years old if I recall,

We have cars that age that need every fuel line, brake line and the transmisison lines because of corrosion from road salts during the winter months..

and at that time I had a 1974 Monte Carlo that was 15 years old- with no worn out lines.

That has no bearing on the condition of someone elses car.

I suspected that they had screwed up a line during the install and were trying to shift the blame.

It's possible, but around here it's more likely that corrosion was the cause and it was a trap just waiting to spring on them.

thecardoc3

If the shop brought the suit against car owner, then the burden of proof would be on them, correct? They should have brought the corroded line in with them... if there was one that is.

The normal routine is to show the customer the replaced parts and they can have them if they wish. If they don't they go right into the recyling bin or the trash which ever is appropriate. If they call even just three days later, it's likely the parts are history.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually, as Doc's attorney, I probably wouldn't let him take the stand-- :P

Actually I would, but not acting as his own "expert"--I'd hire someone else for that--not because Doc isn't as good as a hired gun, but because he would not be viewed as a disinterested party when making statements as an expert.

Now if he were the shop owner being sued, then of course he'd have to plead his case as an expert. But in your scenario, he's the victim of GM's alleged carelessness.

In a denial of warranty case, you have to play the wounded victim.

busiris

Consumer "C" our customer doesn't experience a failure but reads on some website that we were taking advantage of him because all he had to do was use an oil that met the vehicles specs, or "an equivalent". They (on the website) allege that we have been selling him overpriced oil that he didn't need. What do you think he does?

I don't know what he does next, but Doc attempts to get as much publicity as possible, then pitches a reality-based show to cable TV channels based upon the headaches car repair shops deal with, and we watch his show weekly on the Learning Channel.

Hilarity ensues, and Doc gets wealthy, never having to skin up his knuckles again.

Doc later has a special in which he services the Kardashian's cars...

It's the new American way.

crkyolfrt

This scenario is such a grey area..If the threaded coupler was frozen, and instead of releasing its grip on the ferrel'd flange, and instead tried to twist an already corroded and brittle thinner line, then should we deduce that the mechanic did not {reasonably invest*} a pre-attentive measure (get some penetrating oil on the connection a couple or few times prior to actually starting the repair) or maybe he was in a but too much of a hurry or his back was hurting and in order to make room, he moved the thinner, corroded, brittle line back just a bit too far, thereby starting to kink a corner. The stress in the metal at the bend is similar to the stress created by a twist at the frozen connector. Both situations are (potentially) preventable. That said though, all things being equal, the grey areas are the corroded, naturally weakened lines will fail at some point in their natural undisturbed life. Much sooner if a hurried (or otherwise) rad repair, or road debris strike or even a tire out of balance will accelerate its demise. A little sooner if the mechanic did take pre-attentive measures, or the tire was marginally out of balance, or the road strike item was small or lighter or more indirect, or that particular metal line still had a blob of contamination in its metal during extraction...etc etc etc all compounded potential grey areas.

I think the best a mechanic can do in this case, is show the customer and explain all of the above. Point out that a careful job might only shorten that used line's life by a couple of its next 6 to 8 years. Or even with carefulness, might cause it to fail much sooner than that.

Grey areas all over the place.

In doing my own work, I do presoak a suspect corroded connection. In cases where it can be done safely (not in this case however) I will also use a hammer and flat faced punch and tap the penetrating oil into place. I have soaked suspect joints as much as a dozen or more random times over more than a month in advance of starting repair. Sometimes it still twisted, but many times those efforts were rewarded. But with a shop like Doc's, this type of time investment isn't practical. What he can do however tho..in some cases..is let the customer presoak his own joints ahead of the scheduled repair. Some customers will say great and thanks for suggesting, others won't be interested in being that proactive even if it might save them money.

* proactively go to little (or varying degrees of) effort in order to save their customer money.

stever

GMTA.

thecardoc3, "A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood" #879, 20 Jan 2013 7:52 am

I'd even be willing to drive my poorly maintained train wrecks to Doc's shop in PA. :shades:

thecardoc3

You got it pretty well nailed with all of that. Traps everywhere and the best we can hope for is to have our experience carry us through and not fall into one of them. IMO, penetrating oil rarely actually helps, but it is a habit to use it so we do no matter what.

thecardoc3

Hilarity ensues,

Not sure I have what it takes to make it in comedy.

and Doc gets wealthy

That would probably be a waste, wouldn't know what to do with the money.

, never having to skin up his knuckles again

Not have to? That would be nice, but I couldn't imagine living and not working on cars, so the skinned knuckles are always going to be there.

busiris

Not sure I have what it takes to make it in comedy.

I dunno... You could just walk around screaming at everyone like the head dude on the Orange County Chopper TV show...

I'd watch you.

roadburner

The car owner was suing the shop.
I live in the Louisville KY are and the corrosion issues aren't nearly as bad as in Indiana and Ohio.
The mechanic specifically said that the line "wore out "- he acted as if it was almost a consumable part like a rotor or clutch disc. Had he said "The line had corroded and was starting to leak at a thin spot in the tubing." I would have viewed his testimony in an entirely differnt way.
You almost never saw the good shops in small claims, and if you did, 9 times out of 10 the customer was being unreasonable or eccentric, or both.
With Billy Bob and his clientele, odds were that both sides were being unreasonable and/or eccentric.

thecardoc3

With Billy Bob and his clientele, odds were that both sides were being unreasonable and/or eccentric.

That's something that I like about Billy Bob. I prefer that he keeps his clientele.

You almost never saw the good shops in small claims, and if you did, 9 times out of 10 the customer was being unreasonable or eccentric, or both

Yep. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

qbrozen

There is no maitenance schedule anymore, and therefore no recommended mileage at which to do things. The car tells the dealership when to do things, and the car fails to ever tell the dealer to change coolant, trans fluid, and diff fluid (among other things, I'm sure).

http://www.bimmerforums.co.uk/forum/f3/bmws-condition-based-service-cbs-t8509/

Mr_Shiftright

given how many people already ignore the "H" on the temperature gauge, I wonder how this is going to work out?

stickguy

good point Q. I know on my new Acura, there is no schedule (almost positive), just a chart to translate what the letter/number codes mean that the MM will pop up.

My 2005 Odyssey was the first one with that system, but I cheated and used the schedule in the manual for my Accord (and eventually Acura TL) to see what to expect. Then did the trans fluid every 30K out of paranoia.

stickguy

It is pretty hard to ignore. The longer you ignore it, the more obnoxious it becomes. Eventually it practically takes over the dash and won't go away. So you can ignore it, but you sure can't miss it!

Mr_Shiftright

Well that's good then. How interesting that the maintenance alerts are loud and obnoxious and the overheat is a tiny little light, as is the oil light---or did BMW finally install a beeper for that?

stever

I know on my new Acura, there is no schedule (almost positive)

Did you look it up on the Edmunds Car Maintenance Guide?

Often I'll find a schedule there when the owner says there's nothing in their owner's manual. And we supposedly get the schedules from the manufacturers. Can't remember your rides but looked up '13 TLs and RDXs and they had schedules. Ditto '05 Odysseys.

The Mercedes schedules in the guide are often just "A-Service" and "B-Service". The '12 BMW 5 Series I looked up was "Inspection 1, Inspection II and Every Other Inspection II".