Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!

Right To Repair - A Hot Issue or Big Problem?

11617181921

Comments

  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited March 2015
    I have two solar quotes here in sunny Las Cruces, net out of pocket after the tax credits would run about $13k (including my electrical upgrade). Basically have an electric bill for the AC months. Can rent a Leaf for a couple of hundred a month. Rent a gasser for road trips. Call it $20k for the first year, upgrade me to Volt lease the second year at $800 a month - call it $12k a year for taxes, tires and rental. That's a bit under your high $400k estimate over 30 years.

    But you know how cheap I am. I'd buy a used Prius EV (resale is the pits for EVs), and whack your low estimate in half. And that's not counting all the time I'll save by welding the hood shut.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    stever said:

    I have two solar quotes here in sunny Las Cruces, net out of pocket after the tax credits would run about $13k (including my electrical upgrade). Basically have an electric bill for the AC months. Can rent a Leaf for a couple of hundred a month. Rent a gasser for road trips. Call it $20k for the first year, upgrade me to Volt lease the second year at $800 a month - call it $12k a year for taxes, tires and rental. That's a bit under your high $400k estimate over 30 years.

    But you know how cheap I am. I'd buy a used Prius EV (resale is the pits for EVs), and whack your low estimate in half. And that's not counting all the time I'll save by welding the hood shut.


    $12k a year for taxes, tires and rental. That's a bit under your high $400k estimate over 30 years.


    12K x 30 =$360K, that's close enough for a real world number and with a Volt you wouldn't need to rent a gasser, just buy some when needed.

    I'd buy a used Prius EV (resale is the pits for EVs),

    There are a lot of reasons for that, repairs are projected to rival the cost of full replacement. Go ahead and weld the hood shut, everything simply comes out the bottom anyway.


  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited March 2015
    Since you aren't wrenching, I trust you are learning to code. Repairing and replacing "parts" is so last century.

    (ah, nevermind, I see you are pretty much doing exactly that).
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    Not exactly learning, I've been staying eye level with multiple dealer's carlines for years. You don't even want to know what it costs to be ready to work with today's cars let alone the hybrids and plug-ins. What's worse is that all of this money has to all be spent before the first one crosses the (property) lease line. Since I already invested all of that, transitioning to more mobile was the only logical choice.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    "As tractors have gone high tech, John Deere has aggressively locked away critical information needed for adjusting either aspects of the vehicle’s timing and performance or the necessary information to troubleshoot problems."

    General Motors, John Deere want to make tinkering, self-repair illegal (extremetech.com)
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    These "articles" on this subject of making performing repairs illegal are mis-representing the situation. There is a big difference between regular maintenance and addressing wear and tear items as compared to attempting to access and re-write the software in the modules that control functional systems. The broad claim that they are trying to make repairing the machines illegal is all about spreading hype in one area while their real agenda in another is kept out of view. Nobody really cared while we had to learn to deal with the issues of scan tool subscriptions and software licenses. When we are talking about cars, many shops avoided the issue by simply stopping working on the newer stuff, and what is going on with the tractors is no different. For the farms there is still plenty of old iron running around that they can work on exactly as they have done for decades. But if they want to buy the new stuff, there is a part of it that they get a license to use but in fact do not own and cars are no different. The consumer does not own, nor have a right to the software that controls their vehicle or to even have access to it and ultimately neither do we. These groups pushing their agenda want the software to be open so someone can play whether they really have sufficient training and experience or not. Opening the architecture to let anyone just play is widely accepted to have much greater risk than benefit to the consumer as well as the manufacturer and so laws have been passed that keep that protected. With all of the liability associated with vehicles, if someone was allowed to hack critical system software and the end result was injury or death, who would be held responsible, the hacker, or the manufacturer for allowing them access? For manufacturers the cost to develop intellectual property and the need to protect it in order to prevent it from being stolen impacts their customers final price. If a manufacturer's intellectual property is compromised that leads to greater costs for its customers, just like the cost of losing litigation. The companies don't pay for that, their customers do.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited April 2015
    Heaven forbid we allow open source. We might wind up with something like Android. Most likely our servers are running on open source Apache. And lots of "mission critical" servers are as well.

    John Deere is the Apple of tractors.

    For those who want to automate their plowing with GPS steering, there's Linux.

    Back in the day Texas Instruments sold a cheap calculator (~$10 iirc). You could pop the cover and drill a hole in the right spot to access a "hidden" button. That button (memory?) turned your TI into the next better model and saved you $10.

    That's what the Deere drivers want to do - access the "hidden" power of the engine without having to pay a bunch more for the "same" engine.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    If you think this is really about tractors, or cars you are in for a bit of surprise. All of this hoopla is starting with this group. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car
    Everything else about this subject is simply parroting and a distraction from what EFF really wants.

    Some of their other targets are found under topics like this one.
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/congress-stop-trying-limit-effs-ability-challenge-patents
    You have to ask yourself who or whom benefits when patents are challenged, and who ultimately loses?

    Don't underestimate some peoples need to create a problem so that they can be seen as part of the solution.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    "Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

    "It's just a myth that the manufacturers are the only people who can make improvements," he said. "That's why maintaining that choice is really important."

    Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars (autoblog.com)
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    edited April 2015
    Here is another quote from that article. "Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics."

    Autel has managed to make accessing the PATS system possible without licensing, registration, a locksmiths ID, nor any form of cross checking and historical record of the event. That means the only history of access to the PATS system on a given vehicle is by those who have stepped up and taken a professional approach. Autel has made it possible for someone to go in after us, compromise the system and there is no record that they did so which would have all of the scrutiny should a vehicle be stolen go right back to the shop that actually approached this need for the customer securely and correctly. It's funny how EFF say's that they want us to be able to service the customers cars and at the same time turn right around and leave us hanging like that. The thing is there are many more functions across a number of manufacturers that should be carried out securely that have been compromised due to that kind of tampering.

    http://www.law360.com/articles/582278/ford-sues-car-equipment-co-for-hacking-copying-database

    You can also access the court filing through this next link. Here is the entire 19 page filing.
    https://ia801404.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.mied.295187/gov.uscourts.mied.295187.1.0.pdf



  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited April 2015
    I liked the comment in the link by a BJ Meyer about program space and parameter space. That said, I've been known to mess with my Windows registry too. :)
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    What he is talking about are the portions of the set-up of a vehicle system that amounts to the personality traits of a given vehicle, such as does it have P235 70R16 tires or P255 60R18 tires. Or does it have daytime running lights or not? Etc. These are changes that can be made with already available tooling purchased through proper and reliable tool sources and nobody needs to pirate the software that supports those functions to be able to do it. The articles, as well as the comments to them serve to blur the lines and make the issue seem to be something other than what is at stake. Autel's parent company, based in China, is trying to skirt patent and copy-write laws here in the U.S. They have an interest in producing tools at the lowest possible cost, regardless of the legal issues that are faced here. Ford's lawsuit is about Autel not backwards engineering service capability, but pirating it and marketing it as their own.

    Time and again we see people raise questions about the ethics surrounding auto repair, and here we have a tool company that is profiting from the sales of software that they don't legally own. That software gives anyone who buys their tool access to sensitive systems that are supposed to protect the consumer's investment. The right approach to service those systems is a considerable expense for the shops and technicians because it takes more than just the tool and the software. It also takes extra training to go with the tools and it takes holding ones 'self to a high ethical standard to ensure that nothing bad happens to someone else's property. The access to this kind of software and tool support without such ethics should have everyone (consumers) deeply concerned, and maybe they would be if someone stepped up and explained what is really going on. The cheap tools aren't helping the consumer in the long term, they are only facilitating the current status that see's many not investing in their people with training, and a wages and benefits packages that helps towards being a career technician that the consumer needs the trade to have.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited April 2015
    Wait till all the "chippers" see the news articles.

    Tweaking the software in the Prius has been big sport for a decade now too. Can't wait until the manufacturers start bricking $30,000 cars like they do currently do with $600 phones.

    By the time it gets to be a real sore spot, we'll all be renting autonomous cars from Uber anyway.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    Seems the estimates on Tesla's home battery are undergoing a few revisions.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/teslas-new-battery-doesnt-work-that-well-with-solar/ar-BBji5jK?ocid=DELLDHP

    But SolarCity doesn’t offer a discount for multiple batteries. To provide the same 16 kilowatts of continuous power as this $3,700 Generac generator from Home Depot, a homeowner would need eight stacked Tesla batteries at a cost of $45,000 for a nine-year lease. "It's a luxury good—really cool to have—but I don't see an economic argument," said Brian Warshay, an energy-smart-technologies analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance.


    45K just to lease the batteries for nine years. Makes Penn Power look really cheap in comparison.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    A TV reporter is looking for a family with a car in need of repairs, but is holding off because the estimates (preferably $1,000 or more) are too high and/or they can’t afford to pay for the repairs at this time. The reporter will work with Edmunds to evaluate the estimate and help the family find ways to bring down the cost of the repairs. If you'd like to participate, please reach out to [email protected] by no later than Friday, May 29, 2015.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    Another solution looking for a problem......
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited June 2015
    "In response to the comments received, the Commission has revised Part 700.10 of the Interpretations to clarify that implied tying – warranty language that implies to a consumer that warranty coverage is conditioned on the use of select parts or service – is deceptive." (FTC)

    In the ongoing oil conflab, I take this to mean that you can't be required to use "Honda" oil. Dexos? Dunno about a licensed product.

    Another blurb from Consumer Affairs re the MINI mess and the right to use an indy mechanic without automatically voiding the warranty.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    With all of the threads right here on GM engine failures and oil consumption complaints in cars built since 2004 and the fact that when asked none of the responders can report that products meeting the specification that the engines required, why is there still more being done to risk confusing the public instead of educating them? One of the latest ones was from an owner who just suffered an engine failure at 60K and he admitted that a dexos specification approved product was usually not used and he always allowed the oil life monitor to expire prior to servicing the vehicle. Under that kind of servicing someone should be surprised if the engine survived not that it failed.

    As written the Magnuson-Moss act required that if the manufacturer insisted on their own products to protect the warranty, then they had to provide those products for free. Today we see a number of manufacturers doing just that with the free maintenance for a given period of time after a new car purchase. The typical European vehicle requires a High HTHS oil while North American and Asians require Low HTHS products. Servicing that Mini with a North American specification product fails to properly protect the camshaft and lifters and there have been a significant number of failures across all of the European car lines because of dealers, shops, and owners failing to understand the requirements. (North American manufacturers typically use roller lifter cams and the European manufacturers use flat tappet lifters)

  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited June 2015
    There were a lot of Toyota oil gel posts around here too. Sounds like what Toyota wound up doing was fixing the engine passages so they'd be less likely to gel, instead of making maintenance more complicated for the owners. It's easier to educate the manufacturers than consumers. Or the dealers, as your MINI comment suggests.



  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    stever said:

    There were a lot of Toyota oil gel posts around here too. Sounds like what Toyota wound up doing was fixing the engine passages so they'd be less likely to gel,

    That isn't what they did. The API SM and ILSAC GF4 became the standard in 2004 but it took several years for everyone to move away from the SL and GF3 specifications. Which BTW you can still find on store shelves and are still listed as current by the API. http://www.pqiamerica.com/apiserviceclass.htm

    Oil gelling is caused by a build-up of crankcase acids. Products that met the expired GM specifications (6094M and 4718M) , or ACEA A1/B1, and or A5/B5 were superior in controlling the crankcase acid production but the minimal API and ILSAC specifications (SL, SM and GF3, GF4) were not. Today's SN,.GF5 is a major step up from SM and GF4 and only now actually meets the requirements for those Toyota, and the Chrysler engines of the era that you are referring to. The only hindsight that was needed was for the manufacturers to require products that exceeded the minimal ratings but fears of consumerist pressure (as demonstrated when GM rolled out dexos) caused them to make a mistake and allow the use of the products that were available at the time.

    That's why GM made the dexos licensing requirement, so that it was easy for everybody to choose a brand's product that was going to properly protect the engines as well as the vehicle emissions system. The 6094M and 4718M requirements were largely ignored and examples of the results are the complaints that can be found right in these very forums.
    stever said:


    instead of making maintenance more complicated for the owners. It's easier to educate the manufacturers than consumers. Or the dealers, as your MINI comment suggests.

    It's also far easier to misinform the public with fragments on any topic then it is to educate everyone without exception. It also does no good to educate shops, mechanics or anybody else if the education isn't also provided to the consumer because of the tendency to try and discredit the techs as knowledgeable, whether a given individual has sufficient training on a given subject or not. Media sources need to get with it and if they want to even touch a subject like this one, then they need to present all of the information and not just cherry pick what the public at large wants to see like has always been the norm in the past.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    The "education" isn't working.

    Another reason to bring on EVs. No oil. Why are we still using hydroscopic brake fluid instead of lifetime fluid? We don't (much) change transmission fluid anymore.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    edited June 2015
    stever said:

    The "education" isn't working.

    Another reason to bring on EVs. No oil. Why are we still using hydroscopic brake fluid instead of lifetime fluid? We don't (much) change transmission fluid anymore.

    There is no education taking place. At the most we still have outsiders who want to play the hero and do things like....A TV reporter is looking for a family with a car in need of repairs, but is holding off because the estimates (preferably $1,000 or more) are too high and/or they can’t afford to pay for the repairs at this time. The reporter will work with Edmunds to evaluate the estimate and help the family find ways to bring down the cost of the repairs


    People like that reporter want to play the hero for the ratings for the station while completely ignoring the real consequences of his/her actions. When they do one of those "stories", all they do is create more distrust between the techs and the consumers. That distrust then causes the consumers to reject almost all of the information that techs try to share with them in order to help them take better care of their vehicles.

    "Hydroscopic brake fluid". So you don't know why the engineers choose such a fluid? Water boils at 212f at sea level. If brake fluid isn't hydroscopic then any water that did get into the brake system wouldn't be absorbed by the fluid and dispersed through the entire system. That means the water would migrate to the lowest points in the system and stay there. The lowest points in the system are the calipers and wheel cylinders. Now with the water concentrated in one or more of those components, the first time that the brakes get hot enough to vaporize that water, the customer ends up with a pedal that goes right to the floor the next time that he/she tries to apply the brakes. Hydroscopic fluid prevents that from happening.

    Oh, and EV's? There isn't enough time to go into this as deeply as it really needs to be done, but this blog has some really good first hand, non-diluted information. http://evtv.me/2014/07/milling-mire/

    Does it need engine oil changes? Of course not but when you read that article and look at the photos of the drive train and watch some of the video's the cars are anything but devoid of service requirements. Note the final drive assembly that the axle shafts connect to, with the drive motor on one side of it and the generator on the other side. One problem and the entire assembly is replaced, no-one is authorized to do any repairs of any kind. Once out of warranty that is going to have a big impact on affordability.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    The FTC has taken "final action" after review of Magnuson-Moss.

    There's a brief section on oil (GM is mentioned in the notes, so we're talking Dexos).

    A couple of snippets:

    "Several commenters assert that the Commission’s Interpretations do not address
    the market realities of manufacturers’ statements about the use of branded products."

    "(a) Section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), prohibits tying arrangements that condition
    coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified
    by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without
    charge to the consumer."

    What that really means...well, you tell me.

    The entire doc is a pdf you can find at this link. It's only 54 pages of legalize. :)

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    Several commenters11 assert that the Commission’s Interpretations do not address
    the market realities of manufacturers’ statements about the use of branded products.
    These commenters state that automotive and other consumer product manufacturers have
    employed language in consumer materials “to suggest that warranty coverage directly or
    impliedly ‘requires’ the use of a branded product or service”12 leading reasonable
    consumers to believe that coverage under a written warranty will be void if non-original
    parts or non-dealer services are utilized.13


    Note 11 in bold above references these commenters. most notably Ashland, who most would recognize as Valvoline. There is a word that is missing in that entire document and that is specification.

    11 Ashland; Automotive Oil Change Association; Automotive Recyclers Association; BP
    Lubricants; Certified Auto Parts Association; Hunton & Williams; International Imaging
    Technology Council; LKQ Corporation; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association;
    Monro Muffler Brake; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America; and the
    Uniform Standards in Automotive Products Coalition (“USAP Coalition”). One
    commenter, the American Insurance Association, urges the Commission not to change §
    700.10. The Coalition for Auto Repair Equality urges the Commission to uphold
    MMWA’s tying prohibitions. Grandpa’s Garage comments that GM’s recommendation
    that consumers use its branded oil is helpful because GM explains the right products to
    use for repair and the prevention of premature failure.
    Consumer J. McKee generally
    supports the tying prohibitions
    .

    Even "Grandpa's Garage" makes the same mistake by calling the dexos specification(s) a brand.

    Generally, the MMWA prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranties on the
    consumer’s use of a replacement product or repair service identified by brand or name,
    unless the article or service is provided without charge to the consumer or the warrantor
    has received a waiver.9The Commission’s Interpretations illustrate this concept by
    stating that phrases such as this warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other
    than an authorized “ABC” dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine “ABC” parts
    and the like, are prohibited unless the service or parts are provided free of charge. Such
    provisions violate the MMWA’s ban on tying arrangements and are deceptive under
    Section 5 of the FTC Act, because a warrantor cannot avoid liability under a warranty
    where the defect or damage is unrelated to the consumer’s use of “unauthorized” parts or
    service. This does not, however, preclude the warrantor from denying warranty coverage
    for repairs associated with defects or damage caused by the use of the “unauthorized”
    parts or service. 10


    A warrantor can refuse coverage where the warrantor can
    demonstrate that the defect or damage was caused by the use of the “unauthorized” part
    or service.29


    That last sentence says everything that the consumers need to understand. Keeping in context with the previous discussions on engine oil and the dexos specification Unauthorized products become very easy to identify because of GM's licensing program for the dexos specification. Why else would Valvoline who was quoted
    in this Edmunds article http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/do-i-have-to-use-the-manufacturers-oil.html turn around and now have dexos licensed products? It is interesting that they choose to use the word "standard" as opposed to specification. But it is approved now. http://www.centerforqa.com/gm/dexos1-brands

    Read's case for Dexos sounds compelling, but Valvoline's Smith isn't buying it.

    "Our SynPower 5W-20, 5W-30 and DuraBlend 5W-30 went through all the Dexos testing and passed all the requirements," Smith says. "But we felt that carrying the Dexos name was not providing the consumer with any value."

    Rather than raise the price of its oil to offset the cost of licensing the Dexos name, Valvoline chose to forgo the license and keep the prices lower, he says.

    Smith says that GM's engine-performance warnings are part of its goal to drive consumers to dealerships for their maintenance. "We feel that they are taking choice away from the consumer," he says
    .

    http://www.valvoline.com/auto-resources/motor-oil-faq
    Which Valvoline motor oils meet GM standard dexos 1™? The following Valvoline motor oils meet the GM standard dexos 1™: SynPower 0W-20, 5W-20, 5W-30 Durablend 5W-20, 5W-30 MaxLife 5W-20, 5W-30 Full Synthetic High Mileage with MaxLife Technology 0W-20, 5W-20, 5W-30 - See more at: http://www.valvoline.com/auto-resources/motor-oil-faq#sthash.C6DW7l2c.dpuf


    http://www.valvoline.com/auto-resources/motor-oil-myths
    General Motor Oil Myths MYTH: Changing your vehicle's motor oil yourself or using a certain brand voids your manufacturer's warranty. Changing your vehicle's motor oil yourself or using a different brand of oil from your manufacturer's factory fill will not void the warranty. As long as the motor oil being used meets the manufacturer's standards required for the vehicle (e.g., viscosity grade, type), as provided in the owner’s manual the warranty cannot be considered void. - See more at: http://www.valvoline.com/auto-resources/motor-oil-myths#sthash.A96MDKQO.dpuf

  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2015
    We've disagreed on this before - I still think "dexos" is a brand.

    It can also be a spec or a standard, but the terms don't have to be mutually exclusive.

    If it's not a brand, let the API handle the Starburst for those refiners who don't want to be associated with the GM "name".

    The commentary is all well and good, but what counts is the reg changes that were adopted. I just skimmed some of the ~50 pages, and it's still clear as mud dirty oil.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    edited July 2015
    stever said:

    We've disagreed on this before - I still think "dexos" is a brand.

    It can also be a spec or a standard, but the terms don't have to be mutually exclusive.

    Well it is a specification, and always has been and I believe it is a disservice to the vehicle owners to suggest otherwise and risk confusing them to even the slightest degree.
    stever said:


    If it's not a brand, let the API handle the Starburst for those refiners who don't want to be associated with the GM "name".

    Since when did GM force anybody to provide a product to the consumers to meet their specs? The only thing GM has done is make it clear for the consumer who does and exactly which products meet the specs. Take any brand and you will find that they sell some products that are approved to meet the spec and others that don't and they can both still have the same brand specific name just like Valvoline's SynPower. Any refiner that has no desire to take part in that is perfectly free to do so and there are still quite a few who don't. AMSOIL by the way is a notable brand that does not have a dexos approved product. For that matter they also sell products that aren't even API approved. Now if someone chose to use a product that isn't API approved and especially isn't approved to meet the manufacturer's specs for a given engine, why should the vehicle manufacturer be responsible to provide a warranty if a problem does arise? Seems people conveniently overlook the fact that products that meet the advanced specs over the API SM/SN such as GM's obsolete 6094M and 4718M reduced carbon deposits in the piston rings which reduced oil consumption issues while products that only met the API specs left deposits behind that caused the low tension piston rings to stick and that is the real reason behind the oil consumption threads here in the forums. (The change to low tension rings has to do with fuel mileage issue requirements)

    BTW, leave it up to the API? That's funny. SAE 16 is coming out real soon and they will finally address issues that were known in 2007. That's why there is SAE 16A and SAE 16B. At that pace the API will catch up with the dexos specification around 2019-2020....
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2015

    I believe it is a disservice to the vehicle owners to suggest otherwise and risk confusing them to even the slightest degree.

    Hahaha, are we talking about brand vs spec or the confusion caused by dexos 1, 2 and the stuff on your shoe?

    Oh, I'm at Wally World and just remembered I want to get some oil and a filter. Fram, check. Supertech, check. The big issue for me is remembering whether this van takes 5w20 or something else.

    (I don't consider Amsoil a player btw - they are a MLM product and I've sneered before at their parent company marketing dubious "health" products, especially the ED stuff.)
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880
    We are talking about education and information required to properly service automobiles. For people who want to do this themselves successfully they need to have access to the right information free of the bias and stereotypes of the past. For people who don't want to do this themselves they need to be able to find someone who puts all of the other pressures aside and crosses the "T's" and dots the "I's" and leaves no stone unturned in order to make sure that the cars are serviced correctly.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 63,409
    I don't think there is a profession in the world that meets that criteria, although certainly to be striven for. Ideals are, after all, unattainable. That's why they are ideals.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    Share Your Vehicle Reviews Here

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 4,880

    I don't think there is a profession in the world that meets that criteria, although certainly to be striven for. Ideals are, after all, unattainable. That's why they are ideals.

    Well, those ideals are what guys like myself strive for every hour of every day. It takes discipline and a true passion to excel at this craft in spite of all of the effort that gets put into tearing it down by people who's own greed outweighs their appreciation for the effort that one has to put in to try and master this trade.
Sign In or Register to comment.