Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Right now the shop/tech doesn't get to be right if they spend all of the time necessary (and charge for it) to prove what is going on.
They aren't right if they don't spend any more time and take the shot "IF" they are wrong. That being the case, it doesn't make any sense for them to stick their neck out if they don't really know for sure just in case they are wrong.
Guess that leaves the vehicle owner stuck with only one valid choice and that is to simply dump the car and buy a different one.
As someone who actually has solved numerous similar issues on this vehicle make and model I know both how fast this can sometimes be done and how long and drawn out of a routine it might end up being and it is completely out of the techs control when it comes to the time that is required.
I think my point in mentioning Eric's "guess" is that he had plenty of circumstantial evidence that he was correct (he was in fact) but for various reasons couldn't lock it down 100%.
I have no idea how much diagnosis the tech did in the town & country. If that tech isn't are sure as Eric was, he should pass on the job. What are you thinking here? That the PCM isn't grounding when required?
FWIW
I solved a Jeep issue about two months ago that would be described by a DIY'er almost exactly the same as this Town and Country problem. That one was a PCM that would simply stop generating the 5v reference for the sensors and for the communication output. One of the most important things that I had to proove is whether during the failure if something external of the PCM was pulling the reference voltage to ground or not. This Jeep had already had the PCM replaced that week and it turned out to be a defective replacement that just happened to generate an almost identical symptom as observed from the drivers seat. I might make that case study be my next video.
BTW did you read this? http://fortune.com/2018/10/02/harley-davidson-motorcycle-sales/
Never wanted one myself. Too big, too heavy, too clumsy, too loud. I defy the demographic I guess. I've always ridden BMW and Triumph. That's it.
As for guessing, it strikes me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think life is far more orderly and predictable than my observations seem to imply.
There will always be a time when you have to guess, because you cannot always quantify a thing.
Another problem is that "data" can make you blind--I'm sure that's something that you actually teach.
Diagnosing and repairing machines is very orderly and predictable when done correctly. If that isn't your perspective you are doing something wrong..... If you have to guess then you have exceeded the limits of your competence. Just because you have to guess that does not mean that someone else doesn't have the skills and knowledge to methodically work through the problem without guessing. Losing your way during a diagnostic routine happens. Learning how to use critical thinking skills to constantly re-evalute what you know and what you need to know so that you get back on track is a necessity for today's technicians and it is learned by experience, both good and bad ones.
Which brings us back to that Harley article. How many times have I said in our world, they don't want techs that can keep the cars running for hundreds of thousands of miles and a few decades. The Harley problem is there are too many older bikes simply not dying and getting scrapped. That's because they can be repaired and it's relatively easy to have a competent group of mechanics to do so. That isnt the case with cars, its getting worse and that isn't an accident.
By now everyone is likely well aware of the limo accident that resulted in twenty fatalities. Did you see this article? https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/us/new-york-limo-crash/index.html
No doubt as this goes forward the main focus will be in finding someone to blame and little will be said about how the New York state inspection program is a joke. As described in the article, this vehicle failed and ended up back out on the road. A vehicle failing an inspection and subsequently being repaired to the point that it can then pass the inspection when the process is a weak is New York's is doesn't mean that it is truly safe.
http://www.gwizz.com/inspections/state-inspections.php
https://dmv.ny.gov/inspection/inspection-requirements
https://dmv.ny.gov/forms/vs77.pdf
The efforts to try and make it "consumer friendly" because of the never ending pressure to make sure that garages don't make money is where the blame truly belongs.
I presume that you would do a thorough inspection, even for the chintzy fee.
But, I agree, it's surprising that no one survived.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
As for underpaid shop owners---if you don't like the pay, don't be an inspection station. But if you choose to be one, DO YOUR JOB!
Besides, we know why a shop wants to be an inspection station--so that they can bring in more work.
The car doesn't have to be safe to be on the road, they just have to try to keep it from polluting the air.
I think you have to treat state inspections like EMTs treat patients in a disaster zone. You focus on the most serious cases.
Problem is, it's difficult to gather good data on when mechanical failure actually caused an accident. It might be that it's fairly rare.
Basically you have to try them out. Their paper credentials don't tell the whole story.
I've been saying for years that the only solution is to pay a technician the same wage scale as a plumber or electrician. That would boost average auto mechanics' wages by anywhere from 25% to 75%.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/10/new-vehicle-technologies-double-repair-bills-minor-collisions/
Over the last two months I have been studying well over 1000 pages of information for the ADAS (Advanced Drivers Assistance Systems) on today's cars. A lot of that has to do with understanding just what kind of assistance a given system actually gives a driver and it's safe to say that it varies a lot from car to car and that alone is primed to create some confusion for drivers over the next decade or so. What I am referring to is one car might only warn of an issue but be unable to actually assist the driver by braking or steering out of harms way. Another might be able to partially brake, but not actually bring the car to a complete stop without the drivers input. While a third can actually bring the car to a complete stop all by itself and even steer to a clear lane if possible.
The real nightmare of this technology is how it reminds us of pre OBDII engine controls. Everybody was doing their own thing and there was no standardization at all. Tooling up to be able to retrain even just a few manufacturers can have price tags that vary by over $8000 per manufacturer. Some require very little, others way, way too much to justify the expense. One of the Audi systems takes eight hours to retrain, and that's not even thinking about what it takes to do diagnostics and repair if something on that system is broken.
For the most part a seasoned technician with solid diagnostic skills can handle the diagnostic and repair side of the equation with relatively little classroom time for specific training on the components and the systems. Learning how to set up and use some of the targets and tools can easily take a lot more time and from there figuring out any problems that arise will be something that will have to be learned on the fly.
Geez, if this is what future techs will have to go through, I pity them. Luckily, he found the problem quite by accident. Apparently the high speed CAN Bus shorted under the floor of the cargo area, and he only saw it when he knelt on the floor to adjust his scan tool. That particularly circuit affected multiple modules that would fire (or disappear) depending on how the wire was molested .
BTW here is a video that describes some of the other challenges we are discovering.
https://youtu.be/D2Ms8VL7dCI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuNxf2BhXyg
That is a form of detonation that occurs at low rpm, high boost and is a result of tiny oil droplets being scraped from the cylinder walls and igniting from the heat of compression. Some of the other damage that occurs is evident in the rod bearings. At 40,000 miles they should still have had a tight fit the rod caps, it was very evident that they don't since they stuck to the crankshaft and then slid down into the upper half of the connecting rod.
The trouble codes that set actually are indicating that the engine was over boosted and they did get it right that replacing the sensors wasn't going to correct the reason why the codes set. The lesson here again is the codes tell you what test failed, not what parts are bad.
I found it amusing that they didn't realize that the first thing you saw them remove was the balance shaft assembly. They kind of debated for a few moments about what it was and were starting to figure it out, but did you see the other surprise that was lurking when he first tried to remove the pulley and chain? First there was no keyway for the crank gear. That's part of how the chain get's installed and ensures precise cam/crank timing. The second thing was the torque on the balance shaft gear bolt. Being that tight it is very likely a TTY (torque to yeild) which means you don't reuse that bolt. I could look that up to be certian but with the way many engines are built today it is very unlikely that it is a conventional bolt.
Having trouble communicating with certain 2018 vehicles?
It’s probably not your scan tool….
The cyber-secure vehicle is here. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) introduced the Secure Gateway Module into roughly half of their 2018 product line and nearly 90 percent of their 2019 vehicles. The Secure Gateway Module, which FCA refers to as the SGW, is essentially a firewall providing moderated access to the in-vehicle network diagnostic services. The gateway will ensure that the tool and user are authenticated (known) and authorized to perform certain levels of communication with the vehicle.
Prior to 2018, access to FCA diagnostic services was unregulated and open to anyone who obtained the knowledge to do so.
With current concerns about vehicle cyber security highlighted by a very public 2015 hacking of a Jeep, and a subsequent expose on 60 Minutes by DARPA, NHTSA has emphasized that the industry must find ways to prevent unauthorized access to the in-vehicle network that could potentially provide the ability to remotely control certain vehicle functions (acceleration, braking, steering, etc.). FCA’s answer to this concern is to introduce this SGW firewall to control access to certain functions, either through the diagnostic connector or the infotainment system in the vehicle.
So what does this mean to you as a technician? As of today, if you are trying to perform any routine diagnostics on vehicles with the SGW, you will need to have the FCA dealer tool, wiTECH2 and a license with FCA, along with a live internet connection to the FCA server.
In the near future, FCA is planning to initiate a process that will allow certain aftermarket scan tools to be able to unlock the SGW as well. This process will introduce a bridge server that will manage the connections from aftermarket scan tools and their respective manufacturer’s server and the FCA server that will provide the unlock keys.
But what will this entail?
The scan tool manufacturer must be a licensee of FCA’s scan tool data.
The scan tool must be capable of connecting to the tool's manufacturer server to be able to request and receive the unlock key from FCA.
A live internet connection must be maintained to the tool as it is connected to the vehicle in order to complete the unlock process of the SGW for that particular diagnostic session.
If the diagnostic session is terminated or dropped, the full process must be repeated.
The user of the tool and shop owner/administrator must register and provide a credit card to the FCA facilitator and pay a yearly fee.
Every tool that needs access to unlock keys will have to be registered with FCA.
There are many concerns about this process.
How can I diagnose a vehicle where I cannot get a solid internet connection?
Are the scan tools I have capable of this online procedure?
Who is in control of my information, including credit card info?
Can I be turned down by FCA and not allowed to work on their vehicles?
But, the larger underlying issue is that FCA will not be the only car company introducing security methods for in-vehicle networks. It is assumed that all vehicle manufacturers will soon introduce enhanced security measures and, unfortunately, that they are all unilaterally developing unique non-standardized solutions that will wreak havoc for aftermarket scan tool manufacturers and their customers in repair facilities.
With no coordination or standardization, it will become nearly impossible for aftermarket repair facilities to use traditional all-makes scan tool solutions.
The Auto Care Association, The Equipment and Tool Institute and other aftermarket stakeholders have been encouraging auto manufacturers to develop a standardized process for repairers to safely and securely access vehicles for repair and maintenance.