A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood

thecardoc3 · September 2018

It must be getting even harder out there. https://www.facebook.com/job_opening/303534316895567/?source=attached_post_group

thecardoc3 · October 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2VSTLgHkM&t=2s

thecardoc3 · October 2018

https://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/52373/chrysler/town-and-country/shuts-off-while-driving#latest

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well will he refund your money if he's wrong?

Well isn't that a sticky question. On one hand that is an integrity standard, and yet if held to that they really should simply turn the job down the moment that is asked. The shop can easily be correct here, right now we don't know. The question is just how much testing did they really do? Did they do some testing and are ready to shoot from the hip the way you felt that Eric said that it is OK to do? I case you don't remember.....

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah, I know, but even Eric admits that he has to guess once in a while. He doesn't mind people guessing, and guessing wrong. As he puts it "If I were them, I'd probably try doing that, too".

The point is that he is a professional, with a reputation to nurture and uphold. It's his livelihood, and that of his family. For most car owners, taking a good guess makes sense sometimes. The only consequence to us is to have failed and maybe dribbled away $50--$100 bucks.

Besides all that, some problems on cars are not that hard to solve. They aren't all devilishly complicated rabbit-holes.

"Guessing" is not illogical. It is getting to YES by discovering all the NOs

In your statement back then you tried to limit the risk to $100 bucks, here the reality is closer to $700. The lack of consistency regardless of the price is a problem, you don't get to arbitrairily change the standards of what represents good workmanship over a few dollars. In fact it's the tendency of people on the outside of the trade trying to do that which causes the vast majority of issues.

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.

guitarzan · October 2018

Compare this to the medical industry where most guessing has been outlawed. The government which insures the largest part of the population, and the insurance companies, will not pay doctors for tests that come up negative. Many problems display the identical symptoms and doctors must to know the problem before they can figure out what part of the body to address. Thus troubleshooting is defined as running tests until one of them flags the problem. People can suffer for long periods of time while doctor's try to identify the right troubleshooting method, but attempting such in isolation.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

thecardoc3 said:
https://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/52373/chrysler/town-and-country/shuts-off-while-driving#latest

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well will he refund your money if he's wrong?
Well isn't that a sticky question. On one hand that is an integrity standard, and yet if held to that they really should simply turn the job down the moment that is asked. The shop can easily be correct here, right now we don't know. The question is just how much testing did they really do? Did they do some testing and are ready to shoot from the hip the way you felt that Eric said that it is OK to do? I case you don't remember.....
Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah, I know, but even Eric admits that he has to guess once in a while. He doesn't mind people guessing, and guessing wrong. As he puts it "If I were them, I'd probably try doing that, too".

The point is that he is a professional, with a reputation to nurture and uphold. It's his livelihood, and that of his family. For most car owners, taking a good guess makes sense sometimes. The only consequence to us is to have failed and maybe dribbled away $50--$100 bucks.

Besides all that, some problems on cars are not that hard to solve. They aren't all devilishly complicated rabbit-holes.

"Guessing" is not illogical. It is getting to YES by discovering all the NOs
In your statement back then you tried to limit the risk to $100 bucks, here the reality is closer to $700. The lack of consistency regardless of the price is a problem, you don't get to arbitrairily change the standards of what represents good workmanship over a few dollars. In fact it's the tendency of people on the outside of the trade trying to do that which causes the vast majority of issues.

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?

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:

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%.

That may be all the tech trying to diagnose that Town and Country has too. There is virtually no difference between the two scenarios from this perspective. Then again maybe the tech has approached this correctly and absolutely nailed the diagnosis. Again we don't know, but I know how the tech will and should feel if challenged about the diagnosis if that is the case.

Mr_Shiftright said:

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?

I wouldn't even say anything that precise, in fact there are traces of information that would have me not expecting a ground circuit issue at this time. Right now I want to know which modules have been checked for codes and whether any codes were found in modules other than the PCM. DIY tools quite often only support some of the global OBDII system and if it's even available the user has to pay extra to get support for other modules. I'm approaching this car with the Chrysler factory tool, the DRB-III. Once I have that answer, that information would only be enough for me to create my testing plan that I would set up and carry out during the next failure event, nothing more.

Mr_Shiftright said:

If that tech isn't are sure as Eric was, he should pass on the job.

How does one judge how sure someone is as compared to another in a different event? Does that really have any bearing on the potential result? I keep trying to demonstrate why that approach is flawed and shouldn't be part of the picture. Attempting to guess when a guess might or might not work isn't supported by any logical plan. The only way to solve that Town and Country the first time is to use the kinds of routines that I have been sharing and by staying disciplined in the approach. That get's really hard to do while everything around you tries to make the tech do anything but that.

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.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

guitarzan said:
Compare this to the medical industry where most guessing has been outlawed. The government which insures the largest part of the population, and the insurance companies, will not pay doctors for tests that come up negative.

With a $5000 deductable per year they have both found a way around a lot of that. When I think about what our insurance currently costs us ($1400+ a month) and then have to come up with that deductable if we actually need to use it I really wonder why we bother trying.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

thecardoc3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

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%.
That may be all the tech trying to diagnose that Town and Country has too. There is virtually no difference between the two scenarios from this perspective. Then again maybe the tech has approached this correctly and absolutely nailed the diagnosis. Again we don't know, but I know how the tech will and should feel if challenged about the diagnosis if that is the case.
Mr_Shiftright said:

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?
I wouldn't even say anything that precise, in fact there are traces of information that would have me not expecting a ground circuit issue at this time. Right now I want to know which modules have been checked for codes and whether any codes were found in modules other than the PCM. DIY tools quite often only support some of the global OBDII system and if it's even available the user has to pay extra to get support for other modules. I'm approaching this car with the Chrysler factory tool, the DRB-III. Once I have that answer, that information would only be enough for me to create my testing plan that I would set up and carry out during the next failure event, nothing more.
Mr_Shiftright said:

If that tech isn't are sure as Eric was, he should pass on the job.
How does one judge how sure someone is as compared to another in a different event? Does that really have any bearing on the potential result? I keep trying to demonstrate why that approach is flawed and shouldn't be part of the picture. Attempting to guess when a guess might or might not work isn't supported by any logical plan. The only way to solve that Town and Country the first time is to use the kinds of routines that I have been sharing and by staying disciplined in the approach. That get's really hard to do while everything around you tries to make the tech do anything but that.

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.

There are some situations where you cannot be 100% sure. That's called "life".

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:

There are some situations where you cannot be 100% sure. That's called "life".

They are also known by another word. Incompetence.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Being a real human being is incompetent?

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Being a real human being is incompetent?

All you have to do is add a wrench and have the guess not work.

BTW did you read this? http://fortune.com/2018/10/02/harley-davidson-motorcycle-sales/

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Interesting....certainly a bit of a turnaround for a company whose bikes were pretty awful not all that long ago.

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.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
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 is a difference between what life brings and doing technical work.
Diagnosing and repairing machines is very orderly and predictable when done correctly. If that isn't your perspective you are doing something wrong.....

Mr_Shiftright said:

There will always be a time when you have to guess, because you cannot always quantify a thing.

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.

Mr_Shiftright said:

Another problem is that "data" can make you blind--I'm sure that's something that you actually teach.

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.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Motorcycle repair is a lot more appealing to young people, I think.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Why does it take a tragedy to get to make a point about vehicle safety?

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.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

I don't think so. The idiots who ran the limo business are to blame--a clapped out vehicle and an incorrectly licensed driver. Besides that, there are any number of corrupt inspection stations. I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong place here by singling out NY as the culprit. The only point I agree with is that not enough $$$ is charged for the inspections.

I presume that you would do a thorough inspection, even for the chintzy fee.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong place here by singling out NY as the culprit. The only point I agree with is that not enough $$$ is charged for the inspections.

I presume that you would do a thorough inspection, even for the chintzy fee.

The surest way to fail in business is to not charge what the services you provide are worth. The state takes the majority of those chintzy fee's the shops doing the inspections lose money for trying and that leads to a program where the vehicles aren't genuinely inspected. On top of that, you should see what they can and cannot actually fail.

guitarzan · October 2018

Thanks Doc for that limo story update. I could not figure out how every last passenger in a limo was killed. In a standard vehicle, the odds just defy that, even in the worst wrecks.

kyfdx · October 2018

A 2001 Expedition is basically a pickup truck with seats. Given the "limo experience", it's doubtful anyone had a seat belt on. They might as well have been cargo in an Econoline work van.

But, I agree, it's surprising that no one survived.

qbrozen · October 2018

Sorry to have to be the one to say it, but the passengers aren't completely innocent here, either. It is unfortunate, and certainly the limo company with the unlicensed driver and failed vehicle carry the bulk of the blame. But I also am left shaking my head that not one person directly involved in the situation thought "this isn't safe." Kind of like getting on a rusty creaking carnival ride. You have to realize you are taking your safety into your own hands.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

In accident investigation, there's usually the rule of "who was the last one who could have prevented this", and I guess Q has a point here. While the driver is the obvious culprit, some of the passengers could have conceivably saved themselves. I would expect head trauma and internal injuries were pretty severe. I mean, imagine going from 60 mph to 0 mph in ten feet. Geez, maybe death was merciful. A survivor would have been in very bad shape indeed.

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.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
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!

And when you do in New York states program and actually find vehicle problems that confirm it to be in an unsafe condition, you will lose that inspection license if the vehicle owner complains and they investigate it. The few things they can actually fail aren't the most significant defects that can occur on a vehicle. Meanwhile they cannot fail rusted brake lines. They cannot fail ball joints. I could write out a whole list for you but I'll just repeat myself and tell you the way the program is administered makes it a joke.

Mr_Shiftright said:

Besides, we know why a shop wants to be an inspection station--so that they can bring in more work.

In fact the only reason the better shops do them is to simply provide the service so that their customers don't have to go somewhere else for it. The only teeth in the program are set against the shops for your reason above, it does little to nothing to ensure safe vehicles are on the road.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Better than nothing, which is what most states have. The problem is largely political. If you cracked down on junk heap cars, then you ground the poorest people. No car, often no work. The problem is not so easily solved.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Better than nothing, which is what most states have.

The states that have nothing often site a lack of evidence that a proper vehicle inspection and repair program reduces accidents and saves lives. Meanwhile accident reports simply don't specify mechanical failures as the potential cause of an accident unless a tractor trailier is involved.

Mr_Shiftright said:

The problem is largely political. If you cracked down on junk heap cars, then you ground the poorest people. No car, often no work. The problem is not so easily solved.

No argument there, it is political. Just look at your state with regards to emissions testing and repairs. They set up funding (the CAP program) for low income families to have their cars repaired. https://www.bar.ca.gov/Consumer/Consumer_Assistance_Program/CAP_Repair_Assistance_Program.html

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.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Lucky for NY and California that I'm not King; otherwise mandatory inspections would be necessary. I wouldn't even mind setting up micro-grants to get some people's cars up to snuff--if they had excellent driving records and if repairs aren't too extensive (like a set of tires, or brake pads or broken tail light, etc).

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.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Lucky for NY and California that I'm not King; otherwise mandatory inspections would be necessary. I wouldn't even mind setting up micro-grants to get some people's cars up to snuff--if they had excellent driving records and if repairs aren't too extensive (like a set of tires, or brake pads or broken tail light, etc).

Before I went semi-tired, I used to get calls all the time from the welfare office to take in a vehicle, inspect it and give them an estimate for what would be needed to make it road worthy so someone could get a job and be able to support themselves and get off of the welfare roles. We didn't get to fix all of them, but know that we made a difference for a lot of owners.

Mr_Shiftright said:

I think you have to treat state inspections like EMTs treat patients in a disaster zone. You focus on the most serious cases.

C-A-B and the three P's

Mr_Shiftright said:

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.

It makes it even more rare when it isn't documented.

pensfan83 · October 2018

Well seeing as I just purchased a car from NY that's certainly a little unsettling...

henryn · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:

I think you have to treat state inspections like EMTs treat patients in a disaster zone. You focus on the most serious cases.

Not exactly true. You focus on the most serious cases that can be saved.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

That's very true for people, so maybe my analogy wasn't a good one. With "car triage" you might want to actually focus on the helpless cases.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Looks like the son of the owner of that limo business has been arrested. The owner is out of the country, and likely to remain so, I'd bet. State police say that limo was taken off the road by state inspectors. I guess not.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Do you know why dealers are advertising for techs this way?

guitarzan · October 2018

thecardoc3 said:
Do you know why dealers are advertising for techs this way?

I suppose the dealer is trying to steal the tech who is currently working on the car. This advertising reaches the target audience 100% of the time.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Shops out here in California are very brazen about trying to steal techs from other businesses. The problem is, it's hard to evaluate them. Sometimes they can be good techs with bad personalities, and they create problems in the shop; othertimes, they have work habits that fit fine in one type of shop but are a no-go in another.

Basically you have to try them out. Their paper credentials don't tell the whole story.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

The same can be said for the shops.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Well the shop IS the techs--what would be be without them?

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well the shop IS the techs--what would be be without them?

A dealership.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Well...PART of a dealership. Like Tesla. Salesroom only. To service the car you go somewhere else, and sometimes far away.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/article/i-could-just-find-few-technicians-rick-fowler?fbclid=IwAR1KuSymUj0yDDucoPU4oKYNjNYpGTX1CzX7uQ7y6eAFTIkLG07O1JII4Zs

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Yeah, well good luck with that. And who is going to pay for all that? Only one group---the consumer. And they'll howl, too.

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%.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Probably should start a dedicated thread on this topic.

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.

henryn · October 2018

It strikes me that once the car is out of warranty those systems are things that no one is going to pay thousands of dollars to have repaired. You should be able to just turn them off, completely disable them. But I would be willing to bet that is not the case.

thecardoc3 · October 2018

Most of them can be turned off manually by the driver, and sometimes road conditions, and weather can make them unusable anyway at least for now. However, that tech is very desirable from a lot of drivers point of view and there is also the issue that these are under the heading of safety systems. Eventually they will be mandated across the entire vehicle fleet.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

Doc, did you see that video of Eric from South Main Garage fixing a Dodge van that had the wipers activating every time you opened the back hatch or sliding door?

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 .

thecardoc3 · October 2018

I didn't see the video but we talked about it last week when he attended our GM class.
BTW here is a video that describes some of the other challenges we are discovering.

https://youtu.be/D2Ms8VL7dCI

benjaminh · October 2018

At c.9 minutes 40 seconds in this video as they take apart a 2017 engine that was modified and used for drag racing: "Sure did eat that piston up!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuNxf2BhXyg

thecardoc3 · October 2018

That damage is the result of LSPI, or stochastic detonation as GM likes to call it. https://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/37375/ford/x/mega-knock#latest

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.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

I wonder what boost level they were using. Also what spark plug heat range.

thecardoc3 · November 2018

From Pten "Professional Tools and Equipment magazine

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.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2018

Sounds like the answer to a question nobody asked. Is this really a response to 1 "hijacking" from 3 years ago?

thecardoc3 · November 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Sounds like the answer to a question nobody asked. Is this really a response to 1 "hijacking" from 3 years ago?

What?

A Mechanic's Life - Tales From Under the Hood

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles