Holding your new car Captive. PLEASE READ
#22
02-26-2010 | 06:58 AM
I will agree with you that. Picking on someone who is no longer here is pointless in my opinion. It is not something that I condone.
However, my comment has nothing to do with Thomas at all other than his name being in the post I quoted. If you would read up a little further, you would see that my comment is in reference to Spectre parroting Curt. Your point would have been valid had you quoted one of them, but in the current form...not so much.
However, my comment has nothing to do with Thomas at all other than his name being in the post I quoted. If you would read up a little further, you would see that my comment is in reference to Spectre parroting Curt. Your point would have been valid had you quoted one of them, but in the current form...not so much.
#24
02-26-2010 | 07:10 AM
I didn't get my edit in on time. Swart, I apologize for sending that remark twoards you it was uncalled for.
#26
02-26-2010 | 07:17 AM
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 378
From: Wading River, NY (Long Island)
Have any of you worked in manufacturing or engineering design? Things are getting more complex because the regulations are driving them to be more complex. Sure there are ways to make many of the routine maintenance easier, but when it comes down to the final design, cost rules all. If it is cheaper to manufacture a vehicle that may have some quirks to repair it, then that is what is done. Bean counters rule the design from start to finish.
The engineers that design these vehicles do the best with what they are given. I am sure that many of you have looked at something and thought, "Why didn't they do it *this way* instead", but have you thought of what else *this way* might impact in terms of packaged design? Most cannot, in all honesty, answer yes to that question.
But to say that they are being designed this way on purpose with that purpose being to screw the consumer is just naive. Don't take that as a slap in the face because my use of the word is simply to state that you do not fully understand everything that goes into the design and implementation of a vehicle as complex as today's when making a statement such as that site exemplifies. Sure the tools are expensive, but they are available. I have not found one thing that I have not been able to do to affect repairs and/or general maintenance on even the newest of vehicles that my family, friends, and I own (up to and including the 2010 model year vehicles from a few different makes). It just takes knowing where to get the information that you need to complete the job.
And for the record, all vehicle diagnostic systems are created to a standard. While there are a few different standards in use, they are still made to a standard.
The engineers that design these vehicles do the best with what they are given. I am sure that many of you have looked at something and thought, "Why didn't they do it *this way* instead", but have you thought of what else *this way* might impact in terms of packaged design? Most cannot, in all honesty, answer yes to that question.
But to say that they are being designed this way on purpose with that purpose being to screw the consumer is just naive. Don't take that as a slap in the face because my use of the word is simply to state that you do not fully understand everything that goes into the design and implementation of a vehicle as complex as today's when making a statement such as that site exemplifies. Sure the tools are expensive, but they are available. I have not found one thing that I have not been able to do to affect repairs and/or general maintenance on even the newest of vehicles that my family, friends, and I own (up to and including the 2010 model year vehicles from a few different makes). It just takes knowing where to get the information that you need to complete the job.
And for the record, all vehicle diagnostic systems are created to a standard. While there are a few different standards in use, they are still made to a standard.
The electrical and mechanical guys (me) design a great robust component or system then it is beat up during the Design Reviews. " What do you mean the MTBF i( Mean Time Between Failure) 100000 hours, that's too long.
Throw in a small Cap or smaller Case size FET so it runs hotter, we only want a reliable 3600 hours on this. Same goes for the removal of basic Phillips head screws and te addition of Tamper proof hardware. ' Can't have people opening something THEY OWN and finding out it's an easy fix.'
Don't blame the designers, blame the company. We used to get a pat on teh back for designing Robust, now we get shot down. U.S. industry, building a mediocre America.
Last edited by Tony H; 02-26-2010 at 07:20 AM.
#27
02-26-2010 | 07:18 AM
Tony H, it isn't just US Industry that is doing it though! Look at what progress did to Toyota. But... That would be a completely different thread entirely! LOL
On an unrelated note, I wonder how many know MTBF without googling it? I don't deal with it much in my work because our stuff is mostly hard parts that are designed with a rather large service factor and are not supposed to fail other than by wear.
No problem what so ever. I know that you meant to do!
On an unrelated note, I wonder how many know MTBF without googling it? I don't deal with it much in my work because our stuff is mostly hard parts that are designed with a rather large service factor and are not supposed to fail other than by wear.
#28
02-26-2010 | 07:23 AM
BF Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 4,772
From: Halifax, NS, Canada
No worries. I thought about it after posting and realized I may have taken the "official reference" a bit too far, but I'm not the type of person that is going to go back and edit out stuff I said. I'll own up to stuff I post 
. Anyway, we'll leave it as it stands...it was all in good fun.
Back on topic....
I like seeing the actual career mechanics weigh in on the topic, as you are the ones that have to deal with it everyday. I can understand it must be annoying not being able to properly diagnose a vehicle without the proper scanner. With that said though stuff like the ODBII scanner are not dealer specific items are they? They're just really expensive, so your everyday non-dealer mechanic shop isn't going to have one. I could be wrong, but that is how I understood it.
. Anyway, we'll leave it as it stands...it was all in good fun.Back on topic....
I like seeing the actual career mechanics weigh in on the topic, as you are the ones that have to deal with it everyday. I can understand it must be annoying not being able to properly diagnose a vehicle without the proper scanner. With that said though stuff like the ODBII scanner are not dealer specific items are they? They're just really expensive, so your everyday non-dealer mechanic shop isn't going to have one. I could be wrong, but that is how I understood it.
Last edited by Sisk; 02-26-2010 at 07:37 AM.
#29
02-26-2010 | 07:28 AM
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 378
From: Wading River, NY (Long Island)
@ Sisk: 
@ Tony: While it is true that newer crap has newer stuff that requires other newer stuff to fix it, it has been this way FOREVER. everytime something new comes around, it's going to be that way...
think how pissed the cats building horse carts must have been the first time some rich d**k in a model t rolled in like "yo, fix me up m8!"
try getting a 99 H1's TC codes read.... the scanners are readily available, just fork over the cash for a toy you will RARELY, if ever, use and you're ready to rock and/or roll.
one or the other, never both, and there is no prefered method.
think of how many people bitched via telegraph (or some crap) when the first Fuel Injected ride's started breaking down in the 50's (or when ever)....
"let's just have a look at your carb then"
"nope i have fuel injection"
the times, they are-a-changin'. and technology with it. ever try to send a CD player to apple to fix?
try to jam a NES cartidge in you blu-ray player on the PS3? stuff will ebb and flow mang!
@ Tony: While it is true that newer crap has newer stuff that requires other newer stuff to fix it, it has been this way FOREVER. everytime something new comes around, it's going to be that way...
think how pissed the cats building horse carts must have been the first time some rich d**k in a model t rolled in like "yo, fix me up m8!"
try getting a 99 H1's TC codes read.... the scanners are readily available, just fork over the cash for a toy you will RARELY, if ever, use and you're ready to rock and/or roll.
one or the other, never both, and there is no prefered method.
think of how many people bitched via telegraph (or some crap) when the first Fuel Injected ride's started breaking down in the 50's (or when ever)....
"let's just have a look at your carb then"
"nope i have fuel injection"
the times, they are-a-changin'. and technology with it. ever try to send a CD player to apple to fix?
try to jam a NES cartidge in you blu-ray player on the PS3? stuff will ebb and flow mang!
#30
02-26-2010 | 08:05 AM
Well, since this is a GM themed forum, can you give examples of how GM is doing this? Because I can do every check over on my dad's 2009 K2500HD with CAN-D with my $250 (+enhanced data cost) AutoEnginuity scan tool and I am not even a shop... Just because some of the aftermarket hasn't caught up to the tech doesn't mean that the dealerships are holding you hostage. And last I knew, anyone could purchase the GM Tech 2 scan tool and get the software updates. It all comes down to cost, not availability. It is the choice of the independent shops not to keep up with the tech, not the company or dealerships purposefully screwing them.