Unethical?
How?
Sure it only took a few minutes to pull the code(s)
And now you have codes that read like this:
Misfire on more than one cylinder
Miss fire on more than one cylinder with converter damage
Misfire cylinder #2
Misfire cylinder #3
O2 sensor out of range
Catalyst efficiency
Short term fuel trim out of range
Long term fuel trim out of range
So do you know what part to change? Oh you don’t? I do, and guess what knowledge costs money. You can pay me or you can throw parts at it yourself either way it costs money.
First, I definitely can decide if the charge is too much. I drive over 200 miles a day, and having my mileage cut by 1/3 is just too expensive to leave. If it was just the light, I would have told them to forget it, and found a place that would diagnose for free.
I don’t have any problem with them charging $100 for a diagnosis IF I do not let them perform the repair. However, since they are doing the work I find the charge unreasonable.
In the future, I will try to avoid going to this shop if I can. The problem is that it is right across the street from where I work, so the convenience is worth quite a bit to me.
“you seem to lack the knowledge necessary to come to that sort of conclusion”
Yes, jz78817 I do. But it seems that you do not. With what I have told you how long to you think it would take to confidently diagnose the problem? my 10 minute estimate or their one hour charge?
What you are talking about is quite different then the shop using a code scanner and I would expect you to know the difference - we are not talking about the same thing here.
You make a good point Rick but you are going into more then just code reading and still does not address the ethical issue of multibilling the same tech for the same time.
It’s not so easy. Unless you have access to the TSB’s from the factory, you will likely miss many things. It’s not unheard of for one system malfunction to cause a failure in another system. You can change parts, but fixing the problem may be another matter entirely. It all comes down to a simple rule; you get what you pay for most of the time.
There isn’t a shop who wants to stay in business that’ll diagnose for free. Reading codes is not a diagnosis. Reading the diagnostic code is equivalent to telling your doctor “my shoulder hurts.” You need the doctor to figure out why your shoulder hurts.
I have a feeling that might make them happy.
Look at Rick’s post above. Your car was saying “my shoulder hurts.” It was not saying “I have a torn rotator cuff.”
I find it amusing that people who lack the expertise and equipment to properly test and evaluate modern automotive performance problems seem to believe they know what the fees ought to be for such service. When I use my $3000 scan tool (with ~$1500/year software updates), $2000 lab scope, various other tools, ~$2000/year professional information service, 40 years of experience and knowledge – not to mention general overhead to maintain the repair facility – in order to efficiently and accurately diagnose a problem, you’re darn tootin’ I’m not going to charge just a few dollars to do it, even in those few cases where it can be done in several minutes. Of course, if you don’t like my prices, you’re welcome to go elsewhere – or better yet open your own shop, charge what you think it should be, and put me and those other “unethical” shops right out of business.
Be warned, however, that over the years I’ve seen scads of low-priced auto service providers come and go – with the emphasis on “go.” They never last. Apparently it costs more to acquire the resources to do auto repair than a lot of people realize. One would do well to keep in mind the old adage, “You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get.”
ETA: One would also do well to let go of the notion that time spent is the criterion for diagnostic fees. Those fees are based on many factors (some of which I listed above). That $100 being discussed is not simply for a given amount of time.
So is the take home message here that a reasonable charge is whatever the mechanic feels like charging? Has anyone ever received a dentist or physician bill that they felt was unreasonable?
No. It’s generally not that capricious. There are standards and conventions, as well as marketplace forces involved. The message is that a reasonable charge is not necessarily what the consumer feels like paying.
Sure, and many similar factors come to bear. Just because it doesn’t seem reasonable to the layman doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable when one considers education, experience, equipment, overhead, and all the other things that make it possible for the dentist or physician to provide the needed service.
I will take that as a yes. It seems that, in general, people tend to think that the price charged by professionals they need to consult are too high. And you are correct, I do not have auto repair insurance.
The $100 dollar flat rate for diagnosis is pretty common from what I have seen. More akin to a cover charge in my opinion than a direct rate charge. I know of a few shops that “rebate” the diagnostic fee if they do the repair. Funny thing is, the total service charge just ends up being the same as the other shop that leaves the fee in.
I don’t see a lot of difference in price in my area. I tend to believe that computers and estimating software services have pretty much made charges consistent across the big shops in any given area. Maybe one of you guys in the industry can speak to the validity of this belief?
again, what someone “feels” is unreasonable and what is unreasonable aren’t exactly the same thing. When I wrenched, I actually had this conversation with a “customer:”
Customer: “How much is it to change the plugs and wires on a 1994 Furd Mongoose?”
Me: “$Texas.”
Customer: “Can you do it right now?”
Me: “Not 'til this afternoon, I’m working on two appointments this morning.”
Customer: “Well, I guess you don’t want to make any money.”
:rolleyes:
I’m sure he “felt” I was being unreasonable for not dropping everything I was doing to accomodate him.
There’s something to that, but there can still be a fair amount of variation. Shops have several estimator services to choose from. Those estimators tend to be fairly close to each other on most things; however there are a few significant differences here and there, and while most shops rely on them quite a bit they have no obligation to follow them. Market pressure is a big factor toward the consistency you’ve observed, but still some shops charge noticeably less than average and some charge noticeably more, at least in some (mostly urban, I suspect) areas.
A lot of shops set their prices largely by what’s common in their market. Some make more complex calculations of their costs and profit goals that sometimes result in noticeable deviation from the majority. There are limits, on the one hand prices too low to sustain the business, and on the other hand prices so high they drive customers away. One can’t vary too much from the norm without running up against that.
Again, you seem to be one of those who believes diagnostic computers and fault codes are magic wands that fix cars like clicking your fingers.
Fact is, its not like that, not for real mechanics. Five minutes in and you have the fault code MID 136, PSID 28, FMI 1. What then Kanicbird? What you going to do with that code?
A parts store will tell you that it is the code for a part, and then laugh all the way to the bank while you throw parts at the problem. A garage, whom nobody wants to pay for apparently, will spend time and expertise checking the wiring to the ECU’s, saving you hundreds in the long run.
I thought that the “Check engine” light was an attempt to warn the driver that a mechanic may have used knockoff Eastern European parts to repair the car.
True. It typically requires a higher skill level and the use of more expensive equipment. It also typically involves no parts sales, thus meaning that for the time involved all the necessary profit must be generated from the labor fee.