Basecoat reductions draw attention, ire of repairers
A recent ABRN article asking if a basecoat reduction is an unreasonable estimate adjustment generated a lot of interest and commentary from readers who vented on partial refinish deductions.
I edited the article after receiving a news release from the California Autobody Association (CAA) that said the “blend with panel” process does not save enough time to warrant a basecoat reduction, and may instead increase the time required to complete the process.
When a body panel is partially damaged but still repairable, it’s a common practice to refinish that damage by using a process called “blend within panel.”
The purpose of “blend within panel” is to keep the basecoat (color coat) away from adjacent panels to avoid either an unacceptable color match, or blending color into those adjacent panels at additional cost.
For example, consider a dent in the front of a door. After the door panel is repaired, feather-edged, primed, blocked, and re-primed, it may be possible to use the “blend within panel” technique if the primed area is still at least 18 inches from the back of the door. This technique entails color-coating the primed area, blending the color into the remaining undamaged portion of the door and then clear-coating the entire door.
The CAA said some insurers regard this instead as a “partial refinish,” which they believe allows them to take a deduction from the estimating software’s allowed basecoat refinish labor. This adjustment is commonly referred to as a “basecoat reduction.” Adjusters often explain this by saying, “you’re only painting half the door, we’re only going to pay half the labor.”
The CAA pointed out the flaw in that logic. If you want to read the entire article, click on the link http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=600720. While you’re reading, make sure you scroll down to the bottom to read eight comments from readers. As is often the case, the comments are just as insightful as the article itself. They come from the hearts of repairers who experience this runaround on a daily basis.
Here are a few nuggets from readers’ comments:
• “This is a good example of the fox running the hen house. Most insurance companies will back down from the deduction if you argue it.”
• “Our tests have shown that there is absolutely no labor savings with a blended panel and that in most cases, it requires additional labor and expertise.”
• “I agree the partial refinish or blend within panel is a farce, just a way to nickel and dime the shops.”
• “The insurance companies are always going to be able to suppress the body shops until we take back our industry.”
The fortunate guy that removed the spark plugs in the photo above was impelled to post the picture of them still intact, MANY others aren't so lucky. This article are for those of you that haven't heard about the problem of broken spark plugs, that break upon removal on some 5.4's. Many unsuspecting shops and truck owners are finding out the hard way, that the spark plugs can break upon removal on some 2004 or newer Ford 5.4 engines. I thought I would mention what we have found to be the best method for removal. First a little history. A couple of years ago, all we had to offer our customers was a Rotunda 303-1203 specialty tool designed by Ford to remove broken spark plugs. The problem (besides the expense of a couple of hundred dollars) was that the tool did nothing about the issue of removing the broken section of porcelain, so that the tool could be used to remove the electrode shield. I would get calls from our customers after they received the Rotunda 303-1203 to ask how to remove the porcelain. At the time the best method seemed to be chipping away at it for half the day until all of the small pieces could be removed with a shop vac. Not a very efficient method. Then Ford introduced a new tool that had "one time use pins" that were loc-tited into the center of the porcelain (where the electrode normally is) and then pulled out. Then and only then, the tool could be used to remove the stuck electrode shield. The Rotunda porcelain remover was so expensive when it was first introduced (around $600) that we refused to sell it!
A Better Solution
Since then Calvan thankfully came out with a couple of copies of those Rotunda specialty tools. We have sold a ton of those, saving our customers a lot of money. Both Calvan tools can be purchased for around $75. The Calvan tools use the same method of removing the porcelain and electrode sleeve as the Rotunda tools do. After-all they are copies of those tools. More recently though, Lisle has developed a tool for around the same cost (around $75) that has quickly became our best seller for removing broken spark plugs. I've used this tool myself and took pictures of it in use. This tool uses a different method than removing the porcelain, instead it pushes the porcelain down further (without the porcelain going into the cylinder) so that the second part of the tool can be used to self tap into the spark plug's electrode shield for removal. I was first hesitant to recommend this tool, but it has had all positive feedback from our customers. including some Ford dealerships that prefer this method over the use of the Rotunda tools.
See pictures of the specialty tool in use.
A shop owner has written to me about the following problem he’s having with Progressive.
He writes that during repairs on a Progressive claim, he asked the original adjuster for de-nib and polish labor prior to repairs. The adjuster responded, “I have to tell you our version. We are told to tell the shops we do not pay for that because your paint booth has the dirt in it.”
The shop owner popped the hood on the vehicle and pointed to debris in the vehicle. He “pointed out pine straw, leafs, dirt and debris in the cowling, inner fender area, hinges, engine area, wheel skirt and around the molds.” The shop owner asked the adjuster to take a picture and then asked for him to send a picture to his supervisor for a “case-by-case consideration.”
The owner received calls from two supervisors. In recorded conversations, he was told that it was his responsibility to clean out the car during the prep process and that Progressive was not going to pay for dirt in the paint to be de-nib and polished. He also was told that if he was ever paid for this work before, it was a mistake and Progressive would not pay for it again.
Here’s the owner’s main concern right now: When he asked for Progressive’s labor overview where his shop was paid to do this work, Progressive refused, saying again it was not a paid-for operation. He then noted what the industry says nib sanding (or de-nib) is defined as. He pointed to section 4-4 of the refinish guidelines of the Audatex Best practices guidelines manual 10/06, where it states that de-nib is “the removal of isolated dirt and dust particles, and polishing the affected area(s). Additional steps or processes that may be required should be considered during estimate preparation.”
Progressive isn’t budging on its stance.
We’re putting in a call to get Progressive’s response to this issue.
I also want to see if any of you are experiencing the same sort of problem with Progressive or another insurer. Do you get paid for this work? Have you had a Progressive adjuster or an adjuster from another insurer take a similar stance on de-nib and polish?
You all already know how important it is for an ECM/PCM (or any other control module, for that matter) to have a good power supply and good grounds. Typically, grounds fail at their point of connection, and testing these ground connections can be made a little easier using this tip.
Pins 4 and 5 of the diagnostic link connector (DLC) share the ground connections with the ECM. Pin 16 shares the key off battery supply the ECM needs to keep KAM alive.
After you've verified that pin 16 is supplying the correct voltage, you can test the integrity of the shared ground points by measuring the voltage drop at pin 4, then pin 5. But first, there has to be current flowing. This path can be loaded in one of two ways...first, you can plug in your scan tool and turn it on. This will allow you to measure the drop by backprobing the two pins from the back of the DLC. However, in some cases, it is too hard to get to the back, so method number two can be used as an alternative.
Make up a test light with leads attached that are the proper fit for the DLC pins. Then plug one into pin 16 (for the power side connection), and the other into pin 4 (for the ground side connection). Use the bulb as your "load" and perform the voltage drop test at the bulb. Last, move the ground attachment to pin 5 to check the chassis ground.
This does not test that section of wiring from the module to the splice point, only the shared portion of the ground path. But since many failures are related to this point, it can shorten diag time by checking the most likely first.
You can also test ECM voltage drop with your scan tool. Many enhanced data formats list PIDs (Parameter Identifers) for CASE GND and BAT VOLT. The first is the voltage drop on the ECM ground as determined by the ECM, and of course, the other is the battery voltage level it sees. Both should be darn near identical to your own measurements.
Hope this tip saves you time, makes you money, and helps you fix that next car faster!
It’s easy to tell when an ABRN article resonates with our readers. All we have to do is look at the number of repairers who take time from their busy day to respond electronically by sending a comment about the article.
We achieved a record-setting response to an article I wrote about a California body shop owner and manager who were arrested in connection with auto insurance fraud. So far we’ve received 35 comments from repairers, and as is always the case, the comments are far more interesting and insightful than the original article.
To summarize the original article, the shop owner and manager were arrested and charged with multiple counts of automobile insurance fraud. Their arrests followed an investigation by Farmers Insurance, which conducted reinspections of 28 repaired vehicles and discovered alleged overbilling on 20 vehicles. The two men were accused of repairing old parts while billing for new parts, and of using inferior parts. The fraud is estimated to have cost Farmers approximately $15,000.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=608921 to read the entire article, and when you do, make sure you scroll to the bottom of the page and read at least some of those 35 comments. If you want to read them all, you’ll have to click through all four pages, but it’s worth the time.
For those who don’t have time to read all these perceptive comments, I’ll summarize a few of them. As can be expected, ABRN readers were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the plight of the accused. Many said that the insurance companies’ unwillingness to fairly compensate repairers push them into making bad choices. While none condoned outright fraud, here are a few of the sentiments expressed:
“Yeah, body shop owners are the corrupt ones. We have to work with insurance labor rates that haven’t kept up with the rate of inflation for the past 45 years. Meanwhile the insurance companies raise our workers comp rates, and shop insurance rates without blinking an eye. Where is the BAR when it comes to protecting the interests of body shop survival?”
“All we have to do is what we write the estimate for. If it says R&R do it or make adjustments on the final bill. Our work has to be guaranteed along with what parts are used. Bottom line is don't be fraudulent. If you’re not happy with an outside estimate, don't do it!”
“This appears as a case where a shop performed repairs in accordance with standard shop practices, but failed to document the repair properly. I assume that the shop wrote up the repair as a Remove and Replace item, but 'cut-in' the repaired section of body panel. This, in itself, is fraudulent because the shop did not Remove and Replace the panel in question. Even though it is appropriate according to standard practices, the insurance company is being defrauded because the repair was not documented to accurately represent the repair as performed.”
“Although I cannot condone any fraudulent act against anyone or any company, I do understand and empathize with the points of view and frustrations expressed here by fellow shop owners. I believe the core problem centers around the tactics used by the insurance companies to keep more of the premium dollars for themselves. Specifically, I mean their policies such as, labor rate caps, caps on paint & materials, the steering of consumers to company authorized repairers who are willing to accept fewer dollars for the required repair. The system is broken, however the in$urance companies spread around a lot of election funds and money talks.”
“Insurance companies withhold proper funding to repair a vehicle, with idiotic ‘thresholds’ and ‘caps.’ How about when the adjustor tells you ‘We don’t pay for that’ but if it’s their buddy shops or their unregulated DRP shops we can all bet the estimates are going to be higher. It’s the way of the investigators to spend 100 times more to investigate the crime then the recovery. In their small minds, they think they did a good job by arresting a shop owner, and they think it would be a warning to other shops that commit those crimes. Why doesn’t the DOI investigate the insurance company? Why, because they have millions of dollars for their pathetic defense, and the shop owner who is dying to keep his shop in business has nothing. It’s easy to pick on the weak.”
Finally, one comment asked why ABRN reported on this incident and not on insurance companies accused of unfair claims settlement practices. In our defense, ABRN proudly considers itself “the voice of the collision repair industry” and regularly reports on accused insurer misconduct related to the industry. We also have written several articles outlining various efforts to investigate insurer misconduct. If you don’t believe me, here are a few links to some of those articles.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=613903 to read Repairers urge federal probes of alleged insurer violations.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=607247 to read Insurers should be accountable for unfairly denying claims, group argues.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=598352 to read CRA seeks formal complaints about insurers.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=595246 to read Connecticut campaign targets insurer antitrust violations.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=594523 to read Maryland fines insurers over total loss taxes, fees.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=592147 to read NYSACTA letter goes to Auto Insurance Fraud Unit.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=585492 to California attorney seeks victims of insurer abuse.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=582822 to read Letter to NY attorney general calls out insurer practices.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=577010 to read NY DOI says some insurers violated state law.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=525927 to read Florida stays Allstate policy-selling suspension.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=517491 to read Florida resumes suspension of Allstate’s right to sell new policies.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=515367 to read Florida appeals court expected to uphold Allstate ban on selling new policies.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=512008 to read SCRS identifies insurer abuses.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=508232 to read Florida insurance commissioner suspends Allstate’s new policy sales.
Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=505729 to read Allstate feeling regulatory heat in Florida.
Few articles have generated as much passionate feedback recently as the lead news story in the April issue of ABRN, “Repair shop owner broadcasts the benefits of waiving deductibles to attract customers.” Click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=591504 to read the article and make sure you scroll down to the end to read the 11 comments posted by readers.
Briefly, the article is about Ed Lowe, owner of Crestview Paint and Body in Crestview, Fla., who uses a variety of methods to promote his willingness to waive $200 of customers’ deductibles (or $250 for members of the U.S. military forces) if they bring their car to his business for repairs.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about the passion, considering how this story came to be. A repairer who competes with Crestview was torqued off after a customer he thought he bagged had his car towed from his shop to Crestview after learning about Lowe’s offer.
He called me to complain about Lowe’s tactics, which he said were illegal, and that we ought to write an article to expose this troublemaker. The caller asked us to protect his identity, which we did and will continue to do. While we try to avoid using unnamed sources in our news articles, we will do it if there is a good reason to protect somebody’s identity. But that’s another story for another day.
A call to Mark Schlein, deputy director of insurance fraud investigations for the Florida Department of Financial Services, revealed that “merely reducing one’s price to compensate for the deductible is not illegal.” While he was not in favor of the practice, he said it was legal.
In fact, almost everybody we talked to in the article — Gary Wano, president of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists; and George Mantzaris, vice president of the Florida Autobody Collision Alliance — spoke against the practice of waiving deductibles. Collision repair industry advocate Erica Eversman, chief counsel for Vehicle Information Services, said insurance companies are “having a fit” about it. “They’re not seeing it as a business development tool,” she said.
ABRN columnist Camille Eber, a body shop owner in Oregon, wrote a column in the April issue of ABRN telling repairers, “Don’t bury deductibles.” http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=591061. But the practice seems to be working for Lowe, who appears to be running a healthy business.
By the way, if Lowe and Crestview Paint and Body sound familiar to you, you may recall them from an article that appeared in the April 2008 issue of ABRN “Progressive sues body shop over trademark spat.” http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=493362 Progressive was suing Lowe, and he was counter suing the insurer, over a sign that invited Progressive customers to use Crestview’s concierge service for their repairs. The dispute was settled out of court under a confidentiality agreement.
I received a phone call recently from a reader who is having problems with Allstate’s policy on refinishing panels. The reader has more than 25 years of experience in the collision repair industry, all in the same southeast U.S. market.
He complained that Allstate is arbitrarily cutting refinish times on panels, often paying one-third or less of what he is entitled to according to the information provider (IP) databases.
“They take refinish times out of the IP databases and use a blend mate, which is a chart developed by Tech-Cor, (a research and development arm of Allstate) to arbitrarily say they will only pay 35 percent of the paint time,” he says. “The theory is that by not extending the base coat over the full panel, they are paying full clear coat time. But clear coat time is based on having the panel ready to paint.”
The majority of the time spent refinishing a panel is on prep work, not painting. More than 50 percent of time is dedicated to making the panel ready to paint.
“They are ignoring everything you have to do to apply the base,” he says. “They are cutting that time by the same percentage, which does not recognize that the biggest part of it is the prep time. Then they cut the entire refinish time by 50 percent.”
The actual spraying time is a very small part of the total refinish time. To do the job right, you have to do the whole panel, he said. But Allstate throws out the labor guide times from the IPs.
“They have no scientific basis for this,” he says. “Repair time requires full refinish time, but they arbitrarily cut the full refinish time.”
Allstate has been doing this for about 1.5 years, but things are worse now than before, he said.
“It used to be that they would back off this policy if you challenged them, but that’s no longer the case,” he says. “Now they are less willing to pay the full refinish time. In some cases they arbitrarily offer 1.3 hours instead of the four hours called for in the IPs. In the past five years, this has deteriorated to where it’s difficult to do business with them. Progressive used to do this, but they backed off it. Now our big problem is with Allstate.”
Although he is not a member of Allstate’s direct repair program, he said he thinks that this policy affects both DRP and non-DRP shops. He asked me to keep his identity confidential and also to ask other repairers if they are experiencing this same issue with Allstate. And if they are, how are you dealing with it? Are you being paid fairly for your refinishing work with Allstate? How do you handle this situation in your market?
I recently took in an 03 Ford F-150 that was hit in the rear. The damage was severe enough that it requires a new bedside, tailgate, bumper assy., roll pan. etc. The problem that I am having is that there is a dent at the front of the bed that most people would not even notice. Because of the dent, insurance is deducting 10 hrs. for prior damage, half of refinish for betterment, even taking off betterment on edge time. There is also a 2.0 hr. dent on the opposite end of the tailgate that the adjuster has taken another 4.0 hours off, plus 50% betterment. The total being subtracted is approximately $2600.00. Now this has custom paint, all of which is in very good condition. The insurance company (American Family) that is pulling this nonsense is the ins. of the person that hit him. The adjuster went as far as taking 50% off the 60.00 bed cap, saying that if he would have fixed the dent in the front he would have had to take it off before. Now this seems idiotic to me and way out of line. How can they legally do this to this customer when it was the fault of the person that hit him? Can anyone please give me some advice on how to deal with this idiot and his unethical practices?
This is my first post ever on any of the industries websites, but it is TIME to make a stand. A couple of years ago, we were on Progressive's DRP program. The first six months (honeymoon period) seemed like it would really work out. Then came the push, from up the ladder, to cut here and then there. It started with finding more and more used or A/M parts from wherever. We might have a list of six different suppliers on an estimate. I don't know about the rest of you, but I try to establish my business with people that are close by and can service my needs more readily. Then there was the "Blend within panel" which we are discussing now. The end came with them wanting to as they said "Burn the clear in" on a black Buick Regal quarter sail panel which was 8 inches wide. I supplied literature from 5 major paint companies and the GM Warranty manual which stated that basically this was an unwarrantable repair that will fail. Progressive's "young" brain washed supervisor stated (with my secretary listening and witnessing) that they would not pay for clearing to the nearest breaking point (roof rail & windshield pillar). When I told him they were in breach of contract to return vehicle to "Pre-accident" condition & should be turned in to the Kansas Insurance Commision, he said, and I quote "Do you think the State of Kansas can do anything to us ?". He was right, the State of Kansas did not, but, through 5 years of bottom ratings Progressive has started to turn around on some issues. Mind you, I said "started". Now here we are with other companies (IE Allstate, Farmers, Nationwide & etc...) picking up on another way to shortcut us. I come from a painter background, and can tell you, matter of factly, that it takes longer to blend a panel than to refinish it completely. I challenge any insurance adjustor to put his or her work clothes on with me, come to my shop, and do some prepping and painting. We ran into this with Allstate recently and took care of it in a way that worked well for us. I spent a few minutes composing a simple "Financial Responsibility" form which I had the customer sign after explaining to them why. It basically works just like any health care financial form would. How many times have you or a family member been to the doctor or hospital and then been billed for the portion your health insurance did not pay ?? Same thing here. When I called the Allstate adjustor, he started that song & dance routine, but when I read this form off and told him it was developed that day due to their new practice, he immediately started back peddling. Everything I asked for was in the mail the next day. I use that form often now and have not had one negative word from a customer. They sign these frequently for health care and are used to it. Most auto insurance companies do not want that negative of the customer having to come out of pocket for more than a deductible or betterment. If we don't hold our ground, this will take hold just like the 50% for color match blending panels, the multiple discounts on glass and etc... PLEASE, stand up for a fair profit on this and also the paint & materials caps/thresholds. For those who won't, there is no saving you. You will think these companies are your buddies and will filter all kinds of work volume to you (like Progressive did for us) when in reality, you are digging yourselves a deeper hole. There, I vented a little and feel better for it !!!
I took my car to this one shop near my home one time right after we moved. It sent me a coupon for a free oil change, so I thought I’d check it out.
The people who worked in the two-tech, two-bay shop were incredibly nice. The wife of the owner was the service advisor, and her cluttered desk (with no computer for parts lookup or ordering) was three feet from the “waiting area.” I use that term loosely because it really was just three chairs against the large window overlooking the parking lot that hadn’t been paved in probably 15 years.
The service at this place was great, and the people working there were wonderful. They took the time to explain things, walked me through everything they were going to do, made suggestions and just had some of the best customer service ever. But the looks of their shop left a lot to be desired.
However, some of the photos I’ve looked at the last several days have blown this shop out of the water. I’ve been uploading photos into our Best Practices gallery. If you haven’t checked it out, I highly recommend it. I mean Geneva Foreign & Sport’s waiting area is nicer than my living room.
At Motor Age, we see some of the best shops around the country. (We also hear horror stories of how some people run their businesses, but that’s another story.) When we decided to find the best of the best shops, I knew we’d have a great turnout.
And we have so far. But we want more. Take a look at the Best Practices photo gallery on our Web site, and I know you’ll see some pictures you like. You might even get some ideas about how to improve business at your shop based on what you see in these photos.
And, of course, I want to see your pictures, too. Surely there is something at your shop that stands out from the rest. Why wait? Send in the photos and we’ll get them up for the rest of your peers to see (and oohh and ahh over). The form takes less than a minute to fill out, and then you just have to upload a few photos to an e-mail and send them off to us!
We’re looking for the best exteriors, interiors, logos, restrooms, bays, signage and waiting areas. If you can beat three lone chairs next to a rickety desk and a parking lot with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, I think you’re in good shape.
Click on any of the links or check out www.motorage.com/BestPractices for the photo galleries and form to submit photos of your shop.
I was reading today in the current issue of the MACS (Mobile Air Conditioning Society) publication, ACtion, about a recent "sting" conducted in California. Perhaps "sting" isn't the right word...I guess it depends on what side of the operation you were standing.
Anyway, a vehicle A/C system was "bugged". Simple bugs though, one of two scenarios. In one, the system was entirely empty of refrigerant and in the second, the system was severely undercharged. Over 40 shops were presented with the car, and the results were rather disappointing. Here are a few of the actions caught by the testers:
*Techs vented refrigerant to the atmosphere by physically depressing the test port Schrader valves.
*Techs diagnosed the system as needing major repair
*Techs recharged the system with gauges and a source tank only...no scale was used.
*Techs recharged the system without proper evacuation before hand, and without vacuuming the system down. This occurred even when the techs had access to an R/R/R machine.
*Techs "topped off" the system with small, DIYer type containers of refrigerant.
Recently, there was a discussion of how tough some of us have it as "professional" technicians...not being paid what we're worth or treated with the respect we deserve for the time and money we've invested. I won't disagree with that, but how are we viewed by the consumer? And with cases like these, how can we blame the consumer for their opinion of us?
Hey, before you all start blasting, I'll be the first to say there are a lot more "good guys" out there than there are "bad guys". The problem is it only takes a few of them to effect the rest of us. How do we get rid of that impact?
Others in the industry have suggested professional licensing as the answer, much like other professional craftsmen have to be licensed. Personally, I think that's a good idea. In my little corner of the world, anyone who owns a few hand tools can call himself a mechanic. But should that licensing be implemented by those in the industry or by the government? A few locales here in Florida already require licensing of the shop, but as I understand it those working there do not have to meet any specific requirements to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Now add in the complexity of the modern automobile. What are the safety implications of allowing those not qualified to do so, work on these high tech vehicles? Of course, the shop involved in such a scene would likely go under defending the lawsuit to follow. But the damage to OUR reputations is just as significant, isn't it?
If we want to change the consumer's view of us as a profession, I think we need to police our profession. Several prominent industry members have voiced similar opinions...even tried to start such a program on their own...and have not exactly gotten a lot of support for their trouble. If that is the attitude that we, as a profession, continue to maintain, then we individually will have no right to complain.
What do you think?
"My brakes are squealing..."
Common complaint, but not one any shop wants to hear AFTER they just completed a brake job. Any time a customer has to return after a repair to have an issue addressed, whether related to the repair or not, is a mark against your shop. Customers don't know how their car operates, and don't understand...all they know is they had to return and they really didn't want to. Anyway, I digress...back to the topic at hand.
I've found a few ways to minimize brake noise when performing brake service, and we'll focus on disc brake systems today. First, I like to use a pad that is consistent with the OE formulation. This is a personal thing, but certainly using a semi-metallic pad in place of a ceramic will add to the possibility of noise. I've even had a few cars that had to have the OEM pads to stay quiet, and I prefer OEM pads for any high end car I work on.
Second, I like to get a good, clean finish on the rotors. I use my die grinder with a brown ScotchBrite pad, running at a medium speed and applied to the turning rotor with light to moderate pressure. This is, of course, after refinishing the rotor, and helps to knock down the surface irregularities left during the machining process. Even better is the use of a sanding block and some 200-400 grit paper held to each side of the rotor for about a minute. Then it is cleaned in a bath of hot, soapy water.
I reinstall the rotor, and use an oversized nut over the stud, then the lug nut over the stud, to hold the rotor in place. Don't touch the surface or get the surface greasy...that's a sure way to cause noise complaints. I make sure before hand that the rotor to hub mating surfaces are clean and free of rust to avoid adding in any lateral runout. Then I take care of the calipers. I like to use new hardware for the pad mounts...loose pads rattle and squeal. I clean the caliper pistons and boots before compressing the pistons back into the bores, and apply a light coat of high temperature silicone to the piston/pad contact points, and the caliper/pad contact points.
Some pads come with an adhesive backing...don't apply lube to these, or you'll defeat the purpose. Do be sure the contacts are clean, so the adhesive will stick.
I torque down the caliper mount, and the caliper. The wheel assembly is also torqued to avoid causing any rotor warpage. Even a small amount will lead to premature rotor wear and pedal pulsation...and noise.
Noise is usually caused by the pads vibrating in their mounts, or by contaminated linings. Take a few extra steps during the reline, to avoid having to do it again as a comeback.
One topic that seems to come up quite a bit is "How do we charge for diag time?"
This includes any sort of diagnosis that is going to take more than a simple visual inspection. Some drivability and electrical issues can become quite involved, and take a lot of time to isolate...especially if it's your first time on that particular problem or vehicle. After all, you have a lot more homework to do. Then there are the tools you need to diagnose these problems, none of which are cheap.
Experience certainly plays a role as well. An experienced tech should be able to find the problem faster. But then, do you charge less time to the customer? A new tech may spend all day finding what turns out to be a simple fault. Do you charge the customer 8 hours? In each case, how do you pay your tech? Should the experienced guy get paid less time than the new guy? Should the new guy be penalized for being new?
My shop, and most of the ones I've worked for in the past, charged 1 hour at the shop rate, and paid 1 hour flat rate. How does that apply when the original complaint is "The MIL light is on", and you pull half a dozen codes that may or may not be related. What if, during your diagnostic process, you determine that it is necessary to measure engine compression on a motor that requires plenum removal to access the rear bank? How do we justify the need for additional time to the customer? It seems to me that too many customers still think of us as "grease monkeys" and don't understand the skills it takes to repair today's cars. They have no problem spending $20K or more to buy it, but heaven forbid the repair costs more than $50!
One story I heard a long time ago is applicable to this discussion. It goes something like this:
A young man is driving across the desert when his car starts running rough. There is no sign of civilization as he continues down the highway, praying the car will make it to his destination and not leave him stranded in the middle of nowhere. Several miles along, the car is still running rough, and the young man is getting worried that he may be stuck in the middle of the desert over night. As he crests a small ridge, he sees an old shack with two gas pumps out front on the side of the highway. Thanking God for his good fortune, he prays there is a mechanic there.
He pulls up to the shack and sees an older man, rocking in his rocker and sipping lemonade. The young man gets out of the car, and says, "Excuse me, sir...is there someone here who can help me with my car?"
The old man rises, and offers to take a look. He first listens to the engine idling, then opens the hood...looking first to the left then to the right. "I'll be right back", he says, and heads off to his garage. He returns momentarily with a small hammer in hand, leans over the engine and makes a light "tap" somewhere near the firewall.
The engine immediately runs as smooth as silk.
The young man is ecstatic that the repair was so simple. He asks the older man, "How much do I owe you?"
Without batting an eye, the old man responds, "That'll be $89.99."
"WHAT!", exclaims the young man. "90 bucks for hitting it with a hammer!?"
"No son, it's 99 cents for the hammer tap...and $89 for knowing WHERE to tap it."
I earn my living with my mind and my hands. I am a trained professional like any other. So what is the answer? How do you handle this in your shop? How do we get paid fairly for what we know, for our experience, and justify it to our customers?
I look forward to your opinions...
One of our readers recently contacted me regarding a plan he’s turning over in his mind to help take back some of his customers who are being steered into a large nearby DRP shop. His business has a number of repeat customers, but even those folks are being lost to the nearby shop.
His plan: He’s considering offering customers a 10 percent rebate off of labor costs from the insurer’s estimate.
I’d like some input from the rest of you. Cutting revenues as a way to gain business is a risky move. At the same time, that’s exactly what shops agree to do when they become part of a DRP.
This owner is fighting fire with fire. He wants to take the same steps to get lost business back into his shop.
Do you agree with his plan? Is there some advice or other action you’d recommend?
I’ll be forwarding your input to this owner.
The folks at Finish Line Collision and Customs in Redding, Calif. made my day on Wednesday when they sent over this photo of an effort they’re undertaking to combat insurer steering.
Check out this photo.
What I like about this is that they’re taking their message to the consumer, something more shops should do. And they’re doing so in a memorable way that’s sure to stick in the minds of motorists who drive by the shop and customers stopping in for service.
We really need to get more shops to sign on to consumer education efforts like this. Are any of you doing something similar to combat steering? Are you making anti-steering education a part of your interaction with customers?
A tech in our shop was recently working on a 2006 Honda Accord V-6 that was making a strange noise while running...
Diagnosing noises is one area I personally dislike. Noises can travel, occur only under certain conditions, and can be a pain to isolate. However, with experience, finding these noises can become easier. There are some routine failures that all result in a similar noise. Valve train noise, for instance, is different from a rod noise. Accessory bearing noises sound different than vacuum leaks do. CV axles make a sound of their own, and they are not the same as a failed wheel bearing.
The problem for younger techs is gaining the experience.
Anyway, taking a long way around to the heart of this blog, the tech had never heard this particular sound before. Being the thorough guy that he is, he checked for TSBs and found one: Honda TSB 08-045, "Chirp From the Timing Belt Area". The TSB details the fault, and includes something I've never seen before...an attached media file that shows the affected part AND the sound that it makes!
http://www.identifix.com/tsbfiles/086000/085415.pdf
I'm attaching the link to this blog, hoping it will work for you. If it does, scroll down the first page of the TSB and notice the picture on the bottom right. Click on it, and it should open the media file for you. If not, you'll have to see it online through Identifix or directly at the Honda service site. The Honda service site is:
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
I don't know if this is the only TSB Honda has included this feature on, or if it is something they are routinely adding. Either way, thanks Honda! It does make life easier.
We’re into March now, so ABRN’s new monthly issue focus will move from airbag repair/fraud to totals. We’ve all known for some time about the rising tide of total losses. Let’s look at the current statistics.
Between 2000 and 2005, by most estimates the percentage of total loss vehicles doubled, and nearly a fifth (or more, depending on who you ask) of all cars involved in a claim are now declared total losses. In fact, the actual number of total losses is probably north of 20 percent if you include obvious totals, ones where an estimate was never generated. Following that line of thinking, I believe there are thousands more that we’ve yet to count. Those include vehicles with no insurance coverage whose owners can’t afford to repair them and must sell them to salvage yards. Let’s throw in cases where the owner is insured but chooses to keep the money for the repair and scrap the vehicle because (1) the owner can’t cover the deductible or (2) the owner simply needs the money more.
Suddenly, we’re not talking about one out of five damaged vehicles being totaled. It’s one out of four. That’s one quarter of your potential work being sent to the bone yard.
It also means every vehicle owner who gets in a crash faces a one in four chance of never seeing his or her vehicle again. Think about that.
Those are the kinds of numbers consumers need to see. Let’s throw in the fact that the payoff check the insurer writes in many cases doesn’t cover the amount owed on the vehicle. Quite often, even if the vehicle can be paid off, there’s little extra left for the owner to go out and place a down payment on something similar. Often, if the vehicle is paid off, the payout is so little the owner simply can’t afford to replace the vehicle. Yes folks, there’s a one in four chance a collision will bring down a financial nightmare on you.
There’s a silver lining here for all of us.
This issue represents a perfect place for consumers, consumer rights organizations and advocates, and shops to meet. If we’re ever to take back our industry from insurers, we’re going to need allies, powerful allies like consumers. That one in four chance of consumers never again seeing the vehicles they worked so hard to purchase (while plunking down some significant change for insurance coverage) is an opportunity for us to build a bond with such allies.
For more total loss coverage go to
(Just click on the link.)
Join our message board discussion at: http://workshop.search-autoparts.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=31710&w=223723&d=178989
Sometimes I feel like more of an IT guy than a technician. In the recent edition of the MACS publication, ACtion, I learned about a new HVAC sensor developed for Lexus...an exhaust gas sensor! The idea is to monitor exhaust gasses getting into the cabin when the car is stuck in traffic. If gasses are detected exceeding the programmed limit, the HVAC system automatically switches to RECIRC and all the windows roll up.
That's certainly not the only new bit of electronics heading our way. More and more, entertainment systems once used only at home are making their way into the car...TV, iPods, text messaging and Internet browsing. Engine management may soon see the common use of combustion efficiency sensors placed directly in the cylinders providing the feedback to the ECM for improved emissions control. Here are a few links for your enjoyment to the SAE publication, Automotive Engineering International, and a few of their recent articles relating to the future of automotive electronics...
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/6047
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/5930
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/5787
One of our writers, Brian Albright, turned up some interesting data about the relationship between salvage values and rising totals numbers in his article “Declining cash values fuel total loss increase” (click on http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Declining-cash-values-fuel-total-loss-increase/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/587352?contextCategoryId=498). In particular (for me, anyhow) were these two bits from the article:
If the cost of the repair, along with the cost of rentals, towing, and storage, exceed the market value of the vehicle net salvage proceeds, the vehicle will be totaled.
Bob Skrip, owner of Skrip's Auto Body in Prospect, Ct., says that he has seen insurers put more emphasis on salvage prices when considering total loss calculations. "If they see something with a high salvage value, I've seen some insurance companies total a car at 60 percent," Skrip says.
Wait a second. So, whether or not I ever see my collision-damaged vehicle again will be based in large part on its value to salvage yards? The greater the value of a particular make and model is to the salvage industry, the greater the chance I’ll never see that particular car again?
That’s just ridiculous. It’s also presumptive and, dare I say it, more than a bit arrogant.
When insurers use a formula like that, they’re basically taking ownership of the vehicle the moment it’s damaged. That means the vehicle has become a commodity for the insurer. It ends up being treated much like an investment they’re trying to get a return on.
Forget the fact that I made the payments, and I paid for the insurance (so if there’s any investment here it’s all on my part). Getting me back on the road has taken a back seat (a seat way in the back) to spending as little as possible on a repair. There’s no surprise there. The real revelation is that the very notion of repairing, along with customer service, is thrown out the window once the promise of a good sale at a salvage auction is made possible.
Not long ago, I heard someone in the industry say total losses were a bad deal for insurers because they were making their single greatest payout on a claim and were essentially forcing their customers to part with their vehicles. Now, total losses are starting to look like one of the best deals going.
For more of our coverage on total losses, go to http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Total-Losses/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/585701?contextCategoryId=47028. (Just click on the link.)
Sometimes the source of a misfire can be hard to pinpoint. In diagnosing these cases, the more you know about how a given system is supposed to operate, the better able you will be in determining what is wrong with the one you are troubleshooting. Once in a while, it is a small defect in an individual component causing all the trouble.
Spark plugs are such a component. In the old days, techs used to "read" spark plugs by looking at the color and condition of the porcelain and ground electrode. The porcelain surronding the center electrode, ideally, would be a light tan to chocolate tan color. Today's systems, though, run right at the ragged edge of lean, and a slight tan to no discolorization is more normal. Greasy, black deposits told us that too much oil was present in the combustion chamber, either from worn valve guides or piston rings, while dry, sooty black deposits told of a too rich fuel mixture. While reading spark plugs may becoming a lost art, it is still one of the first steps I take in my visual inspection. Look for anomalies among the plugs that may indicate a problem cylinder.
Even if the spark plugs pass their visual inspection...heck, even fresh out of the box...they may still be at the heart of a weak ignition system. Spark plugs have resistors built in, incorporated in the center electrode. This is a resistance you can check, and I've had more than one elusive misfire caused by a failed plug resistor. Use your DMM set to kiloohms range, and make sure you are physically not in contact with your test leads when taking this measurement. On precious metal plugs, it takes a little patience to actually get your meter probe to contact the center electrode.
HEY! Check out the comments section...more good stuff there!
