Looking for help/advice on truck ...

[Rawze]

(05-20-2022 )RollinCoal Wrote:  Rawze,
I have people ask me if I was stupid because if I diag a truck and do the repair and IF it doesnt fix the problem at hand I will not charge for the labor I screwed up and got it wrong thats my fault,
So I tend to take a little extra time and get that shi#t right the first time lol

My opinion:

- A repair shops education session due to lack of knowledge on a repair should not cost the vehicle owner expensive parts replacements, nor unreasonable labour charges based upon guessing or incorrectly formed decisions. There are times however when replacing something makes sense though too. even if something is only suspect... and not confirmed.

Here is a good example of this (just arbitrary examples to convey a point, nothing more )...

Lets say that ... Everyone suspects a bad ecm on the truck, all other options have been exhausted, etc. and there is no real way to confirm it as the culprit for some reason or another. The only way to find out at this point is to replace it at a cost of $2,000+ dollars + labour that also includes the time/costs of flashing the new ecm, etc.

The shop also has no replacements or any other ways of using a "test" component, etc.. in this scenario .. just for arguments sake.

And lets say for now.. that it did not fix the problem at all. Now there is the $2,000 bucks for the part alone and all the time/effort, labour, and maybe even some costs associated with flashing it, etc. too. The dealers$ip where the ecm was purchased will not take it back either, because they have a no-return policy on electronic parts once installed.

Would this be a waste of time and money for the customer? .. Some would say yes ... especially if it did not fix the problem.

HOWEVER ... In all actuality .. this has no clear answer on its own. This is because not all of the secondary factors have been considered yet. Assuming for a moment that replacing the ecm DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM ... Lets consider a scenario where it would totally have wasted the customers money.. and a different scenario where did NOT waste their money, even though it did not fix anything.

One of the major secondary factors to consider, especially with complex electronic components is age. It is quite well known that even the most robust vehicle electronic devices are only expected to have a lifespan of 8 years, as part of their design. Most of the time, an ECM will last several years past this, depends on conditions, but it can only "technically" be expected to last 8 years or so in reality. It is not the vehicle/ecm manufacturers choice but a limitation on the individual semiconductors component lifespan vs. heat cycling, higher temperature environments, etc. -- 8 years on electronic components in indeed an industry expectation standard, even if the thing is built with military-grade, high quality spec components.

Given this new information now, it becomes clear that if the ecm is repalced "on suspicion alone" and it is still a fairly new one (less than say 5 or 6 years old) ... it absolutely would be a waste of someone's money to do so. -- so BEFORE this happens.. some form of negotiation or standardized shop policy should be in place between the customer and the shop.. maybe something like a significantly reduced price, or better yet, re-installing the old component with a reduced labor cost of trying, or some other way of not penalizing the customer unnecessarily for a false assumption would be the proper thing to do.

HOWEVER... If that ecm was say, 7, or 8+,.. or even 10+ years old.. even if replacing it did not fix the problem.. the customer should have been made aware up front that the new one should NOT be removed if it did not solve the issue at hand.. because it is not a bad investment to replace it on suspicions no matter what the outcome was at that point. Its replacement will indeed extend the engines (electronic) operating life, and yes it is an expensive guess,.. but none of the moneys or time is wasted. There is still a significant gain by trying it.. regardless if it fixed it or not. At this point, if the customer wants it removed.. then they can pay for all of the associated install costs + any extra labor costs, etc. to have it removed + whatever re-stock fees that the shop must eat due to not being able to return it. This is not unfair, as the customer is the one to suffer this bad decision and fate of re-using a dated component that in all likeliness could fail at any moment in the future. A repair shops should not suffer costs due to some other poor fools bad choices.

The only real issue is getting the customer to agree to whatever the case is. .. and to ensure that everyone is happy with the result, even if the result is to no avail. This can easily be done by having a proper, standardized electronic replacement policy (or other similar components that would fall into this type of category) in place for the shop, that covers both scenarios that is up front and standardized. That way there are no surprises or arguments .. BEFORE the work is performed, and if the customer does not agree up front, then they can always seek another solution or another repair shop.

An example of a good up-front shop policy would be something as such .. in the case of an electronic component replacement that did not contribute greatly towards fixing an issue ...

-- If the part is still less than 76% in its expected lifespan in age/wear, then the shop shares/eats a significant portion of the costs in some, or removed the part again all together for a reduced labor rate (and perhaps only a reduced re-stock fee if needed) for trying it out. After all... yeah the shop maybe ate the cost of the ecm in this case, but they now have one on their shelves to try/use on another truck in the future, gaining them some financial ground against their wasted efforts.

If the part is beyond 76% (another industry standard percentage for these types of decisions) of its lifespan.. then it remains and the customer needs to pay for its replacement + whatever fees, etc.. because the custom is the one going to benefit from it the most.. even if it did not fix the immediate problem.

-- That would be a good shop policy.. and one that a customer could be made aware of up front before all the guessing and arguing takes place on a $2,000+labour component that.. in this example scenario... did not ultimately fix the initial issue.

-- Those are my thoughts on it.. and yes, I have seen these kinds of policies in the industrial world with regards to repair facilities, .. but rarely are any truck repair shops up to these standards.. and hence the arguing and grief begins.