Car repair shops often can't crack diagnostic code

CNN ^ | 6-24-02

[mikenola]

ARLINGTON, Virginia (AP) -- At least a couple of times a week, mechanic Ernie Pride tells customers at his independent repair shop he can't fix their cars because he doesn't know what's wrong with them. Go to the dealer, he advises.

[Lazamataz]

This is a defacto monopoly.

[tahiti]

"Also, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing a plan to require that automakers publish online all the codes related to emission repairs.

Cars built since the 1996 model year must have computer-controlled emission systems to meet clean air laws.

"Most vehicles out of warranty are serviced by independent repair shops," EPA spokesman David Ryan. "And the sooner these shops catch emission problems, the better it is for the environment."

Amendment V:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If for whatever reason, any government wants access to the private property of manufacturer error codes, to distribute to non-owners of those codes, for the "public use" of lower repair fees or emission enforcement, all of those property owners have to be compensated.

Others may argue that Congress has the power and jurisdiction to "regulate commerce," and thus have access to those codes.

Regulating commerce still has to conform to the Bill of Rights.

[Bonaparte]

...which is why I continue to drive my old, owner-serviceable American car. Now way will I do business with a dealership.

Wake up, Honda!

[nothingnew]

I'm looking to replace my 1980 Datsun 4/WD pickup....trying to find a 1981.

FMCDH

[Bonaparte]

Now = no.

[RightWhale]

Since when are these computer codes supposed to be secret? They should be printed in the owner's manual.

[B Knotts]

I want a Linux-based car! :-)

[meyer]

If for whatever reason, any government wants access to the private property of manufacturer error codes, to distribute to non-owners of those codes, for the "public use" of lower repair fees or emission enforcement, all of those property owners have to be compensated.

Others may argue that Congress has the power and jurisdiction to "regulate commerce," and thus have access to those codes.

Regulating commerce still has to conform to the Bill of Rights.

Conversely, I own a car. I have the right to work on it, diagnose it, and have any shop I want repair it or do it myself. There is no need to encode the emissions repair information in the first place unless you want to monopolize the repair business. Troubles ought to be reported in plain English.

I bought the car, not a service contract.

[Bonaparte]

"They should be printed in the owner's manual."

Exactly right, RW. I once made the mistake of having my oil changed at one of those speedy franchised places. They way over-tightened the oil filter, stripping the threads. This meant that it was no longer owner-serviceable, which was grounds for forcing them to do the job again. Similarly, keeping necessary service data secret makes the newer cars non-owner-serviceable, ie. the consumer is made the helpless captive of the dealerships, whose only reason for being is to burn the consumer. I refuse to buy any car that forces me to give up my right to choose who will repair it.

[meyer]

That may be acceptable if there were verbage in the sales contract that stated that any service on the car must be done by an authorized dealer. This is a de facto, non-negotiated service contract. If it isn't in writing, the manufacturer has no case.

[Centurion2000]

Looks like the auto makers have taken a page from Microsoft regarding error codes and propietary information on how to fix the thing.

Before any MS-supporters flame me ask yourself how many times you've called into tech support to find out the that the tech has an "internal" Q article that he cant send you.

[machman]

The real question is, who owns the codes? When you buy the car, shouldn't you have ownership of everything that is in it? Or are you only leasing the car in the way Microsoft says you only lease its software???

It sure seems that the auto companies believe that this information belongs to them, not the customer.

[LibWhacker]

Oh, for the simplicity of a '56 Chevy. Congress mandated all these complications and now they're screaming about the unintended consequences. Damned fools.

[meyer]

What the heck is an Ebel watch? And why would I want a watch repaired? Just buy another one. They're disposable.

[Gumption]

Automakers refuse to make much of it available to independent shops that compete with higher-priced dealerships.

Why doesn't the article name the "automakers" that refuse to provide their customers the option of saving many thousands of dollars in repair costs over the lifetime of the vehicle they purchased from said "automakers"?

I agree with Laz's monopoly comment, but I don't think it's a problem best addressed by the Fed Government, as the article suggests. Lets find out who these "automakers" are, then let us decide which vehicles we wish to purchase.

P.S. Couldn't someone working for the manufacturer or the dealerships, with access to the codes, secretly sell those codes to private shops around town for a pretty healthy profit for himself (herself)?

[Still Thinking]

If the public does not like the repair prices, or being limited in their repair vendor pool they are free to purchase a car that does not include the sophistication only accessible to the dealer. As a result, some dealers (manufacturers) will lose market share and require a change in their onboard car computer and diagnostic capabilities. Or, they will just have to release the information in a wholesale format.

Can you name such a vehicle or manufacturer? If not, your solution seems a little theoretical.