Reader Feedback

Great magazine! I was reading “Bring it on” by Craig Schumacher and had to wonder: If an eight year old car retailed new at $50,000, today that same car, depending on the make, model and condition, would retail between $8,000 and $13,000.

While every thing has a price point, I believe there won’t be many buyers for such a used vehicle. Most cars are being turned over every three-to-five years. This seems to be the “Get rid of it before I have to make a commitment with a service provider.” I feel most consumers will opt for cars and ownership options that offer the fuzzy warmth of knowing they won’t own the vehicle in the long-term. Certainly, there will always be a need for diagnostic service, but not in great numbers. There seems to be no pride in ownership of a vehicle anymore, only pity for the poor guy who has to drive an older car instead of a brand-new vehicle. After 36 years in this industry, I hardly feel there is a bright future in the service industry unless more people own older cars.

Uwe Luetkemeier

Weltmeister Autowerk

Toronto, Ont.

Hi Jim,

I need your help in highlighting the plight of the lowly Drive Clean Facility. Most garage owners entered Drive Clean based on information that back in 1999 made for a good business case. Circumstances have changed. For various reasons, the cost of testing has climbed dramatically while the revenue has decreased. Yet, we are bound by a $35 test-fee cap that the government is refusing to change.

Our fixed costs such as utility bills, insurance premiums, payroll expenses and equipment repairs have increased while the number of tests has been cut by changes to the program. The recent exemption of newer cars from Drive Clean testing has resulted in an 18 per cent drop in test volume for our garage while other facilities report even higher reductions. As a member of the Drive Clean Focus group, we have tried to plead our case to the Ministry but so far nothing has changed. The argument by the Drive Clean Office that Drive Clean generates repair work does not compensate us for the above losses as the current fail rate is below 10 per cent. To put things into perspective, fail rate predicted by the government back in 1998 and proved correct at the time, was 20 to 25 per cent. However, with older cars being scrapped and newer vehicles being more reliable, the fail rate and the resultant repair revenue have steadily shrunk.

As our test equipment ages, the cost of maintaining and repairing it is higher than ever and expected to climb further. The current situation leads to low morale among the Drive Clean Facilities as well as a sense of frustration and a negative attitude towards the program and its administrators.

We are the government’s private-sector partner in this venture, providing testing and the necessary repairs that benefit our environment, please don’t ignore us.

If only our industry had a strong, unified voice.

Eli Melnick P.Eng

Start Auto Electric Ltd

Toronto, Ont.

Dear Jim,

I read with the utmost dismay Mike Citrigano’s letter and your response regarding the Drive Clean program.

Mike asks, “Why should we have to pay when we didn’t break any laws?”

Since when did breaking a law have anything to do with having to pay a fee, a tax, or a levy? I haven’t broken any laws, yet I have to pay taxes. I also have to pay environmental levies when I purchase many home improvement products such as paint. Do shops not charge customers an environmental levy for disposing of their oil filters? Is Mike suggesting law-abiding citizens should be exempt from these fees and taxes? Emissions testing must be a user pay system, as you need to test an urban area’s entire fleet to identify the vehicles that are emitting well beyond their design limits.

As for installing a sensor in the exhaust system that will prevent a vehicle from starting, are you suggesting each car be installed with a gas bench?

If you are taking about a simple sensor type technology, which gas or gases are you targeting?

Now what happens if a vehicle fails to start because of this “system” and there is a medical emergency? Perhaps a woman is going into labour, or a child has been seriously injured and now the car’s ignition has been disabled because the on-board system deems it to have high emissions. What if the vehicle didn’t have high emissions but the system itself malfunctioned? Who will we blame, who will be liable? This concept is preposterous to say the least.

Jim, you state that EVAP systems have become so sophisticated “because they are expected to cope with conditions like the displaced fuel vapours from the rising liquid fuel level during refuelling”. EVAP systems have become increasingly complexed because they have been mandated to detect leaks larger than .020″ to .040″ in the EVAP system, and to monitor if vapours are actually being purged. Vapour recovery at the pumps is an entirely different issue.

Demonstrating regular maintenance certainly does not guarantee a vehicle is operating cleanly. When was the last time a maintenance schedule asked for functional testing of a catalytic converter? As many techs have come to learn, a functioning EGR does not ensure a vehicle will have low NOx emissions. There are many conditions that drive emission levels to a point were they would fail an I/M inspection that may not be detected during regular scheduled maintenance.

Showing the service log signed by a licensed tech would never be effective at achieving the emission reduction goals of any I/M program. Who is going to monitor this system and ensure fraudulent completion of said service logs does not become commonplace? Mike says the system Ontario has in place creates opportunities for dishonesty. How would showing a completed logbook reduce the likelihood of unscrupulous individuals acting in this manner?

Jim, how do you know that Drive Clean is ineffective? What statistics are you using to make this comment or is this just an opinion?

As for the poor garage owners, were they forced to purchase this equipment? If we play devil’s advocate for a minute, perhaps too many shops envisioned this as a chance to grab some easy money.

Brad Coupland

Technician

Vancouver B.C.

Don McLaughlin of Goodturn Ride Centres in Hamilton wrote SSGM to note an excellent youth training program in his area:

Hi Jim:

In response to Richard Bellafante article on Techs of Tomorrow, the one comment that was very surprising was the one made about no clear pathway for the kids to go from being students to Techs. Well in the Hamilton area, the school boards here have some excellent programs in place OYAP, CO-OP. We in this city recognized the shortage and have put in place the Skilled Trades Alliance to work with employers, educators and industry to be sure that the city would always have a reserve of skilled trades people for industry. Between us we have registered approx 350 apprentices since 2001. With these programs it gives the employer an excellent opportunity to give a young person the chance that he/she requires to see if there is a fit for them in a field that they have chosen also as an employer we have the opportunity to see if the young person is cut out for the profession, As a teacher Mr. Bellafante should see what programs are in his area and encourage his students to participate in these programs. As an employer and AST, it is a pleasure to work and speak to the kids today about the skilled trades and the future in skilled trades we all must remember that apprenticeship is an opportunity to earn while you learn.

Donald F McLaughlin

President

Goodturn Ride Centres

Hamilton, Ontario

Jim Anderton replies: Don, it sounds like a great program, but they’re too few and far between. Richard’s challenge is to set one up in a city (Toronto) that’s dismantling auto trades education everywhere. In T.O., it seems, everyone is training to be a bank manager or a software developer. It’s crazy.