Burned again by the APA

By now, everyone has had time to digest the full impact of the recent Automobile Protection Association/CTV W5 story concerning overcharging in the auto service industry. For those of you who missed it, the APA sabotaged a Chrysler minivan by loosening a battery terminal (new battery already fitted) and posed as a consumer complaining about an intermittent no-start condition. The results ranged from a no-charge repair from a sharp-eyed tech at an Alberta Fountain Tire location to some truly horrendous invoices from majors like Canadian Tire. As it always does, the horror stories made compelling television, and the number of shops that “failed” the test greatly outnumbered those that found the problem. And again, like the previous detached EGR hose, the test is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because unless there’s a compelling reason to look for it, technicians are not trained, and do not expect, vehicles to be intentionally tampered with to generate problems. In fact, the phantom customer presented exactly the opposite: a typical Canadian with a problem commonly seen on many models. In fact, the more experienced technicians were more likely to score poorly on the APA/W5 test. Why? Because many have lots of experience with no-start trouble on Chrysler minivans, and know where to go. I’d be tempted to consider a bad segment in the starter motor, especially if the customer had recently installed a new battery to no effect. And the least experienced tech would also be handicapped in the APA’s format, because they’d go straight to Mitchell or Alldata and follow the playbook step by step. If it takes three hours of meticulous checking to find the loose connection, then it’s not a rip-off; it’s what it takes to troubleshoot the problem properly. Then there’s the other customer satisfaction issue. Let’s assume you find the loose terminal, clean and tighten it and the vehicle starts and runs well. The customer complained about an intermittent no start. Do you tighten it up, then turn the customer loose? Will the problem occur again? Doesn’t it make sense to do a thorough starting system check just to take the other variables out of the equation? In my book, yes, and that check should be an enumerated service on the work order, with a checklist of systems that tested O.K. “Check starting system, 3hrs, $255” will always look like a rip-off, so tell them the starter, solenoid, ignition switch, battery and ECM have all been tested. If there’s one thing that the APA/W5 story does bring to the industry that’s useful, it’s that in the computer age, checking the simple things still matters. It’s probably a good idea to start at battery terminals no matter what the textbook says in a no-start service. I doubt apprentices appreciate this from troubleshooting guides that say “Check all connections and terminals for tightness or damage”. I know the staff at one of the garages slammed by the story, and they’re both honest and efficient. So what happened? My guess is that they used years of experience to look for things that had caused this problem many times before on similar vehicles. We can only hope that the APA uses a more realistic test next time, like installing a worn-out O2 sensor or EGR valve, something the industry is trained to find. This sucker punch hurts everyone, and does nothing to determine if there really is a problem out there. Remember this when a customer brings up the issue.