Automobile Technology 3

[fmaldon]

I'm hearing some "hype" about automobile technicians making a good living doing what they do; some even making as much as an Engineer with comparible experience in their perspective fields.
I understatnd that to want to be an Engineer, one has to "enjoy what he does".
What are the salary ranges of Automobile Technicians with about 5 years experierience?
If one is curious about the hands-on aspect of automobiles and technology, what is the advantage of getting an Engineering degree vs training as an Automobile Technician.

 

[jmw]

A minor point, but there has been much discussion about who can call themselves an engineer and who shouldn't. Now you've introduced the term "automobile technician" and i thought i'd ask what this term means.

Reason is that the last time i took my Peugeot 406 to have a service they fitted new brake pads. As i drove it away i discovered that the brakes did not work at all until the pedal was on the floor. "Oh, said the services manager" who i made to test it, "New pads will need time to bed in."
I took it straight to another main dealer. "Oh dear" said the services manager,"This is unsafe to be on the road. I'll have our "auto-technicians" look at it.

In other words, "auto-technician" is new jargon for a mechanic, probably made necessary as there is little for them to do in this day of the computer other than start repalcing parts until the car is either totally rebuilt or the prolem has dissappeared.

I would hate to think that through the use of this term some engineers are going to be upset to be devalued to the level of a 17 year old youth with a fancy job decsription, bad skin and a worse brain.

 

[Lorentz]

Hi fmaldon:

Don't know what salaries for technicians are, but there is a thread: "How to Improve Myself to Get Ahead in My Work Forum>Automotive Engineer's Salary chart?" Where you can find info on engineer's salaries.

Hope this helps.

 

[ietech]

This is somewhat off of the intent of this thread but since the topic was addressed I submit the following for your consideration and comments.

In Defense of the Auto Tech or mechanic, whichever you choose. I must say that I have observed that many of today's autos are very difficult to repair or service.

Example --popular minivan with 3.0 V6. Front wheel drive.

Replacing the relatively inexpensive timing belt and or water pump is a 5.0 hour job. It requires removal and set-aside of all ancillary components, removal of motor mount and raising of the engine just to remove the timing belt cover, this is just for access to the components to be replaced.

This job at a dealer approaches $700.00 USD. Of course the smart consumer will change both the belt and water pump at the time of either required repair or be faced with a double whammy in the future.

It seems that these auto techs/mechanics are directly rewarded or frustrated by the lack of maintenance friendly engineering at the on-set. These guys need special traing/education just to cope with the complexity of design.

Are we engineers to blame for high maintenance cost and high wages for mechanics, whether it is an auto or any other major machine. Is it no wonder these techs make good money when faced with major tasks to accomplish basically simple repairs.

Just a thought - I'm not sure if this is a valid point, but is maintenance considered during the design phase of any major machine? Probably but it sure doesn't seem like it.

ietech

 

[GregLocock]

ietech, yes, cost of ownership is a big deal when designing a car. Fleet operators are very interested in knowing how much it will cost to keep their fleets on the road.

We don't get it right every time, obviously, but it is considered in the trade-off process that establishes the fundamnetal design of each model. We use a customer satisfaction model called a Kano chart to decide where the money gets spent.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[ietech]

Greg,
Thanks for your reply. Is there a web-site or survey where a consumer can offer his/her preferences or comments.

Regards,

ietech

 

[GregLocock]

Not as such, the way we do it is (a) direct communication with fleet operators, (b) questionnaires to recent purchasers and (c) questionnaires to anyone who gives us their contact details (d) surveys of people who bought our competitor's cars after looking at or buying one of ours previously (e) analysis of warranty returns and servicing costs. So basically if we can get info from you we'll probably at least consider contacting you (I'm not too sure what proportion of each category gets surveyed, I'm betting 100% of the fleet guys, and a high proportion of (d)).

In Australia at least I'd just write to the President of the company involved... he has a little department who does read /every/ letter. Selling cars is all about contact with customers, as it is a mature industry, so we take external input /very/ seriously. In less competitive, juvenile or senile markets this may not be the case.

Your belt replacement story is a good example - that's about 0.7 c / mile for a fleet operator (assuming once per 100000 miles) - equivalent to a fuel save of about 5-10%, so we'd spend anything up to about $X (order of magnitude estimate - you should be able to work out how much we'd pay for a 100% reduction in fuel consumption and take it from there) per car to fix it, if we were selling 100% to fleets. TCO=total cost of ownership is the name of the game for fleets.

Incidentally five hours for a job like that is a bit rich, I guess they are trying to minimise the number of disconnects (a/c etc), but I'm surprised it would take more than 3 hours to drop and reinstall the engine out of anything mundane, given the right equipment. After all it only takes an hour to dress the engine and five minutes to bolt it in, in the plant.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[ProEpro]

There is a very strong need for technicans that can trouble shoot todays complicated cars. The OEMs consider this a critical issue in the years ahead. The pay is good. However it is often done by the job not the hour. Also you have to supply your own tools. (a minium of $10,000 investment) Do not expect to get much creative satisfaction from repair work compared to design.

Many engineers are surprised that skilled trades have similar pay. They shouldn't be the demand for those people is the same and they often contribute just as much to profits. Actully the trend in education is away from manual skills so they will become more valuable in the future.


ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

Pro/E FAQ

http://www.whitelightdesign.com/servicestips.htm

 

[CanEngJohn]

I am not surprised that you found the auto techs/mechanics would get more than the average engineer. Heck I get paid less than all the following (and I am above average for an Engineer in the 5 to 10 range)...

1. Auto Technician / Mechanic
2. Tool and Die Machinist
3. CNC Machinist
4. Millwright (full millwright with 2 ys college + 4 years exp)
5. Electrician

... and I give instruction and guidance to ALL of the above on a regular basis. The first three actually start at a lower base but for equal hours they get the OT which tops me by at least 10k. The last two usually start at a higher base and get the OT.

When I was a production supervisor on a shift of 46 people I had the issue where some jobs appeared easier than others. For example the two guys working the continuous belt steamers in the steam room. They usually could relax for about half the shift since they were really good at the job. Other operators complained that they had it easy. My standard response - if you want the job I can easily arrange a transfer. No one ever seemed to take me up on that offer - especially in the summer.

I guess my other point would be - why should we not pay the auto techs who are in short supply and have to deal with Engineering results as much as we do? I prefer to have a competent individual working on my vehicle. Which is why I only do oil changes, exhaust and body work myself (oh and I am pretty good at replacing alternators thanks to my '89 Accord).

 

[jmw]

Finding a competent "auto-technician" is not so easy.
I am not now nor have i ever been anything other than a DIY mechanic (and only in my youth), but in some cases even i can do a better job than the "auto-technician".

Cars are getting more sophisticated and the "mechainics less capable". The shortage of mechanics may mean that they are command more pay but it doesn't follow that the supply of qualified mechanics has kept up with demand. payning more just measn that less competent people are earning more.

More and more, i suspect, the industry is geared around providing solutions that accept this as a fact and try to make the tasks for the mechanic more and more easily done by rote rather than by intelligence.

This approach has some serious limitations. For exampe, in my case:

We start with:
Fit new brake pads.
Result: Pedal travel to the floor.
To my mind, the logical next step is to check that the brake pads have been fitted correctly.
Howvere this is not part of the diagnostic.
The diagnostic routine the "auto-technician" follows starts with "pedal travel excessive".
Next step: check for hydraulic leaks at the wheels. This doesn't involve removing the wheels which would have revealed the poor brake pad fitting.
If there is no visible leak at any of the wheels, check the master cylinder for leaks and the fluid level.
If there are evident leaks and no fluid loss, then the master cylinder is deffective. Quod errat demonstrandum.
Solution? fit a new master cylinder.

Now they do this. It takes nearly two weeks.
They test the car and the brake pedal travel is exactly as before and the condition is such that the second dealer advised, on this evidence, that the car was dangerous. But because they have fitted a new brake master cylinder they are comfortable that it is no longer dangerous. They don't wonder why the pedal travels to the floor, they don'thave to. They followed the diagnostic which said the master cylinder was deffective and they replaced it.

At this point i was now comfortable with telling them what i thought and instructing them to remove the road wheels and check the fitting of the brake pads.

They did. They re-fitted the pads. The brakes then worked.
They offerred no appology.

This isn't, i suspect, an isolated instance.
How many people out in the word have had a sequence of new parts fitted unnecessarily because of the way the diagnostics are set up? Who pays for the unnecessary master cylinder? or the rental cars i needed while they turned a routine brake service into a nightmare?

Not one dealer at fault but two in sequence. Not rocket science. Logic. Simple skills. Experience and a brain.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Finding a competent "auto-technician" is not so easy.

Finding one that is honest too, is next to impossible.

 

[Lorentz]

I like your comments CanEngJohn (I gave you a star), because I feel that mechanics, electricians etc. are the final link in the chain of public safety, and they should be respected and well compensated because of this.

An engineer may have produced a wonderful design, but all his efforts will be for nothing if they final construction is performed in a negligent or incompetent manner.

I would go so far as to say that no one should be permitted to call themselves a mechanic without having passed the appropriate tests to obtain a license.

 

[CanEngJohn]

jmw

You have a very valid point. However what you are experiencing is the failure of the system to recognize the defects possible during a process. The procedure for dealing with the replacement of the pads needs to be rewritten to include the defects that could result. The tecnician should not have moved to the new diagnostic in this case.

Welcome to automotive industry logic. We as human beings can make mistakes and the thinking created in the "automotive logical thought process" results in these sorts of issues. We are drilled to follow the procedure. The engineer rewrites the procedure only when a new problem is encountered that needs a procedure to address it. Thus we blame the system and its procedures instead of the individual.

The only thing I would have done differently in your case jmw would have been to stay with the original dealer so I could complain and get the costs associated with the new master cylinder reimbursed.

To Lorentz
Believe it or not the Technicians found in most dealerships do actually have courses and tests that must be passed. (GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler are applicable that I know of).

 

[jmw]

No one will thank you for encouraging a system that sets standards such that it is harder to find auto-technicians rather than easier.

Rather, the system would favour simplifying the tasks to "monkey see, monkey do" and making the sollution fit the available levels of skill and intellect.

This means that real repairs do not take place in dealer service centres. No-one their has the skill to service brake cylinders or fit new seals. No, the solution is to tech them to follow certain simple rules and then just replace components. Even so, as i have found, the level of skills generally available is declining and making even this path more difficult.

Cars are more foolproof and relaible and great er use is made of diagnostics and routine. Complex jobs are sub-contraacted out. If the engine fails, replace it or fit a short block. If the gear box fails, replace it.
How many service centres can afford to maintain staff skills to do more than routine replacement.

If you want more than this you have to find a specialist company. Specilialists cost money.

If this is to be the staus quo, then we should feel safe that within these terms, that we can consign our vehicles to these people and, more importantly, to this methodolgy.

It may mean that car design and maintenance is increasingly driven not so much by reducing service costs or greater durability but because of the limitation and availability of the skills necessary to maintain them.

This means that we will see more and more "sealed for life" components and that many other repairable or servicable components are considered in the equation as through-aways when they go wrong.

But which costs more? throughing away a perfectly good component as part of a routine that stops replacing components when the problem dissappears or having a level of skills universally available that can diagnose the problem accurately and repair rather than replace?

But, i have to agree with Lorentx that this is a safety issue. I would question whether we should expect more or less from the service networks. I don't question that if this is how it has to be done, then at least lets have it done to a satisfactory standard. Too many very simple tasks being failed suggests either that there is a lack of control over training and qualifications even thought the market is capable of supplying sufficient candidates for the jobs or that even at this level there is a lack of the necessary skills to sustain even this method.

In the UK, they are now introducing "shop" training in some schools. Something that has been a feature of US schools for decades. In the UK, to learn about being a mechanic you go to college or you learn on the job. In the US, autoshop, paint shop, etc are available options within the schools system. So maybe this is a problem with available skills in some countroes not suiting a global approach by an auto-manufacturer.

 

[CanEngJohn]

jmw

You assume I encourage the system. However, I remember reading an article a few years back about an Engineer who received his new pager and struggled with the directions to get it to work. He eventually took it back to the store where the retailer behind the counter swiftly opened the battery compartment, switched the direction of the batteries, closed the compartment and handed the functioning pager back to the Engineer.

Since it was written in the first person I assume it is real. The story illustrates the point that it is difficult to keep up with technology - even the easy stuff. One of the reasons components get replaced on vehicles so readily is that is is much cheaper to the consumer to have this occur. Think about your master cylinder. Imagine he decided to "rebuild" it instead of replacing it. Instead of $700 you could add another $120 for the two hours labour to rip it apart, replace the damaged components and seals and put it back together (Note - the cost of the rebuild kit is probably half the cost of the cylinder).

Now if you move to more complicated components say an alternator which takes longer and may contain proprietary requirements that the technician does not have access to the job of fixing vehicles becomes much more complicated and expensive to the consumer. The problem occurred because the drive is to reduce service costs as well as service time (standardization in your 5s lingo).

Your statement
"having a level of skills universally available that can diagnose the problem accurately" really is the better solution to attack. The "automotive thought process" might disagree with both of us though.

 

[jmw]

CanEngJohn,
you illustrate the point well.

I accept that cost is against getting the master cylinder fixed or repaired.

I even accept that it is probably cheaper to have them replace five items in sequence and bill you for the lot rather than diagnose correctly that the fifth item was all they needed to change.

But i don't accept that simple tasks such as fitting brake pads should be bodged. Nor that when they condemn your car as unsafe because of pedal travel that fitting a new brake master cylinder, which made absolutely no difference, should mean it is now safe.

Here i agree with you 100% that if the standard of mechanic is such and such, then they should be qualified to this standard. Otherwise where are we? As consumers all we can do is hope we et picked on by JD Powers to add our views to their survey. As it happens, i was and then found the survey not as searching as i would have liked.

 

[Maui]

If you want the job done right, do it yourself. This why I perform nearly all of my own auto repairs. It's good to get your hands dirty occasionally, and I usually enjoy the experience.


Maui