Do shops charge an hourly rate for the time that it takes to do the job, or the time that "the book" says that it takes?
I took the P T in to have the snow tires taken off. When I picked it up, they told me I needed lower control arm bushings. He looked in the book and said it would take 2 1/2 hours per side, a total of five hours labor. So I made an appointment, dropped the car off Wednesday afternoon. They called at 11:10 Thursday morning and said it was done, they started it first thing in the morning. The labor was $288. 5 hours at $57.50 an hour would be $288. But they only had it for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This would translate to $107.87 per hour. Should I question this charge??
I would certainly question it. Not sure what state you are in (or if you are even in the states now that I think of it), but most states require the hourly labor rate to be posted. If this guy tells you he is worth $107 an hour I would not return.
You might gripe a bit. But you must keep in mind that you knew going in what you agreed to pay, and they charged you just exactly that.
Frankly, mechanics starve if they can't beat the book time on a job. It is commonplace for a mechanic to book 40 hours of "labor book" time, sometime on Wednesday or Thursday of a five-day workweek. It is not dishonest, as long as the mechanic only charges what the customer agreed to pay, in my opinion.
But like I said, you might gripe a bit. If they're feeling generous, (likely because you promise to bring them additional work soon--and look like you intend to keep the promise), they might give you a small break. But they would be doing you a *favor*, and you should treat it as such. I would be looking for a discount here in the future, rather than a refund, by the way.
After all, the most important thing is that they charged you *what you agreed to pay*. All such dealings are open to negotiation prior to the commencement of work; you just happened to leave a little more money on the table than you might have otherwise. Fortunately, it was not an extremely expensive way to learn this lesson.
And yes, a *good* mechanic, doing solid, high-quality work that he stands behind, is worth $100 an hour. Try getting a *good* lawyer, plumber or other professional to work for less. I don't.
I believe that charging by book hours is standard, at least around here. I think the book lists the time that it would take a semi trained chimp to do the job.
That's why I go to a mechanic who only charges for actual time. Yes, it's $70 an hour, but he's consistently come in at 3/4 the cost of the nearest competitor.
Where was it that you took it? Chrysler dealer? Tire store? Other?
How many miles on this car of yours?
I'm a little suspicious of a claim that LCA bushings would be worn out. Strikes me there aren't many PTs with enough miles on them yet to need LCA bushings. Wonder if LCA bushings are the "You need a new idler arm" of the
I used to have a mechanic that charged "actual time'.
Over time, as I gave him more and more work, he would charge me "actual time" up to the listed book time. He NEVER charged me more than the 'book time".
As I figure it, it was a combination of the fact that I was a good customer, but also a matter of pride for him. He was an excellent mechanic, and as you said 99% of the time he beat the book - and the competition - by a country mile. It was awefully sporting of him to give me a break since sometimes shit happens and a job is more work than a person might expect - through no fault of his.
Tought to find these guys, but they are worth their weight in gold when you do! :)
I guess it's the ethics. Anyone who can lie right to you that a job will take three hours when they know it will take only half that time - that's just not right.
If it takes 2 hours or 4, that's what I should pay.
If I hire an electrician, I don't pay for a full day, afterall. If he's there 2 hours, that's exactly what I get charged. \
The newer Ford and Chrysler transmission are junk, thanks to cost-cutting. Some genius did a "Neon" on them.
When I owned a beater Neon for two months(point A to point B transportation while my Volvo was in the shop), I ran across a person who worked for Chrysler as an engineer.
He said that they would come back with a part - say a door latch - and say "this part is lasting longer than the warranty - redesign it". I thought he was making it up, but he assurred me that Chrysler engineers everything on their vehicles - every single part to last no longer than one std deviation above the length of their warranties - with a couple of exceptions like the Wrangler, which takes a lot more abuse.
Ford mandates a 5% cost to them reduction from their suppliers per year, now, the same as Wal-Mart does with many of its suppliers.
$12K vehicle today. 5 years later, sells for $15K due to inflation. Figure it has an actual $8K in parts and $4K in labor. This is typical of most "econoboxes". $10K in parts in 5 years.
8/12 turns into 10/15. So far so good. The rest is labor and such and profit. 2/3 parts, 1/3 labor and profits. "Parts" includes tooling, paint, r&d - everything other than labor and profits and advertizing.
5% per year cost reduction: $6200 cost to Ford(down from $8000). Adjusted for inflation: $7800. Let's call it $8000.
So Ford has effectively kept their cost the same over 5 years, but is now selling the same car for $15K. They went from $3K to $7K in non-materials billing. Great for the stock holders, but since lower quality($1800 in real non-adjusted cost has to come from somewhere) parts are being produced via outsourcing an cost-cutting...
Instead of doing R&D, you buy out other firms or portions of them to gain access. Again, great on paper but screws the system(witness Chrysler using then dumping Mitsubishi)
Meanwhile, Hyundai sells their $10K vehicle for $12K now. $6600 in parts before, $8000 in parts after 5 years. Hyundai is making the same profit margins as before, but are putting more raw materials and r&d into the car than Ford at this point.
GM? GM thankfully doesn't do this sort of nonsense, but their vehicles are dreadful to begin with. Sigh. Drive like a... Well, you go drive an IS300 or an Accord V6 and see if anything they sell is comparable.
The 200,000-plus mile lifespan of an AA-body, the durability of the 2.2,
2.5, 3.3 and 3.8 litre engines and other examples contradict this.
The utter shittiness of GM vehicles contradicts *this*.
...and repair basically nothing until, one day, the entire car starts breaking and failing.
US or European car: more/smaller repairs over the life of the vehicle, enabling that life to be extended indefinitely as long as the basic structure is roadworthy
Japanese car: Fewer/larger repairs over the life of the vehicle until all the coordinated-lifespan engineering comes due and everything fails, making it economically unfeasible to keep the car.
I think your friend was either pulling your leg or did not know what he was talking about....
I can't believe that Chrysler, or for that matter any manufacturer, would re-design any part to fail sooner. This goes contrary to all logic and my real world experience. The cost of re-designing anything is never trivial since the cost goes far beyond the simple engineering labor and obvious production start-up costs. Simply creating a new part number, getting a supplier set up and able to produce/deliver, qualifying the part, tracking its usage, and stocking a new item can easily exceed the re-design labor and tooling costs. Beyond the obvious, there are also additional costs to modify all of the associated bills of materials and manufacturing procedures that used the old part as well as all product documentation that referenced it.
I do believe the statement that all parts are engineered and that the useful life expectancy is one of the major factors considered during the design. I just don't think they would purposely go back to reduce an item's longevity unless there was a more realistic goal, like possibly reducing an items cost.
____Reply Separator_____ I didn't agree to a dollar amount, I agreed to paying for five hours labor being done. If it was done in two hours, I should be charged for two hours.
Wouldn't you say that a European car (eg: VW) will just fall apart to begin with?
I know someone with a car like this. Their Camry was working great till 260
000km when it all started falling apart. They had more repairs than our Ford Taurus of similar vintage. Also remember that of those repairs you do to a Japanese car, they will cost more because parts cost more.
99+% of all shops work on the "book" system - otherwise known as flat rate. The law in Ontario stipulates the charge rate must be displayed, and that the charge system must be explained. Technically, the book lists "labour units" which are nominally an hour. A competent mechanic should be able to do the job properly in this period of time. The good thing about the system is they give you a "quote" of, say 5 hours at $80.00 per hour (not out of line at a dealership) - for a total of $400. If the mechanic does it in 3 or 8 hours, you pay $400. The bad part of the system is "generally" the mechanic does the job in
60% of book time. The worse part of the system, is mechanics often take short-cuts to beat the time, as they are "generally" paid by the flat rate as well.
A lot of (usually smaller independent) shops pay the mechanic by the hour (so he has no incentive to cheat) and quote by the book. If a 6 hour book job takes 4, they often knock the price back to 5, so that if the next 6 hour job takes 7 they do not have to charge above the quote to get by.
The mechanic is also paid to clean up the shop, take out the garbage, service the hoist etc which is "really" part of the job you are paying for, whether your car is still in the shop or not.
I'm not defending "flat rate" - just explaining it. When I was service manager, my men were on straight time, and "the book" was a good guideline for scheduling, estimating, and quoting. The law does not say I cannot charge less than my quote, so sometimes, when things went better than expected, the customer got a pleasant surprise when they picked up their car. Had to be carefull though, because Warranty work is ALL bby the book, and warranty payment was based on "door rate" or "chargeout" - typically 80% of retail rate, and if you did customers favours, the factory rep figured you could do it for less for him too ---------.
The week after I left the SM position, the shop converted to straight flat rate, and lost a fair number of formerly loyal customers.
The engiens are good, but the rest of the cars is pure crap built to last maybe 100K. Check out the numerous people with transmissions going out every 30-40K.
Lol. No - they just build the same crap they always did.
Good. Better than $300 for a module and engine mounts that fail every 30K miles and plastic radiators and...
Trust me - don't buy a Ford or GM. Chrysler? Maybe 2-3 models are worth getting.
Not true. I can't tell you how many old Toyota pickups I see going and going and going as long as the frame isn't rusted out.
No - they reduced the quality until it was deemed to be acceptable as opposed to lasting nearly forever and pocketed the savings a few dollars at a time.
Cost-cutting is all the rage now. A redesign of a non-critical part to save money may be as simple as going with a less expensive power window switch. You don't put the 100K cycle model in a car with an expected
10 year lifespan(say a Neon). Figuring a maximum of 5 window openings a day, that's 3500 a year(10 total per day times 350).
So you put the 30000 MTBF part in. Car works as usual, but doesn't last like the same as the older versions. 8 switches times 25 cents a switch savings is $2 per car right there.
The industry is rife with this, unfortunately.
Take the switches on an old Mercedes or Volvo. Tank. Reminiscent of switches used in professional audio applications. Now, they feel exactly like the cheap crud Ford makes.
$1 here, $2 there - maybe save $500 per car in costs and if it looks tacky or lasts only 8-10 years instead of 15? Who cares.
Exactly. but it is all about cost. Greedy bastards. You can hardly buy any vehicle today that is made to last more than a decade without major problems. $500 more in quality would fix this, but it's not like they sell a "ruggedized" version of the cars for that extra money, do they?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.