 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / October 2005$234 Oxygen Sensor
My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. I understand there are 4 such sensors and the other 3 sensors have 100,000 miles on them. What is the life expectancy of the other 3 sensors and am I looking forward to replacing the other sensors at a cost of $700? Is this a reasonable cost to replace oxygen sensors? -Bill >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. outrageous >I understand there are 4 such sensors and the other 3 sensors have >100,000 miles on them. it is time to replace all O2 sensors at 100K intervals >What is the life expectancy of the other 3 sensors 100K miles > and am I looking >forward to replacing the other sensors at a cost of $700? I would buy the parts and do the installations myself. Saving a ton of money in the process. >Is this a reasonable cost to replace oxygen sensors? WAY too much $$$ for labor, IMHO. Lg >-Bill >>My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >>of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Lg How can you say that when you don't know what the labor cost even was? Bob >>>My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >>>of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >How can you say that when you don't know what the labor cost even was? > Bob Take the cost of parts: $60/sensor deduct that from total cost = Labor/overhead/rent/profit Bob, I don't know how to say this without it sounding offensive. Have you considered re-enrolling in elementary school? Are you too old to sit in the back of the classroom? >>>>My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >>>>of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > deduct that from total cost > => Labor/overhead/rent/profit And from just which part of your a.s did you pull a cost of $60? Suggested list is over $100 for that particular sensor. Or do you think the dealership should sell parts at cost? > Bob, I don't know how to say this without it sounding offensive. Have > you considered re-enrolling in elementary school? Are you too old to > sit in the back of the classroom? Why? Are you lonely back there? Bob Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article <hc7rl1lcqppa9r1ir0hq036il3hiq9ro5n@4ax.com>... > >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > >of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. > > outrageous Okay...... ....how much do YOU charge for the same job in YOUR shop? >Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article ><hc7rl1lcqppa9r1ir0hq036il3hiq9ro5n@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >....how much do YOU charge for the same job in YOUR shop? My *shop* is my 2 car garage, 1/2 filled with landscaping equipment. I buy the parts and do the work myself. This is true not only for my auto, but for my dishwasher, clothes dryer, HVAC ( air conditioning/heating ), plumbing, and every dang other thing around here, including electrical, except *blessing* the box which has to be done by a licensed electrician so the Village will accept the work. I do painting, woodworking, the entire schmere. It is all up to *code* or most likely better than code. IOW, ZERO. Lg Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> writes in article <mqcsl1p76k7bl3b1gubfabk3lfpdter2ba@4ax.com> dated Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:33:05 -0500: >>Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article >><hc7rl1lcqppa9r1ir0hq036il3hiq9ro5n@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >IOW, ZERO. Larry, I think his point is that for a professional's price to be outrageous there must be a competitor who will do it for less. Suppose we find out that the OP lives near you. Are you willing to replace his remaining 3 sensors for less than the $234 rate? Or do you know of a shop that will? Doing it yourself is simply not an option for some people. -- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. >Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> writes in article <mqcsl1p76k7bl3b1gubfabk3lfpdter2ba@4ax.com> dated Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:33:05 -0500: >>>Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >that the OP lives near you. Are you willing to replace his remaining 3 >sensors for less than the $234 rate? Or do you know of a shop that will? My problem is my garage is only large enough, having all the landscaping equipment in there, for my car. Anything larger won't fit. Otherwise, yes, I would charge less, depending on whether or not the operator/owner of the vehicle supplied his own parts, or I had to go out and buy them myself. I don't consider myself qualified to work on anything that is life/safety related...e.g. brakes. But taking out a sensor and reinstalling a new one doesn't appear to be impossible, although my engine compartment forces me to use the *short* version of the sensor removal and installation tool fitting. It is tight in some spots in my engine compartment and around it. Would no doubt require some *acrobatics* to get at all of them. And a bit of time. >Doing it yourself is simply not an option for some people. Well then there is the answer. My mistake is thinking that it was. But now that you mention it, of course it isn't. Then, I guess you have to shop around for the best price. Because of the Emission Inspection Stations and such here in Northern Illinois, it isn't going to be possible to *cheat* on an exhaust emissions test. The computers here are linked directly to the Illinois DOT at Springfield. The license plates are scanned in by image recognition software and so forth. No way to escape, if something is amiss with the exhaust emissions. So then, you are right. You can't get your car registered here unless you pass. And to do that you might be forced to pay through the nose for parts and installation. So, you are right, and I made the mistake of thinking it was possible for everybody, which of course, it is not. Lg >-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net >The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. > >>>> >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > >>>> >of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. > >Larry, I think his point is that for a professional's price to be outrageous > >there must be a competitor who will do it for less. Suppose we find out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > landscaping equipment in there, for my car. Anything larger won't > fit. There's the rub... A real shop big enough to accommodate what ever rolls in the lot staffed with the necessary support personnel and equipped with the proper tools being used by trained mechanics is certainly bound to cost more than someone picking and choosing the easier jobs out of their back yard. > Otherwise, yes, I would charge less, depending on whether or not the > operator/owner of the vehicle supplied his own parts, or I had to go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my engine compartment and around it. Would no doubt require some > *acrobatics* to get at all of them. And a bit of time. So, it's easy to lambaste the shop that is properly equipped, staffed and trained with out at least considering that none of that comes for free to anyone, least of all the shop owner. > >Doing it yourself is simply not an option for some people. > > Well then there is the answer. My mistake is thinking that it was. > But now that you mention it, of course it isn't. > > Then, I guess you have to shop around for the best price. Absolutely, positively the worst thing one can do when they need auto repair. Find a competent qualified shop and stick with them. > Because of the Emission Inspection Stations and such here in Northern > Illinois, it isn't going to be possible to *cheat* on an exhaust > emissions test. The computers here are linked directly to the > Illinois DOT at Springfield. The license plates are scanned in by > image recognition software and so forth. No way to escape, if > something is amiss with the exhaust emissions. Actually, it is quite easy to cheat an emissions test, OBD2 scan and/or IM-240, etc. Matter of fact, when one considers how catalyst efficiency is determined on an OBD2 vehicle, the only conclusion they can come to is that the [state]test itself is a cheat. > So then, you are right. You can't get your car registered here unless > you pass. And to do that you might be forced to pay through the nose > for parts and installation. The cost is the cost. The repairman is not the one responsible for the failure to begin with, so the derogatory connotation directed his way is misplaced. > So, you are right, and I made the mistake > of thinking it was possible for everybody, which of course, it is not. Regardless of whether it's possible, some people have better things to do with their time than wrench on their cars during their free hours, they seem to be able to appraise the value without a problem. >> >>>> >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a >> >>>> >cost [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > their free hours, they seem to be able to appraise the value > without a problem. Right on the money Neil..... as usual Bob >>> >>>> >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a >>> >>>> >cost [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >Right on the money Neil..... as usual > Bob And you Slob, go back into the Bozo Bin, since you have a vendetta against me and I've smelled enough of your sh.t for way way too long now. This time you won't be set free. Flame away. Nobody will hear you scream. Lg >> >>>> >My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >> >>>> >of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >their free hours, they seem to be able to appraise the value >without a problem. You get a Pass, *Neil,* as it appears you have social redeeming value, rather unlike your glue huffing grease monkey of a *friend.* I suspect he is Simian. Average IQ somewhere in the low 70's. Lg > You get a Pass, *Neil,* as it appears you have social redeeming value, > rather unlike your glue huffing grease monkey of a *friend.* I > suspect he is Simian. Average IQ somewhere in the low 70's. > > Lg Average IQ -is- 100. It's either average (100) or low 70s. Can't be both. Once you get this down pat, you'll be well on your way to understanding and interpreting fuel trims. > Actually, it is quite easy to cheat an emissions test, OBD2 scan > and/or IM-240, etc. > Matter of fact, when one considers how catalyst efficiency is > determined on an OBD2 vehicle, the only conclusion they can come > to is that the [state]test itself is a cheat. What do you mean by this? As a MRRT I can think of exotic ways to "cheat" either a dyno-based IM240 or an OBDII scan-based test. I haven't really thought about it other than when reviewing the emissions test rules (to see if they hold water), and I certainly have never suggested or employed such tactics. I am most curious why you said "quite easy". I welcome you to email me if you don't want the meat of this cheating discussion on Usenet. Toyota MDT in MO In article <1130289375.326568.148700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > Actually, it is quite easy to cheat an emissions test, OBD2 scan > > and/or IM-240, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What do you mean by this? As a MRRT I can think of exotic ways to > "cheat" either a dyno-based IM240 or an OBDII scan-based test. Nothing exotic about calling Jeg's or Summit and ordering a MIL eliminator and plugging it into the post-cat O2 sensor circuit when there's a failed cat efficiency monitor, or, build your own from plans available o the internet. Also slightly non-exotic is that most states allow 2 uncompleted monitors when they run the OBD2 scan for an emissions test, a calculated test drive that runs all but the problem monitor before visiting the test station and the vehicle gets a pass even though it shouldn't. > I haven't really thought about it other than when reviewing the emissions > test rules (to see if they hold water), and I certainly have never > suggested or employed such tactics. Nor would/do I. But I'm in and out of a lot of shops in the area, so I have a good idea of what shenanigans are being used. > I am most curious why you said > "quite easy". Because I was an insider in the Wisconsin IM-240 program when this stuff was an issue that should have been investigated or at least considered further. Political expediency won out. Just because the Cerium wash-coat doesn't store oxygen as efficiently as it did when new doesn't necessarily mean that insufficient oxidation and reduction isn't occurring. > I welcome you to email me if you don't want the meat of > this cheating discussion on Usenet. Most of it is easily found on the WWW. > Nothing exotic about calling Jeg's or Summit and ordering a MIL > eliminator and plugging it into the post-cat O2 sensor circuit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > before visiting the test station and the vehicle gets a pass even > though it shouldn't. You speak of the square wave generator for front O2 sensors (which will make the car run like crap), or in regard to fooling a catalyst monitor, a flatlined output for the rear. I've heard of the front O2 sensor simulator but I can't see what it would accomplish short of allowing a bad sensor to pass it's component monitor - hmm, why not just buy a new sensor? And I also suspected you were refering to the "number of allowed monitors" loophole. IMO, for the average tinkering car owner these would be beyond their grasp. In Missouri, and I'm guessing it's similar in Wisconsin, 96-00 vehicles can pass with two unset monitors, while 01-up can only have one unset. Furthermore, if the vehicle fails for P0420/P0430 code(s) it must return for retest with the cat monitor passed. This new cat rule may initially catch cheaters who didn't do their homework -- but you are right, you can cheat on anything given the desire. Cats have Fed mandated extended warranty anyway, so it shouldn't be an issue with most cars for a while. > Just because the Cerium wash-coat doesn't store oxygen as > efficiently as it did when new doesn't necessarily mean that > insufficient oxidation and reduction isn't occurring. Again, I need help with this statement (sorry). Are you saying you think converters are being condemned via P04x0 codes before their time is up, or ??? Thanks, Toyota MDT in MO In article <1130296144.442554.209820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > You speak of the square wave generator for front O2 sensors (which will > make the car run like crap), or in regard to fooling a catalyst > monitor, a flatlined output for the rear. Post cat O2 monitors. With cat replacement costs commonly approaching $1000.00 and above, this is the prime area for cheating, especially since there is no apparent performance loss. > I've heard of the front O2 > sensor simulator but I can't see what it would accomplish short of > allowing a bad sensor to pass it's component monitor - hmm, why not > just buy a new sensor? And I also suspected you were refering to the > "number of allowed monitors" loophole. IMO, for the average tinkering > car owner these would be beyond their grasp. True, but I didn't qualify my statements about cheating to just the average tinkerer. > In Missouri, and I'm guessing it's similar in Wisconsin, 96-00 vehicles > can pass with two unset monitors, while 01-up can only have one unset. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mandated extended warranty anyway, so it shouldn't be an issue with > most cars for a while. We're at 10 years for OBD2, lots of that fleet are long past warranty. I have a customer with an 03 Montana, 175,000 miles on it. > > Just because the Cerium wash-coat doesn't store oxygen as > > efficiently as it did when new doesn't necessarily mean that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think converters are being condemned via P04x0 codes before their time > is up, or ??? **(note: the above should have read sufficient, not "insufficient") (can't type for sh.t tonight:) (damn Camry door latches:)~ That and IM failures based upon PO4xO codes (essentially the same thing) even though the tailpipe is clean enough to pass an IM-240. Other than the performance warranty, there is no real difference in federal standards between a 95 Camry and a 96 Camry other than the fact that the 95 can pass an IM test with a lit MIL while the 96 won't. > **(note: the above should have read sufficient, not > "insufficient") > (can't type for sh.t tonight:) > That and IM failures based upon PO4xO codes (essentially the same > thing) even though the tailpipe is clean enough to pass an IM-240. > Other than the performance warranty, there is no real difference > in federal standards between a 95 Camry and a 96 Camry other than > the fact that the 95 can pass an IM test with a lit MIL while the > 96 won't. OK, rereading this with substituted wording, I am on the same page as you here. Typical tailpipe samples would have you believe that a just-failed catalytic converter (via OBDII standards) still yields a clean running car. Of course it is much cheaper and easier to implement generic OBDII testing than to use the expensive, accurate IM240 dynos -- that have already been put into place years ago. (AAAHHRRGGG!!!) At least MO now has a waiver in place for transmission related DTCs. Owners must present an RO from an MMRT-staffed shop stating that the DTCs are purely trans related and give a descriptive estimate to repair said DTCs. They must also have NO other DTCs or unset monitors to receive this waiver. The process sounds like a runaround, but I like the concept. > (damn Camry door latches:)~ Gee, I don't have a problem with them... :) Seriously, if you ever need Toyota insight/info, don't hesitate to drop me a line. I have T.I.S. at home as well if you need a real wiring diagram. Toyota MDT in MO In article <1130299820.337853.215290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > OK, rereading this with substituted wording, I am on the same page as > you here. Typical tailpipe samples would have you believe that a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > IM240 dynos -- that have already been put into place years ago. > (AAAHHRRGGG!!!) Egg-zactly. Higher thru put, low que count, less wear and tear on the equipment equals bigger profits and favorable press. > At least MO now has a waiver in place for transmission related DTCs. > Owners must present an RO from an MMRT-staffed shop stating that the > DTCs are purely trans related and give a descriptive estimate to repair > said DTCs. They must also have NO other DTCs or unset monitors to > receive this waiver. The process sounds like a runaround, but I like > the concept. Very good implementation. > > (damn Camry door latches:)~ > Gee, I don't have a problem with them... :) I'll bet you're a whole lot younger than I am. Probably don't wear bi-focals either. > Seriously, if you ever need Toyota insight/info, don't hesitate to drop > me a line. I have T.I.S. at home as well if you need a real wiring > diagram. I may take you up on that offer. Had a bunch of Toyota training back in the mid 80s when Chevy badge engineered the Nova, so Toys feel as familiar as GM, Ford and Chrysler do, plus I've owned three Toyotas, an 85 Tercel 4x4 wagon, an 88 Camry FWD and an 88 Camry Alltrac. All 4 cylinders, all as reliable as a 2X8 floor joist. Very well stated. Too many times, people do NOT stop & think about what the proper equipment & training costs the shop & they also don't realize how much it costs the technician for the tools that he makes his living with, nor do they value a proper diagnostics, when they can go to Autozone & get a half-assed scan & no matter what the codes is & how many things go into the play of setting the code, Autozone will sell them a part....................even if it isn't going to fix the problem. Then when these idiots have spent $300-$500.00 on parts & still have the same problem, they expect a legitimate shop to work on their cars for free. Get a life people!!!!!!!!!!!! If all parts were created equal, then all parts would cost the same. After market parts do NOT always work as they are supposed to do & therefore many "reputable" & "qualified" shopes use only OEM parts & then stands behind their work. These shops even pay taxes & insurance that all you back-yard so-called mechanics have no clue as to how much this costs per job or hour or day. Stating that all parts are the same is like saying thet there is no difference between round steak & porterhouse steak. There are many different brands, quality & prices on anything that you shop for. If you want quality auto repairs, be willing to pay for quality or you may find yourself walking when your cheapie part & back-yard repair fails or even worse you may find yourself dead from an accident when you forgot to hand torque the wheel lug nuts & the wheel that you removed in the back yard to gain access to the not-so-easy part, comes flying off. Spud Demon <sd@LUMINA.MITRE.ORG> wrote in article <djlirh$k1a$1@newslocal.mitre.org>... > Larry, I think his point is that for a professional's price to be outrageous > there must be a competitor who will do it for less. Suppose we find out > that the OP lives near you. Are you willing to replace his remaining 3 > sensors for less than the $234 rate? Or do you know of a shop that will? Actually, I posted what I did because so many of the people who are so quick to explain exactly how automotive service shops SHOULD be run - including Mr. Glickman - don't even have experience working as a paid mechanic/technician, much less running an automotive repair business - or in many cases ANY business - for profit. I suspected he did not work in the automotive service industry, and he confirmed it with his response. Therefore, his statement that the price was outrageous is not fact.....it is only his opinion. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but..... .....he is NOT qualified as an industry expert who is in a position to judge what IS and what IS NOT outrageous pricing. It would be the equivalent of me calling his landscaping fees outrageous since I can go down and buy a gallon of gasoline for a few bucks and do the same job with my 12 HP Craftsman rider-mower. I am NOT a professional landscaper. And, as you pointed out, the price cannot be outrageous unless there is a shop with equivalent expertise and competency willing to do the job for substantially less money. As a shade-tree grease monkey, he goes down to AZ to have the 10th grade, part-time "Assistant Manager" plug a "tester" of questionable accuracy into his car, and give him a recommendation. As a professional shop owner, there is an investment in professional-level testing equipment and technicians who are capable of operating this sophisticated equipment and interpreting the results..... ......unless, of course, you can picture a long line of professional shop owners waiting at the A.Z. front door to have their customers' cars "tested" for free... LOL !!!! Let's see..... A.Z. - $299 tester operated by a $7.50/hour, untrained, off-the-street employee who probably has a better chance of interpreting the Dead Sea Scrolls than interpreting any sort of readings that the cheapo tester may render. OR Professional shop - Four-to-five figure investment in professional test equipment coupled with a technician being paid an hourly wage in the middle teens-and-up. Sure, as a shade-tree parts-changer, he can replace his own O2 sensor for a lot less money, but I can mow my 1.3 acre lawn for the price of one gallon of gas - considerably less money than he would charge me. Maybe landscaping is a BIGGER ripoff than auto repair!?!?!?! And, even though he tags "IMHO" onto his post, Mr. Glickman's opinion was far from "humble".....IMHO, that is. > Spud Demon <sd@LUMINA.MITRE.ORG> wrote in article > And, even though he tags "IMHO" onto his post, Mr. Glickman's opinion was > far from "humble".....IMHO, that is. Without getting into personalities at this point, there is a chasm often between the customer and the garage. Customer may have been the victim of mindless partschangers, expensive bills, and shops which do not professionally perform the jobs they are being paid to do. The Garage, on the other hand, has had experiences with customers who do nothing but bitch, are never satisfied, and want the work done for nothing. The majority, I believe, of customers are reasonable people if treated reasonably. Mechanics are probably just as honest and reasonable. Five minutes of honest conversation between mechanic and customer could go a long way to stopping problems before they get to the fist shaking stage. The customer needs to know the options, upside and downside, and the schedule. The mechanic needs to hear what the customer wants, what the car is doing. Nobody wants an unpleasant surprise when the bill is presented and the car is driven out the door. > A.Z. - $299 tester operated by a $7.50/hour, untrained, off-the-street > employee who probably has a better chance of interpreting the Dead Sea > Scrolls than interpreting any sort of readings that the cheapo tester may > render. They could have a $4k factory scan tool, it wouldn't matter. They simply read current codes (OBDII only IIRC) and either suggestive sell the component named in the code description or enter the code into their database for a list of common causes and render a printout. Toyota MDT in MO >Spud Demon <sd@LUMINA.MITRE.ORG> wrote in article ><djlirh$k1a$1@newslocal.mitre.org>... [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >And, even though he tags "IMHO" onto his post, Mr. Glickman's opinion was >far from "humble".....IMHO, that is. The real question =isn't= whether or not *The Shop* has to charge a certain rate in order to cover *Costs,* as this can fairly easily be calculated. The Real Question is whether or not "The Problem" needs to be serviced by a shop to begin with, or if it falls into the DIY category. Obviously, somebody has to pay for the shop equipment and space every time they visit, even if they're only getting their tires rotated. I am suggesting that for a simple task like switching out a known bad O2 sensor with a known good O2 sensor, the services of a *shop* aren't required. Someone pointed out that many people can't do this for/by themselves, or won't for one reason or another. Then, they are going to have to pay to send Mr Goodwrench's kid to college. If they have the simple tools and a knowledge of the techniques involved in an O2 exchange, then the high price for Shop Services can be avoided. Which brings the statement to the level of: 'I think it is outrageous that people pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for work they should be able to do themselves.' But as we've already established, working under the hood isn't possible in many circumstances for Joe Car Owner, for a multitude of reasons. Lg "Lawrence_Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message > Which brings the statement to the level of: 'I think it is outrageous > that people pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for work they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lg Well, ignorance is an expensive luxury, Lawrence. >"Lawrence_Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Well, ignorance is an expensive luxury, Lawrence. I know it isn't just that. I used to live on the second floor of an apartment, and during the wintertime, working on the car was out of the question, what with the snow, freezing cold, slush so you couldn't get under the vehicle ( the car was parked on the street ). OK then, that is an extenuating circumstance you couldn't do much about...until: Somebody got the idea of opening up DIY Shops, wherein they supply the tools, the bay, the work area, and the owner does the work and supplies the parts. I imagine the insurance premiums put those places out of business, as I can't seem to find them around anymore, not that I ever used one. So the *trick* for me was in the Autumn, while the weather was still reasonable, to do all the preventive maintenance I could and hope the vehicle would last through the winter season without needing anything more than fuel and oil. So instead of using Comboverfish's "if it ain't broken, don't fix it," I performed PROACTIVE maintenance, replacing things BEFORE they broke and left me stranded on the side of the road, one good example being replacing radiator hoses that had gone soft and mushy. Fishman, if you're reading this, you're a nutter. Take that any way you like. Preventive maintenance is never wasted money. Getting a $150 tow to a shop, and another $150 bill to replace a few hoses that should have been replaced BEFORE they blew out, is definitely a waste of money. But I guess you have so much of that ( along with Ego ), that you have enough to burn. Lg > Fishman, if you're reading this, you're a nutter. No he's not. > Take that any way > you like. Don't you know how it was intended? > Preventive maintenance is never wasted money. He never suggested that it was. > Getting a > $150 tow to a shop, and another $150 bill to replace a few hoses that > should have been replaced BEFORE they blew out, is definitely a waste > of money. I thought the subject was oxygen sensors. > But I guess you have so much of that ( along with Ego ), > that you have enough to burn. Didn't see any ego from COF. Preventive maintenance is something for the motorist to learn, not the mechanic. Every mechanic I know would be perfectly happy to spend the rest of his career doing PM work, think about it, no lost time during diagnosis, minimal special parts ordering, etc. The motorist however only wants to know about putting the key in and driving it, to hell with the mundane prospect of maintenance. > In article <o3a2m1d5incntuvabnrh9oit77044opjh2@4ax.com>, > Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:bunch of crap [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No he's not. > etc................. Neil, you exhibit an almost perverse pleasure in kindly correcting RAT's most vile and inaccurate poster. While I hope that this is done to give future search results some credo, I feel that his posts are ripe for being ignored as they stand. This said, your contribution is always appreciated no matter what. Toyota MDT in MO >> In article <o3a2m1d5incntuvabnrh9oit77044opjh2@4ax.com>, >> Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:bunch of crap [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Toyota MDT in MO Another *service tech* with a bug up his a.s. Why don't you find a job you like. Lg >>> In article <o3a2m1d5incntuvabnrh9oit77044opjh2@4ax.com>, >>> Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:bunch of crap [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Another *service tech* with a bug up his a.s. The only "bug up his a.s" is you Larry > Why don't you find a job you like. > > Lg Why don't you find a job? > > Why don't you find a job you like. > > > > Lg > > Why don't you find a job? Dude, I think this *is* his job. >> > Why don't you find a job you like. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Dude, I think this *is* his job. The autistic child that calls himself Bob ( his mom and dad gave him that name cause it's EASY TO REMEMBER ) is just a greasemonkey. The only question is how much grease vs. how much monkey. IOW, what is the ratio of grease to monkey, not that it matters. You OTOH fishbone, are a phenomena all by yourself. We are amazed at your quick wit and always correct answers. In awe: Lg Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article <koo5m116k61ffk7tg64biftpghb6rc5797@4ax.com>... > You OTOH fishbone, are a phenomena all by yourself. That would be "phenomenon". "Phenonema" is the plural of "phenomenon"...... >Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article ><koo5m116k61ffk7tg64biftpghb6rc5797@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >"Phenonema" is the plural of "phenomenon"...... a spelling flame is the absolutely lamest remark one can make. You're out of ammo. Go home. Lg > >Lawrence_Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in article > ><koo5m116k61ffk7tg64biftpghb6rc5797@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a spelling flame is the absolutely lamest remark one can make. > You're out of ammo. Go home. Seems fair to me. However if the PP is going to criticize someone else's spelling..."phenomena" rather than "phenonema" is the plural of phenomenon. Dave Baker <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in article <4363a88d$0$41138$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>... > Seems fair to me. However if the PP is going to criticize someone else's > spelling..."phenomena" rather than "phenonema" is the plural of phenomenon. Fair enough, but I would hope that the correct spelling of the root in "phenomenon" would suggest that the incorrect spelling of "phenonema" was, merely, an unobserved, "flying finger" error....... ....all the right letters, but the wrong order, in spite of the best intentions..... .....but, thanks for pointing it out BTW - Before posting this, I corrected the following "flying finger" mistakes.... "worng" "poimnting" "ocrrect" "intemntions" Haven't we all? >Dave Baker <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in article ><4363a88d$0$41138$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Haven't we all? It is why they still put erasers on pencils. > Somebody got the idea of opening up DIY Shops, wherein they supply the > tools, the bay, the work area, and the owner does the work and > supplies the parts. I imagine the insurance premiums put those places > out of business, as I can't seem to find them around anymore, not that > I ever used one. I don't think the insurance premiums put those places out of businesss. Hell the U-pullit/U-pick wrecking yards are quite popular these days, and those are far less safe. What I think did them in is that vehicles over the years have got more complex requiring a much more serious approach to repair on them. I think a lot fewer people are doing casual repairs on their cars, the ones who are serious about doing them are serious about setting up the area to do them in. Ted Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in article <newscache$ms92pi$0al$1@news.ipinc.net>... > I don't think the insurance premiums put those places out of businesss. > Hell the U-pullit/U-pick wrecking yards are quite popular these days, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ones who are serious about doing them are serious about setting up the > area to do them in. That is certainly a deterrant to opening that sort of shop today, but the DIY rental shops all folded quite a while back when cars were still relatively simple to work on. One factor was the DIY-er who believed he rented an expert technician for his $7.00/hour, taking on jobs that were much larger than the DIY-er's capacity, fully expecting the attending technician to bail him out - or to pretty much do the entire job. Two or three of those in the shop on a Saturday REALLY put the crimp on management time. Tool mis-use, theft, and destruction played into it.... Another factor was not being able to finish a project in the time that the shop was open. Another factor - one of the main factors that drove me out of teaching vocational auto mechanics - was that the attendant, usually a trained, experienced technician, could be ultimately held responsible for the repairs that were done under his watchful eye.....the legal arguement being, ".....he has the experience and should have guided my client when he saw that things were not being done safely, etc., etc.," And, the final factor, the shop's busiest times were evenings and weekends - hardly amounting to 40 hours of actual occupancy. Most DIY-ers had a full-time job, and only tinkered with their cars evenings and weekends. Either the shop was empty - during your customers' "normal" workday, or you were turning away potential income due to the shop being full - mostly on weekends. Feast or famine. There is a reason why some shops - mine included - have signs reading...... SHOP LABOR $50 per hour $75 per hour if you WATCH! $100 per hour if you HELP! >Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in article ><newscache$ms92pi$0al$1@news.ipinc.net>... [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >$75 per hour if you WATCH! >$100 per hour if you HELP! I would pay the $75 per hour to watch. That is how you learn things. Of course, I wouldn't *pester* you, but would find it really interesting to see how the shop does ( or doesn't ) do things. I know I should have been watching when a mouth-breather turned my rotors into barber poles. A re-surfaced rotor is supposed to be smooth as a baby's a.s. These rotors came out looking like barber shop poles. And I _paid_ $$$ for that. NEVER AGAIN. Lg > And, the final factor, the shop's busiest times were evenings and weekends > - hardly amounting to 40 hours of actual occupancy. Most DIY-ers had a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > were turning away potential income due to the shop being full - mostly on > weekends. Feast or famine. I hadn't thought of that but that I think sounds like the real reason, everything else you cited, while annoying, could be handled if the shop was making enough money. I have also heard tell of some apartment dwellers renting a unit in one of those self-storage places to do major car projects. Ted > My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Bill O2 sensors tend to become sluggish around 100k miles. If diagnostic says they are going bad, then replace them. $234 each is a reasonable cost to have someone else do it. I would do it myself though for $54 each plus tax and save about $720. On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:13:27 GMT, "« Paul »" <" « Paul »"@houston.rr.com> wrote: >> My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >> of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> -Bill ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >O2 sensors tend to become sluggish around 100k miles. >If diagnostic says they are going bad, then replace them. >$234 each is a reasonable cost to have someone else do it. >I would do it myself though for $54 each plus tax and save about $720. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > O2 sensors tend to become sluggish around 100k miles. > If diagnostic says they are going bad, then replace them. > $234 each is a reasonable cost to have someone else do it. > I would do it myself though for $54 each plus tax and save about > $720. Yes, I go to a GoodYear tire place for service, they can fix most any problem. I get oil changes for $20. They charged $95 for the O2 sensor and $88 for diagnostics. The rest was labor and tax, about $50 more. What bothered me was the diagnostic test that took only about 10 minutes. At $88, for 10 minutes, they are charging $528 per hour which seems a little high. I might figure out how to do it myself, but I have no interest in auto mechanics. I would rather do other things. -Bill > Yes, I go to a GoodYear tire place for service, they can fix most > any problem. I get oil changes for $20. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Bill Based on my assumption that their labor rate is $88/hour - (guessing that from all of the data you supplied) I think you got charged a slight bit more diagnostic time than most shops would for this particular issue. They probably have a blanket charge of one hour for all MIL on diagnostics, but many shops start at .5 hour minimum, and tack on another .5 for installation. My biggest concern here is that you are trusting of a Goodyear chain tire store, which is a trust that doesn't seem to be based on any solid history of diagnostic competence. Your particular Goodyear store may very well have good techs, but the overwhelming majority of time chain tire stores hire subpar diagnosticians; they prefer (and only pay the rates for) parts changers. I would suggest you find a good dealer or independent repair shop that is NOT a tire chain store for vehicle repairs. Get suggestions from friends and family. If someone highly recommends a particular shop based on multiple visits, they most likely have never been screwed over there. Your condition of a bad O2 sensor was a slam dunk diagnosis THIS TIME. An Autozone employee would likely have gotten it right. In the future, the tire chain store may lead you down a long path of misdiagnosis and blind parts swapping at your expense. BTW, in response to your original post: my school of thought on preventative O2 sensor replacement for your particular situation (you require a shop to do all work) is to leave them alone until the check engine light comes on due to an O2 sensor related issue. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it) Toyota MDT in MO > My biggest concern here is that you are trusting of a Goodyear chain > tire store, which is a trust that doesn't seem to be based on any solid > history of diagnostic competence. Your particular Goodyear store may > very well have good techs, but the overwhelming majority of time chain > tire stores hire subpar diagnosticians; they prefer (and only pay the > rates for) parts changers. I agree with you on this. There are exceptions. Oldtimers here probably remember Kevin Mouton, who was employed at or ran a tire store garage, IIRC. Kevin was certainly a quality individual. Dont know what happened to him. > My biggest concern here is that you are trusting of a Goodyear chain > tire store, which is a trust that doesn't seem to be based on any solid > history of diagnostic competence Well, I've had good luck with them so far. They fixed another sensor problem with the antilock brakes and also a failed alternator. I went to the Ford dealer to get new tires that were recalled a few years ago (Firestone wilderness something or other) and the mechanic advised me that the brakes needed changing at 36K miles. I now have over 100K miles on the original factory brakes and they still don't need service. So much for Ford dealer mechanics. They are mostly full of BS. -Bill > My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Bill I've had cars for over 25 years that used oxygen sensors. In that time, I've replaced one (1981 Audi Coupe), and that was only because it was part of the routine service procedure. It was not actually bad. Myself and immediate family members have had cars well over 200,000 miles and no one close to me has had one fail. So, I'd say quit worrying about the other three sensors. The next time you get a check engine light, have an auto parts place like AutoZone read the code and if it says an O2 sensor is bad, replace it your self. $234 may sound like a lot for actually replacing one O2 sensor, but it is in line with what I would expect a dealer to charge. The breakdown should have been something like - $65 for diagnosis (just hooking to the Ford tester), $111 for the O2 Sensor (list price), about $50 for one half hour of labor to replace the sensor, and the rest, $8 or so, for taxes, shop charges, etc. Just be glad they didn't stick you with unnecessary "extra" services like fuel injector cleaning. I would guess an independent garage would have charge a little less for the same service - $150 or so. You could have done it yourself for around $90 (Ford Sensor with a discount) or $70 (AutoZone sensor). Next time you have a few minutes, I'd suggest that you clean your IAC - the dealer will hit you for another $230 or so if this sticks. If you don't understand what this means, do a Google search on "clean ford ranger iac" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clean+ford+ranger+iac). Regards, Ed White > My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Bill What is reasonable? If you took it to a dealership, you may have been lucky to get off so cheaply. My stepdaughter recently 'tried her wings' and took her Buick to the dealership for a check engine light issue. They replaced an oxygen sensor and charged her $320. That was, IMHO, too much. That car uses a special sensor, but it still costs less than $100. On these newsgroups, some like Daniel Stern have said that sensors such as Bosch tend to be of poor quality. If you are going to do it yourself, research this issue and buy good quality sensors. Changing them out is easy. > My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost > of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Bill Ford Ranger is a Mazda with Ford nameplates stuck on. Research Mazda 02 sensors. On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:59:19 GMT, "« Paul »" <" « Paul »"@houston.rr.com> wrote: >> My 2000 Ford Ranger recently needed a oxygen sensor replaced at a cost >> of $234 including the diagnostic test and labor. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Ford Ranger is a Mazda with Ford nameplates stuck on. >Research Mazda 02 sensors. A Sucker and his money are soon parted. By all means, if you're too fuckin stupid to know which way to turn the wrench, go to the shop. Lg > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:59:19 GMT, "« Paul »" <" « Paul > »"@houston.rr.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Lg While wrongaddress@att.net was wrong about the Ranger being a Mazda with Ford nametags on it [it's the other way around] I don't see why you called him fuckin stupid. I am looking forward to the day when you talk about taking your car in because the repairs are over your head... lol... is it due for an oil change yet? Will you have to wait 'till payday to buy that filter wrench and drain pan? You kill me Larry... Bob > A Sucker and his money are soon parted. > > By all means, if you're too fuckin stupid to know which way to turn > the wrench, go to the shop. > > Lg How about I let you have a go at a 1991 Ford F-250 with a 351 or 460? > Ford Ranger is a Mazda with Ford nameplates stuck on. > Research Mazda 02 sensors. You actually have that backwards. The Mazda pick-ups currently sold in the US are rebadged Ford Rangers. THey are built in Ford plants, using mostly "Ford" parts. In other area of the world, they still sell "real" Mazda trucks. For instance in much of the rest of the world (outside of the Americas), Ford sells rebadged Mazda Trucks - see http://www.ford.com.au/range/courier4x2/models/singlepickup.asp , http://www.mazda.com.au/bravo/articleZone5.asp?articleZoneID=3113 , http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/-/-/-/-/- And why do you think a Mazda sensor would be cheaper? Ed > > Ford Ranger is a Mazda with Ford nameplates stuck on. > > Research Mazda 02 sensors. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed Thanks for the links and info. Guess I was wrong on that one. Our company "run-about" is a Ranger. Its a good little truck. I used to have a 93 Ford Probe 2.5. Many of its parts were cheaper at Mazda. Some were cheaper at Ford. I usually called both dealers before buying the part.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.