From: bod on
Ret. wrote:
> GT wrote:
>> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:87p660FpkU17(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>>>> This is the last service done under warranty. The car is
>>>>>> thoroughly checked and a few warranty items are replaced. As the
>>>>>> car was as good as new after this final warranty service
>>>
>>>>> Eh? It's now a 3yo, 30k mile car. The fact it has a full history
>>>>> does not mean it's "as good as new".
>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with the service history, but the fact that all worn
>>>> parts have been replaced under warranty, so from that respect the
>>>> car is as good as new.
>>>
>>> Since when did a warranty cover normal wear & tear items? Never. It
>>> covers manufacturing and material defects only.
>>>
>>>>>> He has a full record of all services and all work done, so there
>>>>>> is no disputing that it is a full history of all services done,
>>>>>> but as it does not exactly comply with the manufacturers
>>>>>> recommended service interval, is this a "Full Service History" or
>>>>>> not? Its certainly not a partial service history or plain
>>>>>> "service history".
>>>
>>>>> It is not FSH. The car's servicing has been consistently lagging
>>>>> behind the schedule for over half it's life.
>>>
>>>> But the service history is full - it might not have been all on
>>>> schedule and might not comply with the manufacturer's
>>>> recommendations, but the record history is full - as in nothing
>>>> missing!
>>>
>>> See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the
>>> servicing?
>>
>> Important to who and in what context??
>>
>> This discussion is about the term Full Service History - the paper
>> record of all servicing. A full record of all work done to a car is
>> the important bit - a buyer needs to know when the timing belt, spark
>> plugs etc
>> were last replaced - in other words, when was the *last* service
>> done. In some respects the history of services is actually not too
>> important - its simply an indicator as to whether the owner looked
>> after the car or not.
>
> One of my brothers in law never believed in regular servicing. He owned
> a Sierra for many years that he never had serviced and only ever topped
> up the oil - never replaced it. If it went wrong (which it rarely did)
> he would get it fixed - but beyond that he did nothing to it.
>
> He traded it when it had over 100k on the clock and it was still running
> well!
>
>

Hmm, interesting. Makes one wonder whether the service intervals are
exaggerated, yes?

Bod
From: Ret. on
GT wrote:
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:87p9qrFoq0U3(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the
>>>> servicing?
>>
>>> Important to who and in what context??
>>
>> To a potential buyer of the car.
>
> Well, to a potential buyer of a car, I need to see what was done and
> when. I can't lift the head off the engine and check seals and
> valves, so I need to see it written down, so as a buyer I'm
> interested in the service history - which documents the work that has
> been done!

No - it documents the work that was *supposed* to have been done! Whether it
actually *was* done is another matter entirely...

>
>>> This discussion is about the term Full Service History - the paper
>>> record of all servicing.
>>
>> Hmm. So you're saying the paperwork is more important than the work
>> it documents?
>
> No, I'm saying that the paperwork shows that the work was done,
> something which the average buyer would otherwise not be able to find
> out.

See above - it shows no such thing.

>
>>> A full record of all work done to a car is the important bit
>>
>> I would have said the work is more important.
>
> To the mechanical health of the car, yes, but to the buyer actually
> no! When presented with a full historical service record, a buyer
> will pay more money that a car that may have been serviced to a
> better standard and more often, but without documentation, then that
> work was useless in respect of a sale.
> In other words *unfortunately* a fake service history on a car that
> will only run for another 6 months is actually more use than a fully
> serviced car with no documentation!!

Very true.

--
Kev

From: GT on
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87pb7kFoq0U4(a)mid.individual.net...
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> AIUI the car has been fully serviced, by the owner not a dealer.
>
>>> No - you're getting confuzzled with the change of topic in a
>>> sub-thread. The original query was that Kev's "friend" has had
>>> considerably less work done on the car than the schedule requests - but
>>> is considering that paperwork for all that work is all that's required
>>> to constitute FSH.
>>>
>>> In other words - "full paperwork", rather than "full maintenance".
>
>> And using the more relevant and common words, his 'full paperwork'
>> documents the "full service history" of the vehicle.
>
> Quite the opposite. The "full paperwork" documents that the service
> history is NOT full.
>
>> The fact that the vehicle history does not comply with manufacturers
>> recommendations unfortunately does not affect the term "full service
>> history".
>
> OK, so how WOULD you refer to such compliance?
>
>> I agree with everyone who would like it to, but it doesn't!
>
> Conventional usage certainly has it referring to such compliance.
>
>> As the service intervals and mileages are only recommendations, then
>> they are surely flexible anyway?
>
> They are recommendations, yes, since there's no enforcement mechanism for
> the manufacturer or regulatory body to withdraw operating permission from
> an inadequately maintained vehicle (unlike aircraft).
>
> But it's compliance with that recommendation that a service history would
> demonstrate to be deemed "full".

A full dental history is a set of medical documents showing every dentist
visit and all work done to my teeth. Just because I have not been every 6
months, does not make the documented history not a *full* history of
services to my mouth. I have a full service history for my teeth, but one
that doesn't comply with the recommendations!!

Same applies to a historical set of documents covering the history of
services to a car. Just because the car hasn't been serviced according to
some time or mileage guidelines doesn't make it not a *full* set of records,
AKA a Full Service History.


From: Brimstone on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c1779cd$0$5113$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u7ednf5H04A96orRnZ2dnUVZ8vadnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4c17737b$0$6156$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:YYSdnblC37nj_orRnZ2dnUVZ7oKdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c17610e$0$6195$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_ZydnaQT8ovdw4rRnZ2dnUVZ7rGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hv7lcf$nq0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:27:27 +0100
>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>If you didn't make such stupid responses to simple statements of
>>>>>>>>fact then
>>>>>>>>you wouldn't get the reactions that you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its not a statement of fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way is "A fitter is a highly skilled tradesman trained to
>>>>>> make new parts." not a simple statement of facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The word is used by most people to describe
>>>>>>> a person who "fits" parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in the context of motor vehicles. Most people are also aware
>>>>>> that modern "mechanics" do not have the skills of their predecessors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fitters don't/didn't work in tatty back street garages. As I said,
>>>>>>>>they're
>>>>>>>>highly trained tradesman/craftsman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where do they work then? Do tell. Because they're certainly not
>>>>>>> down at
>>>>>>> any main dealers I've been to. Are they at the company HQs busily
>>>>>>> designing
>>>>>>> and building prototypes? No, that would be designers and engineers.
>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>> they on the production line perhaps bolting bits of car together
>>>>>>> then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fitter work in all areas of engineering. They are the people who make
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> My twopenneth:
>>>>>
>>>>> A cleaner cleans things.
>>>>> A driver drives things.
>>>>> A manufacturer manufactuers things.
>>>>> A parts engineer engineers parts.
>>>>> A parts fitter fits parts.
>>>>> A fitter doesn't make parts.
>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/apprenticentre/detcms/apprenticeships-and-training/apprenticentre/program-descriptors/apprenticeships/metals-manufacturing-and-services/mechanical-fitter.en?oid=com.arsdigita.cms.contenttypes.ProgramDescriptor-id-323038
>>>
>>> Another war of words! That link does indeed demonstrate that "mechanical
>>> fitters" in some areas do make parts for machinery, but AIUI we're
>>> talking about garage 'fitters', not mechanical fitters.
>>>
>> Garage fitters don't exist anymore. Cars aren't designed for parts to be
>> repaired, only for parts to be changed.
>
> By a parts fitter!

You're the only person I've encountered to use that description.

>>> my short phrase above didn't clearly name these people, but this is who
>>> I was refering to as 'fitters' - the people who fit exhausts, fan belts,
>>> batteries etc at local garages - they certainly don't make the exhausts,
>>> belts, batteries etc in the garage, then fit them. The order them from
>>> parts shops and fit them when they arrive. Perhaps they should be called
>>> 'car part orderers, box openers and fitters'!
>>
>> The term "swap-jockey" already covers the job description.
>
> I don't think this term is really used in job descriptions, more by
> disgruntled halfords and kwik-fit customers!
And such customers of other less than efficient repair shops.



From: GT on
"bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87pc5gFf62U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Ret. wrote:
>> GT wrote:
>>> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87p660FpkU17(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the last service done under warranty. The car is
>>>>>>> thoroughly checked and a few warranty items are replaced. As the
>>>>>>> car was as good as new after this final warranty service
>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? It's now a 3yo, 30k mile car. The fact it has a full history
>>>>>> does not mean it's "as good as new".
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with the service history, but the fact that all worn
>>>>> parts have been replaced under warranty, so from that respect the
>>>>> car is as good as new.
>>>>
>>>> Since when did a warranty cover normal wear & tear items? Never. It
>>>> covers manufacturing and material defects only.
>>>>
>>>>>>> He has a full record of all services and all work done, so there
>>>>>>> is no disputing that it is a full history of all services done,
>>>>>>> but as it does not exactly comply with the manufacturers
>>>>>>> recommended service interval, is this a "Full Service History" or
>>>>>>> not? Its certainly not a partial service history or plain
>>>>>>> "service history".
>>>>
>>>>>> It is not FSH. The car's servicing has been consistently lagging
>>>>>> behind the schedule for over half it's life.
>>>>
>>>>> But the service history is full - it might not have been all on
>>>>> schedule and might not comply with the manufacturer's
>>>>> recommendations, but the record history is full - as in nothing
>>>>> missing!
>>>>
>>>> See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the
>>>> servicing?
>>>
>>> Important to who and in what context??
>>>
>>> This discussion is about the term Full Service History - the paper
>>> record of all servicing. A full record of all work done to a car is
>>> the important bit - a buyer needs to know when the timing belt, spark
>>> plugs etc
>>> were last replaced - in other words, when was the *last* service
>>> done. In some respects the history of services is actually not too
>>> important - its simply an indicator as to whether the owner looked
>>> after the car or not.
>>
>> One of my brothers in law never believed in regular servicing. He owned a
>> Sierra for many years that he never had serviced and only ever topped up
>> the oil - never replaced it. If it went wrong (which it rarely did) he
>> would get it fixed - but beyond that he did nothing to it.
>>
>> He traded it when it had over 100k on the clock and it was still running
>> well!
>
> Hmm, interesting. Makes one wonder whether the service intervals are
> exaggerated, yes?

The recommended service intervals are based on MTBF rates on parts - and the
manufacturers don't have full information on that when a new model is
launched, so they guess based on previous models and experience.