Prev: Screenwash may save your life
Next: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e together with the distance?
From: bod on 15 Jun 2010 09:05 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 15 Jun 2010 09:06 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 15 Jun 2010 09:10 "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 15 Jun 2010 09:15 "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 15 Jun 2010 09:27
"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. |