Limitations of Diagnostics

[lipbeard1]

.

Edited 26 April, 2011 by lipbeard1

[aham_uk]

A boost log with actual vs requested data with map sensor state (requesting less boost but still climbing) indicates sticky vanes or a split pipe etc. To do this most dealers have the computers to do such testing. Unfortuneatly knowledge is key, most dealerships only see cars which are new enough to be under warrenty.

To be honest this type of thing is why u bought vcds and gained knowledge to help people. Most garages can't even test if a MAF sensor which is the basics if diagnostics.

[bearthebruce]

I like your argument in that the diagnostic tool is just that - a tool. It is not the end all and be all. The tool's job is to present information to the intelligent human operating the tool who then makes the determination of what further information is needed to make a diagnosis. Unfortunately, the factory diagnostic tool uses a principle called "Guided Fault Finding" in which it replaces the intelligence of the technician with a "fault tree" the technician must follow. If a part is out of spec, it is replaced during the process - even if it is not a failed part.

Some tool manufacturers loathe Guided Fault Finding for the simple reason that it prevents the technician from seeing a full clear picture of all possible problems. I work for a company that loathes the idea of taking the talented, intelligent technician out of the equation and making the mediocre technician dependent on the script the tool presents.

In any case, more information could have been collected to end at a more proper diagnosis. Running a boost test as described here would have helped. But again, the factory tool has little support for logging real time data and as a result, the technician may not have the ability to perform such a test.

Good luck with your efforts to get the dealer to agree. His diagnostic tool told his technician to do as they did. I doubt he will accept responsibility for not seeing the problems sooner in the diagnostic session on your car.

Edited 16 March, 2011 by bearthebruce

[hertsnminds]

The thing is with any diagnostic you have to start somewhere and if there is a set routine suggested by Skoda training then then engineer must follow this. Unless of course you had suggested to the garage that they try taking advice from owners on this forum. However once the garage follows your diagnostic procedure and not their own and there are any issues they can claim the time/parts taken to find the eventual cure would most definitely be down to you.

So the garage has a choice:

1) Follow the Skoda approved diagnostic route and take responsibility

2) Take the customer diagnostic route and pass on the responsibility to the owner

For you to have any valid claim you would have to prove that the procedures they followed were not Skoda approved or that they were negligent in some other way. As with most electronics the error message you get is not usually the cause of the fault as anyone who has run a computer for any length of time will tell you.

Edited 16 March, 2011 by hertsnminds

[Wardy]

Knowledge and experience is key here. You cannot rectify this sort of fault by diagnostic following alone.

My turbo failed in January, during a journey. The fault code?

16621 - Manifold Pressure / Boost Sensor (G31): Signal too Low

Not much help is it really? It's a fault, but it doesn't point directly to the issue. There is no 'ERROR: turbo failure' fault code unfortunately. There can't be. That fault has been logged because of what's happened, but doesn't directly point towards the fault.

Also because the turbo is a mechanical piece of equipment, it isn't DIRECTLY linked to the ECU. Other parts of the vehicle clearly rely on the turbo though, and have sensors and can be monitored and adjusted by the ECU. So the best you get is a *related* fault, like the one from my car.

As for the dealer in question - bad workmen sometimes blame their tools....

[Golf-Fiend]

Which particular main agent is this?

Edited 16 May, 2011 by Golf-Fiend

[lipbeard1]

...

Edited 24 April, 2011 by lipbeard1

[lipbeard1]

.

Edited 24 April, 2011 by lipbeard1