The "secret formula" to figuring out the price of a repair

Parts+Tax+Labor=Cost of Repair

Everyday, it seems, as I answer my e-mail transmission questions, that I have to explain the basic steps involved in proper diagnosis and repair of automatic transmissions. Many people believe that, since they have little money to spend on the repair, that the repair must not be too serious, or, that an expensive part doesn't have to be replaced, and may actually be acceptable to reuse, simply because of their inability to afford the "expensive part". Others believe that the best way to save money, on a repair, is to list all parts involved with the component, and their respective prices, and then, simply replace the "cheapest" part first, and then the next "cheapest", and so on, until the problem "magically" goes away. Still others believe that the problem must lie within a component that they know the name of, or know how to replace easily. While these "diagnostic procedures" may work for you, I have a different approach to repairing a vehicle, that I feel may be more logical.

Identify the Problem

The first thing I do, when I repair a vehicle, is identify the problem. This involves a couple of preliminary checks (checking transmission fluid level, and condition, and shifter adjustment, for example), and a test drive, to duplicate the complaint. As an example, if a customer comes in with a complaint that the transmission shifts too late, or has a problem shifting into a particular gear, I drive the vehicle and make sure that I agree with the customer's description of the problem, and verify that the shift problem does, infact, exist, and, also, during the testdrive, try a couple of things to see how the described complaint is affected by things like differences in throttle position, etc, and, from that information, I try to determine what type of problem we are working with. Let us say, in our example, that the complaint is a late upshifting condition, and the fluid level is correct. Does the transmission have a vacuum modulator? If so, does the engine appear to be running like it may have a vacuum leak (rough running at idle, or "hissing sound"). Or, is this transmission Throttle Valve controlled?, in which case, I would lift the hood and look at the TV cable to see if it is binding, or needs adjustment (maybe someone just worked on the carburetor and did not adjust the cable properly...).

"Hands On" Diagnosis

After identifying the customer's complaint, and figuring some different causes of the complaint, I begin "hands on" diagnosis. In the case of the late shifting transmission that is vacuum modulated, I check the vacuum at the modulator, with a vacuum gauge, for adequate vacuum and quality (having someone "stab" the throttle to confirm that the vacuum responds quickly with throttle movement). If all is well with the "easy stuff", I may pull the pan (after getting a "go-ahead" from the customer, for additional diagnostic time, of course), and inspect, looking for clues to transmission condition; if I see lots of metal shavings, or clutch material, or anything else "suspicious", I stop there and recommend an overhaul; if not, it is time to dive deeper, checking things like governor (if it is a GM vehicle, I check the governor gear, and valve). When I find the Cause of the complaint, whatever it may be, and the Result of the problem causing the complaint, then I determine what would be the best way to fix the vehicle COMPLETELY (meaning that, after the repair, the vehicle is, basically "good as new", as far as the fixed component is concerned, and should be expected to give the customer a reasonable amount of miles without another incident, related to that component). This means that if the transmission has 100,000 miles, it is not repairable without a complete overhaul (just as you would not want to patch a bald tire that has gone flat, you do not want to repair an otherwise wornout transmission. It makes customers angry when they must have the vehicle repaired again, not long after having it "fixed", even though they may have "saved money" on the previous repair). It also means that the transmission must be torn down, to reasonably determine that it does not have other problems as a result of the original problem. If the complaint is caused by a worn out part, chances are that there are more worn-out parts within the transmission, that need attention.

"Plan" the Repair

After determining what caused the complaint, and the approach that should be taken to correct ALL problems that exist within the transmission, I then explain, to the customer, what may have caused the problem (if that can be determined), what has resulted from the problem, and what needs to be performed to correct the problem, completely, and also, inform the customer of any other problems that may be present, with the vehicle, because, after all, the customer is interested in reliable transportation, or they would not have taken their vehicle in for repair; right?

The "Secret Formula" for Repair Cost

Figuring the actual cost of the repair is easy; add up the parts that need to be replaced, figure any applicable sales taxes, multiply the time required for diagnosis, and to complete the job, by the labor rate, and add them all together. Notice that, not once, during the actual cost figuring, did I include how much money the customer wanted to spend on the repair; this has nothing to do with the actual cost of the completed repair; just as the price of food, charged at a grocery store does not hinge upon the amount of money I have to spend on groceries; the grocer simply looks up the prices on the groceries, and adds them all up. Also, note that I have replaced nothing at this point. By checking each component (it helps tremendously if the techician knows how the component is supposed to work...This is why I also must attend various classes, and read, constantly, to make sure that I am able to quickly, accurately and efficiently, test related components, to determine the cause of the problem ) carefully, I can then determine exactly what component(s) need to be replaced, I save the customer money by not replacing components, simply because that component is the "cheapest" or "easiest to replace"; customers hate to pay for parts that were replaced simply because the technician did not know how to check the component properly, or did not know how the component was supposed to work.

Perform the Repair

If the customer decides to authorize the repair, based on the actual cost to make a complete repair on the component, I then perform the repair. If the customer does have the money for the repair, I find them financing. If they simply won't spend that much money on the repair, and think they can get it fixed somewhere else, at less cost, or elect to reuse some questionable parts, to save money, I simply suggest that they tow the vehicle to another shop, if they are not interested in a complete repair. I figure that a complete repair is in my best interest, as well as the customer's, and compromising a repair job only leads to problems in the future. As I said before, customers are rarely happy when they must pay for a repair the second time, even if it is the result of the techician attempting to save them money, on the first repair attempt. Believe it, or not, by using this "logical" approach to diagnosis and repair, I believe that I may actually be saving the customer money, in the longrun, by using their repair money to completely fix the problem, so that they can go on, without having to deal with that same problem again.

verify Absence of Complaint

Next, I alway verify the absence of the original complaint. Even if I have fixed 20 items on the car, that desperately needed to be repaired, a customer would really be upset if the original problem, the reason they originally brought the car in for repair, still exists after the repair; not good... If I fix nothing else on the car, I must make absolutely sure that the original complaint is gone; completely.

How much money is "too much"?

I have had lots of people mentioning "rip off" shops that charge too much(in their opinion), per hour, for labor. If the shop is clean, well equipped, with well-informed techicians, that are able to identify the cause of a problem, quickly and efficiently, shouldn't they get paid more, per hour, than an unorganized shop, will poorly maintained equipment, and technicians that simply replace parts until the problem goes away, never fully understanding what may have caused the problem in the first place?

Remember, as I have heard somewhere before:
Everyone must make a living, so, if you find it cheaper somewhere, it is probably at the sacrifice of quality, or quantity. If you spend too much on a repair that is complete, you have less money, and a completed repair. If you spend too little on a repair, you have less money, and you still need to deal with having the repair performed.

"Spending too much" on a repair, just might be the most cost-efficient way to have the vehicle "fixed right the first time".