# Spark plugs and carbon build up at 65k (2017 premier hatchback)



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Get a can of Seafoam intake valve cleaner and do that first:









Sea Foam Spray | Intake Valve and Top Engine Cleaner and Lubricant


Sea Foam Spray Top Engine Cleaner & Lube works through an engine’s upper intake to clean harmful deposits from intake valves and chamber areas.



seafoamworks.com





Do that before an oil change and see if it helps.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm familiar with Seafoam and I've used it in the past, but it's not a miracle worker. There's way too much carbon. In any case, GM doesn't want people (or shops) using top engine cleaner sprays anymore.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Older vehicles with poor quality gasoline in the past benefitted from a Marvel inverse oiler - a device that would slowly feed Marvel Mystery Oil into the intake with increasing rates as manifold vacuum decreased. Hence, the "inverted" part of the name of the oiler. It was basically a way to drip some MMO through the intake to keep the valves clean over long periods of time.

Now that the majority of new vehicles are GDI, it's an ideal time for Marvel inverse oilers to make a comeback. I just now noticed you can get one with a pint container for tight applications: Products – Ampco Lubricators LLC


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

When I worked in the automotive industry Valvoline had just come out with a GDI service kit.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I think VW had a lot of trouble with carbon clogged valves. They had a kit that was special made to clean inside the cylinder vs a spray down the intake deal.


----------



## marmalou (Dec 30, 2020)

Very interesting! Now I know what to expect for mine, I follow the same maintenance, fuel, and driving conditions. 45000 kms


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Barry Allen said:


> Older vehicles with poor quality gasoline in the past benefitted from a Marvel inverse oiler - a device that would slowly feed Marvel Mystery Oil into the intake with increasing rates as manifold vacuum decreased. Hence, the "inverted" part of the name of the oiler. It was basically a way to drip some MMO through the intake to keep the valves clean over long periods of time.
> 
> Now that the majority of new vehicles are GDI, it's an ideal time for Marvel inverse oilers to make a comeback. I just now noticed you can get one with a pint container for tight applications: Products – Ampco Lubricators LLC


I've never seen a product like that before, very interesting! I'm curious what sort of success people with GDI engines have had at combatting carbon with that. Any solution under $100 seems pretty appealing.

As far as manufacturer solutions are concerned, what they need to do is use dual injection, port and direct. But that all seems like a moot point now that we have an insane push toward electric vehicles and gas engine development is waning. 



pandrad61 said:


> I think VW had a lot of trouble with carbon clogged valves. They had a kit that was specks made to clean inside the cylinder vs a spray down the intake deal.


VW/Audi probably has the worst history with carbon issues. Their 2.0T motors used to suck down oil like crazy.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I've never seen a product like that before, very interesting! I'm curious what sort of success people with GDI engines have had at combatting carbon with that. Any solution under $100 seems pretty appealing.
> 
> As far as manufacturer solutions are concerned, what they need to do is use dual injection, port and direct. But that all seems like a moot point now that we have an insane push toward electric vehicles and gas engine development is waning.
> 
> ...


Having owned a turbo 4 Passat wagon I’ll never own another POS VW rest of my life.


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

Today's carbon is minor compared to years past when gas was still leaded. 

Back then we squirted water down the carb.

I ran seafoam in my tank not to long ago.
Really smoothed it out.

There aren't many people worried about carbon. 99% just drive their cars till they die.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I'm familiar with Seafoam and I've used it in the past, but it's not a miracle worker. There's way too much carbon. In any case, GM doesn't want people (or shops) using top engine cleaner sprays anymore.


What you've posted seems pretty consistent with what I see daily. 

Seafoam can't work magic, you're correct. And while GM doesn't recommend using Seafoam (or any aftermarket chemical essentially) They do in fact approve and even recommend top end engine cleaning using approved methods and chemicals for excessive carbon buildup. 
19355198 is GM Top Engine Cleaner. And it gets induced through the throttle body with an atomizing spray nozzle.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

In contrast, here’s one that does almost 90% city and short trip driving these days. Probably not great habits for a DI engine. Original 41-123 plugs (swapped for 41-156 now) at 47000 miles.

I had taken out the plugs a year or two ago just to see what they looked like when I was doing more road trips with the car, and they looked almost identical to yours.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Ma v e n said:


> What you've posted seems pretty consistent with what I see daily.
> 
> Seafoam can't work magic, you're correct. And while GM doesn't recommend using Seafoam (or any aftermarket chemical essentially) They do in fact approve and even recommend top end engine cleaning using approved methods and chemicals for excessive carbon buildup.
> 19355198 is GM Top Engine Cleaner. And it gets induced through the throttle body with an atomizing spray nozzle.


Have you guys had to do any top end cleans on the 1.4T/1.5T SGEs yet for misfires, rough idle, etc?


----------



## Valpo Cruze (Feb 23, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> I think VW had a lot of trouble with carbon clogged valves. They had a kit that was special made to clean inside the cylinder vs a spray down the intake deal.


Yeah VW/Audi had a problem with some of their direct injected engines and carbon buildup. Very few had luck with a chemical clean. Best results were with a walnut shell media blasting. My A7 had a carbon cleaning around 105,000 miles with the previous owner. I am around 206,000 miles on the car now and I am not experiencing anything to indicate it needs it again. I inspected the valves when I had the engine out for timing chains last summer and all looked decent, dirty but decent. I don't use top tier gas but I was driving A LOT before Covid. 60+ miles each way to work at highway speeds. I quickly got the engine up to temp and ran it sustained for an hour each way to work which helped keep the buildup down. I had an Audi tech tell me that the best defense against the carbon build up was to get it up to temp and drive for at least 30 minutes at a time. Below that things are not heated up enough and the build up tends to happen faster.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> What you've posted seems pretty consistent with what I see daily.
> 
> Seafoam can't work magic, you're correct. And while GM doesn't recommend using Seafoam (or any aftermarket chemical essentially) They do in fact approve and even recommend top end engine cleaning using approved methods and chemicals for excessive carbon buildup.
> 19355198 is GM Top Engine Cleaner. And it gets induced through the throttle body with an atomizing spray nozzle.


Do you have a link or some info about approved top engine cleaning method for their GDI turbocharged motors? I'm curious about their method of applying the spray because you either have to spray through the turbo like CRC suggests or disconnect the intake and go straight in the throttle body which will set off codes.

I was under the impression GM found issues with the top engine cleaning process that either had to do with clogged cats or chunks of dislodged carbon.



Valpo Cruze said:


> I quickly got the engine up to temp and ran it sustained for an hour each way to work which helped keep the buildup down. I had an Audi tech tell me that the best defense against the carbon build up was to get it up to temp and drive for at least 30 minutes at a time. Below that things are not heated up enough and the build up tends to happen faster.


I don't want to come off rude, but it sounds like that tech blew smoke up your rear. Running a cold engine hard to get it warm faster to avoid carbon is not something I would recommend. The concept is dubious at best, and will at the very least take a toll in other ways. Our Cruze is driven in a daily 40 minute commute (each way).

The only way to reduce the carbon (besides good maintenance) is to keep oil from getting back in the intake. GM understood this when they designed the rudimentary oil catch can into the intake. Or perhaps something like the device linked earlier in the thread that feeds the intake with a continuous solvent drip.


----------



## Valpo Cruze (Feb 23, 2014)

I never ran the engine hard or anything of the sort, nor did the tech suggest that. If it came across that way I apologize. When I leave my house to head to work I am roughly 20 - 30 MPH for the first 5 minutes or so and then up to a 55 MPH zone for just about the entire trip to work except that last 1 mile after exiting the interstate. As for a catch can on my setup, there just isn't room under the hood for it on my car. My PCV is a bit weak but not failed yet so eventually I will change that out which will help with keeping the oil from the intake, just not looking forward to it since its underneath the supercharger.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Valpo Cruze said:


> I never ran the engine hard or anything of the sort, nor did the tech suggest that. If it came across that way I apologize. When I leave my house to head to work I am roughly 20 - 30 MPH for the first 5 minutes or so and then up to a 55 MPH zone for just about the entire trip to work except that last 1 mile after exiting the interstate. As for a catch can on my setup, there just isn't room under the hood for it on my car. My PCV is a bit weak but not failed yet so eventually I will change that out which will help with keeping the oil from the intake, just not looking forward to it since its underneath the supercharger.


Edit: I think I misread your initial comment. You didn't mention getting the engine warm faster or more quickly. My mistake.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

cp-the-nerd said:


> As far as manufacturer solutions are concerned, what they need to do is use dual injection, port and direct.


Toyota has a few engines like that (some Lexus engines?) and the new Mazda Skyactiv X engine will do the same.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Barry Allen said:


> Toyota has a few engines like that (some Lexus engines?) and the new Mazda Skyactiv X engine will do the same.


Ford's new V6 family does too (2.7 Ecoboost, 3.3 NA, 3.5 Ecoboost), and the newer 5.0s. I'm not sure if the new 1.5T 3 cyl/newest 2.0T do or not.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

cp-the-nerd said:


> Do you have a link or some info about approved top engine cleaning method for their GDI turbocharged motors? I'm curious about their method of applying the spray because you either have to spray through the turbo like CRC suggests or disconnect the intake and go straight in the throttle body which will set off codes.


Top engine cleaner is induced through the throttle body. Spraying through the turbo is ridiculous. The least of the issues just being spraying into the exposed compressor wheel, but more the fact of trying to keep an atomized spray getting to the valves, after you whip it in the turbo, send it through multiple feet of charge piping, and then through the metal intercooler with it's massive surface area. I'd be surprised if half of the amount of spray ever made it to the valves in any useful manner as compared to TB spray.(and that's being generous)

Codes aren't really an issue when the procedure is being done by a tech, or when the reason it's likely being done is for the vehicle already having DTCs and drivability issues.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

jblackburn said:


> Ford's new V6 family does too (2.7 Ecoboost, 3.3 NA, 3.5 Ecoboost), and the newer 5.0s. I'm not sure if the new 1.5T 3 cyl/newest 2.0T do or not.


GM only has one dual injected engine I'm aware of. The LT5 in the ZR1


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> Spraying through the turbo is ridiculous.


🚗 🔥 💥


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Having read GM's ridiculous bulletin about how to use their $500 kit to spray into the throttle body with an atomizer (and definitely don't use competitor products because reasons), after we succumb to doing the shell blasting procedure, I'm going to drill a resealable access point in the plastic tube above the throttle body just large enough to fit a spray nozzle so we can administer spray cleaner annually and avoid needing another $500 service.

The bulletin:


https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2020/MC-10176607-9999.pdf


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> Top engine cleaner is induced through the throttle body. Spraying through the turbo is ridiculous. The least of the issues just being spraying into the exposed compressor wheel, but more the fact of trying to keep an atomized spray getting to the valves, after you whip it in the turbo, send it through multiple feet of charge piping, and then through the metal intercooler with it's massive surface area. I'd be surprised if half of the amount of spray ever made it to the valves in any useful manner as compared to TB spray.(and that's being generous)
> 
> Codes aren't really an issue when the procedure is being done by a tech, or when the reason it's likely being done is for the vehicle already having DTCs and drivability issues.


I refuse to pay some exorbitant cost for a tech to apply $10 of top engine spray cleaner just because GM made this job as difficult as possible.

Spraying through the turbo is indeed what CRC carbon cleaner directs you to do. It bypasses the need for a GM technician with a tech 2 or whatever, so it can be done at home. That was probably their whole idea behind it. The merits of that method notwithstanding.



Amazon.com


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I refuse to pay some exorbitant cost for a tech to apply $10 of top engine spray cleaner just because GM made this job as difficult as possible.
> 
> Spraying through the turbo is indeed what CRC carbon cleaner directs you to do. It bypasses the need for a GM technician with a tech 2 or whatever, so it can be done at home. That was probably their whole idea behind it. The merits of that method notwithstanding.
> 
> ...


I don't want to come off as rude, but you're coming across kinda arrogant. Are you and @Ma v e n both ASE Master Technicians?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I refuse to pay some exorbitant cost for a tech to apply $10 of top engine spray cleaner just because GM made this job as difficult as possible.
> 
> Spraying through the turbo is indeed what CRC carbon cleaner directs you to do. It bypasses the need for a GM technician with a tech 2 or whatever, so it can be done at home. That was probably their whole idea behind it. The merits of that method notwithstanding.
> 
> ...


The car would probably idle just fine spraying it through the throttle body with the rest of the stuff disconnected.

Engine codes can easily be cleared with any OBDII module/scanner.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

JLL said:


> I don't want to come off as rude, but you're coming across kinda arrogant. Are you and @Ma v e n both ASE Master Technicians?


I don't think I disputed anything Ma v e n said, it was meant conversationally. My annoyance is with GM, not with him. But if I came off arrogant, I guess I can be that way.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I don't think I disputed anything Ma v e n said, it was meant conversationally. My annoyance is with GM, not with him. But if I came off arrogant, I guess I can be that way.


Why would you be annoyed with GM? You bought their car. Proper maintenance is all part of ownership.

I've worked in the automotive industry for a decade and it amazes me how many people buy cars they can't afford to properly maintain.

But that's not the topic at hand.

Personally, I would never spray anything flammable into a component that gets hot inside. I view that as potentially dangerous.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

JLL said:


> Why would you be upset with GM? You bought their car. Proper maintenance is all part of ownership.
> 
> I've worked in the automotive industry for a decade and it amazes me how many people buy cars they can't afford to properly maintain.
> 
> ...


I'm annoyed with GM because their response to GDI carbon issues has been lousy. 

Your second point about "proper maintenance" and being able to afford to maintain a car seems misplaced to me, I already mentioned that I'll be looking into shell blasting. I'm talking about paying the hilarious dealership markup on simple maintenance I can do myself. If you wait until carbon is bad enough to be causing idle problems and fault codes like the bulletin suggests, the spray isn't even a viable solution IMO.

As far as spraying intake cleaner through the turbo, I wasn't endorsing it and I've never done it. I just use a number of CRC products and I am aware that they have a spray advertised for that method.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I'm annoyed with GM because their response to GDI carbon issues has been lousy.
> 
> Your second point about "proper maintenance" and being able to afford to maintain a car seems misplaced to me, I already mentioned that I'll be looking into shell blasting. I'm talking about paying the hilarious dealership markup on simple maintenance I can do myself. If you wait until carbon is bad enough to be causing idle problems and fault codes like the bulletin suggests, the spray isn't even a viable solution IMO.
> 
> As far as spraying intake cleaner through the turbo, I wasn't endorsing it and I've never done it. I just use a number of CRC products and I am aware that they have a spray advertised for that method.


If you "can do it yourself," why do you care what GM's response to the GDI carbon issue is?

How is my comment misplaced?

Why would you go on a rant against GM's pricing if money for proper maintenance wasn't an issue?


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

JLL said:


> If you "can do it yourself," why do you care what GM's response to the GDI carbon issue is?
> 
> How is my comment misplaced?
> 
> Why would you go on a rant against GM's pricing if money for proper maintenance wasn't an issue?


You seem to be looking for reasons to be combative about this. Tons of people who aren't struggling paycheck to paycheck do their own maintenance because dealerships and shops price gouge.

If I come up with a solution for easy spray treatments, I will share it for others who want to be proactive about their carbon build up issues and don't want to pay out the butt for someone else to do it.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

cp-the-nerd said:


> You seem to be looking for reasons to be combative about this. Tons of people who aren't struggling paycheck to paycheck do their own maintenance because dealerships and shops price gouge.
> 
> If I come up with a solution for easy spray treatments, I will share it for others who want to be proactive about their carbon build up issues and don't want to pay out the butt for someone else to do it.


It's pretty clear that I'm not going to get anywhere in this conversation.

Good luck with your maintenance efforts.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

I'm not sure I know what you consider about that bulltetin to be "ridiculous" for a service procedure to clean valves in a dealership. (It's not meant to be a maintenance procedure for owners to follow) 

The procedure in question is not difficult If you read and comprehended what's going on you'd have understood that.



Here's two scan tools so you can clear the codes, a $10 one that works with a smartphone and an app, and a $14 standalone variant.
Buy one of these, and spray your cleaner in through the throttle body.

Or drill a hole in you charge piping, or spray it through the turbo, or whatever else it is that you may conceive of so that you don't do it GMs way because you have some issue with it. As always, the only thing my input on this subject costed was MY time, so do with it as you see fit.
















By the way, just tangentially here, I don't suppose there is anything involved in your profession that could be argued was overpriced, or that one could do it themselves cheaper....


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> I'm not sure I know what you consider about that bulltetin to be "ridiculous" for a service procedure to clean valves in a dealership. (It's not meant to be a maintenance procedure for owners to follow)
> 
> The procedure in question is not difficult If you read and comprehended what's going on you'd have understood that.
> 
> ...


You both have gotten the impression that I think all auto repair work is easy overpriced, and that's not what I'm saying. I think GM's GDI carbon solution is 1. insufficient and 2. easily done at home.

I have an OBD device. I read and understood the bulletin, other manufacturers use a better direct abrasive method of cleaning. My brother, for example, bought a used Lacrosse 3.6L GDI and soon after the engine had carbon issues that could only be remedied with shell blasting, not spray.

My idea for a reusable access point in the intake tube is to avoid making the engine freak out with the intake off.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

cp-the-nerd said:


> You both have gotten the impression that I think all auto repair work is easy overpriced, and that's not what I'm saying. I think GM's GDI carbon solution is 1. insufficient and 2. easily done at home.
> 
> I have an OBD device. I read and understood the bulletin, other manufacturers use a better direct abrasive method of cleaning. My brother, for example, bought a used Lacrosse 3.6L GDI and soon after the engine had carbon issues that could only be remedied with shell blasting, not spray.
> 
> My idea for a reusable access point in the intake tube is to avoid making the engine freak out with the intake off.


Valvoline recommends GDI cleanings every 20,000 miles as a *preventative *measure to keep the carbon from building up to the point that your dealing with now.

What is GM's recommendations for GDI cleanings @Ma v e n ?


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

JLL said:


> Valvoline recommends GDI cleanings every 20,000 miles as a *preventative *measure to keep the carbon from building up to the point that your dealing with now.
> 
> What is GM's recommendations for GDI cleanings @Ma v e n ?


There isn't one. They don't recommend or condone usage of chemical treatments for maintenance except on vehicles not using TopTier fuel, a tank additive (GM Fuel System treatment Plus) is recommended in that scenario.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> There isn't one. They don't recommend or condone usage of chemical treatments for maintenance except on vehicles not using TopTier fuel, a tank additive (GM Fuel System treatment Plus) is recommended in that scenario.


I see. That sounds like one of those CYA sales pitches they teach in a training seminar.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

cp-the-nerd said:


> You both have gotten the impression that I think all auto repair work is easy overpriced, and that's not what I'm saying. I think GM's GDI carbon solution is 1. insufficient and 2. easily done at home.


You mentioned excessive cost of this procedure no less than 3 times. I made an analog to there potentially being one thing related to your profession that the same cost/ease arguments could be made. Don't make assertions about my impressions when my posts were clear. Your post was NOT clear that you fully understood what the TSB was for or how it was applied.



> I have an OBD device. I read and understood the bulletin, other manufacturers use a better direct abrasive method of cleaning. My brother, for example, bought a used Lacrosse 3.6L GDI and soon after the engine had carbon issues that could only be remedied with shell blasting, not spray.
> 
> My idea for a reusable access point in the intake tube is to avoid making the engine freak out with the intake off.


I'd be willing to bet that the "better" abrasive method you described could also be described as overly complex, difficult to do at home and requiring expensive specialized equipment and supplies.(iirc exact concerns you expressed about the TSB being referenced here) Whereas a very effective method of cleaning to an effectively similar level could be accomplished with $10 of carb/choke cleaner and some brushes.

I wouldn't say it freaks out, nor would I drill a hole in my charge piping for an annual 10minute procedure. But again...different strokes for different folks. Do what you feel is best.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

JLL said:


> I see. That sounds like one of those CYA sales pitches they teach in a training seminar.


It's GMs standing line on maintenance. The car doesn't require ANY chemical flushes, treatments or cleaning procedures.
See your owners manual.


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

Carbon has been around since the beginning of time.

I've never seen anyone worry about it till this forum.

I could talk about a time or two I've seen flammable material sprayed in to a carburetor.


----------



## cp-the-nerd (Jun 7, 2017)

Ma v e n said:


> You mentioned excessive cost of this procedure no less than 3 times. I made an analog to there potentially being one thing related to your profession that the same cost/ease arguments could be made. Don't make assertions about my impressions when my posts were clear. Your post was NOT clear that you fully understood what the TSB was for or how it was applied.


I don't expect someone to pay me a couple hundred dollars to do something in my profession that they can do themselves equally well. I also wouldn't pay a shop $100 or whatever the going rate is to clean a throttle body because that would be silly.



> I'd be willing to bet that the "better" abrasive method you described could also be described as overly complex, difficult to do at home and requiring expensive specialized equipment and supplies.(iirc exact concerns you expressed about the TSB being referenced here) Whereas a very effective method of cleaning to an effectively similar level could be accomplished with $10 of carb/choke cleaner and some brushes.


The choice between those methods doesn't really matter because I can't do either of them at home, so I would pay for the service. Even if the intake ports were on the front facing side of the engine, it's not a comparable task to the spray cleaning we're talking about. My HOA wouldn't even allow it in our parking spots.



> I wouldn't say it freaks out, nor would I drill a hole in my charge piping for an annual 10minute procedure. But again...different strokes for different folks. Do what you feel is best.


So the engine will rev normally while disconnected from the turbo? Someone I know with a 1.5T made it seem like it would be problematic. This is my first turbo motor to maintain.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

cp-the-nerd said:


> I don't expect someone to pay me a couple hundred dollars to do something in my profession that they can do themselves equally well. I also wouldn't pay a shop $100 or whatever the going rate is to clean a throttle body because that would be silly.


So the skills, services, procedures, processes, and products your profession offers to to the public has no value. Got it.





> The choice between those methods doesn't really matter because I can't do either of them at home, so I would pay for the service. Even if the intake ports were on the front facing side of the engine, it's not a comparable task to the spray cleaning we're talking about. My HOA wouldn't even allow it in our parking spots.


It does matter, because you were making this an issue of the public, proffering your work on this subject as altruistic. The fact that you can't do one specific task(related to this procedures purpose) because of your HOA doesn't change the argument. You bad mouthed the cost and complexity of the GM procedure, but were fully willing to use and endorse as superior, alternative more complex and more expensive procedures.




> So the engine will rev normally while disconnected from the turbo? Someone I know with a 1.5T made it seem like it would be problematic. This is my first turbo motor to maintain.


Yes. See my previous posts where I suggested you hadn't comprehended the subject matter or process. And you devalued the skills and knowledge involved to complete the task when you admit you don't have the knowledge to competently perform it. Youre relying on free information from the internet to be able to complete the task and enforce your value viewpoint...but the information you need at (so far) every turn is coming from mainly the guy who gets paid to do this job. Who's really more concerned about those struggling to make a paycheck?

Don't make this about one person trying to develop a procedure and help those who need it and bad mouth the perceived profiteering of dealerships and mechanics....I can assure you that my presence on this site doesn't make me any money, and has likely saved many people money. And you won't find me on other sites badmouthing other professions.


----------

