Jackass Award - Canadian Tire's Core Charge Policy

A Canadian Tire store - this is not the one where this adventure takes place.

In my opinion, Canadian Tire is pulling a scam. 

(Be warned: A Tolstoy-rivalling epic follows.)

Always seems to happen on the weekend, right after my "first call" parts supplier is closed, that I end up needing some kind of auto part for one of my fleet.

This time, the battery in my wife's car, a two and a half year-old Interstate "5 year" battery that ironically replaced the previous battery that died on a weekend. That's why I ended up with an Interstate (another one of my suppliers that was still open carries them). The only other Interstate battery I've ever bought died young too. This will be my last.

Old and New - Note the core tag still on the new one's negative terminal.

I figured that Canadian Tire would be likely to have both the best selection and the freshest stock, so I headed there. Their nationwide warranty doesn't hurt either. I also needed to buy a 10mm wrench and a battery terminal brush to do the swap, as my tools were at work and home, not with me, so one-stop shopping, right?

First off, the parts counter guy looks up her '96 Nissan Maxima, pulls up listings, and says about my choice of a 48 month mid-range battery, "this one will be way better than original, because the original only had 360 cold cranking amps." Look close at the image and you'll see that it clearly indicates that all Canadian models used the optional, 585 CCA battery, a fact I already knew from owning 7 Nissans. (We also got standard low washer fluid lights - yay Nissan Canada!)

It doesn't change the outcome, but I'm of the mindset that if you really don't know something, trying to sound like you do and being wrong is much worse, so say nothing.

The original look-up result - a Group 75DT battery. The wrong right battery.

He comes back with a dual-terminal Group 75 battery - a standard size for most pre-2005 GM vehicles. Would it fit? With enough screwing around, I could certainly make it function. That doesn't make it right.

"This car takes a Group 24F battery", I inform him. "Oh," (fiddles with the computer) "you're right." Goes and gets it. It's slightly more expensive. I don't care. It's correct for the application.

Ahh, that's better. The right right battery. Even if it is more expensive.

Now, to be fair, this gentleman was actually very helpful, and it's not entirely his fault that the system points him in that direction. It's here, however, where Canadian Tire's scam starts:

Core Charge.

A "core" is the old part being replaced. Core charges are like the deposit on your beer bottles that encourage you to return them. Automotive cores are either rebuilt (calipers, alternators, etc.) or reclaimed (batteries, among others). This is a long-standing practice that makes a lot of sense. In the case of the battery, it's $20, which is pretty closely aligned with what a scrap metal place will pay you for it.

I have no problem with this, and as my wife's old battery was still out in her car waiting to be removed with the tools that I was buying alongside the battery, I had no qualms about paying it. Please note that the $20 was added onto the price of the battery. It shows as "XCore" in the item line.

Swapped the battery in less than 5 minutes - easily, as it actually fit in the hold-down and plastic heat insulator because it's - gasp! - the right size - and went inside to return the old battery to get the core charge back.

After being ignored at the parts desk for just over 15 minutes while others got served and service advisors just feet away chatted with their buddies (my helpful parts guy, it turns out, had gone on his lunch break), we finally grabbed the attention of someone capable of dealing with such a complex endeavour, and were directed to the customer service desk to get our refund...

...where we spent another 5-10 minutes waiting for the poor harried cashier and her supervisor to try and explain for the umpteenth time something battery return-related to the customer ahead of us. My patience had about exited the building by now.

Finally, time to get our money back! We're handed back a $20 bill.

Sounds fine, right? That's the scam!

Remember, the $20 was added to the price of the battery. That total was taxed! We actually paid $22.60. It took several run-throughs before the two staffers grasped this concept.

See the battery? "Motomaster ELM2" - $129.99, with the $20 core charge added in.

"That's how the system does it, automatically!", says the girl, explaining that the core charge return function only allows her to refund the $20.

Listen, it's only $2.60, and the supervisor tried to give us the money out of his pocket when it became clear after several minutes that we weren't just going to leave.

That's not the point.

Canadian Tire has been selling batteries for over 75 years, and they don't just blindly hand extra tax dollars over to the government. You know, absolutely know, that at some point someone in Accounting discovered that the amount of tax collected didn't jibe with the amount of taxable merchandise sold. You can't tell me that they aren't aware of this discrepancy.

Their system will have provision for non-taxable items, which a core charge is. Instead, I believe that they rightly figure that most people won't clue in to this overcharge, and of those that do, very, very few will force the issue.

In our case, after I threatened to go back out to the car to get the battery to return it, they readjusted the price and did a refund for the correct amount.

This is how it got fixed - a work-around.

Given that Canadian Tire is likely the largest Canadian retailer of automotive batteries, and that they cater to the DIY'er crowd, many of whom will end up paying the core charge, if I'm right, it's a pretty big scam, gleaned $2.60 at a time.

If I'm wrong, it's a system flaw that costs Canadian consumers tens of thousands of dollars or more a year. Either way, Canadian Tire is greatly deserving of a Jackass Award.

Jackass Award - Dell Printers

Dell 1250c colour laser printer - Photo borrowed from www.archiwum.allegro.pl

Over the years I've owned and disposed of - properly, I might add - enough dot matrix, inkjet, and laser printers to have nearly lost count. With the dot matrix printers, obsolescence was what finally killed them, though I did make it through several ribbons with my old Citizen before it finally got retired.

I was once given an old Hewlett-Packard LaserJet+, probably a first or second generation machine that weighed as much as a tank and was nearly as durable, sucking enough power that the lights in my computer room dimmed noticeably when it spooled up, creating this unmistakeable aura of ozone as it hummed, throbbed, clunked, and eventually theatrically discharged each sheet of paper. Already having occasional paper feed issues, its imaging drum finally succumbed to age, and the cost of repairing it made about as much sense as body-off restoring a Ford Festiva, so it was walked behind the barn and mercifully shot.

Since that time, every printer that has found its way into The Basement Of No Return or actually made it to the electronic recycler has gone that way because it ran out of ink or toner. I don't know what that stuff is made of, but forget splashing around the $3000 bottle of Richard Hennessey Cognac - really rich people pour out inkjet ink and sprinkle some toner on it.

Lexmark got more than enough of my money with its fussy, failure-prone inkjet printers (I didn't learn the first time), whose cartridge-mounted inkjet tips clogged or dried out with alarming regularity, giving both printers the overall reliability of a high-mileage Trabant. Not that the apparent thimble-full of ink in each $70+ cartridge lasted long anyways. A later Canon scanner/printer proved to have better inkjet nozzles, but just as large and expensive an appetite for ink. My last inkjet, it lives on as a flatbed scanner.

Samsung actually makes really good laser printers, and at around $100 for B&W, not quite double that on-sale for equally good colour models, they're a deal. But - and you knew this was coming - like most new printers, they ship with "starter" size toner cartridges. Replacing them with a real one costs slightly more than the printer did new (B&W), or quite a bit more than the printer did new, in the case of the colour machines, which hold four of these apparently unobtanium-filled cartridges.

Look closely: This is a "Ship-With" size cartridge. Dell's by no means alone in using this bait-and-switch scam. Just ship the damn printer with a full-size cartridge! I'll pay more upfront. Really.

Commercial-grade machines cost more new, and sometimes even ship with real toner cartridges. Replacing the toner cartridge makes some sense when the B&W printer in question costs more than $250. Credit where credit is due: They do last - the Dell machine my workplace uses has printed bales of paper, consuming several toner cartridges in the process, lives in a hellish environment of dust and temperature fluctuations, and yet still works perfectly. Though I've personally bought a pair of Samsungs (money talks!), I've been a proponent of Dell printers for commercial use based on the longevity and reliability of this and the previous office printer, whose automatic paper feed stopped working properly after what would be several lifetimes for many lesser printers.

Here's the thing. In every case, without exception, all of these printers all continued to work up to and past the point where their ink or toner ran out, even our business machines (the old Dell would still work if fed paper manually). Citizen, Lexmark, Canon, Dell, HP - it doesn't matter. Witness my current Samsung (seen below), which has been telling me it's out of every toner colour for several months now, yet keeps on printing the few pages a month that I ask of it.

No, seriously, I'm out of toner. Hello? Guys? Oh, fine then. I'll keep working.

Eventually, the print quality will go away, or the print itself will become patchy or faded, and then I'll know it's time to pony up or pitch out.



Not so with the Dell 1250c colour laser printer. Nope. We use this on the alignment rack at work to print out sheets with before and after readings for our customers. It also gets used to print out diagnostic flow charts and wiring diagrams (where the colour is very helpful). To be fair, it's been warning us that it's getting low for a little while now, and we probably should have got a new cartridge in for stock. Like anyone ever does that.

This past Friday afternoon it decided that it was out of black toner. Never mind that the last page it printed was absolutely perfect - not a flaw, fade, or spot to be seen. No. It was out of toner RIGHTNOWDAMMIT and that was that. No way to clear the message or reset it. Put in toner or No Print For You!

So what you're trying to tell me is that you're out of toner? It "need" to be replaced now!

I would bet $100 that there's enough toner left to print another 50 sheets. We'll never know, as it can't be fooled into going that extra mile. That sucks for the environment, sure (wasted toner, added landfill sooner), but it really sucks for the consumer, who gets an immediate cease in printing, rather than the hey-I'm-really-not-kidding heads-up of diminishing print quality as incentive to actually buy - or in Dell's case, order - a new cartridge. Oh, and that consumer also gets ripped off however many printable pages actually remained in the original toner cartridges, as I'm sure the other three will behave the same.

This was somewhat of a pain in the ass for me, as the particular alignment I'd just completed was for a body shop, and they absolutely have to have a copy of the spec sheet for their customers and the insurance companies they deal with.

Consequently, I had to pull the colour laser printer out of the cabinet, drag the big monochrome laser printer/anvil out of the office, hook it up, discover that this computer doesn't have the right drivers, and isn't connected to the internet to download them, go into the office to search for and download the drivers onto a USB drive, install the new drivers in the shop computer, uninstall the colour printer so that our alignment software would recognize and use the B&W printer, print the one F'ing page that I needed printed, unhook the office printer, reinstall the now-paperweight of a colour printer, and finally uninstall the B&W printer, so that when my boss replaces the toner cartridge in the colour machine, the alignment software will recognize and use that printer again. Not that I was at all annoyed by the process. Thank you, Dell, and by "Thank", I don't actually mean "Thank".

Sadly, I was going to replace my two essentially out of toner lasers soon, possibly with at least one Dell machine, but I'm not so sure now. I'm actually feeling a pang of regret for recommending Dell machines to a good friend who's just starting up his new business, despite the fact that I expect his printers to work and last well.

Therefore, for installing a purely software-created jackpot of an inconvenience with no possible positive other than to line your pockets just that little bit sooner - and for making me feel bad - I'm awarding you, Dell, with a well-deserved Jackass Award.

Jackass Award - Canadian Tire

Canadian Tire is a Canadian icon

Oh Canadian Tire. You are a Canadian Institution, an Icon of Canadiana, a part of the psyche of the vast majority of this country's people. Perhaps that is why I feel so betrayed by some of your corporate decisions, as of late.

No, It's not incorporating Mark's Work Wearhouse into your retail space. That actually makes some sense, though I don't naturally tend to think of my local CTC store when I need clothing (did buy a nice winter coat for work there, though!).

It's not even the fact that you lock all of the hand tools away in display cases, behind layered racks where I can't actually see or browse what you have, or that you recently did away with the little call buttons at the end of some aisles that (potentially) might summon one of your employees - who seem to be oddly hard to find at the times when you'd really like one - no, it's not even that.

Hmm. I wonder what's behind the first layer of rack?

It's your tools. Much as is the case with Sears in the United States (yet oddly, not so much here - likely due to your successes on this side of the border), Canadian Tire has long been known by handyman and homeowner alike as a source for decent quality tools. While you've often offered cheaper, lower quality tools (and that's fine; they have their place), you've provided Canadians with your Mastercraft brand of tools for decades, backing them up with the reassurance of a lifetime warranty. Okay, things got a bit confusing a while back when you brought out a "Professional" line of Mastercraft sockets and hand tools (their inferred better quality suggested non-Professional were junk, yet they had the same warranty), however we adapted and carried on. Then you changed them to "Maximum", just to increase our confusion. Does that make the other Mastercraft tools Minimum? I digress.

You'd best believe that warranty sells tools.

While some might joke about "Crappy Tire" tools, I've been quite comfortably making a living fixing cars for nearly 20 years using Mastercraft tools.

Mostly Mastercraft...

...as are these. In a Mastercraft toolbox.

When I got started in the auto repair business, apprentices were not given any kind of tax breaks or incentives for tools as they are now, putting an extra crimp in my budget, so I bought my basics at Canadian Tire - right down to the 3 piece toolbox they're still stored in (and overflowing out of). Yes, I did spend just over $3000 on Snap-on tools at that time as well, which resulted in a disappointingly small pile, but the majority of my hand tools, both at home - where I have a less complete, redundant set - and at work, bear the Mastercraft name. There have been lots more added in the two decades that have followed. Imagine the Canadian Tire money I've earned... ... and the Brian Early money that Canadian Tire has received in exchange.

So what has me upset enough to want to hand you a Jackass Award? Well, CTC, my friend, you seem to have lost your way recently. First off - what's with the Stanley FatMax stuff? Why are you selling (and supporting, as it has a warranty too) a competing product to your home brand? It's not like Mastercraft and Mastercraft Maximum weren't already causing consumer confusion.

This whole diversification of your product range seems to be diluting the very essence of what defines your tools - and your brand as a whole. This is where my bugbear lies, and the reason I'm awarding you my booby prize. You no longer carry enough of the tools that you've sold, often in a set, but also individually, to be able to readily honour your warranty.

Used to be that I'd walk into my local Canadian Tire with my broken tool - usually a socket, as they tend to live a hard life - and I'd walk back out again with a replacement.

Look closely at the 9 o'clock position. See how the sides don't line up? This socket has split under load.

Not any more. My local store is the largest in the region. It did not have a replacement for this broken socket. Understandable if it was some obscure inverted torx or some other oddball; it is not.

Mastercraft for the win! Or not. (3/8" drive 14mm universal socket) I'm not even upset that it broke.

This is a 3/8" drive by 14 mm universal ("flex") socket. Second perhaps to Imperial-sized universals and straight sockets, about as common as you'll find in a mechanic's tool box. My local store had to special order one in, an easy enough process to initiate, but why? If I wanted to wait three days to a week to replace my socket, I could just buy a Snap-on or Mac or Matco, because their trucks come around roughly weekly, and will probably have several of these in stock. Sure, they cost more, but if I was in a real bind without it, I could call my tool rep and they'd likely swing by same-day to bail me out.

I'm not at all upset that it broke. Hell, I was tugging on it pretty earnestly when it finally rounded the corroded old fastener it was hanging on and split down the fluke. Any tool can fail, particularly when being worked hard and worked regularly. I recognize the cost advantage that Mastercraft tools have over those professional name-brand competitors, and I'm realistic in my expectations, even though I've been very pleasantly surprised over the years by just how well my Mastercraft stuff has lasted. In applications where my luck has not been so good, or where reliability or function is critical, I'll buy the pro-grade equipment (you can see it intermingled in my tool box drawer photos above).

What finally pushed me over the edge, compelling me to write a War and Peace-style Epic on Canadian Tire Corporation and Mastercraft tools was a twofold slight:

- Not being able to conveniently exchange what I felt was a common enough tool that it should be in stock, and not require ordering in. That is annoying, and negates one of the major benefits of owning your tools - ready replacement.

- The quality of the replacement tool, which is very clearly not of the same standards or even appearance of the tool that it replaced. (Don't even get me started on how Mastercraft's 3/8 drive "deep" sockets aren't as deep anymore.) The stamped-in size and Mastercraft logo are even upside-down, for Pete's sake! How it fares in use remains to be seen.

Ordered in, and does not appear to be of the same quality as the original. The stamped-in size and brand are even upside-down.

At some point in time a number of years ago, I purchased what I believed was a good quality socket. As expected, it served me well, and when it finally failed, I expected you to honour the lifetime warranty that you built in to the price of the tool. Now you're giving me what appears to be an inferior replacement. That is totally unacceptable, and discourages me from buying any other tools from you. If I wanted cheap tools of questionable quality that are still blessed with a warranty, there's another well-known Canadian business that would fit the bill. That's not what I want, and thus not what I bought. For that, Canadian Tire Corporation, I'm unhappy to present you with a Jackass Award.

Jackass Award - GM Pickups Fuel Pump Control Module

2009 Chevy Silverado plow truck (with apologies for the CCTV-screencap image quality)

First, a bit of a back story. Electronic fuel injection was just hitting the mainstream when I began working on cars for pay (rather than to avoid paying...) just over 20 years ago. There were several different strategies involved in feeding the systems with fuel, all of which involved at least one electric pump. To prevent the pump from running unnecessarily after a stall, a crash, or just sitting with the key on, the pumps were usually switched on by either the engine computer (through a relay), an oil pressure switch, or both (early GM systems especially).

Most had a single in-tank fuel pump that delivered a constant feed of fuel at a pressure governed by a regulator (usually throttle-body or injector-rail mounted and vacuum controlled) that bled any excess fuel back to the tank through a return line.

Others - most notably the Europeans - would use a low pressure feed pump in or near the tank to supply a second, high pressure pump that ultimately accomplished the same function as the single-pump setup.

The odd vehicle had the ability to vary pump speed, usually through a dropping resistor, or via high frequency voltage toggling (known as pulse-width modulation). This was done primarily to reduce pump noise at low speed and idle, when demand was low and ambient noise less likely to disguise the ruckus.

As technology has introduced more precise injection control, a large number of vehicles have gone to what are called "returnless" systems, where there's no longer a second fuel line coming back from the engine compartment to return excess fuel supply. A single line simply supplies fuel at the required pressure to the injector rail. This eliminates some parts, but most importantly, prevents the fuel from being warmed by engine heat prior to its return to the tank, which apparently offers benefits in emission reductions and possibly even power production.

Often there's a fixed pressure regulator in the tank or a nearby filter/regulator assembly to make this single line system possible. Others vary the fuel pump's power supply to control its output and therefore pressure, usually with feedback from a fuel-rail pressure sensor. This is where our Jackass Award story begins.

An important note: GM is not alone in using the basic design I'm about to discuss. Ford trucks are well know for fuel pump control module failures, for example. But some questionable engineering choices do make the one used on GM's recent model year full-sized pickups - the example featured, the first of these I've encountered, is a 2009 model - Award-worthy.

This seemed like a good idea to someone...

The above photo shows where GM chose to locate the Silverado's (and the identical Sierra's) FPCM (Fuel Pressure Control Module), just above the spare tire beneath the box at the rear of the truck. Ford is equally guilty of mounting the fuel pressure control module where corrosion will eat it. They were doing it well before GM decided to follow suit. Hey, if it didn't work for Ford...

To diagnose this thing, most of the trouble code diagnostic "trees" require you to unplug this connector. The lid swings down to unlatch it - impossible, by about an inch, with the spare tire in place. Ever lowered the spare on a modern pickup?

Rube Goldberg would be proud

I have. Fortunately, this truck , in spite of being used for plowing snow and landscaping, is well-kept, clean, and not a big muddy ball of corrosion, so the process was only slightly aggravating: find and extract the toolkit (often buried or missing), unlock the spare tire lock (good seize-in-place potential), assemble the correct sequence of crank segments (instructions? Who needs 'em?), spend a few minutes trying to get the tool to align and function in the winch (you'd think the built-in guide would make that a first-attempt thing. It doesn't.), crank the spare down.


Finally able to disconnect the connector, we verify that the module has failed and needs to be replaced. Surprise! Our local dealer has one in stock.

On the vehicle, this view is only possible with a mirror, a boroscope, or a cameraphone jammed up against the floor of the box. Nice corrosion.

If you look closely at the spare tire-view photo, you can see that the module is fastened to the bracket it's mounted to from above. A Jackass Award qualifier. Extra Jackass points though because the fasteners in question are rounded-head Torx bolts with fine threads - seen from the top, after mild, fruitless digging out with a pick - in the above photo. The three of those are not coming out without a level of personal attention that's all but impossible in-situ.

Another cameraphone-aided view. Only my hand could see this otherwise. Thank goodness for ratcheting wrenches.

The FPCM is mounted to a large bracket that also holds the TBCM (Trailer Brake Control Module) and another small electrical component. It bolts to the left frame rail and the spare tire winch mount. Fortunately, its three fasteners have conventional hex-heads, though, in true Jackass form, they are also top-mounted, and the winch-side one is conveniently and for no apparent reason located directly beneath the pickup bed's reinforcement beam. There will be no using air tools or even a ratchet on those. Nice. (At least this particular truck was mud and corrosion free.)

Voila!

I think I may have peed...

Once extricated from its bracket, the FPCM peed on our bench. Actually, I was glad to see this, because condemning electrical components can be stressful because you usually can't see anything wrong. Water leaking out? I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my diagnosis! It may need more, but it definitely needs this.

Note that the silver side seen above is the top. The plastic tub forms the bottom, making a decent water-retaining bowl. Obviously the thin layer of sealant wasn't enough to keep the water out (or in). You surely wouldn't want to mount it the other way, and give it a fighting chance.

Carefully opened afterward with a 24 oz ball-pein hammer, water can be seen inside. Think those IC chips like water?

The new one has a thick bead of sealant oozing out of it. It got new bolts too, though they didn't come with it.

So we get our new module, mount it to the bracket, fish the bracket's top-mounted fasteners back in and ratchet-wrench them tight, successfully clear the trouble codes, crank the truck, and get...  ...a brief fire-up followed half a second later by a stall and refusal to restart.

Recheck the codes to see what else is wrong, and see..

That's not good.

... that the FPCM needs to be programmed. It's a several hundred dollar box of rocks without the proper software. The common-failing Ford truck fuel pump modules don't need this. They're even available from the aftermarket, plug'n play. Not this one; the final, Jackass Award-clinching move.

Shouldn't have been a surprise, actually, because in this generation of GM pickup, even the power window switches have to be programmed when replaced. Got an identical, same year truck, identically optioned, and want to temporarily swap the switch to put a window up when the original switch breaks on a -25ºC day? Won't work - not programmed to that truck, as one of our tow-truck fleet operators discovered, to his extreme pleasure.

Money, money, money...

At this point there are a couple of options.

- Tow the truck to a dealer (what GM would clearly like you to do, though they'd probably be happier still if their dealer had diagnosed and replaced the module in the first place).

- Tow the truck to a shop that has GM programming capability (which they have to pay to subscribe to - GM is still making a smiley face).

- Program it yourself. Assuming you have the several thousand dollars worth of equipment and/or software to do it, of course. You will also have to pay GM a subscription fee to access the download. $55US gives you 2 days of access to that content, for example, so GM still wins.

-------------------------------------------------------

For designing a vehicle that even requires a stand-alone module to operate the fuel pump, then making that module vulnerable to moisture intrusion and mounting where such intrusion is virtually guaranteed (particularly in a vehicle type that frequently gets operated in exaggerated conditions), then making replacement of the module physically difficult by fastening it with corrosion-prone fasteners mounted on the backside of a bracket sandwiched beneath a pickup box (rather than just attaching it from the underside), and ultimately requiring that said module then be programmed for the simple task of running a fuel pump - General Motors, I'm forced to hand you a Jackass Award.

Jackass Award/When Engineers Get Bored

2006 BMW 323i engine bay

Quick - can you spot the engine oil dipstick in the engine bay of this 2006 BMW "E90" 323i?

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Trick question: there isn't one.


This is a combined "When Engineers Get Bored" and "Jackass Award" entry, because there was no real reason to eliminate the dipstick.

Although quite a good number of automatic transmissions have gone stick-less in the past decade or so, unless they're leaking, they don't consume fluid. Engines do. Engines also have their oil replaced fairly frequently. Transmissions? In a perfect world, not so much.

Bored BMW engineers obviously felt that they could save a few dollars by using electronics and sensors to replace the engine oil dipstick. Oh, wait, that actually wouldn't be cheaper, now would it?

So why do it? Good chance it will drive up service department business, I would have to think. Sure, it does keep the customer from having to open the hood and potentially get dirty checking their oil, but has that really been a problem for the last 120 years? I doubt it.

Eliminating the dipstick becomes a problem when a vehicle that is known to consume oil, and which has crazy-long service intervals that almost guarantee the need to add oil between changes (BMW actually sells an accessory spare oil bottle holder for the trunk for this purpose) then has no practical way of quickly and easily determining the oil level.

Or does it?

As it turns out, it does, kind of. In a bored engineer sort of way.

2006 BMW 323i oil level indicator. Yes, it's in the trip computer.

Built in to the trip computer is an oil level check function. Certain criteria have to be met (engine temperature, engine run time, etc.) before it will display the level, and - counter-intuitively - it has to be running to check the level. Doing an oil change? Better know how much oil this thing holds beforehand, because you're committed once you begin - you can't check the level until you start it.

If memory serves, the "min" and "max" indications are not 1 litre (quart) apart, as on most cars and trucks, either. No owner's manual? No service information? No familiarity? You're fairly much euchred. And that's if you can parse out the secret to activating this display in the first case.

Having something that warns the driver of a low oil level is no bad thing on its own. Sometimes we need to have our hands held for us, and excessively low engine oil is an expensive "oops". I'm more than OK with building that function in.

But eliminating as simple, effective, and cheap of a maintenance device as a dipstick is pointless at best, and it's a quick way to earn yourself a Jackass Award.

Jackass Award - Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX Rear Hubs

2007-ish Ford Edge

Lest anyone get the impression that I live to pick on GM, rest assured that it is a regular occurrence to find questionable design or engineering choices from virtually every automaker. If it hasn't happened for me with a particular brand yet, it's probably because I simply haven't had to work on many of that brand's products.

Today's example is a Ford Edge. I think this one is a 2007, but they're the same from 2006 on, as is the Edge's Lincoln MKX twin.

Wheel bearings, a.k.a "hubs" or "hub assemblies" are by nature wear items, though there are a great number of vehicles that reach the end of their service life never having had one replaced.

All the same, you've got to figure there's a decent chance that someone will need to replace them at some point, so why not make them relatively easy to replace? You'd think this would also make them easy to install during assembly, right?

Ford Edge rear axle as seen standing beneath the cargo area, facing right rear. Note the hidden Torx bolts.

Meet the Ford Edge. In a front-wheel drive Edge those Torx-head bolts seen above would be sitting in a wide open space. Not so with all-wheel drive Edges, since the rear CV shaft (axle) and its large ABS tone ring (the toothed piece, which is part of the ABS sensor) do a good job of blocking service access. Clearly, this suspension arm is assembled prior to there ever being a driveshaft in the way.

Detail view of rear hub assembly fasteners.

Because they're so close to the ABS tone ring (don't dare damage that - ABS issues can result), and because there's only a direct, straight-line access to one of the four bolts (due to interference from the rear springs, etc.), they're an awkward nuisance to work with. Almost makes the Volkswagen Tiguan's rear hubs seem user friendly.

As a bonus, it does give your friendly technician an opportunity to buy yet another expensive tool set that he/she will use infrequently at best - and even this specialized tool had to be partially disassembled (Torx bit removed from its socket to be turned by a wrench instead) just to remove and install one of the bolts.

Long-reach 1/2" drive Torx socket set.

It didn't have to be this way.

The spread of the bolt pattern could have been a few millimeters wider, or, better yet, the bolts could have been fastened from the other side through the hub flange. Conventional hex head bolts could have been used.

Exterior view of rear hub with brake assembly removed.

This Award may be shared in part with Mazda, as there's some shared engineering in the Edge. The Edge's origins, via a convoluted path, lie in the original Mazda6's platform, courtesy of the Ford Fusion - a common basic architecture known at Ford as CD3. (Perhaps I should have paid more attention the last time one of those cars came in.)

For making this part more difficult to service than is really necessary, Ford (and maybe Mazda), please allow me to present you with a Jackass Award.

Admit it - you were curious what this part looked like, right?

Jackass Award - The Lazy Blogger

ZZZZZ...

No, the Award's not for the cat. Shelby is just doing what cats do best - she's stalking a mouse. And sleeping. Which is what I've been doing recently with this blog.

For leaving this blog unattended and in dire need of an update, I'm going to have to give myself a Jackass Award.

See? No favouritism here at Loose Nut.

Jackass Award - Nice Parking Job, Stupid

And here I thought that Pontiacs were "Built for Drivers". Not good ones, apparently, as the owner of this parked G6 clearly proves.

Actually, you have to give this knob some credit, as they have managed to effectively screw up four parking spots at once. That level of inconsideration/incompetence borders on skill.

For this excellence in failure, you, Sir or Madam, are most deserving of a Jackass Award.

Jackass Award - Proof That a Mechanic Slept with an Engineer's Wife...

2008 Saturn Vue 3.6 L V6, as seen from below - front is at the top. (See the filter?)

Understandably, service access is not always the top priority when designing a new vehicle; cost and relative ease of production often trump it. I get that.

I also sympathize with the engineers somewhat as they don't always have the big picture, having to design a door hinge or a heater or whatever without specific knowledge of what's around it beyond basic dimensions. This same component - this engine, in this case - also often has to be able to fit into multiple vehicles. That's reality. I get that too.

However, what I don't get, and can't deal with, is stupidity when it comes to stuff that has to be serviced regularly, and oil changes are about the most regular service any vehicle will ever require. An oil filter isn't like a hydraulic valve lifter that will probably last the lifetime of the car. It will be replaced at a pre-determined interval, as many as 50 times in the 250,000+ kilometer life expectancy of the average private vehicle. We're talking several times a year.

So why would anyone put the oil filter in a location that almost guarantees that it will make a mess of the A/C compressor, subframe, and probably the technician? It's an awkward extraction at best.

More critically, why would anybody put it within millimetres of a catalytic converter that's designed to get several hundred degrees of temperature within a minute or so of the vehicle running, so as to virtually ensure that whatever poor sap has to change it will receive severe burns?

You can't tell me that this filter's location didn't receive some amount of consideration, yet there it is. Someone deserves a career of designing glovebox hinges for this one.

It's easy to criticise: what could they have done differently? At the minimum, they could have angled the converter away from the filter - there's clearly space to do so. They could also have made it possible to access it from above (it isn't), or have provided an opening or door in the air deflector to get at it from in front of the subframe (there's almost space for that with this same engine in the larger Lambda models {GMC Acadia, etc.}). Not as preferable, but it could also have been integrated into the oil pan as was the case on the earlier 3.5 litre DOHC Oldsmobile V6.

While GM is by no means alone in doing things like this (everyone does them to some extent), something this dumb feels like it could only be malicious. Proof that a mechanic slept with an engineer's wife...

Jackass Award - Lamborghini at the Toronto Auto Show

 

I can't decide if Lamborghini's display at this year's Canadian International Auto Show in Toronto is the result of ignorance or arrogance, but I'm leaning towards arrogance.

Segregating the unwashed masses from your cars is completely understandable; I don't begrudge you that. Prevents greasy fingerprints and zipper scratches while adding to the mystique and all that. Got it.

Even having black walls and black carpet is fine. It can look very classy.

Not having any sort of light, other than the few pot lights in the Convention Centre's ceiling isn't particularly clever though. Doesn't show off your cars or their exquisite styling details too well, nor does parking them as far from the crowd as possible at the rear of your stand, perpendicular to the public's viewpoint.

However what cements your booth as a Jackass Award winner is the choice of colour of the two cars present, particularly given the lighting and the display's colour choice. Why would you show black cars with black wheels on a black carpet against a black backdrop?

Do you boneheads realize how difficult it is to photograph a black car under ideal lighting against a contrasting background? It's hard enough to see them well.

Had it occurred to you that some small percentage of the crowd gawking at your cars over the barrier and desperately trying to get a good camera-phone image might one day be potential buyers? Or that the desirability of your product - that your customers can purchase what the majority want but can't have - is a large part of what sells them, not just their performance?

Desktops on computers and profile pictures on Facebook - these are the modern bedroom wall posters, and you should be encouraging your future fan base, not spurning them.

Reinforcing the notion that Lamborghinis are the sole domain of aloof, pretentious jerks isn't what I'd call a positive marketing effort.

For that, Lamborghini, whether intentional or not, you win a Jackass Award.

(Inaugural) Jackass Award - GTAA/Lester B. Pearson International Airport

On a recent trip via Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport, I encountered a set of sliding entrance doors that weren't working. On each door in the pair there was a little yellow sign which read, "Temporarily out of service" in both English and French.

OK, fair enough, stuff like this breaks. No big deal. After entering the functional set to their immediate left - which lead into the same small foyer - I came to the next set of doors.

Lo and behold, they weren't working either, but had the same signs on them.

I believe in coincidence, but this was a bit annoying, as I had to diagonally cross the foyer to use the righthand doors, which did work.

It wasn't until I was walking down the Terminal to my check-in point that I realized that all of the entrance/exit doors in the building were the same, and all were forcing people to use diagonal sets of doors. Upon my return, I discovered that it was the same on all three floors.

What the hell is that about?!? Is this some kind of bizarre attempt at improving security? Like preventing terrorists or suicide bombers or girl guides selling cookies from walking conveniently straight in would somehow make any difference at all?

I'm going to be generous and suggest that it was done to reduce the intrusion of cold gusts of air from outside. Even if that's the case, it's still stupid; a band-aid solution to a lousy design. At least indicate that this is the intention, because to those that somehow don't notice the other sets of doors, it makes it look like the place is falling apart and poorly maintained - not the message that air travellers really want from their airport. Spend a bit of your world-beating gate fees and install big revolving doors if this is the reason.

To whatever person or group - GTAA, this means one or more of your employees - that thought that this was a good idea, you need to give your head(s) a massive shake and realize that what you're actually accomplishing is to inconvenience and annoy nearly every single traveller - these would be your customers, dummies - that passes in or out of your facility.

For that, unknown GTAA personnel, you win my first Jackass Award. Congratulations!