Key fob costs over a hundred dollars

The procedure is lined out in my Grand Marquis' Owner's manual...

As long as you've got *two* keys, programming up to 8 total keys is
pretty straightforward (at least according to my manual)

Otherwise, it's up to the stealership to program the keys...

 

Thieves are lazy and work off of the percentages. I seriously doubt a
thief is going to take the same risks of all the ramifications of
getting caught to steal my wife's '99 Buick as a later model car worth
10 times the price in the marketplace. The risks are not worth it for
the low value he'd get for the Buick even though it's easier to steal.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Hopefully that means that most would-be thieves would simply get out of
the business for the low value/return of what they'd be stealing weighed
against the risks they are taking of getting caught - so maybe the end
result is that overall, thefts should go down? Even stupid low lifes
weigh the percentages of what they stand to gain vs. the risks.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Even worse, a former cow-orker bought an '03 Saab and found out it
would cost $300 for a spare key. The keys on those things ARE fobs,
they are placed in an oval fitting on the console.

 

For a Ford, the PATS keys are around $14 on Ebay. As long as you have
two working keys, you can program a third yourself. Add in a couple of
bucks to have the key cut at the local hardware store and the cost to
create a spare key for a Ford is less than $20. So you are only off by
a factor of 5 for Fords. For a GM with Pass Lock II, the keys are
nothing special, figure about $5, so you are off by a factor of 20. I
don't know what Chrysler is doing - nothing the last time I checked,
so you are off by a factor of 20 for them as well.

Ed

 

Especially since many Mercedes Benz cars are used for taxis in Europe, so
much for status.
Roy

 

I believe they get a break in taxes, which reflects in purchase price, in
some parts of Europe,
when used as taxis... Just the same as if you buy a business coupe which is
quite different
from a regular 4-5 passenger car.

I think Mercedes has made some of the most beautiful sports and sporty cars.
BUT, the
expense and lack of reliability does not endear them to me. And they are
said to be a bitch
on ice.

 

there is a truck like you descibed at the beginning of your post and it's a
ford

 

"Stealership"... interesting term, sometimes....

FWIW, I am a "stealership" tech and I have no qualms about helping where I
can. Dealership rates are dealership rates... if you want second class work
for not so cheap, go to Canadian Tire. However, if you could form simple
sentences, you would see that I was talking about remote entry key fobs. To
program a key fob to a car that has RKE, you don't need ANY programmed
fobs... however, having a programmed key will help this part.

Now... what really amazes me is the number of folks that think they are so
perfect that they will never lose or misplace a keyring... something we see
"other people" do quite often. I would bet that there are many that have
seen this tale of woe over and over again, clinging to their last remaining
key.... and even more that possess two keys, and no consideration of
purchasing a third while the programming is cheap.

You, sir, refuse to work for free.... I also refuse to work for free and the
knowledge I have gained over the years is worth $$$$.

Stealership, indeed.....

 

Good point.

When I was doing some TV repair we used to say "Yes it's a $5 part, but
it's $20 for knowing which one".

 

Rant on Jim. I don't work at a dealership. In fact, I work in an entirely
different industry, so I have no allegiance to dealerships from an
employment perspective. I have though, benefited greatly from a cooperative
relationship with my local Chevy dealership over the past twenty-couple
years. I buy a lot of parts from them to keep the cars in our family in
shape. Currently there are five vehicles I maintain in my household, four
of which are GM's and all of the Genuine GM parts that I buy (I do buy
aftermarket as well) come from this Chevy dealer. I've established enough
of a longstanding status with them that I've long paid shop floor rate on my
parts, I borrow specialty tools from them (simply sign them out and bring
them back), get advice/tips/etc. on problems that stump me or that require
knowledge I don't have yet, stop by for a scan at no charge, and on and on.
Stealership my ass. This is a great working relationship. I do spend a
fair amount of money over the counter every year compared to the average
consumer, and it's nice to have been able to develop this relationship.
Every time I stop by to pick up a part I walk out genuinely impressed by the
way the parts guys seem to appreciate the sale. Hell - I appreciate the
sale, especially at the discount level I get.

Here's my latest "stealership" story:

My daughter's '98 Malibu needed strut cap bearings. I suggested rebuilding
the strut since the car has 150K miles on it. We priced the aftermarket and
the best deal out there was $176 each from Advance Auto for a complete
strut. Rebuilding was not really an option since component prices (shock,
bearing and labor rate for strut compressor) made that not-cost effective.
I did not price the dealer, thinking that a strut was going to be an item I
wouldn't be able to get a good enough price on. Finally, went the salvage
yard route. Bought a pair of newly installed struts for $65 each. Still
had the paint and the stickers on the struts. These were almost brand new
struts. So - we got a pretty good deal. Turns out I was at the dealership
for something else and they asked me why I hadn't priced them there. Told
them I was sure it was going to be higher than my daughter could afford. To
make a long story less long, they looked up my price and informed me that
the next time I probably should stop by. My price for OEM brand new
struts - $102 each. My daughter saved money and she got a good strut, but
that was a fluke - they were almost new. All things being normal, the
"stealership" was by far the best deal out there.

Stealership indeed...

 

Well if it is not in proper running condition and properly tuned up
maybe. I used to have a 1968 Nova with a 250 CID engine, and it was
solid as a rock - nothing "fragile" about it. Once I converted to a
manual choke, I could start a 40 below NO problem.

Since 2005???

Ummm.... I used to have a 1994 Grand Caravan that was a LOT less
aerodymanic than my 2002. The 1994, with 3.3 engine, used to get about
22 MPG in the city, and 32 MPG on the highway. I was VERY surpprized
when I got a newer, supposedly much more "advanced" model - with the
same engine - only to discover the nasty mileage hit! What kind of
crap is THAT!

Well you have to be careful with that statement. A similar sized car
from the 50's and 60's would likely have a V8 in it. In which case the
displacement would have been close to double. That is, the engine
displacement would have likely been 302 (5.0 Litre) to 455 (7.5
Litre). So, yes, with a 3.3 you should EXPECT to get "50 %" better gas
mileage. This is NOT due to improvements in engine design, or engine
management. This IS because you are running a smaller engine!

230 CID is approximately 3.8 Litres. I am running a 2002 model year
3.3 with advanced computerized engine management. That 1948 230 CID in
a WAY heavier vehicle with a carberator is getting slightly better
mileage than I am in my 2002 mini-van.

Perhaps I should have purchased a van with a 3.8 Liter engine then???

Reminds me of when we switched to 2 Liter bottles for pop here in
Canada. at the time, a 26 Oz bottle of pop (750 ml) was about 59
cents. When 2 litre came out, they were $3.59. By straight math, the 2
litre bottles should have been no more than $1.80. But WE THE CONSUMER
were bing punished and made to pay for the transistion.

Now, long after the transition, "No Name" pop in a 2.0 litre bottle
goes for 89 cents, and name brand for $1.25 at a discount grocery
store.

SO by that analogy, the oil companies are ripping us off totally so
they can use OUR money to fun the development and deployment of future
reserves and alternate fuels, in order ot protect their own grossly
obscene profits.

Yes, I have a very clear picture of it now. The oil companies are NOT
doing us any favours, believe me.

 

But I used to own a 1987 Olds Cutlas Cruiser! 2.8 litre MFI engine.
The emissions on that car were so low that the local testing station
could barely measure them! And that car got WAY better gas mileage
than I am getting with my 2002 mini-van!

I thought that there were supposed to be improvements in BOTH
emissions AND gas mileage as years went on! And as I already stated,
even my 1994 WAS an improvement over 1987, but 2002 and things are
sliding backwards???

Something ain't right.

And in general, people expect a certain amount of "pep" from their
car. If they have to, they will put their foot down farther to get it.
So, if the STATIC emissions are lower, but the mileage and performance
is less, then the DYNAMIC consumption and emissions will go up based
on driving habbits! SO the net effect is that lower static emission
vehicles will likely pollute MORE when driven in real life conditions!

 

I would like to point out that NOT all dealerships are created equal!

I have had a jaundiced opinion of dealerships for years! And with damn
good reason, I had been ripped off by them one too many times.

However, having said that, I deal with two dealerships at the moment.
One a GM, and one a Five Star Chrysler - both owned by the same
"group" and under the same name.

These dealerships have literally seviced the heck out of me. Whenever
they can, they have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I ALWAYS
get a loaner car when mine is in for service - and ALWAYS a Mini-Van -
not a super sub-compact! One time I have the loaner for over a week
while they waited for parts to arrive!

The service has been SO GOOD, that both my wife and I have been asking
"Why buy a car anywhere else???"

Now to be clear, most of the work the dealership has done for me is
warranty stuff. I went to a trusted local shop for a tune-up because I
simply am not going to pay $250 (P, L, & T) for a dealer tech to
install six spark plugs. But when it comes to the tricky stuff, and
the weird little problems that can crop up, these dealerships have hit
the ball out of the park every single time.

Because of THESE dealerships, I have a whole new respect for, and
relationship with, them!

So if you are not getting the service and support you want / need, the
look to switch dealers! Like everything else in life, there is good
and bad. After YEARS of "bad, I have finally found "Good" and it is
SWEET!

Just in case anyone from the lower mainland of BC is reading, I am
refering to "Carter GM" and "Carter Dodge" on Logheed Highway in
Burnaby! A more honest and service oriented pair of dealers you will
NEVER find! And this is more than likely where we will buy our next
car from. The after sales service is just SO worth it.

 

When I fill, I fill completely, and note the "mileage". I then enter
the information into a spreadsheet and computer the MPG based on
Imperial Gallons (Canada) at 4.54 Litres per gallon - NOT the American
3.78 litre rip-off gallon. So my figures will appear slightly higher
than for the US. However, my method is consistent across ALL vehicles
I have driven! So my observation still stands - the 2002 GC with 3,3
get no where near the mileage of my 1994 GC with 3.3.

Checking the log book, 32 MPG was "the best" and frequent number.
Sometimes highway mileage was as low as 28 MPG if I was fully loaded,
or <ahem> lead-footing it.

In general, the 200s is 3 ot 4 MPG lower than the 1994.

And with the high cost of gass these days - $1.149 per litre, that 3
or 4 MPG translates into some very real hard costs.

 

You were getting 32 MPG on the highway? I never got anywhere near that
in any Caravan I've owned. Are you sure?

 

Sorry, I overlooked "imperial" in the previous conversation. That works
out to 26.6 miles per US gallon, which is a lot easier to believe.

 

Hate to point this out, but EGR and PCV cause no loss in performance. How
can they, they require no energy input to make them function. Electric
cooling fans save fuel because they only run when needed. Same with the new
electric power steering, why run a pump if you don't have to?

 

You'll be surprised to know, but those late 40's and early 50's Chevys,
Fords, and Plymouths were about the same weight as, say, a current VW Jetta,
around 3300 pounds. They look heavy, but they aren't nearly as heavy as
they look. A 2002 Chrysler minivan is close to 4000. I have a short
wheelbase, manual tranmission turbo '89 Caravan which is surprisingly light,
about 3200 with the back seat out. These "minivans" have grown a lot in
width and weight, though they look more streamlined than the early ones.