Why are we surprised? (Jiffy Lube TV exposé)

--

The regulator has a micro screen in it, its a fuel pressure regulator and
yes some books call it a filter and some say regulator, technically not part
of a regular maintenance schedule. The pump has to be removed and
disassembled to replace this part if you want to do it right. I think it was
a poor choice of parts to use as a sting. I also sent them an e mail and
have not yet got a respond back.
However.....I did some searching and California is the only recommended
state that Chrysler recommends replacing this regulator at 60k so I guess it
is one of those gray areas with EPA. I believe the channel 4 was from
California wasn't it Bill?

Glenn

 

Are you daft? who is breaking vehicles at a 130 K on the RAM the parts do
wear out.
Coasty

 

No, I just know the difference between a brake job and a break job.

Matt

 

I'm thinkin' they should. ;-)

 

And the funny part is I still don't think he's caught on to what
I'm pointing out to him.

Matt

 

FSM consistently calls it filter/regulator.

But in California, as you point out below, it is.

The tank has to be dropped and the filter/regulator assy. has to be
removed from the pump assy. (appears from the procedure that the pump
assy. can remain in the tank), discarded, and replaced.

I just read thru the alldata/FSM procedure complete with illustrations
for the '00 Cherokee. The part that the TV guy marked with the number 4
*is* precisely the filter/regulator part of the fuel pump assembly -
that complete filter/regulator assy. - the part with the number 4 on it
- gets discarded and a new filter/regulator assy. gets installed in its
place.

The more I see what is replaced, the more I see that they (the TV
station) were exactly right - in the fuel filter replacement, the part
that they marked with the number 4 - the filter/regulator assy. - gets
discarded and replaced with a complete new part (filter/regulator). See
figures and pertinent text from the FSM procedure below my signature and
I think you'll see what I mean. They caught Jiffy Lube dead to rights.

Yes - L.A. Hmmm - I wonder if Leo is a legal citizen. Ahh - but it's
California - it's probably illegal to even check. LOL!

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


Top of fuel pump assy.:
http://images1.fotki.com/v317/photos/4/42816/3591700/84798446-vi.gif

Filter/regulator assy. - gets discarded after being removed from fuel
pump assy.:
http://images17.fotki.com/v311/photos/4/42816/3591700/84798448-vi.gif

Step 5. from FSM removal procedure:
"Pry filter/regulator from top of pump module with 2 screwdrivers. Unit
is snapped into module."

Step 2. of FSM installation procedure:
"Obtain new filter/regulator (two new O-rings should already be installed)."

Step 5. of FSM installation procedure:
"Press new filter/regulator into top of pump module until it snaps into
position (a positive click must be heard or felt)."

 

Actually I could see them doing this in a smaller town. But what isn't said
is that all they would do is take him down to the police station and book
him
and fingerprint him then let him go on his own recognisance. You should
know
also that this sort of behavior isn't petty theft, it's fraud, which has
more serious
consequences.

Ted

 

It took me a bit funny fells funny I am old and slow.
Coasty

 

Well, everyone is correct, called my brother in law who is a mechanic by
trade and he said the regulator is both a filter and a regulator. On some
models it can be replaced on other Jeep and Chrysler products it is an
iatrical part of the fuel pump and cannot be replaced. That particular
model GC it is replaceable however, he said it is a waste of time and money
because the tank filter would clog up first since the mesh size is the same.

Coasty

 

Can we all agree that, whether it should or can be replaced or not is
not the issue. The issue is that it *wasn't* replaced (for good reason
or bad) yet the customer was charged for it. Or is it OK for a shop to
get me to agree to a coolant flush on an air-cooled VW bug, not do it,
and then charge me for it?

The other thing to notice is that the state of California apparently,
from what Glenn said, recommends that the filter be changed every 60k
miles. Does that show you something about California (as if we didn't
already know). Legislate something with no technical basis and open the
door for your citizens to routinely be defrauded. Is that classic
"feel-good" legislation?

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

 

Sorry, I'm not real familiar with either theft or fraud.

Matt

 

I think I'm going back to changing my own oil : (

 

That is done with a fan right?
Coasty

 

Your very lucky then. Unfortunately, living in the big city I've become
very familiar with both. :-(

Ted

 

Of course. If a customer comes in and requests a filter to be replaced,
even if it's not needed to be replaced, then if the mechanic charges for
it then it must be replaced.

The thing is that if your like this TV station and you are going to be
setting
up a sting of this nature, your going to be looking for a procedure that is
going to be difficult to do. If you choose something easy and obvious like
spark plug wires, then most likely it is going to be changed. So your going
to
choose something that will require a lot of labor. Finding a procedure
that requires dropping the gas tank is perfect, since to make it even
more difficult they could have brought the vehicle in with a full gas tank.

I'm also pretty sure that this TV station probably took the marked car to
several Jiffy Lube stations and had the procedure done properly before
finding one that defrauded them.

The other thing that I think is really stupid that everyone is overlooking
is
what happened to the old parts? I thought it was a federal law that the
repair place had to supply the old broken parts to the customer on request.
This was a primie opportunity to remind customers to demand the old
broken parts back from the repair place. It's kind of difficult to defraud
people by not doing the labor when there is no old broken part to give
back to the customer, don't you think? Letting the mechanic throw away
the old parts just helps to create a condition that makes this kind of fraud
very easy to do.

Ted

 

On a recent tune-up, I intialed my Champion spark plugs, reinstalled
them, and took the car to the dealer for the tune-up. Up front I
requested all used parts to be returned. It was even marked on the work
order. When I went to pick up the car, guess what, no plugs. The
service manager went looking for them, and promptly returned with 4 NGK
plugs. When I pointed out these were not mine, his question was why not.
I then mentioned the intials, he went back into the service bay and
returned a few minutes later with my plugs, and not too happy.
Sooo, my question is, how would the average person know his parts from
the next persons.

And for the record, I believe everyone should ask for, and recieve their
old parts back, if only for a visual inspection, even if you don't know
what the part is supposed to look like.

Then through them into the dealers dumpster----so they can retrieve them
and show them to the next customer LOL

And by the way, I would still take my car to this dealer, especially now
that they know I'm watching them.

 

My question is; if you had the spark plugs out to initial them,
why wouldn't you just put new ones back in and save having to pay
someone else to do what you had already done?

Oh, and to answer your question, the average wouldn't know his
parts from someone else's. IME, the typical customer doesn't
want their old parts back, they rarely even want to see them.

If it were up to me, they'd be taking them with them, less trash
to empty.

Actually, more useful for bogus warranty claims.

You mean now that you know that they really -did- replace the
parts that you requested be replaced.

 

I was talking more on the commission side, than the receiving side, but,
yes, I live in the country for this reason amongst others.


Matt

 

You missed one very important point: The service advisor (Leo) brought
up the suggestion of replacing the fuel filter - the "customer" didn't
bring it up - they came in for an oil change and then asked if there
were any more services that the shop would recommend. Idiot Leo fell
into the trap laid for him.

Now - they said at the beginning of the video that they did the sting
with the help of insiders (presumed to be previous Jiffy Lube
employees). If you connect the dots, since they marked the fuel filter
(fuel filter/pressure regulator) ahead of time, they had a sneaky
suspicion that when they asked what other services they would recommend,
chances were fairly good that a fuel filter change would be recommended
(likely based on the "insiders" information) - and idiot Leo obliged them.

Once again, you were not paying attention. They said that they took the
car to *9* Jiffy Lubes and got ripped off at *5* of them. Not one out
of 20, not 2 out of 10. 5 out of 9. Now - it is possible that they did
stack the deck by going to the JL's that the insiders had indicated to
them were the worst offenders.

If you want to suggest that the TV station lied about the ratio, that is
a legitimate question, but there's nothing to suggest that it was
anything other than what they claimed (i.e., fraud by 5 out of 9).

No argument there. As you already realize and as brought up by Nirodac
in another reply, it isn't too hard to fool most consumers by pulling
anyone's parts out of the trash can and presenting them as the replaced
parts (and no doubt many mechanics keep a stash of common parts in a box
behind their tool box to show the occasional customer who insists on
seeing their old parts). However, especially for someone who is aware
and knows what their old parts looked like, the risk of the shop getting
busted in that situation is higher than if old parts are not asked for.
This is like whenever I recommend here that people always insist that
an alignment shop print 'before' and 'after' numbers, there's always
someone that will say that the numbers can easily be faked on the
printout. My reponse is that, yes - and financial numbers can be faked
too, yet apparently there is value in doing audits - there are always
methods that a good auditor can use to cross-check what he's seeing.
Same with alignment numbers, same with used parts that have supposedly
been replaced. In accounting as well as in car repairs, auditing cuts
the likelihood of fraud way down if the auditor/would-be victim is
clever/paying attention/knows what they're looking for.

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

 

Whatever they went to jail for, it wasn't theft. That's crazy. Fraud,
maybe, if the extra service was actually paid for. If you didn't pay for the
service, then it's not that either. I do think it's plenty illegal, even if
it just falls under bunko laws. They're everywhere.