Episode Details

Thanks to our Partners, Pico Technology, and Autel

Watch Full Video Episode

How much freedom should an automotive professional have to deviate from published service information?

In this episode of Automotive Field Theory, Matt Fanslow digs into that question after a recent discussion involving ADAS procedures and Ford brake caliper fasteners that service information specifically instructs technicians to remove and discard.

The debate isn't really about one set of bolts.

It's about the level of confidence we sometimes have in deciding that a procedure isn't necessary when we don't actually know why the manufacturer specified it in the first place.

Matt compares following service information to insurance and personal protective equipment. Most days, neither appears necessary. You don't buy insurance because you expect to crash every day, and you don't wear PPE because something goes wrong every time you use it. They're there for the rare day when something does go badly wrong.

That same idea applies to automotive repair.

Millions of repairs may survive a shortcut without consequence. A rope-style tire plug may last the remaining life of the tire. A reused fastener may never loosen. A skipped calibration may never produce an obvious complaint.

But is a history of getting away with something the same as evidence that the procedure wasn't necessary?

Topics Discussed

• Ford service information calling for certain brake fasteners to be removed and discarded
• The difficulty of finding documentation explaining why Ford requires replacement
• Whether thread locker, bolt coatings, fastener design, or another factor could be behind the requirement
• Why the absence of an explanation doesn't automatically justify ignoring the procedure
• Risk management in automotive repair
• The difference between something working and something being an approved repair
• Rope-style tire plugs versus manufacturer-approved tire repair procedures
• Legal exposure when a repair deviates from accepted or published procedures
• OE versus aftermarket ADAS calibration equipment and procedures
• Why following the OE procedure provides an inherently defensible position
• When departing from an OEM diagnostic trouble tree may be reasonable
• The difference between deviating from a diagnostic process and deviating from a safety-related assembly procedure
• Adding something such as thread locker to improve robustness versus eliminating a required step
• The criticism sometimes directed toward specialists who follow service information
• Why experience alone doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a specified procedure is unnecessary
• PPE, insurance, and service procedures as protection against the exceptionally bad day

Key Takeaways

“I've always done it this way” isn't the same as knowing why the procedure exists.

A repair method can work hundreds or thousands of times without demonstrating that the manufacturer's requirement was unnecessary.

There are different kinds of deviations from service information.

Skipping steps in a diagnostic trouble tree because you understand the system and can perform more efficient testing isn't necessarily comparable to ignoring a torque specification, calibration requirement, preparation procedure, or instruction to replace a fastener.

Following the published procedure is also a form of risk management.

The value of the procedure may not reveal itself during the thousands of repairs where nothing goes wrong. Its value may be on the one repair where something does.

Doing exactly what