Hi All,You may recall a thread a couple of weeks ago, started by PW, about the Which? report into the garage trade, yet another bashing!
As you will also recall, I e-mailed Which? about this article, & most especially the inaccuracy about the a/c service carried out, when all they asked for was a 'top up'.
Amazingly, I received a reply from the editor of Which? yesterday, this is copied below, along with a reply I e-mailed back to her.
Hope it amuses some:-
Hello Rob,
Thank you for your query.
In our investigation we asked for services according to the manufacturers' service schedules, which are not all the same. In the particular case that we are referring to in our magazine, the manufacturer's service schedule specifically states that the air conditioning charge level should be checked and that it should be "topped up" where necessary. The service schedule does not say that the air conditioning should be recharged.
The air conditioning had been working well before the car was taken to the garage. Given that this was the case, it is questionable why the garage chose to recharge the air conditioning, as it was not necessary. As a result, our researcher incurred added expense that was not necessary.
I hope this clarifies our position and findings for you, but please feel able to get back in touch if necessary.
Regards,
Dawn Mathews
Which?
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE
This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail or by telephone (020 7770 7000) and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
Hello Dawn,
Thank-you for coming back to me, I hadn't really expected a reply, so thank-you for this.
I am interested to know which manufacturer & model of car you used for this experiment. I am sure you can appreciate that the air conditioning system on a car is a closed loop system, with charge ports on it to facilitate the addition & removal of the refrigerant gas using special air con service equipment.
The whole point of my first e-mail, is that irrespective of what the service schedule may say, it is impossible to 'top up' an air conditioning system, as there is absolutely no way of knowing what weight of refrigerant gas is already in the system, therefore you cannot possibly know how much to 'top up' with. After all there is no dipstick on air con, unlike say engine oil.
The ONLY correct course of action to take with an air conditioning system, is to remove the gas, clean & desiccate it, then vacuum the system down so as to remove all moisture, then add oil equivalent to that removed & finally fill with the correct weight of gas for the vehicle concerned.
Any other procedure would be both wrong & a GUESS.
The above work would normally be considered a service on the a/c system & is correct. In fact MOST manufacturers recommend this type of service every 2 years on modern vehicles.
If you had asked for an air conditioning 'top up' then this all the garage could have done, a service.
Even if the a/c did work on this car, it may have been in need of the two year service anyway, indeed a/c systems typically lose 10 - 15% of their refrigerant per year, leading to a loss of efficiency & increased fuel consumption. The bi-annual service helps to rectify this.
The additional thing that should be changed at each 2 yearly service is the receiver drier, this is a small unit in the air con system that desiccates the refrigerant gas, it can only hold around a teaspoon & a half of water and will be ruined in one service period.
The consequences of not carrying out the above correctly are:- short term, the air con will not work correctly.
Long term:- the system will suffer damage from corrosion internally, leading to premature failure of compressor & other parts collapsing with corrosion, possible break up of the receiver drier internals (silica gel) leading to blockages etc.
It would appear that this garage did nothing wrong, except protect your researcher from expensive bills later.
I was also trying to make the point that by your irresponsible acts & words, you can actually cost a good garage money, possibly even a garage owner his livelihood. As ever I wonder how much else was an untruth in this article.
I accept that the garage trade is not perfect, indeed it needs some regulation & a licence scheme to drag it up. But the kind of help it needs is not misleading articles such as yours.
Might I suggest that in future, you use experts in particular fields who have knowledge but maybe an indirect connection with the garage trade.
Your articles DO have the potential to improve the garage trade, but they lose ALL credibility once the flaws are found in the reporting such as in this case.
I would like to point out that I am not directly connected with the garage trade, my only contact is that I supply equipment & training to the air conditioning trade. So I know a thing or two about it.
Kind regards,
Rob Drinkwater.