Zeus plus...

[GypsyR]

As somewhat higher level diagnostic technicians, we are "detectives". We want as many clues as possible. Then we can make a call as to the repair path or what further diagnostic work may be needed to narrow down the problem. It's what we've been working for years to be able to do and what we get paid for. The junior and lower level folks just want a target for their parts cannons. The senior ones have seen enough problems caused by stuff that's never been in any shop manual or repair information that canned presumptive answers don't fly.

And I'm not kidding about the "replace transmission" thing. It's THE most common answer to any sort of transmission issue in the Intelligent Diagnostic list. It's kind of like how green mechanics and parts store people want to replace an oxygen sensor every time they see an 02 sensor code.

[Steve6911]

Kahlil, I will have to agree 100% with the responses to your questions here. The "Intelligent Diagnostics" is lacking any real world testing. I cannot speak for the transmission side like Ben can But the engine side is as he states. Say I have a code for Oxygen sensor, Slow response, flagging certain data PIDS is nice, but if you don't know how the system works what does that sensor flag being red mean other then out of spec? So now the tech scrolls down to SureTrack, "most" of the time it will state the sensor acted "erratic". Exactly what does that mean? What does the PID look like when it is not erratic? If it was tested with a scope Good and Bad patterns would be nice. Even if it was tested with a Volt meter, what does erratic and good look like. Mostly the scanners show an Oxygen sensor code, its replace the oxygen sensor, Mass air flow sensor code, replace the mass air flow sensor. My first scanner was the OTC Monitor 2000, I really liked it in its time. My Boss came off the S.O. truck with the MT2500 one day. I had a Ford with an EVP sensor code. The OTC flow chart book had 3 columns of tests. I tried the TroubleShooter for the first time and in 5 minutes I had my answer. Many of the tests in there were like that, very well thought out and part replacement was not a pattern failure guess it gave accurate testing. I know vehicles have come a long way since then, MUCH more complex. However the Troubleshooter and the CTM are things that put Snap-on tools above the others and my thoughts are we need to get these back to where they belong to stay ahead.

[Tech_A]

I would agree there are plenty of opportunities to improve content to support vehicle diagnostics in Snap-on products.

MT2500 VCI's "real-world testing" does not even compare to most modern scan tools. I would assume that level of "expert" knowledge is very hard to come by now.

I feel what Snap-on exceeds at is providing content in a consolidated space that technicians of all levels can understand, but it does take a person with some critical thinking to utilize that information correctly.

[GypsyR]

I've been going with the assumption that when Snap On axed the written troubleshooting section they also axed or repositioned the person/people responsible for compiling and writing out all that wonderful information. Or perhaps they retired or left and Snap On couldn't replace them? I can certainly picture that. In any case I figure that horse is now long dead and buried, no sense to beat it.

[Tech_A]

Originally Posted by GypsyR

I've been going with the assumption that when Snap On axed the written troubleshooting section they also axed or repositioned the person/people responsible for compiling and writing out all that wonderful information. Or perhaps they retired or left and Snap On couldn't replace them? I can certainly picture that. In any case I figure that horse is now long dead and buried, no sense to beat it.

Its time to ride the new Intelligent Diagnostics horse

[Wheel]

Originally Posted by Tech_A

Its time to ride the new Intelligent Diagnostics horse

Actually, it may be time to bury that horse as well. For experienced techs, it really is a waste of time so they go elsewhere for information. For inexperienced techs, it has the potential to do more harm than good. It can get one into the parts changing habit rather than building the diagnostic skills that get to the root of the problem. As vehicles get more complex, the less likely it can be for two identical cars with identical symptoms to have an identical cause. Troubleshooter was like having a tutor helping you learn to figure things out. It didn't always have all the answers either, but it also taught you a mindset so you could better find those yourself. And it was always there when the internet wasn't or couldn't be.

[Wheel]

Originally Posted by Steve6911

Kahlil, I will have to agree 100% with the responses to your questions here. The "Intelligent Diagnostics" is lacking any real world testing. I cannot speak for the transmission side like Ben can But the engine side is as he states. Say I have a code for Oxygen sensor, Slow response, flagging certain data PIDS is nice, but if you don't know how the system works what does that sensor flag being red mean other then out of spec? So now the tech scrolls down to SureTrack, "most" of the time it will state the sensor acted "erratic". Exactly what does that mean? What does the PID look like when it is not erratic? If it was tested with a scope Good and Bad patterns would be nice. Even if it was tested with a Volt meter, what does erratic and good look like. Mostly the scanners show an Oxygen sensor code, its replace the oxygen sensor, Mass air flow sensor code, replace the mass air flow sensor. My first scanner was the OTC Monitor 2000, I really liked it in its time. My Boss came off the S.O. truck with the MT2500 one day. I had a Ford with an EVP sensor code. The OTC flow chart book had 3 columns of tests. I tried the TroubleShooter for the first time and in 5 minutes I had my answer. Many of the tests in there were like that, very well thought out and part replacement was not a pattern failure guess it gave accurate testing. I know vehicles have come a long way since then, MUCH more complex. However the Troubleshooter and the CTM are things that put Snap-on tools above the others and my thoughts are we need to get these back to where they belong to stay ahead.

There is absolutely no way I could have said it better.

[GypsyR]

Originally Posted by Tech_A

Its time to ride the new Intelligent Diagnostics horse

Well, if it wasn't quite so lame....

(Sorry, absolutely could NOT resist.)

[SnapOnKid]

GypsyR, Steve6911, And Wheel

Well said all 3 of you. It won't let me Quote all 3 of you with out erroring out.

Maybe the Meta Verse, Google, Or You tube can tell me how to fix the problem? Oh wait, That also requires an internet connection....

So If I am going to spend all my time on the net and the simple answer is to replace what ever part the code is attached too then why did we purchase these expensive "code readers"???

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to purchase a Bluetooth OBD2 dongle and use a smart Phone App???

Every scan tool on the market has it's weak points. The trouble shooter used to be something that set the Snap On product apart.

[Tech_A]

Originally Posted by SnapOnKid

GypsyR, Steve6911, And Wheel

Well said all 3 of you. It won't let me Quote all 3 of you with out erroring out.

Maybe the Meta Verse, Google, Or You tube can tell me how to fix the problem? Oh wait, That also requires an internet connection....

So If I am going to spend all my time on the net and the simple answer is to replace what ever part the code is attached too then why did we purchase these expensive "code readers"???

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to purchase a Bluetooth OBD2 dongle and use a smart Phone App???

Every scan tool on the market has it's weak points. The trouble shooter used to be something that set the Snap On product apart.

Snap-on products also provide guided component tests, service resets and relearns, tire wheel and maintenance, and altus drive. How many smartphone or android tablet apps can do that?