In today’s automotive landscape, the importance of onboard diagnostic systems cannot be overstated. Modern vehicles rely heavily on electronic control units (ECUs) and sensors to monitor nearly every aspect of their operation, from engine performance and emissions control to braking and safety systems.
When something goes wrong, these systems communicate problems through error codes—numerical or alphanumeric sequences that correspond to specific faults or irregularities detected by the vehicle’s computer. For car owners and mechanics alike, understanding these error codes is the first crucial step toward accurate diagnosis and effective repair.
However, not all vehicles are created equal when it comes to the clarity and usefulness of their diagnostic codes. Some manufacturers design their onboard diagnostic systems with simplicity and user-friendliness in mind, producing error codes that directly point to specific components or issues.
These straightforward codes can make repairs faster, more efficient, and less costly. On the other hand, some vehicles have diagnostic systems that are complex, proprietary, or prone to cascading faults that generate ambiguous or misleading error codes.
Such complexity can frustrate even experienced mechanics, leading to prolonged diagnostic processes, multiple unnecessary part replacements, and higher repair bills.
Understanding the difference between these two categories of vehicles—those with simple error codes and those that confuse even mechanics—is essential for anyone involved in vehicle maintenance or ownership.
Simple error codes enhance transparency and make DIY repairs more feasible, empowering owners to take better care of their cars.
Conversely, vehicles with complicated error code systems often require specialized tools, extensive knowledge, and patience to diagnose properly, limiting repair options to dealership-level technicians or highly experienced independent specialists.
This article explores five vehicles known for their simple error codes, highlighting how their diagnostic systems make troubleshooting easier and more efficient. These vehicles often feature standardized codes, clear fault descriptions, and well-documented diagnostic procedures.
Examples include the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic—models celebrated for their reliability and user-friendly maintenance. Their error codes usually correspond directly to failing components or systems, enabling quick identification of issues without the need for guesswork.
On the flip side, we also examine five cars notorious for confusing even seasoned mechanics with their complicated, sometimes cryptic error codes. These vehicles often employ intricate networks of ECUs and advanced systems that communicate over complex networks, causing error codes to cascade or conflict.
Models like the BMW 5 Series E60 and Volkswagen Passat B6/B7 exemplify how cutting-edge automotive technology can sometimes work against ease of diagnosis. Proprietary software requirements, communication bus errors, and overlapping fault codes all contribute to a diagnostic nightmare that can delay repairs and increase costs.
By providing detailed insights into both categories, this article aims to equip readers with a better understanding of what to expect when a check engine light comes on, depending on their vehicle’s make and model. It also underscores the importance of having the right diagnostic tools and knowledge when dealing with complex systems.
Whether you are a professional mechanic seeking to optimize your troubleshooting strategies or a car owner wanting to grasp your vehicle’s diagnostic signals better, knowing which cars offer straightforward error codes and which don’t is invaluable.
Ultimately, this knowledge not only aids in efficient maintenance but also influences purchasing decisions. For those who prefer simplicity and lower maintenance costs, choosing a vehicle with a reputation for clear, easy-to-understand error codes can be a wise decision. Conversely, if advanced technology and luxury features are a priority, understanding the diagnostic challenges involved is critical to managing expectations and maintenance budgets.
As vehicle technology continues to evolve, so too will onboard diagnostics. While complexity is inevitable as cars become smarter and more interconnected, manufacturers who prioritize diagnostic clarity will likely stand out in terms of customer satisfaction and long-term reliability.
In the meantime, recognizing which vehicles fall on either end of the diagnostic spectrum will help you navigate repairs more confidently, avoid unnecessary frustrations, and maintain your vehicle more effectively.
Also Read: 5 Cars That Survive Salt Roads and 5 That Rust Instantly in the Midwest
5 Cars With Simple Error Codes
1. Toyota Corolla
Toyota Corolla stands out as a paragon of straightforward vehicle diagnostics, embodying Toyota’s reputation for reliability and simplicity. One major factor contributing to the Corolla’s clarity in error codes is Toyota’s disciplined adherence to OBD-II standards.
Unlike some manufacturers who layer proprietary diagnostic logic on top of standard codes, Toyota opts for transparency, ensuring that error codes directly correspond to specific faults.
For example, if the check engine light signals a problem, the code will usually indicate the exact sensor or system—such as a P0420 catalytic converter efficiency code or a P0171 system too lean code—giving mechanics and owners a clear starting point for troubleshooting.
The simplicity extends beyond just the codes themselves. The Corolla’s engine control unit (ECU) is designed with fewer overlapping error signals, reducing the chances of misleading or multiple simultaneous codes.
When a sensor fails, such as the oxygen sensor or mass airflow sensor, the fault codes are singular and descriptive, preventing confusion that often plagues more complex vehicles. This also means parts replacements are often more targeted and less guesswork-based, which minimizes costs and avoids unnecessary labor.
In addition to clear codes, Toyota provides excellent documentation and user-friendly diagnostic tools compatible with their vehicles. This accessibility ensures that even novice DIY mechanics can read and interpret codes without specialized software.
Furthermore, Toyota’s broad global presence means that aftermarket diagnostic tools are plentiful, and extensive online resources exist for decoding error codes and suggested repairs. From forums to repair guides, the community around Toyota Corollas offers valuable insight into common issues flagged by diagnostic codes, making maintenance more approachable.
Finally, the Corolla’s overall engineering philosophy focuses on durability and ease of repair, reflected in how its onboard diagnostics operate.
By designing a system that gives clear, actionable information rather than complex or overlapping error messages, Toyota has ensured that the Corolla remains a favorite for those who want to avoid headaches when the check engine light comes on.
This practical approach has contributed to its legendary reliability and makes it an excellent example of a car with simple, user-friendly error codes.
2. Honda Civic
The Honda Civic is another stellar example of a vehicle that offers clear and concise diagnostic information. Honda’s implementation of OBD-II codes is methodical and well-integrated into the vehicle’s engine management system, making the diagnostic process more straightforward.
The Civic’s ECU prioritizes setting codes that are both standardized and highly descriptive, minimizing the need for additional guesswork. When a sensor such as the throttle position sensor or camshaft position sensor fails, the error code is directly indicative of the problem, allowing mechanics to quickly narrow down the root cause.
Honda’s diagnostic simplicity is further enhanced by its consistent use of component design and sensor types across many Civic generations. This uniformity means that many diagnostic codes and repair approaches are transferable between model years, reducing the learning curve for mechanics and car owners.
For instance, a P030x misfire code almost always relates to a specific cylinder’s ignition or fuel delivery problem, and the steps to diagnose it are well-established and widely understood.
Another advantage of the Civic is Honda’s commitment to providing detailed repair manuals and software access. The availability of technical service bulletins (TSBs) and routine maintenance guidelines helps mechanics interpret error codes in the context of known issues.
Moreover, popular scan tools readily recognize Honda-specific codes, offering live data and freeze-frame diagnostics, which simplifies pinpointing intermittent or sensor-related faults.
This capability is invaluable because it allows mechanics to see the actual sensor readings and conditions when the fault was detected, rather than relying solely on a static error code.
Lastly, the Civic benefits greatly from an active and knowledgeable owner community. Online forums, video tutorials, and service guides often include detailed walk-throughs of error code meanings and how to fix common problems.
This grassroots support network, combined with Honda’s straightforward diagnostic system, empowers many Civic owners to perform at least minor repairs themselves, thereby reducing repair costs and fostering a better understanding of their vehicles.
3. Ford F-150 (Earlier Models)
Early to mid-2000s Ford F-150 trucks strike a balance between modern diagnostic capabilities and mechanical simplicity, resulting in error codes that are generally easy to understand and act upon. Ford’s diagnostic strategy during this era relied heavily on standardized OBD-II codes, augmented with clear, system-specific fault messages.
When the check engine light or other warning indicators illuminate, the trouble codes usually pinpoint a specific malfunctioning component or system, such as the oxygen sensors, throttle body, or transmission solenoids.
One key feature of these F-150 models is the clarity in how error codes map to observable symptoms. For example, a P0128 coolant thermostat code typically means the engine isn’t reaching optimal operating temperature, leading mechanics to inspect the thermostat or coolant temperature sensor without unnecessary detours.
This straightforwardness avoids the trap of ambiguous or overly generic codes that can send technicians on wild goose chases.
Ford’s commitment to supporting independent mechanics with affordable, user-friendly diagnostic tools like the Ford-specific F-150 scanners also improves the repair experience.
Many tools available to owners and small shops provide enhanced diagnostic functions such as real-time sensor data and control module resets, facilitating faster and more accurate repairs. This democratization of diagnostic information helps lower repair costs and makes the F-150 a popular truck among those who prefer DIY maintenance.
Furthermore, the mechanical layout of these F-150s complements the clarity of their error codes. Because the trucks have relatively straightforward engine and drivetrain designs, the fault codes rarely result from complex inter-module communication errors. Instead, when a code appears, it tends to relate directly to a tangible mechanical or electrical fault.
This transparency, combined with Ford’s vast network of parts suppliers and online forums dedicated to troubleshooting, enhances the appeal of these trucks for users who want reliable, diagnosable vehicles without the frustration of cryptic error messages.
4. Mazda MX-5 Miata
The Mazda MX-5 Miata is renowned not just for its spirited driving experience but also for the elegant simplicity of its onboard diagnostics. Mazda’s minimalist engineering ethos is reflected in the way error codes are generated and interpreted.
The Miata’s diagnostic system adheres strictly to OBD-II standards without adding layers of proprietary codes or convoluted error hierarchies, making it easy for mechanics to correlate codes with real-world mechanical symptoms.
When a check engine light appears in a Miata, the error code usually points directly to a specific system or sensor malfunction, such as a faulty coolant temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, or misfire in a particular cylinder. This direct correspondence avoids the frustration common in vehicles where one fault cascades into multiple unrelated codes.
Consequently, mechanics and owners can quickly assess whether the problem relates to ignition, fuel delivery, or emissions, allowing efficient diagnosis and repair.
Mazda’s choice to avoid excessive electronic complexity in the MX-5 also helps maintain clear communication between control modules.
Unlike many modern cars that have separate control units for subsystems like transmission, traction control, and emissions, sometimes causing conflicting or misleading codes, the Miata keeps its systems relatively integrated and straightforward. This results in fewer ambiguous codes and less diagnostic noise, simplifying the repair process.
Moreover, the MX-5 community is well-known for its DIY spirit and technical expertise, contributing to a rich body of shared knowledge about error codes and fixes. Owners frequently post detailed guides on how to interpret specific codes, replace sensors, or troubleshoot common problems, making the Miata one of the more approachable sports cars to maintain.
This culture of transparency and collaboration pairs well with the Miata’s simple error codes, ensuring that owners rarely feel overwhelmed when their dashboard lights up.
5. Subaru Outback (Early 2000s)
Subaru’s early 2000s Outback models exemplify a practical approach to vehicle diagnostics, providing error codes that are typically straightforward and meaningful. These vehicles’ OBD-II systems generally produce fault codes that identify the failing sensor or system with reasonable accuracy, which helps mechanics isolate problems quickly without extensive guesswork.
For example, if the engine control module detects an oxygen sensor malfunction or an issue with the all-wheel-drive system, the codes generated often reflect these specific problems clearly.
One notable advantage of Subaru’s diagnostic system during this period is how well the error codes correlate with physical symptoms. Owners reporting rough idle or engine stalling will usually find codes that directly suggest related components such as ignition coils, fuel injectors, or sensor failures.
This clarity allows mechanics to cross-reference codes with symptoms confidently, reducing unnecessary component replacements and diagnostic delays.
Subaru’s relatively uniform engineering across various models in the early 2000s further aids diagnostic clarity. Many engine and drivetrain components, as well as their control systems, share parts and design principles, meaning that understanding error codes on one Subaru model often translates well to another.
This consistency allows repair shops and owners to build a cumulative knowledge base that improves diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
Lastly, Subaru’s community-driven forums and technical resources provide ample support for decoding error codes and fixing common issues in the Outback. These resources often include detailed explanations of codes, common symptoms, and typical repairs, helping owners make informed decisions and mechanics streamline their workflow.
As a result, the Subaru Outback from this era remains a solid example of a vehicle whose diagnostic codes are both simple and helpful in maintaining reliable operation.
5 Cars That Confuse Even Mechanics
Not every car is a straightforward fix—even for seasoned pros. Some models roll into the shop and leave mechanics scratching their heads, flipping through service manuals, or calling in backup.
Whether it’s overly complex electronics, bizarre engineering choices, or just plain poor design, these cars have a reputation for being repair nightmares. Here are five vehicles that even mechanics admit can be a real headache.
1. BMW 5 Series (E60 Generation)
The BMW 5 Series E60, produced from 2003 to 2010, is frequently cited as one of the most challenging vehicles to diagnose, even for experienced mechanics.
While BMW’s reputation for precision engineering is well-deserved, the E60’s complex network of electronic control units (ECUs) and the interactions between them can make its error codes frustratingly opaque.
Unlike simpler systems, the E60 employs a distributed architecture where various modules—including engine control, transmission, air suspension, and body control—communicate constantly over a controller area network (CAN) bus. This means a fault in one system can cascade, causing multiple unrelated error codes to appear, muddying the diagnostic waters.
For example, a failing battery or alternator in an E60 often leads to a flood of seemingly unrelated faults, including issues with the iDrive infotainment system, power steering, or even the parking brake. This “symptom spillover” confounds the straightforward correlation between a code and a component failure that simpler cars provide.
Even experienced technicians must systematically rule out secondary issues before isolating the root cause, which dramatically increases diagnosis time. The error codes themselves are often high-level and cryptic, requiring specialized BMW software (like ISTA+) to interpret fully, which is not always available in smaller or independent repair shops.
Furthermore, BMW’s proprietary coding and fault memory systems add another layer of complexity. The error codes often need to be cross-referenced with live data streams and freeze-frame data to fully understand the context of a fault.
This means that just reading the error code is rarely sufficient—mechanics must delve into detailed diagnostics, sometimes probing multiple sensors and modules simultaneously.
The E60’s electronic complexity reflects the car’s advanced technology and performance, but comes at the cost of diagnostic difficulty, making it a notoriously perplexing vehicle to service properly.
2. Volkswagen Passat (B6 and B7 Generations)
The mid-2000s to early 2010s Volkswagen Passats, specifically the B6 (2005–2010) and B7 (2010–2014) generations, are infamous for their bewildering diagnostic behavior.
VW’s attempt to integrate increasingly sophisticated electronic control systems and numerous independent modules sometimes results in confusing, generic, or misleading error codes. Unlike the straightforward, single-point fault codes found in simpler vehicles, Passats often throw codes that do not directly correspond to the actual malfunctioning system.
For instance, a fuel system or emissions-related error code might originate from an electrical issue such as a loose ground or a failing sensor wiring harness. In many cases, error codes will lead mechanics down a path chasing symptoms rather than causes.
The vehicle’s modular approach means various control units—engine, transmission, ABS, HVAC, and body control—can store overlapping or conflicting codes, requiring extensive cross-referencing and testing.
Adding to the difficulty is Volkswagen’s use of proprietary diagnostic software and communication protocols. While VAG-COM (now called VCDS) is an essential tool for decoding and interpreting these codes, it requires significant expertise to navigate its interface and to understand the nuance behind error codes.
Mechanics unfamiliar with VW’s specific fault logic often find themselves spending hours testing parts that ultimately turn out to be fine. The problem is compounded by VW’s tendency to generate intermittent codes that clear on their own but recur unpredictably, leading to frustrated vehicle owners and mechanics alike.
This combination of cryptic codes, complex electronics, and intermittent faults makes diagnosing the Passat a trial by fire. Independent mechanics frequently report spending far more time troubleshooting a Passat than with many other similarly aged vehicles, which ultimately drives up repair costs and frustrates customers.
3. Land Rover Range Rover (L322)
The Land Rover Range Rover L322, produced from 2002 to 2012, is notorious in the repair community for its maddening diagnostic complexity.
Designed to blend luxury with off-road capability, the L322’s advanced systems—from air suspension to sophisticated traction and stability controls—are controlled by a web of electronic modules that communicate constantly. This interconnectivity can turn a single fault into a cascade of error codes, some of which may not even be directly related to the actual problem.
One common diagnostic headache arises from the vehicle’s air suspension system, which is very sensitive to voltage fluctuations or sensor errors. A minor electrical issue, such as a weak battery or corroded connection, can trigger fault codes that indicate suspension failure, sensor malfunction, or body control module errors.
This creates a diagnostic loop where clearing one fault only causes others to reappear, making it difficult to zero in on the primary issue. The lack of straightforward, pinpoint error codes means that mechanics must rely heavily on detailed diagnostic software, often proprietary and expensive, along with specialized training.
Furthermore, Land Rover’s diagnostic tools are less commonly found outside of dealership environments, restricting many independent mechanics’ ability to perform thorough diagnostics. Without access to factory-level tools, mechanics must rely on trial and error or less capable third-party scan tools, which often produce incomplete or inaccurate information.
The result is a frustrating diagnostic process where error codes may suggest numerous potential faults, none of which are clearly identified as the root cause.
This diagnostic complexity extends beyond just electronics; the L322 also suffers from typical Land Rover issues like wiring harness corrosion and module communication faults, which are difficult to detect without advanced diagnostic procedures.
The combination of expensive proprietary tools, complicated electronics, and multi-system fault interactions makes the L322 Range Rover a vehicle that tests even the most seasoned automotive professionals.
4. Nissan Altima (3.5L V6, Early 2000s)
The early 2000s Nissan Altima, equipped with the 3.5L V6 engin, is a vehicle that has gained a reputation for confusing error codes that frustrate many mechanics. While it uses the OBD-II standard, the ECU’s logic and sensor feedback loops often generate error codes that do not directly reflect the actual malfunctioning component.
For instance, a misfire code might initially point to ignition coils, but deeper diagnostics reveal issues like camshaft position sensor glitches, vacuum leaks, or wiring harness problems that are less obvious.
This overlap of symptoms and fault codes stems from the engine management system’s reliance on multiple sensors working in tandem to maintain performance and emissions standards. Because of this interdependence, a failure in one sensor can trigger cascading errors that mask the root cause.
For example, a failing oxygen sensor could cause the ECU to adjust fuel trim aggressively, setting codes related to fuel delivery or misfires. Mechanics often have to perform extensive testing—including live data analysis, compression tests, and physical inspections—to find the true problem.
Nissan’s diagnostic software for these Altimas is not always intuitive or widely used in independent shops, which adds another hurdle. Generic scanners provide basic error codes but lack the detailed live data and diagnostic flowcharts necessary to tackle these nuanced faults efficiently.
Furthermore, the Altima’s reputation for certain common but non-obvious issues—like coil pack failures or cam sensor wiring harness degradation—means mechanics must combine code interpretation with experience and intuition.
This complexity frequently leads to prolonged diagnostic times and unnecessary parts replacements, driving up repair costs and testing the patience of both owners and mechanics. The 3.5L V6 Altima exemplifies how even well-known vehicles with standard OBD-II codes can present significant challenges when their systems interact in unexpected ways.
5. Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)
The Mercedes-Benz S-Class W221, produced from 2006 to 2013, represents the pinnacle of automotive luxury and technological advancement, but it also stands as a cautionary tale about the complexities of modern vehicle diagnostics.
The W221 features dozens of interconnected control units managing everything from adaptive air suspension and active safety systems to advanced climate control and infotainment. While this sophistication delivers exceptional comfort and performance, it also produces an avalanche of error codes that can be difficult to decipher.
Unlike simpler vehicles, where a single error code often indicates a direct fault, the W221’s fault memory typically stores numerous codes across multiple modules. Many of these codes are interdependent or triggered by communication errors between control units, making it hard to identify which one is the primary cause.
For example, a low voltage warning might cascade into faults in the suspension, steering assist, and lighting systems. Clearing these codes requires specialized Mercedes diagnostic software, such as Xentry or DAS, which provides detailed fault descriptions, module-specific data, and guided troubleshooting steps.
The diagnostic complexity is further exacerbated by Mercedes’ proprietary protocols and encryption, meaning generic OBD-II scanners can only access a fraction of the vehicle’s diagnostic data.
Without access to manufacturer-level software, independent mechanics are often left in the dark or forced to resort to guesswork. Even with the correct tools, interpreting the vast amount of data demands significant expertise and experience with Mercedes systems.
Moreover, the W221’s error codes sometimes reflect symptoms rather than root causes. For example, a faulty sensor reading might stem from wiring issues or module malfunctions rather than the sensor itself.
This indirect error reporting means that effective diagnostics often require in-depth electrical testing, including voltage checks, wiring inspections, and communication bus monitoring. The complexity and cost of this diagnostic process make servicing a W221 S-Class a challenge that only well-equipped and highly skilled specialists can reliably handle.
Also Read: 5 Cars That Survive Salt Roads and 5 That Rust Instantly in the Midwest
In the realm of automotive maintenance and repair, the ability to accurately interpret diagnostic error codes can mean the difference between a quick, inexpensive fix and a prolonged, costly ordeal.
This article has shed light on the stark contrast between vehicles designed with simple, straightforward error codes and those that, due to their complexity and proprietary systems, consistently confuse even the most seasoned mechanics.
Understanding this difference is crucial for both vehicle owners and repair professionals, as it directly impacts the diagnostic process, repair costs, and overall vehicle reliability.
Vehicles like the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Ford F-150, Mazda MX-5 Miata, and early 2000s Subaru Outback exemplify how clear, standardized, and direct error codes enhance repairability. Their diagnostic systems typically adhere closely to OBD-II standards without excessive proprietary layers, resulting in fault codes that correspond neatly to specific components or systems.
This design philosophy fosters transparency, enabling mechanics to pinpoint problems quickly and empowering owners with the information needed for DIY repairs or informed conversations with technicians.
The availability of comprehensive repair manuals, abundant aftermarket tools, and active user communities further amplifies the ease of troubleshooting in these vehicles. For owners, this translates to reduced downtime, lower repair expenses, and less frustration when the dreaded check engine light illuminates.
Conversely, the BMW 5 Series E60, Volkswagen Passat B6/B7, Land Rover Range Rover L322, Nissan Altima 3.5L V6, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class W221 demonstrate the pitfalls of diagnostic complexity.
Their sophisticated networks of ECUs, proprietary fault codes, and cascading errors often obscure the true source of problems, requiring advanced diagnostic software and specialized knowledge to unravel.
Even experienced mechanics face challenges when dealing with ambiguous codes that mask underlying electrical issues, communication failures, or sensor glitches. This complexity inevitably prolongs diagnostic time, increases the likelihood of misdiagnosis, and drives up repair costs.
Moreover, the requirement for expensive manufacturer-specific tools limits diagnostic capabilities primarily to dealerships or well-equipped specialist garages, making routine maintenance and repairs more challenging for independent mechanics and owners alike.
The contrast between these two groups of vehicles underscores a broader trend in the automotive industry: as cars become more technologically advanced, the complexity of diagnosing and repairing them grows exponentially.
While advanced features and interconnected systems offer improved performance, safety, and convenience, they also raise the stakes for accurate and efficient diagnostics.
Manufacturers that prioritize user-friendly diagnostic codes and accessible repair information provide clear benefits to consumers and mechanics, fostering loyalty and reducing ownership costs.
Meanwhile, brands that embrace complexity without sufficient diagnostic transparency risk alienating customers and complicating maintenance.
For consumers, this dichotomy highlights the importance of considering not only a vehicle’s performance, style, and features but also its diagnostic accessibility when making purchasing decisions.
Choosing a vehicle known for simple and clear error codes can significantly ease maintenance challenges, reduce repair expenses, and improve overall ownership satisfaction.
On the other hand, those drawn to high-end or technologically sophisticated vehicles should be prepared for potentially complex diagnostic processes and higher service costs. Awareness of these factors allows for better budgeting, planning, and collaboration with service providers.
For mechanics and automotive professionals, the ongoing evolution of vehicle diagnostics necessitates continual education and investment in advanced tools. Mastery of manufacturer-specific diagnostic software and familiarity with the nuances of various vehicle architectures are essential to stay effective in a rapidly changing industry.
Equally important is cultivating problem-solving skills that go beyond simply reading error codes—understanding the interactions between control modules, interpreting live sensor data, and performing targeted physical inspections become critical competencies. The world of vehicle diagnostics is a spectrum ranging from elegantly simple to profoundly complex.
While some cars make the diagnostic process nearly intuitive, others present puzzles that can challenge even expert mechanics. By appreciating these differences, vehicle owners and service professionals alike can navigate repairs more confidently, avoid unnecessary frustration, and maintain vehicles more effectively.
As automotive technology continues to advance, the ongoing dialogue between ease of use and technical complexity will shape the future of vehicle diagnostics, making it a key consideration for anyone involved in the care and operation of modern automobiles.
