As an automotive technician, I’ve had my fair share of experiences with various diagnostic tools. For a while, I had the opportunity to use a Snap-On Verus, which gave me a solid understanding of Snap-On’s software. I was genuinely impressed with its capabilities, although the tool itself was a bit worn, with a touchscreen that wasn’t very responsive. Following that experience, I decided to try the AutoEnginuity, primarily because Pc Based Auto Scan Tools offered the flexibility of choosing my own computer – a significant advantage, or so I thought initially.
Unfortunately, my experience with the AutoEnginuity scan tool was less than ideal right from the start. I encountered issues straight out of the box. Upon contacting AutoEnginuity, I was informed that they were aware of the problem but hadn’t been able to replicate it internally. They provided a software update, hoping it would resolve the frequent disconnections I was experiencing from vehicles. Regrettably, the update didn’t fix the issue. When I requested a Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA), I was directed to first discuss the problem with an engineer. I did so, also mentioning the difficulties I was having with Functional Tests, or Actuators as they refer to them.
The engineer explained that they were still working on replicating the disconnection issue and sent me a beta patch for the recent update. He asked me to test the patch and provide feedback. I complied, sending three emails with recorded data files. While the scan tool’s connection stability improved noticeably, it started exhibiting some peculiar behavior. For example, it would report 3 rpm at idle, display numbers with so many trailing zeros that they stretched across the screen and wrapped to the next line, and show an unusually high Long Term Fuel Trim (LTFT) value. However, the data recordings I made during this period were surprisingly normal. Despite these issues, and after requesting an RMA twice more, I was repeatedly asked to perform more tests and send more data. Feeling like I was becoming an unpaid beta tester rather than a customer, I eventually involved PayPal to resolve the situation. They intervened, and I returned the scan tool for a refund.
After the AutoEnginuity experience, I turned to eBay and found a used Snap-On Solus Edge. The purchase process wasn’t entirely smooth, but ultimately, Snap-On’s customer service came to the rescue. I was, and continue to be, incredibly impressed with Snap-On as a company – both with the quality of their tools and their business practices.
I honestly couldn’t be happier with the Solus Edge. Its size is perfect, it boots up in just 5 seconds, it powers directly off the Diagnostic Link Connector (DLC), and it’s easy to create recordings for later review in ShopStream Connect. Crucially, all the Functional Tests work flawlessly, even the sometimes-problematic ABS Brake Bleed function for a 2007 Chevrolet Equinox. Interestingly, though, our 2008 Mazda 3 has virtually no Functional Tests available, and only a single Emissions test, if I recall correctly. Perhaps Mazda simply didn’t make many available? I wish I had checked this when I had access to the Verus, but I didn’t think of it at the time.
In conclusion, for my needs, a dedicated scan tool that powers off the DLC is significantly more convenient than dealing with a laptop and the challenges of positioning it in the garage while working on a vehicle. Trying to balance a laptop on the car seat while driving and attempting to view the screen is simply not practical. For my workflow and in a professional garage environment, a dedicated tool is by far the superior choice. While pc based auto scan tools offer certain advantages like potentially lower initial cost and customizable hardware, the reliability and convenience of a dedicated tool like the Solus Edge are invaluable in day-to-day automotive diagnostics.
