My 1996 Ranger, with 307000km has no wear on the pedal rubbers or
floormats, and the seats are like new. If someone had cranked the ODO
bact to 37000, it would be believeable - and it is on it's second set
of tires, and original rear brakes and exhaust. Original starter and
alternator as well.
On 10/11/2012 3:31 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
One (10+ yr-old vehicle) out of total of some 10-12 vehicles in last 20+
years...iow, your "statistics" are terribly skewed...
As for the other rant on vehicles not lasting as long as days of yore,
that's just convenient-remembering, too. As is the nonsense that
fuel-injected engines don't outperform old normally aspirated...
There is a lot of extraneous "stuff" as far as gew-gaws that aren't all
that necessary, granted, but it is what is demanded by the bulk of the
market, not the other way 'round...
On 10/11/2012 7:51 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
See no real signs of that here...E-10 has been around since the
80's--that's 30 yr which covers the time frame above...only thing I do
see is that there's the mileage penalty owing to lower specific energy
On 10/11/2012 6:51 PM, email@example.com wrote:
Well, not really...despite the lower Btu rating, the ethanol does raise
octane rating and aids in meeting emission limits. If weren't using it,
the cost to meet octane needs and emission standards would mean CA
summer-gas-like prices through rest of US and more like what they're now
experiencing w/ the present supply disruptions there...
It's cheaper than the alternative additives to meet the same
requirements (which is why refiners are and have been using well over
the minimum amounts that would meet the mandatory use levels.
Got me thinking. Maybe there is a market for a hippie
retro car.... I mean they do buy VW beetles that are
tiny, cramped little wonders that cost $20K, when they
could have a real car. So, how about a car styled like
a 60s car, with very limited features? They could
probably figure out a way to have it get 12mpg too.
As for the fuel pump issue, the last fuel pump I
replaced was back in 1978 in a Fiat 124 Spyder
that was just two years old. Not example a fair
example of the good old days though, because
Fiats were real crappers.
I do concur with some of the OP's points, eg having
to buy a special tool to remove spark plugs. I was
recently working on a BMW and they have a penchant
for using a different style frigging electrical connector
on various cables, even those going to the same
componet. And that wouldn't be so much of a problem,
if the connectors could make it obvious what you
have to do to get them apart. I've seen a lot of
connectors in a long career, but I've never seen
so many where even looking at it in broad daylight
you can't figure out how it's supposed to come apart.
Good luck with the ones you can barely get to.
The same BMW requires a 27mm socket to remove
the oil filter. At least that's still a std tool, but why
couldn't it be a smaller size that you're likely to have
in a std socket set?
My sister's Ford Taurus had to have it's in tank fuel pump replaced 3
The service manager at that dealership told me that the reason why the
pump was in the fuel tank was because it was extremely rare for one of
them to go.
I told him that I didn't believe that these pumps were reliable and than
my sister just happened to have bad luck. But I told him how Ford could
fix the problem. My Toyota Corolla also had an in tank fuel pump, but
it also had a removable cover in the trunk that provided access to the
fuel pump so that the work involved in replacing the pump was
The real problem here is that major auto companies want to support their
dealerships by ensuring enough things go wrong with enough cars that
their mechanics are busy. Electric motors are extremely reliable, and
once electric cars become more affordable and more widely accepted, you
can count on defects being built into them as well to keep the mechanics
in the dealerships busy.
Exactly right. Those who complain about one "luxury" accessory will
swear by their electric operated side view mirrors.
Fuel pumps are pure luck.
I've replaced them once each in 3 of the last 5 of my daily drivers
over the past 20 years.. All high millage Chevys and one Grand Am.
No rhyme or reason I can see except initial pump quality.
Just a month ago I replaced the rusty gas tank in my '97 Lumina.
A lot of labor just replacing the tank. Took me and my son about 5
hours, working on the floor at a steady, careful pace. I was just
handing him tools. That new tank cost $98.
We moved the old pump to the new tank, just replacing the strainer
sock. That pump has about 172k miles. Didn't want to spend +$200 on a
pump that might outlive the car.
An access panel to the pump is a good idea, but most car designers
don't see it that way.
New cars are leagues better than old ones, and that pump in the tank
is maybe the biggest weak spot in terms of maintenance cost.
I had the fuel pump fail on my '66 F-100 352ci in the middle of an
intersection way back, and there was a nearby parts store.
Took me 5 minutes to put the new pump in and get going again.
Now you need a tow.
The problem in general is there's almost always something else in the
way in a modern vehicle where stuff is so cramped...the stinkin' LeSabre
(and I'm sure a lot of others) had the battery under the rear seat
cushion for pete's sake!!! Pita to drag that big ol' thing outta' there
to get to that on a cold, rainy day in the hospital parking lot... :(
Did the tank in the '98 Chebby 4x4 not long ago 'cuz the purge valve
failed and the pump sucked it in and collapsed it. It wasn't too bad
'cuz can get under it w/o too much trouble. The biggest pita on it
actually was the gas line disconnects at the tank--they're a
springloaded fitting on a cast plastic fitting on the top of the fuel
pump. There's a little specialty "tool" that's supposed to release the
three fingers and let slide off but getting it in there and getting them
to release under the truck w/ the restricted access and no leverage is
not any fun at all. I'd gladly have the old line fittings w/ a tubing
wrench...I was tempted to chop 'em off and replace w/ just a hose clamp
but finally did manage it...
3rd party replacement tank was about $115 while The General wanted $1100
for the OEM tank alone...don't recall the fuel pump--think even the
Delco there is only $200 online. The PU could have access thru the bed
except there's a 150 gal diesel tank sitting where it would have to be
and it was more trouble to move it than crawl under...
I was pro-active on that one. I took my car to the battery store when
it was over five years old and cold weather was coming. I have no
idea how much longer it was going to last, but it did not let me down
but I figured it would in the winter. Second battery was still
working when I got rid of the car.
On 10/11/2012 10:14 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The '28 Chevy (truck) didn't have a battery from factory--granddad did
add starter by the time I was beginning to drive--it's actually what
learned on. The gas tank was the seat structure w/ just a pad on top
and a rear backrest; I can't think where the battery was actually
mounted altho it may have been under the floorboard. I'm still mad at
Dad for having sold it while brother and I were off at uni and he's been
gone over 10 yr now... :)
The Chevy trucks were under driver's side floorboard (as was the brake
master cylinder as well) at least thru early 50s.
The battery on the Chrysler 300M was hidden in front of the right front
wheel behind an access panel in the front inner fender. By service
manual required removing wheel altho I managed w/o. _NOT_ a good design
decision, either. We're on several miles of dirt road and that was the
absolute worst "mudding" vehicle I've ever tried to get to/from town
with after a rain...it was a great interstate long distance vehicle that
I got for the transition period from E TN to W KS and served that
purpose well for the time were still making very frequent trips back and
forth. But, it couldn't live up to being a farm car even as a second
vehicle so is now an Enclave w/ the AWD and much higher road clearance.
Unfortunately, it's hardly rained since got it so haven't had much
opportunity to really test its mettle... :(
Vic Smith;2942073 Wrote:
> An access panel to the pump is a good idea, but most car designers don't
> see it that way.
Which begs the blindingly obvious question...
If Toyota engineers thought it was a good idea,
and I think it's a good idea,
and you think it's a good idea,
then why the he11 doesn't Detroit think it's a good idea?
It just seems our society funtions on waste. We intentionally put fuel
pumps in gas tanks even though the old mechanical pumps were very
reliable and seldom caused any problems. And, we intentionally DON'T
make it easy to replace that pump if it does fail. And GM and Ford do
that because they think that once the customer has purchased one of
their vehicles, he then becomes a cow to be milked regularily.
My Toyota Corolla had an in-tank fuel pump, but there was a panel in the
trunk for easy access to that pump. My sister's Ford Taurus had to
have it's fuel pump replaced three times and each time the fuel tank had
to be dropped cuz there was no removable panel in the trunk. Is there
any freaking wonder why more and more people are buying Japanese and
South Korean cars?
Someone needs to explain to someone in Washington that you don't become
rich by making junk that your dealerships have to repair often. You get
rich buy making a quality product that doesn't have to be repaired
often, cuz then everyone will want your product, just like most people
in the world would prefer a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic over a Ford or
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.