If Ford had Cummins?

Page 5 of 13  


After looking at the various definitions of the word, I would have to say yes. As DC has not issued a recall on it, this is an "unrestrained" problem.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

thank you.
.....damn the conversations in here take some interesting turns. :-)
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I posted in reply to Tom, its not been established with out assuming many things. As Mike posted, (and he's a good source given his vocation) the problem isn't as terrible as you make it out to be, although it is more than Cummins admits.

Again, you are taking out of context and overreacting. I never said the problem didn't exist. I do however, dispute your exaggerated claims on the issue.

Sadly, the document you trust to set a failure rate also describes the solution... it wasn't design of the pump, but location. It wasn't Chrysler that designed it and had a failure, but Cummins.
As such, I'll stand by my statement... the design was fine, and not a failure on Chryslers part.
Spin away. I'm done here until relevant info comes to light beyond what we've seen so far.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

heh......thats pretty sad max. it has indeed. just own it, and go to bed with at least a tiny SHRED of credibility left.

lol.....on the one hand you whine about people stating opinions, demanding documentation.......then when someone provides valid industry documentation you immediately cling to someone expressing an uninformed OPINION that happens to be closer to your beliefs.
to late, you dont even have a shred left.

im not "making it out to be" anything. i will accept the published 1 in 5 and thats completely disregarding those with modified trucks.

no overreaction at all. im happy with 1 in 5. youre simply trying to spin off it.

as i said before......if its in a chrysler vehicle and honored by a chrysler warranty, its a chrysler fuck up. if one of my employees is working at your place of business and wires something wrong causing your building to burn down, i feel certain that youll be coming for MY insurance company because MY service is what you bought regardless of who i hired to deliver it. SAME THING.

OMG......the lift pump design was "fine" by max! roy, bigironram.......you guys didnt need to replace your lift pumps afterall.....dont you feel stupid?
sheesh max, go to bed buddy. i was having fun poking at you a little, but now youve taken yourself to levels far below what i ever wanted to do.

TRANSLATION --> "i cant even convince myself of my own bullshit anymore"
max.....just own it buddy. the lift pump issue was a piss poor design resulting in rampant failures. i truly hope that when yours fails you wont be in the middle of nowhere. i recommend that you at least keep a spare on board, and change it before it takes out your injection pump.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done by dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went on and on about who was really at fault. It all had to do with failures downstream from a failed pump regards who owned the claim. It's out there somewhere but I gotta tell ya at this stage the gettin' ain't worth the goin'
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Roy, agreed. My point was not that there was no problem; its clear there is a problem, and I never stated otherwise, despite the misinterpretation of some. Calling it "rampant"... well, its just not so.
As to the sources, my point is that no one actually publishes a reliable failure rate, except NHTSA, if they take enough of an interest AND its a safety issue. Thus, again, there is a problem with calling something "rampant" when the facts indicate otherwise.
What bothers me about the stats we do have is that they are intentionally vague. Something that is lost on at least one person here. 17% failure rate over the warranty period means its over 100,000 miles. I don't know about you, but having less that 1 in 5 fail in 100,000 miles isn't terrible. I'd like to know what the failure rate of a mechanical pump on the small block mopars would be over 100,000 miles. I can personally attest to installing at least one on my old Dart in the 100,000 I've driven it. I can't remember how many we've put on the 63 in its 200,000+ miles. I'd bet its more than three.
All of this is lost on someone like "joe sixpack", because he's only interested in his truck, not the actual facts over thousands of trucks.
As to whose fault is was... well, thats anyone's guess. Clearly, the claim that Cummins trucks are selling the brand, while at the same time failing at "rampant" rates, is some sort of conflicting conclusion.
But I've come to expect this.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

i hadn't thought of that but that is a good point.

another good point max. it would be helpful in the discussion to have a fair comparison.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this would be working under the assumption that most of them failed closer to the 100,000 mark like mine did. according to roy, the average was around 12,000 miles i think. lets say of the 1 in 5.88 failures, that 80% of them were under 50,000 miles. would it still be acceptable?
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:23:38 -0600, "Nathan In Montana"

nate, im not saying it is acceptable, i just think that max has a good point. there is a lot of good info that we don't know yet that has a bearing on the subject. im not trying to spin it good or bad......the facts or the truth about it will determine that........the more info (facts) that we have the more accurate the final analysis. i think that we have pretty well established that dc customer service blew this big time and really did a "un" service to their customers no matter what the failure rate was. now i am just curious as to the real extent of the problem or failure itself. i remember a lot of people back then crying cover up on the part of dc and a lot of us telling them they were imagining things. lokks like a lot of us may have been wrong but id like more info. thats all im saying.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

i understand exactly what you mean and im not criticizing you for it. max's assumption is that failure is acceptable since they are going to the 100,000 mile mark. my point is how acceptable or normal is it if the majority of the failures happen below 50,000 miles (which im betting is the generous norm based on what ive read from several sources).
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not saying its "acceptable", I'm saying its inevitable.... mechanical things fail. The number of failures MUST be compared to the longevity and the number of units in service, as well as the same figures from other designs. Not doing so leaves huge gaps in the information provided by a single number.

"Betting" and "proven as fact" is the difference between assumption and logical conclusion.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

is it inevitable? not trying to be a smart ass, i really wonder. this is interesting. do you think that 1 out of 5 dodge diesel rams break down and leave the owner stranded within the first 100,000 miles? that may be the case, but it would concern me. those are not good odds. do you think that excluding all lp failures, that there is a 20% failure rate of the trucks in the first 100,000 miles that leaves the driver stranded? if so, the odds of a bad failure are one heck of a lot higher than i ever dreamed of (i mean that would be 20% for lp and 20% for all other reasons, which would be around 40%). if not, then the lp causes more failures than all other things combined and that sucks in itself, when you consider the way dc denied lp problems and layed it off on bad fuel and bombing. that would just put us back to the original point, dc really did drop the ball with the lp problem and the customers should be pissed!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The more complex the machine, the higher the odds of failure. The questions are the same as before. As to the odds of getting left to sit along the road, they are probably higher than what would be comfortable for a salesperson to discuss with a customer. Of course, what salesdroid would discuss a vehicle's failure rate?
One thing you can't do is add the failure rates. If 100 components on the truck have a failure rate of 1%, your conclusion below would doom the vehicle to failure in the 1000% range.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

which is why we're all seeking the facts.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:05:36 -0600, "Nathan In Montana"

i understand. the problem for me is what is a normal failure rate? it seems that even if you stretch the mileage out to 100,000, one in 5 seems high, but i have no friggin clue as to what a "normal" failure rate would be. i sure hope it is less than 1 in 5, but i don't know. i mean, i hope that engineers can design a lp that would last over 100,000 miles. if they told you when you bought your diesel, that you had a 20% chance of getting stuck alongside the road at some point by the 100,000 mile mark, would you buy it? im not sure i would. i plan to put well over a 100,000 miles on my diesel but i didn't plan on rolling the dice with 20% odds against me that i would get stuck somewhere with an engine shutdown. i bet the '03 and above failure rate is way under that. and even at 100,000 miles, is 20% failure something that dc should have blown off? if so, they stand to lose a lot of customers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where are you guy's getting this failure rate at 100,000? The friggin' things were dropping like flies between 12,000-20,000 miles before dc changed them. That is why a fuel pressure gauge was so damn important, so you could catch it before ya lost the i pump. In 100,000 miles you could go through a few of them. When I sold my 2K, two had been changed out. The third was a new # and if I remember the truck had about 65 maybe 70K when I sold it.on it. Oh, there was one behind the seat as well. You guy's can call it "rampant" "wide spread" or "apple pie". It sucked and dc sucks for letting it continue for so long. But, it is moot now.
Roy
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this is my understanding as well, that the normal failure rate was as you suggest and that i was "lucky" that mine lasted to nearly 100,000 miles. i want to get hard numbers together to encourage honest responses to my charges.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nate, I can't keep up with you and trucks. Did you buy the truck new?
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nor can i. :-)

no, i bought it a couple days before the pump was repaced. i have no way of knowing if it was the first or fifth failure.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Kinda make's ya stop and wonder, don't it. ?
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.