If Ford had Cummins?

Again, pretty much what I've been saying......

Reply to
Max Dodge
Loading thread data ...

becuase UNLIKE YOU, i dont speak in areas where i am ignorant. my customer service has been excellent......but i wont sit and tell you that poor customer service doesnt happen. that would be a stupid thing to do.

oh wait, thats what youre doing because your lift pump hasnt failed. :-)

yet.

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

you REALLY think people are stupid enough to believe this? or is it that you believe your own spin?

what about the 1 in 5 of valid warranty claims from unmodified trucks? even if you do discredit all modified trucks, 1 in 5 is a rampant issue.

....but you cannot acknowledge it. that would require something else you dont have. integrity.

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

You are correct but you know as well as I that if it is a failure on a modified vechile, they will not count it as a failure on their part. That in itself is a problem, as you, max, Mike and Tom can search the web, or call DC all you want and no one will EVER have an accurate number.

Reply to
azwiley1

agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do you feel about 1 in 5?

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

Nate, this is not meant as an offense to anyone here, or too you but that statement applies to ALL of us at sometime.

Reply to
azwiley1

Agreed. The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on the front axle.

Reply to
Max Dodge

Personally, I feel that it is higher then one would logically hope for when dealing with such an issue.

Reply to
azwiley1

probably so, but since im arguing with max....... :-)

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

id actually like to lighten my front end a little so that i dont have to be concerned about heavy bumpers and snow plows, etc. im told the reason my truck came with a page saying "not for slide in campers" is due to the cummins being to heavy for the front end, not leaving as much room for accessories as other trucks. personally i think they should just beef up the front end.

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

based on the 1 in 5 of valid warranty claimes (disregarding every modified truck to suffer this failure) would you consider my claim of "rampant" valid?

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

Proving what?

No, it justifies looking for facts instead of screaming about random events without statistics.

Back to your overreactionary bullshit.....

Reply to
Max Dodge

But this actually might be a good thing if the MB was a little lighter. I would hope that it would help prevent some front end failures or problems as it has been established that the front end is a little lacking to begin with.

Reply to
azwiley1

LOL

Reply to
azwiley1

Yup...

There are points both for and against this, given the nature of the document quoted. I'd prefer an independant source. Second, since the Rams were Chrysler warranty problems, is the document talking about Ram failure or just Cummins installations in chassis? Third, that 17% was "within warranty period", which was 100k miles. How does that compare with fuel pumps in other vehicles in 100k? A failure in 100k is almost normal, since we all know the "nickel and dime" period is from about 70k onward. However, assuming (the big "if") the 17% is correct AND out of line with other fuel pumps, thats significant. Lots of factors are not accounted for here.

Yeah, Mike Simmons, "the guy", and my local region got all the good trucks. Oh, and Nate got one as well, since failure at 100k is... almost to be expected. Thats why I'm a bit skeptical of "rampant" problems.

Reply to
Max Dodge

proving that with THAT much time in this newsgroup one would think that you wouldnt be so IGNORANT to this RAMPANT lift pump failure issue. 1 in 5 max.

1 in 5.

you HAVE them now. thanks to tom we know that its 1 in 5, and possibly MUCH higher (if in fact that paper was from '01). that doesnt even count the number of failures from modified trucks. it is clearly an "issue", and a rampant one at that to any reasonable person without an agenda that is truly just looking for facts.

what say you? (fully expecting spin and bullshit)

OMG you are actually questioning toms source?????

holy hell......lol......thank you max. youve just proven everything ive said about you. :-)

riiiiight max. it doesnt exist. maybe not in those f450/f550s with the ISB. BUWHAHAHA! :-)

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

TRANSLATION --> "it proves nate right, so i will simply refute the source"

......you REALLY think anyone is buying your bullshit?

what a DUMB thing to ask. you already know the answer......so does ANYONE else who even glanced over the paper....what a pathetic spin.

no max, youre simply grasping at any straw you can at this point. :-)

squirm.

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

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.

Reply to
azwiley1

thank you.

.....damn the conversations in here take some interesting turns. :-)

Reply to
Nathan In Montana

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.

Reply to
Max Dodge

MotorsForum website 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.