If Ford had Cummins?

Page 10 of 13  


I've only found one dealer in this area I had any (not a lot, but they at least tried) faith in. It was a Chrysler Plymouth dealer and they're long gone. Looking back to the sixties at how dealers and manufacturers have treated their customers I'm thinking there was a marked change in the late '70's and early '80's from we sure want you to be happy to "who cares."
I can't document this because I heard it on a radio show, but the story goes Ford used to go out of their way to take care of customers including out of warranty claims to keep their customers satisfied. But a study showed they weren't rewarded with cusomer loyalty so they quit. If I remember right this would have been in the '80's or early '90's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well I'm not sure what a small number is but at the time they were unable to get enough pumps to go around.

It was a problem that dc was aware of as they finally did something with the pump. Screw the cost of the pump.

No shit! Just like here. Don't you think that 400 post about lift pump failure is a lot? I'd bet it would go up a bunch if I searched just lift pump.

Gee, I think I've posted about how happy I've been with the 05.
Roy

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

Don't you think that this is a little subjective? Say 400 out of 500 is damn sure a lot, but out of 10's of thousands, etc.. :)

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

Not when you figure the membership of the tdr. The membership is not 10's of thousands.
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

my understanding of the situation was that dc simply with held the lp's for two reasons. first, they wanted to be sure that if they replaced a lp, the truck was checked for mods. the bombed engines had a whole lot more lp failures than the stock ones. as a result, the lp had to ordered when actually needed, dealers couldn't stock them. the other reason was that the lp's were being upgraded constantly and dc wanted to be sure that only the latest version was put on as a warranty repair rather than one that a dealer stocked that was an earlier version. also, they wanted the old ones back because the supplier was taking them apart trying to figure out what needed to be fixed on them.
not saying that stock trucks didn't have problems with lp's, just that the bombed ones had a lot more issues. the bombed trucks put too much stress on a "weak" part. personally, i knew a lot of people with those engines. i had a '01. i didn't know anyone personally that ever had to replace a lift pump, but none the less, i know it was a weak part of the fuel system from other peoples postings. it was never bad enough for a recall and i think that mike is right when he says is has been over stated by many. i know the service guy at the dealership. he said it wasn't that bad out here, they replaced some bad lp's but not that many. dc told him that fuel quality played a part in it too. fuel out here is pretty good. i don't know how true that is, but that is what he was told. anyway, the latest versions of the lp supposedly were pretty solid.

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

Reading Tom's post 17% is not a small number. With regard to bombed trucks the l/p wasn't covered under warranty so I doubt it is part of the 17%
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

good catch, i missed that. i wonder what the actual total would be.......i want to show that it was at least enough to reasonably classify the issue as "rampant".
--
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 Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:33:43 -0600, "Nathan In Montana"

well............if the 17% figure is accurate.............and i have to assume at this point that it is............then that would qualify in my book as rampant. now, my book isn't very official but never the less, one out of five would be rampant to me. as i said before, it seems like that should have set off a recall. i remember some folks on tdr talking about a class action suit at one time several years ago, over the lp problems. they researched the failure rate there and never could come up with a figure, other than an unofficial poll on tdr. the poll's are probably still there if someone had a membership and the time to search several years of posts. it would be interesting now to see what their poll showed as a rate and compare it the 17% figure. a pretty "fair share" of the tdr trucks are bombed so it would be fun to see if there was a significant increase there. abyway, i digress. several of the members contacted their dealers and dc to get a failure rate and were pretty much just blown off as i recall. it really would be intersting to revisit those old threads now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

thank you.
--
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 actually find this funny. I just got a recall for my Chevy, due to a "safety issue" to have them replace the damn tailgate straps. DC however doesn't find it needed for a recall on this problem. Hmm!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you're right as i said in my post after the one you are referring to. that is a huge number. this is the first time that i have ever seen a definitive figure placed on the failure rate. i assume that the article is pretty accurate, there would be no reason for the people quoted in it to bend the truth. seems like that high a figure would (or certainly should) trigger a recall on the parts, or at least an extension of the warranty for that part. it never did though and all through the period that they were having lp problems i read several articles where dc said the problem was very small and isolated. one out of five isn't isolated. i don't know though, im not a mechanic and maybe there was more to it.
on the bombed truck, that wasn't my point. my point was simply that the lp's weren't backlogged, they were just held at the main parts distribution center because for a while at least, dc felt that bombing was a major reason behind this taking place and they wanted to be sure that the dealers checked for mods before sending out a new lp. whether or not those denied warranty claims are included in the 17% figure, i have no idea......... but i imagine you are probably right. at the start of the problem though, the bombed trucks were being covered on warranty, so some of them undoubtedly are included in the figure. the lp fiasco, if you will, is what really fired dc up about mods and bombing because they were convinced, as i said at first, that that was the root of the lp problem. or at least that is what i have heard from my dealer service guy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the mean time I'm standing there with my truck on it's ass waiting for DC to release a lp after they determined my truck wasn't bombed. WTF!!! Glad you can follow that logic. <G>
There was a time that the regional warehouse couldn't get them. Hopefully the in the tank one will hold together, cause these will suck to change. The old one's were 15 minutes and you were done. Listen to me, I'm talking about repairing a new 40+K truck like it is a okay deal. It is friggin' crazy what dc has us trained to put up with. I must be loseing it.
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

roy.........i am not arguing dc's case and i don't disagree with your outlook as a consumer. i was just trying to pass on the info as to why dc made the decision to do it that way. not defending it, just telling why they did made the decision to do it. if mine had gone out and i had to wait i would have been just as pissed as you or the others, especially when i don't bomb my truck and im not willing to wait because dc wants to penalize me for what some other people have done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I understand your position.
Roy

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

.....so would you think nearly 1 in 5 is enough to justify my "rampant" label?
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
--
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 don't think "bombs" had much to do with lift pumps, VP-44's for sure. As long as the engine is running, the lift runs at it's perdetermined rate, it's not responsive to fuel demands so it's not overworked. Remember the VP-44 is fuel lubricated, lots of fuel is returned to the tank. This is the way I understand it and could be wrong. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

good point.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pretty much what I've been saying.......
--
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

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.