Please don't believe that this is just a GM issue. Other domestic and
foreign brands have no better reliability on similarly priced parts like
this than does GM, and it's not a matter of a better pump only being a few
dollars more. If you are in a vehicle that retails for $25,000 and you
redesigned every part you believed should be, then it's no longer a $25,000
car anymore. From the outside (and also based on how long the average owner
keeps their vehicle) nothing has really changed except that it costs more.
$25k may still be a lot of money to many of us, but when given the choice
more folks obviously buy the $25K car than the $50k car or the $75k car and
if you want them to keep buying these cars you don't sink more money into it
than you can recoup on it's selling price, especially with all of the
non-vehicle expenses attached to each vehicle sold these days.
Cheers - Jonathan
I understand your point whole-heartedly, but, this is a known issue,
shouldn't someone at GM say to the part maker "hey bud, my customers are
stuck on highways, make it better!". I don't believe GM is making this
effort. I know Honda does. And this is what I hate most, why can't GM be
better than Honda or toyota?
Known issues should be corrected with an apology.
My dad was involved with the prototype sales for that pump motor in the
early 80's for a company he represented. (GM does not make the motor) I
remember him telling me about the GM specs for it. It was to be
brushless in design and to be cooled and lubed by the fuel in the tank
and a motor was designed to fit that application. Run it low on fuel and
take away the cooling and lube and it will fail prematurely. I have one
in a GM burb that is 17 years old and still going strong.
It sure make one wonder why. Why would you want an electric fuel pump
to be inside the tank and to run bathed in fuel.
One problem with those pumps is that because of their location the
replacement labor is very expensive. With a traditional external fuel
pump the replacement labor is under 1/2 hour in most cases.
Another problem with putting the pump inside the tank is that the
pre-pump filter also has to be buried inside the tank. Put the pump and
the pre-filter outside and a person has a fighting chance of cleaning a
fouled pre-filter before it burns out the pump.
We have a non-gm car in the family. To change the fuel pump / filter
assembly, one removes the cushion for the rear seat. 4 bolts, and an
access cover comes off. 4 more bolts, one wiring connector, two fuel
lines, the whole thing is out in your hands. Tops, including clean up,
3 trips to the tool box, etc, is 45 minutes to change this out. No
tank-drain or dropping required. The only precaution is to do it
OUTSIDE, well ventilated, and disconnect the battery negative lead
while doing the work.
Now why can't GM figure this out and provide an access "hatch" in the
body work like this?
This is just the sort of serviceability issue which the manufacturer
*should* provide for. I will bet anyone $100 that I know why GM doesn't
do it: To save a few pennies or dollars on manufacturing cost. That
little hatch costs more money for the manufacturer.
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.