bracket for mounting sealed beams

i read the bit that says: "Ford CD3 platform (for "C/D-class") is a Ford global midsize car automobile platform. It was designed by Mazda."

i also read the link cited at the bottom:

you're right, your mustang is quite unlike anything else.

um, if they're "shared", that means they're "the same". if they're not shared, then they're not.

dude, i gotta tell ya, to say what amounts to "other than the bit they share, the bits they don't share are not the same" is just surreal.

except for the stuff they share...

this statement is surreal....

since jis and iso specs are the same for threading, and equivalent for things like grade, you're either trying to make an argument out of nothing, or you just don't understand.

and fyi, you don't heat treat most automotive bolts - they're just cold rolled. and platings are almost always individually specified by auto manufacturers - it's got nothing to do with jis or iso.

you mean more /than/ pitch and diameter? of course it is. but you need to understand this before you can make sense of it. apparently.

now you're guessing becuase there's no "likely" about it. /every/ motor manufacturer uses /substantial/ "custom" designs. and there's nothing "unique" about frod's specs - other than their being cheap.

you're barking up completely the wrong tree. head profile has NOTHING to do with "jis". and japanese preference for a smaller flanged head is completely irrelevant to the strength of the remaining bolt. plating is simply a matter of manufacturer spec.

you're right, i couldn't understand wtf you were talking about.

ah, yes, now you're getting to the guts of the issue - iso bolts have a feel factor of 8.2, jis ff is only 7.6.

utterly ridiculous.

and jis specs are exactly equivalent to iso. but you can't admit that.

it's called "cya". and it stops people like you having to do anything uncomfortable like "think" or "compare".

*sigh*

You clearly just miss the point. Designed by mazda != designed by ford. Both use clearly different designs. A platform is also not a drive train. With eye for mechanical design it's possible to see what bits came from who.

you're absolutely right, designed by mazda means designed by mazda. then frod go ahead an use it because they own part of it.

why don't you write to the new york times and tell them they've got it all wrong? i'm sure they'll listen to you brent - given that all your other rantings are so well researched, and presented.

You are the one making the argument that Ford and Mazda design are indistinguishable from each other. They are very different from each other and if you had any knowledge of either you'd know that. But don't let that stop you from trying to morph away from that original argument.

You are quite the mixture of ignorance and arrogance.

Spoken like someone who has never worked on a Mazda or a Ford.

Um, a grade chart is not everything. But nice attempt at re-direct again.

Your diversions away from the point are irrelevant.

Again you demonstrate your cluelessness. Japanese companies use JIS specs across a wide range of industries, including automotive. Not just for fasteners either.

When you latch on to typos it makes it clear you are weak. The endless diversionary arguments show it too.

Which of course you don't, since you didn't even know what JIS was until I told you.

Again it's pretty clear you've never worked on a japanese car that's been out in the road salt. JIS fasteners are a royal pain and break easily when it's time to losen them. Ford's on the other hand hold up much better on average.

I am sorry you lack the practical experience or perhaps the attention to detail to see the same features over and over again in products from Japanese companies. There are often some custom fasteners but Japanese products tend to use far fewer of them. Being able to notice the differences in things like fasteners is part of having an eye to determine which company designed what or what part of the world a product came from.

If there were no differences, there wouldn't be a need for a company like this one:

which supplies amung other things JIS fasteners so people can get exact matches for everything from automobiles to gaming machines. And you're the one making the diversion into grade and stength, which are only minimums but have nothing to do with being different or the point I was making with regards to them breaking easily upon removal after being driven in road-salt conditions.

You simply don't have a clue.

The feel is the feel of the JIS fastener yielding as you try to remove it from a car that has been driven through multiple road-salt-belt state winters.

Some are, some are not. From the explaination of equivalency: "MOD: "modified" JIS is modified in relation to the International Standard if technical deviations, which are permitted, are clearly identified and explained. JIS reflects the structure of the International Standard, but changes in structure are permitted provided that the altered structure permits easy comparison of the content of the two standards. Modified standards also include the changes permitted under identical correspondence. NEQ: "not equivalent" JIS is not equivalent to the International Standard in technical content and structure and any changes have not been clearly identified. No clear correspondence is obvious between JIS and the International Standard. Note: This category of correspondence does not constitute an adoption."

Speaking of which, JIS B 1180:2004 "Hexagon head bolts and hexagon head screws" is "MOD".

BTW, did you know that in Japan, they use JIS steels, which are never quite the same as those from other standards.

Again you're totally clueless. Such mandates come from the mother company or home office in Japan as the case may be.

so sorry: washington post.

Round and round you go.... Ford has actually greatly divested itself from Mazda. You might want to keep up.

I think you're here just to be contrary and troll and was likely the basis of your "frod" shit from the beginning. It would explain why you keep issuing diversionary BS like the above instead of ever addressing the points I actually make.

/i/ told /you/ that right at the beginning brent. check your facts. but frod still owns the right to the platforms they used with mazda, and will continue to do so for some time.

you're delusional. and you can't read.

1. i /own/ FOUR japanese cars.

1. i used to work as a professional mechanic and i lived in the rust belt.

2. "jis" has NOTHING to do with plating specs. it's simply down to the manufacturer and how much money they want to spend.

delusional idiot.

yes - it saves idiots like you from having to check specs so you know what you're talking about. if you know what a spec actually /means/, whather a box has "jis" or "iso" written on it is irrelevant if spec is met.

/you/ brought them up brent - i was responding to /your/ diversionary drivel.

plating spec is NOTHING to do with jis or iso brent. it's what the auto manufacturer tell their supplier they want when they send the check for

10,000,000 items.

!!!

quantify it idiot. [i'm looking forward to this one!]

1. since these are clearly not your words, you need to cite your source.
2. nothing there is inconsistent with anything i've said. but you'd understand that if you could read.
3. "jis steels ... never quite the same"??? meaning exactly /what/ brent? inferior yield? inferior ductility? inferior brittle transition temperature? inferior surface hardness? inferior fatigue resistance? inferior printing on the box that you never bother to read?

if you knew what you were talking about, you'd understand what a ridiculous statement that was.

My facts are fine. You like playing usenet games right down to the typos so you best not f*ck up with statements like the above.

And you keep on arguing something that has NOTHING to do with what I wrote, which is that Mazda and Ford do things differently. It is quite clear you refuse to even address my point but will continue into tiresome diversions to cover up the fact that you do not know what you are babbling about with your 'frod' BS.

It as if you get your jollies off of being argumentive, arrogant, and ignorant all at the same time.

Did you notice that Wikipedia noted that a"citation needed" for the claim?

My understanding is that the CD3 platform was derived from the ~2002 Mazda6 platform. It is not always clear to me what that means. Certainly the suspension arrangements are similar, but much is also different (different transmissions, different engines, Ford offers an AWD Fusion, Mazda has never offered an AWD 6.) I think the best you can say is that Ford and Mazda worked together on the CD3 Platform and used a lot of the then current Mazda

6 chassis as the jumping off point for the design. I suspect if you tell the engineers in Dearborn that the CD3 platform is a Mazda design, they will beg to differ.....but then the Mazda guys might differ from what the Ford guys think also.

Ed

There is a difference between basic design direct and detailed execution. I think it is entirely safe to say that the 2002 Mazda 6 and the Ford CD3 platform are derived from the same basic design philsophy but deviate in execution. Other than some electronics, I don't think there are any shared componets of note.

Ed

ed, read the washpost article. or some of the detroit trade mags. thanks.

for a guy that regularly shills for detroit, it looks like you're remarkably underinformed. but maybe that's why they use guys like you - it sounds more grass roots.

bottom line, it costs a lot of money to develop a platform. and test it. and get it passed by regulators. for a 16% investment in mazda, or whatever it was, frod got the japanese to invest huge sums in design, testing, and compliance, then were able to use it as their own. that's what they'd call in mba school, "good" financial management.

the down side of course is that a whole generation of domestic engineering experience is lost. but who cares - the numbers don't show up for a decade or more. that's way over the financial horizon of most executive teams.

but as far as shared platforms go, it's very common.

and another interesting perspective:

well ed, you should do less "thinking" and/or supposing, and do a little more "checking".

Enough already, this is getting boring....... Get a couple of bulbs and some duct tape.... And fix the piece of crap.....

"unreasonably?" What kind of low expectations do you have for your vehicles?

I guess maybe I have been spoiled by quality German machinery that isn't designed to be balled up and thrown away after a few years. I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect 200K+ miles of reliable service with good maintenance and a few repairs as needed. Maybe Ford customers are different. That's not a real glowing endorsement of Ford.

nate

I don't know. Is there a list from which to choose?

My expectations for the useful life of my vehicles is far greater than for your vehicles. You foist heaps of unnecessary abuse on yours and, of course, blame everyone and everything but yourself for the results.

Or your expectations of your quality German machinery is too similar to those of a ragged out 18 y/o Ford pickup.

Maybe, if you don't beat the shit out of it, or it doesn't rust to pieces first.

Different than what...? -----

- gpsman

Then I misunderstood what you meant by "I did get a cheap aftermarket driver's side to get me through inspection"

dmode=source

Putting it on the seat got/will get you through, I guess.

So... your ignorance of the truthfulness of their claim is sufficient evidence to support a determination of junk.

Dood, I think I see your problem.

But they're good enough for 80 mph on the interstate, so what's the problem?

Then it sounds like someone is seriously overdue for a new lighting expert.

I thought it was that you imagined someone marketed a bracket to mount E-codes in 92-97 Ford pickups, of which your lighting expert was unaware, so you were seeking the input of a higher authority.

It's not that I miss them, your points are most often overshadowed by your nitwittitity.? -----

- gpsman

DOT approves the lighting for vehicles .. I'd stay with what the factory made. I've got a 93 Mazda pickup (Ford Ranger) and the driver's side headlight fills half way with water when it rains and I drive it in the rain.... no problem I just take that bulb out for a day or two and let it dry out... it doesn't happen very often and someday I may replace the whole assembly ( but I doubt it). My complaint is the tail light lenses, if something is hanging over the edge when you shut the tail gates, crunch there goes a tail light lens. If all else fails,

>

They're really not good for driving at night, unless there's a full moon out.

You don't even know who DS is do you?

Exactly. He's a MoPar guy, so he might not be aware of a bracket to mount a standard sealed beam format headlight in place of the crappy stock composite headlights. Or said bracket may not exist, and I'd have to fabricate it. Neither DS nor I know for sure. Which is why people ask questions.

Ah. You've never considered the possibility that you might be an idiot (and an annoying, stalkery one at that) then?

I like the way you just skipped right over using your ignorance as evidence for a conclusion.

But you drove it at night with the stock lights at 80 mph, so they can't be that bad, can they?

Red herring. Someone wants to change the subject to what I know.

You should help him update his website:

"Daniel Stern Lighting is North America's premier automotive lighting consultancy and supply house. Mr. Stern is an experienced consultant in the field of automotive lighting science and technology, setup, regulation, development, history and modification."

The evidence suggests you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about, as usual.

Step 1: Play victim card.

Dood, nice find! You are:

The self-proclaimed "expert driver" with no education, training or experience who will be held to no standard other than one of his own invention, with nothing but a handful of tickets that were not his fault to back up his delusion.

The self-proclaimed "mechanic" can't fix a headlight.

The self-proclaimed "engineer" ignorant of physics.

The self-proclaimed "scholar" ignorant of change.

Maybe you should not be behind a steering wheel or keyboard... or hand tool... -----

- gpsman