 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / October 2006If Ford had Cummins?
Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? i didnt buy a dodge, i bought a cummins. when chrysler replaces the cummins with a mercedes, ill have a new king ranch cummins.  SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > >i didnt buy a dodge, i bought a cummins. when chrysler replaces the cummins >with a mercedes, ill have a new king ranch cummins. That's what I was wondering, nate... I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a Cummins with a Dodge wrapped around it.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm I bought a 2004 Ram 3500 several months ago to pull my 36' 5th wheel. It is running a little rich so I called the local Cummins shop to set up an appointment and was surprised, no, shocked to be told that they couldn't work on Dodge Cummins newer than 2002 since Dodge totally owned the engine and Dodge dealers were the only ones that could read the computer codes. The dealer I bought mine from had changed the oil and put a sticker on the windshield to have the oil changed again in 3,000 miles! I don't want them working on my truck! How do the folks in here handle this problem. Thanks, Ken > That's what I was wondering, nate... > I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a > Cummins > with a Dodge wrapped around it.. dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. this is typical german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be superior to anything we could make.....and it will be their undoing. they just dont understand the american consumer, such as thinking commercials of an elitist german answering consumer questions actually appeals to joe six-pack. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. cummins saved > dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. this is typical > german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be superior to > anything we could make.....and it will be their undoing. Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB to replace Cummins)? > Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB > to replace Cummins)? my understanding is that the cummins contract expires in 2010, and that at that point dodge will switch over to the mercedes engine. this is certainly in keeping with the goals of daimler (cross platform designs showing up particularly in the jeep lineup). SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com I would like to see the MB Diesel in the Dakota, that would be a positive for that line in my opinion. But who cares what I think andy > > Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB > > to replace Cummins)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in keeping with the goals of daimler (cross platform designs showing up > particularly in the jeep lineup). >I would like to see the MB Diesel in the Dakota, that would be a positive > for that line in my opinion. But who cares what I think > andy I would like to see a Hemi in the Dakota. > dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. Since then, the truck line has consistantly grown in sales until the recent fuel pricing. > cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. Rubbish. Chrysler was saved from bankruptcy by the K-car. Restyling the pickup was what made the trucks sell more, since 5 years of Cummins availability (88-93) did jack sh.t for sales volume. > this is typical german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be > superior to anything we could make..... Their diesels have consistantly made more power for the weight of the engine. These two key numbers are what makes a vehicle get better fuel economy and performance. Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good product. > and it will be their undoing. they just dont understand the american > consumer, The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be at least as good regardless of popularity. > such as thinking commercials of an elitist german answering consumer > questions actually appeals to joe six-pack. Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German, about as far as Lee Iacocca was from being an elitist Italian immigrant. Certainly both were upper class and well off, but neither was elitist. BOTH realize that to sell cars, one has to market an affordable product to the masses. "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still operating successfully today. Want proof? Look no further than the Board of Directors who dumped Jergen Schremp in favor of Zeitsche because Deutsch Bank demanded some one who knew what they were doing be promoted. Chrysler was still making a profit when Mercedes started heading for the tank several years ago. You want an elitist German? His name was Jergen Schremp. You want elitist Americans? Look at the execs that sold Chrysler to the krauts in the first place. How about really elitist..... Like FoMoCo dumping 10,000 white collar workers to cut costs..... How the f.ck do you hire 10,000 extra people who are NOT directly involved in production? Easy..... you elevate your cronies so they too can enjoy the upper class payscale. How about arrogant..... Like GM deciding that in order for Delphi to be able to proceed without rolling bankruptcy, all the workers had to take 55% pay cuts to $10 an hour. Yeah, thats down from $24 an hour. Exactly who do you figure would take that deal willingly? Face it, at this point Chrysler is the only american manufacturer that is running anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> That's what I was wondering, nate... >> I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > elitist german answering consumer questions actually appeals to joe > six-pack. >> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. > > It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. no, there have been others. giving up the bragging rights of being top dog (in terms of torque) to the duramax is one. the chrysler/daimler merger is one. the rampant lift pump failure issue is one. i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. dropping the jeep cherokee for the liberty is one. killing the tj is one. going with a v6 is one (carries far more significance in jeep circles than truck groups). there are plenty of f.ck-ups, im only saying this will be their (daimler/chryslers not just dodge) biggest to date. > Since then, the truck line has consistantly grown in sales until the > recent fuel pricing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pickup was what made the trucks sell more, since 5 years of Cummins > availability (88-93) did jack sh.t for sales volume. the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. the restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as successful with a foreign diesel? ford has been trying to get their hands on the cummins for some time. for years ive felt that ford builds the best truck on the market, and putting the best engine in the market will be the boost ford needs to get back on top. > Their diesels have consistantly made more power for the weight of the > engine. These two key numbers are what makes a vehicle get better fuel > economy and performance. sure, but that has less to do with sales than marketing. just the fact that it says "cummins" on it sells engines. todays duramax is consistantly getting better mileage than todays cummins, and its producing more power with less weight yet its popularity is dying. > Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good > product. most anything german is a good product, but again we have marketing to joe six-pack. > The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be > at least as good regardless of popularity. being as good and selling as good are two different matters entirely. > Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German doesnt matter much, as he is perceived as such. joe six-pack doesnt like arrogant foreigners and this is critical if youre trying to get joe six-pack to give you his money. > "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still > operating successfully today. i dont agree. the top sellers were in place since long before the merger. > You want an elitist German? His name was Jergen Schremp. You want elitist > Americans? Look at the execs that sold Chrysler to the krauts in the first > place. agreed, BUT......we're back to joe six-pack. joe six-pack hears his german accent in the commercials and takes note of his arrogance. if you want to sell cars you take the same commercial that "Z" was in and replace him with carrol shelby (or someone similar) and THEN youll sell cars to joe six-pack. > at this point Chrysler is the only american manufacturer that is running > anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to > insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. > > no, there have been others. giving up the bragging rights of being top > dog (in terms of torque) to the duramax is one. What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the specs on the new Cummins? > the chrysler/daimler merger is one. Thats not a failure of truck design or capability. > the rampant lift pump failure issue is one. Rampant? According to whom? Yeah, failures were frequent on the modified trucks, but even then it wasn't "rampant". The lift pump failures that did occur were in early ISB models, and the problem was cured easily. > i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. So is the Cummins the best engine, or are you busy proving your claim that you bought for the Cummins a poor decision? > dropping the jeep cherokee for the liberty is one. Hardly. The Cherokee was an old model that had run its course. To stimulate sales, a bigger vehicle had to be built for the now middle aged Cherokee owners, and a smaller vehicle had to be built for the new generation of yuppies. Its called Marketing. The only vehicles not subject to obsolesence are the Mustang, Corvette, CJ and pickup trucks. > killing the tj is one. See above. > going with a v6 is one (carries far more significance in jeep circles than > truck groups). Hardly. This "jeep thing" you hin at is rubbish... we do understand, we don't f.cking care. Those of us in the trucks also like the inline six..... have you seen the Cummins design lately? > there are plenty of f.ck-ups, im only saying this will be their > (daimler/chryslers not just dodge) biggest to date. If we followed your criteria for fuckups, Ford and GM would be in worse shape than DC..... wait, they ARE. I guess DC didn't f.ck up all that badly. > the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. Sadly... you are wrong. The K platform served for over ten years, finding itself under sports cars, luxury cars, and minivans. > restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as > successful with a foreign diesel? Yes, I do. The Cummins wasn't a huge success in the early version, and made its biggest impact in the 98.5 and newer models. Styling was the major impact on the marketplace, as evidenced by GM and Ford copycat design in the late 90's. > ford has been trying to get their hands on the cummins for some time. Ford has had the Cummins in the 450 and up models for some time. > for years ive felt that ford builds the best truck on the market, and > putting the best engine in the market will be the boost ford needs to get > back on top. It hasn't worked yet, they've had the 450 and up market to themselves, GM and Dodge don't market a pickup in that segment. If Ford isn't successful there with a Cummins, its hard to say where they would be. > sure, but that has less to do with sales than marketing. just the fact > that it says "cummins" on it sells engines. todays duramax is > consistantly getting better mileage than todays cummins, and its producing > more power with less weight yet its popularity is dying. Wonder why? Its in the design, not the marketing. Your example proves my point and kills your argument. German diesels are better designed than hybrid Japanese Americans. German diesels can and will beat the Duramax at its own game, should they be selected to compete in the same marketplace. >> Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good >> product. > > most anything german is a good product, but again we have marketing to joe > six-pack. At the prices of todays pickups, Joe Sixpak has a degree or two, owns his own busines or works for a large corporation, and knows a bit about who makes a good engine. >> The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be >> at least as good regardless of popularity. > > being as good and selling as good are two different matters entirely. True, and my point is.... the german diesel will sell as well. >> Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German > > doesnt matter much, as he is perceived as such. joe six-pack doesnt like > arrogant foreigners and this is critical if youre trying to get joe > six-pack to give you his money. See my comments on Joe Sixpack and his level of sophistication, above. >> "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still >> operating successfully today. > > i dont agree. the top sellers were in place since long before the merger. Sadly, you are again wrong. Take a closer look at what happened AFTER the merger and take note of the huge dip in profits DC saw from is Chrysler Corporation. A huge house cleaning was done, and Jergen Schremp unwittingly put his replacement in the CEO chair. DZ then returned the early 90's philosophy to Chrysler, and new designs began to flow forth, as well as a rise in sales. IOW, DZ is what kept Chrysler from being in the same boat as GM and Ford today. > agreed, BUT......we're back to joe six-pack. joe six-pack hears his > german accent in the commercials and takes note of his arrogance. if you > want to sell cars you take the same commercial that "Z" was in and replace > him with carrol shelby (or someone similar) and THEN youll sell cars to > joe six-pack. Again, see the comments above. Joe Sixpack ain't as dumb as the two schmucks on the ads. > at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be > interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. Except.... the trucks are being outsold by cars, with Chryslers outselling Dodges for the first time in a long time this past year. Thus the trucks are not the mainstay of sales, and the Cummins certianly isn't in all the trucks. Its not the Cummins, Nate.....its good design, finacial policy and marketing. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be > interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. >>> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > trucks, but even then it wasn't "rampant". The lift pump failures that did > occur were in early ISB models, and the problem was cured easily. Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were going south on. Roy > Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were > going south on. There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. After the years there was a problem, Chrysler obviously solved the problem. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Roy >> Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were >> going south on. > > There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. which should tell you all you need to know about how common the issue was/is. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com After the years > there was a problem, Chrysler obviously solved the problem. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> Roy >> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. > > which should tell you all you need to know about how common the issue > was/is. It sure does... all those places were performance outlets, catering to those thta were making more power than the factory lift pump was designed to feed. IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as I said it was. Use all the information, and you'll find you get a better picture of reality. Use pieces of it, and you just might invade a Middle Eastern nation for no apparent reason. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were >>> going south on. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> >>> Roy >>> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as > I said it was. Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure those with mods failed quicker. Roy > Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the > average. Most of us carried a spare. nothing to add, just felt it worthy of quoting. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a > alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure > those with mods failed quicker. Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, I'm not alarmed. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Roy >> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure >> those with mods failed quicker. > > Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, > I'm not alarmed. My 2K went through 3. What really sucked is that a lot of dealers wouldn't stock them so you were down for a few days. You'd be alarmed if your pump was gone and you were waiting with a foot of snow on the ground. That's why a lot of us carried a spare. While we are at it there has been a few post's about the in tank pump going away. Take a look over at the tdr. Roy > Max > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Roy >> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure >> those with mods failed quicker. > > Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, > I'm not alarmed. i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for many many years, and you seem surprised by this. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. A quick (very quick - as in, first hit) Google search turned up the following: http://www.asq.org/economic-case/markets/pdf/case-study-24516-six-sigma-saves.pdf where they claim a 17% failure rate of the lift pump over the entire warranty period. They don't break that down by years, but I would assume it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump mounted to the engine). >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump mounted to >the engine). thanks tom, a little "bit of facts" never hurts anyone. i have to admit, that surprises me. it is higher than i would have thought. almost one in five going bad isn't too good! good that they got it fixed. > http://www.asq.org/economic-case/markets/pdf/case-study-24516-six-sigma-saves.pdf > > where they claim a 17% failure rate of the lift pump over the entire > warranty period. They don't break that down by years, but I would assume > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). according to the article tom, those stats were from before the six sigma project ("It was about a 17% failure rate over the entire warranty period [before the Six Sigma project].) which appears to have been in '01. if that is the case (and its certainly possible that im missing something) then the actual percentage would be much higher. my lift pump failed under warranty in '04. ill read the entire article a little later to see if im missing something somewhere SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Certainly seems to be a high rate, but the questions it raises are: Is it a quality issue or a location issue? Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC program? That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure rate is said to be 17%. Roy, I can certainly understand the issues of any part failing and not being in stock. But I think the alarm is because of availability, which speaks to a problem other than QC, that of dealership care of the customer. On THAT issue, DC has been lacking. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). > Is it a quality issue or a location issue? Broke = broke > Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC > program? <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not just pulling a number out of their a.s. > That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a > few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure > rate is said to be 17%. Sounds like a conspiracy :) >> Is it a quality issue or a location issue? > > Broke = broke Yup... >> Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC >> program? > > <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the > data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're > not just pulling a number out of their a.s. 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. >> That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a >> few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure >> rate is said to be 17%. > > Sounds like a conspiracy :) 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. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Is it a quality issue or a location issue? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sounds like a conspiracy :) >> <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the >> data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're >> not just pulling a number out of their a.s. > > There are points both for and against this, given the nature of the > document quoted. I'd prefer an independant source. TRANSLATION --> "it proves nate right, so i will simply refute the source" ......you REALLY think anyone is buying your bullshit? > Second, since the Rams were Chrysler warranty problems, is the document > talking about Ram failure or just Cummins installations in chassis? 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. > Lots of factors are not accounted for here. no max, youre simply grasping at any straw you can at this point. :-) squirm. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Is it a quality issue or a location issue? lol as if it matters? its a f.ck UP. you were WRONG, and now youll try to piddle your way around it. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com A reply from Cummins on the issue. No hard numbers... again. http://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53629 SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). >A reply from Cummins on the issue. <GASP>.......so now you call it an "issue".....the one that never existed? lol....own it max, youll feel better. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). So 17% is the admitted rate. How many were denied and owner repaired with a stock replacement or aftermarket fix? If the vibration issue is true it sounds like the relocation fix is the way to go. Isn't that the Vulcan fix? I've also heard if you relocate the stock lift pump you'll be denied warranty coverage because it's "modified." >>> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >>> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fix? I've also heard if you relocate the stock lift pump you'll be denied > warranty coverage because it's "modified." I read the same. So if you move the pump and then your injector pump goes south you eat about a 2K repair. Roy > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. I look at what I can see with my own eyes and can verify through my own senses far before I look at anything said here without context or verifiable source. That may seem strange to you, but really, its the only way to go. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >>> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. > Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 to 1. > I look at what I can see with my own eyes and can verify through my own > senses far before I look at anything said here without context or > verifiable source. > > That may seem strange to you, but really, its the only way to go. lol.....so this justifies your arrogance as you shout IGNORANCE on this topic? ......i knew you wouldnt have the integrity to admit that YOU ARE WRONG on this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a 318HD. some things just never change. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. > > sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 > to 1. Proving what? > lol.....so this justifies your arrogance as you shout IGNORANCE on this > topic? No, it justifies looking for facts instead of screaming about random events without statistics. > ......i knew you wouldnt have the integrity to admit that YOU ARE WRONG on > this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a > 318HD. some things just never change. Until you have proof via statisitics or documented proof, there isn't anything to admit. A single source claiming 17% failure is pretty strong.... but no one can back this, and the single best source of this failure on this newsgroup, Mike Simmons, claims pretty much what I've said... yeah, it was a problem, but it wasn't rampant. Back to your overreactionary bullshit..... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a > 318HD. some things just never change. >>> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. >> >> sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 >> to 1. > > Proving what? 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. > No, it justifies looking for facts instead of screaming about random > events without statistics. 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) > A single source claiming 17% failure is pretty strong.... but no one can > back this OMG you are actually questioning toms source????? holy hell......lol......thank you max. youve just proven everything ive said about you. :-) > Back to your overreactionary bullshit..... riiiiight max. it doesnt exist. maybe not in those f450/f550s with the ISB. BUWHAHAHA! :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > 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. Nate, you're rounding up, 17% is more like 1 in 6. Still with all the weaseling they've done I think the actual rate is higher and I don't have any basis to guess how high it is. Whether it's 1 in 6 or higher, it's well past "lemon" status. Remember, I'm only commenting on the lift pump failure rate, not the truck. > Nate, you're rounding up, 17% is more like 1 in 6. ok, 1 in 5.88........ill go with that. :-) .....course, i think we'll be doing good to get max to own up to 1 in 1000. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as > I said it was. bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. <rolling eyes> when you wont even acknowledge KNOWN truths it taints your entire argument. your agenda is stronger than your own truth. thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. > <rolling eyes> If one were to believe your statements on the "crisis", MY truck would be the anomoly, with no failure and no symptoms in over 70k miles. > when you wont even acknowledge KNOWN truths it taints your entire > argument. Again, I'll refer to the vast number of trucks versus the failure rate. Until we have a well founded rate of failure, lift pump failure isn't the crisis its being made out to be. > your agenda is stronger than your own truth. No, my quest for facts eliminates knee jerk reactionary crap, such as that for which you are known. > thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i > drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 > where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? Yeah, you need to do that, but only if they contain proven information, not just alarmist reaction. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much >> as I said it was. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 where many > "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? >> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >> <rolling eyes> > > If one were to believe your statements on the "crisis", MY truck would be > the anomoly, with no failure and no symptoms in over 70k miles. give it time. i told you that mine failed at 99,990 "or so" miles. > Again, I'll refer to the vast number of trucks versus the failure rate. > Until we have a well founded rate of failure, lift pump failure isn't the > crisis its being made out to be. just do a google on THIS newsgroup for the word "lift pump" >> your agenda is stronger than your own truth. > > No, my quest for facts eliminates knee jerk reactionary crap, such as that > for which you are known. that you would still argue this point without dont any research (evident by the fact that you cannot acknowledge it) validates my earlier statement. your agenda matters most to you, facts be damned. >> thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i >> drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 >> where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? > > Yeah, you need to do that, but only if they contain proven information, > not just alarmist reaction. how about this quote from tom lawrence: "The only well-known "weak link" on those engines ('98.5 to '02 24V engines) is the factory lift pump. If/when that fails, it kills your injector pump, and that's a 4-figure repair bill. At a minimum, install a fuel pressure gauge to monitor your fuel pressure, so you can detect a failing lift pump before it's too late. If it were me, I'd immediately replace it with an aftermarket pump (as well as install a pressure gauge). " um......he said it was a weak link max. tom full of sh.t too? see it for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 perhaps you should read the entire thread so that you can continue to argue your ignorance. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >>> <rolling eyes> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > before it's too late. If it were me, I'd immediately replace it with an > aftermarket pump (as well as install a pressure gauge). " I've also got a fuel pressure gauge now. When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, I will also have an aftermarket fix. The only reason I went with a stock replacement the first time was trying to save a few bucks, foolish in hindsight. The difference in what it cost to do it and what DC was willing to reimburse would've gone a good ways towards a FASS. > When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, > > nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He might also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems either. Most had problems, some were stock, some not. Doesn't matter a whit. I knew when I bought the truck it might be a problem, I DIDN'T know DC wouldn't reimburse the full repair cost. So knowing this, you have a choice, let someone you trust work on it and roll the dice on reimbursement or let the dealer work on your truck. Given this choice and knowing what I know now, the dealer would still NEVER have seen my truck. > > nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) > He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift pump > and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He might > also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems either. All of this discussion has left me wondering when I can expect my lift pump not to go out? :-) Craig C. > All of this discussion has left me wondering when I can expect my lift > pump not to go out? LOL! :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift > pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. > He might also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems > either. not until his lift pump takes a sh.t on him anyway. ......im really surprised to hear how they treated you. i wonder how much influence the dealership has over these decisions? mine failed within 20 miles of my warranty expiring so they replaced the injection pump "just incase" since they knew my warranty would expire on my trip home from the dealership. THATS customer service like ive never known, and it came straight from the cummins rep that the dealership called. i wonder why they would do so much for one customer, and so little for another. > Most had problems, some were stock, some not. Doesn't matter a whit. i agree. most folks ive met that had the same issue were also running stock trucks. > I knew when I bought the truck it might be a problem i think my '05 bighorn dually ( http://inlinediesel.com/trucks/3gen/1/index.html ) is the "ultimate" truck......the cummins 610, the way towing mode allows overdrive.....i definately prefer the headlights over the '06 model (my OPINION max!).....but if given the chance to buy a new '05 4x4 dually or a new '02 4x4 dually i would take the new '02. i prefer the look (that restyle was awesome from day 1!), i prefer the sound (sounded like a diesel), and i definately prefer the interior. when my 4x4 dually powerstroke ( http://inlinediesel.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=311 )sells im going to replace it with an '01.5/'02 cummins with an automatic. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an > engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? Your kidding right? Roy Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a Dodge with a MB engine in it, if they would go back the 97 98 body style. > Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an > engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of > choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a > Dodge with a MB engine in it, if they would go back the 97 98 body style. Agreed. The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on the front axle. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of > choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> an >> engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on > the front axle. 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. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > 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. The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight ratings. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on >> the front axle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accessories as other trucks. personally i think they should just beef up > the front end. > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are unsprung weight. ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about slide in campers. it doesnt concern me to much since since my trailer has over 1000 pounds of tongue weight when loaded which should lighten the front end of the truck at least a little, but i would like to build a large basket off my winch bumper to hold the generator for my camper.....but i dont know if that would push the front axle rating or not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to secure it (another 100 pounds or so). SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight >> ratings. > > ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are > unsprung weight. The weight rating on the tires, not the truck. Tires below Range E wouldn't be up to the task. I think my tires are at 3400lbs capacity, which means the axle rating (5200) is less than the tire rating at 6000+ capacity. > ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front > end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to > secure it (another 100 pounds or so). Does it weigh more than a plow? If not, no worries. Do you have the plow springs in the truck? If so, no worries. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight >> ratings. > > ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are > unsprung weight. The weight rating on the tires, not the truck. Tires below Range E wouldn't be up to the task. I think my tires are at 3400lbs capacity, which means the axle rating (5200) is less than the tire rating at 6000+ capacity. > ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front > end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to > secure it (another 100 pounds or so). Does it weigh more than a plow? Do you have the plow springs in the truck? > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a little over 4,400lbs. A 9ft. plow setup goes a little under 900lbs. (Meyer shows 890lbs. for their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you haven't even gotten in the truck yet. > Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, > the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a > little over 4,400lbs. Whats the total weight of the truck? Not GVRW, but "dry weight"? > A 9ft. plow setup goes a little under 900lbs. (Meyer shows 890lbs. for > their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you > haven't even gotten in the truck yet. Well, figure this....that axle was originally rated at 3800 or so, and the rating changed without any real change in design, if any at all. Plus, the 01's and 02's had a Cummins w/plow option, IIRC. YMMV. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you > haven't even gotten in the truck yet. >> Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, >> the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rating changed without any real change in design, if any at all. Plus, the > 01's and 02's had a Cummins w/plow option, IIRC. They did. Roy > YMMV. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you >> haven't even gotten in the truck yet. > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. Isn't that with the snow plow package? I thought the "regualar" rating was 4,800 or 4,850? >> Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of >> choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Agreed. The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins > sitting on the front axle. 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. >> Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of >> choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> an >>> engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? >> He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift >> pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ......im really surprised to hear how they treated you. i wonder how much > influence the dealership has over these decisions? The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still well within the warranty period. You think you were surprised? I was shocked, I knew they would reimburse warranty repairs, I didn't know they'd weasel out of the full cost. Now that it's on my mind again, in the phone call I was told if I wanted a "free" repair I should've taken it to the dealer. Yeah, right, where they'll tell you it still makes a little pressure or the newer "well, it's still pumping enough volume." Sure, I'll go along with that while inadequate fuel pressure / supply kills the VP-44. > The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence > at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still > well within the warranty period. i also bought mine used, with well over 99,800 miles on it. i drove it from bozeman to billings and around town a little and then straight to the dealership to find out what the trouble was because the warranty was so close to expiring. > I didn't know they'd weasel out of the full cost. how is that normally handled? i mean, is it "ok" to have an independent fix it under warranty? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Now > that it's on my mind again, in the phone call I was told if I wanted a > "free" repair I should've taken it to the dealer. Yeah, right, where > they'll tell you it still makes a little pressure or the newer "well, it's > still pumping enough volume." Sure, I'll go along with that while > inadequate fuel pressure / supply kills the VP-44. >> The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence >> at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how is that normally handled? i mean, is it "ok" to have an independent > fix it under warranty? As I've always heard it, it wasn't ever a problem in the past. I think "weaseling" out of the full repair cost in something new because when it happened to me was the first time I'd ever heard of it. Forewarned is forearmed. > that you would still argue this point without dont any research (evident > by the fact that you cannot acknowledge it) validates my earlier > statement. your agenda matters most to you, facts be damned. I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one of them has a verifiable failure rate. Tom isn't full of sh.t, but saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak link, even that tow chain that has performed flawlessly forever that lays in the bed of many a pickup. IOW, claiming that something is a weak link doesn't assign a failure rate, nor does it indicate flawed design. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >>> <rolling eyes> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > yourself at http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 perhaps you should read the entire > thread so that you can continue to argue your ignorance. > I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one > of them has a verifiable failure rate. i do believe that much as been established. 1 in 5 and thats just those under warranty.....add to it the number of failures from modified rigs and you have the issue that you claim never existed. > Tom isn't full of sh.t no sh.t, and neither am i (i did afterall, have to school you on this issue that doesnt exist), but i know you cant bring yourself to acknowledge it. > saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the > universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak > link what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one >> of them has a verifiable failure rate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > issue that doesnt exist), but i know you cant bring yourself to > acknowledge it. Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of modification and one of DC's parts fail? That would be like modifying a dmax to the max (not you max <bg>) having it fail and then blaming chevy >> saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the >> universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak >> link > > what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a > piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. > Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for > anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of > modification and one of DC's parts fail? they arent accountable for those in any legal sense, but due to the rate of failure on the warrantied trucks those numbers cannot be simply dismissed. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for >> anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of failure on the warrantied trucks those numbers cannot be simply > dismissed. 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. > 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. agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do you feel about 1 in 5? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do you > feel about 1 in 5? Personally, I feel that it is higher then one would logically hope for when dealing with such an issue. >> agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do >> you feel about 1 in 5? > > Personally, I feel that it is higher then one would logically hope for > when dealing with such an issue. 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? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do >>> you feel about 1 in 5? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > truck to suffer this failure) would you consider my claim of "rampant" > valid? 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. >> 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? > > After looking at the various definitions of the word, I would have to say > yes. thank you. .....damn the conversations in here take some interesting turns. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one >> of them has a verifiable failure rate. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message