 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / April 2005proof ford is crap
>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:39:25 GMT, msterspy <msterspy@netscape.net> >>wrote: >> >>>Hi All: I finally took your advice and jacked up my car and wiggled >>>the wheels. I'm not pleased with what I found. The passanger side tie >>>rod is extremely loose, in fact I'm not sure its safe to drive to the >>>repair shop. Can this thing actually break? >>> >>>Also, the driver side tie rod is not quite as loose, but the lower >>>ball joint is loose. >>> >>>All in all, I will have new ball joints and tie rods installed (and >>>front end alingment) this week (ASAP) >>> >>>Anyone hazzard a guess about how much it will cost? >>> >>>I'm guessing between $400 -$ 500; maybe more if they find other worn >>>parts. I will also insist on suspension parts with greese fittings. >> >>btw tell us the milage >>lmfao >> >>hurc ast On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:47:14 GMT, msterspy <msterspy@netscape.net> wrote: >Mileage is 107,000 miles. I guess worn tie rods are expected at this >point in mileage. there ya have it you cant get 100 mi out of a ford hurc Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a suspension parts are expeced to wear out after 100k miles. There is tremendous cyclic loading on these parts. Since you took my post from another message and was sneaky about hiding in this one, I assume you must be a troll in this group. Too bad, I thought this was a decent group. Go buy yourself a Japanees car. Give your money to Japan. >>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:39:25 GMT, msterspy <msterspy@netscape.net> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >hurc > Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you > knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hiding in this one, I assume you must be a troll in this group. Too > bad, I thought this was a decent group. It is a decent group.... except for the resident moron who calls himself huricane. Yes, I think your right. I have seen some of is doings in other posts. M >> Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you >> knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It is a decent group.... except for the resident moron who calls himself >huricane. >Yes, I think your right. I have seen some of is doings in other posts. >M lmfao u cant get 100000 out of a ford ball joint case closed Off course you can not get 100,000 miles from a ball joint on a Ford. Why would you want too? Anyway, Who gives a Sh__. As I mentioned before, the cyclic loads on this part are enormous and there are no hardened steel parts that should be expected to withstand the environment of bad New England roads. By the way, I don't think "Ford" makes ball joints. The thing that bothers me the most is that the moorons who inspected my car (Mass State Inspection) didn't bother to check this out; and I drive kids to school all the time in an unsafe car? Realy pisses me off. >>Yes, I think your right. I have seen some of is doings in other posts. >>M [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >case closed I've got the original 4 ball joints in my car, but then again they are greasable. I rode in a crappy 01 Crown Victoria cab once. Went to the airport. The cabbie said it was only two years old with almost 200,000 miles on it. His former 98 CV cab was at 468,000 when a truck demolished it. Boy they sure don't get many miles out of them. Harryface Ø¿Ø 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 301,521 miles Greasable helps. I'm getting mine fixed tommorow and I'm insisting on greaseable suspension parts. >I've got the original 4 ball joints in my car, but then again they are >greasable. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE > 301,521 miles msterspy, ignore thas a.shole from cahnahdah that is going by the name hurricane this week. he has not given one true piece of advice in his 4 months posting his stupid remarks here. he is obviously a ricer, because he thinks fords are no good, and that a backfire is what happens when a horse farts. > Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you > knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > >hurc >Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you >knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a >suspension parts are expeced to wear out after 100k miles. There is >tremendous cyclic loading on these parts. lmfao cyclic loading thats a new one did ya think of that yourself hurc ast >Since you took my post from another message and was sneaky about >hiding in this one, I assume you must be a troll in this group. Too [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >>hurc No, I didn't, I happen to be a Mecahnical Engineer and spent several years working in this field. You are obviously a dumb sh.t who latches on the these threads and tries to piss people off. You really suck. This is the oppinions of most people in this newsgroup. Eat a bag of sh.t. >>Crap or not, all I was asking for is advice about tie rods. If you >>knew anything about engineering, you would understand that a [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> >>>hurc Oops, sorry for bad spelling but this a.shole is doing a good job of pissing me off. I guess that there is always at least one a.shole per newsgroup. I tried to be civilized to this sh.t head but couldn't. Looks like it's time to say good bye. M >No, I didn't, I happen to be a Mecahnical Engineer and spent several >years working in this field. You are obviously a dumb sh.t who latches [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>> >>>>hurc > No, I didn't, I happen to be a Mecahnical Engineer and spent several > years working in this field. You are obviously a dumb sh.t who latches > on the these threads and tries to piss people off. > You really suck. This is the oppinions of most people in this > newsgroup. Eat a bag of sh.t. I'd gladly kick in the 29 cents to supersize that order. Make that one LARGE bag of sh.t for dumbass to eat. Bob >No, I didn't, I happen to be a Mecahnical Engineer and spent several >years working in this field. You are obviously a dumb sh.t who latches >on the these threads and tries to piss people off. >You really suck. This is the oppinions of most people in this >newsgroup. Eat a bag of sh.t. engineer eh where is that train?? cyclic loading is a test you dumb tard the part did not fail due to a cyclic load hurc ast cyclic pounding more like it. It is an environment, not a test. You obviously are a sneaky sh.t. The way you took my qusetions and twsited it into a critisism for Ford products. Doesn't it bother you to be hated by all? >>No, I didn't, I happen to be a Mecahnical Engineer and spent several >>years working in this field. You are obviously a dumb sh.t who latches [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >hurc ast >cyclic pounding more like it. It is an environment, not a test. >You obviously are a sneaky sh.t. The way you took my qusetions and >twsited it into a critisism for Ford products. Doesn't it bother you >to be hated by all? why should it bother me to tell the truth? hurc ast What you consider truth is pure dung and has nothing to do with the question I posed: It is apparent that everyone on this newsgroup hates you because you are very insulting, and sneaky. Doesn't this bother you? If you hate Fords you should stop posting to this group and go bother someone in a Japaneese import newsgroup where you belong. People in this group help one another by sharing repair and problem experiences; they don't badger people and send out random bullshit like you do. >>cyclic pounding more like it. It is an environment, not a test. >>You obviously are a sneaky sh.t. The way you took my qusetions and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >hurc ast I had a brand new 91 TransAM GTA. Z rated tires went within 6 months. Then the shocks went. I was mad as heck when i went back to the dealer's maint chief. He told me about Z rated rubber (my first experience with them) and then informed me that original shocks on the car were rated for 14,000 miles. Over the next 10 years with that car, there was a whole lot of that kind of thing. So, it's not Ford. It car makers who want you to have to replace parts. Like a printer for your computer... it's cheap, but the ink cartridges will eat up your bank account. >>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:39:25 GMT, msterspy <msterspy@netscape.net> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >hurc Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 <hurricane 575 @ihotmail.com> babbled: > >Mileage is 107,000 miles. I guess worn tie rods are expected at this > >point in mileage. > there ya have it > you cant get 100 mi out of a ford > hurc Yeah, they're just horrible. I bought my 88 T-Bird back in 95 with 140,000km on it, and it just hit 293,000km (182,000 mi) today. It's probably only running because I religiously changed the oil every 15-22,000km (10 times in 9 years). Just can't seem to kill that piece of crap. u think fords r crap,buy a dodge!! My first car was a 1972 Plymouth Satelite. Worst car I ever owned. Ball joints were junk after 20,000 miles. Could even pass inspection. I have to say, though, my brother has an antique 1946 Dodge. Interesting car, fun to drive. >u think fords r crap,buy a dodge!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.