Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your truck
and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is termed
"redundant systems"?
Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps. One
mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the other
takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are no
longer so.
Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make your
truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry about
getting from point A to point B.
Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
those fancy mag wheels.
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:10:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
>fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>
>Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your truck
>and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is termed
>"redundant systems"?
>
>Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
>single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps. One
>mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the other
>takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
>snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
>don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are no
>longer so.
>
>Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make your
>truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry about
>getting from point A to point B.
>
>Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
>those fancy mag wheels.
There is a massive difference between an aircraft and an automobile. The
automobile never leaves the ground, so the failure of its engine or trans-
mission doesn't result in the vehicle diving 15,000 feet to a fiery crash
killing hundreds. Jet aircraft rely on their mechanical systems to remain
in the air, which is why there is such massive redundancy there - it is an
absolute requirement. Prop-driven aircraft, like the little Pipers and Cessnas,
can lose their single engine and still make a controlled landing, because they
are designed specifically to function at lower flight speeds. Even a single-
engine helicopter will auto-rotate if the engine fails, which means that the
crew has a fighting chance of surviving the crash. Even so, helicopters that
routinely fly over large bodies of water are required to be equipped with at
least two engines (the Navy/Marine Corp version of the Bell UH-1 has two turbine
engines, where I believe the Army model has, or at least HAD, only one) because
even a 'soft' landing in water means you're going to be swimming for a while.
Automobiles DO have redundant systems, believe it or not. Your brake system is
split into two hydraulic circuits - front and rear. The failure of one means
reduced brake capacity, but you still have the ability to control the vehicle.
This was not always the case - prior to 1967, most US-made cars had
single-hydraulic brake systems, and a busted line anywhere in that setup meant
NO brakes at all. If the engine stalls, the power-brake system is designed to
continue to work for at least one, and usually two applications of the brake,
and even then if the power assist ceases functioning, the vehicle can STILL be
hauled down - it just takes a bit more effort, that's all. And, of course,
there is still the emergency/parking brake, and even if all that is useless, a
good driver can still bring the vehicle to a halt in relative safety - although
such drastic measures usually mean a trip to the body shop, at least.
There isn't much that can go wrong with a steering system. If the power assist
fails, the vehicle can still be driven - it'll just be more difficult.
Your electrical system has redundancy as well - if the alternator fails, the
battery can supply the electrical requirements of the car for a short time, at
least until you can get the vehicle safely off the road.
Most vehicles - trucks in particular - are designed with a significant degree of
'fault tolerance' - it isn't redundancy per se, but it does make a critical
system more robust. If the ECM fails, it usually goes into a 'limp home' mode
that will allow you to get the car safely off the road (home or a repair shop
even). Cooling systems are usually built to handle situations far more severe
than any conceivable 'normal' operating environment, and even if the cooling
system quits, you can drive the vehicle for a VERY short time (usually just long
enough to get to a safe place to shut it off).
You are also forgetting something about human nature - a redundant system means
that the vehicle continues to move even if the primary system has failed, right?
In the minds of most folks, that means the vehicle is still functional, and so
the repair is 'not needed'. Once upon a time, cars were equipped with full-size
spare tires - not so any more. Now, they equip them with those Mickey Mouse
things, and those tires are engineered for a very short service life - usually
less than 100 miles, during which the car will be the most ill-handling beast
imaginable - all of this is intended to 'force' you to the repair shop ASAP.
I agree that maybe a second fuel pump wouldn't be a bad idea - but the service
life of an OEM fuel pump in a new car is supposed to exceed the service life of
the vehicle anyway, so I don't see it as a pressing requirement. Incidentally,
the reason they're in the tank now is because it is easier for a pump to 'push'
a liquid than it is to 'pull' it. It's true that its more difficult to service
them there, but look at the modern engine - would you REALLY want to try to
dig through all that get at a fuel pump there? Suddenly having it in the tank
doesn't look so bad, yes?
Transmissions and engines are not really items that can be made redundant in a
cost-effective way - though the new crop of hybrid cars actually do have some
redundancy in them. They operate from an internal combustion engine, which
drives a generator to charge storage batteries, which in turn provide the power
to move the car. The failure of the generator set means you have a limited
supply of electrical power regardless - and since most of those vehicles use two
or more motors to operate the drive wheels, even the failure of one means at
least some level of function based on the other.
Finally, most folks today have cell phones, or can at least afford them. If the
vehicle breaks down, get it out of traffic if you can and call for help. If you
live in rural regions where help might not reach you right away, you should be
prepared for the weather - for instance, I keep blankets, extra clothing, and
other supplies in the vehicle at all times. In summer, I make it a point to
have at least two or three 16-20 oz bottles of water on hand. I also carry
some basic tools, extra fuel, and a few select spare parts.
While I agree it may be always better to try and be prepared for all manner
of problems, the reality is that most of us always have the second flat
while the spare is still on or the engine overheats whilst driving down that
lonely Texas highway at night some 50 miles from the nearest service
station and the spare water jug that you kept in the toolbox sprung a leak
sometime back that you didn't know about and is now completely empty. The
electric fuel pump in the tank only is a particular issue with me as I have
had 3 fail on me on 1998 or newer vehicles in the last few years that have
left me stranded on remote highways at night or on weekends. The last one
cost me over $750 to get fixed by the only dealer service station in the
area after towing charges.
My BIL just bought one of these new Dodge trucks with the 18" chrome rims on
it. I immediately convinced hime to take it back to the dealer and get the
old standard 16 inch chrome rims put on. The tires you get from the dealer
are only rated for about 20K miles at best and then you have to pay to
replace them. Anybody price the difference between 16" and 18" tires lately?
Last time I looked they were at least $150 more per tire.
Anyway, redundancy can be available in ALL electrical and mechanical systems
if you want to pay the price... doubt if manufacturers will ever see a
positive ROI on much redundancy built into production vehicles though... too
much money made in the service departments and through parts sales of those
wear items not covered by the warranty such as fuel pumps, brake components,
clutches, etc...
Razor
<xmh31d_64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d62en1l3qpqdjghjhf6at4v47uifr4gf6t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:10:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
>>fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>>
>>Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your truck
>>and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is
>>termed
>>"redundant systems"?
>>
>>Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
>>single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps.
>>One
>>mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the
>>other
>>takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
>>snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
>>don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are no
>>longer so.
>>
>>Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make your
>>truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry
>>about
>>getting from point A to point B.
>>
>>Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
>>those fancy mag wheels.
>
> There is a massive difference between an aircraft and an automobile. The
> automobile never leaves the ground, so the failure of its engine or trans-
> mission doesn't result in the vehicle diving 15,000 feet to a fiery crash
> killing hundreds. Jet aircraft rely on their mechanical systems to remain
> in the air, which is why there is such massive redundancy there - it is an
> absolute requirement. Prop-driven aircraft, like the little Pipers and
> Cessnas,
> can lose their single engine and still make a controlled landing, because
> they
> are designed specifically to function at lower flight speeds. Even a
> single-
> engine helicopter will auto-rotate if the engine fails, which means that
> the
> crew has a fighting chance of surviving the crash. Even so, helicopters
> that
> routinely fly over large bodies of water are required to be equipped with
> at
> least two engines (the Navy/Marine Corp version of the Bell UH-1 has two
> turbine
> engines, where I believe the Army model has, or at least HAD, only one)
> because
> even a 'soft' landing in water means you're going to be swimming for a
> while.
>
> Automobiles DO have redundant systems, believe it or not. Your brake
> system is
> split into two hydraulic circuits - front and rear. The failure of one
> means
> reduced brake capacity, but you still have the ability to control the
> vehicle.
> This was not always the case - prior to 1967, most US-made cars had
> single-hydraulic brake systems, and a busted line anywhere in that setup
> meant
> NO brakes at all. If the engine stalls, the power-brake system is
> designed to
> continue to work for at least one, and usually two applications of the
> brake,
> and even then if the power assist ceases functioning, the vehicle can
> STILL be
> hauled down - it just takes a bit more effort, that's all. And, of
> course,
> there is still the emergency/parking brake, and even if all that is
> useless, a
> good driver can still bring the vehicle to a halt in relative safety -
> although
> such drastic measures usually mean a trip to the body shop, at least.
>
> There isn't much that can go wrong with a steering system. If the power
> assist
> fails, the vehicle can still be driven - it'll just be more difficult.
>
> Your electrical system has redundancy as well - if the alternator fails,
> the
> battery can supply the electrical requirements of the car for a short
> time, at
> least until you can get the vehicle safely off the road.
>
> Most vehicles - trucks in particular - are designed with a significant
> degree of
> 'fault tolerance' - it isn't redundancy per se, but it does make a
> critical
> system more robust. If the ECM fails, it usually goes into a 'limp home'
> mode
> that will allow you to get the car safely off the road (home or a repair
> shop
> even). Cooling systems are usually built to handle situations far more
> severe
> than any conceivable 'normal' operating environment, and even if the
> cooling
> system quits, you can drive the vehicle for a VERY short time (usually
> just long
> enough to get to a safe place to shut it off).
>
> You are also forgetting something about human nature - a redundant system
> means
> that the vehicle continues to move even if the primary system has failed,
> right?
> In the minds of most folks, that means the vehicle is still functional,
> and so
> the repair is 'not needed'. Once upon a time, cars were equipped with
> full-size
> spare tires - not so any more. Now, they equip them with those Mickey
> Mouse
> things, and those tires are engineered for a very short service life -
> usually
> less than 100 miles, during which the car will be the most ill-handling
> beast
> imaginable - all of this is intended to 'force' you to the repair shop
> ASAP.
>
> I agree that maybe a second fuel pump wouldn't be a bad idea - but the
> service
> life of an OEM fuel pump in a new car is supposed to exceed the service
> life of
> the vehicle anyway, so I don't see it as a pressing requirement.
> Incidentally,
> the reason they're in the tank now is because it is easier for a pump to
> 'push'
> a liquid than it is to 'pull' it. It's true that its more difficult to
> service
> them there, but look at the modern engine - would you REALLY want to try
> to
> dig through all that get at a fuel pump there? Suddenly having it in the
> tank
> doesn't look so bad, yes?
>
> Transmissions and engines are not really items that can be made redundant
> in a
> cost-effective way - though the new crop of hybrid cars actually do have
> some
> redundancy in them. They operate from an internal combustion engine,
> which
> drives a generator to charge storage batteries, which in turn provide the
> power
> to move the car. The failure of the generator set means you have a
> limited
> supply of electrical power regardless - and since most of those vehicles
> use two
> or more motors to operate the drive wheels, even the failure of one means
> at
> least some level of function based on the other.
>
> Finally, most folks today have cell phones, or can at least afford them.
> If the
> vehicle breaks down, get it out of traffic if you can and call for help.
> If you
> live in rural regions where help might not reach you right away, you
> should be
> prepared for the weather - for instance, I keep blankets, extra clothing,
> and
> other supplies in the vehicle at all times. In summer, I make it a point
> to
> have at least two or three 16-20 oz bottles of water on hand. I also
> carry
> some basic tools, extra fuel, and a few select spare parts.
considering how reliable my truck has been, this would be a terrible waste
of money.
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:e1ea20aa5bf80d54989bc8562cfd32bd@dizum.com...
> Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
> fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>
> Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your truck
> and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is
> termed
> "redundant systems"?
>
> Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
> single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps.
> One
> mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the
> other
> takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
> snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
> don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are no
> longer so.
>
> Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make your
> truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry
> about
> getting from point A to point B.
>
> Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
> those fancy mag wheels.
>
Wish I had your truck! Mine needs either a fuel pump or distributor. Wish
I knew which!
MZ
"Sigwings" <oreois@IHATESPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:btadnUvGltHI0ereRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> considering how reliable my truck has been, this would be a terrible waste
> of money.
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:e1ea20aa5bf80d54989bc8562cfd32bd@dizum.com...
>> Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
>> fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>>
>> Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your
>> truck
>> and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is
>> termed
>> "redundant systems"?
>>
>> Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
>> single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps.
>> One
>> mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the
>> other
>> takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
>> snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
>> don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are
>> no
>> longer so.
>>
>> Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make
>> your
>> truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry
>> about
>> getting from point A to point B.
>>
>> Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
>> those fancy mag wheels.
>>
>
>
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:10:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
>fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>
>Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your truck
>and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is termed
>"redundant systems"?
>
>Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
>single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps. One
>mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the other
>takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
>snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
>don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are no
>longer so.
>
>Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make your
>truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry about
>getting from point A to point B.
>
>Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
>those fancy mag wheels.
Redundant systems on automobiles is a waste of time and
money. Most drivers in my part of the world tend to drive
until it won't go anyway. Note the number of cars with only
one headlamp that works, CEL's on at all times, brake
warning lamps, engine misfires, obviously blown mufflers,
bald tires, etc. on and on.
You're in Texas, right? Hot weather, right? If you want longer fuel pump
life, fill the tank before it gets down to 1/4 tank. You're right that fuel
pumps generally don't last quite as long in hotter climates, but if you keep
the tank fuller, the pump will stay much cooler and last much longer.
As to the tire issue, where do you get the idea that factory equipment tires
only last 20k? I have NEVER had a tire wear out on a new car in less than
40k miles, usually longer than that. If you drive around with them
chronically underinflated or are otherwise abusive, you'll certainly will
reduce the tire wear. However, the only tires I can think of that will wear
out in 20k miles are very soft, low profilers on sports cars. Certainly
your poor Brother-in-Law's truck doesn't fit that description.
Scratching my head,
CJB
"Razorblade" <TraderNO4SPAMhire@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QvFdf.11204$th3.2293@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> While I agree it may be always better to try and be prepared for all
> manner of problems, the reality is that most of us always have the second
> flat while the spare is still on or the engine overheats whilst driving
> down that lonely Texas highway at night some 50 miles from the nearest
> service station and the spare water jug that you kept in the toolbox
> sprung a leak sometime back that you didn't know about and is now
> completely empty. The electric fuel pump in the tank only is a particular
> issue with me as I have had 3 fail on me on 1998 or newer vehicles in the
> last few years that have left me stranded on remote highways at night or
> on weekends. The last one cost me over $750 to get fixed by the only
> dealer service station in the area after towing charges.
>
> My BIL just bought one of these new Dodge trucks with the 18" chrome rims
> on it. I immediately convinced hime to take it back to the dealer and get
> the old standard 16 inch chrome rims put on. The tires you get from the
> dealer are only rated for about 20K miles at best and then you have to pay
> to replace them. Anybody price the difference between 16" and 18" tires
> lately? Last time I looked they were at least $150 more per tire.
>
> Anyway, redundancy can be available in ALL electrical and mechanical
> systems if you want to pay the price... doubt if manufacturers will ever
> see a positive ROI on much redundancy built into production vehicles
> though... too much money made in the service departments and through parts
> sales of those wear items not covered by the warranty such as fuel pumps,
> brake components, clutches, etc...
>
> Razor
>
>
>
>
> <xmh31d_64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d62en1l3qpqdjghjhf6at4v47uifr4gf6t@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:10:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
>>>fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
>>>
>>>Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your
>>>truck
>>>and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is
>>>termed
>>>"redundant systems"?
>>>
>>>Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of a
>>>single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps.
>>>One
>>>mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the
>>>other
>>>takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
>>>snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
>>>don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are
>>>no
>>>longer so.
>>>
>>>Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make
>>>your
>>>truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry
>>>about
>>>getting from point A to point B.
>>>
>>>Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
>>>those fancy mag wheels.
>>
>> There is a massive difference between an aircraft and an automobile. The
>> automobile never leaves the ground, so the failure of its engine or
>> trans-
>> mission doesn't result in the vehicle diving 15,000 feet to a fiery crash
>> killing hundreds. Jet aircraft rely on their mechanical systems to
>> remain
>> in the air, which is why there is such massive redundancy there - it is
>> an
>> absolute requirement. Prop-driven aircraft, like the little Pipers and
>> Cessnas,
>> can lose their single engine and still make a controlled landing, because
>> they
>> are designed specifically to function at lower flight speeds. Even a
>> single-
>> engine helicopter will auto-rotate if the engine fails, which means that
>> the
>> crew has a fighting chance of surviving the crash. Even so, helicopters
>> that
>> routinely fly over large bodies of water are required to be equipped with
>> at
>> least two engines (the Navy/Marine Corp version of the Bell UH-1 has two
>> turbine
>> engines, where I believe the Army model has, or at least HAD, only one)
>> because
>> even a 'soft' landing in water means you're going to be swimming for a
>> while.
>>
>> Automobiles DO have redundant systems, believe it or not. Your brake
>> system is
>> split into two hydraulic circuits - front and rear. The failure of one
>> means
>> reduced brake capacity, but you still have the ability to control the
>> vehicle.
>> This was not always the case - prior to 1967, most US-made cars had
>> single-hydraulic brake systems, and a busted line anywhere in that setup
>> meant
>> NO brakes at all. If the engine stalls, the power-brake system is
>> designed to
>> continue to work for at least one, and usually two applications of the
>> brake,
>> and even then if the power assist ceases functioning, the vehicle can
>> STILL be
>> hauled down - it just takes a bit more effort, that's all. And, of
>> course,
>> there is still the emergency/parking brake, and even if all that is
>> useless, a
>> good driver can still bring the vehicle to a halt in relative safety -
>> although
>> such drastic measures usually mean a trip to the body shop, at least.
>>
>> There isn't much that can go wrong with a steering system. If the power
>> assist
>> fails, the vehicle can still be driven - it'll just be more difficult.
>>
>> Your electrical system has redundancy as well - if the alternator fails,
>> the
>> battery can supply the electrical requirements of the car for a short
>> time, at
>> least until you can get the vehicle safely off the road.
>>
>> Most vehicles - trucks in particular - are designed with a significant
>> degree of
>> 'fault tolerance' - it isn't redundancy per se, but it does make a
>> critical
>> system more robust. If the ECM fails, it usually goes into a 'limp home'
>> mode
>> that will allow you to get the car safely off the road (home or a repair
>> shop
>> even). Cooling systems are usually built to handle situations far more
>> severe
>> than any conceivable 'normal' operating environment, and even if the
>> cooling
>> system quits, you can drive the vehicle for a VERY short time (usually
>> just long
>> enough to get to a safe place to shut it off).
>>
>> You are also forgetting something about human nature - a redundant system
>> means
>> that the vehicle continues to move even if the primary system has failed,
>> right?
>> In the minds of most folks, that means the vehicle is still functional,
>> and so
>> the repair is 'not needed'. Once upon a time, cars were equipped with
>> full-size
>> spare tires - not so any more. Now, they equip them with those Mickey
>> Mouse
>> things, and those tires are engineered for a very short service life -
>> usually
>> less than 100 miles, during which the car will be the most ill-handling
>> beast
>> imaginable - all of this is intended to 'force' you to the repair shop
>> ASAP.
>>
>> I agree that maybe a second fuel pump wouldn't be a bad idea - but the
>> service
>> life of an OEM fuel pump in a new car is supposed to exceed the service
>> life of
>> the vehicle anyway, so I don't see it as a pressing requirement.
>> Incidentally,
>> the reason they're in the tank now is because it is easier for a pump to
>> 'push'
>> a liquid than it is to 'pull' it. It's true that its more difficult to
>> service
>> them there, but look at the modern engine - would you REALLY want to try
>> to
>> dig through all that get at a fuel pump there? Suddenly having it in the
>> tank
>> doesn't look so bad, yes?
>>
>> Transmissions and engines are not really items that can be made redundant
>> in a
>> cost-effective way - though the new crop of hybrid cars actually do have
>> some
>> redundancy in them. They operate from an internal combustion engine,
>> which
>> drives a generator to charge storage batteries, which in turn provide the
>> power
>> to move the car. The failure of the generator set means you have a
>> limited
>> supply of electrical power regardless - and since most of those vehicles
>> use two
>> or more motors to operate the drive wheels, even the failure of one means
>> at
>> least some level of function based on the other.
>>
>> Finally, most folks today have cell phones, or can at least afford them.
>> If the
>> vehicle breaks down, get it out of traffic if you can and call for help.
>> If you
>> live in rural regions where help might not reach you right away, you
>> should be
>> prepared for the weather - for instance, I keep blankets, extra clothing,
>> and
>> other supplies in the vehicle at all times. In summer, I make it a point
>> to
>> have at least two or three 16-20 oz bottles of water on hand. I also
>> carry
>> some basic tools, extra fuel, and a few select spare parts.
>
>
Yeah really!! 20K? No manufacturer would put any tire that doesn't last
more than 36K. They are covered by the bumper-to-bumper warranty (excluding
misuse or accidents, road hazards,etc.). At least that's the case with
Chevy cars. Not sure if there is different coverage concerning trucks....
Scott
> As to the tire issue, where do you get the idea that factory equipment
tires
> only last 20k? I have NEVER had a tire wear out on a new car in less than
> 40k miles, usually longer than that. If you drive around with them
> chronically underinflated or are otherwise abusive, you'll certainly will
> reduce the tire wear. However, the only tires I can think of that will
wear
> out in 20k miles are very soft, low profilers on sports cars. Certainly
> your poor Brother-in-Law's truck doesn't fit that description.
>
> Scratching my head,
>
> CJB
>
> "Razorblade" <TraderNO4SPAMhire@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:QvFdf.11204$th3.2293@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> > While I agree it may be always better to try and be prepared for all
> > manner of problems, the reality is that most of us always have the
second
> > flat while the spare is still on or the engine overheats whilst driving
> > down that lonely Texas highway at night some 50 miles from the nearest
> > service station and the spare water jug that you kept in the toolbox
> > sprung a leak sometime back that you didn't know about and is now
> > completely empty. The electric fuel pump in the tank only is a
particular
> > issue with me as I have had 3 fail on me on 1998 or newer vehicles in
the
> > last few years that have left me stranded on remote highways at night or
> > on weekends. The last one cost me over $750 to get fixed by the only
> > dealer service station in the area after towing charges.
> >
> > My BIL just bought one of these new Dodge trucks with the 18" chrome
rims
> > on it. I immediately convinced hime to take it back to the dealer and
get
> > the old standard 16 inch chrome rims put on. The tires you get from the
> > dealer are only rated for about 20K miles at best and then you have to
pay
> > to replace them. Anybody price the difference between 16" and 18" tires
> > lately? Last time I looked they were at least $150 more per tire.
> >
> > Anyway, redundancy can be available in ALL electrical and mechanical
> > systems if you want to pay the price... doubt if manufacturers will ever
> > see a positive ROI on much redundancy built into production vehicles
> > though... too much money made in the service departments and through
parts
> > sales of those wear items not covered by the warranty such as fuel
pumps,
> > brake components, clutches, etc...
> >
> > Razor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <xmh31d_64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d62en1l3qpqdjghjhf6at4v47uifr4gf6t@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:10:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Its been said manufacturers scrape for every penny's saving, yet I see
> >>>fancy wheels on trucks that must cost hundreds of dollars each.
> >>>
> >>>Would you not be happier with having plain Jane steel wheels on your
> >>>truck
> >>>and having GM and Ford put the thousand dollars instead into what is
> >>>termed
> >>>"redundant systems"?
> >>>
> >>>Aircraft use redundant systems. It means, for example, that instead of
a
> >>>single electric fuel pump buried in your gas tank, you have TWO pumps.
> >>>One
> >>>mechanical; one electrical. If (or rather, when) one pump fails, the
> >>>other
> >>>takes over and you don't stall out in the middle of nowhere, in a
> >>>snowstorm, or in the middle lane of the Hollywood Freeway. In case you
> >>>don't know, fuel pumps were once a road-side serviceable item; they are
> >>>no
> >>>longer so.
> >>>
> >>>Redundancy goes much further than fuel pumps. It is possible to make
> >>>your
> >>>truck ALMOST reliable to the point that you would never have to worry
> >>>about
> >>>getting from point A to point B.
> >>>
> >>>Believe me. Its true. And the total cost is no more than the cost of
> >>>those fancy mag wheels.
> >>
> >> There is a massive difference between an aircraft and an automobile.
The
> >> automobile never leaves the ground, so the failure of its engine or
> >> trans-
> >> mission doesn't result in the vehicle diving 15,000 feet to a fiery
crash
> >> killing hundreds. Jet aircraft rely on their mechanical systems to
> >> remain
> >> in the air, which is why there is such massive redundancy there - it is
> >> an
> >> absolute requirement. Prop-driven aircraft, like the little Pipers and
> >> Cessnas,
> >> can lose their single engine and still make a controlled landing,
because
> >> they
> >> are designed specifically to function at lower flight speeds. Even a
> >> single-
> >> engine helicopter will auto-rotate if the engine fails, which means
that
> >> the
> >> crew has a fighting chance of surviving the crash. Even so,
helicopters
> >> that
> >> routinely fly over large bodies of water are required to be equipped
with
> >> at
> >> least two engines (the Navy/Marine Corp version of the Bell UH-1 has
two
> >> turbine
> >> engines, where I believe the Army model has, or at least HAD, only one)
> >> because
> >> even a 'soft' landing in water means you're going to be swimming for a
> >> while.
> >>
> >> Automobiles DO have redundant systems, believe it or not. Your brake
> >> system is
> >> split into two hydraulic circuits - front and rear. The failure of one
> >> means
> >> reduced brake capacity, but you still have the ability to control the
> >> vehicle.
> >> This was not always the case - prior to 1967, most US-made cars had
> >> single-hydraulic brake systems, and a busted line anywhere in that
setup
> >> meant
> >> NO brakes at all. If the engine stalls, the power-brake system is
> >> designed to
> >> continue to work for at least one, and usually two applications of the
> >> brake,
> >> and even then if the power assist ceases functioning, the vehicle can
> >> STILL be
> >> hauled down - it just takes a bit more effort, that's all. And, of
> >> course,
> >> there is still the emergency/parking brake, and even if all that is
> >> useless, a
> >> good driver can still bring the vehicle to a halt in relative safety -
> >> although
> >> such drastic measures usually mean a trip to the body shop, at least.
> >>
> >> There isn't much that can go wrong with a steering system. If the
power
> >> assist
> >> fails, the vehicle can still be driven - it'll just be more difficult.
> >>
> >> Your electrical system has redundancy as well - if the alternator
fails,
> >> the
> >> battery can supply the electrical requirements of the car for a short
> >> time, at
> >> least until you can get the vehicle safely off the road.
> >>
> >> Most vehicles - trucks in particular - are designed with a significant
> >> degree of
> >> 'fault tolerance' - it isn't redundancy per se, but it does make a
> >> critical
> >> system more robust. If the ECM fails, it usually goes into a 'limp
home'
> >> mode
> >> that will allow you to get the car safely off the road (home or a
repair
> >> shop
> >> even). Cooling systems are usually built to handle situations far more
> >> severe
> >> than any conceivable 'normal' operating environment, and even if the
> >> cooling
> >> system quits, you can drive the vehicle for a VERY short time (usually
> >> just long
> >> enough to get to a safe place to shut it off).
> >>
> >> You are also forgetting something about human nature - a redundant
system
> >> means
> >> that the vehicle continues to move even if the primary system has
failed,
> >> right?
> >> In the minds of most folks, that means the vehicle is still functional,
> >> and so
> >> the repair is 'not needed'. Once upon a time, cars were equipped with
> >> full-size
> >> spare tires - not so any more. Now, they equip them with those Mickey
> >> Mouse
> >> things, and those tires are engineered for a very short service life -
> >> usually
> >> less than 100 miles, during which the car will be the most ill-handling
> >> beast
> >> imaginable - all of this is intended to 'force' you to the repair shop
> >> ASAP.
> >>
> >> I agree that maybe a second fuel pump wouldn't be a bad idea - but the
> >> service
> >> life of an OEM fuel pump in a new car is supposed to exceed the service
> >> life of
> >> the vehicle anyway, so I don't see it as a pressing requirement.
> >> Incidentally,
> >> the reason they're in the tank now is because it is easier for a pump
to
> >> 'push'
> >> a liquid than it is to 'pull' it. It's true that its more difficult to
> >> service
> >> them there, but look at the modern engine - would you REALLY want to
try
> >> to
> >> dig through all that get at a fuel pump there? Suddenly having it in
the
> >> tank
> >> doesn't look so bad, yes?
> >>
> >> Transmissions and engines are not really items that can be made
redundant
> >> in a
> >> cost-effective way - though the new crop of hybrid cars actually do
have
> >> some
> >> redundancy in them. They operate from an internal combustion engine,
> >> which
> >> drives a generator to charge storage batteries, which in turn provide
the
> >> power
> >> to move the car. The failure of the generator set means you have a
> >> limited
> >> supply of electrical power regardless - and since most of those
vehicles
> >> use two
> >> or more motors to operate the drive wheels, even the failure of one
means
> >> at
> >> least some level of function based on the other.
> >>
> >> Finally, most folks today have cell phones, or can at least afford
them.
> >> If the
> >> vehicle breaks down, get it out of traffic if you can and call for
help.
> >> If you
> >> live in rural regions where help might not reach you right away, you
> >> should be
> >> prepared for the weather - for instance, I keep blankets, extra
clothing,
> >> and
> >> other supplies in the vehicle at all times. In summer, I make it a
point
> >> to
> >> have at least two or three 16-20 oz bottles of water on hand. I also
> >> carry
> >> some basic tools, extra fuel, and a few select spare parts.
> >
> >
>
>
