Click here to close
New Message Alert


  Click Here to have an E-mail Sent to you when a new message is added to this thread
Author: 3-Wide   Date: 9/13/2018 6:06:39 PM    Show Orig. Msg (this window) Or  In New Window

As John said - thanks for the good information guys.  Good to know that we've got some solid car guys out there. 

Kind of related to the salt/brine issue... you can't find a early/mid 2000 GM pick up truck that didn't need to have it's fuel lines and brake lines replaced around these parts I'm thinking because of the materials used and the salt/brine.  Very dangerous situation as you usually find out that your brake line needs replacing after having a line fail during braking, or that your fuel line is an issue when is peeing fuel from underneath. 

I learned here on this board from one of you guys that there was eventually a case brought against GM for the rotting lines, and that GM won, claiming that the failing lines were due to "improper maintenance."

Guess GM owners were expected to hose off the underside of the vehicles, and then get on a creeper and shimmy their way under the vehicle and wipe the lines down with WD 40 or something after every winter driving event where it was reasonable to think the lines might have been exposed to salt/brine mix, in order to prevent the "avoidable" corrosion... 

I'm no engineer, but I would think that someone employed in the automotive industry might have seen that one coming and could have made sure they made the lines out of better material, or coated them with something that would last more than a couple of years.  My guess is that someone did, and presented a better design/better materials... And then somebody else figured it'd cost $50 or whatever more per vehicle to do it the right way...  And then somebody else did the math, and figured they'd save the $'s and just go foward and produce a few years of trucks knowing that there would be an issue.... and turn what should have been an avoidable repair into a profitable job for the GM dealerships.

Kind of reminds me of what Ford did back in the early 70s with the Pinto.  (Sorry Ford guys...)  Not long after the Pinto's release, they knew that with any kind of impact in the rear, there would likely be a fire.  Could have made a correction that would have reduced the chances of this happening in lower speed impact instances, but made a decision that $27 per vehicle (or whatever it was at the time) would have cost millions... so they decided to go with the original design, and with the higher risk of fire.


     Return-To-Index   Display Full Msg Thread

Any Ford/Lincoln techs out there? John Mc 9/10/2018 7:29:54 PM