If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message ... > Hal wrote: >>> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply >>> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads, >>> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone >>> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this >>> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the >>> >> >> I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-) >> >> > > That's fine, but automotive maintenance is a term that has possible been > redifined over the years. It is not the same as 'maintenance' the > dictionary. Let's call what I am talking about "preventative maintenance" > to stay on topic. Change the oils, coolant, brake fluid, etc. before they > fail and cause component failure. In fact, change them at an interval > that ensures they don't fail, even if you "waste" a small period of the > fluids' life. Replace brake pads, clutch plates, etc. as well before they > leave you stranded or unsafe - or wear into normally lifetime components > like calipers, knuckles, and flywheels. DON'T consider major component > replacement as preventative maintenance - how would that be preventative? > DON'T consider bulb , windshield, fender, or sunroof cable replacements as > preventative. Replace them when and if they break. Pack bulb sockets > with dielectric and lube sunroof cables instead. > > I consider the terminology to be interchangeable in the auto repair > industry. I hope you can agree on the above concept(s) given the > adjustment in semantics. > > Obviously you would fix a transmission *if* it broke *if* you wanted to > keep driving the car. Obviously you would give it a better chance at not > breaking in the first place if you lubed the linkages and changed the > fluid on schedule. > >>> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability >>> competition. >>> >> >> No argument on that point here. >> >> >> > > On a side note, I just realized one of the groups this thread goes out to > is alt.autos.ford :-) > >>> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if >>> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped >>> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues >>> >> >> The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an >> HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of >> the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or >> an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go >> looking for work, work comes looking for -them-. >> >> > > Good observation. Some very strong shop marketers (and good quality shop > owners to boot) would sort of disagree, but fundamentily I agree with your > assertion. Often they suggest a "discount "that doesn't require a coupon, > but I feel that appeals to stupid people. I would rather pay someone what > they normally charge for work done, but then I'm not the norm. If anyone > thinks they are "due" a genuine discount through any method, just because > they can use scissors or read a sign, then he is a twit. > >>> multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a >>> butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not >>> going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think >>> >> >> Amen to that. >> >> >>> As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that >>> concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If >>> you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever, >>> and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown >>> in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that >>> time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far >>> >> >> So far, the only car I've had trouble procuring parts for is my 1974 >> super beetle. Some of the parts are impossible to find, but the major >> powertrain components are still available, even though the price has >> shot up in recent years. >> >> True story, back in 1996 I was going to replace the transaxle in the >> above car. Reverse did not work. I went to a local VW parts place, >> told them what I wanted, the guy disappeared behind the counter for a >> minute, came back to the counter with a rebuilt transaxle in his hands >> (!!), I handed the guy $300 and walked out with the transaxle in my >> hands. I put it in, it's still in the car. >> >> A month or so ago I was at that same store. A remanufactured transaxle >> is now over $900 for that same car. They had -one- in stock last time >> I was there. Apparently the supply of good cores has all but >> evaporated. >> >> >>> parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that >>> someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that >>> isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you >>> >> >> Not to degrade your profession, but a modern mechanic is more akin to >> a diagnose and swap parts guy than an actual "lets take this machine >> apart, measure what we got, re-machine as needed, fit new bearings, >> rings, seals, clutch packs, and so on and put it back together". Those >> days are all but gone unless your definition of having parts machined >> is having a flywheel resurfaced for a clutch overhaul. >> >> > > Not taken that way. It's true. The ability to diagnose complex problems > and the cost of diagnostic tools (due to the increasing number required) > has increased so much and will continue to skyrocket, though. There just > isn't time in the day for the existing competent workforce to take > everything apart down to the pieces parts we used to in the days gone by, > though I still try to do it when the assembly cost is high enough to > warrant such detail work. Parts + labor = cost of repair, so when one > goes up, usually the other goes down. A profitable shop usually has to > replace engines and trannies or sublet the work out to realize an overall > profit on total operations. Usually only those set up for such work can > typically be profitable with overhauls in house. I'm a hybrid so I do a > little of everything, but I'm not nearly as profitable as a good, well > managed shop. The actual machine work still gets sent out, other than > rotors. > >> Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new >> one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few >> folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or >> transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and >> buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my >> hands. Must be ****ing nice to be able to just buy a new car when the >> need arises, huh? :-) >> >> > > The other thing is that powertrain warranties are getting longer, so by > the time that an owner goes past his engine and trans coverage, the units > have proven not to have any fundamental assembly or design faults and may > prove to last a really long time into the future -- without the owner ever > spending any money on their failures within warranty. > >>> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside >>> :-) >>> >>> >> >> Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep >> a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain >> than to replace. >> >> Best, >> >> Chris >> > > > -- > Toyota MDT in MO |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
"Mike" > wrote in message ... > One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." Darn.. You must have changed your address line. Now I will have to preventatively maintain my killfile. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Mike wrote:
> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." > > > "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message > ... > >> Hal wrote: >> >>>> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply >>>> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads, >>>> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone >>>> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this >>>> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the >>>> >>>> >>> I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-) >>> >>> >>> >> That's fine, but automotive maintenance is a term that has possible been >> redifined over the years. It is not the same as 'maintenance' the >> dictionary. Let's call what I am talking about "preventative maintenance" >> to stay on topic. Change the oils, coolant, brake fluid, etc. before they >> fail and cause component failure. In fact, change them at an interval >> that ensures they don't fail, even if you "waste" a small period of the >> fluids' life. Replace brake pads, clutch plates, etc. as well before they >> leave you stranded or unsafe - or wear into normally lifetime components >> like calipers, knuckles, and flywheels. DON'T consider major component >> replacement as preventative maintenance - how would that be preventative? >> DON'T consider bulb , windshield, fender, or sunroof cable replacements as >> preventative. Replace them when and if they break. Pack bulb sockets >> with dielectric and lube sunroof cables instead. >> >> I consider the terminology to be interchangeable in the auto repair >> industry. I hope you can agree on the above concept(s) given the >> adjustment in semantics. >> >> Obviously you would fix a transmission *if* it broke *if* you wanted to >> keep driving the car. Obviously you would give it a better chance at not >> breaking in the first place if you lubed the linkages and changed the >> fluid on schedule. >> >> >>>> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability >>>> competition. >>>> >>>> >>> No argument on that point here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> On a side note, I just realized one of the groups this thread goes out to >> is alt.autos.ford :-) >> >> >>>> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if >>>> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped >>>> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues >>>> >>>> >>> The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an >>> HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of >>> the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or >>> an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go >>> looking for work, work comes looking for -them-. >>> >>> >>> >> Good observation. Some very strong shop marketers (and good quality shop >> owners to boot) would sort of disagree, but fundamentily I agree with your >> assertion. Often they suggest a "discount "that doesn't require a coupon, >> but I feel that appeals to stupid people. I would rather pay someone what >> they normally charge for work done, but then I'm not the norm. If anyone >> thinks they are "due" a genuine discount through any method, just because >> they can use scissors or read a sign, then he is a twit. >> >> >>>> multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a >>>> butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not >>>> going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think >>>> >>>> >>> Amen to that. >>> >>> >>> >>>> As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that >>>> concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If >>>> you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever, >>>> and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown >>>> in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that >>>> time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far >>>> >>>> >>> So far, the only car I've had trouble procuring parts for is my 1974 >>> super beetle. Some of the parts are impossible to find, but the major >>> powertrain components are still available, even though the price has >>> shot up in recent years. >>> >>> True story, back in 1996 I was going to replace the transaxle in the >>> above car. Reverse did not work. I went to a local VW parts place, >>> told them what I wanted, the guy disappeared behind the counter for a >>> minute, came back to the counter with a rebuilt transaxle in his hands >>> (!!), I handed the guy $300 and walked out with the transaxle in my >>> hands. I put it in, it's still in the car. >>> >>> A month or so ago I was at that same store. A remanufactured transaxle >>> is now over $900 for that same car. They had -one- in stock last time >>> I was there. Apparently the supply of good cores has all but >>> evaporated. >>> >>> >>> >>>> parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that >>>> someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that >>>> isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you >>>> >>>> >>> Not to degrade your profession, but a modern mechanic is more akin to >>> a diagnose and swap parts guy than an actual "lets take this machine >>> apart, measure what we got, re-machine as needed, fit new bearings, >>> rings, seals, clutch packs, and so on and put it back together". Those >>> days are all but gone unless your definition of having parts machined >>> is having a flywheel resurfaced for a clutch overhaul. >>> >>> >>> >> Not taken that way. It's true. The ability to diagnose complex problems >> and the cost of diagnostic tools (due to the increasing number required) >> has increased so much and will continue to skyrocket, though. There just >> isn't time in the day for the existing competent workforce to take >> everything apart down to the pieces parts we used to in the days gone by, >> though I still try to do it when the assembly cost is high enough to >> warrant such detail work. Parts + labor = cost of repair, so when one >> goes up, usually the other goes down. A profitable shop usually has to >> replace engines and trannies or sublet the work out to realize an overall >> profit on total operations. Usually only those set up for such work can >> typically be profitable with overhauls in house. I'm a hybrid so I do a >> little of everything, but I'm not nearly as profitable as a good, well >> managed shop. The actual machine work still gets sent out, other than >> rotors. >> >> >>> Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new >>> one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few >>> folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or >>> transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and >>> buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my >>> hands. Must be ****ing nice to be able to just buy a new car when the >>> need arises, huh? :-) >>> >>> >>> >> The other thing is that powertrain warranties are getting longer, so by >> the time that an owner goes past his engine and trans coverage, the units >> have proven not to have any fundamental assembly or design faults and may >> prove to last a really long time into the future -- without the owner ever >> spending any money on their failures within warranty. >> >> >>>> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep >>> a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain >>> than to replace. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >> -- >> Toyota MDT in MO >> > > > One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and you're wrong. -- Toyota MDT in MO |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
preventative
"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message ... > Mike wrote: >> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." >> > One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an acceptable > alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and you're wrong. > > -- > Toyota MDT in MO Absolutely correct. There are often minor preferential differences between North American English as well, such as "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an improper
pronunciation of a word correct. How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," when the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was "Hung," rather than the correct term, "Hanged?" When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he was hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't. If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the later LOL "HLS" > wrote in message ... > preventative > "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message > ... >> Mike wrote: >>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." >>> >>> > >> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an >> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and >> you're wrong. >> >> -- >> Toyota MDT in MO > > Absolutely correct. > There are often minor preferential differences between North American > English as well, such as > "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Mike wrote:
> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an improper > pronunciation of a word correct. > > How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," when > the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was "Hung," > rather than the correct term, "Hanged?" > > When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he was > hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't. > > If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the later > LOL > > > "HLS" > wrote in message > ... > >> preventative >> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> Mike wrote: >>> >>>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an >>> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and >>> you're wrong. >>> >>> -- >>> Toyota MDT in MO >>> >> Absolutely correct. >> There are often minor preferential differences between North American >> English as well, such as >> "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable. >> > > > You might want to proofread your scribble for grammatical and factual accuracy, genius. LOL?. "Today I pled My **** to reconsider his incorrect ideas concerning grammar, and he just laughed out loud at the suggestion." Pled = past tense = correct = eat it. Had you known that pled is also acceptable as a past participle? Surely you were prefer to type correctly, weren't you(?) BTW, conventional and acceptable are two different concepts. -- Toyota MDT in MO |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
"Mike" > wrote in message ... > Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an > improper pronunciation of a word correct. Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt say anything about conventional usage. "Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World Dictionary. "Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Perhaps, to some I suppose, but they ain't had much good schoolhosin' and
thy sure isn't lawya's. LOL "HLS" > wrote in message ... > > "Mike" > wrote in message > ... >> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an >> improper pronunciation of a word correct. > > Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt > say anything > about conventional usage. > > "Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World > Dictionary. > "Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well. > |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Ya' right LOL
"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message ... > Mike wrote: >> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an >> improper pronunciation of a word correct. >> >> How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," >> when the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was >> "Hung," rather than the correct term, "Hanged?" >> >> When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he >> was hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't. >> >> If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the >> later LOL >> >> >> "HLS" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> preventative >>> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>> Mike wrote: >>>> >>>>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." >>>>> >>>>> >>>> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an >>>> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and >>>> you're wrong. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Toyota MDT in MO >>>> >>> Absolutely correct. >>> There are often minor preferential differences between North American >>> English as well, such as >>> "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable. >> >> >> > > You might want to proofread your scribble for grammatical and factual > accuracy, genius. LOL?. > > "Today I pled My **** to reconsider his incorrect ideas concerning > grammar, and he just laughed out loud at the suggestion." > > Pled = past tense = correct = eat it. Had you known that pled is also > acceptable as a past participle? > > Surely you were prefer to type correctly, weren't you(?) > > BTW, conventional and acceptable are two different concepts. > > -- > Toyota MDT in MO |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ford Fusion reverse gear
Mike wrote:
> Perhaps, to some I suppose, but they ain't had much good schoolhosin' and > thy sure isn't lawya's. LOL > > > > "HLS" > wrote in message > ... > >> "Mike" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an >>> improper pronunciation of a word correct. >>> >> Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt >> say anything >> about conventional usage. >> >> "Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World >> Dictionary. >> "Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well. >> >> > > > Yeah, well whomever "they" are, it's likely they haven't been schooled (colloquialism) by a lowly mechanic on such points. Feel special. LOL -- Toyota MDT in MO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ford Fusion reverse gear | Mike Walsh[_3_] | Technology | 106 | July 23rd 09 11:00 PM |
Ford Fusion reverse gear | Jeff[_45_] | General | 1 | July 2nd 09 05:10 PM |
Ford Fusion reverse gear | Derek Gee | General | 0 | June 30th 09 02:38 AM |
Ford Fusion reverse gear | Alan Mac Farlane | General | 0 | June 29th 09 03:50 PM |