• Creator
  • #595592
    EricTheCarGuy 1EricTheCarGuy

      I have a feeling we’ll be discussing this one for a while. Recalls have been around almost as long as the automobile after all. What are your thoughts?

    Viewing 8 replies - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
    • Author
    • #596732
      Dave OlsonDave

        You missed one thing Barney, When they went to Goodyear the pressure was returned to 35 and hence no issues. It was the tires being too soft heating up and blowing out.

        don’t trust Wiki anyone can edit it.

        Lorrin BarthLorrin Barth

          [quote=”brokemechanic3000″ post=95678]You missed one thing Barney, When they went to Goodyear the pressure was returned to 35 and hence no issues. It was the tires being too soft heating up and blowing out.

          don’t trust Wiki anyone can edit it.[/quote]

          I did not know that. Thanks Well, I knew how wikipedia works.

          I believe it must have but what I’ve never had explained to me is how deflating the tires made the vehicle more stable. Seems like it should have been the opposite.

          Dave OlsonDave

            It didn’t make it more stable it was done for a smoother ride

            Lorrin BarthLorrin Barth

              The information I keep finding is that is was done for stability. Here is an example quote:

              By James R. Healey, USA TODAY

              Ford Motor disagrees with other manufacturers on the correct pressure for tires like those being recalled by Firestone, and it says its Explorer sport-utility vehicle could become unstable in emergencies if its tires have too much air pressure.

              Dave OlsonDave

                I work at a tire shop and get to talk to a lot of the guys (in the industry). Plus too much air lowers the stability? that just doesn’t make sense. It was probably a P.R. move by Ford to blame Firestone tires and not their vehicle. This was back when the media started to demonize SUVs, which started with a campaign that they were unstable and prone to roll-overs.

                Rich BayerRich Bayer

                  (We can’t quote here? I’ll check again)

                  And I do agree that the 3800 and 4.3 are awesome V6’s.. I worked at a GM dealer in 2000 for a short time and then went got hired to work on cranes.. But I didn’t mean to blatantly blast GM, as my anger mostly comes from their build quality. I’ve seen how much farther my money can go with other brands that are perceived to be cheaper… But their Build quality pisses me off now. it’s a lot to do with material choices, but this is also starting to go into a domestic vs Import territory that Eric already did a couple videos on and he sums it up pretty well in the first of those.

                  I’ve also see a lot at the dealer that wasn’t recalled. Anyone remember the coolant systems on the 1995 through 1997 GM’s turning into jello? Granted it was caused by leaks in the coolant systems, but when the entire system turns to gel because there’s a leak? It took them a while to adjust that formula to not turn into mush. That’s what gave Dex Cool a bad name.. We also did a lot of Campaigns though. Dirty EGR valves, leaking oil cooler lines, Coolant flushes, cradle bolt replacements. etc etc.. probably stuff that should have been recalls..

                  Lorrin BarthLorrin Barth

                    There’s what I found on the Ford Firestone controversy. The Ford engineers found the Explorer more rollover prone than the Bronco II and wanted to increase the track. The Ford managers said too expensive. So, running a computer simulation (aren’t computers great) they discovered the truck was more sable with less tire pressure.


                      Not trying to revive an old thread but thought I’d add my experience with recalls here.

                      My vehicle is a 2005 Nissan Altima 2.5 S. On November 8th 2007 there was a recall to reprogram the ECM due an overheat issue with the crankshaft position sensor. Nissan’s remedy was not to replace the sensor but the reprogram the ECM to check it’s logic against the camshaft sensor if there was a brief interruption in signal from the crankshaft sensor.

                      I never had the recall performed but I did experience the brief loss of power at a low speed. I got a reading of zero on the tach and it sounded as if the engine was not running. Then power was restore after about 2 seconds. Apparently both the crankshaft and camshaft sensors are both the same. The original sensors were made of plastic which allowed oil to come into contact with the sensors circuitry causing the failure. By the time I had begun experiencing the problem Nissan had gone through several revisions of the sensor and the final revision was to make them out of metal. Apparently prior Nissan was still revising them out of plastic which eventually failed.

                      I replaced both crank and cam sensors and never experienced a problem again related to the recall. So this was a very peculiar recall on Nissan’s part that rather than replacing the sensors which were apparently the problem, they tried the cheap fix by reprogramming the ECM knowing that both sensors could fail anyway and the sensors would still need to be replaced. Full cost to the owner I might add which by the time the problem would occur the vehicle would be out of warranty.

                      I remember reading other owners complain that they had more issues with their vehicle after the recall was performed than prior as the recall was supposed to correct those problems in the first place.

                    Viewing 8 replies - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
                    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
                    situs togel situs togel togel online bo togel situs togel situs togel toto macau agen toto situs togel situs toto bo togel situs togel situs togel resmi situs togel situs toto situs togel situs togel situs togel situs toto togel online situs toto rimbatoto rimbatoto rimbatoto situs toto bo toto situs toto situs togel situs toto