V10 Knock Sensor

From : whadahell

Q: on tue 17 oct 2006 222353 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. i dont know everything but i know a bunch of bullshit when i see it..... incorrect. you made statements of fact that are easily proven incorrect. i stated my opinion on the topic at hand and the facts are irrefutable such as the lp issue but you havent posted any facts on the lp issue. ive got two opinions yours and roys. neither of you has statistical evidence to prove your assumptions correct. in fact you claim your lp was replaced at 99990 hardly a known problem at that mileage. then you claim it was replaced as preventitive maintenance so it hadnt in fact failed. either way its not a design flaw to have a pump fail at nearly 100k nor is it a design flaw to have it replaced at nearly 100k as preventitive maintenance. max not trying to provide statistical evidence. just a opinion based on my experience. this isnt a friggincourtroom. take a look at the tdr 2nd gen. 24 valve engine and transmission1998.5-2002 search lift pump failure. there are close to 400 posts concerning failures and no i didnt read them all.. if you remember dc changed the lift pump or at least the part#. could it have been because that a failed lift pump would cause the failure of a more expensive ip i dont know but they finally seem to have it fixed. now im reading and hearing about the pump in the tank. that aint a roadside r&r. time will tell. you and nate try to play nice.g roy for the record the lift pump failures have been more prevalent that dc or cummins would like however when compared to the number of trucks sold with the cummins it is a statiscally small number. well im not sure what a small number is but at the time they were unable to get enough pumps to go around. my understanding of the situation was that dc simply with held the lps for two reasons. first they wanted to be sure that if they replaced a lp the truck was checked for mods. the bombed engines had a whole lot more lp failures than the stock ones. as a result the lp had to ordered when actually needed dealers couldnt stock them. the other reason was that the lps were being upgraded constantly and dc wanted to be sure that only the latest version was put on as a warranty repair rather than one that a dealer stocked that was an earlier version. also they wanted the old ones back because the supplier was taking them apart trying to figure out what needed to be fixed on them. not saying that stock trucks didnt have problems with lps just that the bombed ones had a lot more issues. the bombed trucks put too much stress on a weak part. personally i knew a lot of people with those engines. i had a 01. i didnt know anyone personally that ever had to replace a lift pump but none the less i know it was a weak part of the fuel system from other peoples postings. it was never bad enough for a recall and i think that mike is right when he says is has been over stated by many. i know the service guy at the dealership. he said it wasnt that bad out here they replaced some bad lps but not that many. dc told him that fuel quality played a part in it too. fuel out here is pretty good. i dont know how true that is but that is what he was told. anyway the latest versions of the lp supposedly were pretty solid. reading toms post 17% is not a small number. with regard to bombed trucks the l/p wasnt covered under warranty so i doubt it is part of the 17% roy .