hmmm... wonder if we can get them to start painting the rear end now too.

 

Further proof that being too cheap can end up costing you more in the long run.

 

Geez. How long is Ford on the hook for these things? I mean **** rusts in the salt.


And I thought this was thread was going to be about a rusted Probe.

 

Wow, didn't know SN95 Mustang wheels had the proper offset/backspacing to work on a FWD vehicle like that. Looks good!

 

"Geez. How long is Ford on the hook for these things? I mean **** rusts in the salt."

General Aviation Aircraft are 18 years, and it's noteworthy that it's not just the plane, but components. A new propeller on a 10 year old plane=rest of plane 8 more years, propeller 18.

No reason a car can't be as long if it's desired. I can't find the answer though.

The reason I bring airplanes up is because in Aviation, it is the onus of the OWNER to inspect the aircraft, or have it brought in for inspection, more importantly, so that these parts can be swapped out even if they're within the 18 years. Warranty <> liability. There is a difference, and you will pay for the repair. Which is odd, as if the manufacturer is liable, but it's a worn item... that should be warranty, right? Nope. But if it's inspected, and passed over and over, but still fails due to an uninspectable or hidden reason, then there's a liablity issue... as long as it's within 18 years. That didn't use to be the case, which is why Cessna and Piper got out of the GA market for a few years.

After 18 years, you should totally strip and rebuild the plane to ensure that the airplane is fine, and then after that, complete D check teardown and rebuilds every 9 years thereafter, just to be sure, if not sooner. Airliners are something like every 6 years.

All on their own nickel, not the original manufacturers.

Have people do this with a car. Just you try.

And that's why this is a silly thing for the regulators to go after... the cars/trucks on the road aren't nearly as inspected as they ought to be. They should be recommending *better inspections*, not liability for a salt-rusted part.

/Logic. It makes no sense to most.
//'Course, there'll be rabble-rabbling about the high cost of inspection and repairs.
///Do you want safe vehicles or not?
////Doesn't help that the majority of gas tanks DON'T fall out, does it. Hm.

 

I'm a pilot, too. But there are some key differences.
1) Buy a nut or a bolt at your local automotive store. And then order one from an aviation supply company. Same nut is five times the cost. Why? For the most obvious reason, is that as soon as you grade something "aviation" it means that it's gone through tighter testing and quality control. The "nut manufacturers" don't really have to cut costs to compete with Indian or Korean nut manufacturers; they have a captive market. The FAA keeps the standards so stringent that anyone using substandard or uncertified parts on a plane will get their Certificate of Airworthiness pulled. Auto companies don't have that luxury; somewhere along the line, you have to have to decide what you're willing to pay for parts.
2) It's easier to build "anything" with an 18 year warranty when you have a limited market and even fewer players in that market. Ford kicks out more cars in an hour in one plant than the busiest plane manufacturer makes in a week in ALL their facilities. Most people aren't willing to pay $70,000 for a Mustang, but there are people that will pay $70, 000 for the BEGINNINGS of a plane that they have to build themselves. (http://www.lancair.com/Main/iv_ivp.html) Finished private airplanes run anywhere from $100G and up. When you have that kind of pricing wiggle room you can make anything last 18 years.


But you are right on the onus part. Pilots (by nature and by requirement) tend to be a little more aware of the state of repair of their machines than the average car driver. When was the last time your wife took a "walkaround" their car before getting in it? Mine doesn't. I've driven my wife's car, "How long has that noise been going on?" She wouldn't be able to tell me, and if she knows she couldn't be bothered to mention it. Many people (I won't say most as I have no statistical proof) never get their cars inspected after the warranty runs out. They don't notice crap is wrong until it falls off on the highway. That, to me, is just wrong....

 

Do they do yearly safety inspections in your area Sparky? In Virginia its required. Unfortunately there is a good bit of leeway built into the system - tires being the best example I canthink of, Va has no minimum thread depth requirement, so its purely up to the safety inspector. Most err on the side of caution and making a buck if they hawk tires, but its entirely feasible an inspector could let a car pass with the tires completely worn out.

Then there is my story, took my car in to get it inspected - the clerk told me an hour to get it done (not unreasonable) , it went in 15 minutes later and for 45 minutes the hood stood proped up and the car never left the ground :rolls eyes: I think the only part that was inspected was the engine. That wasn't nearly as bad as when the tech pulled my car out and wanted to hear the exhaust and blipped the throttle (heh, did I say I love the SLP Loudmouths on my car) thinking I wasn't around or might not hear it - He walks in and spys me then says; "Your car"? I reply; "Yep". He reply's with a sheepish look; "Uhhh, no charge".

Honestly no harm done - knucklehead should have asked, but it saved me 25 bucks.

 

No, the only safety inspections that are mandatory are (1)the ones that are in preparation of our biannual emissions test. Just to make sure nothing flies apart while it's on the dyno; and (2) when you buy/sell a vehicle.

The only other thing that can get you here is if a cop has reason to believe your car is unsafe he can order a safety examination. But you have to be in pretty bad shape for them to do that, unless you're a punk and it's a punitive thing.

 

Oh, if only I were a pilot. I play one on the computer sometimes. But I'm more an aviation nut. But definitely, Sparky, all you say is true. Love the bolt comparison, it's great, isn't it? That's the price you have to pay to hang several tons of stuff on the Bernoulii principle.

/ok, that was geek.
//or maybe nerd.
///doesn't matter which.

 

I remember taking a class on Aviation Law while working on my flight instructor certificate. Back in the 80's and early 90's new General Aviation aircraft were almost impossible to find; much of this was to do with product liability litigation. Aircraft had no limit on how long a manufacturer was responsible for an aircraft or components and the result was an industry that was nearly litigated into oblivion. Can you imagine being dragged into a lawsuit over an aviation mishap involving an airplane that was over 40 years old? It's no wonder everyone quit making small planes. Thankfully that has since changed, but aircraft manufacturers are still in they eye of trial lawyers due to "deep pocket theory". It's a real shame and one of the reasons why GA aircraft cost so dang much these days. We're lucky the auto industry hasn't suffered the same fate, otherwise there would hardly be any new cars out there and the ones that were available would be out of the price range of 95% of the public.

 

limits? there needs to be a line, agreed...but-
Ford just issued a recall on windstars from 98-03...7 yr old car and the rear axle top rusts thru and it folds in the center, excessive camber blows both rear tires against the inner wheelhouses...weve got a 98, its got some rust- I cut it out/patch as needed, etc...to me thats 'general maintenance' on a ohio winter car...however I never once even thought about looking at the concave/salt filled bathtub shaped top of the rear axle tube...a bad design is a bad design- warranty/recall worthy? who knows, but when CRAPPY designs like this rear their ugly heads, IMO the manufacturer at least should be required to notify owners...with all the bull**** money wasting the government does, I really think when license renewals are done they could easily print out all defect data complaints of potentially dangerous issues...heck autozone prints out tons of info right on the reciept when you buy a part...its not rocket sciece.

topside of a rear axle tube is way out of sight out of mind...I aint driving ours till I check it out- if not for enough complaints to start a recall, would ford have ever told us about the problem?

 

If it's a onesy twosy thing, it isn't even considered to be tellable, so your example is answered by "negatory."

 

Sounds like what Tyler Durden's alter ego did before he became Tyler Durden.

 

That's true -- I learned to fly on Piper Cherokees, the flight school had a fleet of them, the newest one was built in 1976 ... I was 9 when it was built and was 37 when I got my license.. It would be like learning to drive in an AMC Pacer today.

As far as the Windstar recall goes, strangely enough the recall doesn't stretch back to earlier models -- something changed. Maybe someone figured that they could save a few cents per axle by not stamping drain holes in it.

From over 22 years in the industry, I've seen a lot of decisions made by bean counters that weren't sound engineering decisions. We once had a recall on Windstar wiper motors because of water incursion. I mean, they're wiper motors -- we've only been building them for 40-odd years, are you kidding me? Well someone figured that not drilling a hole in the bottom to let the moisture out would save a few cents ... and it comes back to bite them.

Problem is, it's not a "Ford" thing, it's an "industry" thing. I see warranty data from all manufacturers; there is not one manufacturer that doesn't have issues like this to varying degrees.