In-the-tank fuel pumps cause death and destruction

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>to the fuel tank?
><snip>
I've seen many early Japanese cars with such a device (Nissan Maxima,
Toyota Crown / Cressida etc).
Question is how often is it used (virtually never) Putting a drain
on a fuel tank creates a potential leak source and requires greater
cost and added weight for the vehicle to haul around (ditto for the
dual fuel pump idea that was below).

My Personal Olds is almost 10 years old and well well over 160K still
on the original fuel pump that should have been replaced last spring
<grin>. Every part will wear out given enough time & miles. The
safety issue is more of incompetence and negligence on the part of the
repair shop.

My $0.02

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>to the fuel tank?
><snip>
I've seen many early Japanese cars with such a device (Nissan Maxima,
Toyota Crown / Cressida etc).
Question is how often is it used (virtually never) Putting a drain
on a fuel tank creates a potential leak source and requires greater
cost and added weight for the vehicle to haul around (ditto for the
dual fuel pump idea that was below).

My Personal Olds is almost 10 years old and well well over 160K still
on the original fuel pump that should have been replaced last spring
<grin>. Every part will wear out given enough time & miles. The
safety issue is more of incompetence and negligence on the part of the
repair shop.

My $0.02

"shiden_kai" > wrote in message
news:_TAgd.57890$nl.34438@pd7tw3no...
> Wound Up wrote:
>
> > Also, this type of integration is used secondarily, but not
> > insignificantly, to increase book-billed labour charges and replacement
> > costs on all related parts and diagnostic procedures. Under warranty,
> > this isn't usually a big deal, because the factory-trained techs are
> > specifically trained in the "is/is not" questions that arise, and how
> > to test for them. Off warranty, or at the local shop, properly
> > trained techs use this to their advantage like many other things,
> > simply billing "book time" that doesn't reflect reality, relying on
> > the customer's ignorance.
>
> This shows your lack of knowledge about the times required
> to replace in tank fuel pumps and the older on-engine fuel pumps.
> For someone who knows what they are doing (like myself), there
> is very little difference in labour time needed to change an in-tank
> fuel pump as opposed to the older on-engine fuel pumps.

Wait a minute. Maybe there are shortcuts in some cases - and I have only
done
it once - but every fuel pump replacement I have heard about
involves dropping the tank.

e. g.
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...place_intank_f
uel_pump/

There is no way dropping the tank can be compared to disconnecting
two fuel lines and unplugging the electric plug.

And as
> far as "reality"....the trained tech has already taken his lumps on
> the warranty side of things (low times) and has become extremely
> efficient at doing the job by the time it becomes a "customer pay"
> job. Who are you to pass judgement on them.....come and walk
> in their shoes for a mile or two and then you will know what
> flat rate is all about.
>
> > In their defence, shops use book time out of necessity sometimes,
> > because of a lack of local knowledge. In their attack, shops and
> > techs use book time to make money on flat-rate labour. Techs and
> > shops alike continually look for common, high-book-time gems with
> > which to bilk their customers and reap profits.
>
> This may be true in a certain percentage of labour operations,
> but most operations, "you" as the owner, could not come close
> to doing it in the time allowed by the book. You might be able
> to beat the time on a thermostat, but if you were working on vehicles
> all day long, you'd lose your ass. I'd extend a challenge to anyone
> who isn't a professional technician to come on in and work with me
> for a week. It'll be an eye opener both ways....you will see the jobs
> that I make tons of time on, and you will see the jobs that waste my
> time. It usually works out to about 140% efficiency overall. And you
> would learn why I'm worth that.
>
> > The saddest and most uncertain factor in these equations is the newbie
> > tech who just invested $50,000 in his or her education and tools to
> > work on new cars.
>
> Good god....whoever spends that kind of money to get started in this
> trade is a lunatic. Or has some sort of "tool fetish". I've seen those
> types
> of technicians. Lot's of shiny tools, but have no clue what to do with
> them.
>
> > Too many fail or quit, and most are underpaid for
> > their valuable work. Others succeed, and either become vampires
> > themselves, or are good enough (morally and skill-wise) to turn an
> > honest, good profit and NOT screw consumers with (on average) 100%
> > markups on parts and book-billed labour.
>
> Too many fail or quit, because they imagine that they can be making
> 80 grand in five years. It doesn't work that way....it takes a lot of
> time and experience to become a good, honest, flat rate mechanic.
> I laugh at the young guys in our shop that think they should be making
> 14 hrs a day. It certainly won't happen if they take an hour in the
morning
> to "get going"...and spend another hour or two a day outside smoking and
> bull****ting with everyone. You gotta work hard in this trade if you want
> to make good money. And you "can" make good money.
>
> Ian
>
>

"shiden_kai" > wrote in message
news:_TAgd.57890$nl.34438@pd7tw3no...
> Wound Up wrote:
>
> > Also, this type of integration is used secondarily, but not
> > insignificantly, to increase book-billed labour charges and replacement
> > costs on all related parts and diagnostic procedures. Under warranty,
> > this isn't usually a big deal, because the factory-trained techs are
> > specifically trained in the "is/is not" questions that arise, and how
> > to test for them. Off warranty, or at the local shop, properly
> > trained techs use this to their advantage like many other things,
> > simply billing "book time" that doesn't reflect reality, relying on
> > the customer's ignorance.
>
> This shows your lack of knowledge about the times required
> to replace in tank fuel pumps and the older on-engine fuel pumps.
> For someone who knows what they are doing (like myself), there
> is very little difference in labour time needed to change an in-tank
> fuel pump as opposed to the older on-engine fuel pumps.

Wait a minute. Maybe there are shortcuts in some cases - and I have only
done
it once - but every fuel pump replacement I have heard about
involves dropping the tank.

e. g.
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...place_intank_f
uel_pump/

There is no way dropping the tank can be compared to disconnecting
two fuel lines and unplugging the electric plug.

And as
> far as "reality"....the trained tech has already taken his lumps on
> the warranty side of things (low times) and has become extremely
> efficient at doing the job by the time it becomes a "customer pay"
> job. Who are you to pass judgement on them.....come and walk
> in their shoes for a mile or two and then you will know what
> flat rate is all about.
>
> > In their defence, shops use book time out of necessity sometimes,
> > because of a lack of local knowledge. In their attack, shops and
> > techs use book time to make money on flat-rate labour. Techs and
> > shops alike continually look for common, high-book-time gems with
> > which to bilk their customers and reap profits.
>
> This may be true in a certain percentage of labour operations,
> but most operations, "you" as the owner, could not come close
> to doing it in the time allowed by the book. You might be able
> to beat the time on a thermostat, but if you were working on vehicles
> all day long, you'd lose your ass. I'd extend a challenge to anyone
> who isn't a professional technician to come on in and work with me
> for a week. It'll be an eye opener both ways....you will see the jobs
> that I make tons of time on, and you will see the jobs that waste my
> time. It usually works out to about 140% efficiency overall. And you
> would learn why I'm worth that.
>
> > The saddest and most uncertain factor in these equations is the newbie
> > tech who just invested $50,000 in his or her education and tools to
> > work on new cars.
>
> Good god....whoever spends that kind of money to get started in this
> trade is a lunatic. Or has some sort of "tool fetish". I've seen those
> types
> of technicians. Lot's of shiny tools, but have no clue what to do with
> them.
>
> > Too many fail or quit, and most are underpaid for
> > their valuable work. Others succeed, and either become vampires
> > themselves, or are good enough (morally and skill-wise) to turn an
> > honest, good profit and NOT screw consumers with (on average) 100%
> > markups on parts and book-billed labour.
>
> Too many fail or quit, because they imagine that they can be making
> 80 grand in five years. It doesn't work that way....it takes a lot of
> time and experience to become a good, honest, flat rate mechanic.
> I laugh at the young guys in our shop that think they should be making
> 14 hrs a day. It certainly won't happen if they take an hour in the
morning
> to "get going"...and spend another hour or two a day outside smoking and
> bull****ting with everyone. You gotta work hard in this trade if you want
> to make good money. And you "can" make good money.
>
> Ian
>
>

I may have missed it earlier, but it is your opinion that
money had a lot / a little / nothing to do with the design?

Cost of repair was not a consideration?



"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
> >
> > Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> >> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
> >>> I do have one question though that I'd like to ask if
> >>> I may? When I have a quarter tank of fuel left, what
> >>> exactly occupies the remaining space?
>
> >> If I see where you're going with this, the inside of the fuel pump
> >> (where all the electrical commutation/sparking takes place) is 100%
> >> full of liquid fuel under all conditions. Missing only one ingredient
> >> for fire or explosion: air/oxygen. Comforting thought, eh?
> >>
> >> To answer your question: air (but all the arcing and sparking is
> >> inside the pump with only liquid fuel).
>
> > How about at the final few minutes of running out of
> > fuel?
>
> Pumping section (gerotor, turbine, or roller vane section as the case
> may be for a given design) of the pump is below the commutation section.
> Check valve in the fuel line keeping the pump full of fuel after pump
> is shut off. There will always be a column of liquid fuel above the
> pump commutation level.
>
> > How about turning on the ignition (running the pump
> > for a few secs) when the tank is "empty" ?
>
> See above.
>
> > How about a flaw in the diptube?
>
> See above. It may be that no single-point of failure will cause a
> problem. But, as with any system, you can hypothesize a **combination**
> of failures that would creat a problem (cutting the odds) - you'd have
> to argue whether or not such a combination of failures was credible.
> And statistically, those combinations *will* happen. Don't ask me why
> there haven't been real "unexplained" explosions.
>
> > I'm gonna respectfully suggest that were I given
> > a choice; I'd take a pump in the engine compartment
> > (the other side of the firewall being a nice side
> > effect bonus)
>
> Too much heat - fire and vapor lock potential in the modern engine
> compartment.
>
> I hear you though. Do a google search on my name and
> rec.autos.makers.chrysler and "commutation" and you'll see that I was
> asking the same questions of Ford and Chrysler engineers when I was an
> engineering manager for fuel pump products as a supplier - you'd be
> surprised how many of them never even thought to ask the questions -
> it's just the way things were done since before they were hired, so they
> never thought about it.
>
> I often said it to them, and I said it in this ng, that if in-tank fuel
> pumps had not been invented before now, and I thought of doing it, I, as
> an engineer, never would have suggested it in today's legal and
> corporate environment - I would have kept my mouth shut for career
> protection.
>
> Actually, I seriously doubt that it would be being done now if it had
> not had several years of being done with no indication that it was a
> real problem. IOW - you could never prove, in theory, to a committe of
> lawyers, managers, insurers, and MBA's that there could never be a
> scenario that an explosion could not occur from some credible
> combination of (1) running the tank out of fuel and (2) a bad in-line
> check valve in the lines (allowing the liquid to drain back), and (3)
> someone turning the ignition key to "run" and the fuel pump running dry
> inside. Oh there will always be those who will have some explanation of
> why it could never really explode - but wipe out their knowledge that it
> has ever been done before and put them in the parallel universe where it
> has not been done before and ask them to be the first person to
> volunteer to sit in the first vehicle in which it was ever to be tried
> the first time it was cranked up, and see if they will do it. Everyone
> has great hindsight knowing that it is in reality apparently safe. But
> to know ahead of time for sure...?
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I may have missed it earlier, but it is your opinion that
money had a lot / a little / nothing to do with the design?

Cost of repair was not a consideration?



"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
> >
> > Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> >> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
> >>> I do have one question though that I'd like to ask if
> >>> I may? When I have a quarter tank of fuel left, what
> >>> exactly occupies the remaining space?
>
> >> If I see where you're going with this, the inside of the fuel pump
> >> (where all the electrical commutation/sparking takes place) is 100%
> >> full of liquid fuel under all conditions. Missing only one ingredient
> >> for fire or explosion: air/oxygen. Comforting thought, eh?
> >>
> >> To answer your question: air (but all the arcing and sparking is
> >> inside the pump with only liquid fuel).
>
> > How about at the final few minutes of running out of
> > fuel?
>
> Pumping section (gerotor, turbine, or roller vane section as the case
> may be for a given design) of the pump is below the commutation section.
> Check valve in the fuel line keeping the pump full of fuel after pump
> is shut off. There will always be a column of liquid fuel above the
> pump commutation level.
>
> > How about turning on the ignition (running the pump
> > for a few secs) when the tank is "empty" ?
>
> See above.
>
> > How about a flaw in the diptube?
>
> See above. It may be that no single-point of failure will cause a
> problem. But, as with any system, you can hypothesize a **combination**
> of failures that would creat a problem (cutting the odds) - you'd have
> to argue whether or not such a combination of failures was credible.
> And statistically, those combinations *will* happen. Don't ask me why
> there haven't been real "unexplained" explosions.
>
> > I'm gonna respectfully suggest that were I given
> > a choice; I'd take a pump in the engine compartment
> > (the other side of the firewall being a nice side
> > effect bonus)
>
> Too much heat - fire and vapor lock potential in the modern engine
> compartment.
>
> I hear you though. Do a google search on my name and
> rec.autos.makers.chrysler and "commutation" and you'll see that I was
> asking the same questions of Ford and Chrysler engineers when I was an
> engineering manager for fuel pump products as a supplier - you'd be
> surprised how many of them never even thought to ask the questions -
> it's just the way things were done since before they were hired, so they
> never thought about it.
>
> I often said it to them, and I said it in this ng, that if in-tank fuel
> pumps had not been invented before now, and I thought of doing it, I, as
> an engineer, never would have suggested it in today's legal and
> corporate environment - I would have kept my mouth shut for career
> protection.
>
> Actually, I seriously doubt that it would be being done now if it had
> not had several years of being done with no indication that it was a
> real problem. IOW - you could never prove, in theory, to a committe of
> lawyers, managers, insurers, and MBA's that there could never be a
> scenario that an explosion could not occur from some credible
> combination of (1) running the tank out of fuel and (2) a bad in-line
> check valve in the lines (allowing the liquid to drain back), and (3)
> someone turning the ignition key to "run" and the fuel pump running dry
> inside. Oh there will always be those who will have some explanation of
> why it could never really explode - but wipe out their knowledge that it
> has ever been done before and put them in the parallel universe where it
> has not been done before and ask them to be the first person to
> volunteer to sit in the first vehicle in which it was ever to be tried
> the first time it was cranked up, and see if they will do it. Everyone
> has great hindsight knowing that it is in reality apparently safe. But
> to know ahead of time for sure...?
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Al Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "shiden_kai" > wrote in message
> news:_TAgd.57890$nl.34438@pd7tw3no...
> > Wound Up wrote:
> >
> > > Also, this type of integration is used secondarily, but not
> > > insignificantly, to increase book-billed labour charges and replacement
> > > costs on all related parts and diagnostic procedures. Under warranty,
> > > this isn't usually a big deal, because the factory-trained techs are
> > > specifically trained in the "is/is not" questions that arise, and how
> > > to test for them. Off warranty, or at the local shop, properly
> > > trained techs use this to their advantage like many other things,
> > > simply billing "book time" that doesn't reflect reality, relying on
> > > the customer's ignorance.
> >
> > This shows your lack of knowledge about the times required
> > to replace in tank fuel pumps and the older on-engine fuel pumps.
> > For someone who knows what they are doing (like myself), there
> > is very little difference in labour time needed to change an in-tank
> > fuel pump as opposed to the older on-engine fuel pumps.
>
> Wait a minute. Maybe there are shortcuts in some cases - and I have only
> done
> it once - but every fuel pump replacement I have heard about
> involves dropping the tank.
>
Which compared to many engine mounted fuel pumps a piece of cake.
> e. g.
> http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...place_intank_f
> uel_pump/
>
> There is no way dropping the tank can be compared to disconnecting
> two fuel lines and unplugging the electric plug.
>
> And as
> > far as "reality"....the trained tech has already taken his lumps on
> > the warranty side of things (low times) and has become extremely
> > efficient at doing the job by the time it becomes a "customer pay"
> > job. Who are you to pass judgement on them.....come and walk
> > in their shoes for a mile or two and then you will know what
> > flat rate is all about.
> >
> > > In their defence, shops use book time out of necessity sometimes,
> > > because of a lack of local knowledge. In their attack, shops and
> > > techs use book time to make money on flat-rate labour. Techs and
> > > shops alike continually look for common, high-book-time gems with
> > > which to bilk their customers and reap profits.
> >
> > This may be true in a certain percentage of labour operations,
> > but most operations, "you" as the owner, could not come close
> > to doing it in the time allowed by the book. You might be able
> > to beat the time on a thermostat, but if you were working on vehicles
> > all day long, you'd lose your ass. I'd extend a challenge to anyone
> > who isn't a professional technician to come on in and work with me
> > for a week. It'll be an eye opener both ways....you will see the jobs
> > that I make tons of time on, and you will see the jobs that waste my
> > time. It usually works out to about 140% efficiency overall. And you
> > would learn why I'm worth that.
> >
> > > The saddest and most uncertain factor in these equations is the newbie
> > > tech who just invested $50,000 in his or her education and tools to
> > > work on new cars.
> >
> > Good god....whoever spends that kind of money to get started in this
> > trade is a lunatic. Or has some sort of "tool fetish". I've seen those
> > types
> > of technicians. Lot's of shiny tools, but have no clue what to do with
> > them.
> >
> > > Too many fail or quit, and most are underpaid for
> > > their valuable work. Others succeed, and either become vampires
> > > themselves, or are good enough (morally and skill-wise) to turn an
> > > honest, good profit and NOT screw consumers with (on average) 100%
> > > markups on parts and book-billed labour.
> >
> > Too many fail or quit, because they imagine that they can be making
> > 80 grand in five years. It doesn't work that way....it takes a lot of
> > time and experience to become a good, honest, flat rate mechanic.
> > I laugh at the young guys in our shop that think they should be making
> > 14 hrs a day. It certainly won't happen if they take an hour in the
> morning
> > to "get going"...and spend another hour or two a day outside smoking and
> > bull****ting with everyone. You gotta work hard in this trade if you want
> > to make good money. And you "can" make good money.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
>
>

"Al Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "shiden_kai" > wrote in message
> news:_TAgd.57890$nl.34438@pd7tw3no...
> > Wound Up wrote:
> >
> > > Also, this type of integration is used secondarily, but not
> > > insignificantly, to increase book-billed labour charges and replacement
> > > costs on all related parts and diagnostic procedures. Under warranty,
> > > this isn't usually a big deal, because the factory-trained techs are
> > > specifically trained in the "is/is not" questions that arise, and how
> > > to test for them. Off warranty, or at the local shop, properly
> > > trained techs use this to their advantage like many other things,
> > > simply billing "book time" that doesn't reflect reality, relying on
> > > the customer's ignorance.
> >
> > This shows your lack of knowledge about the times required
> > to replace in tank fuel pumps and the older on-engine fuel pumps.
> > For someone who knows what they are doing (like myself), there
> > is very little difference in labour time needed to change an in-tank
> > fuel pump as opposed to the older on-engine fuel pumps.
>
> Wait a minute. Maybe there are shortcuts in some cases - and I have only
> done
> it once - but every fuel pump replacement I have heard about
> involves dropping the tank.
>
Which compared to many engine mounted fuel pumps a piece of cake.
> e. g.
> http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...place_intank_f
> uel_pump/
>
> There is no way dropping the tank can be compared to disconnecting
> two fuel lines and unplugging the electric plug.
>
> And as
> > far as "reality"....the trained tech has already taken his lumps on
> > the warranty side of things (low times) and has become extremely
> > efficient at doing the job by the time it becomes a "customer pay"
> > job. Who are you to pass judgement on them.....come and walk
> > in their shoes for a mile or two and then you will know what
> > flat rate is all about.
> >
> > > In their defence, shops use book time out of necessity sometimes,
> > > because of a lack of local knowledge. In their attack, shops and
> > > techs use book time to make money on flat-rate labour. Techs and
> > > shops alike continually look for common, high-book-time gems with
> > > which to bilk their customers and reap profits.
> >
> > This may be true in a certain percentage of labour operations,
> > but most operations, "you" as the owner, could not come close
> > to doing it in the time allowed by the book. You might be able
> > to beat the time on a thermostat, but if you were working on vehicles
> > all day long, you'd lose your ass. I'd extend a challenge to anyone
> > who isn't a professional technician to come on in and work with me
> > for a week. It'll be an eye opener both ways....you will see the jobs
> > that I make tons of time on, and you will see the jobs that waste my
> > time. It usually works out to about 140% efficiency overall. And you
> > would learn why I'm worth that.
> >
> > > The saddest and most uncertain factor in these equations is the newbie
> > > tech who just invested $50,000 in his or her education and tools to
> > > work on new cars.
> >
> > Good god....whoever spends that kind of money to get started in this
> > trade is a lunatic. Or has some sort of "tool fetish". I've seen those
> > types
> > of technicians. Lot's of shiny tools, but have no clue what to do with
> > them.
> >
> > > Too many fail or quit, and most are underpaid for
> > > their valuable work. Others succeed, and either become vampires
> > > themselves, or are good enough (morally and skill-wise) to turn an
> > > honest, good profit and NOT screw consumers with (on average) 100%
> > > markups on parts and book-billed labour.
> >
> > Too many fail or quit, because they imagine that they can be making
> > 80 grand in five years. It doesn't work that way....it takes a lot of
> > time and experience to become a good, honest, flat rate mechanic.
> > I laugh at the young guys in our shop that think they should be making
> > 14 hrs a day. It certainly won't happen if they take an hour in the
> morning
> > to "get going"...and spend another hour or two a day outside smoking and
> > bull****ting with everyone. You gotta work hard in this trade if you want
> > to make good money. And you "can" make good money.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
>
>

"Full_Name" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> > wrote:
>
> >Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
> >to the fuel tank?
> ><snip>

Most diesel tanks do. Most diesel engines also have water separators somewhere
in the fuel system. There is a physical difference between gasoline and diesel
fuel as to why.

> I've seen many early Japanese cars with such a device (Nissan Maxima,
> Toyota Crown / Cressida etc).
> Question is how often is it used (virtually never) Putting a drain
> on a fuel tank creates a potential leak source and requires greater
> cost and added weight for the vehicle to haul around (ditto for the
> dual fuel pump idea that was below).
>
> My Personal Olds is almost 10 years old and well well over 160K still
> on the original fuel pump that should have been replaced last spring
> <grin>. Every part will wear out given enough time & miles. The
> safety issue is more of incompetence and negligence on the part of the
> repair shop.
>
> My $0.02

"Full_Name" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> > wrote:
>
> >Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
> >to the fuel tank?
> ><snip>

Most diesel tanks do. Most diesel engines also have water separators somewhere
in the fuel system. There is a physical difference between gasoline and diesel
fuel as to why.

> I've seen many early Japanese cars with such a device (Nissan Maxima,
> Toyota Crown / Cressida etc).
> Question is how often is it used (virtually never) Putting a drain
> on a fuel tank creates a potential leak source and requires greater
> cost and added weight for the vehicle to haul around (ditto for the
> dual fuel pump idea that was below).
>
> My Personal Olds is almost 10 years old and well well over 160K still
> on the original fuel pump that should have been replaced last spring
> <grin>. Every part will wear out given enough time & miles. The
> safety issue is more of incompetence and negligence on the part of the
> repair shop.
>
> My $0.02