Yaris, Scion xD, Honda Fit - no water temp gauge

jim beam wrote:
> Steve wrote:

>>
>> I've already given you two instances, one by a COMPLETE NON-TECHNICAL
>> driver (my wife) where a gauge saved an engine.
>
> and the so-called "idiot light" would have served exactly the same purpose!
>


Good God! Do I have to explain it AGAIN?????

The temperature was STILL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE. It would NOT have
turned on an idiot light. The key was that it was creeping higher than
USUAL in certain situations. No idiot light would EVER have indicated
that, but a gauge does. Can you not understand that? Do you REALLY not
comprehend something so BLINDINGLY SIMPLE?!?!? A simple analogy would be
the same as saying, "you don't need a gas gauge, just depend on the low
fuel warning light. It would have served the same purpose."

>
>>
>> And in the other case where I (an engineer) was able to detect a
>> failed filter by abnormal (but still technically in-spec) pressure
>> behavior.
>
> so you say. but if you'd used a decent filter in the first place, with
> the correct change interval, that wouldn't be an issue.

How do you debate with stupidity that thick? If you really can't
understand that ALL manufactured items, regardless of the manufacturer,
are subject to the vagaries of manufacturing processes, then you're
beyond hope.

On 2008-05-05, jim beam > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-05, jim beam > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-05-04, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article >, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article > , jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article >, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but you "maintain" a 944 - if ever a vehicle were uneconomic, that is
>>>>>>>>>>> it. otoh, i can get a whole new engine for my honda for ~$300. less if
>>>>>>>>>>> i buy locally. for that money, i can throw in a whole new motor every
>>>>>>>>>>> year if i want to. "no longer be economical" my ass.
>>>>>>>>>> If you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> er, actually, the labor to rebuild a motor is /way/ more than to replace.
>>>>>>>> Um, the question is having gauges to prevent needing either vs. driving
>>>>>>>> it into the ground and replacing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eh? you're the one who said "If you value your labor at zero".
>>>>>> If you consider the 'cost' to be $300 then you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the labor of removal and fitting is the same on both sides of the
>>>>> equation - it therefore cancels out. there is no labor for re-work if
>>>>> simply replacing the motor, so the cost /saving/ matters.
>>>> That's not the question. The point is your total cost is '$300' only if
>>>> you don't value your labor.
>>> no, you cancel out both sides of the equation. the labor to remove and
>>> refit an engine is the same on both sides, whether it's rebuilt or
>>> replaced. the equation then becomes /my/ cost to replace at $300 vs.
>>> /his/ cost to rebuild, with parts, plus a ton /more/ labor.
>>
>> Again that is *NOT* the question. Nate said with proper instrumentation
>> he could spot an impending failure before it became a siezed engine and
>> be repaired without yanking it out. You said a replacement engine is
>> only $300, so who cares, just run it until it becomes a paperweight. I
>> responded that it's only $300 if you value your labor at zero.
>>
>> Try to follow along.
>>
>>
>
> oh, i get it, you can't argue the point /you/ raised, so now you want to
> change it back onto another topic, and ignore anything that doesn't
> suit. sorry, my mistake.

Nice projection. Do try to follow the conversation. I explained it to
you. But, go ahead and keep siezing up engines since you don't consider
your labor to be worth anything.

On May 4, 9:56*pm, Steve > wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >>> People don't know the basic functions. *And you can't make them know.. *
> >>> You can't make knowing those functions be required for them to get a
> >>> driver's license.
> >> Why not? *Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of
> >> responsibility.
>
> > You wouldn't make much of a politician, I'll tell you that.
>
> Wow. So you CAN compliment someone!

Seriously. I took it as such

nate

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:



.....you don't want the engineers who have to know the
> temperature at the top of the piston ("just in case, to avoid failure")
> to be involved in managing the money pump that is an auto manufacturer.
>


Often the opposite is true.

"Bean counters" dictate what engineers have to work with and how. Good
example might be the Accord tranny problems of a few years back. Another
is marketing sales that make promises and in order to meet traget
production rates/timelines, engineers are forced to take shortcuts.

During my working career, I saw this to be the case all too often.

JT