Ford Fusion reverse gear

One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."


"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
...
> Hal wrote:
>>> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply
>>> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads,
>>> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone
>>> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this
>>> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the
>>>
>>
>> I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-)
>>
>>
>
> That's fine, but automotive maintenance is a term that has possible been
> redifined over the years. It is not the same as 'maintenance' the
> dictionary. Let's call what I am talking about "preventative maintenance"
> to stay on topic. Change the oils, coolant, brake fluid, etc. before they
> fail and cause component failure. In fact, change them at an interval
> that ensures they don't fail, even if you "waste" a small period of the
> fluids' life. Replace brake pads, clutch plates, etc. as well before they
> leave you stranded or unsafe - or wear into normally lifetime components
> like calipers, knuckles, and flywheels. DON'T consider major component
> replacement as preventative maintenance - how would that be preventative?
> DON'T consider bulb , windshield, fender, or sunroof cable replacements as
> preventative. Replace them when and if they break. Pack bulb sockets
> with dielectric and lube sunroof cables instead.
>
> I consider the terminology to be interchangeable in the auto repair
> industry. I hope you can agree on the above concept(s) given the
> adjustment in semantics.
>
> Obviously you would fix a transmission *if* it broke *if* you wanted to
> keep driving the car. Obviously you would give it a better chance at not
> breaking in the first place if you lubed the linkages and changed the
> fluid on schedule.
>
>>> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability
>>> competition.
>>>
>>
>> No argument on that point here.
>>
>>
>>
>
> On a side note, I just realized one of the groups this thread goes out to
> is alt.autos.ford :-)
>
>>> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if
>>> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped
>>> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues
>>>
>>
>> The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an
>> HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of
>> the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or
>> an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go
>> looking for work, work comes looking for -them-.
>>
>>
>
> Good observation. Some very strong shop marketers (and good quality shop
> owners to boot) would sort of disagree, but fundamentily I agree with your
> assertion. Often they suggest a "discount "that doesn't require a coupon,
> but I feel that appeals to stupid people. I would rather pay someone what
> they normally charge for work done, but then I'm not the norm. If anyone
> thinks they are "due" a genuine discount through any method, just because
> they can use scissors or read a sign, then he is a twit.
>
>>> multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a
>>> butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not
>>> going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think
>>>
>>
>> Amen to that.
>>
>>
>>> As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that
>>> concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If
>>> you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever,
>>> and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown
>>> in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that
>>> time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far
>>>
>>
>> So far, the only car I've had trouble procuring parts for is my 1974
>> super beetle. Some of the parts are impossible to find, but the major
>> powertrain components are still available, even though the price has
>> shot up in recent years.
>>
>> True story, back in 1996 I was going to replace the transaxle in the
>> above car. Reverse did not work. I went to a local VW parts place,
>> told them what I wanted, the guy disappeared behind the counter for a
>> minute, came back to the counter with a rebuilt transaxle in his hands
>> (!!), I handed the guy $300 and walked out with the transaxle in my
>> hands. I put it in, it's still in the car.
>>
>> A month or so ago I was at that same store. A remanufactured transaxle
>> is now over $900 for that same car. They had -one- in stock last time
>> I was there. Apparently the supply of good cores has all but
>> evaporated.
>>
>>
>>> parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that
>>> someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that
>>> isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you
>>>
>>
>> Not to degrade your profession, but a modern mechanic is more akin to
>> a diagnose and swap parts guy than an actual "lets take this machine
>> apart, measure what we got, re-machine as needed, fit new bearings,
>> rings, seals, clutch packs, and so on and put it back together". Those
>> days are all but gone unless your definition of having parts machined
>> is having a flywheel resurfaced for a clutch overhaul.
>>
>>
>
> Not taken that way. It's true. The ability to diagnose complex problems
> and the cost of diagnostic tools (due to the increasing number required)
> has increased so much and will continue to skyrocket, though. There just
> isn't time in the day for the existing competent workforce to take
> everything apart down to the pieces parts we used to in the days gone by,
> though I still try to do it when the assembly cost is high enough to
> warrant such detail work. Parts + labor = cost of repair, so when one
> goes up, usually the other goes down. A profitable shop usually has to
> replace engines and trannies or sublet the work out to realize an overall
> profit on total operations. Usually only those set up for such work can
> typically be profitable with overhauls in house. I'm a hybrid so I do a
> little of everything, but I'm not nearly as profitable as a good, well
> managed shop. The actual machine work still gets sent out, other than
> rotors.
>
>> Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new
>> one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few
>> folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or
>> transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and
>> buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my
>> hands. Must be ****ing nice to be able to just buy a new car when the
>> need arises, huh? :-)
>>
>>
>
> The other thing is that powertrain warranties are getting longer, so by
> the time that an owner goes past his engine and trans coverage, the units
> have proven not to have any fundamental assembly or design faults and may
> prove to last a really long time into the future -- without the owner ever
> spending any money on their failures within warranty.
>
>>> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep
>> a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain
>> than to replace.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."

Darn.. You must have changed your address line. Now I will have to
preventatively maintain my killfile.

Mike wrote:
> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
>
>
> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Hal wrote:
>>
>>>> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply
>>>> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads,
>>>> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone
>>>> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this
>>>> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's fine, but automotive maintenance is a term that has possible been
>> redifined over the years. It is not the same as 'maintenance' the
>> dictionary. Let's call what I am talking about "preventative maintenance"
>> to stay on topic. Change the oils, coolant, brake fluid, etc. before they
>> fail and cause component failure. In fact, change them at an interval
>> that ensures they don't fail, even if you "waste" a small period of the
>> fluids' life. Replace brake pads, clutch plates, etc. as well before they
>> leave you stranded or unsafe - or wear into normally lifetime components
>> like calipers, knuckles, and flywheels. DON'T consider major component
>> replacement as preventative maintenance - how would that be preventative?
>> DON'T consider bulb , windshield, fender, or sunroof cable replacements as
>> preventative. Replace them when and if they break. Pack bulb sockets
>> with dielectric and lube sunroof cables instead.
>>
>> I consider the terminology to be interchangeable in the auto repair
>> industry. I hope you can agree on the above concept(s) given the
>> adjustment in semantics.
>>
>> Obviously you would fix a transmission *if* it broke *if* you wanted to
>> keep driving the car. Obviously you would give it a better chance at not
>> breaking in the first place if you lubed the linkages and changed the
>> fluid on schedule.
>>
>>
>>>> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability
>>>> competition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No argument on that point here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> On a side note, I just realized one of the groups this thread goes out to
>> is alt.autos.ford :-)
>>
>>
>>>> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if
>>>> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped
>>>> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an
>>> HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of
>>> the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or
>>> an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go
>>> looking for work, work comes looking for -them-.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Good observation. Some very strong shop marketers (and good quality shop
>> owners to boot) would sort of disagree, but fundamentily I agree with your
>> assertion. Often they suggest a "discount "that doesn't require a coupon,
>> but I feel that appeals to stupid people. I would rather pay someone what
>> they normally charge for work done, but then I'm not the norm. If anyone
>> thinks they are "due" a genuine discount through any method, just because
>> they can use scissors or read a sign, then he is a twit.
>>
>>
>>>> multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a
>>>> butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not
>>>> going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Amen to that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that
>>>> concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If
>>>> you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever,
>>>> and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown
>>>> in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that
>>>> time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So far, the only car I've had trouble procuring parts for is my 1974
>>> super beetle. Some of the parts are impossible to find, but the major
>>> powertrain components are still available, even though the price has
>>> shot up in recent years.
>>>
>>> True story, back in 1996 I was going to replace the transaxle in the
>>> above car. Reverse did not work. I went to a local VW parts place,
>>> told them what I wanted, the guy disappeared behind the counter for a
>>> minute, came back to the counter with a rebuilt transaxle in his hands
>>> (!!), I handed the guy $300 and walked out with the transaxle in my
>>> hands. I put it in, it's still in the car.
>>>
>>> A month or so ago I was at that same store. A remanufactured transaxle
>>> is now over $900 for that same car. They had -one- in stock last time
>>> I was there. Apparently the supply of good cores has all but
>>> evaporated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that
>>>> someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that
>>>> isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not to degrade your profession, but a modern mechanic is more akin to
>>> a diagnose and swap parts guy than an actual "lets take this machine
>>> apart, measure what we got, re-machine as needed, fit new bearings,
>>> rings, seals, clutch packs, and so on and put it back together". Those
>>> days are all but gone unless your definition of having parts machined
>>> is having a flywheel resurfaced for a clutch overhaul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not taken that way. It's true. The ability to diagnose complex problems
>> and the cost of diagnostic tools (due to the increasing number required)
>> has increased so much and will continue to skyrocket, though. There just
>> isn't time in the day for the existing competent workforce to take
>> everything apart down to the pieces parts we used to in the days gone by,
>> though I still try to do it when the assembly cost is high enough to
>> warrant such detail work. Parts + labor = cost of repair, so when one
>> goes up, usually the other goes down. A profitable shop usually has to
>> replace engines and trannies or sublet the work out to realize an overall
>> profit on total operations. Usually only those set up for such work can
>> typically be profitable with overhauls in house. I'm a hybrid so I do a
>> little of everything, but I'm not nearly as profitable as a good, well
>> managed shop. The actual machine work still gets sent out, other than
>> rotors.
>>
>>
>>> Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new
>>> one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few
>>> folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or
>>> transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and
>>> buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my
>>> hands. Must be ****ing nice to be able to just buy a new car when the
>>> need arises, huh? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The other thing is that powertrain warranties are getting longer, so by
>> the time that an owner goes past his engine and trans coverage, the units
>> have proven not to have any fundamental assembly or design faults and may
>> prove to last a really long time into the future -- without the owner ever
>> spending any money on their failures within warranty.
>>
>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep
>>> a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain
>>> than to replace.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Toyota MDT in MO
>>
>
>
>

One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an
acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and
you're wrong.

--
Toyota MDT in MO

preventative
"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
>>

> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an acceptable
> alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and you're wrong.
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO

Absolutely correct.
There are often minor preferential differences between North American
English as well, such as
"orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable.

Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an improper
pronunciation of a word correct.

How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," when
the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was "Hung,"
rather than the correct term, "Hanged?"

When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he was
hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't.

If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the later
LOL


"HLS" > wrote in message
...
> preventative
> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
>>>
>>>
>
>> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an
>> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and
>> you're wrong.
>>
>> --
>> Toyota MDT in MO
>
> Absolutely correct.
> There are often minor preferential differences between North American
> English as well, such as
> "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable.

Mike wrote:
> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an improper
> pronunciation of a word correct.
>
> How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," when
> the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was "Hung,"
> rather than the correct term, "Hanged?"
>
> When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he was
> hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't.
>
> If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the later
> LOL
>
>
> "HLS" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> preventative
>> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an
>>> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and
>>> you're wrong.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Toyota MDT in MO
>>>
>> Absolutely correct.
>> There are often minor preferential differences between North American
>> English as well, such as
>> "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable.
>>
>
>
>

You might want to proofread your scribble for grammatical and factual
accuracy, genius. LOL?.

"Today I pled My **** to reconsider his incorrect ideas concerning
grammar, and he just laughed out loud at the suggestion."

Pled = past tense = correct = eat it. Had you known that pled is also
acceptable as a past participle?

Surely you were prefer to type correctly, weren't you(?)

BTW, conventional and acceptable are two different concepts.

--
Toyota MDT in MO

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an
> improper pronunciation of a word correct.

Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt
say anything
about conventional usage.

"Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World
Dictionary.
"Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well.

Perhaps, to some I suppose, but they ain't had much good schoolhosin' and
thy sure isn't lawya's. LOL



"HLS" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an
>> improper pronunciation of a word correct.
>
> Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt
> say anything
> about conventional usage.
>
> "Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World
> Dictionary.
> "Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well.
>

Ya' right LOL


"Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an
>> improper pronunciation of a word correct.
>>
>> How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty,"
>> when the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was
>> "Hung," rather than the correct term, "Hanged?"
>>
>> When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he
>> was hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't.
>>
>> If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the
>> later LOL
>>
>>
>> "HLS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> preventative
>>> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an
>>>> acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and
>>>> you're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Toyota MDT in MO
>>>>
>>> Absolutely correct.
>>> There are often minor preferential differences between North American
>>> English as well, such as
>>> "orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You might want to proofread your scribble for grammatical and factual
> accuracy, genius. LOL?.
>
> "Today I pled My **** to reconsider his incorrect ideas concerning
> grammar, and he just laughed out loud at the suggestion."
>
> Pled = past tense = correct = eat it. Had you known that pled is also
> acceptable as a past participle?
>
> Surely you were prefer to type correctly, weren't you(?)
>
> BTW, conventional and acceptable are two different concepts.
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO

Mike wrote:
> Perhaps, to some I suppose, but they ain't had much good schoolhosin' and
> thy sure isn't lawya's. LOL
>
>
>
> "HLS" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an
>>> improper pronunciation of a word correct.
>>>
>> Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt
>> say anything
>> about conventional usage.
>>
>> "Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World
>> Dictionary.
>> "Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well.
>>
>>
>
>
>

Yeah, well whomever "they" are, it's likely they haven't been schooled
(colloquialism) by a lowly mechanic on such points. Feel special. LOL

--
Toyota MDT in MO