RE: Maintenance/Repair manual
If you find one, it is only a mechanical manual.
These days, much of the work is in software and electronics.
The most you will get is a fault diagnostics chart and instructions to either replace the box or get it over to the dealer.
RE: GM introduces new truck power
The thing Ford did that was novel, albeit using old boy racer stuff (turbo), was
to beef up that new engine block and components. Again, nothing new to boy racers
out there, just an OEM doing it along with the billions of bucks behind that
modification
Not so sure about that... there is a stack of patents filed by Ford, mostly in the software department.
Basically, if it isn't for the software, the whole thing will blow up.
RE: GM introduces new truck power
Yup, no numbers yet not sure why ,maybe they want to keep the "buzz" going.
What they are releasing is neat ,11-1 compression ratio- awesome.
Oil jets for piston cooling ,you know they will put out a lot of sustained power.
GM engines traditionally are more fuel efficient than the competition, and use less complex mechanical design to achieve them.
So far it looks good... aluminium blocks is the new norm.
RE: 2014 Silverado/Sierra Info & Pics
More info surfaces as the press release is digested
-new frame
-or revised frame
depending on your level of fandom
- 350 pounds of weight came off
very very good ,even though the target was 500#.
not the blaze of light Mark Vanderbuilt predicted but they had to do something. sales are tanking
anybody see the new blue?
very nice.
seems also 8' bed crew cab could be gone ,only time will tell.
engine outputs to be announced,maybe 2sd or 3rd 1/4.
The weight target miss is not good news, because it means they are going to have to re-tweak sooner rather than later as the Greenhouse Gas Emissions targets bite around MY 2016.
Don't know how much wiggle there is in the blocks / powertrain, but IIRC, the LS4 block is not Compacted Graphite Iron (CGI)nor is the 6.6 LML.
Look for the entire engine lines to go CGI to cut weight.
Looking at some weights here:
LML is around 850lbs dry weight
Hmmmm....
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
What about the people that didn't read the manual, like the Saylor family that got the car as a loaner?
Again, I was not there and have no idea what was going through the driver's mind. But my only question is why not just shift into neutral? Or Park? It works 100% of the time no matter if the engine is going full steam or at idle. That should be SOP for anyone in a runaway car situation of the key doesn't work.
Motor Trend or Car and Driver did a test (there is video out there) where the Drive to Neutral works 100% of the time. The car just bounces off the rev limiter.
It truly is a shame what happened to the Saylor's but I think we all need to pause and learn something from their tragedy - how to handle a car in an emergency.
You have the nerve to accuse a veteran California Highway Patrol Officer of not being able to handle a car in a emergency?
That is sadly, ignoramusim of the lowest kind.
Officer Saylor is an experienced driver and a highly competent Law Enforcement Officer trained to drive and handle a vehicle in an emergency.
If he couldn't do it, most of the rest of us probably couldn't either.
Now, onto technical issues.
In software operated shifters rather than the stone age, shifting to another gear sends a command to the computer to change the gear.
The computer's software in turn, makes a determination that it is OK to do so and shifts.
While we do not have hard evidence of what happened with Officer Saylor, it is kind of unbelievable that he did not try to do that, or anything else he could to stop the runaway car.
The reasonable and plausible speculation is that it did not work.
Why it did not shift?
That will require a forensic examination of the software and hardware, but the most probable cause is likely a software lock that prevents shifting if it might damage the transmission.
A secondary reason is that the pressures in the transmission may be such that the solenoids do not have the power to shift it even if it wanted to.
The fact is, multiple incidents like this occurred where the victims who survived reported that they were unable to shift at least for a period of time.
Before you make vile accusations of incompetence in driving and emergency vehicle handling against the late Officer Saylor, give these facts some thought.
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
Interesting that GM inventory has risen to the 110 day level and that analysts foresee a potential price war. That would be good for those wanting a leftover 2012 for sure....
The economy has been slowing for quite some months.
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
Nope, it was in my owner's manual - 2010 Ford Taurus, Page 244:
You can view it at Ford Owner's Manuals
Note: When the vehicle is in motion, a single press
and release of the START/STOP button will not switch off the engine. In
order to switch off the engine while the vehicle is in motion, press and
hold the START/STOP button for at least one second.
I would imagine similar wording is in every owner's manual that has push button start.
Anything else Mr. Smarty-Pants?
Really? It is in the manual and you read it?
How about that?
There is only one problem.
Last I checked, Ford publishes no manuals with the Ford logo on it for Toyota!
You got the facts wrong for the 2009 Toyota Lexus in question.
On the Lexus, it require the button to be pressed down and HELD for 3 seconds or more before the engine cuts out.
The only problem --- the push button feature was introduced in 2005 WITHOUT the emergency shutdown documented in the manual.
Furthermore, the button is not labeled or in any way designed to alert the driver to the emergency stop procedure (which took a very long 3 seconds to activate).
And.... the emergency stop feature was not documented in the owners manual until around 2008.
What about the people that didn't read the manual, like the Saylor family that got the car as a loaner?
The fact is, design flaws including the START switch with its undocumented feature was a factor in the accident that killed 4 people --- according to the NHTSA report.
Like many Toyota and Lexus models, the luxury car involved in a crash that killed four was equipped with a start-stop push button that lacks an "instantaneous shut off device" and there is no warning label that a continuous three-second push is required to turn off the engine in an emergency, government crash investigators found.
The button's shortcoming were cited as one of the "significant factors" in the Aug 28 crash that killed 19-year California Highway Patrol veteran Mark Saylor and three family members in a Lexus ES 350 borrowed from a San Diego dealer. The car's accelerator became stuck, jammed against the all-weather floor mats. But as the car sped down a freeway at maximum speed, Saylor and his family couldn't stop the vehicle in their panic. To see a copy of the report, including photos of the destroyed vehicle, click here. We wrote about the button problems previously in Drive On.
The accident might have been prevented by a simple warning label on the start-stop button, which takes the place of a key:
"In place of the key is a software push button that delays engine shutdown for three seconds once depressed. This instruction is not indicated on the dashboard," the Sept. 28 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that was just released finds.
Toyota was warned about the lack of instruction for its push button starts in another NHTSA report last year that led to a recall of ES 350s. The report noted that Toyota doesn't even instruct about the three-second push in owners' manuals.
The latest report also cites the design of the accelerator pedal, a rigid piece lacking a hinge; the mat that wasn't secured by floor clips and the brakes. The brakes were badly damaged by what appears to have been attempts at emergency braking.
Dangerous! Not found in Consumer Reports
Where was Consumer Reports when this obvious dangerous feature was placed into Toyotas and other makes?
This information was out on blogs, etc. within a week of the incident.
Consumer Reports in the mean time, maintained the no problem stance right up until they were proven wrong by NHTSA.
So what is it that they don't take advertising?
Blind stupid loyalty to fatal design flaws is OK?
Toyota's dilemma: Is the power start-stop button the most dangerous new feature in cars? Couldn't read about this in Consumer Reports.
RE: 2014 Silverado/Sierra Info & Pics
It is funny that you say this. Ford could add a piece of chrome to the hood of the F-150 and everybody would act like it is a whole new truck.
I am waiting for Chrysler to release their new model with a chromed roof, or should I say chrome dome.
To match their customers!
:B
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
Since you know so much, tell us exactly what the procedure is to turn off the ignition on the 2009 Lexus ES 350 that killed veteran California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor and his family.
Not trying to play Monday morning Quarterack but if you coudn't figure out how to shut it off (press and hold the button), why not shift into Neutral or Park. Who gives a **** if the engine blows if you are careening out of control? Park won't lock up the wheels until you get to a really slow speed (hit Youtube for videos) so it's pretty safe. Heck, in many cars Reverse at speed will get you neutral or an idling engine.
Again, I was not there so I don't know if fear took over or what but I've practiced with my car with push button start - press the button and the car will shut off. Failing that, Neutral is one click away. Park is even easier at the whole way up. Again if my car were accelerating out of control I wouldn't care about transmission or engine damage.
If you claim to be an "itguy", then tell me about the safety interlock routine in the transmission shifter and why it cannot shift out of neutral under those circumstances.
Oh.. and where is the press START and hold it to Turn OFF engine documented?
Is than another undocumented function?
RE: 2 million
So larger cylinder engines would be cheaper to build and if they are also preferred for efficiency why would Ford have chosen 8 cylinders for the clean sheet design instead of 6? There must be an optimum cylinder size for the rpm the application is designed to be used in.
Larger cylinders are not necessarily cheaper to build.
It is in fact tightly correlated with RPM.
Large cylinders mean large rotating mass and reciprocating mass, and momentum being created and destroyed mean a lot of wear (or design to deal with it) as peak and average piston velocities rise.
In general, diesels for cars and light trucks need to be free reving to get the rpms to get the power output, more so than they need torque, so the optimization leads to smaller cylinders and shorter strokes.
On the other hand, if it is a true heavy duty truck, the optimization is for torque first and power second, that leads to designs like in line 6s for the same displacement, and long strokes, and low RPM.
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
With only subcriber input the ratings are only the opinions that are read by subcribers .
Thats how they rate identical cars built in the same plant by the same workers as not recommended if it had a GM name plate but recommended if it had a Toyoda name plate.
Not just once but everytime,many examples of this .
Last place to get a fair opinion is CD, they will underrate a car for years before correcting,as bad as the internet
and just as unfair and unbiased.
The reliability ratings are based on subscribers completing a lengthy feedback form --- a very biased sample because subscribers that took their advice to buy XYZ product will then be biased to give it a good review (and discount their negatives).
If they polled a random sample of customers outside of their subscriber base --- it is likely to result in quite different results.
But, AFAIK, they have never published the findings of a credible "non-sampling bias" to address this issue.
What the organization is about is perpetuating their non-profit's continued existence and the jobs and perks that go with that, and little do they realize that their loss of credibility is now at the critical level, with many far more informed, objective sources out there for free.
I stopped subscribing when it was clear that faults I was uncovering in products was ignored by CU tests --- when I find them on every sample --- it is not an isolated one. I now treat them like any other hound with an axe to grind.
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
Slanted? Why do you think this? What possible motive would they have to slant something? Remember, they don't get any advertising.
The Toyota scandal was overblown and stupid. People just need to pull the carpet back. My son had a recall on this, but he never took his truck in for it.
A few years ago, it was Audi's turn had the stuck throttle issue. People should learn not to freak out and turn off the ignition.
Really, just because they don't take advertising mean they are not slanted and biased?
And you really believe it is just a carpet interference problem?
Since you know so much, tell us exactly what the procedure is to turn off the ignition on the 2009 Lexus ES 350 that killed veteran California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor and his family.
RE: 2 million
Ok I think I am understanding this. Basically there is an optimum piston speed to make best use of the thermodynamics of the combustion process. The larger cylinder engine will be turning at a lower rpm at that piston speed due to the longer stroke. So similar power output per volume of fuel but one engine design is trading some rpm for torque.
Think of the piston / combustion chamber as a pressure device.
Combustion causes the pressure to be sharply raised, which causes the gases to expand, forcing down the only movable part (piston).
In a spark ignition engine, combustion happens when it sparks (and not before unless it is detonation).
A diesel engine starts combustion when fuel is injected.
It takes a finite amount of time for the fuel to reach all the air from the point of injection to the total volume of the chamber.
The higher the pressures generated and the longer it is "held", the stronger the PUSH down the piston --- that is your torque. It is a function of the average usable pressure (pressure X time) before the gas is released by the exhaust valve, with the pressure dropping as the piston moves downward (more volume).
All things equal, at high RPMs (you call Piston speed), there is less time for each ignition event to do the work of pushing down before the piston travels too far, and the exhaust valve opens (reliving the pressure and disposing the energy as waste heat down the exhaust pipe).
Think of a gun barrel --- if the barrel is infinitely long, at a certain point, the bullet would come to a stop as there is no longer enough pressure to push the bullet against the resistance of friction and air out the other end.
Then, as the gases cool and contract, the bullet would (if free enough to move) be sucked backward toward the barrel's breech.
That is why guns are made to have relatively short lengths, and pressure is still pretty high when the bullet travels free of the barrel, and the waste gas is "expended" out the barrel --- like in an internal combustion engine exhaust valve.
RE: 2 million
I have been shopping for a nice trawler for future long trips out to the sound. Many of the boats I have been looking at are powered by 5.9 Cummins, usually rated from 325 to 425hp. Very nice package indeed. Unfortunately more and more builders are opting for Yanmars. I suspect cost is a driving factor. If I go with Cummins power, I suspect the engine will outlast me. It is too bad that Ford did not go with Cummins, neither 6.0 or the 6.4 ever gave me any problems but Cummins/Ford would have been an unbeatable combo, best truck fitted with the best engine.
But.. If that had been the case, Chrysler probably would have gone away a long time ago, GM may have exited the diesel pickup market. So maybe it is best that things have turned out the way they have.
Ford could not go with Cummins even if they wanted to.
The price that Cummins offered (when it was possible to choose, back in the 6.9 days) was not competitive, and they did not have a V8 which is what Ford needed.
GM as you recall, kludged a diesel from the gasoline block which was notable for its underwhelmingness.
Cummins also could not deliver the volumes that Ford wanted and was not price competitive.
Now back to boats for a sec... Yanmars are the way to go, and not just because of cost, but because they are well supported in the marine application, which is most of their business.
Yanmar is fighting tooth and nail with lots of Chinese clones, so they have to make it up in service and support rather than just price of the initial purchase.
RE: 2013 Motor Trend truck of the Year
CU reports what SUBSCRIBERS tell them about reliabitily,narrow and slanted satistical base
The database is notably slanted toward urban and suburban dwellers that are white, upper middle class, college educated, etc. who generally don't drive trucks.
A total scandal that their data didn't give heads up warning of the decline of the Toyota until well after it happened.
Nor did their data give a good indication of the rise of Ford, GM, and even Chrysler in the 1990s.
RE: 2 million
Lee Iacocca was responsible for the Cummins/Dodge relationship. I'm pretty sure the 5.9 was chosen for the simple fact that was the only engine configuration available and that would fit in a standard truck.
Fishonone,
Early on Lee Iacocca was not interested in competing with Ford and GM that had diesels while Dodge did not. He was not convined that there would be sufficient market for the diesel. It took some of his folks almost experimenting with a Cummins 5.9 in a Dodge to begin to make a case for the Dodge diesel. That was in 1989 and even then with the 'go ahead' from Lee they only planned to sell a few thousand. It was not long afer it was introduced that Dodge realized they had a winner and sales took off.
That is why the product is a niche product that never got the development cash to fund a serious program to develop a competitive diesel rather than what Cummins is prepared to sell "off the shelf".
The one thing I haven't figured out is what happened to the Cummins unsecured debt (about $48m) when Chrysler went bust?
They probably got taken to the cleaners --- and if Chrysler paid anything for the development of the V8 diesel, it probably died in that bankruptcy.
